University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURED DIALOGUE GROUNDED IN
SOCIOCULTURALISM AS A TOOL TO FACILITATE PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT IN SECONDARY SCIENCE

by

Antoinette S. Linton

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2011

Copyright 2011 Antoinette S. Linton
ii
DEDICATION
For all the students I have had the honor to teach and the students I have yet to
teach. And to my colleagues whose hard work and professionalism make education a
profession.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the love, support and
encouragement I received from my friends and family. I do not have words to
adequately describe my deep gratitude for all they have provided me, though I hope to
show them in the years to come.
I have been transformed by the mentorship and friendship of Dr. Etta R. Hollins.
Her words, comments, and intentional pedagogy have not only shaped my personal
philosophy on education but have given me strength as a woman. She is an iconoclast
and I hope to one day receive a phone call or letter stating that I too have finally “got
it.”
Finally, to Dr. Linda Fisher, Dr. Reynaldo Baca, and Dr. Jamy Stillman I thank
you for facilitating the writing process and being stellar examples of people who have
dedication to students and to the profession. Your integrity and kindness helped make
USC a wonderful place.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii!

LIST OF TABLES vii!

LIST OF FIGURES viii!

ABSTRACT ix!

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK 1!
Background and Statement of the Problem 3!
Accountability and Assessment 4!
Curriculum 6!
Summary 8!
Purpose and Significance of the Study 11!
Exploratory Questions 15!
Conceptual Framework 15!
Professional Learning of Inservice Science Teachers 16!
A Sociocultural Approach to Communities of Practice 16!
Limitations 18!
Definitions 19!
Organization of the Study 21!

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23!
Documentation 24!
Literature Review 25!
Professional Development 26!
Coherence, Continuity, and Consistency of Professional Development 28!
A Sociocultural Approach to Making Sense of Professional Development 33!
A Theoretical Framework for Facilitating Professional Development 37!
Domain of Knowledge 38!
Practice 39!
Community 40!
Summary 41!

v
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 42!
Exploratory Questions 42!
Study Design 42!
Self-Study as an Approach to Research 44!
Facilitating Structured Dialogue 45!
Sample and Population 46!
Study Setting 47!
Data Collection 48!
Data Analysis 50!
Fracturing Data 51!
Generative Questions 51!
Coding Data 52!
Conceptual Density 53!
Validity and Reliability 53!

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 55!
Using the Structured Dialogue to Mediate Professional Development 56!
Semester II 63!
Semester III 66!
The Impact of Structured Dialogue: Did Focusing on Student Learning
Influence Pedagogical Practice? 70!
Semester I 71!
Semester II 72!
Semester III 73!
Impact on Student Learning 76!

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 79!
Reflections on the Findings from the Study 79!
Impact on Teacher Discourse 79!
Impact on Observed Teaching Practice 81!
Impact on Student Achievement 82!
Professional Development for Urban Student Learning 84!
Significance of the Findings 88!
The Structured Dialogue Process 91!
Facilitator’s Role (Assisted Mediation through Questioning) 92!
Deconstructing and Reconstructing Professional Development 94!
Implications for Practice 100!
Future Research 102!

REFERENCES 104

vi
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Planning and Reflection Job Aid 109!
APPENDIX B: Structured Dialogue Tool 111!
APPENDIX C: Formal Lab Report Rubric 113
vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester 62
Table 2 Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester II 63
Table 3 Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester III 68
Table 4: Pedagogical Practices Observed Over the 3 Semesters 76
Table 5: CST Department % Proficiencies in Science by Course 77

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Both domain knowledge and practice are situated and mutually
influenced within the social, intellectual, and organizational
variables of the community of practice

38
Figure 2: Teacher learning as supported through mediation of variables
of the community of practice

85

ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of professional development
characterized by teacher facilitated learning activities as a way to improve teaching
practices and learning outcomes. In this study, teachers were provided opportunities to
facilitate their own learning by investigating ways to consistently foster the desired
learning outcomes for urban students over the course of three semesters. During the
first semester, teachers focused on improving test scores and student motivation. By the
third semester, teachers opted to extend time for students to complete assignments, and
focused on sharing strategies that worked for students. Second, students of teachers
who participated in the study group format using the structured dialogue approach
demonstrated dramatic gains on the standardized content assessment in chemistry and
integrated coordinated science (ICS) over three years. In chemistry, the percent of
students scoring at far below basic decreased by 24%, and the percentage of students
who scored basic increased 21%. In ICS, the percentage of students that scored far
below basic decreased by 14% and the percent of students who scored basic increased
14%. The research findings suggest that using structured dialogue to facilitate teacher
discourse in a way that is conducive to establishing positive discourse about student
learning and rigorous pedagogy are key factors in improving teachers’ ability to foster
high academic outcomes from urban students.

