Translating Current Science into Materials for HighSchool via a Scientist–Teacher Partnership

Julie C. Brown • Julie R. Bokor • Kent J. Crippen •

Mary Jo Koroly

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013

Abstract Scientist-teacher partnerships are a unique form of professional devel-

opment that can assist teachers in translating current science into classroom instruction

by involving them in meaningful collaborations with university researchers. However,

few reported models aim to directly alter science teachers’ practices by supporting

them in the development of curriculum materials. This article reports on a multiple

case study of seven high school science teachers who attended an ongoing scientist–

teacher partnership professional development program at a major Southeastern

research university. Our interest was to understand the capacity of this professional

development program for supporting teachers in the transfer of personal learning

experiences with advanced science content and skills into curriculum materials for

high school students. Findings indicate that, regardless of their ultimate success

constructing curriculum materials, all cases considered the research grounded pro-

fessional development supports beneficial to their professional growth with the

exception of collective participation. Additionally, the cases also described how

supports such as professional recognition and transferability served as affordances to

J. C. Brown � K. J. Crippen (&)

School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117048,

Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

e-mail: kcrippen@coe.ufl.edu

J. C. Brown

e-mail: brownjc@ufl.edu

J. R. Bokor

School of Teaching and Learning, Center for Precollegiate Education and Training, University

of Florida, 334 Yon Hall, PO Box 112010, Gainesville, FL 32611-2010, USA

e-mail: jbokor@ufl.edu

M. J. Koroly

College of Medicine and Center for Precollegiate Education and Training, University of Florida,

331 Yon Hall, P.O. Box 112010, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

e-mail: korolymj@ufl.edu

123

J Sci Teacher Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9371-y

the process of constructing these materials. However, teachers identified multiple

constraints, including personal learning barriers, their classroom context, and the cost

associated with implementing some of their curriculum ideas. Results have direct

implications for future research and the purposeful design of professional develop-

ment experiences through scientist-teacher partnerships.

Keywords Scientist-teacher partnerships � Professional development �Case study

Introduction

Engaging students with current science, both emerging and new knowledge as well

as authentic practices, has become a cornerstone of the National Research Council’s

(2012) recent report, A Framework for K-12 Science Education. To achieve the goal

of a K-12 science curriculum based in emerging and new knowledge implies certain

priorities, policies, and a structured mechanism. As for priorities, disseminating the

findings from current research is of such importance to the scientific enterprise that

the National Science Foundation (NSF) includes the potential for broader impacts as

one of its two merit review criteria. NSF evaluates the merit of all proposed projects

based on their ability to broadly impact ‘‘socially relevant outcomes’’, such as

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and scientific literacy

(2012, p. II-9). The fulfillment of the broader impacts requirement for the thousands

of projects funded annually at NSF serves as a primary mechanism for translating

current science into the US curriculum under the category of K-12 outreach.

One way to achieve the aims of NSF’s broader impacts via K-12 outreach is through

professional development (PD) for teachers that includes the modification and

production of curriculum materials. This unique form of PD, termed scientist-teacher

partnerships (STP) can support teachers in learning current science while translating this

knowledge to classroom instruction (NRC, 1996). Tanner, Chatman and Allen (2003)

broadly define scientist-teacher partnerships as ‘‘collaboration among a group of college

or university scientists and K–12 teachers, with the goal of improving science education

along the kindergarten through postgraduate educational continuum…’’ (p. 195). Such

partnerships provide experiences for teachers to engage in inquiry (Jeanpierre,

Oberhauser & Freeman, 2005), design and implement various prototypes (Harris

Willcuts, 2009), and construct curriculum materials tightly aligned with recommenda-

tions described in the Framework. However, though the priorities and policies exist, little

is known about the enterprise of STP as a vehicle for achieving these goals.

This study addresses the paucity of research on STP as a mechanism for translating

current science into curriculum materials for high school. Such an investigation is

necessary for supporting the enactment of contemporary views of science education,

as successful implementation requires direct alignment of PD and curriculum with the

Framework. By building our understanding of the process we improve the capacity to

articulate a robust theoretical framework and logic model for producing the desired

outcomes. Our investigation focuses on the outcome of teachers’ construction and

adaptation of materials because it represents a capacity for change that has the

J. C. Brown et al.

123

potential to sustain the positive impacts of PD. Therefore, this study examines the

perspective of teachers in a STP for the purpose of understanding how participation

can serve as a vehicle for translating current science.

Review of Related Literature

PD experiences that are ongoing and job-embedded have been shown to improve science

teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Crippen, 2012; Lee, 2004; Loucks-

Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love & Hewson, 2010; Luft, 2001; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez,

2007) and empower teachers as creators of reform-based instructional materials

(Jackson & Ash, 2012; Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk, De Jong, Bulte, & Pilot, 2011).

However, PD often focuses on supporting the implementation of premade curricula

(Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Davis & Varma, 2008; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Though such

initiatives have positively impacted teachers’ practices, they also reduce teacher

ownership (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Parke & Coble, 1997) and negate the influence of

classroom context (Squire, MaKinster, Barnett, Luehmann, & Barab, 2003) and cultural

diversity (Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007) on teaching and learning.

In contrast, few reported models aim to directly alter teachers’ practices by supporting

them through the development of instructional materials (e.g., Jackson & Ash, 2012;

Parke & Coble, 1997; Stolk et al., 2011). Such opportunities build capacity for

sustainable change by empowering science teachers with the tools and support necessary

to create their own instructional materials. Furthermore, the direct translation of current

science is necessary in order to accurately represent the nature of the scientific enterprise.

The challenge, then, involves designing PD with specific supports that enhance teachers’

abilities to construct materials featuring current science.

Involving science teachers in the process of translating current science requires

the execution of high quality PD supports, as teachers are likely to experience

difficulties when designing innovative materials for their classroom (Powell &

Anderson, 2002; Stolk et al., 2011). To assist science teachers in this endeavor,

ventures have employed multiple research-grounded supports, including (a) struc-

tured planning time (Davis & Varma, 2008; Jackson & Ash, 2012), (b) opportunities

for teachers to build content knowledge (Lee, 2004; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010),

(c) modeling instructional strategies (Putnam & Borko, 2000; Stolk et al., 2011),

(d) enhanced communication among university and school faculty (Bell & Gilbert,

1994; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), (e) active learning opportunities (Luft,

2001; Trautmann & MaKinster, 2005), (f) collective participation (Garet, Porter,

Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2001; Putnam & Borko, 2000), and (g) ongoing support

(Crippen et al., 2010; Lee, 2004). However, the supports within any project depend

heavily on program goals and can vary widely. The Interdisciplinary Center for

Ongoing Research/Education (ICORE) program, the STP at the focus of this study,

closely aligns with the goals of traditional STPs, extends traditional university-

teacher partnerships and provides the hallmark features of high-quality PD.

A particular strength of a STP lies in the rich opportunities for teachers to build

content knowledge and skills (Crippen, 2012; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010), by

providing teachers with access to current science topics. Existing STPs have bolstered

Translating Current Science

123

teachers’ knowledge of forest restoration and ecological management (Falloon &

Trewern, 2013), green energy and fuel cell technology (Harris Willcuts, 2009), and

monarch butterfly ecology (Jeanpierre et al., 2005). While some STP initiatives have

helped teachers adapt curriculum materials when their content knowledge and

confidence were low (Lee, 2004), they have also impeded curriculum implementation

when coupled with ineffective PD strategies (Falloon & Trewern, 2013).

In order to understand how participation in a STP can serve as a vehicle for

translating current science, we utilize situated learning theory as our theoretical

framework. Situated learning theory allowed us to examine the relationship between

the structures of the designed learning environment of ICORE and the products and

perspectives of the participants in order to determine how these structures afforded

or constrained successful translation of current science.

