Guidelines for effective elementary science teacher inservice education.

Abstract

Historically, elementary science teacher inservice has not been an effective means of improving science teaching for most elementary teachers. This paper presents 18 guidelines for development of more effective elementary science teacher inservice programs. The guidelines have been developed and synthesized through review of numerous studies on science teacher inservice programs and the National Science Education Professional Development Standards (NRC, 1996).

Introduction

With the 1996 publication of the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996), once again there is a cry for more appropriate inservice for the nation's elementary science teachers. This paper presents the guidelines that have been identified by researchers as components for effective elementary science inservice programs.

Science educators provide elementary science teacher inservice education in the hope that this will provide teachers with the knowledge, skills, and support necessary to improve science teaching in the elementary school. In 1947, the Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Henry, 1947) announced that elementary inservice education was desired for the continued success of science teaching. Weiss (1978) concluded, through a 1977 national survey on science, mathematics, and social studies education, that more and better-quality inservice education opportunities for elementary teachers were imperative for improvement in science teaching. Crawley (1987) found that the continuing education of science teachers was an essential ingredient in educational improvement. A 1992 survey of needs from several thousand rural school science teachers indicated that teachers listed inservice programs as their most crucial need (Prather, 1993a). In 1996, the National Science Education Standards p roposed that "The current reform effort in science education requires a substantive change in how science is taught. Implicit in this reform is an equally substantive change in professional development practices at all levels" (NRC, 1996, p. 56).

Even though elementary teachers recognize the necessity for science inservice education, most are not satisfied with the programs they attend (Joyce & Showers, 1983; Luke, 1980). Bethel (1989) discovered that most teachers perceived inservice programs as having little or no value:

Teachers complain that inservice is too irrelevant to the classroom; that inservice is too didactic; that inservice provides few opportunities to participate actively; that they have few or no opportunities for input during inservice planning; and that there is a lack of a continuous, long-term inservice plan. (p. 151)

Based on a review of literature on inservice education, Evans (1986) concluded "there is near-unanimous agreement concerning the status of current inservice practices; they are deplorable" (p. 14). In studying the National Science Foundation-sponsored elementary science inservice programs of the 1960s and 1970s, Yager (1992) discovered that relatively few teachers who participated in the programs changed their teaching. With this image of teacher inservice education, is there hope that inservice programs can improve elementary science teaching?

The findings are not all negative. Researchers have found that some programs were successful in improving science teaching. These programs were examined for characteristics of effective inservice programs. The characteristics thought to lead to good programs are presented below as guidelines to be used for planning and implementing effective inservice programs.

Evans (1986) completed one of the most comprehensive reviews of research on science education inservices. From a study of 35 research reports, he identified 22 characteristics for effective inservice programs. A review of Evans' characteristics in the light of over 30 research studies in this area confirmed that they were generally representative of what was considered to constitute an effective inservice program. In this review, which focused on elementary science education inservices, some of Evans' characteristics were either not as applicable or were collapsed into another category.

Eighteen guidelines have been synthesized here. These guidelines focus on elementary science education inservices. Needs of secondary and elementary science teachers are different. Most elementary teachers regardless of their interest or subject specialties have a responsibility to teach science. Using Evans' research as a guide, a review of the literature relating to characteristics of effective elementary inservice guidelines was conducted.

The 18 guidelines for effective elementary science inservice were categorized using an adaptation of Haney's and Lumpe's (1995) inservice model (see Table 1). This model included (1) those relating to inservice planning, (2) those relating to inservice instruction, (3) those relating to inservice follow-up support, and (4) those relating to inservice outcomes. Although each guideline has been sorted into one of the four categories, it is important to realize that the guidelines are interrelated and may have components that would not preclude their inclusion m more than one of the categories.

Each of the guidelines is presented below. Some of the guidelines have had more extensive and more recent research available to support them. Those ignored by recent research endeavors may indicate a common agreement in the educational. community of the importance of the item, or it may be because the guideline was more difficult to assess. It is hoped that these guidelines will be useful for those developing comprehensive inservice programs for elementary science teachers.