1
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
In the United States, the education goal is to develop a scientifically literate
populace who can participate in both the economic and democratic agendas of our
increasingly global market-focused, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) society (Duschl,2008). However, lagging science scores among incoming
undergraduates have presented new teaching challenges, sharpening the need to identify
effective education practices (Toksoz & Ham, 2011). For example, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (2009) released a report showing that only 21% of
U.S. high school seniors were proficient in grade-level science knowledge, indicating a
need for systematic collaboration and exchange of educational practices between the
university and public school science teachers to increase K-12 students’ knowledge and
skills of science before they enter a university. Researchers have advocated for science
education in schools as a major cultural imperative of our society (Duslch, 2008;
Toksor & Ham, 2011). New perspectives and understandings in teaching and learning,
and in empirical studies about knowledge and inquiry, illuminate the importance of
harmonizing conceptual, epistemological, and social learning goals in science education
(Duschl, 2008).
Growing evidence demonstrates that, among all education resources, teachers’
practice is the number one factor that influences teachers’ ability to facilitate student
learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hollins, 2011). Hollins (2011) describes teaching
practice as planning and re-enacting particular pedagogical approaches; then,
observing, interpreting and translating students’ responses to make adjustments that
2
improve subsequent opportunities for learning. If teachers are to provide effective
learning environments that support accessing and integrating science knowledge in
STEM societies, researchers suggest that teachers participate in rich processes that are
influenced by their experiences, culture, and existing understandings of the teaching
and learning processes (Cavagnetto, 2010; Hollins, 2011; Olsen &Sexton, 2009). By
participating in these rich teacher processes, teachers may shift their teaching from the
cookbook-style laboratories found in science classrooms that serve as verification of
facts rather than construction and critique of ideas (Cavagnetto, 2010). In this way,
teachers develop the ability to create learning experiences where using principles and
evidence to develop explanations that represent our best-reasoned beliefs about the
natural world is the norm (Duschl, 2008).
Research conducted on teaching and learning in science is limited. What is
known is that science teachers receive a variety of types of support and professional
development, but this generally falls short in facilitating the types of laboratory
environments where inquiry and critique of ideas is common (Cavagnetto, 2010).
However, some researchers have found that when teachers receive opportunities to
participate in professional development where planning, enacting, interpreting,
translating, planning, and (re)-enacting takes place, teachers are better able to support
academic achievement (Hollins, 2006, 2011). Structured dialogue developed by Hollins
(2006), grounded in sociocultural learning theory, was used in the present study to
improve student learning in science in an urban secondary school. This approach
engaged teachers in inquiry and critique of ideas in order to advance their
3
understanding of ways to actively engage students in constructing deep knowledge of
science linked to their everyday life experiences. This study has the potential to add to
research practices that support science teaching and professional development that will
enable teachers to prepare K-12 students to join the 21
st
-centrury STEM work force.
Background and Statement of the Problem
In recent years, there has been unprecedented public demand for and
professional interest in improving the quality of teaching and learning in American
schools. This has resulted in increased attention to annual student test results and a
focus on teacher qualifications (Silver, Mesa, Morris, Star, & Benken, 2009). Despite
current reforms designed to have an impact on local school and district policies and
practices, urban students and students of color are far more likely to have the least
qualified teachers and low levels of academic preparation in high school for STEM
majors in college (Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010). Urban education reform has addressed
school failure by implementing changes that affect accountability, assessment, and
curriculum (Kumashiro, 2008; Olsen, 2009; Ratvich, 2010; Stein, 2010). Millions of
dollars have been spent by districts implementing reforms in these areas with no
significant improvements in the academic science achievement of urban students. As a
result, science curriculum has focused on what one needs to know to do science instead
of investing in methods and materials that shift the focus of science education from
memorizing factual information to engaging in scientific inquiry as a way of
understanding (Duschl, 2008). The dominant format in curriculum materials and
pedagogical practices is to reveal, demonstrate, and reinforce through the use of
4
typically short investigations and lessons either (a) “what we know” as identified in
textbooks or by the authority of the teacher or (b) the general processes of science
without any meaningful connections to relevant contexts or the development of
conceptual knowledge (Duschl, 2008). Researchers have found that implementing
traditional science curriculum under current accountability and assessment reforms
leave high school students under-prepared for college and other skilled jobs in the work
force (Toksoz & Ham, 2011).
Accountability and Assessment
Hollins (2011) argued that quality teaching is maintained through integrity and
trustworthiness of pedagogical practices based on evidence from assessments of
students’ progress in relationship to expected learning outcomes (p. 21). She describes
integrity as the appropriateness of the pedagogical practices for particular learners, and
the strength of the theoretical perspective and philosophical stance in which it is
located. Trustworthiness exists when learners consistently achieve the expected
learning outcomes (p.21). Meaningful assessments are applied to ensure that students
develop deep understandings of discipline-specific knowledge and practices, which
they can apply to different scientific, socio-political situations, and to ensure that
teachers have important information on which to base interventions for supporting the
correction of misconceptions and misunderstandings (Hollins, 2011).
Hollins’ perspective on accountability and assessment can be applied to the
decisions made about pedagogical practices for science. Science involves questioning,
experimentation, prediction and argumentation, and using evidence to unify disparate
5
topics (Berkman & Plutzer, 2011; Cavagnetto, 2010; Duschl, 2008). Teachers can
measure the appropriateness of the pedagogical practices for science if it meets the
learning needs of students, creates a learning environment where students can develop
questioning, testing, predicting, argumentation and data analysis skills, is
developmentally appropriate and takes into account how students learn. In this way,
teachers are creating learning experiences that enhance the epistemological, social, and
conceptual needs of students (Duschl, 2008). The level of trustworthiness of these
pedagogical practices is achieved when learners consistently develop the knowledge
and skills needed to conceptualize and problem-solve meaningful scientific issues
found in their community and beyond. Meaningful assessments and laboratory
practicum are applied to ensure that students develop deep understandings of discipline-
specific knowledge and practices that students can apply to different scientific
situations.
The mandates for accountability and assessment at the state and school district
level in the present school reform initiated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is
different from that associated with the development of deep discipline-specific
knowledge and practices. NCLB requires every state to test students annually in grades
three through eight in reading and mathematics. Due to technological advances, many
states and districts have the capacity to attribute student test scores to specific teachers,
and many will use their information to hold teachers accountable for the rise or fall of
their students’ scores (Ratvich, 2010). It is reasoned that, with test scores, principals,
parents, districts and states can determine which teachers are effective and which
6
teachers are not. Schools can tell parents how their children are doing as compared to
others of their same age and grade. Assessments can inform teachers whether their
students understood what was taught. Assessments are also used to pinpoint, which
schools ought to be shut down and which teachers should be fired (Ravitch, 2010).
The intense pressure generated by data-driven accountability measures leads
many educators and school officials to boost scores by engaging in deceptive practices,
narrowing teacher pedagogy practice to test-taking strategies, and eliminating
curriculum in science. Most of the changes in school and classroom practices in
response to NCLB are based on an additive or transmission view of learning with an
emphasis on drill and practice for rote memorization of facts and details that can be
easily evaluated by standardized tests (Hollins, 2011). Implementing data-driven
accountability and assessment reforms has not fostered improvements for teaching and
learning, which is the primary goal of the reforms. Instead the pressure to increase test
scores has increased the incidences of deceptive practices and test preparation with the
impact of decreasing student access to education.
Curriculum
Curriculum has traditionally been viewed as the key policy indicator for
improving instruction and learning on a large scale. Yet, curriculum alone has been
shown to limit influence on teachers’ instructional practices (Ratvich, 2010). Science
education in the 1950s and 1960s was marked by top-down curriculums driven by
scientists’ perspectives of what one needs to know to do science (Duschl, 2008).
Historically, scientific teaching and inquiry was driven by practical concerns and
7
national security. Currently, scientific inquiry underpins the development of powerful
new technologies and addresses pressing social problems, such as finding clean
renewable energy sources, feeding an exploding world population through genetically
modified food technologies, and stem cell research to solve threatening diseases
(Duschl, 2008). The focus on high stakes testing has narrowed the curriculum
precipitously as teachers and schools face increasing pressure to raise scores in reading
and math, and to do so by reducing time for learning science or developing other
knowledge and skills. Many teachers feel that they are forced to teach to the test and
some are further constrained by scripted curriculum for such purposes (Kumashiro,
2008).
Districts spend millions of dollars making sure that teachers receive “research
based” curriculums that are “teacher proof” and, if implemented with fidelity, are
expected to increase student performance. By ignoring the factors that affect teaching
and learning, administrators and curriculum developers can reason that low student
science achievement lies in the capacity of the teacher to implement the curriculum
with fidelity, or the teachers’ inability to motivate students. Often, students and their
families are blamed for lower student performance when poverty and lack of
“readiness skills” are discussed in the literature (Bomer, Dworin, May & Semingson,
2008). This redirects the political and academic discussion of improving urban schools
from the complex processes of teaching and learning to the individual teachers, students
and specific curriculums (Cornbleth & Hollins,1996).
8
In order to enforce fidelity to the curriculum, professional development
activities focus on establishing adherence to reform curriculum and activities (Olsen,
2009). Traditional professional development is characterized by on-site, mandated, one-
shot lectures or presentations where teachers are introduced to the “right way” of
implementing activities and assessments. Teachers are not given opportunities to use
their scientific expertise or experience to sort out the proper trajectories, developmental
pathways, or learning progressions that support the growth of knowledge and
development of reasoning for their students (Duschl, 2008). Often, teachers are exposed
to the same “bad teaching” in the professional development activities that
administrators and districts are trying to avoid, adding a level of professional hypocrisy
to teacher learning opportunities.
Summary
The current policies are unlikely to increase student science achievement.
Indeed, much of what is implemented in schools will likely make teacher pedagogical
practice less effective and may further degrade the scientific capacity of our citizenry
(Ratvich, 2010). Despite the millions of dollars spent on developing tests and adopting
curriculum, urban students have not achieved substantial gains in science education. In
addition, educational researchers are not clear on how teachers can foster improvement
in student learning in this era of reform. This is partly due to the hypocrisy and
contradictory insistence on adherence to ineffective reforms that perpetuate low student
performance. This perspective is uncritical of the deconstruction of schools, mandated
curriculums and accountability measures, consequently ignoring teachers as
9
professionals who deserve substantive professional development opportunities located
in their schools and districts (Olsen, 2009) and students’ socio-historical and cultural
contextualization.
The direction of urban school reform provides evidence that policy makers and
school administrators give little attention to science education and professional
development provided specifically for science teachers. Rather, professional
development opportunities are used by school administration to bridge the gap between
urban school reforms and the implementation of the reforms on school campuses. A
few studies (Gallucci, Devoogt Van Lare, Yoon & Boatright, 2010; Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009; Olsen & Sexton, 2009) demonstrate how administrations, schools,
and outside experts construct learning experiences for teachers characterized by
standardized practice, implementation fidelity to research and curriculum, modeling
teaching strategies that are mandated and other traditional activities. Such studies report
that teachers are the problem with reform. Teachers’ lack of skills and understanding
are reasoned to hinder the implementation and success of “research based”
improvement measures. Consequently, administrators introduce “teacher proof”
curriculums into schools and facilitate professional development with the intention of
standardizing teacher practice as a way to improve teacher performance and student
learning outcomes.
Some teacher education scholars argue that it is this traditional outsider and top-
down perspective on school reform and professional development that conflict with the
improvement of teaching and learning. Teachers in urban schools who have the
10
professional capacity to solve their own pedagogical problems within a framework of
facilitated guidance and structured teacher processes are able to accommodate urban
school reform and thereby realize various complex organizational goals (Hollins, 2006;
Santagata, 2009). In Hollins’ (2006) study, teachers collaborated with one another
utilizing structured dialogue in a study group format grounded in a sociocultural
theoretical perspective to improve literary instruction in three urban Dayton, Ohio,
elementary schools. Structured dialogue in a study group format was introduced as a
discourse intervention for elementary teachers to focus their actions, curriculum, and
reflection on student performance. Weekly, teachers formed study groups to discuss
their challenges and successes with different pedagogical approaches they chose to
implement in the classroom. By investigating different approaches, teachers were able
to refine and invent practices to enhance learning and eliminate practices that were not
conducive to student performance. Over a course of two years, teachers were able to
improve day-to-day classroom practice and increase student performance in literacy by
1.5 grade levels.
The research above suggests that future studies focused on improving science
education through professional development would do well to focus on how teachers
can facilitate their own learning by incorporating guided and structured forms of
discourse and processes. This form of professional development would allow coherence
between the focus and goals of urban school instructional reforms and effective science
education pedagogical practices, while providing consistency in the professional
development activities teachers engage in. This could solve the problem of the one-shot
11
workshops that are characterized by traditional professional development where fidelity
to mandated curriculum and emphasis on teaching test-taking strategies are common
(Kumashiro, 2008; Olsen, 2009; Ratvich, 2010). Over time, teachers could
systematically address issues of student science knowledge proficiency and other
organizational goals that are mandated by district, state and federal level reforms,
bringing continuity between teacher activities and student learning.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The focus on reform in urban schools aimed at improving learning outcomes for
K-12 students has garnered attention in recent years. The resulting reform efforts have
presented different perspectives on accountability, assessment measures, curriculum,
and professional development. This study presents a perspective on inservice
professional development that frames science teaching and teacher processes within a
theoretical perspective of learning that mediates teacher activities using structured
dialogue in a study group format. This approach integrates teacher knowledge of
scientific content, the scientific process, students, curriculum, and instruction across
coherent and consistent professional development experiences that are embedded in
teacher practice. Teachers mediate the goals of instruction reform with increasing
science achievement for urban students, thus improving their ability to use knowledge
of science, curriculum, instruction, human development, and reform mandates to
increase science achievement for urban students.
Traditional professional development has been characterized by one-shot
workshops focused on macro-policy standardization, conformity, and high stakes
12
testing and ignores teachers’ domain-specific training and skills as scientists and
educators (Olsen, 2009). Researchers have noted efforts to address this issue that
include summer research opportunities for science teachers, refresher courses in science
content, introducing “teaching experts” to work one-on-one with teachers over long
periods of time, focusing professional development on research-based practices, and
familiarizing teachers with reforms, standardized curriculums, and strategies that are
reported to increase student outcomes (Craig, 2009; Domitrovich, Gest, Gill, Bierman,
Welsh & Jones, 2009; Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). Proponents of these
interventions view teachers as agents of curriculum and reform-implementers rather
than experienced professionals with understandings of science, curriculum, students,
instruction, and pedagogical practices.
The approach in the present research is founded on the premise that teacher
knowledge of practice is culturally, socially, and historically constructed (Packer &
Goicoechea, 2000). How teachers utilize knowledge is influenced by the local
community that shapes what teachers do when participating in practical problem
solving activities with colleagues that contributes to a dynamic domain of knowledge
that is greater than the sum of individual experiences (Kroll, 2005). Over time, teacher
knowledge is constructed and reconstructed as teachers participate in mediated
discourse in a study group format focused on improving student science achievement.
This approach to professional development is significantly different from traditional
teacher inservice activities that emphasize conformity and standardization.
13
The purpose of this study was to connect aspects of the sociocultural
perspective—a subject that is rarely seen in the professional development literature—to
a structured teacher discourse intervention, structured dialogue. In addition, this
research describes how structured dialogue in a study group format can scaffold teacher
processes and habits of mind, leading to the transformation of practice. The teacher
collaboration, planning, and reflective activities are mediated through this discourse
strategy for teachers to focus conversations and teaching experiences on student science
achievement and are intended to improve teacher pedagogical practices and support
teachers in meeting the aims of school reform as well as the national STEM initiatives.
The content of the professional development in the urban secondary science department
fosters collaboration and pedagogical problem solving to increase students’
understanding of science and improve student academic performance. Duschl (2008)
has characterized science education as typically focusing on developing factual
knowledge with little to no emphasis on the process of developing, refining, and
constructing scientific knowledge. This approach to science education has resulted in
incoherent, cursory, and repetitive science curriculum and instruction that makes little
or no connection to the scientific problems found outside of school and pays little
attention to explanation, justification, or the development of meaning (Silver et al.,
2009). Such pedagogy is at odds with current conceptualization of how people learn
best in science when the goal is developing understanding and scientific literacy.
In an effort to increase the occurrence of investigation, explanation, and
argumentation in science teaching and learning, teachers in the urban secondary science
14
department were placed in study groups and were provided a setting in which they
explained and justified their use of pedagogical strategies. During their study group
meetings teachers interpreted and translated the strategies used in their classroom
teaching. This approach to science education is significant when looking at student
proficiency rates in the United States. Currently, one year of high school science will be
the only laboratory experience for 21% to 25% of high school graduates, with the
majority of the remaining students taking at least one life science course and one
physical science course (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Many students
are not afforded a sound science education, which is problematic in a democracy
dependent on meaningful input on highly technical issues in public policies (Berkman
& Plutzer, 2011). This leaves a large segment of students without the option to pursue
science and technology careers. Thus, understanding how to improve the practice of
science and science education is important to the development of a scientifically literate
and proficient populace.
The knowledge gained from this study – how the use of structured dialogue
grounded in a sociocultural perspective in an urban secondary school might influence
the quality of conversation, collaboration, practice and reflection among science
teachers—has the potential to inform and influence how professional development is
delivered for STEM teachers. This research contributes information for teacher
educators in charge of developing and facilitating professional development for science
teachers within urban schools as well as university. Recommendations based on
findings from this study illuminate the value of teaching and learning in science and
15
science education, which traditionally values research productivity, memorization of
facts and transference of knowledge (Toksoz & Ham, 2011).
Exploratory Questions
Overarching research question: How does the use of structured dialogue in a
study group format, grounded in a sociocultural theoretical perspective, impact teaching
practice and student learning in an urban secondary school?
1. What impact did the use of structured dialogue have on teachers’ discourse
concerning pedagogy and student learning outcomes?
2. To what extent and how did this form of professional development influence
science teaching practices?
3. To what extent and how did this form of professional development influence
teachers’ ability to improve student-learning outcomes?
Conceptual Framework
The structured dialogue approach used in this study is grounded in a
sociocultural theoretical perspective. Further, this theoretical perspective is used in this
study to interpret, guide and facilitate meaningful discourse among teacher participants
in the study. Hollins (2011) presented key elements of an approach to facilitate teacher
learning which included the following: (a) coherence, consistency, and continuity in
professional development experiences aimed at improving the learning opportunities of
urban students, and (b) a theoretical perspective for professional development as an
essential tool for designing approaches and intervention for groups of teachers that
support a process that is developmental and cumulative (Hollins, 2011). Lave and
16
Wenger (1991) contended that communities of practice are critical elements of learning
and includes individuals and assorted others, such as students and fellow teachers.
When Hollins’ (2011) key elements of professional development, grounded in
sociocultural learning theory, are combined with Wenger’s approach to communities of
practice it provides a conceptual framework that can be used to improve teacher
practice through professional development.
Professional Learning of Inservice Science Teachers
There is a growing body of research that indicates the importance of connecting
issues concerning conditions for improving student learning, the classroom context, and
the mandates of school, district, and state initiatives with the activities of professional
development. Hollins (2011) argued that professional development needs coherence,
consistency, and continuity over time to be effective in developing teachers’ ability to
improve student-learning outcomes.
A Sociocultural Approach to Communities of Practice
Brock, Moore, and Parks (2007) assert that sociocultural learning theory
grounds issues pertaining to learning within the context of social, historical, and
cultural learning experiences of teachers. It highlights the central role that meaningful
language-based social interactions with others play in shaping human cognition (p.
899). Wenger (2007) presented a way to understand the social and cognitive outcomes
of sharing and connecting what is learned through teacher practice compared with other
teachers’ experiences within another process of interpreting, translating and enacting
within the community of practice. In these group experiences, science teachers co-
17
construct their understandings and experiences with others including the facilitator.
Teachers work together to develop knowledge that is greater than the sum of individual
knowing. Wenger (2007) describes this cumulative knowing as domain knowledge that
defines the group’s identity and presents suitable direction for the problems the group
wishes to solve. Practice results from the effective use of domain knowledge and is
dependent on the possession of socioculturally derived knowledge pertaining to a
particular problem or focus (Smith, 2003). Participation within the community of
practice implies a social and organizational context that influences the domain
knowledge and practice the group creates.
The present study combined Wenger’s (2007) approach to forming communities
of practice with Hollins’ (2011) key elements of professional development to provide a
theoretical framework that can be used to facilitate and interpret science teacher
professional development. Effective professional development involves coherence,
consistency, and continuity over time in order to develop teachers’ ability to improve
student-learning outcomes. Coherent, consistent, and continuous science teacher
professional development is achieved by (a) placing teachers in small groups that, (b)
utilize knowledge of students, pedagogy and the discipline, (c) with time to plan, enact,
interpret, translate and (re)-enact, (d) for subsequent opportunities for learning (Hollins,
2006, 2011). A community of practice is formed when teachers co-construct knowledge
from sharing what is learned through teacher practice with other teachers. Domain
knowledge results from accumulating knowledge of students, pedagogy, and the
discipline and using this knowledge to solve pedagogical problems within the science
18
department. Knowledge of practice results from the effective use of domain knowledge
and is dependent on the possession of socioculturally derived knowledge pertaining to
situations urban science teachers face (Smith, 2003).
In sum, the current study was guided by this perspective of socioculturalism in
an attempt to provide a learning environment for science teachers in a failing secondary
urban school. Researchers suggest that teachers who are engaged in rich processes that
are influenced by their experiences, culture, and existing understandings of teaching
and learning are better able to increase science achievement for students (Cavagnetto,
2010; Hollins, 2006; Olsen, 2009). Grounding secondary science teacher professional
development in sociocultural theory provided a holistic approach to creating learning
experiences for teachers that allowed coherence between the focus of increasing science
proficiency for urban secondary students and urban school instructional reform. This
type of professional development is in contrast to the one-shot workshops that
characterize traditional professional development where fidelity to mandated
curriculum and emphasis on teaching test-taking strategies are common (Kumashiro,
2008; Olsen, 2009; Ratvich, 2010). Over time, teachers were able to systematically
address issues of science knowledge proficiency and instructional reform, bringing
continuity between teachers practice and the reform.
Limitations
The prominent limitation was the length of time given for this investigation. In
the short period of three semesters, teachers had to adjust to the structure of the
professional development design. The level of teacher engagement within the structure
19
dialogue process varied as teachers participated in professional development over time.
Another limitation was the constraint on generalizability of the findings.
