This article was downloaded by: [Dr Liora Bialer]On: 11 February 2012, At: 07:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Towards accomplished practice inlearning skills for science (LSS): thesynergy between design and evaluationmethodology in a reflective CPDprogrammeZahava Scherz a , Liora Bialer a & Bat‐Sheva Eylon a

a Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science,Rehovot, Israel

Available online: 11 Mar 2011

To cite this article: Zahava Scherz, Liora Bialer & Bat‐Sheva Eylon (2011): Towards accomplishedpractice in learning skills for science (LSS): the synergy between design and evaluationmethodology in a reflective CPD programme, Research in Science & Technological Education, 29:1,49-69

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2011.543799

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 29, No. 1, April 2011, 49–69

ISSN 0263-5143 print/ISSN 1470-1138 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02635143.2011.543799http://www.informaworld.com

Towards accomplished practice in learning skills for science (LSS): the synergy between design and evaluation methodology in a reflective CPD programme

Zahava Scherz*, Liora Bialer and Bat-Sheva Eylon

Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, IsraelTaylor and FrancisCRST_A_543799.sgm10.1080/02635143.2011.543799Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 (print)/1470-1138 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis291000000April 2011Dr. ZahavaScherzzahava.scherz@weizmann.ac.il

This study was carried out in the framework of continuous professionaldevelopment (CPD) programmes following a CPD model aimed at promoting‘accomplished practice’ involving: pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge,pedagogical content knowledge and scholarship of teaching. Teachers were askedto bring evidence about their practice. The context was related to the ‘LearningSkills for Science’ (LSS) programme, which advocates the explicit incorporationof high-order learning skills into science school curricula. The main goal of thestudy was to test the evidence-based LSS CPD model by investigating the impactof its related CPD programmes on participating teachers. The impact relates toteachers’ perceptions about teaching learning skills, teachers’ LSS practice, andtheir professional influence in the educational system. As part of the evaluationmethod, we developed a criterion-based diagnostic tool and a visual representation,designed to assess a teacher’s professional profile and progression according todimensions of ‘accomplished practice’. The diagnostic tool can be adjusted andtailored to different CPD domains. Results indicated that requiring teachers tobring evidence from practice and students’ learning enabled us to follow teachers’progress and succeeded to improve their performances towards accomplished LSSpractice. The results exemplify a synergy between CPD designed activities and theongoing evaluation of its impact.

Keywords: LSS; Learning Skills for Science; CPD programme; continuousprofessional development programme; accomplished practice in LSS; assessingteachers’ progress; teachers’ profiles

Introduction

One of the criticisms of continuous professional development (CPD) programmes isthat they often do not lead to pedagogical changes in teachers’ practice (Borko 2004;Desimone et al. 2002; Fishman et al. 2003; Guskey 2003; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003;Wilson and Berne 1999). Nevertheless, CPD approaches in which CPD providersoffer long-term support and teachers collaboratively reflect on their practice have beenshown to contribute significantly to pedagogical changes (Kazemi and Franke 2004;Little et al. 2003).

The present paper is based on research and theory concerning the professionaldevelopment of science teachers and instruction of high-order skills. It was carried outin the context of several CPD programmes for teachers, which took place in Israel andin the UK. These CPD programmes focused on teaching high-order learning strategies

*Corresponding author. Email: zahava.scherz@weizmann.ac.il

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

50 Z. Scherz et al.

using the ‘Learning Skills for Science’ (LSS) programme. Here we describe a CPDmodel whose aim is to enhance teachers’ perceptions about the instruction of learningskills in science, their LSS practice and their professional influence in the educationalsystem regarding LSS instruction. This model was developed in the context of adesign study involving a series of CPD programmes (Spektor-Levy, Scherz, andEylon 2008; Scherz, Bialer, and Eylon 2008; Spektor-Levy, Scherz, and Eylon 2009)and its impact was tested by using a visual diagnostic tool for evaluating teachers’performances.

The LSS programme was designed to incorporate into the learning of school sciencecontent the acquisition of skills such as information retrieval, scientific reading, scien-tific writing, listening and observing, information representation, and knowledgepresentation. Integrating learning skills with scientific contents instruction may implya change in teachers’ existing practice. It is widely accepted that if teachers are to movesuccessfully toward achieving these goals, it is important to consider their knowledgeand beliefs about teaching, learning, and the subject matter (Tobin and McRobbie 1996;van Driel, Beijaard, and Verloop 2001; Hofstein, Carmi, and Ben-Zvi 2003; Pintó 2005;Pintó, Couso, and Gutierrez 2005). Given the increasing commitment to professionaldevelopment on the part of the educational community, it is important to identify thosefeatures of professional development that are successful in fostering teacher changeand motivation to change.

During the 1970s professional development of teachers was often based on thenotion that there is a deficit in teachers’ skills and knowledge. Therefore, most profes-sional development programmes consisted of ‘one shot’ workshops aimed at teachers’mastery of prescribed skills and knowledge (Guskey 1986). However, an examinationof the literature reveals that this deficit model has been criticized as being inadequate(e.g., Clark and Hollingsworth 2002; Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991). In the 1980sprofessional development of teachers moved towards organizational development,improvement of schools, and systemic change (Guskey 1986). Clark and Hollingsworth(2002) considered ‘teacher change’ to be a complex process involving learning andreflection. It is commonly accepted among researchers that the traditional approach toprofessional development, which presents a new educational programme to teachersprior to its implementation, is necessary but not sufficient to change teachers’ practice.A continuing professional development (CPD) programme, directly related to teachers’practice at school, is required. These programmes prepare teachers through implemen-tation and promote their active reflection on their instruction and on their students’learning. An important component of such a CPD programme is collaboration and shar-ing of experience among teachers (Garet et al. 2001; Erickson et al. 2005; Harrison,Hofstein, and Eylon 2008; Putnam and Borko 2000).

One way of amplifying the effectiveness of such a CPD programme is to base partof it on ‘records of practice’, which we will term ‘evidence’. Loewenberg, Cohen, andBen-Peretz (2002) referred to harnessing such records on teachers’ experience as ameans of achieving teachers’ learning individually and collectively and creating sharedprofessional knowledge. Portfolios that include evidence offer a unique vehicle for self-reflection by exposing ‘invisible’ aspects of practice to the teacher and thus maypromote the capability to learn from experience through careful analysis. This capa-bility distinguishes an accomplished teacher from a novice (Convino and Iwanicki1996).