Guidelines Relating to Inservice Planning

Guideline 1: Effective inset-vice programs are a collaborative effort. Effective inservice programs should involve a collaborative approach when planning, implementing, and evaluating a program. Individuals involved in and/or affected by the inservice project should be included (Evans, 1986; Hutson, 1981; Prather, 1993a; Zigarmi, Bentz, & Jensen, 1977). According to the Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Henry, 1947), movement toward collaborative planning and implementation of inservice programs was necessary to "secure the enthusiastic support of teachers in developing a program of in-service education in elementary science" (p. 130). Evans pointed out that inservices became more effective if participants felt a sense of ownership of the program.

A second and related justification for why inservices should be planned from a collaborative model was that the level of commitment from the participants increased. The collaborative process reduced the resistance of the teachers to change if they were involved in the goal-setting sessions. Finally, Evans (1986) noted, all parties (i.e., administrators, teachers, science educators) may not agree on the teaching strategies or content needs to be addressed by the inservice program. Collaborative planning allowed those issues to be directed toward teacher needs.

Guideline 2: Effective inservice programs are well-planned. If inservices are to be effective, they should be well-planned (Evans, 1986; King, Hayes, & Newman, 1977). Prather (1993b) and Yager (1992) pointed out that the inservice programs of the 1950s and 1960s were conducted with inadequate preparation. Carleton (1961) described the situation:

All of us are caught up in "the pursuit of excellence," but all too often, the pursuit becomes a mad rush to "do something, even though we are not sure it is right." Reasons for this, perhaps, are that we seldom take time to think and spell out what is meant by excellence. (p. 4)

Inservice programs should be well-thought-out, and individuals taking part in the planning process should consider addressing each of these guidelines.

Guideline 3: Effective inservice programs assess teacher, school, and community needs. The literature, according to Evans (1986), suggested that effective inservice teacher education programs should be based on the perceived needs and concerns of the teacher as well as the school and the community. Additional support is found in the National Science Education Standards (NSES) for Professional Development of Teachers of Science Standards A, B, and D (NRC, 1996). Basing a program on teachers' needs might prove to be an incentive for the transfer of what is learned from the inservice program into the classroom because they have requested assistance in that area (Schiller, 1979; Timms, 1975). Information gleaned from results of both local and national needs assessments should be the impetus for the development of the inservice program's goals and objectives.

Guideline 4: Effective inservice programs contain clear goals and objectives. According to Evans (1986), Mechling and Oliver (1983), and the NSES Professional Development for Teachers of Science Standard D (NRC, 1996), inservice programs should be developed with clear and specific goals and objectives. These objectives should be developed from a collaborative effort and be supported by the needs assessment information (NRC, 1996). Ellis (1975) found that most of the inservice programs m school districts across the state of New Hampshire did not include clear goals and objectives. Dawani (1972) concluded that clear goals and objectives were essential not only for planning, but also in the evaluation component of an inservice project. The absence of clear goals and objectives is a characteristic of many ineffective inservice programs (Wilen & Kindsvatter, 1978).

Guideline 5: Effective inservice programs are ongoing and developmental. Evans (1986) concluded from his review that "teacher inservice education programs should be ongoing, developmental, and an integral part of a total school program" (p. 19). Programs that are designed to meet teacher needs, Evans pointed out, should evolve as change occurs. A program should be a continuous, long-term effort with continued support to provide time for the teacher change process to transpire (Hall, 1992; Mechling & Oliver, 1983; NRC, 1996).