Generalizability can be defined as the ability of a model to provide accurate predictions
in a different sample of individuals. In this case, generalizability to larger populations
would be difficult, considering the unique experiential background of the teachers of
the science department as well as the core subject matter courses that they teach. What
this study illuminates is the process of using an epistemic practice to facilitate
professional development in a failing urban secondary science department.
Finally, the department members do not represent the traditional cultural and
linguistic backgrounds of individuals who enter into the teaching profession. Typically,
the teaching force is overwhelmingly monolingual, middle-class, White and female
(Brock, Moore & Parks, 2007; Obidah & Howard, 2005). The teachers within the
department came from a wide range of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds. The
countries represented in the department included Syria, Belize, India, Nigeria, Ethiopia
and the United States.
Definitions
Coherence
The interrelatedness of the focus and experiences of professional development
across activities (Birman, Desimone, Porter & Garet, 2000; Hollins & Khine, 2011).
20
Communities of Practice
A group of experienced teachers who make a concerted effort to collect and
document the strategies and lessons they have learned into an agreed upon knowledge
base and share their knowledge to meet a common goal (Wenger, 2007)
Consistency
A property of professional development that results when teacher work is
unhurried and the process of using and presenting materials is the same across
experiences (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999; Hollins, 2011).
Continuity
A property of professional development that results when teacher activities are
related to the goal of improving student performance, in a continuous and uninterrupted
way (Hollins, 2011).
Domain Knowledge
The accumulated knowledge of a group of teachers that results from focusing on
topics, problems of practice, and teaching and learning issues that are important to the
group (Hollins, 2006; Wenger, 2007).
Practice
The effective interpretation, translation and enactment of content knowledge
and pedagogy as teachers interact with students, other teachers, and personnel in the
organizational setting (Hollins, 2011; Wenger, 2004).
Professional Development
The learning experiences that are put into place to foster teachers’ ability to
improve the academic achievement of students (Wilson & Berne,1999).
21
Self-Study
The intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own thinking and actions
where the researcher provides evidence of reframing and transforming one’s practice
(Loughran, 2007), seeks alternative perspectives to minimize self-justification
(Dinkleman, 2003), displays competent use of multiple methods of investigation
(Loughran, 2007), and formalizes the work so that it is available to the professional
community (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Hamel & Merz, 2005)
Structured dialogue
An intervention tool introduced by Hollins (2006) where teachers use a
systematic problem-solving approach in which they identify challenges, select
approaches to meet the challenges, implement the approach, evaluate the approach and
then formulate a theory for future practice based on their experiences.
Teaching Practice
The process where teachers engage in planning, enacting, interpreting, translating,
planning, and re-enacting as they collaborate to meet the goal of improving student
performance (Hollins, 2011).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presented the introduction, illustrated the statement of the
problem, the background, the purpose and significance of the study, exploratory
questions that were answered, the conceptual framework, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature, which defines and characterizes
professional development, common features of effective professional development, and
22
elaborates on Hollins (2011) key elements of professional development grounded in
sociocultural learning theory. This perspective is further deconstructed with Wenger’s
(2007) perspective of communities of practice and applied to the study group format of
professional development used in the urban science department presented in this study.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the reasons for
conducting a self-study, data sources, and data analysis procedures. In addition, the
relevant background of the teachers, students, and school community are presented.
Chapter 4 presents the findings from the urban secondary science department as
teachers were engaged in the structured dialogue process.
Chapter 5 displays the analysis and discussion, conclusions, significance of the
findings, implications for practice and as well as suggestions for future research.
23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Significant investments have been made in educational initiatives focused on
improving teacher quality through professional development (York-Barr & Duke,
2004). Reforms for improving urban schools focus on implementing common
curriculums, and increasing the budgets for professional development focused on
improving teaching practices with the support of coaches and teacher experts (Gersten,
Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim & Santoro, 2010; Haycock, 1998; Ravitch, 2010). However,
these approaches have not provided direction for making sense of effective professional
development that can facilitate teachers’ abilities to improve the academic achievement
for urban students (Hollins, 2011). The efforts to reform urban education have rarely
encompassed the need for a theoretical perspective for facilitating professional
development although research on effective professional development clearly grounds
the experiences in a conceptual framework (Brock, 2007; Hollins 2006, 2011; Wenger,
2007). In the examples provided in the literature, the conceptual framework is used to
ground issues pertaining to learning in social, cultural and historical context, to design
experiences for preservice teachers that cultivate particular habits of mind that structure
pedagogical decisions, and to explore the ways that individuals work together in small
communities of practice to negotiate understanding while participating in meaningful
work. The purpose of this literature review is to present an argument for the grounding
of professional development in a theoretical perspective. This argument is based on the
premise that (a) coherence, consistency, and continuity of professional development
experiences are necessary for supporting a process for improving the learning
24
opportunities of urban students and (b) a theoretical perspective for professional
development as an essential tool for designing approaches and intervention for groups
of teachers that support a process that is developmental and cumulative (Hollins, 2011).
Documentation
This review of the literature focused on empirical studies of professional
development of teachers with an emphasis on specific variables that support
collaboration, learning, and inquiry for teachers. This literature review takes into
consideration that traditional approaches to professional development are frequently
viewed as ineffective and time consuming, and there is little evidence that these
practices improve teacher performance and student learning outcomes in urban schools.
Therefore, it seemed logical to delve deeper into relevant research to investigate the
characteristics of effective professional development.
Keeping characteristics of effective professional development in mind, it
became important to understand how teacher educators facilitated teacher development
within an urban school context. In identifying the studies for review, initial descriptors
such as professional development, Department Chair, teacher learning and reflection
were used to search three databases; ERIC, JSTOR, and SAGE Abstracts. Also, a
computer search of the last five years of the Journal of Teacher Education and
Teaching and Teacher Education, and a two-year hand search of Science was
conducted.
The criteria for including studies in the initial review were (a) published
between 2000-2009 in a refereed journal; (b) content specific to inservice teacher
25
professional development; (c) conducted within the United States; and (d) provided
evidence of teacher learning activities and staff development that resulted in teachers
extending or constructing new knowledge, improvements in teacher pedagogical
practice, and practices linked to improved student performance (Cochran-Smith, 1999;
Wilson, 1999). The results of the search produced one study that met all four criteria
and nine other studies that met one to three criteria. This small body of work represents
the relevant research concerning the variety of types of support and alternative forms of
professional development that resulted in improved teacher pedagogical practices and
student performance.
Literature Review
Teachers receive a variety of types of support and professional development, but
this generally falls short in facilitating teachers’ ability to foster high academic
outcomes for students (Jay & Johnson, 2000; Ward & McCotter, 2004). For example,
using the California Basic Educational Data System, Shields (1999) reported that
California teachers received approximately three and a half weeks of professional
development days throughout the school year. However, one out of five teachers
believed that the professional development they received was a waste of time and only
one half received new information from the training sessions. Many educators have
embraced the calls for a wholesale rejection of traditional professional development and
replacing it with innovative teacher activities that foster teachers’ ability to facilitate
improved academic performance for students (Wilson, 1999).
26
Based on the research, professional development needs coherence, consistency,
and continuity over time to be effective (Hollins, 2011). Coherence refers to the
interrelatedness of the focus and experiences of professional development across
activities. Continuity indicates that the relationship among focus and experiences is
continuous and uninterrupted. Consistency means presenting the focus and experiences
in alignment and without contradictions with the local school, district and state policies
that affect teacher practice (Hollins, 2011). These elements of effective professional
development provide the innovative experiences that teachers desire to increase their
ability to improve student performance.
Professional Development
Professional development for inservice teachers can be described as the learning
experiences that are put into place to foster teachers’ ability to improve the academic
performance for students (Wilson, 1999). Teacher facilitated professional development
grounded in a theoretical perspective is a promising reform for facilitating teachers’
ability to improve student learning outcomes, but as of yet is under-researched
(Gallucci, 2010). In practice, traditional professional development consists of outside
experts with little knowledge of local conditions that present irrelevant prepackaged
information that may not be relevant to the challenges teachers face in the classroom
(Wilson, 1999). Traditional professional development supports scripted curriculums
which require textbooks, worksheets, teacher guides, and other materials to be
purchased by schools and districts (Kumashiro, 2008). By scripting what to teach and
defining only certain methods to be “research-based,” outside “experts” can privilege
27
certain knowledge, skills, and perspectives, particularly that of those groups that are
defining the learning outcomes for teachers (Kumashiro, 2008). Wilson et al. (1999) in
a literature review on effective professional development noted a number of challenges
faced by facilitators and developers of teacher learning activities. The literature
reported that (a) teachers loathe to participate in anything that smacks of 1-day
workshops offered by outside “experts” who may be unfamiliar with the particular and
specific contexts of a given school; (b) there is little research about the specific details
in systematically constructing alternative professional development, such as study
groups; (c) conducting research on alternative professional development is complicated,
and the research base from which one can draw varies considerably; (d) teachers come
with pre-determined ideas about what kinds of knowledge will be most helpful and
relevant to their concerns and (e) there is a constant on-going negotiation between
facilitators and teachers about the content, purpose control and discourse style of
professional development. These factors help contribute to the sparse amount of
literature on effective professional development for inservice secondary teachers.
Despite the lack of substantial research, many educators still feel that
professional development is important for professional growth (Wilson, 1999). Hollins
(2006) found that teachers who engaged in structured dialogue describe it as a powerful
instrument for empowering teachers in urban schools to plan, implement, and monitor
their own professional development. For the purpose of this study, professional
development is delivered through a study group format grounded in a theoretical
perspective on learning. This form of alternative professional development is mediated
28
through structured dialogue, a discourse intervention for teachers that focuses
conversations and teaching experiences on student learning, and is intended to support
teachers in meeting the aims of school or district-based instructional reform (Gallucci,
et. al., 2010; Hollins, 2006). Descriptive literature suggest that successful professional
development provides teachers with opportunities to (a) collaborate with colleagues
where they collectively reflect on student learning and apply new habits of mind during
guided reflective activities (Cochran-Smith, 1999; Hollins, 2006; Wilson, 1999); (b)
share, create, and refine domains of knowledge, which enables teachers to explain and
understand educational phenomena as well as to identify complex interrelations within
it (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Eilam & Poyas, 2006); and (c) invest time to
investigate approaches to solving problems of pedagogical practice, student learning,
learning outcomes, and opportunities to come together and refine practice (Cochran-
smith, 1999; Hollins, 2006). Professional development that encompasses these factors
has the potential to offer meaningful intellectual, social, and emotional engagement
with ideas, materials, and colleagues both within and outside of teaching (Little, 1993).
Coherence, Continuity, and Consistency of Professional Development
Acknowledging the limited body of research on implementing successful
professional development, this research does provide guidance about how to facilitate
teacher learning in an era of reform. For example, researchers have suggested that
professional development possess coherency and be coupled with consistency over time
in order to sustain teacher learning (Hollins, 2006; Birman et al., 2000; Cochran-Smith,
1999). A recent chapter by Hollins (2011) on constructing an effective preservice
29
program describes coherence, continuity, and consistency as important factors for
developing habits of mind of preservice teachers. Hollins’ guide for building a
preservice program can help illuminate ways to improve professional development and
facilitate the learning of inservice teachers.
The interrelatedness of the experiences planned for teachers with the goals and
themes of professional development are referred to as coherence (Hollins, 2011). The
purpose of coherence is to give teachers the opportunities to think about, discuss, plan
and make sense of day-to-day activities as related to a focus on increasing student
academic performance. It is hypothesized that the time spent together collaboratively
planning, reflecting and implementing practices in classrooms better prepares teachers
to face and overcome professional issues and challenges while providing them with a
network of peers to build a professional community (Neuman, 2009). Teachers
construct deeper knowledge when engaged in activities that are similar to the day-to-
day activities required in professional practice. When professional development is
coherent, it better prepares teachers to become facilitators and guides when engaged in
real-time classroom practice (Wilson, 1999).
The interrelatedness of the themes and experiences that Hollins (2011)
presented have been incorporated in this study as a teacher process embedded within
departmental professional development and is particularly evident in the process
Hollins refers to as structured dialogue. In this example, structured dialogue includes
teachers coming together to discuss the challenges, successes, and evidence that support
the implementation, alteration, or rejection of pedagogical strategies while being
30
mediated by a fellow teacher. During the structured dialogue process, teachers share
their experiences and insights and receive reactions and feedback from their peers and
facilitators. By participating in the process, teachers develop new understandings that
shape the collective knowledge of the group and affect the dynamics of the
departmental meetings, including the actions of the facilitator (Kroll, 2005). This
process of developing collective knowledge by a group is documented and described by
Kroll (2005) in her self-study of the use of inquiry to understand and improve
preservice-teacher practice. Kroll found in her seminars that what the preservice
teachers did together in structured activities seemed to represent knowledge that was
greater than the sum of its parts and thus greater than what teachers were able to do
alone (p. 182). This sharing among participants contributes to collective and individual
transformation in thinking and habits of mind (Hollins, 2011). The conclusions from the
departmental discussions are implemented in individual classrooms and reflected on for
further inquiry.
In the present study, structured dialogue during the departmental meetings
focused on improving student academic performance. Discussion concerning student
performance may include discourse about factors that influence student performance,
such as the social context within and outside of school, making curriculum content
meaningful and accessible to students with different experiential backgrounds and
learning propensities, and understanding the meaning and use of pedagogical
approaches that facilitate learning for particular students (Hollins, 2011). Thus, by
making professional development activities coherent, one allows for many kinds of
31
connectedness, encompassing a logical structure to experiences of professional
development through structured dialogue, but also leaving room for teachers’ ideas and
feelings, conflicts and tensions and creativity (Buchmann & Floden, 1992).
Professional development coherence is found where teachers can discover and establish
relations among various areas of knowledge and skill, yet where questions and
problems still remain, inviting a rethinking of beliefs and ties to the unknown.
Continuity happens when teachers are allowed to focus on improving student
performance within activities that are interrelated to the goal in a continuous and
uninterrupted way (Hollins, 2011). Effective professional development is extensive,
intensive, and sustained to support the intended goal of improving student academic
performance. Gersten et al. (2010) found that institutions that could sustain continuity
of a teacher study group design to professional development activities showed
consistent effects on teaching practices. The researchers introduced a teacher study
group program to three districts in three different states to evaluate the program’s
impact on teacher knowledge of relevant research in comprehension and vocabulary
instruction, classroom applications of research-based strategies, and student reading
outcomes. Teachers in the teacher study group schools outperformed teachers in the
control schools on the teacher knowledge measure of vocabulary instruction.
Finally, consistency in professional development occurs when teacher work is
unhurried and the process and presentation of professional development and
professional development materials are the same across experiences (Cochran-Smith
and Lytle, 1999; Hollins, 2011). The purpose of consistency is to repair fragmentation
32
of the goals and activities of professional development that may exist (Buchmann &
Floden, 1992). This repairing and interrelatedness is accomplished by using simplified
processes and frameworks that (a) provide boundaries for participants and (b) the
freedom to explore complex teaching phenomena at a deeper level. Professional
development that is grounded in a theoretical framework and incorporates a framing
process for teachers’ experiences may best support the ability of teachers to apply
pedagogical knowledge in practice (Neuman, 2009). Duschl (2008) provides an
example of facilitating consistency in his literature review on the critical role that
epistemic understanding and scientific reasoning play in the development of science
proficiency. Duslch’s examination of how science teachers’ image of science presented
to students in school involved epistemic and social practices which facilitate (1)
building theories and models, (2) constructing arguments, and (3) using specialized
ways of talking, writing, and representing phenomena (p. 275). Theses epistemic and
social practices can help teachers to understand how professional development
facilitators can approach the process of teacher learning, in order to build consistency
within the experience. Facilitators can use specialized ways of talking, writing, and
representing educational phenomena to maintain consistency of teacher learning across
experiences. By structuring the discourse, teachers are enabled to address their own
professional development and to improve instruction for low-income, urban students
attending low-performing schools.
In summary, by providing coherence, continuity, and consistency to
professional development, facilitators can design experiences to address many of the
33
shortcomings of the less effective reform efforts that are currently available and widely
used forms of professional development such as workshops and summer institutes
(Gersten, 2010). In addition, facilitators address the “one-shot” approach to teacher
learning.
A Sociocultural Approach to Making Sense of Professional Development
Making sense of how teachers learn is at the heart of the argument for crafting a
theoretical perspective (Hollins, 2011). How we make sense of teacher learning
depends on the perspective employed (Hollins, 2011). For example, Windschitl, 2002,
argues that learning is shaped by micro- and macro-cultural influences and evolves
through increasing participation within different communities of practice. Lave and
Wenger (1991) contend that communities of practice are critical elements of learning.
Thus, learning not only involves the individual but others, such as students and fellow
teachers. Moreover, teacher learning emerges from a process of reshaping existing
knowledge, beliefs, and practices rather than simply imposing new theories, methods or
materials on teachers (Johnson & Golombek, 2003). Understanding and facilitating this
complex and multidimensional process of teacher learning requires the use of a
construct or tool for organizing and interpreting observations, and explaining and
predicting reactions and outcomes (Hollins, 2011). Johnson and Golombek (2003)
identified the sociocultural perspective on learning as a tool for research on teacher
learning. These authors identified internalization and transformation, the zone of
proximal development, and mediational means as elements that will “enable researchers
to trace the internal cognitive process of teacher learning” (p. 730). Understanding the
34
cognitive processes and social negotiation of teacher learning can be used to facilitate
professional development of teachers in order to improve the academic performance of
urban secondary students.
Wertsch, Del Rio & Alvarez (1995) pointed out that “the goal of a sociocultural
approach is to explicate the relationship between human mental functioning, on the one
hand, and the cultural, institutional, and historical situations in which this functioning
occurs, on the other hand” (p.3). This is particularly relevant given that teacher
pedagogical practices are influenced by their cultural, social, and cognitive histories
and their beliefs about what learners know and can do (Wertsch, Del Rio & Alvarez,
1995). The challenge for facilitators of professional development is to design mediated
action and tools that will result in “reshaping existing knowledge, beliefs, and practices
rather than simply imposing new theories, methods, or materials on teachers…”
(Johnson & Golombek, 2003, p. 730). The mediated action and tools need to focus
dialogue, experiences, and thinking among individuals in ways that transform existing
knowledge related to teaching and learning, and enable application of new
understanding (Hollins, 2011).
Wenger (2007) presents a way to understand the social and cognitive outcomes
of a group of individuals when they develop a unique community of practice. Here,
individuals come together to solve meaningful problems and transform their existing
knowledge related to teaching and learning, and enable application of new
understanding by participating in communities of practice (CoP). Wenger (2004) points
out that individuals are active participants in the practices of a social community, and in
35
the construction of their identity through these communities. In this context, a
community of practice is a group of individuals participating in communal activity, and
experiencing/continuously creating a shared identity through engaging in and
contributing to the practices of their community. He describes a sociocultural approach
to structuring a group of individuals that involved three characteristics, a domain of
knowledge, practice, and the notion of community. For the group, the domain of
knowledge creates common ground; inspires members to participate, guides their
learning and gives meaning to their actions (Wenger, White, Smith & Rowe, 2004).
The domain of knowledge for a CoP defines the group’s identity (Wenger, 2007). From
a sociocultural standpoint, individuals are allowed to self-determine the problems or
tasks they want to choose that relate to their domain. Ideally, the CoP develops suitable
criteria for the problems they wish to solve and the kinds of evidence of learning that
are presented (Windschitl, 2002).
Second, practice is the specific focus around which the community develops,
shares and maintains its core of knowledge (Wenger et al., 2004). Practice results from
the effective use of information within the domain of knowledge and is dependent on
the possession of socioculturally derived knowledge pertaining to a particular problem
or focus (Smith, 2003). Practice is situated in a social, intellectual, organizational
context that influences what teachers do. What is learned through socioculturally-based
problem solving is the effective accessing and use of domain knowledge that forms the
ideas, frames of reference and rules for the community (Smith, 2003; Wenger, 2004;
Windschitl, 2002).
36
Finally, the community is the social and organizational fabric in which practice
takes place. The community is the boundary within which the domain of knowledge is
created and can encompass the physical space in which teachers meet and the collective
cognitive space teachers create as they navigate school policies and practices. The
situated nature of teaching makes the construct of community useful for this study
(Gallucci et al., 2010). Participation within the community implies a social and
organizational context that influences the domain of knowledge and practice the group
creates. The knowledge needed to navigate the organization determines how practice
will be implemented. How teachers accommodate the variety of obligations, stresses
and strains of the school climate and classroom becomes part of the domain of
knowledge. As a result, domain knowledge and practice begin to influence one another
as teachers participate in the community of practice.
Wenger’s observations of the formation of communities of practice can be
applied to the facilitation of professional development through the use of structured
dialogue. Improving the academic performance of students can be viewed as the
domain of knowledge within which teachers can delineate challenges and identify
approaches for meeting those challenges (Hollins, 2006). In this way, teachers are
encouraged to self-determine the problems or task that relate to their domain, namely
improving student performance. Teachers develop a practice when they implement their
selected approaches and evaluate the implementation, and formulate theory to guide
future practices (Hollins, 2006). Practice then develops from the effective use of
information within a domain and is dependent on the socioculturally derived knowledge
37
of the teachers pertaining to a particular problem or focus (Smith, 2003). The social
activities of choosing problems and approaches to solving the problems, and returning
to report on the effectiveness of implementation allows individual teachers
opportunities to take ownership of the results of socially interacting around a problem
in the context of the individual teachers’ own work (Gallucci et al., 2010). The
knowledge constructed and shared creates the cognitive and social boundary for
community members and a domain of knowledge to take shape. Knowledge
constructed and shared by members of the community becomes potential resources for
continued cycles of professional development. Adapting Wenger’s concept of
community and Hollins’ structured dialogue process to show how teachers interact to
facilitate professional development derives a process of reshaping existing knowledge,
beliefs, and practices rather than simply imposing new theories, methods or materials
on teachers (Johnson & Golombek, 2003).
A Theoretical Framework for Facilitating Professional Development
When components of effective professional development are combined with
Wenger’s sociocultural approach to communities of practice (domain of knowledge,
practice, and community), it provides a theoretical framework that can be used for
facilitating and interpreting inservice teacher professional development. The basic
characteristics of effective professional development are a) small groups of teachers, b)
utilizing knowledge-in-practice, c) with time to meet and reflect, d) on student
academic performance has been shown to improve teacher pedagogical practice and
increase student performance (Hollins, 2006). This description of the components of
38
effective professional development can be used to guide the implementation of a
sociocultural theoretical approach to facilitating professional development.