Theoretical Framework

Situated learning theory emanates from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and

examines the ways in which a given environment (including experiences, social

interactions, authentic activity, and mediating devices) provides opportunities for

meaningful learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Gee, 2008). This theoretical

perspective recognizes that learning occurs as an individual becomes enculturated into a

community of practice (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Gee, 2008; Gresalfi, 2009; Vygotsky,

1978). Brown et al. (1989) describe enculturation as a process through which learners

‘‘adopt the behavior and belief systems of new social groups’’ (p. 34), and is mediated by

social interaction and authentic activity. Authentic activities are those normally practiced

within a culture. For example, scientists employ practices such as using models, analyzing

data, constructing arguments from evidence, and communicating scientific information to

study the natural world. Authentic activities exist in specific contexts, each with their own

language and processes of enculturation (Brown et al., 1989; Gee, 2008; Gresalfi, 2009;

Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, learning is strongly mediated by the settings in which these

activities occur. Depending on the context and available resources, an individual’s

experiences afford different opportunities to learn (Gee, 2008; Gresalfi, 2009).

We used Gibson’s (1979) definition of affordances, ‘‘affordances of the environ-

ment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill’’

(p. 127, italics in original). From this definition we acknowledge that affordances are

components of the STP that provide teachers with opportunity for translating current

science. In other words, participants perceive a particular contextual aspect of the STP

as a tool and subsequently envision some capacity to engage with it. For example,

modeling new pedagogical approaches during PD may afford a science teacher the

opportunity to integrate such methods into her/his curriculum.

Context

This study is situated within years three and four of the ICORE STP program for

high school science teachers from throughout a Southeastern state. Up to 30

J. C. Brown et al.

123

secondary science teachers were invited to the ICORE summer institute through a

competitive application process during each year of the program. The program

advertisement and application material each indicated that curriculum translation

was an expectation of participation. Successful applicants identified their primary

teaching assignment as life science, submitted a strong personal statement, and

attended previous science professional development programs. Less attention was

paid to geographic distribution or demographics of the applicant or their school. The

program was organized around the interdisciplinary theme of emerging pathogens,

which offers many examples of basic and applied science concepts. Annually, the

program began with a 2-week residential summer institute that involved skills and

activities integrated into experiments illustrating the molecular basis of host-

pathogen interactions, as well as the human and environmental influence on

emerging and re-emerging diseases. Each summer approximately 15 University

researchers interacted with the ICORE participants in various ways including brief

lectures, laboratory visits, and experiments. University scientists enhanced teachers’

content knowledge by presenting their current research findings while also

addressing common misconceptions through laboratory activities. Several partic-

ipating faculty frequently engaged in University extension activities and were well

suited to work with program staff to modify research laboratory protocols to

classroom-friendly modules. Teacher-participants engaged in inquiry in the context

of an authentic laboratory sequence led by university research faculty, graduate

students, and program staff, utilizing pedagogical strategies suitable for high school

science classrooms (Table 1). After each laboratory activity, teachers brainstormed

with university scientists and program staff about ways to incorporate the scientific

content and methodologies into classroom applications.

At the conclusion of the summer institute, teachers presented their proposed

curriculum materials to their colleagues, articulating how they intended to incorporate

the current science in the upcoming school year. After revising the proposal based upon

feedback from peers, university partners and scientists, participants received funds and

access to classroom support in the form of biotechnology equipment lockers and

materials, and a visiting scientist or program staff to facilitate implementation of their

curricula in their school. In the spring, teachers returned to the university to present

results from implementation of their projects to their peers and program staff in a

symposium. Curriculum materials were made available via the project Web site.

Graduate credits were awarded for successful completion of all program components,

including implementation of the curriculum and submission of a written final report

detailing student outcomes. The formal assessment of the quality of the materials was

only completed for the purpose of this study, not for evaluating the work of participants.

Methodology

The methodology for this study took the form of an ex-post facto, multiple case

study design (Creswell, 2009). Our interest was to understand the capacity of a

unique STP for supporting teachers in the transfer of personal learning experiences

with current science into curriculum materials for high school students. The

Translating Current Science

123

Ta

ble

1S

um

mer

inst

itu

teco

mp

on

ents

for

day

on

e,2

01

1(s

eeT

able

3fo

rid

enti

ties

of

PD

cod

es)

Ele

men

tT

itle

Form

atM

ater

ials

Idea

spre

sente

dP

Dsu

pport

Pre

senta

tion

Intr

oduct

ion

toP

lant

Pat

hogen

Lab

:

To

mat

oS

pott

edW

ilt

Vir

us

(TS

WV

)

Wh

ole

gro

up

Sli

des

ho

wO

rien

tati

on

toth

ep

lant

pat

ho

gen

TS

WV

and

the

lab

ora

tory

exp

erim

ent

PD

3,

PD

4

Exper

imen

tT

SW

VL

ab1:

Det

ecti

ng

wit

h

Imm

un

ost

rip

Ass

ay

Lab

gro

ups

Eq

uip

men

tan

dre

agen

ts

Man

ual

Par

tici

pan

tsfi

rst

try

toid

enti

fysi

gns

of

TS

WV

infe

ctio

nth

roug

ho

bse

rvat

ion

then

per

form

anim

mu

noas

say

tov

erif

y

resu

lts

PD

1,

PD

3

Dis

cuss

ion

TS

WV

Lab

1:

Post

-lab

Lab

gro

ups

Wh

ole

gro

up

Ex

per

imen

td

ata

Gro

up

ssh

ared

fin

din

gs

and

dis

cuss

ed

resu

lts.

Par

tici

pan

tsco

ncl

uded

ob

serv

atio

ns

alo

ne

are

no

ten

ou

gh

to

dia

gn

ose

TS

WV

PD

1,

PD

2,

PD

5

Act

ivit

yD

esig

ner

pla

tes

Lab

gro

ups

Equip

men

tan

dre

agen

ts

Pip

etti

ng

by

Des

ign

Les

son

Des

igner

pla

tes

Equip

men

t

lock

er

Par

tici

pan

tsle

arn

touse

mic

ropip

ette

sP

D1,

PD

3,

PD

5

Exper

imen

tT

SW

VL

ab2:

DN

AE

xtr

acti

on

Lab

gro

ups

Lab

equip

men

tan

dre

agen

ts

Pip

etti

ng

lock

er

DN

Ais

extr

acte

dfr

om

two

pea

nu

tse

eds—

wil

dty

pe

and

gen

etic

ally

alte

red.

PD

1,

PD

3

Exper

imen

tT

SW

VL

ab3:

PC

RL

abgro

ups

Lab

equip

men

tan

dre

agen

ts

Pip

etti

ng

lock

er

Th

erm

alcy

cler

lock

er

Usi

ng

DN

Aex

trac

ted

inth

epre

vio

us

step

,

par

tici

pan

tsse

t-u

pP

CR

reac

tio

ns

to

ampli

fya

reg

ion

of

the

vir

us

Nca

psi

d

that

the

gen

etic

ally

alte

red

seed

conta

ins

PD

1,

PD

3

Act

ivit

yT

SW

VJi

gsa

wS

mal

lg

rou

ps

Wh

ole

gro

up

TS

WV

acti

vit

yJi

gsa

wle

sso

nfo

rmat

.P

arti

cip

ants

are

assi

gn

eda

care

er.

Bre

aku

pin

toca

reer

s

gro

ups,

shar

ere

sear

chfi

ndin

gs

for

thei

r

spec

ialt

y.

Ret

urn

toh

om

eg

rou

p,

shar

e

fin

din

gs.