Guideline 6: Effective inservice programs provide incentives. Teachers should be provided with incentives "that promote a high level of participation, commitment, and performance" (Evans, 1986, p. 22). Both intrinsic and extrinsic incentives were valuable, he noted, and no single incentive was significantly more valuable than the others. Prather (1993a) commented that "participant benefits such as an honorarium, per diem, and scholarship for academic credit should be provided to encourage participation" (p. 146). In an opposing opinion, Yager (1992) commented that providing monetary incentives such as tuition waivers and stipends "seems to get teachers [involved] for the wrong reasons" (p. 907) and results in few changes in their teaching. This suggests that teachers should be paid for their time while involved in professional development, but using money as a reward or incentive for participation may have little effect on the improvement of teaching.

Guideline 7: Effective inservice programs involve the principal. Crucial to the success of any inservice program is the involvement of the school principal (Ansari, 1978; Evans, 1986; Hall & Hord, 1987; NRC, 1996; Prather, 1993a). The Collaborative Program Model described by Prather (1993a) included the principal as in integral part of the inservice program. At schools that did not have a principal as an active participant in the program "inservice activities and other leadership functions were substantially limited" (p. 143). According to research, principals are the key component in assuring substantial teacher change within a school (Calabrese, 1989; Hall & Hord, 1987; Hussey, 1989).

Guideline 8: Effective inservice programs are school-based. Evans (1986) found that "Inservice programs should utilize the school site as the focus of program activities" (p. 16). In his review of 35 research reports, 31 indicated that inservice programs were more likely to be successful if they were conducted at the school sites. This encouraged positive teacher attitudes and the implementation of new teaching strategies. According to the NSES, "The process of transforming schools requires that professional development opportunities be clearly and appropriately connected to teachers' work in the context of the school" (NRC, 1996, p. 57).

Guideline 9: Effective inservice programs are designed to be complex and ambitious. Hutson (1981) reported that elaborate and challenging inservice programs were more interesting to teachers and helped to assure a more effective program. Evans (1986) found that inservices that were more complex were more likely to be effective at initiating teacher change. Shroyer, Wright, and Ramey-Gassert (1996) found that a complex program with numerous partners "encourages all educators to develop professional skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to meet the challenging needs of all students" (p. 163).

Guideline 10: Effective inservice programs include a comprehensive evaluation plan. Formative and summative evaluations of inservices are essential components (Dass, 1999; NRC, 1996). Formative evaluations are vital for ongoing revisions and adjustments and to assure that the program is addressing the teachers' needs and meeting the goals and objectives of the program. Summative evaluations are necessary for determining the effectiveness of the program as well as providing information for future inservice program planning. Evans (1986) stated that inservice education evaluations (1) should be ongoing or continuous, (2) should include multiple data sources, (3) should be based on stated program objectives, (4) should result from a collaborative effort, and (5) should evaluate every aspect of the program. Also, he recommended that the results of the evaluation be shared with the inservice participants.

Effective Inservice Guidelines Relating to Inservice Instruction

Guideline 11: Effective inservice programs include and model a variety of instructional strategies and good teaching practices. Instruction of inservice programs should model good teaching practices and employ instructional methods to meet teacher needs which provide for a variety of learning styles (Evans, 1986; NRC, 1996; Prather, 1993a). Fraser-Abder (1992) commented, "If we believe that hands-on science is vital to good elementary science education, then [teachers] must be exposed to the approach in their college courses" (p. 23); however, she cautioned that these courses should also include learning by "reading, lectures, discussions, seminars, and so forth" (p. 23). This echoed the position stated much earlier by Curtis (1932) that if teachers gain a repertoire of instructional strategies, this will enable them to more effectively meet their students' learning needs.

Guideline 12: Effective inservice programs provide for skill enhancement and acquisition. Effective inservice education programs should' provide teachers with models of good teaching and give them an opportunity to practice and be presented with helpful feedback (Evans, 1986; NRC, 1996; Neatherly, Glynn, & Long, 1998). Teaching strategies described in Guideline 11 are modeled in effective programs. Teachers are then provided with opportunities to practice these strategies in the classroom environment with peer feedback. Feedback from a peer coach could be based on information gathered by a colleague through observations of microteaching events, video, or classroom observations (Evans, 1986).