Figure 1: Both domain knowledge and practice are situated and mutually influenced within the
social, intellectual, and organizational variables of the community of practice.
Domain of Knowledge
The first component of this framework is the domain of knowledge. In
Wenger’s description of community of practice, the domain of knowledge is the
accumulated and shared knowledge from focusing on topics important to the group.
However, the focus of the domain of knowledge developed is not emphasized. In
Hollins (2006) example of effective professional development, the focus is on
improving student academic performance. A focus on student performance guides
39
teachers’ actions and discourse. It is the common focus to which teachers create their
domain of knowledge
Practice
The second component in the framework for facilitating professional
development to foster teachers’ ability to improve student academic performance is the
effective implementation of content and pedagogy as teachers interact with students and
others in the organizational setting. Wenger (2004) defines practice as the result of the
effective use of information within the domain of knowledge. This includes planning
and discussing possible strategies to facilitate students learning, implementing a
strategy, sharing successful experiences and challenges that may have occurred.
Providing opportunities for teachers to plan and enact particular approaches and then,
observe, interpret and translate students’ responses to make adjustments that improve
subsequent learning opportunities can lead to the transformation of attitudes and beliefs
about the skills and knowledge needed to improve student performance (Hollins, 2011).
An important aspect of practice warrants particular attention: the way that teachers’
knowledge and experience are utilized during the planning and enacting process of
practice. In the science department that will be described in a later chapter, teachers are
organized into subject matter content area study groups. The research demonstrates
that, with carefully planned guidance, the discourse among teachers can improve from
negative comments about students’ academic abilities and teachers’ being powerless to
improve academic performance to sharing strategies that facilitate high academic
outcomes for students (Hollins, 2006). By allowing teachers time to dialogue about
40
their practice, pinpoint problems that are valuable to them, and having time to
collaboratively engage in focus inquiry on pedagogical approaches taken to solve
problems, teachers have an opportunity to enhance practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Hollins, 2006, 2011). Proving guided discourse and activities through
professional development experiences facilitates these teacher-learning opportunities.
Community
The third component of the framework for facilitating professional development
is the influence of community. Wenger (2007) describes community as being
comprised of individuals who make a concerted effort to collect and document the
strategies and lessons they have learned into an agreed upon knowledge base and share
their knowledge to meet a common goal. This formation of community depends on
effective guided discourse with an intentional focus on improving student performance.
For example, research indicates that teacher discourse can diminish into blaming poor
academic achievement on variables that are not under teacher control (i.e. poverty,
culture and parental involvement). However, Hollins (2006) provided evidence that
guiding discourse of teachers in a study group format grounded in sociocultural
learning theory can provide powerful professional development learning opportunities
that can facilitate domain knowledge and help improve teacher pedagogical practice.
This study provides an example of the application of this sociocultural theoretical
perspective based on Wenger’s (2007) community of practice and Hollins’ (2006)
structured dialogue process.
41
Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to present an argument for the
grounding of professional development in a theoretical perspective. Based on the
research, professional development needs coherence, consistency, and continuity over
time to be effective. To improve and enhance the ability to foster academic
achievement teachers need to be able to dialogue about their practice, pinpoint
problems of practice, and have time to collectively inquire and reflect on the
effectiveness of approaches taken to solve problems of practice.
In summary, understanding and facilitating this complex and multidimensional
process of teacher learning requires the use of a construct or tool for organizing and
interpreting observations and explaining and predicting reactions and outcomes
(Hollins, 2011). The sociocultural approach to interpreting and explaining teacher
reactions and outcomes is appropriate because it acknowledges the cultural, social and
cognitive histories of teachers as they work together to solve problems. According to
Hollins (2006), successful professional development is characterized by organizing
teachers in small groups, using teacher knowledge-in-practice, providing teachers time
to meet and engage in discourse, and focusing all actions on increasing student
academic achievement. Grounding these actions in Wenger’s sociocultural approach to
developing communities of practice—domain knowledge, practice, and community—
provides teachers with an innovative professional development process that can
cultivate teacher pedagogical practices and facilitate improvement in student
performance.
42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
A self-study approach was used to investigate structured dialogue grounded in
sociocultural learning theory as a tool to improve the quality of teacher practice. This
chapter includes the research questions and a description of the research methodology.
The latter includes the sampling procedure and population characteristics, methods and
protocol for data collection and analysis.
Exploratory Questions
Overarching research question: How does the use of structured dialogue in a
study group format, grounded in a sociocultural theoretical perspective, impact teaching
practice and student learning in an urban secondary school?
1. What impact did the use of structured dialogue have on teachers’ discourse
concerning pedagogy and student learning outcomes?
2. To what extent and how did this form of professional development influence
science teaching practices?
3. To what extent and how did this form of professional development influence
teachers’ ability to improve student-learning outcomes?
Study Design
To investigate the exploratory questions regarding science teacher learning and
professional development as mediated through structured dialogue, data were collected
from a three-semester self-study of an urban secondary science department located in
southern California. Data from three core discipline areas were collected for this
analysis. Integrated Coordinated Science (ICS) is an introductory general science
43
course for freshmen students who did not meet the math or English language
requirements to enter into biology courses as measured by eighth grade CST scores.
Biology is a life science course required for all students to graduate from high school
and enter into university study. Chemistry is a physical science offered in the
department that satisfies the high school physical science graduation requirement and is
the second in a three-science course requirement to enter into the state university
system. All teachers within the science department taught one or a combination of
these three courses.
According to a district mandate, all science teachers were required to participate
in monthly department meetings. Department chairs were required to facilitate the
department meetings, distribute periodic assessment materials and transmit district
information concerning instructional reform. In the spring of 2010 the department chair
initiated the use of structured dialogue as a discourse intervention to mediate district
mandated instructional reform and science subject area goals. Department meetings
were facilitated so that teachers within each core subject area had opportunities to plan
and enact particular pedagogical approaches; then individually, as well as
collaboratively, interpret and translate students’ responses to make adjustments that
improved subsequent opportunities for learning. The core subject area teachers also
decided on the time-line for implementing particular pedagogical practices and returned
to the next department meeting to discuss the effectiveness of their approaches.
Implementing structured dialogue, as a discourse intervention within the science
department was intended to focus teacher discourse and pedagogical practices on
44
student science learning. It also presented a forum to question ineffective processes that
teachers discovered through their practice.
Self-Study as an Approach to Research
This research is framed as a credible self-study, which is the intentional and
systematic inquiry into any activity in which one is a participant (Dinkleman, 2003;
Loughran, 2007; Milner, 2007). Loughran (2007) published an article that explored the
nature of self-study and presented an outline of four methodological features, which
included:
1. Requirement of evidence for reframing and transformation of practice;
2. Need for interactions with colleagues, students, and educational literature (and
the researcher’s previous work) to continually question developing
understandings in order to “interrogate assumptions and values”;
3. Competent use of multiple methods to provide opportunities to gain different,
and thus more comprehensive, perspectives on the educational processes under
investigation;
4. Demand that self-study work is formalized so that it is available to the
professional community for deliberation, further testing and judgment (pg. 16).
The current study investigated the impact of teachers’ pedagogical practices on student
science learning as evidenced by teacher reflective writing, plans, observation, and
student assessments.
A self-study approach to studying teacher pedagogical practices mediated
through the use of structured dialogue in a study group format was chosen because it
45
allowed for a close examination of departmental experiences pertaining to the struggles
and challenges of facilitating secondary science learning in an urban setting, while
participating in the self-examination of practice within the context of a community of
practice. Secondly, a self-study allowed the use of personal notes, plans, and reflections
about the process as a participant-observer (Kroll, 2005). As such, the duties of the
department chair (i.e. create agendas, facilitate department meetings, manage
pedagogical practice inquiry, and observation) became part of the study and not a
variable to control for (Kroll, 2005). Third, a self-study facilitated making this work
public and open for scrutiny and use by others (Shulman, 2000), thereby allowing it to
contribute to the understanding of structured dialogue in a study group format grounded
in sociocultural learning theory as an effective form of professional development in an
urban secondary school (Hollins, 2006; Kroll, 2005).
Facilitating Structured Dialogue
Facilitation of structured dialogue was a complex five-step recursive process
that entailed (a) a debrief of the focus strategy or approach teachers chose from the last
meeting, (b) discussion about the challenges and successes of the implementation of the
strategies and the evidence for student work samples that supported the discussion, (c)
open discussion about addressing a problem, (d) collaborative planning, and (e)
implementation and data collected on students. During the debriefing, the facilitator of
the department meeting reminded the group about the focus on student performance and
the strategies reported from the last meeting. The teachers answered questions about
their focus strategy and discussed what their successes and challenges were from the
46
previous month and shared with others important experiences and knowledge gained
between meetings. Next, open discussion about critical instructional concepts and
processes were facilitated in order to encourage teachers to share, add to, and critique
practice. If the teachers did not readily discuss the components of the pedagogies, the
facilitator used specific questions to scaffold the discussion towards these topics.
After the success and challenges of pedagogical strategies were discussed,
collaborative planning took place when teachers constructed strategies and lessons to
address students’ learning needs. Finally, teachers documented strategies and processes
for implementation for the next month. The department chair’s task was to check on the
progress of the reported strategies, offer support to teachers in anyway, answer
questions and collaboratively brainstorm ways to increase student learning. This
recursive process was applied to each department meeting with a focus on improving
the academic performance of urban students.
Sample and Population
The participants in this study were 17 secondary science teachers who were
contracted to work at a local area high school in southern California. All teachers were
fully credentialed to teach their respective subject matter courses. The department was
led by one of the biology teachers (the researcher) who was elected by the members of
the department. The department chair invited all 17-science teachers to participate in
the study. During the first semester of the school year, the department chair formally
requested permission to audio record the regularly scheduled department meetings.
Teachers responded to the request by indicating they were willing to be audio recorded.
47
The discourse data sources for the three-semester self-study came from the dialogue of
the 17 science teachers that were recorded during the meetings, minutes taken during
the meetings and department chair reflections from one-on-one interactions with
teachers.
Study Setting
The department is located within an urban high school in Southern California.
The school’s ethnic demographics have gradually shifted over the past decade. While
the decade of 1990-2000 reflected an overwhelming majority of African American
students (over 80%), the student population has stabilized in recent years to a 55%
African American and a 45% Latino. The Latino population primarily comes from
Mexico, with a significant percentage from a variety of Central American countries.
In recent years the school has experienced immense challenges. In the 2005-
2006 and 2006-2007 school years, the local area school did not meet the criteria for
their Academic Performance Index (API) score. Their API score dropped from 504 to
500. The target for that year was 515 out of a 1000 possible score as reported by the
California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division. As a result, the
district has recommended that the school dedicate its professional development
activities to data analysis and student performance and extend this focus to core subject
matter departments and Small Learning Communities or SLCs. Furthermore, the district
directed the school to create a plan that identified ways to enhance professional
development within the departments and SLCs and to set specific goals for the school
to implement.
48
The staff of the department consists of 17 certificated staff members who
interact with over 2000 students a day. The certificated staff includes nine biology
teachers, six chemistry teachers, and 2 physics teachers. Three individuals in the
department faculty are European American, six individuals are African American, two
individuals are Nigerian, one teacher is Ethiopian, one teacher is Belizean, one teacher
is Syrian, two teachers are Vietnamese, and one teacher is Indian. One hundred percent
of the faculty represents permanent contracted teachers and all possess special
credentials or certificates related to facilitating learning for students from diverse
linguistic and culture backgrounds. The core of the faculty has remained at the school
for the past four years with only the loss of two teachers and the gain of one to the
department.
The individuals within the department met together with the whole faculty once
a month on the first Tuesday of the month. The department met individually once a
month every third Tuesday of the month. Teachers met together in the department
chairs’ room and followed an agenda set by the department chair.
Data Collection
The data for this self-study included audio recordings of meetings with teachers,
observation field notes and teacher reports gathered from the structured dialogue tool
(Appendices A and B), department minutes, emails correspondences between the
department chair and the department members and student performance data. These
audio recordings included details of the department meetings and different approaches
to teacher practice. In addition, discourse about reflections and questions raised by the
49
facilitator and teachers concerning student academic achievement were included in the
audio recordings. During the transcription of the audio recording field notes were taken,
and these notes also formed part of the data set.
Classroom observations were conducted over a three semester time period. All
teachers were observed during science instruction, which typically ranged from 15 to
20 minutes. Teachers were informed that department chairs would be observing
teachers periodically throughout the year. Specifically, department chairs were
responsible for conducting three observations per month for a total of 30 observations
per school year. Teachers were informed that the results of the observations were not
reported to administration and that information gathered was intended to improve
teacher practice.
All teachers were observed for 15 to 20 minutes during science instruction.
While more frequent classroom observations would provide a much more precise
estimate of the nature of science instruction, the major goal was to collect evidence of
impact of keeping a focus and strategy in mind while enacting teacher pedagogical
practices.
The comments and pedagogical reflection taken on the structured dialogue tool
were collected, as well as observational field notes. Specifically, the section of the
dialogue tool on which teachers wrote their plan for the next month was used to “see”
the ways that teachers were incorporating new ideas about improving opportunities for
student learning or refining the strategy already in place. This section of the structured
50
dialogue tool also became data for clarifying teacher strategies when explanations for
enacting strategies were unclear.
Email correspondences addressed to the department chair were part of the data
set for the self-study. These emails included teacher comments about students’
performance; questions about pedagogical practices, materials needed to implement a
unit and comments or questions not shared during the department meetings. Teachers
used emails to gain clarification about a topic discussed during the department
meetings, start or continue a discussion about a department matter, to ask for advice, or
to ask questions.
Finally, student performance data were collected to measure the impact of
teacher pedagogical practices implemented during the 3-semester self-study
investigation. Student achievement data from the California Standards Test (CST) were
collected along with scores on the same test from two previous years.
Data Analysis
A grounded theory approach to analyzing data was applied to the analysis of
this study. Grounded theory is a controlled systematically inductive approach to
developing categories from data by chunking passages from data sources (Au,1998).
The audio recordings for department meetings were transcribed and relevant discourse
about student characteristics and pedagogy were located by means of systematic
mapping of teacher conversations within line-numbered transcripts, marking episode
boundaries by shifts in topic and/or participation structure (Horn & Little, 2010). The
researcher’s process of using the data to build theory demonstrated four key procedural
51
elements of grounded theory coding: fracturing data (identifying relative “chunks”
within lengthy teacher dialogue) to gain higher levels of abstraction, using generative
questions, moving towards core categories, and integrating the entire analysis and
yielding conceptual density (Ward & McCotter, 2004).
Fracturing Data
The first step in analyzing the data on teacher discourse, thinking, and strategies
concerning pedagogical practices, was to identify reflective fractures or “chunks” from
the audio recordings. This produced the first procedural element of grounded theory
coding, fracturing the data (Ward, 2004). Chunks were identified as dialogue on
pedagogy and student learning. The end of a chunk was identified by a change in the
topic of discourse with or without a clear transition. The first step in analyzing the
audio recording transcripts was to identify a connection to previous discussions.
Chunks ranged in length from several short sentences to longer pieces of several
hundred words.
Generative Questions
The second procedural element of grounded theory, the use of generative
questions, allowed for a more detailed analysis of the data. The questions centered on
evidence of student learning and enactment of pedagogical strategies. For example,
“what examples of student work were brought to this department meeting?” “What
responses to teacher strategies did students give as reported by their science instructor?”
Student evidence referred to level of rigor of student work displayed in classrooms as
measured by Bloom’s Taxonomy, teacher reports of student responses to pedagogical
52
practices, and samples of student work attached to structured dialogue tools.
Pedagogical strategies referred to strategies enacted within the classroom and planned
within the department meetings. Generative questions that guided analysis of
pedagogical strategies included “What type strategy is evident during this
meeting/observation?”
Coding Data
Data from audio transcripts, emails, minutes from meetings, and examples of
student work were coded for evidence of addressing reform requirements and
pedagogical practices that addressed science learning. Reform strategies were
characterized by discourse concerning, (1) the use of rubrics, (2) specifically designed
academic instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies, (3) instructional scaffolding for
students reading below grade level, English learners, and students with IEPs, (4) Gifted
and Talented Education (GATE) strategies; (5) culturally relevant and responsive
educational practice (CRRE), (6) the use of technology, (7) the use of graphic
organizer, (8) the use of academic language, and (9) evidence of cooperative learning
groups. In addition, discourse concerning test-taking strategies, increasing student math
and reading skills, and increasing student/parent responsibility for student success were
considered strategies that support reform. STEM initiative/science content discourse
was characterized by talk that included laboratory skills development, creating
hypotheses, using statistics to analyze data, and drawing conclusions that support or
reject hypotheses. In addition, other indicators include placing orders for science
equipment and supplies, and curriculum strategies concerning major topics in science.
53
Conceptual Density
Going back and forth from data to the initial guiding questions facilitated the
development of a discourse matrix for reform practices and STEM initiative/science
content practices. The questions continued to guide the data analysis until the matrix
provided good descriptions of all the reflective chunks and were consistent with the
guiding frames that were identified for the two types of practices (Table 4).
Validity and Reliability
The experiences of the science department were analyzed because the
perspective allowed for a robust account of facilitation of teacher practice through the
use of structured dialogue as a professional development tool. The validity of the study
is a property of knowledge constructed from the methods (Gersten et al, 2010; Patton,
2005). Forty observations, 10 monthly department meetings and at least 3
coaching/clarifying/planning interactions per week were conducted during the self-
study. Given these methods, analysis of data collected allowed for a better
understanding of the impact structured dialogue as a tool of professional development
had on improving science teacher practice in an urban secondary school. The analysis
of a single science department allowed rich detail and nuance that may have been lost if
multiple or comparative departments were analyzed.
Reliability was built into the research design by introducing and utilizing the
structured dialogue process to facilitate professional development for the science
department (Patton, 2005). The consistency of the planning, enacting, interpreting,
translating, planning and (re)-enactment of pedagogical strategies provides a measure
54
of reliability that was indicated through entries on the structured dialogue tool and the
transcripts of the audio recordings of the department meetings.
55
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Drawing on the theoretical framework, practice is defined as planning and
enacting particular pedagogical approaches, then observing, interpreting and translating
students’ responses to make adjustments that improve subsequent learning (Hollins,
2011). In this chapter, teachers’ practice within the department with respect to a set of
criteria about teaching and learning according to district mandates were analyzed.
Specifically, department chairs were expected to encourage teachers to implement the
mandated instructional reforms and collect evidence of student learning. Mandated
pedagogical strategies included: (1) the use of rubrics, (2) specifically designed
academic instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies, (3) instructional scaffolding for
students reading below grade level, English learners, and students with Independent
Educational Plans (IEP), (4) Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) strategies, (5)
culturally relevant and responsive educational practice (CRRE), (6) the use of
technology, (7) the use of graphic organizers, (8) the use of academic language, and (9)
evidence of cooperative learning groups were promoted by the district leaders and
external consultants. Learning about strategies such as these formed the content of both
whole school and department level professional development sessions and the goals for
the department chair’s work with secondary science teachers. Thus, this analysis of
pedagogical strategies is shaped by the district’s focus on teachers’ development in
response to the instructional reforms.
The analysis begins with a description of departmental teaching as was observed
early in the study, noted as semester I. Semester I serves as a baseline for the analysis
56
of change over time. Following the description of the first semester, the self-study is
further developed by describing and analyzing instances of (1) teachers’ responses to
structured dialogue as a mediation tool between the instructional reforms of the district
and the intentional focus on student science learning, and (2) instructional ideas and
practices that teachers’ incorporated into domain knowledge that later appeared in their
practice. For example, a code of “reform” indicates that teacher responses were
coherent with reform mandates and a code of “science learning” indicates that the
response was translated and enacted in the laboratory/ classroom setting that was
aligned with supporting STEM initiatives. Tables 1-4 support the analysis following.
Using the Structured Dialogue to Mediate Professional Development
The use of structured dialogue in a study group format, grounded in
sociocultural learning theory was intended to mediate teacher pedagogical practice with
instructional reforms mandated by the district. The initial content of the science
department meetings was focused on questions that focused teachers on improving
student science learning. Later in the year, teachers’ focus expanded to include issues
and mandates faced in meeting the instructional reform challenges while still
maintaining a focus on improving student science learning. In addition, evidence of the
dynamics of structured dialogue facilitation was illuminated as different types of
questions were asked to facilitate teachers thinking towards the goal. In particular, well-
structured questions were utilized to facilitate teacher discourse around student science
learning. The school promoted many strategies about teaching in professional
development. Structured dialogue assisted the mediation between instructional reform
57
responsibilities and methods that supported secondary science performance. Over the
course of three semesters, three sets of questions were formulated for the department
meetings with different teacher discourse resulting from the mediation. The department
chair was able to observe, collect data, and analyze the resulting teacher discourse,
while diagnosing and considering future questions regarding the departments’
subsequent professional development opportunities.
The plans, notes, and audio-transcripts of the department meetings over three
semesters revealed focus topics that included community/institutional mandates,
planning, student academic support and differentiation of instruction, and testing
strategies. During the first semester of the study the science department spent over 12
weeks planning for and implementing test taking strategies as the major approach to
fostering student science learning.
Semester I
The study began with teachers utilizing the department meeting to plan,
organize materials for practice, and discusses the components of laboratory activities
and common formative assessments. The department developed mini-pacing calendars
and decided to implement pedagogical strategies to improved test scores. As the
department began to meet on a regular basis in small content area subject matter
groups, teachers began to share ideas for laboratory and curricular materials, and reflect
on student performance. Teachers were asked focus questions that centered on planning
and pacing of materials: “What are the expected outcomes for this unit?” “What
prerequisite knowledge and skills do students need to successfully complete the unit?”
58
“How will you provide support for your far below basic (FBB) and below basic (BB)
students?” “What sequence of experiences and tools will be used to facilitate learning?”
“What examples of student use of academic vocabulary and instructional dialogue can
you predict?” and “How will you determine whether students have made progress
toward applying the concepts and skills they’ve learned in new and novel situations?”
Secondly, teachers were asked to collect student work samples for sharing for the next
monthly department meeting.
During the first semester, the focus of the planned activities was to expose
students to as many test-taking strategies before the CST. Teachers reported that “going
over” sample CST and Periodic Assessment questions would increase student test
scores. For example, the teachers often downloaded CST release questions, made
copies and distributed the materials to students. Students were assigned a number of
problems to do daily and discuss how they arrived at the “right” answer in class. To
“go-over” the test questions, teachers would either say or write the rules of the concept
on the board and then model how to use the rules to solve the problems. Answers were
then shared amongst the students during class. The value of the assignment depended
on the exposure to the problem and the demonstration of problem solving skills.
Students demonstrated their knowledge of the test-taking strategy when they
memorized the steps to solving chemistry and physics problems and facts in biology
class.
The following activities are illustrative. Observations indicate that, in chemistry
courses, teachers relied on “step-by-step” methods of solving conversion problems
59
when calculating particular components of gas laws. When one teacher explained and
demonstrated the step-by-step method, there were students who still “did not get it.”
The teacher reported that a number of students came up to her and she said to herself, “I
must not have taught this correctly,” and then proceeded to ask students where they
were stuck. The pedagogical strategy allowed for both the students and the teacher to
focus their cognition on the step-by-step of solving gas law questions. This teacher was
told directly that her pedagogical strategy met the reform practices mandated by the
district.
In biology, teachers were observed assigning pages in the textbook and
answering study guide questions or questions directly from the book. The questions are
designed to measure factual knowledge. The answers are in the book and teachers were
often observed directing students to pages, redirecting students to notes or handouts,
and ignoring student created questions about content. When projects or posters were
assigned, students were instructed to copy images from the book and use the labels
designated by the teacher. In one teacher’s class, for example, biology work for
genetics was to copy the work from the projectors and use the notes to answer questions
on study guides or use the notes to answer released CST test questions. When the
teacher called on students to answer questions, student responses were often one word
and factual. When reviewing mitosis, the teacher asked for the answer to each question
to be simplified to just the phases of mitosis. The emphasis was on saying the right
answer.
60
Teachers received a number of emails and notes as a result of the observations
conducted between department meetings. For example, one teacher reported her
struggles with student motivation for achieving a proficient score on the annual CST.
The teacher stated that the students were “out of control” and that she was not sure that
students would perform well. The department chair responded to the email:
We have to alter our instruction. Not because we feel that the kids “deserve it”
but because it’s our professional obligation to do so. We need to reflect on ways
to improve our instruction based upon the actions and comments of the students
(personal communication).