Sel

ect

ast

akeh

old

er(p

ean

ut

gro

wer

s,m

aste

rg

ard

ener

s,et

c.)

and

dev

elo

pa

po

ster

toco

mm

un

icat

ew

hat

TS

WV

isan

dh

ow

top

rev

ent

or

min

imiz

eit

sim

pac

t

PD

1,

PD

2,

PD

3,

PD

5

J. C. Brown et al.

123

outcome of this work was intended to serve two purposes: (a) to further our

understanding of STP as a unique and appropriate form of PD for high school

science teachers and (b) to provide insight for future evidence-based re-design of the

program being investigated. The following research questions guided our study:

1. As they construct and adapt materials based upon current science, which

supports in the STP model do teachers find most beneficial?

2. How do the explicit supports in the STP afford or constrain teachers in the

construction and adaptation of curriculum materials?

Two primary criteria were used to select the cases with pseudo-names used to

protect the identities of participants: the quality of the curriculum materials and the

professional experience of the participant. Professional experience was established

via self-report. The quality of the curriculum materials was assessed using the

Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument (SLPAI), a multidimensional tool for

assessing science lesson planning (Jacobs, Martin & Otieno, 2008). The instrument

consists of 21-criteria for four major subscales that are rated as exemplary (2pts.),

making progress (1pt.) or needs improvement (0pts.). The weighted score for each

criterion is computed by multiplying the raw scores by an item weight coefficient

that ranges from one to three. The total score for the SLPAI is the total of the

weighted criteria scores. For this study, we used the same criteria weighting and

normalization procedure that was used by Jacobs et al. (2008) in the original

validation of the instrument. The curriculum materials of fifty-two participants from

the 2010 and 2011 cohorts were scored using the SLPAI. Participants were not made

aware of their SLPAI score. A procedure involving scoring the materials

independently, then meeting to compare and discuss each score to consensus, was

used to determine each participant’s individual score. Inter-rater reliability for the

independent scoring was 83 %. Normalized scores ranged from 18 to 100 and the

distribution was positively skewed (N = 52, M = 70.9, SD = 16.8), suggesting

that a majority of participants were successful with the task of creating instructional

materials. The distribution of scores was divided into three groups based upon the

degree of success with the task: highly successful (67–100), successful (39–66) and

minimally successful (0–38). Using demographic information, we classified teachers

as either beginner (1–5 years teaching), experienced (6–15 years) or veteran

(greater than 15 years). Maximal variation sampling based upon three levels of two

variables offers the potential for nine cases (Table 2).

However, four of the potential cases were not represented in our data set (i.e.,

highly successful beginners and minimally successful veterans) while numerous

cases met the criteria for two of the case types (i.e., successful beginners and highly

successful veterans). A review of demographic information reveled that although

they occupy the same cell in the matrix, the educational background and

professional training for these cases was different. Thus, the research team added

a secondary criteria defined as having advanced education (e.g., earned a PhD) or

professional training (e.g., national board certification). With these criteria, seven

high school science teachers were selected as unique cases for this multiple case

study.

Translating Current Science

123

Data Sources and Analysis

Three primary data sources were identified from the activities and artifacts produced

for the formal project evaluation. The data sources were: the curriculum materials

developed individually by each participant, a reflective journal, and a post program

survey. Participants were asked to develop curriculum materials describing a lesson

or unit of study for their classroom that could be implemented in the ensuing school

year. Guidelines were provided that detailed the format of the proposed materials

including a lesson plan template requiring key elements such as teaching objectives,

state standards, background information for other teachers, activity procedures, and

assessment suggestions. Participants were given complete autonomy regarding the

science content and pedagogy. Participants were encouraged to incorporate

elements from the ICORE summer institute and create lessons that engaged

students with inquiry and active learning. During the summer institute, using

prompts and due dates that were provided at the program’s inception, participants

created a reflective journal (Appendix 1). With these prompts, participants were

encouraged to thoughtfully reflect on the program and record their emerging ideas

for how the institute materials could potentially be translated to their classrooms.

The reflective journal was submitted as an electronic document at the conclusion of

the summer institute. At the end of the academic school year, participants were

Table 2 A comparison of the case participants along the two dimensions of the selection criteria by

SLPAI score, years of experience and formal professional training

Professional

experience

Quality of materials

Minimally successful Successful Highly successful

Beginner Becky

SLPAI-31; 1–year;

Bachelors and

Masters Degrees

Cristina

SLPAI-63; 3-years;

Bachelors, masters, and

PhD degrees

None

Kelly

SLPAI-58; 1-year;

Bachelors degree

Experienced None Lily

SLPAI-62; 13-years;

Bachelors degree

Jasmine

SLPAI-90; 12-years;

Bachelors, masters degree and

national board certification

Veteran None None Rick

SLPAI-92; 22-years;

Bachelors degree, masters degree

and national board certification

Steve

SLPAI-90; 24-years;

Bachelors degree, masters degree

and 15-years previous experience

in educational administration

J. C. Brown et al.

123

invited to complete a Web-based, post-program survey. This survey was designed to

capture the participants’ ideas about the summer institute, as well as details

concerning their utilization and implementation of content from the summer

institute and on-going support. The survey instrument included closed and open-

ended response items (Appendix 2).

Using a constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), these data were

open-coded according to established themes for supporting science teacher PD

(Table 3). In addition to these themes, through the process of axial coding, we

established an additional collection of seven emergent themes unique to this

program that were classified as either affordances or constraints (Table 4). Inter-

coder reliability was not calculated, but the degree of agreement between coders

was high and the negotiation of any discrepancies to consensus served as a check of

reliability. Triangulation was achieved by constant comparison of the findings

among the data sources.

Case Results and Findings

Among other program goals, ICORE was designed to foster science teachers’ abilities to

construct and adapt curriculum materials that integrated program content. In the

following section, we present case study results for the seven teachers according to their

overall SLPAI scores. Findings for each case are arranged by (a) the specific supports

perceived as beneficial to professional growth and (b) the ways in which the PD supports

served as either affordances or constraints as they developed curriculum materials.

Top Third: ‘‘Highly Successful’’ Category

Case 1: Rick

Rick is a veteran National Board Certified Teacher of 22-years who has taught

Advanced Placement (AP) Environmental Science, Marine Biology Honors, and

Science Research courses in a large rural high school. Rick has earned undergraduate

and master’s degrees in science, with an additional bachelor’s degree in education.

During ICORE, Rick developed a multi-week curriculum unit to engage his students in

science research and enhance their understanding of biotechnology and molecular

biology. Rick chose the timely emergence of Dengue fever, as he hoped this topic

would be of interest to students and connect to the community. Rick designed an

experimental sequence to compare DNA and protein from different insect life stages,

specifically mosquitos that are both abundant in the state and the vector of dengue.

Rick extended the research experience to include analysis by mass spectrometry with

scientist partners and protein determination using bioinformatics databases.

With the exception of collective participation, all of the traditional PD supports

were heavily cited in Rick’s data with the support of content knowledge opportunity

coded most often. Active learning approaches and modeling instruction supported

Rick by building his confidence (‘‘I now feel much more comfortable guiding them

[students] in how to follow protocols’’-journal) and offering activities that he used

Translating Current Science

123

Ta

ble

3E

stab

lish

edsu

ppo

rts

of

succ

essf

ul

PD

cod

edas

them

esw

ith

exam

ple

sfr

om

this

stu

dy

Co

de

Des

crip

tion

fro

mth

eex

isti

ng

lite

ratu

reO

per

atio

nal

defi

nit

ion

Co

ded

exam

ple

Act

ive

lear

nin

g(P

D1

)‘‘

…P

roje

cts

inv

olv

edth

ete

ach

ers

and

stud

ents

in

all

stag

eso

ffu

llin

qu

iry

:fr

om

gen

erat

ing

thei

r

ow

nq

ues

tio

ns

tore

po

rtin

gth

eir

fin

din

gs’

’

(Jea

np

ierr

eet

al.,

20

05

p.