Guideline 13: Effective inservice programs allow for teacher choices. Teachers involved in teacher enhancement projects will have different needs, background experiences, and learning styles. Evans (1986) suggested that inservice programs that allowed teachers to choose personalized instructional activities were more effective in meeting teachers' needs. Howe and Stubbs (1997) indicated that treating teachers as professionals provides teachers with a feeling of empowerment that enables them "to take charge of their own continuing professional and personal development" (p. 179).

Guideline 14; Effective inservice programs implement adult learning strategies. Another guideline listed by Evans (1986) and echoed by Moore (1988), the NSES (NRC, 1996), and Prather (1993a) included the employment of adult learning strategies in effective inservice education programs. O'Brien (1992) identified four principles of adult learning which asserted that adults..

1. Learn best when they understand why they need to know or be able to do something (which is defined during needs assessment];

2. Have a need to be self-directing and may resist being taught unless they are involved in setting objectives;

3. Have a greater volume, richer quality and heterogeneity of experiences than children; and

4. Are motivated by enhanced self-esteem and job satisfaction. (p. 422)

Inservice programs for teachers must be as sensitive to adult learning needs as instruction for children must be sensitive in meeting children's developmental needs. Other guidelines described earlier, such as teacher choice, variety of instructional strategies, and collaborative efforts also address these same issues.

Effective Inservice Guidelines that Relate to Follow-up Support

Guideline 15: Effective inservice programs provide for school-based support. According to Evans (1986), "Inservice education programs should be supported through the provision of positive administrative leadership and adequate funds, materials, time, and human resources" (p. 24). He added that this should also include psychological support of the teachers from administrators as they participate in inservice programs to aid in teacher commitment and change in teaching behaviors. Lumpe, Czerniak, and Haney (1999) found that principals and teachers believe that administrative support and materials management support is an essential element in an effective elementary science program. The NSES (NRC, 1996) also recommend the provision of teacher support for an effective professional development program.

Guideline 16: Effective inservice programs provide for continued support. An essential component of inservice education programs is a comprehensive follow-up plan (Evans, 1986). Timms (1975) and Purifoy (1981) found that teachers did not necessarily apply teaching strategies introduced to them in an inservice program without follow-up assistance. A follow-up plan should be designed to provide assistance for teachers to implement and apply the teaching strategies introduced in the inservice programs (Mitchell, 1978). Prather (1993a) recommended that an exemplary elementary science teacher be employed on a full-time basis to provide teachers with the essential follow-up support. The NSES recommend in Professional Development Standard C that continued support could be provided through "preparing and using mentors, advisors, coaches, lead teachers, and resource teachers to provide professional development opportunities (NRC, 1996, p. 68).

Effective Inservice Guidelines that Relate to Inservice Outcomes

Guideline 17: Effective inservice programs change teacher behavior. According to Evans (1986), inservice teacher education should focus on changing the behavior of the teacher. His research revealed that change in instructional methods by the teacher provided more change in the classroom than having the teachers focus on student behavior changes.

Researchers have found that an understanding of the teacher change process and implementation of intervention strategies are essential for an effective inservice program (O'Brien, 1992; Ryan, 1987). O'Brien's (1992) meta-analysis of teacher inservice education research concluded that there were four components involved in effective teacher change. These four ideas, which corroborate several of Evans' (1986) discoveries, were (1) to build an awareness within the teachers of the need for change, (2) to provide teachers with the background theory related to the intent of the change as well as the reasons for the change, (3) to model the teaching strategies or behaviors that the teachers should acquire, and (4) to provide teachers with the opportunity to practice these new behaviors and receive consistent feedback, preferably in the actual school setting.