Teachers returned to the next monthly meeting to share their pedagogical
strategies and the samples of student work. Teachers were asked to elaborate on
strengths and weaknesses of their learning plan and often gave reports concerning
community of practice obligations such as adherence to the common agenda format,
implementation of “test that Tuesday” and administering periodic assessments.
Teachers reported on the successes and challenges of test taking strategies, student
assessment outcomes, and ways to differentiate instruction and support for students.
This first attempt at facilitating teacher discourse concerning student science learning
brought about an awareness of how challenging it was to facilitate teacher knowledge
and experiences through professional development. Most teachers, once they taught a
unit, were very concerned about improving student test taking strategies and
documented this focus in their planning materials. For example, the following
departmental discourse was typical of the planning and reflecting portion of department
meetings (T = teacher):

61
T 1: If students have processing deficits, they can’t even remember things
T 2: One of the questions I spent the whole period on, I said I was going to
make it my mission. It was a really good question. Cause I’m doing
endothermic and exothermic and the question goes like this…which of these
processes absorbs energy? Now the first two answers “A” and “B” are the same
scenario, they both go from liquid to solid. If they are basically saying the same
thing then you have to count them out, even if you don’t know anything about
the question, you can count out “A” and “B.”

Teacher 2 continued to have this in depth discussion about test taking strategies
concerning science related questions. This discussion lead teachers to talk about test
taking strategies for students to maximize how many correct answers they could
achieve.
As the first semester of the study came to a close, the original questions were
asked, however, in order to move teachers beyond the focus on test taking strategies
subsequent questions were asked to determine what types of pedagogical practices were
conducive to science learning. Table 1 shows samples of subsequent questions used to
facilitate teacher discourse.
62
Table 1: Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester I
First questions Teacher Responses Subsequent questions
What are the expected learning
outcomes for this unit?
Writing the standard on the
board. Standards, students to
be able to pass “the test”.

What do you want students to learn
about the subject matter?

What prerequisite knowledge and
skills do students need to
successfully complete the unit?
How to ask questions, how
to stay focus on the work,
the ability to do homework
How will you introduce the topic?
What types of questions can you
ask students in order to figure out
what they already know about the
subject?

How will you provide support for
your FBB and BB students?
School agenda format and
testing routines,
demonstrations of labs,
simple lab activities, seat
work, textbook work, asking
questions, showing pictures,
drawing pictures, science
articles, monitoring students
questions, whole class
discussion, standards,
keeping folders on failing
students, lab rubrics, group
work
Ask specific teachers to volunteer
examples of how they support FBB
and BB students.

What sequence of experiences
and tools will be used to facilitate
learning?
How long do you think this unit
should take?
How will you engage the students?
How will you evaluate their
learning?
Does the subject area have
common quizzes and common
laboratory assignments?

What examples of student
academic vocabulary and
instructional dialogue can you
predict?

How will you determine whether
students have made progress
toward applying the concepts and
skills they’ve learned in new and
novel situations?
Assessments, whole class
discussion, single student
discussion.
What are your specific indicators
of learning within your subject
matter?

Are their any suggestions on how
to make the lesson successful?

63
Semester II
During the second semester, the questions that were asked garnered more
discourse concerning pedagogy practices for fostering student learning and satisfying
district instructional reform. The questions facilitated teacher discourse concerning
science concepts and pedagogical practices. Table 2 shows the second semester
structured dialogue questions and samples of teacher responses the questions produced.

Table 2: Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester II
Structured Dialogue Questions Teacher Response Examples
How did you use the four instructional strategies,
provide examples?

Graphic organizers: Frayer model, Thinking maps,
T-charts, Venn diagrams
Vocabulary development: Word walls, vocabulary
homework, analogies
Cooperative groups: group work; projects (i.e. cell
city); laboratory experiments, reciprocal teaching
Instructional dialogue: Think-pair-share; think &
write/share; oral presentations

What are the challenges with implementing the
strategies?

Sometimes its just necessary to lecture and present
new information.
Focusing students long enough on the subject
matter.
Especially for cooperative groups, students are
unreliable/attendance issues
What two major approaches can we use (per
subject) to address the stated challenges?

Teach and model how each member of a group
works in their group. Individual accountability and
play/socializing with the group.
Insert mini breaks into the lectures so that students
are not sitting for long periods with/out
participation.
What student evidence can we collect to
determine the effectiveness of our approaches?

CST scores
Formative assessments
Autonomy in groups
64
As some of the teachers explored one question, another question arose that often
clarified their thinking or elaborated on the approach that would be used. Some of the
questions followed directly from the first while others came as teachers expressed their
need for understanding, requested more professional development, requested laboratory
or teaching materials, and other issues.
During the second semester, teachers were observed enacting the instructional
reforms mandated by the district. Teachers shared strategies with one another outside of
the department meetings more often. For example, the teachers devised a schedule to
observe other teachers using a technology that makes it easier to assess students during
instructional time. Teachers shared student work samples to support test-taking skills.
These work samples were comprised from questions from the textbook; periodic
assessments and CST release questions.
Teachers begin to introduce alternative assessments during this time, such as
those where subject matter is chunked and assessments are given more often and
student self-assessments where students are allowed to make their own corrections.
Teachers were observed checking for understanding before instruction. Then, the lesson
was enacted. Afterwards, an oral formative assessment was given to determine what
component of the lesson needed to be retaught.
In biology, teachers utilized technology to motivate students to complete the
science work. Online module-based software was utilized to review previously learned
material as well as to introduce new concepts. Over time, teacher usage changed
depending on how much effort was needed to make the software relevant for students.
65
One teacher stopped using the software all together due to the amount of supplemental
material needed to facilitate student performance. Most strategies included handouts,
worksheets (teacher and publisher created), laboratory activities and flow charts.
In chemistry, teachers utilized graphic organizers and assigned students to
groups during laboratory activities. Some teachers within the chemistry subject area
used a unique strategy where students were assigned homework, and, the next day, the
teacher checked for completion, clarification and discussion. The teacher stated that
these daily checks were an opportunity to revisit the rubric and set ongoing collection
dates for student work. What was observed in classrooms was in contrast to what was
planned in department meetings. Teachers’ plans at the beginning of semester two
indicated an effort to increase the amount of instructional conversation, laboratory
activities and projects. As one teacher expressed, “Can we elaborate on that? With each
assignment we can elaborate on the technique being used so we can stretch their
brains.” However, teachers needed support in mediating the reform strategies with the
STEM focus.
The approach reported and observed during the second semester varied from
test-taking strategies to facilitating cooperative groups and utilizing technology to
develop science concepts. In addition, the teachers’ decisions included the desire to
improve their skills as professionals as well as improve students’ academic skills as
science teachers. Thus, the teachers collaborated more, exchanged materials and
assignments, and collected more student evidence before each subsequent department
meeting.
66
The second semester of facilitating department meetings mediated through
structured dialogue had an impact on facilitating teacher discourse concerning
pedagogical practice. When teachers began to engage in these questions, gaps in
personal knowledge and skills came into awareness. Further, teachers began to facilitate
their own learning through planning and collaboration with one another to share
materials or receive assistance with technology. One particular teacher expressed her
need to learn how to use graphic organizers effectively (T= teacher; F = facilitator):
T: First of all, I need to understand concept maps a little better because I’d like
to use those and I have a book of concept maps but they are not enough for
science…
Further discussion from the group…

F: That’s cool, now back to the graphic organizer thing. You are informing me
that you need more exposure to different types of graphic organizers.

T: Yes, I’m not quite sure how to use them.

F: Let’s develop a schedule to meet so that we can plan a process around how to
use them in chemistry.
This teacher had taken the first steps to improving her practice. By focusing teacher
discourse on the particular goal of student science learning, there was meaningful
exchange concerning practice and improving ways in which teachers can be successful
with students. This type of dialogue became intentional during the second semester.
Semester III
During the final semester of the structured dialogue study, the questions asked
of the department were broader and focused on the connection between what teachers
were doing in the classroom and student evidence of science learning. As students
began to matriculate from the institution to post-secondary institutions, the following
67
questions were presented: “How does this assignment prepare urban students for
success in post-secondary science courses?” “What basic science knowledge and skills
do students gain from participating in our department for 2-3 years?” In addition to the
overarching questions, teachers were introduced to structured dialogue questions as a
part of a prompting tool that they received a week before every department meeting
(Appendix B). Teachers were instructed to attach a sample of student work and a blank
copy of the work or instructions to the prompting tool. Secondly, teachers were to
provide a detailed description of the strategy used to facilitate students’ science
performance. The first three questions of the tool were to be completed before the
teachers came to the department meeting. The last two questions were completed in a
small group of three or four teachers as they reflected on the challenges and successes
of their pedagogical practice. Table 3 shows the third semester questions and samples
of the teacher responses reported.
68
Table 3: Structured Dialogue Questions for Semester III
Structured Dialogue Questions Teacher Response Examples
Describe how the work sample you attached to
this form is a valid measurement of student
learning.

Student answers help verify if student is grasping
materials (concept)
Is the student work sample from a FBB, BB or
ELL student?

FBB
Challenges and successes: Please write down
what went well and any challenges that you faced
when trying to implement this strategy.
Students were able to stay focused, helped keep me
focused on important concept rather than
unnecessary material

The assignment does not always give a true
assessment of student knowledge. Some do better
with alternative assessments such as project based
etc.

List comments, suggestions, and ideas that you
received from your group discussion.
Provide alternative assessments such as project-
based materials. Have students to self-assess
themselves and make corrective measures.

Describe your implementation strategy: (i.e. I will
continue to use the strategy with adjustments…)
make sure you indicate the following:
The strategy name:
A full description of how you will implement the
strategy:
Student indicators of improvement (expected
learning outcomes)
Students will be given an assignment weekly

Students will self-assess themselves and find
correct answers to support decisions

Improved test scores; better understanding of the
material

During semester three, teacher planning, enactment, interpretation, translation
and collaborative re-planning was assisted with a job aid (Appendix B). Department
meetings began to focus more on developing science skills and reflection on the
effectiveness of the strategies used. Planning involved both individual and collective
thought as teachers sat together and discussed their ideas and struggles. The products of
the collaboration were a variety of approaches that included well thought-out processes
such as, “Lots of checking for understanding, give examples for students to follow;
have an effective lesson planned for independent work, and a whip-around, this is a
69
graphic organizer that helps facilitate discussion.” The products of the collaboration
also included teacher processes that needed more direct interaction with the facilitator
such as, “Pick a subject related puzzle, make sure it is fun and informative, and then
grade it.”
Department meetings were facilitated in order for teachers to collaboratively
plan their teaching processes for student learning. The department chair gave the
teachers time to collaborate, assisted teachers in brainstorming for ideas, paired
teachers with others who had the same interests, and identified forms of student
evidence. Discourse within the department meetings became more descriptive as
teachers talked about their challenges and successes. As one teacher expressed,
I am unable to tell what he does not know how to do and on why he does not
know how to do it. I can tell what he knows how to do. The goal of this project
was a final measure of understanding and I can only judge that based off of
what was submitted.