68

3)

Ref

eren

ceto

the

firs

tp

erso

n

pro

cess

of

kn

ow

ing

scie

nce

‘‘T

he

op

po

rtu

nit

yto

spen

d2

wee

ks

at{th

e

un

iver

sity

}h

avin

gh

and

so

nre

sear

cho

n

bio

tech

of

emer

gin

gd

isea

ses

‘‘-C

rist

ina

,

surv

ey

Coll

ecti

ve

par

tici

pat

ion

(PD

2)

‘‘…

Pro

fess

ion

ald

evel

op

men

tth

atis

des

ign

edfo

r

gro

ups

of

teac

her

sfr

om

the

sam

esc

ho

ol,

dep

artm

ent,

or

gra

de

lev

el’’

(Gar

etet

al.,

20

01,

p.

92

2)

Wo

rkin

gw

ith

gro

up

so

fte

ach

ers

fro

ma

sim

ilar

teac

hin

gco

nte

xt

‘‘I

real

lyen

joy

edw

ork

ing

wit

hal

lm

emb

ers

of

the

gro

up

and

Ica

nsa

yI

lear

ned

som

ethin

gfr

om

ever

yb

od

y.’’

-Ja

smin

e,

jou

rna

l

Con

tent

kn

ow

led

ge

op

port

un

itie

s(P

D3

)

‘‘…

Dir

ect

exp

erie

nce

wit

hsc

ien

cean

d

mat

hem

atic

sco

nte

nt

and

the

pro

cess

esof

inquir

y

and

pro

ble

mso

lvin

g’’

(Lo

uck

s-H

ors

ley

etal

.,

20

10,

p.

16

9)

Afi

rst

per

son

lear

nin

gex

per

ience

s

wit

hsc

ien

ceco

nte

nt,

lab

tech

niq

ue

or

rese

arch

equ

ipm

ent

‘‘W

ew

ere

tau

gh

tso

me

of

the

most

mod

ern

tech

niq

ues

’’-L

ily,

surv

ey

En

han

ced

un

iver

sity

and

sch

ool

com

mun

icat

ion

(PD

4)

On

go

ing

coll

abo

rati

on

amon

gth

ep

rov

ider

so

fP

D

and

par

tici

pat

ing

teac

her

s(B

ell

&G

ilb

ert

19

94;

Cri

pp

enet

al.,

20

10;

Lu

ft2

00

1;

Jack

son

&A

sh

20

12).

For

scie

nti

st-t

each

erpar

tner

ship

s(S

TP

),

this

was

also

fost

ered

thro

ugh

scie

nti

st-t

each

er-

and

occ

asio

nal

lyst

ud

ent

coll

abo

rati

on

s

(Jea

np

ierr

eet

al.,

20

05)

Use

of

au

niv

ersi

tyre

sou

rce

oth

er

than

ICO

RE

or

the

des

ire

to

ob

tain

more

trai

nin

go

red

uca

tio

n

(i.e

.,th

eu

niv

ersi

tyis

more

acce

ssib

le)

‘‘S

amp

les

wil

lb

eru

no

nth

eM

AL

DI

in

Dr.

{X

xxx

}la

bat

{th

eu

niv

ersi

ty}.’’-

Ric

k,

curr

icu

lum

Mo

del

ing

inst

ruct

ion

(PD

5)

‘‘…

Tea

cher

sex

per

ien

ceth

etr

ue

nat

ure

of

the

dis

cip

lin

esan

dco

nsi

der

ho

wto

pro

vid

esi

mil

ar

exp

erie

nce

sfo

rth

eir

stud

ents

’’(L

ou

cks-

Ho

rsle

y

etal

.,2

01

0,

p.

23

)

Mo

del

ing

the

type

of

inst

ruct

ion

expec

ted

of

par

tici

pan

tte

acher

s

‘‘I

too

kk

eyid

eas

(su

chas

the

jig

saw

app

roac

hto

ale

sson

)an

dw

asab

leto

wo

rk

wit

hst

ud

ents

ina

new

way

’’-j

asm

ine,

surv

ey

On

go

ing

sup

po

rt(P

D6

)‘‘

…M

akin

gre

sou

rces

and

equ

ipm

ent

read

ily

avai

lab

le,

and

sup

po

rtin

g{so

cio

tran

sfo

rmat

ive

const

ruct

ivis

m}

ST

Cac

tivit

ies

inth

ete

acher

s’

clas

sroom

s’’

(Zoza

kie

wic

z&

Rodri

guez

20

07,

p.

40

0)

Use

or

nee

do

fIC

OR

Ere

sou

rces

afte

rth

esu

mm

erin

stit

ute

‘‘I

wo

uld

no

tb

eab

leto

do

this

on

my

ow

n

wit

ho

ut

hel

p/r

eso

urc

esfr

om

{th

e

un

iver

sity

}’’

-Kel

ly,

journ

al

J. C. Brown et al.

123

Ta

ble

4E

mer

gen

tco

ded

them

es,

clas

sifi

cati

ons

and

oper

atio

nal

defi

nit

ions

Co

de

Cla

ssifi

cati

on

Op

erat

ion

ald

efin

itio

nE

xam

ple

Con

textu

al

op

port

un

ity

Aff

ord

ance

Cit

ing

anel

emen

to

fth

elo

cal

con

tex

t(i

.e.,

stud

ent

attr

ibute

,

exis

ting

acti

vit

y,av

aila

ble

reso

urc

es)

that

support

str

ansf

erab

ilit

y

‘‘M

any

of

my

stu

den

tsn

eed

tou

tili

zeth

ese

pro

ced

ure

sto

acco

mpli

shth

eir

hig

hle

vel

scie

nce

pro

ject

s’’-

Ric

k,jo

urn

al

En

gag

emen

t

wit

h

tech

no

log

y

Aff

ord

ance

Ind

icat

ing

that

per

son

alu

seo

fp

rev

iou

sly

un

fam

ilia

rte

chno

log

yis

inte

rest

ing

and

mo

tiv

atin

gfo

rle

arn

ing

‘‘W

hen

Ire

turn

tom

yd

orm

roo

mea

chd

ayI

amm

ost

imp

ress

ed

by

the

lev

elo

fte

chn

olo

gy

that

exis

ts(t

hat

Id

idn

’tre

aliz

e).

‘‘-

Ste

ve,

journ

al

Rec

ogn

itio

nas

pro

fess

ion

al

Aff

ord

ance

Ref

eren

ceto

bei

ng

trea

ted

asa

pro

fess

ional

.H

avin

gval

ue,

pla

yin

g

anim

port

ant

role

inth

ebro

adgoal

of

scie

nce

educa

tion

‘‘I

felt

real

lyw

elco

me

and

app

reci

ated

.A

lld

oo

rsw

ere

op

ento

us

and

seem

sth

atth

eyw

ill

rem

ain

op

en.’’

-Cri

stin

a,

journ

al

Tra

nsf

erab

ilit

y

of

tools

and

tech

niq

ues

Aff

ord

ance

Des

crib

ing

too

ls(e

.g.,

PC

R,

gel

pla

tes)

and

tech

niq

ues

(e.g

.,

curr

icu

lum

elem

ents

,p

roto

cols

)th

atca

nn

ow

be

adap

ted

toth

e

teac

her

’sin

div

idual

clas

sroom

conte

xt

due

toco

stan

d

con

ven

ien

ce

‘‘I

hav

efo

un

dth

esi

mu

lati

on

sm

ost

use

ful

for

the

lev

elo

fst

ud

ents

Iam

teac

hin

g’’

-Jasm

ine,

surv

ey

Cla

ssro

om

con

tex

t

Const

rain

tC

itin

ga

lim

itat

ion

involv

ing

the

teac

her

’sin

div

idual

clas

sroom

con

tex

t.S

om

eth

ing

oth

erth

anco

st

‘‘T

yp

ical

lya

Hig

hS

choo

lS

cien

ceT

each

erw

ou

ldn

ot

un

der

tak

e

the

seem

ingly

her

cule

anta

skof

conduct

ing

pro

tein

extr

acti

on

lab

sin

clas

sas

they

tak

ea

sub

stan

tial

amou

nt

of

pre

cio

us

tim

e.