Accomplished teaching of science can be defined in terms of the knowledge beingused by teachers in their practice. This knowledge has been categorised as general

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 51

pedagogical knowledge, subject-matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowl-edge. General pedagogical knowledge depends on overarching teaching practices thatare not specific to disciplines, e.g., how to integrate a variety of learning environ-ments. Subject matter knowledge includes teachers’ knowledge of the facts, concepts,and procedures within a particular domain, such as learning skills in science. Pedagog-ical content knowledge is concerned with the teaching and learning of a particulardomain: knowing how students learn within that domain, knowing their commonmisconceptions and the specific difficulties and challenges pertaining to that domain,and being able to apply this knowledge to teaching and learning within that particulardomain (Borko and Putnam 1995; Huberman 1995; Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko1999; Shulman 1986, 1987). Another aspect of accomplished teaching, termed ‘schol-arship of teaching’, was proposed by Hutchings and Shulman (1999). They suggestedthat besides excellent teaching, teachers should be able to articulate their teachingactions and thinking in such a way that it will be available for community discourseand study. They also claimed that this public feature of teaching improves teachers’learning and performance through reflection and professional discourse.

The detailed specifications of the four general aspects of accomplished teachingmentioned above depend on the specific CPD domain. These specifications have to befirmly grounded both in the literature relevant to the domain and in expert teachers’classroom practice. An attempt to arrive at such a specification has been the subjectof a bi-national UK–Israel research project (Harrison, Hofstein, and Eylon 2008) thatexamined how CPD programmes can help teachers progress towards achievingaccomplished practice. This question was examined in the two countries, and in sixdifferent domains, including LSS.

Background

We will discuss the main features of the LSS programme and the LSS CPD model.

Learning Skills for Science (LSS) programme

The LSS programme was designed in 1996 in Israel to develop scientific literacy andlearning skills in science studies (Spektor-Levy and Scherz 1999, 2001) and in 2005this programme was further developed and adapted for the UK KS4 science curricu-lum. This was funded by the Science Enhancement Programme (SEP) of the GatsbyFoundation and was published in collaboration with the Nuffield Curriculum Centre(Scherz and Spektor-Levy 2006). The programme focuses mainly on the followingskills: information retrieval, scientific reading, listening and observing, scientific writ-ing, information representation, and knowledge presentation. Each of these skills canbe further subdivided into sub-skills (Table 1). This programme is modular and flex-ible; therefore, it employs an instructional approach requiring teachers to design theirown sequences of instruction by integrating content and skills attainment.

The model of skills instruction is based on three assumptions and principles:

● Most students do not develop high-quality learning skills spontaneously. There-fore, they should be taught explicitly in a well-planned manner (Prawat 1991).

● The teaching of skills should be integrated and infused with content learning inscience and technology, and it should not be taught as a separate content-freesubject (Ennis 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

52 Z. Scherz et al.

● The learned skills should be applied repeatedly in a variety of domains andcontexts throughout the curriculum and should not be taught as a ‘one-shot’experience.

These principles guided us in designing a general model for skills instruction thatprovides the science teacher with pedagogy and instructional strategies, and it can beimplemented in the science classroom. The characteristics of this general skillsinstruction model are as follows:

Explicit instruction

The instruction of skills and sub-skills is very evident and is emphasized explicitly inclass using meta-cognitive reflections and discussions. Students are aware of theprocess of skills acquisition.

Active learning

Learning takes place through diverse activities (e.g., independent learning, teamwork); and students are immediately requested to use the learned skill in their scienceassignments.

Framework

The instructional materials consist of a generic framework of many common activitiesthat can be used in conjunction with different science topics. These activities aredesigned to practice the different learning skills as well as the sub-skills in any givencontent in science (e.g., employing ‘scientific reading’ activities in science tasks).

Integration

The teachers are supposed to tailor the general activities to specific content areasaccording to the level and needs of the students in class. For several units in the curric-ulum, integrated activities are provided through ‘interface’ materials that were devel-oped as examples for the teachers.

Table 1. The LSS programme: skills and sub-skills.

LSS skills Sub-skills (examples)

Information retrieval Information retrieval in computerised databases; ‘Navigation’ in the library: using catalogues, the Dewey Decimal classification; searching in scientific journals; interviewing experts.

Scientific reading Reading scientific essays and articles; analysing the structure of reference books.

Listening and observing Lectures, videos, debates, demonstrations.Scientific writing Articles, reports, abstracts, essays.Information representation Scheme, graphs, tables, drawings/illustrations.Knowledge presentation Oral presentations, multimedia, models, expert panels, scientific

posters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 53

Spiral instruction

Throughout the school year the students practice the six skill areas. Each year studentsare introduced to different sub-skills, which they learn in depth. They continue topractice them several times in the course of their studies.

Flexibility and modularity

The instructional materials are flexible and modular so that teachers can choosespecific, appropriate skills and activities that can be implemented every year. Theteachers can plan their own sequence of instruction according to their agenda and canadjust the activities to the level and needs of their students.

LSS materials include students’ activities, a teacher’s guide, a training manual, andan active web site with resources and additional activities. The materials are availablefor integrated science for Grades 14–16 and in the disciplines of physics, chemistry,biology, and applied science for post-16 level. They have been implemented through-out the UK, in Israel, and in Singapore. Implementation of the materials requires priorin-service professional development.

The LSS CPD model

Several LSS CPD programmes whose aim was to facilitate designing a model for ageneral LSS continuous professional development (CPD) programme were imple-mented in Israel and the UK (Spektor-Levy, Scherz, and Eylon 2008; Scherz, Bialer,and Eylon 2008). The goal of the programmes was to attain a long-term change andimprovement in teachers’ practices and beliefs.

Main characteristics of the LSS CPD programme

The main characteristics, which follow, relate to: (1) the structure of the CPDprogramme; (2) the leading pedagogical components comprising the CPDprogramme, specifically referring to ‘accomplished practice’ and ‘reflective practice’;and (3) the main strands of CPD. The relationships between these characteristics arepresented in Table 2.