The intent for facilitating teacher collaborative planning was not to deter teacher efforts
from test-taking strategy development, but to situate the teachers to talk about learning.
The work done by teachers during semester three allowed them to discuss
student cognition, which was a topic that had not come up before in the data prior to the
introduction of the job-aid. The following statements are illustrative, as when one
teacher commented, “Used prior knowledge as well as genetics background information
that was already provided.” Or, “I utilized the mini-quiz which kept the students
focused and helped them retain the materials.” Another teacher reported that he
conducted lessons that let students develop their scientific process thinking skills.
70
The Impact of Structured Dialogue: Did Focusing on Student Learning Influence
Pedagogical Practice?
For most of the teachers, having a focus on student science learning as they
went into their laboratories/classrooms made their interpretation and translation
concerning teaching and learning more specific and purposeful. Thus, the focus on
teacher discourse began to shift from teaching test taking strategies only to teaching
thinking through science and the indicators that students were thinking differently about
the work being accomplished. During semester I, teachers were concerned about pacing
plans, materials for teaching, district periodic assessments and the California Standards
Test (CST). Teachers asked each other about how they approached the teaching, what
topic they were focusing on and confided in one another about student academic and
behavior challenges.
In addition to participating in these mandatory department meetings, several
broad concepts concerning instruction were introduced to teachers during professional
development activities outside of the department. First, the four instructional strategies
mandated by the district were a focus and included the use of graphic organizers,
cooperative learning groups, instructional dialogue and academic vocabulary
development. Second, teachers were to have a common agenda format written on the
boards. Then, teachers received professional development about SDAIE methods of
instruction and culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE). Finally, teachers
were to incorporate specific teaching techniques in order to focus instruction, guide
practice, form collaborative student groups and facilitate independent work as an
71
intervention method for students who were categorized as far below basic according to
CST scores. Teachers were instructed to interpret, translate, and enact these
instructional reforms to foster student science learning. Structured dialogue in a study
group format was used to mediate the discourse on these mandated instructional
reforms as well as introduce ways of thinking that translate reforms into science
practice. As teachers began to engage and negotiate the strategies, changes were
observed in the overall teaching practice of the department. Teachers were selective in
their interpretation, translation and enactment of the instructional reforms and worked
them into their repertoire with respect to the departmental focus of increasing student
science performance.
Semester I
At the beginning of semester one, observations of department pedagogical
practice included frequent incidences of student support strategies such as scaffolding
and one-on-one tutoring, instructional differentiation, and test taking strategies.
Teachers provided students support by utilizing technology, such as document-cameras
so that students could receive guided instruction, online content area programs offered
supplemental activities to receive extra practice learning a science concept. Teachers
often used periodic assessment questions, CST release questions and graphic organizers
to facilitate learning within the classroom. Observation of academic language and
instructional dialogue were teacher centered and informational (“these are linked
genes”), demonstrative (“watch what I do next”), and reinforcing (“see oil doesn’t mix
with water”), leading students to develop factual knowledge with little to no emphasis
72
on the process of developing, refining, and constructing scientific knowledge. Several
aspects of teacher pedagogical practice changed over the course of the next several
months. For example, the use of rubrics to guide student laboratory activities increased
and the dependence on test taking strategies began to diminish from the departmental
strategies.
During semester I, pedagogical practice varied greatly from teacher to teacher.
In some classes, there were clear efforts to facilitate cooperative learning with small
groups of students, and academic vocabulary embedded in instructional conversation
was observed. However, across the hall, students were observed in cooperative learning
groups but academic vocabulary was limited to reciting information. Students were
encouraged to recite science facts. However, there was a lack of application of
knowledge for solving science problems such as laboratory activities. Teachers were
also inconsistent in following some of the reforms mandated by the district such as the
common agenda format.
Semester II
During semester II, observations were conducted to determine whether or not
teachers were incorporating and enacting the strategies reported from the department
meetings. There continued to be a heavy emphasis on improving test scores. However,
the content of the test taking began to be less dependent on pre-made periodic
assessment and CST released questions and more on authentic problems from the
laboratory setting. For example, a chemistry teacher utilized technology to embed
73
assessment within classroom activities in order to review and demonstrate balancing
equations.
Another teacher in the department demonstrated teachers’ learning how to
differentiate science instruction using an instructional conversation strategy, called a
“whip around,’ a type of graphic organizer that facilitates instructional conversation
used to teach cellular structures and function. Once the “whip around” was completed
students were instructed to share out their interpretation of the material. Additionally,
the frequency of reports of independent collaboration between teachers, request for
materials, curriculum, and pedagogical assistance increased during this time. Request
for weekly lunch meetings to “check-in” with other teachers were made to determine
what strategies and pacing were used in the department.
Semester III
During the final semester of the study, teachers began to use strategies
mandated by the district as well as enacting curricular and pedagogical strategies shared
by colleagues. For example, during the third semester of the study, all teachers were
observed using the common agenda format and incorporating graphic organizers into
their daily practice. In one particular classroom, a teacher modeled an experiment
concerning characteristic properties of certain liquids. The following vignette was
constructed from observation notes (T = teacher; S = students):
T: Everybody was able to observe the demo on mixtures right?
S: [A few students in chorus] No.
T: Some of you didn’t see it. Oh, well let me set up the graduated cylinders.
74
S: Oh, yea we saw this. You showed this to us.
S2: No, I was absent. I didn’t see it!
T: Well, that’s O.K., I will do it again, now I’m going to put some water in these
four graduate cylinders and you all pick the second liquid that I will mix in. You
tell me whether you predict that the mixture will make a solution or if the two
liquids will completely separate.
S3: Put the oil in!
T: What is your prediction class? Will it mix or not?
S: [In a chorus] No, it won’t mix!
In this lesson, strategies not seen in the first semester were evident. This teacher asked
students to predict the outcomes of solutions made by the liquids, a critical component
of formulating hypotheses, as well as the beginning component of facilitating
instructional conversation and use of academic language about characteristics of
solutions. However, this teacher’s attempt at enacting reform strategies and science
thinking were at the beginning stages of the STEM concept of student science
performance and instruction. Instead of asking students to refer back to the scientific
method for formulating questions, creating hypotheses in the “If…then” format and
then directing the teacher’s actions in testing the mixtures to collect evidence to support
or reject the hypotheses, the teacher focused the students on predicting and observing
the mixing outcomes of the liquids. This example demonstrates that improving teacher
pedagogical practice for student science learning is a challenging and slow process in
which individuals construct new knowledge in practice by implementing new strategies
or lessons that they have developed alone or with colleagues (Cochran-Lytle, 1999;
75
Hollins, 2006). It is important that teachers reflect with others about the effectiveness of
the strategies in meeting practice goals.
Table four displays other examples from the observation data of the teaching
practices within the science department. There were observations of teachers making
use of practices such as laboratory activities, written in the formal lab rubric format
(Appendix C), use of graphic organizers, evidence of cooperative learning groups, use
of instructional and scientific technology such as power point activities for students and
pH meters, graduated cylinders, and microscopes. Observations provided evidence of
improvement in pedagogical practices of teachers over time. For example, in the first
semester, teachers focused on improving test scores and getting students motivated to
complete assignments by displaying CST scores, giving extra credit and making phone
calls home to parents. By semester III, more teachers opted to extend the time for
students to complete work, created or modified class rituals for students, made keys
available for low level assignments and focused on sharing strategies that worked for
other colleagues.
76
Table 4: Pedagogical Practices Observed Over the 3 Semesters
Semester I Semester II Semester III
Pedagogies associated
with district reform
measures
Show a picture, describe
a picture, read an
article, guided practice,
study guides, book
work, worksheets on
topics assessment,
keeping a folder of far
below basic student
work, crude lab rubric
(good, not good), giving
a point value to a
district assessment,
extra credit, modifying
an assessment,
department credit
recovery, giving
students assessment
questions ahead of time,
pointing out to students
how many
points/questions they
need to get right to
move from far below
basic to below basic

Test, quizzes, keeping
far below basic student
work, teacher created
assessment aid, make up
work, ask another
teacher to take them,
discussion, laboratory
assessment, model
making.
Websites with
animations, assessment
study guides, extra
credit work, projects,
Agile mind web based
program for tutoring.
Tutoring. Credit
recovery, word walls,
common agenda format,
classroom routines,
warm-up activities.
Pedagogies associated
with cultivating
science learning
Monitoring student
questions, assessments
Analogies, examples,
questions, research,
dialogue, modeling,
observation, prompts,
data, coming from a
moral obligation to
teach, teacher reflection,
laboratory assignments,
conceptual structures,
practice problems
Extending work time,
laboratory
demonstrations,
predicting, collecting
data, project
assignments teacher
invented step-by-step
methods, awareness of
learning theory,
chunking and ordering
as cognitive strategies,
asking students
questions

Impact on Student Learning
Scores on the California Standards Test (CST) in biology, chemistry, and
integrated coordinated science were examined to determine the impact of changes in
teaching practices had on students’ academic performance. Table 5 shows students’
77
performance percentages on the CST in biology, chemistry, and ICS. California uses
five performance levels to report achievement on the CSTs:
• Advanced: Students demonstrate a comprehensive and complex understanding
of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment in this content area.
• Proficient: Students demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the
knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade in this content
area.
• Basic: Students demonstrate a partial and rudimentary understanding of the
knowledge and skills measured by this assessment in this content area.
• Far Below/ Below Basic: Students demonstrate little or a flawed understanding
of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment in this content area.
Table 5: CST Department % Proficiencies in Science by Course
CST Department % Proficiencies in Science by Course
Course Year Adv Pro Basic Below Basic Far Below
Basic
2011 2 11 26 24 37
2010 2 8 32 23 35
Biology
2009 1 4 29 29 36
2011 1 4 32 31 33
2010 0 5 22 29 44
Chemistry
2009 1 1 9 32 57
2011 NA NA NA NA NA
2010 0 4 30 29 38
ICS
2009 0 1 16 31 52

Results indicate that the most dramatic changes occurred in chemistry with a
significant decrease in students performing at far below basic and a dramatic increase in
the percentage of students performing at basic over the three-year periods. The
percentage of students who performed at far below basic in chemistry decreased by 24
78
percent, and the percentage of students who performed at basic increased by 21 percent
over the course of three years. In ICS, there was a dramatic decrease in the percentage
of students performing far below basic with a dramatic increase in the percentage of
students performing at basic over a two year time period. The percentage of students
who performed far below basic in ICS decreased by 14 percent and the percentage of
students who performed basic increased by 14 percent during the two year time period.
The most significant change in biology student performance was the increase in
the percentage of students performing at proficient. Other changes in biology were
insignificant in comparison with chemistry and ICS. The percentage of students who
performed at the proficient level on the biology CST increased by 3 percent during the
three year time period. This has interesting implications for the types of changes that
occurred in teaching in these three subject areas.

79
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, structured dialogue grounded in sociocultural learning theory was
used to mediate and analyze teacher pedagogical practice and student learning. The
examples presented here represent the difficulty of facilitating improvements in teacher
practice in a program improvement urban secondary school, especially science
pedagogical practice. The theoretical framework helped delineate aspects of teachers’
learning over time that was relational, not linear. For instance, facilitating professional
development mediated through structured dialogue had a slow impact on improving
teacher science pedagogical practice. However, teacher practice concerning reform
strategies had a more robust development. In addition, implementing structured
dialogue facilitated teacher collaboration, reflection, and planning. Learning,
interpreting, translating, and enacting new knowledge was effortful and not constructed
uniformly (Billett, 2002; Hollins, 2011). Table four displays examples of the
departments’ strategies in chronological order, demonstrating this unevenness and the
dynamism of the urban science department (Gallucci et al., 2010). Given the caveat
about uneven development, however, one can see from Table 4 that, over time, teacher
practices changed not only in the direction of district reform goals, but also in the
overall direction of STEM initiatives.
Reflections on the Findings from the Study
Impact on Teacher Discourse
The use of structured dialogue in a study group format facilitated the
differentiation of topics teachers discussed during the department meetings. During
80
semester I, teacher discourse included topics concerning instructional reform,
standardized testing, and student readiness behaviors (i.e. the ability to stay focused on
a task, promptness to class). Teachers spent an inordinate amount of time discussing
test taking strategies and planning their courses around reform strategies. Analysis of
audio recordings, department meeting minutes, and emails revealed that structured
dialogue in a study group format facilitated teachers’ discussion of three new broad
topics: curriculum strategies, student evidence and student support measures.
Curriculum strategies were materials (i.e. handouts, worksheets) and methods (i.e.
laboratory activities, peer teaching) that are not directly related to test taking strategies.
Student evidence included observations of students using academic vocabulary and
student assignments with levels of rigor measured using Bloom’s taxonomy
(knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). These
two topics were promoted and discussed in department meetings more frequently at the
end of semester III when compared to audio recordings, emails, and department
meeting minutes from semester I.
Discourse concerning instructional reform, planning, and test taking strategies
decreased substantially from the audio recordings, department minutes, and emails
during semester III as compared to semester I. Simultaneously, discourse concerning
students’ support measures (i.e. classroom routines, use of rubrics, posting the agenda
and current student work) increased from semester I to semester III. The key findings
support that teacher discourse did change over time and was influenced by the use of
structured dialogue in a study group format.
81
Impact on Observed Teaching Practice
The use of structured dialogue in a study group format resulted in a change in
what was observed in teachers’ classrooms during the three semesters. Data indicated
that teacher use of graphic organizers; facilitation of SDAIE methods, and the district
mandated agenda format increased from semester I to semester III. In addition, teacher
collaboration, discussions about instructional strategies and student characteristics
increased during this time period.
Increases in teachers’ demonstrating how to foster student knowledge and
comprehension through conversation and work samples were also observed during the
three semesters. There were more observations and sample work demonstrating student
factual knowledge than comprehension. It is believed that this is due to the types of
assignments and questions teachers used to engage students. Observations revealed
teachers asking recall questions and directing students to recite information and ideas
from teacher created materials or from the textbook. For example, students were often
seen in classrooms completing graphic organizers concerning science concepts. These
graphic organizers appear to foster greater understanding of factual information and
vocabulary than for the comprehension of science concepts. Teachers’ use of laboratory
demonstrations and projects also increased across semesters, increasing the use of
rubrics for projects and laboratory material orders for the department.
Even though teachers’ met formally once a month, they often met in small
independent groups, exchanged materials, and discussed pedagogical practices. These
activities did not seem to increase teachers’ ability to include science/laboratory
82
activities as compared to reform activities such as the agenda format and graphic
organizers. In addition, teachers did not engage in discourse concerning the level of
rigor their curriculums offered the students as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy
(application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). The results of the observations
suggest that teachers need time to collaboratively plan, enact, interpret, and translate
teaching strategies that engage students in the application, analysis, synthesis and
evaluation of science knowledge and skills.
Impact on Student Achievement
The current study found dramatic effects for chemistry and ICS. The percentage
of students who scored basic on the chemistry CST increased 21% from 2009 to 2011,
while the percentage of students who scored far below basic decreased from 57% to
33%, during the three year time period. One possible explanation for the gains in
student chemistry performance is that teacher discourse concerning student learning and
subject matter pedagogy changed over time. During the study, teachers were
encouraged to discuss strategies, materials, and methods during departmental meetings.
Utilizing structured dialogue, the department chair intentionally focused questions to
encourage teachers to discuss how student learning, assessments scores, student
comments and collaboration influenced teacher pedagogical practice. This purposeful
and intentional focus on student academic performance and pedagogical practices made
explicit the implicit nature of teacher knowledge-in-practice that influenced teacher
performance in the classroom (Cochran-Smith, 1999). It is also conceivable that
changes in teaching practices occurred in response to working with and observing other
83
teachers in their classrooms. Often during the study, teachers reported collaborating
outside of the study groups, essentially creating smaller less formal study groups.
Knowing what pedagogical practices other department members were enacting may
have influenced the pedagogical practices of the department. Evidence of the impact of
collaboration could be heard in teacher conversations. The following is an example:
T: Man, I would be surprised if students do not get proficient on the CST this
year. I put some extra work into these kids this year.
F: Yeah, you had some heavy hitters this year. Students were sent to you with
some skills.
T: I was more organized, I did all the practice CST questions with AP, spent
extra time with them reviewing.
F: Was this because you were collaborating so much with Mr. X?
T: Yes! I couldn’t let a new comer into chemistry show me up and out score me
in his first 2 years of teaching chemistry. How would that look, him coming into
my room and taking my stuff and getting the same scores as me. I’ve been doing
this things for 10 years. My scores better be higher!

This teacher explained that he saw his collaboration as a way to increase his practice for
competitive reasons. However, teacher collaboration had a positive impact on
improving his practice and discourse concerning student-learning expectations.
For integrated coordinated science (ICS), there was a 14% increase in the
percentage of students who scored basic on the assessment and a 14% decrease in far
below basic scores during the 2009-2010 time period. Biology CST scores experienced
insignificant changes over the course of three years in all proficiency categories but
one. Biology proficient scores experienced a 3% increase from 2009-2011.
84
It is difficult to determine why biology scores did not experience a dramatic
impact during the 3 years of CST reporting. What is known is the types of pedagogical
practices observed in chemistry and ICS were found not observed among the biology
teachers’ pedagogical practices. Biology teachers utilize district periodic assessment
question as warm-ups, tests, and review throughout the school year. Knowing the exact
questions and the order in which they appear on the assessment may inhibit teacher’
ability to design pedagogical practices conducive to student science achievement. In
essence, teachers need encouragement to use multiple forms of pedagogical practice
instead of just test-taking skills and to apply new approaches, evaluate the effectiveness
of the approach, and modify them appropriately in order to effectively support student
academic learning.