‘‘-K

elly

,cu

rric

ulu

m

Cost pro

hib

itiv

e

Const

rain

tC

itin

gth

eex

pen

sive

of

ate

chnolo

gy

or

supply

,th

eli

mit

of

a

sch

ool

bu

dg

eto

rth

en

eed

for

on

goin

gIC

OR

Esu

ppo

rt(e

.g.,

use

of

lock

er)

‘‘M

ysc

ho

ol

stil

ld

oes

no

th

ave

any

fun

din

gto

pu

rch

ase

any

of

the

equ

ipm

ent

or

con

sum

able

s.’’

-Lil

y,su

rvey

Per

son

al

lear

nin

g

bar

rier

Con

stra

int

Cit

ing

som

eth

ing

that

pro

hib

ited

eng

agem

ent

wit

hth

esc

ien

ce

con

ten

t,le

arn

ing

mat

eria

lso

rP

Del

emen

t(e

.g.,

con

ten

tto

o

com

ple

x)

‘‘H

ow

ever

,I

feel

that

som

eo

fth

em,

alth

ou

gh

they

are

ver

y

intr

igu

ing

,ar

eb

eyo

nd

my

lab

ora

tory

abil

ity

skil

ls’’

-Bec

ky,

jou

rna

l

Translating Current Science

123

in his instructional materials (‘‘The labs for DNA extraction, PCR, protein extraction

and mass spec were conducted during ICORE.’’-curriculum). These particular

supports afforded his success, as increased confidence, content and procedural

knowledge enabled Rick to consider new levels of exploration through authentic

instructional approaches. Though he cited collective participation as an affordance, his

comments suggest that this support was minor, available in the background and not

essential to his success. Furthermore, it was important to Rick that teachers be treated

as professionals, echoing Tanner et al.’s (2003) and Harris Willcut’s (2009)

contention that a true STP should proceed with each stakeholder being treated as a

professional and each offering something of value to the relationship.

Despite his success, Rick noted instances in which his own personal learning

barriers constrained his ability. In particular, he shared how ICORE’s intensive

nature (10? h days) was at times too overwhelming, prompting him to disengage.

He also alluded to the cost of materials and students’ intimidation with molecular

biology and biotechnology as contextual constraints. However, Rick also cited the

needs of his students for their ‘‘high level science projects’’ as an element of his

context that afforded his translation. For Rick, even with personal learning barriers

and contextual constraints, the opportunity to build his science content knowledge

through modeled inquiry experiences and transferable activities built his confidence

for translating ICORE content based upon an established contextual need.

Case 2: Steve

Steve is a veteran educator of 25-years who recently returned to the classroom after

a 15-year career in education administration. Steve possesses a master’s degree in

administration, but has a very strong science research background. Using a mostly

lecture driven instructional method, Steve teaches all levels of biology in a rural

mid-sized high school. Much like Rick, Steve was intrigued by the idea of having

students compare DNA and proteins from different life stages of an insect to

illustrate that while DNA is constant in an organism, the genes expressed to code for

proteins vary, yielding altered phenotypes. He then constructed his curriculum

materials based on this interest, modifying an activity he previously taught.

In his journal, Steve described the cost associated with bringing these techniques

to the classroom as a constraint. However, with available funding from the ICORE

project he was able to overcome this obstacle and fully implement his curriculum.

Additionally, he utilized a free interactive biotechnology role-playing game (Barko

& Sadler, 2013) as a way to introduce and familiarize his students with

biotechnology methods. Steve perceived modeling instruction as most beneficial,

as this support enabled him to interact with activities such as the game and consider

ways to plan instruction around it.

Steve also found that the transferability of tools and techniques experienced during

ICORE afforded him the necessary support to be successful. More specifically, he

identified how specific tools (i.e., science equipment) eased the transition from

learning during his PD experience to actual classroom use (‘‘This simulation will allow

the student to become familiar with a number of high-tech science practices…’’-

curriculum). The camaraderie offered by collective participation was meaningful to

J. C. Brown et al.

123

Steve, and we assume that this was related to his recent hiatus from the classroom. In

Steve’s case, all of the affordances of the program seemed to have an equally positive

bearing, with a minimal regard for constraints. Steve’s case leaves the impression of a

person undergoing a renewed sense of professional interest and commitment.

Case 3: Jasmine

Jasmine is an experienced, National Board Certified Teacher of 12-years working at

a small city school. She holds an undergraduate degree in marine biology and a

master’s degree in biology education. In her school, Jasmine has taught all levels of

biology, including dual enrollment. In her curriculum materials, Jasmine modified

and greatly expanded a learning module from ICORE that focused on the invasive

bacteria Vibrio vulnificus that is found in oyster populations and is of particular

relevance to her community’s seafood industry. Jasmine shared that many of her

students have heard of illness related to the industry’s product, so their familiarity

provided students with a real-life context to study emerging pathogens with current

biotechnological methods such as antibody assays, DNA amplification, and gel

electrophoresis.

Among all of the PD supports, Jasmine felt that collective participation was the

most beneficial in helping her consider new ways to integrate content with

classroom materials. Similar to Garet et al. (2001), Jasmine described the affordance

of collective participation, specifically in creating opportunities for teachers from

the same subject area to, ‘‘discuss concepts, skills, and problems that arise during

their professional development experiences… share common curriculum materials,

course offerings, and assessment requirements…[and] sustain changes in practice

over time’’ (p. 922). In addition, she repeatedly described the use of active learning,

modeling instruction and content learning opportunities as critical affordances for

her success.

While our scoring deemed her successful, Jasmine was constrained by her

classroom context and personal learning barriers. However, she demonstrated

herself to be quite adept at translating ICORE content through the use of simulations

(‘‘I have found the simulations most useful for the level of students I am teaching’’-

survey) and the extensive use of loaned equipment and resources. Jasmine’s

resourcefulness for using the available affordances to overcome the constraints

illustrates a unique approach for successfully translating new science. We attribute

her success to applying the wisdom provided by collective participation along with

new knowledge from her personal learning to a sense of resourcefulness, allowing

her to identify and match resources in order to overcome contextual constraints.

Mid Third: ‘‘Successful’’ Category

Case 4: Cristina

Cristina is a beginner teacher who has been teaching AP Biology at a small science

and technology magnet school on the rural fringe of a large school district for

3 years. This school, graded ‘A’ at the time of this program, had the highest ranking

Translating Current Science

123

among all of the cases. She has a doctoral degree in biochemistry with extensive

science research experience. In her curriculum materials, Cristina proposed to

thread an experimental sequence from ICORE investigating a plant pathogen into

her existing AP Biology curriculum incorporating several Big Ideas and Science

Practices into a themed unit. After growing susceptible plants, signs of infection

would be noted and an immunoassay performed to confirm disease. DNA

amplification, gel electrophoresis, and bioinformatics tools would identify the

modified gene and allow exploration of phylogenies and evolution. Students would

also perform protein electrophoresis to generate a protein fingerprint and identify

protein sequences through mass spectrometry, thus illustrating similarities between

DNA and protein biotechnologies.

Cristina clearly recognized the affordances of the opportunity to learn science

content via active learning and modeling instruction. However, these affordances

seemed to be rendered more into a personal motivation for knowing and

appreciating science than a motivation for providing active learning experiences

for students (‘‘I used it for my lectures.’’-survey). Collective participation meant

meeting other teachers and hearing their best practices. However, she heavily cited

the enhanced communication with university faculty as affording her the chance to

directly connect current science with the classroom through the use of resources

from partnering scientists.

For Cristina, learning the science of ICORE involved the tools and techniques of

practicing scientists and these are a costly constraint (‘‘Most important barriers to

incorporation are budget and time.’’-journal). This perspective seems to have

emanated from a combination of her background and experience as a science

researcher along with her teaching assignment of AP Biology. In addition, she cited

the number and frequency of standardized tests as constraints of the local context

that negatively impacted her ability to construct and eventually implement

materials. There was a tension noted between her perspective that the materials

and techniques were centrally important for providing a meaningful experience and

the contextual requirements of summative assessments in a high school. However,

there was no evidence that she used the affordance of collective participation as a

means for alleviating this tension. Further, her negotiation of that tension was likely

manifest in her curriculum materials and limited her translation of ICORE content.

Case 5: Lily

Lily is an experienced teacher who has been teaching for 13-years, after earning an

undergraduate degree in biology. At the time she participated in ICORE, Lily taught

Honors and AP Biology at a mid-sized city school that houses an engineering and

technology magnet program as well as an AP Academy. Lily’s curriculum centered

on a hands-on laboratory experience for her AP Biology students about the process

of PCR as well as associated biotechnology methods and applications. Lily

described the students’ acquisition of skills through hands on lab activities and

understanding of the real world application of these biotechnology techniques

through the sequential completion of labs from DNA extraction, amplification, and

electrophoresis.

J. C. Brown et al.

123

The active learning strategies and content learning opportunities afforded Lily’s

translation of curriculum materials. In her journal, she recognized these as ‘‘among

the most interesting aspects of this workshop’’ and commented that they left her

feeling better prepared. Citing six different ICORE elements in her curriculum, the

transferability of the techniques and activities allowed her to use them directly with

her students. While she mentioned the camaraderie of participating with ‘‘other

motivated teachers’’ in her post survey, it was not clear how this collective

participation may have afforded her success.

Though the rubric score indicated that Lily successfully translated content from

ICORE, she also encountered setbacks, which ultimately impeded her progress. She

acknowledged the constraints of limited class time and on multiple occasions

mentioned the cost prohibitive constraint. In her journal, she described her intent to

leverage the affordance of her context by offering parts of the curriculum during

after school time as extra credit and via an in-house field trip strategy so that more

students could benefit from participation. She demonstrated herself as equally adept

at describing how the ongoing support from ICORE enabled her to successfully

implement her curriculum materials. In fact, the biotechnology unit she designed

became the cornerstone of the year’s science instruction.

Case 6: Kelly

Kelly is a beginning, first-year teacher with an undergraduate degree in biology. At

the time she participated in ICORE, Kelly taught chemistry and biology at a small

rural high school. This school, graded ‘C’ at the time of this program had the lowest

ranking among all of the cases. In her instructional materials, Kelly outlined a series

of modules for her general biology and chemistry classes with the primary goal of

incorporating biotechnology. For example, the biology materials she created

enhanced the traditional study of DNA with the inclusion of DNA extraction and gel

electrophoresis followed by the separation of proteins using gel electrophoresis.

Chemistry students then performed mass spectrometry with assistance from

university partners, analyzed the proteins present in the sample, and shared their

findings with the biology students.

Kelly cited the range of traditional PD supports as affordances while also heavily

citing the categories of personal learning barrier and classroom context as

constraints. Active learning, modeling instruction and enhanced communication

were the most coded affordances and she associated all of these with providing

students with an appropriate science experience. She discussed how engaging in

active learning opportunities helped her envision ways to integrate biotechnology

practices with science topics such as DNA structure and evolution. These active

learning experiences enabled Kelly to engage with new content and practices.

Additionally, Kelly and her fellow teachers were provided with structured time to

reflect on their experience and envision how they might integrate them into

instruction.

While Kelly acknowledged multiple ICORE supports as affording her opportu-

nities to translate current science, she also experienced strong personal learning

barriers that ultimately caused her to feel overwhelmed and inadequately supported

Translating Current Science

123

at times. Much of this seems attributable to the significant task of trying to learn

science content while simultaneously thinking about how to apply it with students.

She found herself viewing the reflective journal assignment as ‘‘just another thing to

do on Thursday’’-survey. In addition, Kelly cited many instances of her classroom

context constraining her curriculum (e.g., ‘‘Typically a High School Science

Teacher would not undertake the seemingly herculean task of conducting protein

extraction labs’’-curriculum, ‘‘I’m not sure how to simply {sic} the process to a

level my students would understand’’-journal).

Bottom Third: ‘‘Minimally Successful’’ Category

Case 7: Becky

Becky was classified as a beginning teacher with 5 years of experience at a large

suburban school. She possessed an undergraduate degree in biology and master’s

degree in public health. Becky proposed to enhance her existing 6-week unit on

bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protists with new content from the summer institute to

introduce students to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, and their health

and environmental impacts both locally and globally. Students were expected to

review the general characteristics of each of these pathogens and the techniques

used by clinical and research scientists to detect and diagnose them including the

use of DNA analysis and antibody-based assays.

It was challenging to identify instances in which Becky spoke openly about the

ways in which ICORE’s designed supports afforded her with opportunities to

translate science content. When Becky did make explicit mention of a particular

support (e.g., active learning), she spoke of how it supported her professional

advancement, rather than assisting her in constructing instructional materials. She

did not make mention of collective participation and her comments in relation to

enhanced communication and support were minimal and focused on their existence

more than how they could afford her curriculum.

In the end, the instructional materials that Becky constructed only minimally

integrated ICORE content. Though in her abstract, Becky described how she

intended to involve her students in multiple activities that she had engaged in at

ICORE, her actual curriculum materials featured primarily teacher-driven lectures.

She also identified constraints that ultimately impacted her experience and success,

including the perception that the content and procedures were too advanced for her

ability.

Cross-Case Findings

In the following section, we begin by acknowledging the potential influence of

professional experience on the findings, then examine the ways that teachers

described (a) the affordances of explicit and emergent supports and (b) constraints

that impacted their construction and adaptation of the instructional materials. In

order to address our first research question, we differentiate individual teacher

characteristics from program level supports.

J. C. Brown et al.

123

Of our seven teachers, although each translated ICORE to some degree, three of

the four least successful were classified as beginner teachers. Conversely, all three

cases that were highly successful were either experienced or veteran teachers.

Moreover, all the highly successful teachers constructed novel materials, whereas

the majority of the successful and minimally successful teachers primarily adapted

pre-existing program materials. Though Kelly also constructed novel materials, she

reported in her survey that they were ultimately not practical in her context. For

these cases, professional experience was a strong predictor of success. By

purposefully including teachers of varying experience, we attempted to use this

potential limitation to differentiate the affordances of program structures from those

that have a differential impact based upon individual teacher characteristics.

Across the cases, all of the established PD supports appeared to serve as

relatively strong affordances (Table 3). Regardless of their overall success, teachers

offered evidence for how each of these supports provided them opportunities for

growth. More specifically, teachers felt that active learning, content knowledge, and

modeling instruction were most beneficial. Of interest were the various ways that

these supports interacted with teacher characteristics to afford support. They were

found to reignite a passion for science (Lily; Steve; Rick; Kelly), inspire a feeling of

confidence (Rick; Steve; Becky), offer in-depth extensions to existing instruction

(Cristina; Jasmine) and helpful for incorporating hands-on activities (Steve;

Cristina; Lily).

As mentioned previously, one-strength of a STP lies in the opportunities for

enhanced communication between teachers and professional scientists. This

particular support, cited in all cases, afforded teachers’ construction of materials

through simultaneously providing a learning opportunity with example activities for

potential translation to the high school classroom. STPs are unique in that they offer

ample opportunities for collaboration between practicing teachers and scientists,

which typically would not otherwise exist. Yet, collaboration among teachers from

the same subject area, grade level or discipline is also accepted as essential for

professional growth.