Structure

The LSS CPD programme consists of two courses:

● A basic CPD course that consists of at least 16 hours (two full days or four halfdays) of face-to-face meetings, along with intermediate periods in which theteachers implement part of the new approach/materials in their classes. In theface-to-face meetings the teachers are introduced to the contents, activities, andpedagogies of the different LSS skill areas and try out the learning materials.During the intermediate period(s), CPD providers and participants maintaincontact through email, websites, and telephone calls in order to report andreflect on their practice.

● An advanced evidence-based CPD course intended for graduates of the basiccourse who have fully implemented LSS instruction at least for one year in their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

54 Z. Scherz et al.

science classes. It consists of several face-to-face meetings throughout theschool year. We recommend four one-day meetings or a larger number ofshorter meetings with the same total number of hours. The face-to-face meetingsof the advanced LSS CPD programme deal with pedagogical and practicalaspects of LSS instruction. Teachers are required to record evidence from theirLSS practice and to share it with other participating teachers for discussions andcollaborative learning. In between meetings CPD providers and trainers meetand communicate with teams of participating teachers and support them in theirLSS practice and in preparing evidence (see Table 2). Teachers are required toorganize their evidence in a portfolio that they submit at the end of the CPDprogramme. Each portfolio has to describe three pieces of evidence about teach-ers’ LSS practice, in which they refer to students’ work, their teaching activities,and students’ LSS assessment (see Table 3).

This article focuses on the advanced evidence-based course.

Accomplished practice

A definition of accomplished practice in the context of LSS instruction plays a majorrole in the advanced CPD programme. This component serves as an instructional toolthat facilitates setting up goals for the CPD programme and aids in its design. It alsohelps in evaluating the impact of the CPD programme on teachers’ performance ofLSS instruction. We believe that in order to increase the effectiveness of the CPDprogrammes, it is important that the participating teachers share what is consideredaccomplished practice in their particular domain. The shared vision and its explicationprovide a sense of direction for the CPD requirements, and aid the teachers in focusing

Table 2. The advanced LSS CPD programme.

Strand Exemplary activities

Yearly meetings: six to eight, four-hour meetings, for all participants

LSS instruction Elicitation of knowledge about LSS and LSS instruction analysis and classification of skills’ areas

Planning and evaluating LSS schemes of work integrated into the science curriculum

Evidence preparation Acquaintance with artefact-obtaining tools (video/interview/ observation etc.) and their analysis

Presentation of teachers’ evidence concerning LSS instruction, discussion and feedback

Accomplished practice Clarification of characteristics of an accomplished teacher in LSS instruction

Analyzing and characterizing teachers’ practice in light of the characteristics of accomplished practice

In-between meetings: communication by e-mail and telephone, individual and small group meetings

LSS instruction and evidence preparation

Consultation and support participants’ specific needs concerning LSS instruction or evidence preparation

Feedback to teachers’ LSS in-process products of LSS instruction and evidence preparation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 55

their efforts towards achieving the central goals of accomplished teaching in a partic-ular domain. The accomplished LSS practice component is presented in the LSSadvanced CPD through issues such as: clarifying through discussions, ‘what it meansto teach and learn LSS in science lessons?’; role playing (e.g., interviewing a candi-date for a job as a LSS science teacher); and planning the integration of LSS instruc-tion into science studies (see Figure 1).Figure 1. The characteristics of an accomplished LSS teacher

Reflective practitioner

A reflective component where teachers report and reflect on, and/or demonstrate theirLSS practice. This leads to and governs the design of the course’s activities and

Table 3. The structure and content of the evidence-based portfolio in the advanced LSS CPDprogramme.

Chapter Contents

Introduction:LSS instruction Perceptions, beliefs, main ideas and concepts of LSS instruction, its

importance and relevance for teaching/learningAbout evidence Description of the learning skills presented in the evidence , and its

integration into the science scheme of workThe setting Description of the teaching setting: grade, students’ level, LSS

experience, and school characteristics

Evidence: Purpose of the evidenceThree pieces Artefacts (from students’ work, classroom/teaching events)

Analysis of artefacts (classification, interpretation, and categorization)Conclusions drawn from the dataImplications and reflection on the presented LSS practice – Comparison to previous instruction– Considerations and rationale– Strength and weakness of practice– Implication to future instruction

Reflective summary: Reflection about the process and changes in LSS instruction and learning assessment

Reflection about preparing the evidence/portfolio

Figure 1. The characteristics of an accomplished LSS teacher.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

56 Z. Scherz et al.

assignments. Therefore, in the advanced LSS CPD course teachers bring ‘evidence’ –a collection of artefacts that demonstrate their actual practice concerning their LSSinstruction and their students’ learning, combined with written commentaries. Thevarious artefacts are presented and shared throughout the CPD meetings, followed bygroup discussions and feedback. Later, the teachers explicitly present the knowledgeand evidence that they have accumulated in formats that encourage integration andreflection on their knowledge (e.g., through a portfolio, professional poster or oralpresentation). This approach also aims at encouraging teachers to collaborativelyreflect on their practice, thus creating a community of practice.

Main strands

In each meeting participants revisit in a spiral manner the same three strands:

(a) Advanced issues concerning LSS instruction such as planning a yearly LSSscheme of work, elaborating on the significance of each learning skill, andcharacterizing LSS best practice towards accomplishment.

(b) Didactical and practical tools for preparing evidence such as formulatingevidence objectives, videotaping lessons in class, interviewing and interviewanalysis and scaffolding teachers in preparing evidence about their LSSpractice and students’ learning.

(c) Characterizing LSS accomplished practice, analyzing evidence according toits dimensions, reporting and reflecting on evidence preparation process andproducts.

The study

Goal

The main goal of this study is to test the evidence-based LSS CPD model by investi-gating the impact of its related CPD programmes on participating teachers. Theimpact relates to teachers’ perceptions about teaching learning skills, teachers’ LSSpractice, and their professional influence in the educational system.

Data sources and sample

The data were collected through longitudinal research studies with several cohorts.The study traced science teachers’ change throughout their LSS CPD evidence basedprogramme. All participants were experienced middle school (Grades 7–9) scienceteachers who had taken part in the LSS basic CPD programme in the past and hadexperience in LSS instruction for at least one year.

We used three types of data sources:

(1) Portfolios of 24 teachers; these portfolios contain evidence, based on artefactsabout LSS practice. This is in alignment with Borko et al. (2005) who foundthat teachers’ artefacts are a reliable source of evidence for evaluating theirpractice.