To assist inservice planners in changing teacher behavior, several change models have been developed. Orlich (1986) described three types of models: (1) Organization Based Models, in which "the focus is on the institution, agency, or school building" (p. 77); (2) Individual Based Models, in which the focus is on the individuals--a focus which makes "the 'difference' between an effective and an ineffective organization" (p. 78); and (3) Role Based Models, in which the focus is on the role of each individual within the organization.

Guideline 18: Effective inservice programs build teacher self-confidence. Building the self-confidence of teachers should be a guiding force in teacher inservice education programs (Evans, 1986). Bonnstetter and Yager (1985) listed confidence in science teaching as one of the characteristics identified in exemplary science teachers. Henry (1947) also pointed out that the attitude of the elementary science teacher was an important aspect of effective instruction. Lumpe et al. (1999) also found that teacher self-efficacy was a factor in their success as an elementary science teacher.

Summary

A review of elementary science education, from the 1750s to the present,. showed consistency in the ways in which educators identified the science teaching strategies that should be employed by elementary teachers; however, several researchers indicated that those strategies were not implemented in a majority of elementary science classrooms (O'Brien, 1992; Pratt, 1981; Yager, 1992). The literature revealed that effective elementary science teachers do employ instructional strategies which include hands-on, minds-on activities; questioning skills which elicit higher level thinking; and the use of a variety of other strategies designed to meet the needs and interests of their students (Bonnstetter, Penick, & Yager, 1983; Bonnstetter & Yager, 1985). The studies by Bonnstetter and Yager and Bonnstetter et al. indicated that effective elementary science teachers are actively involved in professional meetings and organizations, are self-confident about teaching science and making curricular decisions, are positiv e about their inservice experiences, and have an average of ten years of elementary teaching experience. Other than the last trait (relating to years of teaching experience), all these characteristics should be goals of effective inservice programs.

Henry's (1947) recommendations for elementary science instruction and inservice programs parallel many of the effective elementary science teacher traits later identified by Pratt (1981) and others (Bonnstetter et al., 1983; Bonnstetter & Yager, 1985) as well as the traits of effective inservice education compiled by Evans (1986). There was agreement that effective inservices were best when carefully planned through a collaborative effort (Evans, 1986; King et al., 1977; Prather, 1993a; Zigarmi et al., 1977) and when they had specific goals and objectives based on the needs of the teachers, the school, and the community (Dawani, 1972; Ellis, 1975; Evans, 1986; Hutson, 1981; NRC, 1996; Schiller, 1979; Timms, 1975). There was also agreement that the instruction of effective inservice programs should model a variety of effective teaching practices (Curtis, 1932; Evans, 1986; Fraser-Abder, 1992; NRC, 1996; Prather, 1993a), provide for the acquisition and application of those skills (Evans, 1986; NRC, 1996; Neath erly et al., 1996), and provide teachers with some instructional and content choices based on their needs (Evans, 1986; O'Brien, 1992; Prather, 1993a). In addition, it was found that instructors in effective inservice programs should employ adult learning strategies. Researchers also determined that programs should be long-term with continuous follow-up support (Evans, 1986; Hall, 1992; Mechling & Oliver, 1983; NRC, 1996), and that programs should include the support and active participation of principals (Ansari, 1978; Evans, 1986; Hall & Hord, 1987; Lumpe et al., 1999; Mitchell, 1978; NRC, 1996; Prather, 1993a; Purifoy, 1981; Timms, 1975). Improving teachers' self-confidence in science teaching (Bonnstetter & Yager, 1985; Evans, 1986; Henry, 1947) and providing participation incentives (Evans, 1986; Prather, 1993a) are other important components of effective inservice programs that were uncovered by researchers. In addition, research has shown that in order for an elementary science teacher inservice progra m to be successful, it should lead to changed teaching behavior in the majority of elementary science teachers so that their instructional strategies more closely parallel those of elementary teachers in exemplary programs (Bonnstetter & Yager, 1985; Evans, 1986; Pratt, 1981; Yager, 1992).