With the exception of Becky, all teachers considered collective participation as

beneficial. When teachers discussed how this support served as an affordance, they

stated it helped to retain effective teachers (Rick), remember pertinent ICORE content

(Steve), support troubleshooting and problem solving (Jasmine; Kelly), network

individuals (Cristina; Lily), share best practices (Cristina), and create a welcoming

environment (Jasmine). This is another case of an established support affording

successful completion of the task, but doing so in different ways based upon individual

characteristics. In this regard, we found the varied use of collective participation by the

experienced teachers who were either successful or highly successful to stand in stark

contrast to the lack of a clear purpose for this support by the beginning teachers. For

example, Steve used it as a mechanism to rejuvenate and share his enthusiasm for

returning to teaching while Jasmine used it as a means of collaboration and pooling the

group’s wisdom to help her best use the resources to overcome her contextual

constraints. When the inexperienced teachers cited collective participation it lacked an

obvious purpose related to the task and instead focused more on fellowship, such as the

appreciation for working with others (Kelly).

Translating Current Science

123

In addition to those supports already identified in the literature, this study identified

additional supports as program affordances. The strongest evidence for such an

affordance existed for transferability of materials, as it was uniquely identified for all

but one of the cases (Kelly). This suggests that for these teachers, the more the ICORE

activities were developed in an appropriate fashion for high school, the better the

probability of teachers translating them. There is also solid evidence for the affordance

of professional recognition, as it was identified in four of the seven cases at each of the

three levels of success. Though engagement with technology was established as an

affordance for these teachers, the topic focus of biotechnology for the program meant

that we could not differentiate this as a program level affordance. Finally, the

affordance of contextual opportunity implies that for some of these teachers,

successful translation involved a bi-directional flow of information. However, this was

only cited by one of the three highly successful teachers (Rick) and three of the others

(Lily, Kelly, Cristina). This suggests that this affordance may have been related to a

teacher-level characteristic rather than the program.

As for constraints, each of the teachers spoke of a form of personal learning

barrier impeding their engagement with science content and the learning materials,

as well as their overall success. Harris Willcuts (2009) described this as teachers’

difficulty placing themselves in the role of adult learners. Although the teachers in

our study shared this commonality, the particular learning barriers they experienced

varied greatly. Examples included unclear activity procedures (Rick), other

participants interrupting presentations (Kelly) or presentations not perceived as

engaging (Lily). Despite using research grounded experiences, constraints to teacher

growth are not uncommon and can seriously impede any program’s success (Bell &

Gilbert, 1994; Crippen et al., 2010; Parke & Coble, 1997). This constraint could

potentially be addressed with the inclusion of a new programmatic structure that

provides time and space for participants to identify any learning challenges that they

might be experiencing. One-on-one and group troubleshooting sessions have shown

to be effective for this purpose (Bell & Gilbert, 1994).

In addition, all teachers indicated constraints in their classroom context. In these

instances, it seemed that teachers’ perceptions of their students negatively impacted

their ability to construct complex instructional materials. Jasmine and Becky, who

did not previously acknowledge contextual opportunities, saw the classroom context

as constraining implementation because they lacked basic ‘‘equipment required to

run [the activities]’’ (Becky, journal), including ‘‘simple things like hot water’’

(Jasmine, journal). Though external to ICORE, these issues still have the potential

to impact a teacher’s performance.

Discussion

The results of this study have direct implications for ICORE as well as research and

development related to the broad concept of a successful STP. Due to its rigorous

activities and focus on advanced science content, ICORE has traditionally catered to

more experienced teachers. However, we acknowledge that curriculum materials are

one of the most direct connections bridging current science with the high school

J. C. Brown et al.

123

classroom. Therefore, a redesign of ICORE is merited and should include strategies

specifically intended to enhance teachers’ pedagogical design capacity, or ‘‘ability to

perceive and mobilize existing resources in order to craft instructional contexts’’

(Brown & Edelson, 2003, p.6). Since experienced and beginning teachers had

different experiences and success in creating curriculum materials, the expectations

and program supports for each should be adjusted accordingly. For example, adapting

pre-existing materials may be an appropriate expectation for beginning teachers,

whereas creating entirely new or significantly modified materials would be more

appropriate for experienced teachers. Collective participation needs to continue as a

support for experienced teachers, but its lack of purpose for beginner teachers

suggests that this time could be better allocated. For experienced teachers, this STP

should provide opportunities to critically explore learning resources in order to

respond to the needs of their students or address other contextual barriers. For all

teachers, the STP needs to afford making instructional goals explicit and linking them

to specific curriculum features (Beyer & Davis, 2012; Brown & Edelson, 2003). Other

recently reported results suggest that programs that utilize purposeful lesson planning

strategies, such as vertical alignment of science content and adherence to a structured

lesson-planning format, have had great success aiding teachers in the construction of

instructional materials (Jackson & Ash, 2012). Revising ICORE with these additional

supports would likely bolster the success of all participants.

All but one of the seven teachers commented on the cost associated with

translating ICORE. While connecting teachers and students with authentic science

practices and content is a strength of the program, this particular constraint suggests

that the program designers must reconsider strategies for making their products

more sustainable, as Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, and Soloway (2004)

warn, ‘‘if the conditions depend heavily upon an infusion of extra support from

researchers, this may pose a challenge to scalability and sustainability’’ (p. 47). This

message is especially salient when working with teachers from rural and urban

schools, as a lack of educational resources and funding are characteristic of these

settings (Calabrese Barton, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Lee & Luykx, 2007).

Thus, future iterations of ICORE need to make widely available more cost-effective

ways for teachers and students to access current science. For example, consider the

wealth of interactive simulations that could be used in lieu of physical resources

(e.g., Tate, Clark, Gallagher & McLaughlin, 2008; Davis & Varma, 2008). Time

would need to be allocated within the program for introducing these resources and

providing teachers with the opportunity to consider their use, but such alternatives

have proven successful in similar PD programs (Jeanpierre et al., 2005).

Within the STP, the role of the scientist needs to evolve beyond simply serving as a

content expert. With ICORE, the scientist has not traditionally engaged with teachers

in extended collaboration. Unfortunately, such a unidirectional relationship is not

uncommon and poses a challenge to the overall success of any STP (Tanner et al.,

2003). In true scientist-teacher collaboration, teachers and scientists work together to

conduct investigations (Jeanpierre et al., 2005; Harris Willcuts, 2009), apply new

teaching strategies (Trautmann & MaKinster, 2005), and design instructional

materials (National Research Council, 1996; Trautmann & MaKinster, 2005). While

ICORE teachers and scientists have often described feelings of mutual respect and

Translating Current Science

123

professional recognition, other studies have found that unidirectional collaborations

can leave both parties feeling overextended and underappreciated (Falloon &

Trewern, 2013). We recognize that initiatives exist that promote extended collabo-

ration between scientists and teachers, but in our experience these endeavors are often

short-term commitments due to the scientists’ primary responsibility to their research

and the teachers’ increasing obligations during the school year.

Involving scientists in integral ways can include serving as on-site help to

teachers (Tanner et al., 2003), guiding teachers through inquiry investigations and

design (Harris Willcuts, 2009), and collaborating with teachers in curriculum design

(National Research Council 1996; Trautmann & MaKinster, 2005). Such

approaches facilitate teachers’ learning of content knowledge and a deeper

understanding of the nature of science, while scientists become more knowledgeable

of school system realities and better able to advocate for science education reform

(Harris Willcuts, 2009).

In addition to the previously reported supports, this study indicates that explicit

and emergent PD supports for ICORE were also beneficial. The emergent supports

of transferability of materials, contextual opportunities, engagement with technol-

ogy, and professional recognition were unique to the teachers of this case study, but

require further investigation within other contexts. In addition, we see merit in

exploring potential benefits to research faculty and graduate students who

participate in a STP. A deeper understanding of the benefits and constraints for

all stakeholders could inform systemic changes that further strengthen science

education across the K-20 continuum.

Conclusion

This study endeavored to better understand how participation in a STP, a unique

form of teacher PD, could serve as a vehicle for translating current science into high

school curriculum materials. ICORE, the program at the focus of this study, engages

high school teachers in collaboration with university scientists and has been

designed with multiple supports to bridge the world of science research with the

world of the high school science classroom. Our results show that each of the seven

cases successfully translated ICORE content to instructional materials, but to

varying degrees. Though participants perceived many explicit and emergent

supports as affordances, they also experienced constraints to the process. Using this

information to better design ICORE and as a foundation for future research in other

STPs may serve to more efficiently and effectively translate current science.

Ultimately, better affording the translation of current science is fundamental to

achieving the vision espoused in the NRC Framework (2012), and we believe that

STPs offer great potential for achieving such a task.

Acknowledgments Funding for the ICORE program was provided by the Howard Hughes Medical

Institute through Precollege Science Education Award #51006103. Thank you to Houda Darwiche and

Drew Joseph for their help with scoring curriculum units.

J. C. Brown et al.

123

Appendix 1: Reflective Journal Prompts

One of the techniques social scientists use to collect data is the reflective question.

This is a qualitative technique designed to get you as a participant to reflect deeply

on your experience and provide insights for use in assessment and evaluation. Very

often reflective questions are developed as ‘‘prompts’’ designed to allow participants

to create journal entries over a period of time.

For this part of our assessment, we are asking you to write a journal entry focused

on answering and reflecting on the reflective question ‘‘prompts’’ indicated below.

We ask that you please complete each entry by the specified due date, writing your

responses into a Word document, dating each entry and saving to the supplied flash

drive. Your responses should be detailed, and a minimum of 300 words or

approximately one half page. We will collect these entries on the final day of the

workshop. Thanks in advance for your participation!

1. Have you ever participated in a program like this before? What would you like

to learn from this experience? What expectations do you have about the

program?

2. Now that we are a few days into the program, what topics/experiences have you

found most interesting/least interesting? How is the workshop meeting/not

meeting your expectations? Describe two things you plan to incorporate into

your classroom- what are they, how will you incorporate, and why.

3. Describe any additional topics/activities that you plan to incorporate into your

classroom—what are they, how will you incorporate and why? Are there any

barriers or constraints that you foresee to utilizing what you are learning in your

classroom? If so, what are these and how can you overcome them?

4. What do you think of the overall workshop? Describe and evaluate your

experience and reflect on what you have learned. If you could provide some

advice to the administrators of this project to improve it, what advice would you

give? If you could provide some advice to future teachers involved in this

workshop, what would you advise? What overall recommendations do you have

to improve this program?

Appendix 2: Post-program Survey

1. In your opinion, what was the primary professional or personal benefit of the

ICORE experience?

2. Do you think your ICORE experience will have an impact on student

achievement? Why or why not?

3. Did you incorporate the biotechnology equipment lockers into your curric-

ulum during year 1 (2010–2011)? Why or why not? Discuss the outcomes.

4. Do you anticipate incorporating the biotechnology equipment lockers into

your curriculum next year (2011–2012)? Why or why not?

5. Did you bring students to the UF campus or another affiliated research site as

an extension of your ICORE experience? Discuss the outcomes.

Translating Current Science

123

6. Did you incorporate ICORE elements in your curriculum during year 1 (2010/

2011)? Why or why not? Discuss the outcomes and/or hindrances.

7. Do you anticipate incorporating ICORE elements in your curriculum during

next school year (2011/2012)? Why or why not? Discuss the benefits and/or

hindrances.

8. Have you registered for the three tuition free graduate credits associated with

the Summer Institute? Why or why not? What factors at the personal/school/

district/state/federal level affected your participation?

9. Are you interested in pursuing an advanced degree? Would a program in a

different discipline be more appealing? If so, what? What benefit does an

advanced degree offer you either personally or professionally?

10. Were there any particular aspects of the ICORE experience that you feel

should have been handled differently or could be improved? If so, please

describe.

11. If you have any additional comments about your ICORE experience that you

think would be important for us to know, please write them in the space below.

References

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—Or might be—The role of curriculum

materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.

Barko, T., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Learning outcomes associated with classroom implementation of a

biotechnology-themed video game. The American Biology Teacher, 75(1), 29–33.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 483–497.

Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical design

capacity for reform-based curriculum design. Curriculum Inquiry,. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.

00599.x.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational

Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which

teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice?

Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools. Evanston, IL: LeTUS.

Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Science learning in urban settings. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),

Handbook of research on science education (pp. 319–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Inc.

Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.

Educational Researcher,. doi:10.2307/1177185.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crippen, K. J., Biesinger, K. D., & Ebert, E. E. (2010). Using professional development to achieve

classroom reform and science proficiency: An urban success story from Southern Nevada USA.

Professional Development in Education, 36(4), 637–661.

Crippen, K. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs

about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9282-3.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will

determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn,

& J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum,

instruction, and policy (pp. 94–122). New York, NY: Teachers College.

J. C. Brown et al.

123

Falloon, G., & Trewern, A. (2013). Developing school-scientist partnerships: Lessons for scientists from

forests-of-Life. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 11–24.

Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for

research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences,. doi:10.1207/

s15327809jls1301_3.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research

Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, & J.

P. Gee (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunities to learn (pp. 76–108). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to human perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics

classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327–369.

Harris Willcuts, M. (2009). Scientist-teacher partnerships as professional development: An action

research study (3382136 Ed.D.), Washington State University, United States—Washington.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305020410?accountid=10920 ProQuest Dis-

sertations and Theses Full Text database.

Jackson, J. K., & Ash, G. (2012). Science achievement for all: Improving science performance and

closing achievement gaps. Journal of Science Teacher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9238-z.

Jacobs, C. L., Martin, S. N., & Otieno, T. C. (2008). A science lesson plan analysis instrument for

formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science Education,.

doi:10.1002/sce.20277.

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that

effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.

Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English

language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65–93.

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: race/ethnicity, language, culture,

and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on

science education (pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional

development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International

Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.

National Research Council. (1996). The role of scientists in the professional development of science

teachers. Committee on Biology Teacher Inservice Programs. Washington, DC: National Academy

of Sciences.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting

concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education

Standards. Board of Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2012). The National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Policies

and Procedures Guide, Part 1—Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Washington, DC.

Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A

model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,. doi:10.1002/

(sici)1098-2736(199710)34:8\773:aid-tea2[3.0.co;2-s.

Powell, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science

education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 107–136.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about

research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. A. (2003). Designed

curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education,

87(4), 468–489.

Translating Current Science

123

Stolk, M., De Jong, O., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a framework for professional

development in curriculum innovation: Empowering teachers for designing context-based chemistry

education. Research in Science Education,. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9170-9.

Tanner, K. D., Chatman, L., & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Science

teaching and learning across the school-university divide—Cultivating conversations through

scientist-teacher partnerships. Cell Biology Education,. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-10-0044.

Tate, E. D., Clark, D. B., Gallagher, J. J., & McLaughlin, D. (2008). Designing science instruction for

diverse learners. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science

education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 65–93). New York, NY:

Teachers College.

Trautmann, N. M., & MaKinster, J. G. (2005). Teacher/scientist partnerships as professional

development: Understanding how collaboration can lead to inquiry. Paper presented at the AETS

International Conference, Colorado Springs, CO.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Zozakiewicz, C., & Rodriguez, A. J. (2007). Using sociotransformative constructivism to create

multicultural and gender-inclusive classrooms. Educational Policy, 21(2), 397–425.

J. C. Brown et al.

123