(2) Interviews with 16 participating teachers (subset of the 24 teachers mentionedabove, from all three cohorts) that were carried out at the end of the CPD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 57

programme. Three of these teachers were also interviewed during the CPDprogramme.

(3) Transcripts of all CPD face-to-face meetings.

Method

We offer a method that enables one to evaluate the impact of a CPD programme onteachers’ practice by specifying teachers’ performance in relation to a framework of‘accomplished practice’ in the CPD domain. This method, which led to the developmentof a visual diagnostic tool, involves the following steps:

● Formulating the framework of ‘accomplished practice’ in the CPD domainusing a general characterization of ‘accomplished practice’, such as the onedescribed in the introduction (Shulman 1987; Harrison, Hofstein, and Eylon2008).

● Identifying categories of accomplished practice in a particular domain in rela-tion to the general framework in step one. Here we exemplify this step for thedomain of LSS. The process of identification was based on studies of teachers’performance (Spektor-Levy, Eylon, and Scherz 2008; Scherz, Bialer, and Eylon2008) and resulted in a set of six categories: P – Perceptions of LSS instruction;M – Model of instruction; T – Using learning materials; A – Assessment; I –Influence on the school system; E – Evidence preparation.

● Assigning benchmarks to each of the categories in order to identify the teacher’scompetency levels. In the case of LSS, we identified for each category ahierarchy of levels on a scale of 1–5 (Table 4).

These steps led to the design of the diagnostic tool that enables one to assess theteachers’ competency level for each category using a variety of assessment tools anddata sources and also provides a way to describe the profile of teacher’s competenciesin different stages of the CPD.

Our diagnostic tool enables a visual representation of teachers’ profiles thatillustrate their LSS competencies. The visual representation of the profiles (seeFigure 2) utilizes a ‘spider-web’ representation consisting of six radial axes, eachrepresenting one of the LSS competency categories described above. Each axis issubdivided into five competency levels representing the relevant benchmarks. Theactual level in each category is represented by a dot on the corresponding axis. Thecontour connecting the levels represents the teachers’ profile of proficiency in LSSinstruction.

The diagnostic tool can reveal diverse LSS multidimensional professional profilesthat demonstrate strong and weak aspects of teachers’ performance (see Figure 2, forexample).Figure 2. A sample of diverse teachers’ professional profiles of LSS practice and evidence preparation (P – Perceptions; M – Model; T – Using learning materials; A – Assessment; I – Influence; E – Evidence preparation)The same visual representation can be used to describe changes in teachers’profiles throughout a CPD process. For example, Figure 5 below illustrates the changein profiles of three teachers participating in a LSS CPD programme, measured threetimes throughout their professional development process.

In this study we used the diagnostic tool and the visual representation in theanalysis of teachers’ portfolios (Scherz, Bialer, and Eylon 2008).

The analysis of teachers’ interviews was done by coding each interview scriptusing Shkedi’s (2004) constructivist qualitative approach in which the main categories

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

58 Z. Scherz et al.

Tabl

e 4.

Cat

egor

ies

of L

SS

pra

ctic

e an

d di

ffer

ent

com

pete

ncie

s le

vels

(on

a s

cale

of

1–5)

.

Lev

el

Com

pete

ncy

1 –

Low

23

45

– H

igh

PP

erce

ptio

ns a

bout

th

e ac

quis

itio

n of

sk

ill

Inst

ruct

ion

of

skil

ls i

s no

t co

nsid

ered

Rea

lisi

ng t

he i

mpo

rtan

ce o

f sk

ills

ins

truc

tion

wit

hout

im

plem

enta

tion

Bei

ng re

ady

to in

trod

uce

skil

ls a

cqui

siti

on

occa

sion

ally

Bel

ievi

ng i

n sy

stem

atic

pl

anni

ng o

f sk

ills

’ ac

quis

itio

n an

d th

eir

prac

tice

Rea

lizi

ng t

he n

eed

for

skil

ls a

sses

smen

t in

ad

diti

on t

o pl

anne

d ac

quis

itio

n an

d pr

acti

ce o

f sk

ills

MIn

stru

ctio

nal m

odel

No

inst

ruct

iona

l m

odel

Inst

ruct

iona

l mod

el c

onsi

sts

of

eith

er:

–in

tegr

atin

g sk

ills

& c

onte

nts

–fu

ll y

ear

plan

ning

–sp

iral

ins

truc

tion

The

inst

ruct

iona

l mod

el

cons

ists

of

two

aspe

cts:

a a

nd b

The

mod

el c

onsi

sts

of

two

aspe

cts:

eit

her

a an

d c

or b

and

c

The

inst

ruct

iona

l mod

el

cons

ists

of

all

thre

e as

pect

s

TT

each

ing

and

usin

g in

stru

ctio

nal

mat

eria

ls

No

teac

hing

of

LS

S m

ater

ials

Tea

chin

g of

spo

radi

c L

SS

ac

tivi

ties

for

sev

eral

sub

-sk

ills

Tea

chin

g a

set

of t

he

LS

S c

urri

cula

r ac

tivi

ties

Ada

ptin

g a

set

of L

SS

ac

tivi

ties

to

stud

ents

’ ne

eds

Dev

elop

ing

new

le

arni

ng a

ctiv

itie

s fo

r th

e sa

me

skil

ls a

nd

new

ski

lls

AA

sses

smen

t of

LSS

le

arni

ng

No

asse

ssm

ent

of s

kill

sA

sses

smen

t ba

sed

on

impr

essi

ons

(no

crit

eria

)C

rite

ria-

base

d as

sess

men

t (on

e ti

me)

Ass

essi

ng s

tude

nts’

pe

rfor

man

ce p

rofi

les

(one

tim

e) o

r st

uden

ts’

prog

ress

ion

Ass

essi

ng s

tude

nts’

pe

rfor

man

ce p

rofi

les

and

pro

gres

sion

IIn

flue

nce

and

invo

lvem

ent

in

scho

ol a

nd

beyo

nd

No

infl

uenc

eT

he t

each

er w

orks

alo

ne o

n L

SS

but

inf

luen

ces

othe

r sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

Tea

mw

ork

wit

h ot

her

scie

nce

teac

hers

in th

e sc

hool

Tea

mw

ork

wit

h ot

her

disc

ipli

nes

or l

eadi

ng

LS

S i

n sc

ienc

e de

part

men

t or

impa

ct

beyo

nd s

choo

l

The

tea

cher

pre

sent

s at

le

ast

two

of t

he

beha

viou

rs t

hat

are

desc

ribe

d in

lev

el 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 59

were extracted from the raw data without any pre-definition. The analysis involved arefinement process: after the main categories were identified, each category wasfurther analyzed into sub-categories. We calculated the distribution of each category/sub-category in all the interviews (no. of interviews = 16, no. of coded paragraphs =420) referring to all occurrences for each category or sub-category in every interview.This distribution is presented in Figures 4(a) and 4 (b), later.