Further Research Endeavors

Although a broad literature review was conducted, little was discovered to have been written on guidelines specific for elementary science teachers. Using the limited resources available and expanding the search to include generic inservice characteristics may have caused the inclusion of items that may not be necessary for an effective elementary science teacher inservice program, or more importantly, may not have allowed for the identification of additional key guidelines. Just as effective elementary science education inservice programs need to be consistently and continually evaluated for their effectiveness, so too should the guidelines. Further research is needed to review comprehensive, long-term elementary science teacher enhancement programs and to review programs that are designed to follow the guidelines (including the National Science Education Professional Development Standards [NRC, 1996]).

Table 1

Guidelines for Elementary Science Teacher Inservice

Guidelines for Inservice Planning

1. collaborative effort
2. well-planned
3. needs assessed
4. clear goals and objectives
5. ongoing and developmental
6. incentives provided
7. principal involved
8. school-based
9. complex and ambitious
10. comprehensive evaluation plan

Guidelines for Inservice Instruction

11. provide variety of instructional strategies and model good teaching
practices
12. facilitate skill enhancement and acquisition
13. allow for teacher choices
14. use adult learning strategies

Guidelines for Inservice Follow-up

15. provide school-based support
16. provide continuous support

Guidelines Related to Inservice Outcomes

17. change teacher behavior
18. build teacher self-confidence

Manuscript accepted January 24, 2001.

Bibliography

Ansari, S. I. K. (1978). An analysis of the perceptions and attitudes of teachers, principals, and administrators, regarding the effectiveness of inservice education programs, in grades K-6, in five selected county school systems in the state of Tennessee (Doctoral Dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 4610A-4611A. (University Microfilms No. 7902486, 101)

Bethel, L. J. (1989). Science teacher preparation and professional development. In D. Holdzkom & P. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: A research guided response to the concerns of educators (pp. 143-157). Washington, DC: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc., National Institute of Education, and National Science Teachers Association.

Bonnstetter, R. J., Penick, J. E., & Yager, R. E. (1983). Teachers in exemplary programs: How do they compare. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Bonnstetter, R. J., & Yager, R. E. (1985, May). What research says: A profile of excellence: Teachers of exemplary programs in elementary science. Science and Children, 22, 4546.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Calabrese, R. L. (1989). The principal's role in community building through staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 10(1), 18-21.

Carleton, R. (1961). Editorial. The Science Teacher, 28(7), 4.

Craig, G. S. (1932). The program of science in the elementary school. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The thirty-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: A program for teaching science (pp. 133-162). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.

Crawley, F. E. (1987). The continuing education of science teachers: An essential ingredient in educational reform. In J. P. Barufaldi (Ed.), Improving preservice/inservice science teacher education: Future perspectives (pp. 131-160). Columbus, OH: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science and SMEAC Information Reference Center.

Curtis, F. D. (1932). Some contributions of educational research to the solution of teaching problems in science classrooms. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The thirty-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: A program for teaching science (pp. 77-90). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.

Dass, P. D. (1999). Evaluation of a district-wide inservice professional development program for teaching science: Challenges faced and lessons learned. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(4). Available online: <unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev4n4.html>.

Dawani, K. S. (1972). A study of the cooperative development of an in-service education program for the Churchill Area School District (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 6763A-6764A. (University Microfilms No. 73-13, 231, 113)

Driver, R., & Qldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 23, 105-122.

Ellis, B. J. (1975). A study of in-service education programs in the New Hampshire Public Schools (Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University School of Education, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 5718A.

Evans, T. P. (1986). Guidelines for effective science teacher inservice education programs: Perspectives from research. In B. S. Spector (Ed.), A guide to inservice science teacher education: Research into practice (pp. 13-56). Columbus, OH: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science and SMEAC Information Reference Center.

Fraser-Abder, P. (1992). How can teacher education change the downhill trend of science education? of Science Teacher Education, 3(1), 21-26

Hall, G. E. (1992). The local educational change process and policy implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 877-904.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: SUNY Press.

Haney, J. J., & Journal A. T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers' needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 187-196.

Henry, N. B. (Ed.). (1947). The forty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Science education in American schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (1997). Empowering science teachers: A model for professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 167-182.

Hussey, N. L. (1989). The elementary principal as manager and facilitator. Journal of Staff Development, 10(1), 22-25.

Hutson, H. M. (1981). Inservice best practices: The learning of general education. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 14(3), 1-10.

Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on training. Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

King, J. C., Hayes, P. C., & Newman, I. (1977). Some requirements for successful inservice education. Phi Delta Kappan, 58(9), 686-687.

Lacey, A. L. (1966). Guide to science teaching for secondary schools. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Luke, R. A. (1980). Teacher-centered in-service education: Planning and products. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1999). Supporting the implementation of inquiry-based elementary science programs: Setting the stage for local reform. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Available online: <unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ ejsev3n4.html>.

Marcuccio, P. (1987, January). Forty-five years of elementary school science: A guided tour. Science and Children, 24, 12-14.

Mechling, K. R., & Oliver, D. L. (1983). What research says about elementary school science. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Mitchell, E. R. (1978). A comparison of two approaches to inservice training and subsequent teaching behavior and attitudes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 806A. (University Microfilms No. 7917387, 107)

Moore, J. R. (1988). Guidelines concerning adult learning. Journal of Staff Development, 9(3), 2-5.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neatherly, M. F., Glynn, J., & Long, K. (1998). Professional development for elementary teachers: A collaborative effort involving a university, a forest learning center, industry, and state agencies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(4). Available online: <unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejsev2n4.html>.

O'Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 422-426.

Orlich, D. C. (1986). A paradigm for staff development planning. In B. S. Spector (Ed.), A guide to inservice science teacher education: Research into practice (pp. 73-93). Columbus, OH: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science and SMEAC Information Reference Center.

Prather, J. P. (1993a). A model for inservice science teachers' enhancement through collaboration of rural elementary schools and universities. In P. A. Rubba, L. M. Campbell, & T. M. Dana (Eds.), Excellence in educating teachers of science (pp. 131-150). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Prather, J. P. (1993b). Reform revisited: The trend toward constructivist learning. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 52-70.

Pratt, H. (1981). Science education in the elementary school. In N. C. Harms & R. E. Yager (Eds.), What research says to the science teacher (pp. 73-93). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Purifoy, T. J. (1981). In-service follow-up: Impact on the teaching behavior of the classroom teacher (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1980). Dissertation Abstract International, 41, 4684A. (University Microfilms No. 8109228, 152)

Ryan, R. L. (1987). The complete inservice staff development program. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schiller, B. T. (1979). Variables influencing the effectiveness of inservice education for educators (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 60A-61A. (University Microfilms No. 77-14, 752, 302)

Shroyer, M. G., Wright, E. L., & Ramey-Gassert, L. (1996). An innovative model for collaborative reform in elementary school science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3), 151-168.

Timms, A. F. (1975). An analysis of classroom teachers' translations of the ideas gained from in-service experiences into classroom procedures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 2151A-2152A. (University Microfilms No. 75-22, 469, 243)

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.

Underhill, O. E. (1941). The origins and development of elementary-school science. Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social studies education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilen, W. W., & Kindsvatter, R. (1978). Implications of research for effective inservice education. Austin: Austin Science Education Center, Texas University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 021 807)

Yager, R. E. (1992). Viewpoint: What we did not learn from the 60s about science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 905-910.

Zigarmi, P., Betz, L., & Jensen, D. (1977). Teachers' preferences in and perceptions of in-service education. Educational Leadership, 34(7), 545-551.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to

Beth Shiner Klein, Ed.D.

Assistant Professor of Science Education

State University of New York at Cortland

Department of Education

P.O. Box 2000

Cortland, NY 13045

[phone]

Fax: [phone]

[e-mail]