Professional Development for Urban Student Learning
Considering the theoretical implications of this research, it is argued that the use
of a sociocultural perspective to implement professional development allows facilitators
to acknowledge teacher experiences and utilize what teachers know to transform their
practice while participating in an authentic cultural and social context with others. This
perspective enabled the effective monitoring of teacher learning, practice and mediation
of STEM initiatives and reforms through an epistemic practice of structured dialogue.
Adapting this sociocultural perspective to implement science department professional
development at an urban secondary school, Figure 2 illustrates the way that shared
teacher knowledge and practice were situated within a community of epistemic practice
85
as teacher domain knowledge and practice mutually influenced each other in the
support of teacher learning. Given what is known about the experience of facilitating
professional development for science achievement within an urban secondary school,
Figure 2 suggests a way of seeing urban secondary science department professional
development as an epistemic practice (Hollins, 2011) that makes teachers’ thinking
transparent to colleagues and provides opportunities for teachers to co-construct an
understanding of the process of pedagogical planning and enactment (Hollins, 2011).

Figure 2: Teacher learning as supported through mediation of variables of the community of
practice.
86
This sociocultural perspective of professional development provided a
framework in which to build consistency, coherence, and continuity for teacher
interactions over time. The collective domain knowledge and the practice of individuals
are mutually influenced when structured dialogue grounded in a sociocultural
perspective is implemented. It was hypothesized that individuals who engaged in this
type of complex professional development could foster improvements in student
learning, even when teachers are not consciously aware of their own sequence of
learning experiences.
The idea of professional development leading to improved student performance
is not a new one (Gersten, 2010; Hollins, 2006; Santagata, 2009). Although prior forms
of professional development in educational settings have recommended introducing
research and curriculum to inservice teacher interactions, Hollins (2006) introduced the
concept of teacher directed professional development where teachers were allowed to
determine what type of tools, interventions, or curriculum they utilized. This study
introduces the idea that teachers choose how they mediate sanctions, instructional
reforms and curriculum materials when planning and enacting sequences of learning
experiences for students.
To understand and facilitate the complex and multidimensional process of
science teacher learning, structured dialogue grounded in a sociocultural perspective
was implemented to facilitate teachers’ ability to mediate STEM initiatives and
instructional reform. Teachers’ comments and writings revealed that, by taking part in
structured dialogue, their ability to plan, implement, and interpret student responses to
87
instructional reform strategies improved. For example, by semester III, all teachers
implemented the common agenda format, used graphic organizers routinely to facilitate
student learning, and organized student cooperative learning groups as part of an
assignment.
Teachers’ ability to plan, implement and interpret student responses to STEM
activities was less apparent during the study. Teachers’ comments and writings revealed
that they needed more opportunities to focus their professional development activities
on planning, interpreting and translating student responses to STEM activities in their
classrooms. Teachers needed further opportunities to co-construct understandings of
what STEM activities were, what STEM activities looked like when they are enacted in
the classroom, and how to measure the effectiveness of whether these activities fostered
the type of learning they were intended to for urban secondary students. These
questions were not presented during the first three semesters of the study but were
formulated for subsequent teacher learning opportunities.
The departmental practice provides a glimpse as to how structured dialogue, in a
study group format, grounded in sociocultural learning theory changed the focus,
context and nature of the traditional discourse of the department meetings. The
discourse, presentation of ideas and questions about pedagogical instruction showed
that language and assumptions about teaching science had potential to make drastic
change. By engaging in structured discourse, the science teachers began the process of
negotiating their stance towards professional learning that included 1) sharing,
modifying, interpreting, translating and enacting new ideas of how to facilitate science
88
learning and how to relate science to students and 2) how to mediate instructional
reform at a failing school. During the department meetings and the observations,
teachers were articulated components of practice that fostered students’ learning such
as planning, interpretation a variety of reform strategies, and translating these into
pedagogical processes in the classroom while science teaching processes and pedagogy
faced some resistance (such as planning and implanting labs, using rubrics, facilitating
the forming and testing hypotheses). The discourse and resulting practice that came
from the use of structured dialogue laid the groundwork and expectation of what
students could do in science. Teaching and learning were in the process of changing in
the science department at this urban high school, and this reflected a systematic effort
to focus discussion on student learning, and the mediation of school instructional
reform with science instruction.
Significance of the Findings
Taking a sociocultural perspective, this research was situated within an urban
education community, specifically at an urban secondary school. The experiences that
teachers have with instructional reform, sanctions, professional development and urban
students, and the use of structured dialogue as a means to address the learning
challenges and issues that arise are unique to this environment. Earlier studies report
that traditional professional development is characterized by one-shot, top down,
interactions that are reform focused and do not relate to teachers as professionals. It was
thought that if teachers were given an opportunity to use their knowledge and skills
solving their own instructional issues, then professional development could be an
89
opportunity to pinpoint what teachers needed to be successful in improving science
achievement for urban students. The use of structured dialogue in a study group format
grounded in a sociocultural perspective was used to produce an alternative form of
professional development for an urban science department. Using a self-study design,
the department chair, as facilitator, explored questions to support teacher learning, such
as “what strategies are used to support student science achievement?” Given the
financial investment that districts make in implementing instructional reforms, and the
lack of research in professional development that result in increased student
performance, this in-depth examination of one department is informative for practical
and theoretical reasons. The community of practice model of structured dialogue is
used to summarize the findings about facilitation of science department professional
development.
Structured dialogue grounded in a sociocultural perspective describes the
situated and mutually influenced aspects of teacher domain knowledge and practice as
it pertains to the community of practice in which teachers socially and intellectually
work. Within the community of practice, information and experiences that have been
interpreted and translated became domain knowledge for the group. The logic of this
phenomenon in the professional process is socio-historical (Vygotsky, 1978).
Facilitating teacher mediation, learning how to interpret and translate instructional
reforms in a way that supports urban student science proficiency, and making the
collective knowledge public provide teachers with an innovative professional
development experience if the facilitation provides coherence, continuity, and
90
consistency. The process in the urban science department in this study was coherent
because it interrelated the experiences teachers had with reform measures with the goal
of STEM initiatives, which was student science learning, achievement, and eventually
access to STEM careers. Continuity happened when teachers’ work was continuous and
uninterrupted. In other words, how teachers’ professional development was supported
by organizational structures (practices, procedures, and policies) was as important as
how well they mediated the responsibilities posed upon them by the school and district.
Finally, consistency happened when teachers received time to plan, enact, interpret,
translate, plan again, and then re-enact and the process and materials were the same
across experiences within the organizations (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Hollins,
2011).
The intent here is to build theory by adapting a sociocultural perspective of
structured dialogue to show how grounding science teacher professional development
in a theoretical perspective and providing coherence, continuity and consistency to
teacher activities facilitated teachers’ learning how to mediate urban school reform and
STEM initiatives. This study has shown that using questions as key components of
structured dialogue grounded in a sociocultural perspective assisted the development of
community of practice by systematically making public teachers’ domain knowledge
and pedagogical practice. Secondly, this study has demonstrated that planning
coherence, continuity, and consistency for science teacher professional development
supported teachers’ learning how to mediate the challenges and professional
responsibilities of urban school instructional reform and STEM initiatives.
91
The Structured Dialogue Process
A basic goal of traditional professional development is to provide a venue for
administrative business or for transmission of top down instructional reform. The
structured dialogue in study group format, grounded in sociocultural learning theory is
best considered a mediation tool where teachers are invited to recognize the ways in
which they negotiate the professional responsibilities they have in the era of urban
school instructional reform with their professional/national responsibility to cultivate
the scientific and intellectual capital of their communities, and to investigate
approaches that will facilitate their ability to successfully accomplish this mediation.
Structured dialogue grounded in a sociocultural perspective calls for groups of teachers
to come together to focus on a problem (how to mediate urban school reforms and
issues of science proficiency to foster science learning), hypothesize about a possible
approach to solving the problem, enact, interpret, and translate the teaching and
learning outcomes from the approach, and then come back together to share their
success and challenges to, over time, form a community of practice. It is the process of
forming a community of practice that traditional professional development
opportunities for science teachers have failed to provide.
This study identifies three main outcomes of structured dialogue grounded in a
sociocultural perspective as a form of professional development: (1) it assists teachers
in their mediation of the goals of educational reforms with the overall goal of increasing
student science learning; (2) it brings teachers together in order to share professional
classroom/laboratory experiences of teaching and learning and fosters teachers’
92
awareness about effective and ineffective methodologies for science achievement; and
(3) it facilitates teachers’ development of pedagogical practices in ways that foster
increased student performance as teachers participate in a community of practice. In
short, increased professional knowledge, awareness, and practice are the results of
professional development through structured dialogue. Teachers discovered and
investigated alternative approaches in order to make positive changes in student
academic performance.
Facilitator’s Role (Assisted Mediation through Questioning)
As a facilitator of structured dialogue, the primary concern was with
understanding teachers’ current pedagogical practices, their challenges and successes,
and facilitating an environment where teachers received help with their challenges and
shared their successes with colleagues. This was achieved through carefully constructed
questions posed during department meetings and one-to-one interactions. For instance,
during a one-to-one interaction with a biology teacher, a concern for test scores and
plagiarism was brought to awareness. His words were:
T: students sit and wait for another student to be done with an assignment and
then copy the student’s work. When test time comes they don’t know the
material and they don’t do well.
F: how would differentiated instruction assist with solving this problem?
After posing this question the teacher explained what he thought differentiation was:
T: that takes a great deal of time and effort to modify assignments for some
students. Many students can’t read at grade level. So to modify the assignment
takes a great deal of time.
93
After this statement, the facilitator shared with him a recent development in another
biology course where a number of students who did not pass an exam experienced
differentiation of instruction. However, the students who did pass the exam were
facilitated to the next assignment, either their notebook or the laboratory assignment.
The facilitator explained to her colleague that, by differentiating the teaching process
(test, student research/assignments, laboratory work), and not individual assignments,
plagiarism became less of an issue and the teacher received opportunities to facilitate
peer teaching with students who were ahead. Asking well-structured questions
facilitated discussions about challenges and successes in ways that do not happen in
traditional teacher interactions.
As a facilitator of structured dialogue, the largest challenge was facilitating
pedagogical practice awareness by assisting teachers make what happens in their
individual classrooms public so as to progress towards creating a community of
practice. Teachers rarely receive opportunities to see other professionals in action.
Therefore, utilizing professional development opportunities to showcase what is going
on in the department is crucial. A central task of the facilitator was to assist in making
implicit teacher processes explicit and to help bring awareness of how these processes
could assist teacher partnerships in mediating instructional reform and student science
proficiency. Through carefully crafted questions and supplemental questions during
department meetings and teacher interactions, teachers were invited to share, question,
and make sense of pedagogical practices within the department.
94
It is important to note that facilitators of structured dialogue must reach a
sufficient level of openness about their own pedagogical practice, have a deep and
committed relationship with the community of practice in which they are members, and
have a professional understanding of learning theory in order to formulate effective
questions. Being open and deep about personal pedagogical practice allows one to be
fully available for the department intellectually, socially and professionally. This allows
for full participation within the community of practice. Facilitation of professional
development became a collective adventure in which everyone was available for
transformation. By being a member of the department, the facilitator was able to
identify with teachers and understand the challenges of teaching science in the urban
environment. This insider knowledge influenced how department meetings were
facilitated and how the department chair supported teachers. Finally, having a
professional understanding of learning theory shapes the analogies, examples, and
rebuttals used during department meetings and teacher interactions. Learning theory
influenced the timing of questions, the subject of the questions and who was
encouraged to work together in the process of mediating instructional reform and
science achievement. Developing and cultivating these characteristics helped increase
the ability to facilitate professional development for an urban secondary science
department.
Deconstructing and Reconstructing Professional Development
In the urban secondary school in which this study took place, professional
learning opportunities were sporadic, reform focused, and situated in policies and
95
procedures. Processes of professional learning were non-existent. Department chairs
received no training, yet were expected to facilitate the implementation of district-wide
instructional reform. Descriptive literature suggest that successful professional
development provides teachers with opportunities to (a) collaborate with colleagues
where they collectively reflect on student learning and apply new habits of mind during
guided reflective activities (Cochran-Smith, 1999; Hollins, 2006; Wilson, 1999); (b)
share, create, and refine domain knowledge (Cochran-Smith, 1999); (c) and invest time
to investigate approaches to solving problems of pedagogical practice, student learning,
and learning outcomes and opportunities to come together and refine practice (Cochran-
Smith, 1999; Hollins, 2006). In order to plan effective professional development
opportunities for the science department, one needed first to understand and deconstruct
the current state of professional development. Once an understanding of what was
desired and needed within the department was gained, the facilitator reconstructed
professional development activities so that teachers engaged in activities designed for
their unique professional needs.
During the course of the study, teachers expressed their belief that the school
administration, and the district in general, did not care about the welfare of the school,
its teachers, or its students. In 10 years, the school experienced 7 principals, a constant
near 30% teacher turnover rate (~40 teachers) annually, and was continually threatened
with take-over without any systematic organizational or school-wide professional
development intervention. As one teacher put it:
96
I can count on one hand how many times in ten years I have had an
administrator come in an observe me longer than 10 minutes. Administration is
a joke.
The teachers spoke about the macro-policy climate of standardization, alternative
credentialing, conformity, and how high-stakes testing ignored the work, expertise, and
experience the science teachers possessed. In addition, teachers were frustrated about
their time being wasted in traditional professional development where the same rhetoric
of instructional reform was common, especially for teachers who have been working at
the school for more than 8 years, which constituted 56% of the science staff. So there
were two targets for the reconstructing of professional development: understanding and
mediating instructional and accountability reform and providing new and useful
experiences within teacher professional development.
To address teacher understanding and mediation of instructional and
accountability reform, research suggests that professional development possess
coherency and be coupled with consistency overtime in order to sustain teacher learning
(Birman et al., 2000; Cochran-Smith, 1999; Hollins, 2006). Coherency is the
interrelatedness of the focus and experiences of professional development across
activities. The department chair took on this task of connecting the reform goals across
all of the department meetings by including specific questions about teachers’
interpretation and translation of those reforms in the science classroom/laboratory.
Teachers were asked specifically to share how they used the reform instructional
strategies, what challenges they faced in implementing the reforms, and what science
practices were already taking place within the department that met the requirement of
97
the instructional reforms (i.e. the use of science technology, laboratory rubrics).
Teachers reported on the approaches they used to address instructional reforms at every
meeting and were encouraged to add, comment, and critique suggestions of practice.
By semester III, teachers were instructed to put in writing their plans of action
as to how they were going to address student science achievement as they addressed
instructional reforms. As reform issues were addressed, many teachers shared
components of their practice already in place that met the requirements of reform. The
following dialogue is an example of this type of discourse:
F: I’ve been observing teachers this past month, looking for evidence of the
agenda and the four instructional strategies. I’ve seen a number of really cool
ways of getting kids to engage in instructional conversation. One particular
method I want more information on, Mr. T, could you elaborate on your student
facilitation warm-up for us?