Results

The categories in the diagnostic tool provide information about the impact of the LSSCPD on the participating teachers regarding the following dimensions: perceptions ofLSS instruction (Category P), their practice with regard to their LSS instructionalmodel (Category M), their use of the LSS learning materials (Category T), and theway they integrate LSS tasks into their students’ assessment (Category A). It alsoprovides information about two additional professional aspects that emerged throughthe CPD programme: the participating teachers’ influence on educational systemsregarding LSS (Category I) and their reflective skills, as represented by their ability toprepare evidence (Category E) (see Figure 1). This kind of information, gathered fromour research and based on evaluations from several LSS CPD programmes, helped usassess the impact of the advanced LSS CPD programmes on the crucial professionaldevelopment aspects mentioned above.

Teachers’ profiles

Figure 3 illustrates the profiles of 24 participants, based on their portfolio, towards theend of our advanced LSS CPD programmes from 2004–2006. As part of the analysiswe calculated the average level of competency for the six categories of each portfolio.The range of averages was divided into thirds, which represented high, average andpoor LSS performance.Figure 3. Professional profiles of 24 advanced LSS CPD teachers (based on the evidence-based LSS portfolio)The profiles of Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 20 and 21 indicate high-level perfor-mances in most categories. All these teachers performed very similarly regarding P(perception of LSS acquisition), M (instructional model), T (use of the LSS learning

Figure 2. A sample of diverse teachers’ professional profiles of LSS practice and evidencepreparation (P – Perceptions; M – Model; T – Using learning materials; A – Assessment; I –Influence; E – Evidence preparation).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

60 Z. Scherz et al.

materials), and E (evidence preparation) but performed slightly differently regardingtheir competency in A (assessment) and I (influence on the system). They were allvery close to achieving accomplished LSS practice.

The profiles of Teachers 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 generallyindicate an average level of LSS practice, although they differ regarding the specificvalues of their competency levels.

The profiles of Teachers 2, 9 and 10 indicate low LSS accomplishment. Theseteachers displayed a high level of P (perception of LSS acquisition) and a very highlevel of M (instructional model), but most of the other values are very low. This meansthat their content knowledge regarding LSS is reasonable, but their pedagogical

Figure 3. Professional profiles of 24 advanced LSS CPD teachers (based on the evidence-based LSS portfolio).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 61

capabilities of LSS as well as their ability to present evidence and their influencebeyond the classroom concerning LSS practice needs improvement. It is obvious thatthese teachers need further professional development which will enable them toachieve accomplished LSS practice.

Regarding the overall impact of the CPD programme, one has to analyze the vari-ous distributions of the teachers’ performance for each of the performance categories.In doing so, we found, for example, that all CPD teachers reached the maximumcompetency level in Category P, which related to their perceptions about the acquisi-tion of learning skills and specifically refers to planned acquisition of these skills andsystematic practice as well as recognizing the importance of assessing skills. In theintroduction to her portfolio, Teacher 6 clearly states her perceptions about instructionof skills and their assessment:

Today, it is clear to me that there is no possibility to disintegrate content knowledgelearning from learning skills’ learning. There is a need for multiyear planning in whichskills will be taught gradually, in a hierarchal and spiral way, and which will be inte-grated with curricular contents. This stepwise progression of LSS teaching shouldinclude teaching, implementing, and assessing.

The LSS CPD participants also knew how to implement LSS using a well-designed instructional model, as indicated by the distribution for Category M. Theseresults suggest that all teachers understood the need for integrating skills with scien-tific content. Two thirds of them actually planned spiral systematic implementation ofLSS into their scheme of work for one year or more. For example, Teacher 11 in theintroduction to her portfolio, reported on her progress in integrating LSS into thescience instruction:

The development of this evidence-based portfolio enables me to present my progress asa science teacher in three major aspects: I now prepare a teaching/learning continuumwhere skills and scientific content are fully integrated; I am planning a three-yearinstructional program of learning skills; I use assessment tasks in order to map and moni-tor my students’ performance in learning skills in science.

Regarding the teachers’ use of the LSS learning materials (T), we found that mostteachers adapted the LSS learning materials, adjusted them to their needs, and evendeveloped new learning activities. For example, Teacher 2, in presenting her evidencein the portfolio, describes how she developed her own learning skill activity:

My students had to search for information on the topic of mammals and I felt somethingwas missing in the LSS learning materials. I wanted them to differentiate between ageneral resource such as an encyclopaedia and a specific one. They usually turned to thegeneral ones, which were shallow and not comprehensive, so I had to develop an activityin which students have to look up information about a specific mammal in several kindsof resources and to critically compare the information.

However, in Category A, which refers to teachers’ use of assessment in theirLSS practice, the level of performance was mixed. Interestingly, the analysisrevealed that all teachers used criteria-based assessment but not all of them moni-tored students’ progress. Teacher 20 presented in her portfolio evidence indicatingthat she taught students how to search for information on the internet and how toevaluate a website, in the context of comparing different kinds of power stations. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

62 Z. Scherz et al.

addition to assessing the scientific understanding of her students, she also assessedtheir performance in information retrieval via the Internet using a rubric with thefollowing criteria: (a) use of search engines; (b) choice of keywords; and (c) thequality of chosen web sites.

Regarding Category I, which deals with the teachers’ influence on the educa-tional system, it is obvious that in some cases, but not all, the participating LSSteachers were either leaders of LSS instruction for their team, or had an impact onteachers from other disciplines or on science teachers in other schools regardingLSS. Teacher 5, in presenting her evidence in the portfolio, reports her influence onother teachers:

When we finished learning how to represent knowledge visually, I encouraged mystudents to use visual representations for preparing a test in science. I even offered abonus of 10 points to students who attach their visual preparations to the test. Otherteachers from my team, who heard about it, became interested in teaching visual repre-sentation skills and one of them even did it better than I did.

However, we suspect that in order to influence the system in a meaningful way,even beyond the schools, these teachers need specific CPD for LSS leaders.

A more detailed examination of teachers’ performance regarding the evidence (E)category shows that most of them were able to prepare evidence about their LSSteaching and about students’ learning by following the instructions given in the CPDprogramme. Evidence preparation required performing a few stages such as settingobjectives, collecting adequate artefacts, analyzing them, drawing conclusions andreflection. We divided the range of teachers’ outcomes for each sub-category of Einto thirds. In this way, we could describe high, average and poor levels of compe-tency for these sub-categories. Our analysis revealed that about 37% of the teachershad difficulties in drawing proper conclusions (level of competency is less than 3.4,range 1–4.7). About 60% of the teachers did not present reflection that is deep andcomprehensive enough (level of competency is less than 3.4, range 1.3–4.5). In theirreflections they mainly referred to practical issues concerning LSS instruction andwere less concerned with their own learning and the quality of their evidence. Appar-ently these aspects of evidence preparation need more emphasis in the CPDprogramme.

Teachers’ conceptions

Teachers’ interviews served as an additional source of information about the impactof the CPD programme. In particular, they enabled us to follow teachers’ conceptionsabout the impact of the CPD programme on their practice, perceptions, thinking andtheir professional influence.Figure 4. Analysis of teachers’ interviews including distribution of: (a) main categories (b) sub-categories of the ‘LSS instruction’ main category in (a) (n = 16)Figure 4(a) shows five main areas of impact, as indicated from the teachers’ inter-views: teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and confidence relating to LSS; LSS instruction;reflective thinking; knowledge about evidence preparation; and how LSS influencedthe educational system concerning LSS. It turns out that more than half (54%) feel thattheir LSS instruction ability was improved as a result of the activities and requirementsof the advanced CPD programme (e.g., the evidence preparation and presentation, thereflective processes and the in-depth analysis of the learning skills as well as theiractual practice). More specifically, Figure 4(b) points out teachers’ sub-areas of LSSinstruction that were improved: planning their LSS instruction, implementing LSS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 63

instruction in class, their model of LSS instruction, and their ability to assess theirstudents’ performance in LSS. In the interview, teachers elaborated on their planningprocess and indicated that through the CPD it became more detailed, structured andmeticulous. The interviews also showed that evidence preparation encouraged them touse ‘assessment for learning’ methods in their instruction by monitoring students’progress and performances.

From Figure 4(a), we also can conclude that teachers feel that their reflectivethinking ability has been improved. The interviews indicated that the evidence prepa-ration aided them in explicating their instructional goals as a guiding tool in their LSSplanning and actual teaching. Teachers’ reflective thinking was also developedthrough their evidence preparation: they were able to critically relate to strong andweak aspects in their LSS practice and how to improve it towards accomplishment.

Figure 4. Analysis of teachers’ interviews including distribution of: (a) main categories(b) sub-categories of the ‘LSS instruction’ main category in (a) (n = 16).D

ownl

oade

d by

[D

r L

iora

Bia

ler]

at 0

7:51

11

Febr

uary

201

2

64 Z. Scherz et al.

Teacher change

To indicate how teachers progressed towards achieving ‘accomplished practice’, wehad to diagnose teachers’ proficiencies several times throughout the CPD programme.An example of such an evaluation, using our diagnostic tool, is illustrated in Figure 5which presents changes in teachers’ profiles throughout the LSS CPD programme, asindicated in three stages of the CPD programme. One teacher (A) was sampled beforethe advanced course and after two years of LSS practice, during the advanced course,and at the end of the advanced course. The other two teachers (B and C) were sampledduring the advanced course, at the end of the advanced course and after tutoring otherteachers.Figure 5. Three teachers’ professional profiles of LSS practice in three stagesWe will focus on one of these teachers – Teacher A (Teacher 2 in Figure 3) anddemonstrate her progress in several dimensions during the LSS CPD programme.Teacher A has been a science teacher for seven years and has two years of LSS prac-tice. She works in an urban middle school that emphasizes nature and science studiesand encourages a culture of learning and enquiry skills. She took an active part in theCPD activities, discussions, and evidence preparation. Her portfolio focuses on teach-ing the skill area ‘information retrieval’ and provides three pieces of evidence abouther practice in teaching ‘information retrieval’. Evidence 1 relates to her yearlyscience scheme of work in which she interwove information retrieval activities withscience contents. Evidence 2 describes how she performed, documented, and analysedclass observations as well as interviews with three of her students, while they wereengaged in information retrieval learning tasks. Evidence 3 reports on the assessmentof students’ learning and supplements her assessment task, dealing with bibliographyin a greenhouse project and her students’ products. She also describes how she setcriteria for analyzing students’ answers and used them to describe their performanceprofiles. Teacher A ends her portfolio with a reflective summary in which she referredboth to the process of LSS instruction she had experienced and to the evidencepreparation. In particular, she also identified her own strengths and weaknesses inpreparing evidence.

Figure 5 shows that before the advanced course, Teacher A had correctlyperceived the LSS instruction (Category P). She recognized the importance of system-

Figure 5. Three teachers’ professional profiles of LSS practice in three stages.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 65

atic LSS instruction and even the need to evaluate LSS performance. In the first meet-ing of the advanced LSS CPD programme Teacher A said:

I believe that teachers should teach skills in addition to science content… I have beenteaching information searching for several years and I am used to looking over the shoul-ders of my students to get an impression of the sources they use. (First meeting of thesecond cohort, Teacher A)

Despite her high competency in P, her practice regarding her model of LSSinstruction was less good at the beginning (Category M). Her performance lacked theaspect of spiral instruction needed for accomplished practice (instruction that requiresimplementing the skill in diverse topics and in a more complex situation). In her firstpresented evidence, described above (see Teacher 2 in Figure 3), she describes indetail the instruction of the skill of ‘information retrieval’ integrated into teaching thetopic of mammals but she does not mention the future use of the same skill later in theschool year.

Her initial competency regarding Category T, referring to the use of LSS materi-als, was only satisfactory (see the former citation in reference to the same category),and was poor regarding the category of Assessment (A). Her assessment of students’work was based only on her impression (see her citation from the first meetingpreviously mentioned).

Her initial influence on the system (Category I) as well as her reflective skills, asindicated by Category E (evidence), was also poor and very poor, respectively.Although she collaborated with other science teachers at school, she did not lead theLSS instruction in the science department.

The visual representation in Figure 5 indicates the growth in the teacher’s perfor-mance during the advanced CPD and that the teacher almost reached the maximumlevel in all categories towards achieving ‘accomplished practice’.

In her portfolio she presented a scheme of work whereby she shows a whole yearplan of LSS instruction and describes several instances of teaching and implementingthe ‘information retrieval’ skill area. She made her students use ‘information retrieval’in the topics of ‘mammals’ and ‘cells’ in biology as well as during an enquiry processshe led in the school greenhouse. In this way, she managed to demonstrate spiral LSSteaching in three different science topics and reached the maximum level in CategoryM, thus showing progress towards accomplished practice.

Teacher A also showed progress in the category of assessment (Category A).During the CPD meeting she decided to conduct personal and group interviewswith her students. In her portfolio she presented evidence that compared herstudents’ achievements regarding ‘information retrieval’ three times: (a) before sheexplicitly taught the skill, (b) while they practiced the skill, and (c) after imple-menting the skill in the greenhouse enquiry. She prepared a rubric that enabled herto refer to each student’s progress and to the entire class profiles. This evidenceindicated that Teacher A achieved accomplished practice in the category of assess-ment (Category A).

A similar behaviour was revealed in the analysis of Teachers B and C. Theinitial professional profile of the three teachers was different and they all developedtheir LSS competencies towards accomplishment during the CPD programme. Forexample – Teachers B and C had initially an average level of performance inAssessment (A) and both showed progress – from ‘criteria-based assessment without

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

66 Z. Scherz et al.

following students’ progress’ to ‘monitoring their progression’ as well as ‘analysingtheir performances and difficulties’. Both teachers achieved accomplishment in thatrespect.

Conclusion and discussion

This paper is based on several research studies on professional development in CPDprogrammes of science teachers in the context of LSS instruction. These studiesresulted in a CPD model aimed at promoting ‘accomplished practice’ by requiringteachers to bring evidence about their practice.

The present paper offers an evaluation method for documenting changes in teach-ers’ practice (process and product) in CPD programmes involving teachers’ evidence.This method led to the design of a general criterion-based diagnostic tool and a visualrepresentation that were used for assessing the impact of the LSS CPD programme onteachers’ perceptions, practice, and professional influence.

We believe that designing an effective professional development programme aimedat having an impact on teachers’ practice entails an initial specification of ‘accom-plished practice’ in the CPD domain. Furthermore, we suggest that the method forassessing the impact of the CPD programmes on teachers’ practice should also becongruent with this specification. We described a general framework of ‘accomplishedpractice’ consisting of four general components: general pedagogical knowledge,content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and scholarship of teaching. Thesecomponents were further specified and refined for a CPD programme in the LSSdomain and helped us in designing both the CPD programmes and the diagnostic toolfor measuring teachers’ competence.

This study also highlights the importance of designing CPD activities that fosterteachers’ reflection on their teaching and on their students’ learning (an evidence-based approach). Accordingly, the diagnostic tool that we propose refers explicitly tothe reflective nature of the CPD activities in addition to the ‘accomplished practice’aspect. The evaluation is considered to be an integral part of the CPD contents andactivities and hence the diagnostic tool can be used towards ‘assessment for learning’that fosters teachers’ professional development and learning. The LSS CPD modeldescribed here was found to be effective in creating changes in teachers’ LSS percep-tions, their knowledge of LSS instruction, and their LSS practice. Moreover, the teach-ers gained confidence in integrating LSS into their practice and acquired additionallearning skills.

This change improved teachers’ performances in most categories towards accom-plished practice. As a result, the teachers’ LSS model of instruction became morerefined and more suitable to their LSS actual teaching and to students’ needs. Inseveral cases (see, for example, Teacher A in Figure 4), teachers were confidentenough not only to adapt existing LSS learning activities, but also to develop newactivities. A meaningful change also took place in teachers’ habits of mind regardingthe assessment of students’ LSS learning. In particular, teachers’ tendencies as well astheir ability to evaluate their students’ LSS learning developed throughout the CPDprogramme and incorporated the characteristics of ‘assessment for learning’ (Blacket al. 2003; Tishman, Perkins, and Jay 1995). It seems that the requirement of the CPDto bring evidence of students’ learning resulted in rich information about theirstudents’ LSS progress, which consequently improved teachers’ performances in thisaspect (Scherz, Carmeli, and Simon 2005). These results are congruent with findings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 67

of Borko et al. (2005) who claim that the mere need to discuss evidence from practiceelevates the accountability of teachers regarding their practice.

To sum up, use of the diagnostic tool that we developed, based on formulating the‘accomplished practice’ of LSS characteristics, proved to be an effective method fordocumenting changes in teachers’ practice. It enabled us to use a variety of datasources for analysing and describing the teachers’ changes that took place as well asfor portraying the process.

The findings of this study have implications that go beyond the LSS CPDpresented in here. Importantly, the diagnostic tool can also serve as a general crite-rion-based research and evaluation method. It can be used for analysing portfolios,interviews, and class observations, as well as for documenting and presenting theprocess and products of participants in CPD programmes. Since the categories andthe dimensions of the diagnostic tool match the components of ‘accomplished prac-tice’, which are domain specific, it can be adjusted and tailored to different CPDdomains.

In addition, the approach presented here highlights the importance of starting aCPD design process by establishing evaluation goals and methods that are in line withthe CPD goals and are integrated into the CPD activities. The results exemplify thesynergy between CPD activities and the ongoing evaluation of its impact.

AcknowledgementThis study was supported by the Gatsby Foundation, UK.

ReferencesBlack, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning:

Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Borko, H. 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educa-

tional Researcher 33, no. 8: 3–15.Borko, H., and R.T. Putnam. 1995. Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive

psychological perspective on professional development. In Professional development ineducation: New paradigms and practices, ed. T.R. Guskey, and M. Huberman, 35–66.New York: Teachers College Press.

Borko, H., B.M. Stecher, A.C. Alonzo, S. Moncure, and S. McClam. 2005. Artifact pack-ages for characterizing classroom practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment 10:73–104.

Clark, D.J., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 947–67.

Convino, E.A., and E.F. Iwanicki. 1996. Experienced teachers: Their constructs of effectiveteaching. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 10: 325–63.

Desimone, L.M., A.C. Porter, M.S. Garet, K.S. Yoon, and B.F. Birman. 2002. Effects ofprofessional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from three-year longitudinalstudy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24: 81–112.

Ennis, R.H. 1989. Critical thinking and subject matter specificity: Clarification and neededresearch. Educational Researcher 18, no. 3: 4–10.

Erickson, G., G. Minnes Brandes, I. Mitchell, and J. Mitchell. 2005. Collaborative teacherlearning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and TeacherEducation 21: 787–98.

Fishman, B., R.W. Marx, S. Best, and R.T. Tal. 2003. Linking teacher and student learning toimprove professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education19: 643–58.

Fullan, M., and S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. New York:Teachers College Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

68 Z. Scherz et al.

Garet, M.S., A.C. Porter, L. Desimone, B.F. Birmam, and K.S. Yoon. 2001. What makesprofessional development effective? American Educational Research Journal 38: 915–45.

Gatsby Technical Education Projects. 2006. Continuing professional development throughportfolios of evidence: Accomplished science teaching in six domains. London: Kings’College.

Guskey, T.R. 1986. Staff development and the process of teacher change. EducationalResearcher 15, no. 5: 5–12.

Guskey, T.R. 2003. What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan 84:748–50.

Harrison, C., A. Hofstein, and B. Eylon. 2008. A programme for evidence-based professionaldevelopment of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education 30: 577–91.

Hofstein, A., M. Carmi, and R. Ben-Zvi. 2003. The development of leadership among chem-istry teachers in Israel. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1:39–65.

Huberman, M. 1995. Professional careers and professional development. In Professional devel-opment in education: New paradigms and practices, ed. T. Guskey, and M. Huberman,193–224. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hutchings, P., and L.S. Shulman. 1999. The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, newdevelopments. Change 31, no. 5: 10–5.

Kazemi, E., and M.L. Franke. 2004. Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work topromote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 7: 203–35.

Little, J.W., M. Gearhart, M. Curry, and J. Kafka. 2003. Looking at student work for teacherlearning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan 85: 184–92.

Loewenberg Ball, D., R. Cohen, and M. Ben-Peretz. 2002. Using and making records of prac-tice in professional study. Paper presented at the meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, April, in New Orleans, LA. http://www-personal.umich.edu/∼ dball/presentations/040302_BallCohenBenPeretzAERA.pdf

Loucks-Horsley, S., N. Love, K. Stiles, S. Mundry, and P. Hewson. 2003. Designing profes-sional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Magnusson, S., J. Krajcik, and H. Borko. 1999. Nature, sources, and development of pedagogicalcontent knowledge for science teaching. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge, ed.J. Gess-Newsome, and N.G. Lederman, 95–144. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Pintó, R. 2005. Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transfor-mations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education 89: 1–12.

Pintó, R., D. Couso, and R. Gutierrez. 2005. Using research on teachers’ transformations ofinnovations to inform teacher education: The case of energy degradation. Science Education89: 38–55.

Prawat, R.S. 1991. The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the development of thinking.Educational Researcher 20, no. 2: 3–10.

Putnam, T.R., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have tosay about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4–15.

Scherz, Z., L. Bialer, and B. Eylon. 2008. Learning about teachers’ accomplishment in‘Learning Skills for Science’ practice: The use of portfolios in an evidence-based continu-ous professional development programme. International Journal of Science Education 30:643–67.

Scherz, Z., M. Carmeli, and S. Simon. 2005. Evidence based portfolio construction for teach-ers’ professional development. In An evidence-based approach to accomplished scienceteaching, C. Harrison (Chair), symposium conducted at the annual conference of ESERA,the European Science Education Research Association, August, in Barcelona, Spain.

Scherz, Z., and O. Spektor-Levy. 2006. Learning skills for science: Activity book and teachers’guide. London: Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme, Weizmann Institute of Scienceand Nuffield Curriculum Center.

Scherz, Z., O. Spektor-Levy, A. Maning, S. Johnson, B. Eylon, and J. Osborne. 2007. Thelearning skills for science (LSS) programme – a research-based model for professionaldevelopment and scaling-up dissemination. Paper presented at the annual conference ofESERA, The European Science Education Research Association, August, in Malmo,Sweden.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Research in Science & Technological Education 69

Scherz, Z., O. Spektor-Levy, and B. Eylon. 2008. Teaching communication skills in science:Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 462–77.

Shkedi, A. 2004. Second-order theoretical analysis: A method for constructing theoreticalexplanation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 17: 627–46.

Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher 15, no. 2: 4–14.

Shulman, L.S. 1987. Knowing and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review 57: 1–32.

Spektor-Levy, O., and Z. Scherz. 1999. Scientific communication. Rehovot, Israel: WeizmannInstitute of Science. (In Hebrew.)

Spektor-Levy, O., and Z. Scherz. 2001. Scientific communication: Teacher guide. Israel:Weizmann Institute of Science. (In Hebrew.)

Spektor-Levy, O., B. Eylon, and Z. Scherz. 2008. Teaching communication skills in science:Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 462–77.

Spektor-Levy, O., B. Eylon, and Z. Scherz. 2009. Teaching scientific communication skillsin science studies – does it make a difference? International Journal of Science andMathematics Education 7: 875–903.

Tishman, S., D. Perkins, and E. Jay. 1995. The thinking classroom: Teaching and learning ina culture of thinking. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tobin, K., and C.J. McRobbie. 1996. Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted sciencecurriculum. Science Education 80: 223–41.

Van Driel, J.H., D. Beijaard, and N. Verloop. 2001. Professional development and reform inscience education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 38: 137–58.

Wilson, S.M., and J. Berne. 1999. Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowl-edge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In Reviewof research in education, ed. A. Iran-Nejad, and P.D. Pearson, 173–209. Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Lio

ra B

iale

r] a

t 07:

51 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

012