T: Well, I just found that kids got interested in solving the chemistry problems if
one of their peers was leading the warm-up. Kids will begin to direct what the
one standing up at the document camera is doing.
F: Do students become more aware of their gaps in understanding up there
directing the solving of problems?
T: Yes, they correct each other when they are leading the warm-up.
F: I can see how a teacher could facilitate the use of academic vocabulary
during those moments.
By asking teachers to describe current practices in place, the department began to
acknowledge and utilize these practices in order to foster coherence between
instructional reform and student science learning. The department chair became more
explicit about coherence. Continued insistence on sharing, interpreting, and translating
98
practices (new or continuing) was a fundamental piece in the support of professional
learning in the department.
The second dimension of the challenge was to engage science teachers as
professionals and learners. The use of structured dialogue in a study group format (a)
where teachers were organized in groups of 3 to 4; (b) encouraged to use their
knowledge-in-practice; (c) were provided time to meet and engage in discourse; and (d)
where all actions were focused on increasing student science learning were used to
bring teachers together to collaborate and talk about their successes and challenges to
spark creativity and problem solving. One science teacher expressed that this type of
professional development was nothing like he had experienced in the 11 years of his
teaching experience at the school:
T: This is different
F: How so?
T: We have never come to meetings and got work done. Our old department
chair, Mr. H, would refuse to run meetings. He would just have us sign in and
send us home.
F: Wow!
T: So to have structure, an agenda, and accountability...yea, that’s new.
The effort to engage teachers in effective learning experiences that are coherent and
consistent had a positive impact on teachers.
This analysis raised questions about district accountability measures concerning
instruction. The results of the study suggest that classroom/laboratory activities that
measure what students know and do can facilitate student learning. This idea is in
contrast to testing strategies, coaching, and deceptive practices that are observed in
99
many urban classrooms in response to accountability measures. Within this department,
teachers who utilized instructional reform methods along with recommended
pedagogies for science, such as laboratories, lab rubrics, projects, research, and
argumentation had higher frequencies of students utilizing the academic vocabulary
more often when observed and had higher student achievement on periodic assessment
and CST scores than teachers who utilized these strategies less often. At the time of
this study, instructional reform was aimed at using strategies that were generalizable
across subjects. Within this study, it is suggested that reform efforts be coupled with
time to interpret and translate reforms within discipline-specific practices to support
teachers in their mediation of the two movements. In this approach, teachers were
allowed a month to come back to the same questions of practice as they related to
science learning, implying that successful instructional practice involves more than just
telling teachers about a reform method. Interpretation and translation are needed over
an extended period of time in order to support teacher pedagogical practice, what
researchers would call continuity and consistency.
Finally, research suggests that teacher beliefs about their abilities and
expectations of students influence instructional practice and student learning in
significant ways (Maloch, Flint, Elrige, Harmon, Loven, Fine, Bryant-Shaklin, and
Martinez, 2003; Rideout & Morton 2007; Toll, Neirstheinmer, Lenski & Kollogg,
2004). The analysis in this study raised questions concerning teacher beliefs about
themselves and students in their struggle to increase science performance. For example,
during department meetings and one-to-one interactions teachers often expressed their
100
thoughts on how limited they felt about making a difference. This limited thinking
greatly influenced the types of assignments, laboratory activities, and instruction they
offered students. Using questions concerning instructional practice and separating
practice from what teachers could not influence affected teacher efficacy in positive
ways.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study have implications for improving teaching and
teacher education. The following is a proposal of two practical implications for a line of
research on the professional development of science teachers. The current study
provides evidence of an alternative form of professional development that improves
teachers’ ability to foster science achievement for students attending a low-performing
urban high school. As the country becomes more dependent on technology and science,
its demands to fill STEM careers grows, thus placing pressure on all learning
institutions to produce capable and scientifically proficient individuals to fill positions.
First, in reform contexts, teachers are seen as implementers of curriculum and
instructional reform with accountability. This was the case for the urban science
department in this study. This perspective of science education does not serve the
learning of urban students nor does it facilitate more effective teaching. The perspective
of implementers or conduits reflects a transmission model of professional development,
that is, teachers as tools of reform with no more influence on student learning than a
light turned on so students can see the words in a textbook. The analysis here describes
a more complicated situation—teachers mediating instructional reform and STEM
101
goals by participating in a sociocultural epistemic process. By taking on a perspective
of teachers as inquirers of practice, professional development can address the complex
situation of teacher cognition and practice.
Second, there is evidence of teacher planning, interpretation, and enactment of
strategies concerning instruction within the department having a positive impact on
teacher ability to foster science academic performance. Teachers grew in their ability to
relate to students, to meet responsibilities of instructional reform and begin the process
of transforming their laboratory environment into places where urban students could do
science and use predicting, argumentation, and evidence to support their thinking. It
was hypothesized that, if teachers received time together to collaboratively plan, reflect
and implement practices in classrooms, then they would be better prepared to face and
overcome the issues and challenges of mediating reforms with science content goals
while providing a network of peers to build a professional community. Professional
development, it seemed, was more than just reports on administrative business or for
individual venting sessions for teachers who normally are not heard. Teachers had to
interpret and transform the instructional reforms and decide how the reforms “looked”
in the laboratory setting, and then enact their ideas to return to discuss the evidence,
successes and challenges of pedagogical practices in a way that led to a departmental
learning process. Teachers had to make sense of new strategies, sanctions, audits,
expectations and then translate this understanding into science instruction prior to, and
sometimes in the context of, exploring them with other teachers.
102
Future Research
Research indicates that, among all education resources, teachers’ practice is the
number one factor that influences student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Hollins,
2011). However, low income, students of color and linguistically diverse students are
far more likely than other students to have teachers who are inexperienced, uncertified,
poorly educated and under-performing (Carey, 2004). This qualitative study aimed to
investigate the use of structured dialogue in a study group format, grounded in
socioculturalism, as an alternative form of professional development. This study
informs and influences the actions of inservice teachers who are in leadership roles and
want to facilitate professional development for quality teaching. The types and quality
of questions and experiences devised for teachers are rarely researched. Future studies
could explore the influence of questioning and teacher-focused inquiry on teacher
cognition and practice as they mediate instructional reform and science education
responsibilities. Focused inquiry is an investigation into particular phenomena that
influence the process and conditions for learning within and outside of classrooms
(Hollins, 2011). During inservice teacher-focused inquiry, teachers address questions
about discipline-specific knowledge, student learning, and the impact or outcome in
relationship to teaching and learning (Hollins, 2011). What questions can be asked of
teachers to achieve the type of reflection and metacognition about practice that will
facilitate the type of learning that is necessary for urban students? How can the
questions facilitate what types of questions teachers ask students in supporting students’
habits of mind in science?
103
The findings from the current study also suggest that teacher leaders who utilize
structured dialogue, framed within a learning theory, have an impact on facilitating the
work teachers do in order to foster the academic performance of urban students.
Examining and facilitating structured dialogue questions concerning rigor of
assignments, types of assignments, and how student performance is evidence of
positive mediation between reforms and science initiatives would be a valuable addition
to teacher education programs. This could be formally organized to include cross-
disciplinary teacher education study groups whereby participants meet regularly to sort
through, and sort out issues of teacher pedagogy practice as it relates to student learning
(Brock, 2007; Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Further research is needed to examine the reasons for teacher failure to apply
the pedagogies that effectively create classroom environments conducive to learning.
Jay (2000) suggests that teachers feel uncomfortable sharing certain types of
knowledge. Developing effective safe ways for teachers to explore the conscious and
unconscious reasons for rejecting certain practices that facilitate learning would
facilitate the improvement of teacher quality.
104

REFERENCES
Au, K.H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students with
diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(2), 22.
Berkman, M. and Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in
the classroom. Science, 331(6016), 2.
Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and change.
Educational Leadership, 62(6), 3.
Birman, B.F., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 5.
Bomer, R., Dworin, J., May, L., and Semingson, P. (2008). Miseducating teachers
about the poor: a critical analysis of Ruby Payne's claims about poverty.
Teachers College Record, 110(12), 35.
Brock, C., Moore, D., Parks, L. (2007). Exploring pre-service teachers' literacy
practices with children from diverse backgrounds: implications for teacher
educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 17.
Buchmann, M. and Floden, R. (1992). Coherence, the rebel angel. Educational
Researcher, 21(9), 5.
Bullough, R. and Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms
of self-study resarch. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 13-21.
Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument
interventions in K-12 science context. Review of Educational Research, 80(3),
36.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 56.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(56),
249.
Cornbleth, C. (1996). Curriculum in and out of context. In E. R. Hollins (Ed.),
Transforming Curriculum for a Culturally Diverse Society. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
105
Craig, C. (2009). Research in the midst of organized school reform: Versions of teacher
community in tension. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 21.
Dinkelman, T (2003). Self-Study in teacher education: a means and ends tool for
promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 12.
Domitrovich, C., Gest, S., Gill, S., Bierman, K., Welsh, J., and Jones, D. (2009).
Fostering high-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professionald
development support: the head start REDI program. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 31.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual,
epistemic, and social learning goals. Reveiw of Research in Education, 32, 27.
Eilam, B; Poyas, Y. (2006). Promoting awareness of the characreristics of classrooms'
complexity: A course curriculum in teacher education. . Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 24.
Gallucci, C., Devoogt Van Lare, M., Yoon, I., Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional
coaching: building theory about the role and organizational support for
professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 47.
Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. and Santoro, L. (2010). Teacher study
group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and
student outcoms in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 47(3), 45.
Hamel, F. and Merz, C. (2005). Reframing accountability: a preservice program
wrestles with mandated reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 10.
Haycock, K (1998). Good teaching matters...A lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 11.
Hollins, E. (2011). The centrality of a theoretical perspective on learning to teach:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Hollins, E. R (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 4.
Hollins, E.R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 62(4), 40.
Horn, I. and Little, J. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: routines and resources
for professional learning in teachers' workplace interactions. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 36.
106
Jay, J.K. and Johnson, K.L. (2000). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective
practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 12.
Johnson, K. E. and Golombek, P.R. (2003). "Seeing" teacher learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 37(4), 8.
Kroll, L. (2005). Making inquiry a habit of mind: Learning to use inquiry to understand
and improve practice. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 14.
Kumashiro, K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: how the right has framed the
debate on America's schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .
Little, J. (1993). Teacher professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 22.
Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: responding to the
challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(1), 12-20.
Maloch, B., Flint, A., Elrige, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J., Bryant-Shaklin, M.,
and Martinez, M. (2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decision making
of first-year teachers from different rating teacher preparation programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 26.
Milner, R. (2007). Race, Narrative Inquiry, and Self-Study in Curriculum and Teacher
Education. Education and Urban Society, 39, 26.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation's Report Card: Science
2009: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences Document
Number)
Neuman, S. and Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and
coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American
Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 35.
Obidah, J. and Howard, T. (2005). Preparing teachers for "Monday Morning" in the
urban school classroom: reflecting on our pedagogies and practices as effective
teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 8.
Olsen, B. and Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view
their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(1), 36.
107
Packer, M. and Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of
learning: ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologiest, 35(4), 14.
Palinscar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, D., and Brown, N. (1998).
Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GIsML
community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 14.
Patton, M. (2005). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: how testing
and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Rideout, G. W, and Morton, L. L. (2007). Pre-Service teachers’ beliefs and other
predictors of pupil control ideologies. Journal of Educational Administration,
45(5), 17.
Riegle-Crumb, C. and King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM:
Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity.
Educational Researcher, 39(9), 8.
Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics
teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 14.
Shields, P.M., Esch, C.E., Humphrey, D.C., Young, V.M., Gaston, M., and Hunt, H.
(1999). The status of the teaching profession: Research findings and policy
recommendations. In A report to the teaching and California's future task force.
Santa Cruz: The center for the future of teaching and learning.
Shulman, L.S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and
learning? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 4.
Silver, E., Mesa, V., Morris, K., Star, J. and Benken, B. (2009). Teaching mathematics
for understanding: an analysis of lesson submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS
certification. American Educational Research Journal 46(2), 31.
Smith, P. (2003). Workplace learning and flexible delivery. Review of Educational
Research, 73(1), 35.
Toksoz, C. and Ham, B. (2011). Undergraduate educators urge broader embrace of
innovation. Science, 331(6020), 1.
Toll, C., Neirstheinmer, S., Lenski, S. and Kollogg, P. (2004). Washing our students
clean: internal conflicts in response to preservice teachers' beliefs and practices.
Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 12.
108
Ward, J.R. and McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 13.
Wenger, E. (2007). 'Communities of practice. A brief introduction". Retrieved October
11, 2010, 2010, from http://www.ewemger.com/theory
Wenger, E., White, N., Smith, J., and Rowe, K. . (2004). Technologies for
communities.
Wertsch, J.V., Del Rio, P., Alvarez, A. . (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 36.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of
dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political
challenges facing teachers. . Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 44.
York-Barr, J. and Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership?
Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 62.

109
APPENDIX A
Planning and Reflection Job Aid (Semester I)

Department Meeting Date: _______________________________________

Topic: _______________________________________________________

WASC Recommendations Priority Area of Improvement: 1) There is a need to
expand the focus of school improvement efforts to more fully address the entire school
curriculum consistent with the state performance and content standards and the state
frameworks. In those areas where state measures of student mastery of the standards are
assessed and measured, growth targets and benchmarks need to be established for each
course of study.

Discussion: Think about the unit in which you are planning for the next major topic in
your course.
1. What are the expected learning outcomes for this unit?

2. What prerequisite knowledge and skills do students need to successfully
complete the unit?

3. How will you provide support for your FBB and BB students? (Think SDAIE)

110
4. What sequence of experiences and tools will be used to facilitate learning?
a. Engagement

b. Explore

c. Explain

d. Elaborate

e. Evaluate

5. What examples of student use of academic vocabulary and instructional
dialogue can you predict?

6. How will you determine whether students have made progress toward applying
the concepts and skills they’ve learned in new and novel situations?

Guided Reflection
1. What were the strengths and weaknesses in your learning plan? (What prior
experiences, knowledge, and skills helped students succeed with this learning
experience?)
2. Did students learn the concepts or skills well enough for application in new and
novel situations? If not, what additional learning experiences might better
support this level of application?
3. What elements of practice need to change in order to improve student learning
and participation? (Was there something missing in the instructional/learning
sequence? Was the instruction appropriately linked to students’ prior
knowledge? What instructional approaches can be used to enhance learning for
student with prior experiences, knowledge and skills different from those
necessary to succeed with this learning plan? What instructional approaches can
be used to better support participation among diverse students?
4. How does the theoretical perspective on learning that you used help you make
sense of your instructional practices?

111
APPENDIX B

Structured Dialogue Tool (Semester III)

Directions: Please attached the following to this form:
• Blank copy of a work sample.
• Copy of student work sample

1. Describe how the work sample you attached to this form is a valid measurement
of the focus stated.

2. Is the student work sample from a FBB, BB or ELL student?

3. Challenges and successes: Please write down what went well and any
challenges that you faced when trying to implement this strategy.
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FORM
DECLARED STRATEGY: Please write the strategy that you stated from the last meeting
(i.e. test taking strategies, increased homework turn in, class work) and describe how you
used the strategy to improve student achievement.
FOCUS: To increase student achievement in
science
112
4. List the comments, suggestions, and ideas that you received from your group
discussion.

5. Describe your implementation strategy: (i.e. I will continue to use the strategy
put in to place with these adjustments…) make sure you indicate the following.
a. The focus:

b. The strategy:

c. A full description of how you will implement the strategy:

d. Student indicators of improvement (expected learning outcomes):

113
APPENDIX C

Formal Lab Report Rubric

Sections Needs Improvement Satisfactory Excellent
Title Page

The report does not
contain a title page

The report contains a title page
but lacks one or more of these:
Name of Lab
Name of Student
Date
Period
Subject
The report contains a
title page with all the
components:
Name of Lab
Name of Student
Date
Period
Subject
Purpose
and/or
Hypothesis
(Pre-lab)
No purpose or
hypothesis is stated
The purpose and/or hypothesis
are present but unclear
Clearly and completely
explains the purpose /
hypothesis
(Pre-Lab)
Questions
No questions are
answered
Some questions are answered
correctly
All questions are
answered correctly
Materials
(Pre-lab)
Does not contain
materials that were
used in the lab
Contains only a few materials
used in the lab
Contains a complete
list of all the material
used in the lab
Methods,
Procedures
& Safety
Issues
(Pre-lab)
Does not contain the
methods, procedures
and safety issues

Contains some but not all of
the methods, procedures and
safety issues
Contains all the
methods, procedures
and safety issues.
Data tables
and/or
Graphs

Contains:
- some but not all the
tables and/or graphs
- it has them all, but
they are not labeled or
filled in correctly
Contains:
- all data tables and graphs are
labeled and represented
appropriately
Contains:
- all data tables and
graphs are drawn
neatly, calibrated
appropriately,
presented
scientifically, and
reported in SI units
Discussion
and Analysis
Explanation of the data
is inaccurate or absent
Contains partially accurate
explanations of the data
Contains a detailed and
accurate account of the
data
Questions

No questions are
answered
Some questions are answered
correctly
All questions are
answered correctly
Conclusion

Does not consider
hypothesis, sources of
error, and concepts
learned
Accepts or rejects hypothesis
but lacks adequate support
Attempts to explain:
- sources of error
- concepts learned
Clearly states whether
hypothesis is accepted
or rejected
Identifies:
- sources of error
- concepts learned

Total Earned _________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of professional development characterized by teacher facilitated learning activities as a way to improve teaching practices and learning outcomes. In this study, teachers were provided opportunities to facilitate their own learning by investigating ways to consistently foster the desired learning outcomes for urban students over the course of three semesters. During the first semester, teachers focused on improving test scores and student motivation. By the third semester, teachers opted to extend time for students to complete assignments, and focused on sharing strategies that worked for students. Second, students of teachers who participated in the study group format using the structured dialogue approach demonstrated dramatic gains on the standardized content assessment in chemistry and integrated coordinated science (ICS) over three years. In chemistry, the percent of students scoring at far below basic decreased by 24%, and the percentage of students who scored basic increased 21%. In ICS, the percentage of students that scored far below basic decreased by 14% and the percent of students who scored basic increased 14%. The research findings suggest that using structured dialogue to facilitate teacher discourse in a way that is conducive to establishing positive discourse about student learning and rigorous pedagogy are key factors in improving teachers’ ability to foster high academic outcomes from urban students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

PDF

Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

PDF

Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

Examining the impact of LETRS professional learning on student literacy outcomes: a quantitative analysis

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Linton, Antoinette S. (author)

Core Title Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 11/21/2011

Defense Date 06/08/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag epistemic practices,improved student academic performance,improved teacher performance,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,secondary science,STEM,Teacher education,teacher practice

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hollins, Etta R. (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Stillman, Jamy (committee member)

Creator Email alinton@usc.edu,ASlinton1@me.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-209406

Unique identifier UC11291182

Identifier usctheses-c3-209406 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LintonAnto-424-1.pdf

Dmrecord 209406

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Linton, Antoinette S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA