Changing teacher behavior through staff development: Implementing the teaching and content standards in science
Gibbons, Siobhan
For the last five years, the Center for Precollege Programs of the New Jersey Institute of Technology has operated the Urban Elementary Outreach Program, a staff development program intended to bring improved math and science education to the elementary schools of Newark, New Jersey. Teachers in urban settings have been hampered in their efforts to provide enriching, student-centered and constructivist science and math teaching (Huinker, 1996). The Outreach Program has attempted to provide teachers with sustained support through training and direct classroom assistance in an effort to develop a sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982) in relation to desired teaching and student behaviors that are part of a standards-based learning experience. Traditional training approaches for teachers are supplemented by weekly classroom visits by graduate assistants, who both model standards-based science teaching and assist the teacher in assuming effective instructional methods. The combination of workshops, orientations, newsletters, and weekly classroom visits make up a staff development program of two years in duration for teacher participants. Through this intensive program, we intend to change teaching behaviors in the many complex ways identified in the National Science Education Standards.
Now that most states have promulgated content standards in important subject matter, school districts have begun the work of aligning their curricula. Curriculum frameworks have been prepared, lesson and unit plans have been revised, and new assessments are at hand to assure that students at all grade levels achieve the standards. Missing are the new teaching behaviors that will assure achievement of content standards. At the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), we have spent five years developing the Urban Education Outreach Program, a new model of staff development intended to change elementary and middle school science teaching behaviors toward the methods and techniques of science teaching recommended in the National Science Education Standards (Standards; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Similar efforts have been undertaken in mathematics (Reys, Reys, Barnes, Beem, & Papick, 1997). Our activities have stressed change in teaching and student learning behaviors as a first priority and curriculum modification as a secondary consideration. A premise of our work is that improvement of learning will occur as teachers learn and apply Standards-based teaching strategies and methods.
The Urban Education Outreach Project (Outreach) began with 8 to 10 teachers in each of its first 2 years and has expanded to serve almost 30 teachers each year. All participants work in or near the economically depressed central ward of Newark, New Jersey.
We accept the mission of the Standards, that all children have a right to improved science education. Our role is to find ways for reaching and enlightening disadvantaged youth, so that they, too, may enjoy the fruits of improved science learning experiences. Following a review of relevant professional development in science teaching and some promising recent efforts, we report on our progress in developing an effective model of staff development for urban elementary and middle school science teachers.
Current Status of Professional Development
The professional literature suggests that common practice in staff development, such as single topic workshops or infrequently scheduled curriculum planning days, will need to be embellished if teachers are to receive the education and training recommended in the Standards (Haney, Cerzniak & Lumpe, 1996; Reys et al., 1997).
Often, teacher training institutes and after-school workshops are seen as ends in themselves: The planning and delivery of teacher workshops is assumed to be sufficient to produce changes in classroom behavior (Lesh, 1996). Further, most professional development programs are conducted away from classrooms and children where new teaching skills can be tried (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). They typically lack an implementation component to assure that new behaviors are seen in the classroom.
Evaluation practices accompanying staff development efforts also need to be reconsidered. The Standards for Staff Development of the National Staff Development Council (1994) include comments about the evaluation of staff development exercises, noting that “evaluations are designed to assess a variety of program outcomes, including
1. Participants’ reactions to the program.
2. Participants’ learning.
3. Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills.
4. Impact on student outcomes.”
In most instances, evaluations of staff development programs are limited to the first two outcomes (O’Brien, 1992). A survey is often used to measure teacher satisfaction with workshops having no follow-up assessment of new teaching behavior. The design, implementation, and evaluation of successful staff development programs, of necessity, must accompany curriculum renewal efforts, because new teacher behaviors are needed for students to meet the Standards. According to Joyce and Showers (1988), “It has been well established that curriculum implementation is demanding of staff development-essentially, without strong staff development programs that are appropriately designed a very low level of implementation occurs” (p. 44).
Characteristics of Successful Staff Development Programs
Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, and Rothlein (1994) suggest that teachers are not likely to change their teaching behavior unless they are given the skills, knowledge, and confidence to do so. When new content or new skills are presented over a series of training sessions that include a limited amount of information, and these sessions are followed by opportunities for classroom practices with coaching, changes in teaching become evident (Guskey, 1986; Joyce & Showers, 1983; Joyce & Showers, 1988; Sparks, 1983).
In the past, staff development efforts have typically focused on isolated instructional behaviors such as cooperative learning, teaching to learning styles, or classroom management skills. For instance, many teachers learned specific classroom presentation skills in the 1980s when Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Theory into Practice model was sweeping the nation. But the complex array of teaching behaviors needed for successful content standards implementation may be seen in many of the changing emphases in teaching methods identified in the Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 52.). More robust staff development programs will be needed to address the new dispositions, behaviors, and attitudes suggested for improved science teaching and learning. Reys et al. (1997) have identified important factors in successful staff development programs:
Long-term effort (at least 2 years).
Technical assistance, as well as emotional and intellectual support networks.
Opportunities that stimulate and promote intellectual growth.
Collegial atmosphere in which teachers share views and experiences.
Opportunities for reflection on one’s own practice.
Focus on teaching for understanding through personal learning experiences.
Encouragement to make small changes and to learn from them.
Pedagogy of professional development congruent with pedagogy desired in classrooms.
Professional development grounded in classroom practice.
Focusing on Teacher Behavior
To make the shift to Standards-based teaching, teachers will have to change their definition of a “good class,” their teaching philosophy, classroom management skills, lesson planning, preparation, and assessment procedures. Self-efficacy is one framework through which we may examine teacher efforts to make the transition from text-dependent to Standards-based teaching (Bandura & Adams, 1977).
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s perceived ability to perform on a task, that is, the belief that they can activate the behavior required to produce a desired outcome. Bandura distinguishes between efficacy expectancies, i.e., “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” and outcome expectancies, i.e., “a persons [sic] estimate that a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome” (Goldfried & Robins, 1982).
In examining changes in teacher behavior through improved staff development, we are concerned with outcome expectancies: that teachers believe their behavior will result in student learning behaviors they desire and value ( Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe,1996; Crawley & Koballa,1992; Cuban, 1979). Staff development programs needed to effect changes in several dimensions of teacher attitude, belief, and practice will have to be long lasting and well designed to include integration with classroom practice and will need to provide opportunities for teachers to repeatedly experience success with children (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1989).
Teachers’ Attitude
Haney, Czerniak, and Lumpe (1996) have stated, “It appears that teacher’s attitude toward targeted behaviors is most critical in predicting intent.” Efficacy expectations affect people’s choice of activities, how much effort they expend, the development of coping skills, and how long they persist in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1982; Locke, Frederick, Lee & Bobko, 1984). According to Bandura and Adams (1977), we develop our expectations of our ability to perform certain actions from four major sources of information: performance accomplishment, modeling, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. In the performance area, efficacy expectations are developed through repeated experiences of success. Success in staff development programs may be more easy to achieve when early efforts are attempted in sheltered settings. Teaching laboratories with small groups of children may provide this kind of environment.
The Urban Education Outreach Program: An Evolving Model
Schools in and around Newark have tended to exhibit the barriers to effective science teaching in urban schools identified by Huinker (1996). They include
Teachers are engaged in very limited or no recent professional development in mathematics and science.
Science is taught one or two hours a week by most teachers, and science experiments are conducted infrequently.
Most teachers indicate that both individual and collaborative planning time are unsatisfactory, as are the adequacy of equipment, consumable supplies, class sizes, and storage space.
As compared to mathematics, teachers indicate that their background is weaker in science.
They are less enthusiastic about teaching science, and science is not as valued in their schools.
Project Goals
The mission of the Center for Pre-college Programs at NJIT is to provide urban youth with improved precollege math, science, and engineering education. To achieve this end, the center helps grade school teachers to provide better math and science teaching. The goals of this project were derived from the center’s mission and targeted for teachers in urban settings:
1. Identify minority and women graduate assistants (GAs) in mathematics, science and engineering who can serve as role models of successful science teaching and learning for urban teachers and children.
2. Train the GAs to model student-centered science instruction, in keeping with preferred teaching behaviors identified in the Standards.
3. Provide teachers from selected schools with weekly classroom visits by trained GAs who use preferred science teaching methods identified in the Standards for the benefit of children and model these preferred methods for the benefit of the teachers.
4. Help teachers make the transition from observer of the GA, through instructional assistant, to competent and effective instructor with the methods and strategies used by the GA.
5. Provide workshops, conferences, a newsletter and consultative support services for teachers to support their efforts and those of the GAs.
Our initial project design was supported by the findings of Haney, Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) that teachers’ attitudes toward a targeted behavior are good predictors of intent to implement learned skills or knowledge.
Staff Development Objectives
From the beginning, it was our intention to alter the traditional didactic methods of teaching found in urban settings by Huinker (1996). We wanted to engage teachers confidently and enthusiastically in daily interactive teaching and learning of science with their children. Our project has focused on teacher enhancement rather than research, but we did identify a set of objectives for the teachers, in order to measure changes in their teaching behavior:
1. Teachers would identify daily life examples of science principles and use them in their lessons.
2. Teachers would eventually take the leadership role for science teaching from the GA.
3. Students would be encouraged by teachers to provide explanations of phenomena observed during science activities.
4. Teachers would use science language accurately.
5. Student questions would be encouraged and pursued, rather than discouraged, during classroom discussion.
6. Teachers would permit students to explore with science materials on their own.
7. Teachers would bring materials for science teaching to class on their own initiative.
8. Teachers would suggest activities for science instruction, rather than relying on ideas from the GA.
These areas of preferred methodology in science education were assessed by a rubric used by GAs and staff as they monitored the progress of their partner teacher. Additional methods of monitoring teacher growth were also used, as described in the results section that follow.
Program structure
At first, we worked with any interested teacher from schools close to the campus. During the first two years of the project, seven to eight teachers were participating at any one time. The GAs were trained in collaborative, inquiry based, and constructivist methods of science teaching before they made their initial visits to the schools. Our staff trained the GAs in late August and early September before the start of each school year. Weekly seminars with GAs were scheduled throughout the school year to monitor their progress with teachers and to help them sustain and develop the skills of science teaching taught to them before the school year started. Training consisted of direct instruction in a small group seminar, practice teaching of activities with their peers, and observation of videotaped teaching episodes, featuring the preferred methods and strategies of the Standards. When GAs began their teaching in schools during weekly classroom visits, our staff attended the lessons to check on the instruction provided. GAs were expected to lead science lessons in the presence of the teachers, who could observe the interaction of children with the graduate student and with each other during the lesson. GAs seldom did demonstrations, and GAs never did class lectures.
Teachers determined the scientific content to be taught in each class, and the GAs prepared activities to elicit chosen concepts. We encouraged teachers to select topics for lessons that they would be able to teach on an independent basis following completion of our program. Moreover, we encouraged them to select topics they could develop and teach to students between weekly visits by the GAs.
In time, teachers were expected to assume a leading role in presenting lessons, as the GAs made the transition from science instructor to teacher’s aide. We hoped that teachers would assume full responsibility for Standards-based science and math teaching within a two-year period of assistance from the university. Our results did not meet our expectations at the end of the first two years. We realized that changes in our program were needed.
Moving on to Systemic Change: Years 3 through 5 of the Outreach Program
We began to notice that norms of behavior and expectations of other teachers within a school were not affected by the GAs visiting only a few classrooms. While we had not intended to alter the behavior of other teachers, our growing interest in teacher efficacy suggested that teachers needed the support of their peers as they attempted new methods of teaching. More importantly, collegial support would be needed to sustain changed behavior over time. We noted the findings reported by Haney, Czerniak, and Lumpe (1996): “Staff development projects should seek to develop a critical mass of trained teachers and administrators” (p. 989). Further, we could not be certain that the science experiences of students remained positive when students moved up to the next grade and encountered a teacher unfamiliar with our intentions.
After the second year, we switched to a schoolbased program. Professional development services could be provided to a group of teachers from each of a few selected schools, and systematic evaluations could be conducted. This new approach allowed us to focus on school change by working with several teachers in one setting. Also, the school approach allowed us to work with more teachers in targeted schools, so that the students exposed to preferred science learning in one grade had a good chance of encountering similar approaches in the next grade.
The target schools were selected on the basis of a clear commitment from the administration and teachers. Staff of participating schools are now expected to participate in orientations, held at the beginning of each semester (September and January), in which participating school staff work together to outline their teaching goals and participate cooperatively in hands-on science activities. They must also attend “Share the Knowledge” workshops, held twice each year, in which Outreach teachers present their favorite science or math activities to other participants.
Almost two dozen teachers attended each of these workshops in the 1996-1997 school year. Teachers led their colleagues in activities, ranging from topics in chemistry to electricity. Feedback from GAs and Outreach staff indicated that several teachers used the shared material in their classrooms after the workshops. This new focus on the school as the unit of change, along with increased attention given to the role of the principal, has helped us develop a professional support network for teachers in Outreach schools.
The staff and the GAs have become resources for the administrators of the target schools. For example, now we work with the target school principals in the selection and recruitment of teachers. We provide information and advice on the establishment and maintenance of science and computer labs and the acquisition of science and math materials. Our GAs have assisted in founding and conducting after-school science clubs. Through these supportive efforts, we are engendering the principals’ support for changing teacher behavior, an aspect of successful staff development programs identified by Haney, Czerniak, and Lumpe (1996).
The administration in these schools has come to understand that Standards-based science teaching has different demands than textbook-dependent teaching. Teachers need more preparation time in order to practice and prepare activities, longer lab periods than the traditional 45 minutes, and petty cash for purchasing science materials and supplies. Also, with respect to teacher evaluation, the school personnel must agree that a hands-on, cooperative instructional method changes the role of the teacher from the traditional lecturer to a facilitator who fosters lively discussion and activity-not student silence. A summary of the current organization and structure of the program illustrates its comprehensive and complex nature.
The Teachers
All of our teachers are from public and private schools in Newark and its environs. Typically, we service about 28 teachers who teach K-8, some of whom are special education teachers. Their experience with science varies, including some who
Have no science background.
Have science background but no experience in planning and conducting science activities.
Are confident, open, and eager to learn and acknowledge their lack of preparation.
Are hesitant to acknowledge their lack of preparation.
Teachers “graduate” from direct classroom assistance when they express and demonstrate confidence in their ability to continue improvement in science teaching independently.
The Graduate Assistants
GAs represent all disciplines of graduate study in mathematics, technology, science, and engineering offered at the University. They are not teachers, nor are they student teachers. Most come into the program with no interest in teaching. A number of them have pursued teacher licensure because of their classroom experiences, which has been an unanticipated outcome of the program.
GAs are recruited through contacts with the NJIT Educational Opportunity Program,the Graduate Division, and department chairs and by reference from current GAs. We have stated program entry qualifications for GAs, which include
Excellent communication skills,
Broad general knowledge of science,
Interest in improving science teaching and learning in keeping with the Standards, and
Excellent interpersonal skills.
The Children
The student enrollment in Outreach classrooms can range from 8 to 35 pupils. Elementary schools in Newark include grades K-8. The children are typically from low-income families where English is often not spoken at home.
The Curriculum
We work with the adopted science curriculum of the school district. The GAs lead activities requested by teachers within the context of the district curriculum. Some teachers follow the text very closely. Others want activities that expand on concepts provided within the text. It is our intention to achieve New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (New Jersey Department of Education, 1996) and the National Science Education Standards within the framework of the existing curriculum.
Process and Training
Each GA is assigned to four teachers. GAs go into each classroom once a week and bring materials with them. They either conduct lessons or assist the teacher in presenting activities, depending on the state of readiness of the teacher at the time the teacher enters the program. GAs must write reports on each class and make copies of each activity to be placed in a binder given to the teachers. Additionally, GAs attend weekly meetings with the management team. During training sessions, personal interviews, and seminars, we encourage GAs to be alert to the nuances of interactions with their teachers, coach and encourage teachers without being patronizing, and model the style of classroom behavior which focuses on liberating student discovery and exploration.
As a result of changing our focus from a teachercentered approach to a school-wide focus, we have been able to provide in-class support to at least one teacher at every grade level, who is then expected and encouraged to share experiences with other teachers at the same grade level. In the smaller schools, with only one teacher per grade, this means that in a few years all of the teachers in the school will have developed the skills, dispositions, and knowledge to assume personal responsibility for science education improvement in keeping with the Standards.
We also provide follow-up support for teachers who have graduated from the program. Previously, the dispersal of our resources across several schools with only a few teacher participants had not allowed for the provision of support for Outreach teachers who no longer had GAs in their classes. Follow-up support includes lending science and math materials to teachers, providing access to reference and activity books, and having a place for teachers to try out new activities. Graduates are also called upon to serve as science resource persons to other teachers in their schools and to share their experiences at the annual Outreach orientation for new teachers in our program.
With our entree and acceptance as participants in school change, we can assist in the promotion of extracurricular activities that encourage teacher, student, and parent participation in science and math learning. Examples of these kinds of activities are science clubs, family science/math nights, and on-site teacher workshops. We believe that this aspect of our program is essential to the maintenance of new schoolwide norms for science teaching and learning.
Results
Limited Progress in the First Two Years
The first two years of Outreach was a time of experimentation and the development of the components of the program: organization, methodologies, logistics, and evaluation. Evaluation was primarily of an anecdotal nature. Teacher self-report and GA observations provided these findings. Some excerpts of teacher reports during the first two years appear below:
“It had a terrific impact on my teaching, especially by demonstrating ways to correlate all the areas of learning. The total package was instrumental in these changes. It’s helpful to me just knowing that I have your support and cooperation in case I need your assistance.”
“I’ve been able to bring science alive.”
“I would not have the time and material resources to teach hands-on science without this program. It’s almost like we give our students one salty potato chip and say, `Sorry, that’s all we have.’ I suppose that what I would envision would be the restructuring of the curriculum along thematic lines, so that a topic could be explored deeply and thoroughly.”
“The students were more motivated.”
“This program has changed our (science) program in several ways. One way is the exposure to new ideas. It has shown me new ways to teach. It has also demonstrated that cooperation with other community institutions can benefit all of us.”
“Students learn hands-on activities and have fun doing it.”
Progress with the teachers was slow and uneven. Workshops were not often related to the identified needs of the teachers. Principals were not engaged or particularly supportive of teacher change in relation to science teaching. By the close of the second year, only two teachers had progressed to the point that they were deemed independent of the need for further assistance from GAs.
Changing Evaluation Methods
The transition from a teacher-centered to a schoolcentered approach gave us pause to examine the methods by which we document changes in teacher behavior. We needed more than an anecdotal record if the larger teaching community within a school or a district was to be convinced that Standards-based instruction can be achieved in every classroom. To this end, we changed evaluation efforts to include three modes of data collection to obtain a body of documentation that could be shared with the teachers and administrators in our target schools and with the larger community of science and math educators.
Our least formal method of assessment is a teacher self-report. We ask each teacher to complete a checklist that identifies the kinds of behaviors they feel were exhibited by the GA, the students, and themselves during the course of the site visit made by the GA. We had originally requested that teachers keep a journal of their professional growth, but this was met with some resistance, due to the substantial amount of paperwork teachers must deal with. The site visit checklist was well received, and it does provide teachers with an opportunity to reflect on the progress they are making with their GA.
Our second level of data recording consists of weekly reports made by GAs. This data record provides the GA with a basis for reflecting on the progress made in helping teachers meet program goals. Further, the GA weekly reports provide the project management team with data for measuring progress on a consistent basis. Additionally, GA weekly reports often include field notes that form the basis of discussion during weekly progress sessions.
We feel our most promising evaluation instrument is a recently developed rubric that is used by GAs and staff during site visits. A sample of the rubric assessment cells may be seen in Figure 1. This rubric has undergone preliminary inter-rater reliability studies and has been found to provide consistently reliable measures of teacher professional growth toward independence.
Outcomes from the Rubric
Each week the rubric is used to rate teacher growth and independence, in relation to the objectives of the instruction. Rubric cells describe teacher behavior, with preferred behaviors given a rating of 4. Analysis of the data from October 1996 to May 1997 show that the majority of teachers have made noticeable changes in behavior, as measured by the overall weekly average scores and their scores on individual indices in the rubric. Nineteen of 20 teachers showed change in the positive direction of the weekly average score (two semesters of data were collected for 20 of the 27 participating teachers).
On the individual items, teacher growth varied. The items on which teachers showed a positive change from the first week of the fall term to the end of the spring semester were
The degree to which teachers were able to bring in everyday examples of science principles.
Increased oral participation in science teaching
Encouragement of student explanations for phenomena.
Accurate use of scientific terms in the classroom.
Ability to effectively use student unexpected questions in a pedagogically useful manner. On other items, the teachers demonstrated no substantial growth:
Taking over the class to lead the activity.
Using an inquiry method of teaching.
Letting children explore laboratory materials on their own and ask questions.
Perceived comfort with the science subject matter of the lesson.
Ability to bring materials to the class for activities.
Willingness to suggest activities other than those in their usual text.
These initial results from our evaluation provide insight into the trajectory of teacher learning, with respect to the objectives of our program. In addition, the rubric has provided us with detailed information on each teacher’s starting point and progress throughout the duration of the program.
In the coming year, we will continue with the collection of data through the use of the rubric and the observation reports.However,, we will be supplementing the classroom observations with a questionnaire for all teachers and indepth interviews with selected participants. In addition, we will apply an instrument by which the teachers will evaluate themselves on the same criteria as the rubric. These alternative sources of similar information will provide additional insight into teachers’ attitudes and their assessment of their own behavior.
Conclusion
The Urban Education Outreach Program at NJIT is showing some promise for helping teachers in urban settings, as they attempt new teaching behavior in keeping with preferred methods of instruction described in the National Science Education Standards. Preliminary anecdotal records, testimonials of teachers and administrators, and consumption of our services suggests that continuation with the revised model is warranted. We intend to report on outcome behavior measures, along with a full description of the development and validation of our science teaching standards rubric in the near future.
References
Anderson, R.D., & Mitchener, C.P. (1994). Research on science education. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning. p. 3-44. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Bandura, A., and Adams, N.E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Cuban, L. (1979). Determinants of curriculum change and stability,1870 – 1970. In J.R. Gress & D.E. Purpel (Eds.), Curriculum: An Introduction to the Field. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Crawley, F.E., & Koballa, T.R. (1992). Attitude/ behavior change in science education: Part I – Models and methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Goldfried, M. R., & Robins, C. (1982). On the facilitation of self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 361-380.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12.
Haney, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.
Huinker, D. (1996). Teaching mathematics and science in urban elementary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 96 (7), 340-348.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce,B. &Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
Lesh, R. (1996). Report of the technical assistance team to the New Jersey SSI. Unpublished internal report, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. ( 1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Carlson, M. O., Brink, L. H., Horwitz, P., Marsh, D. P., Pratt, H., Roy, K. R., & Worth, K., ( 1989). Developing and supporting teachers for elementary school science education. Washington, DC: The National Center for Improving Science Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council. (1994). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author. New Jersey Department of Education. (1996). Core Curriculum Content Standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.
O’Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 422-426.
Reys, B.J., Reys, R.E., Barnes, D., Beem, J., & Papick, I. (1997). Collaborative curriculum investigation as a vehicle for teacher enhancement and mathematics curriculum reform. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 253-259.
Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 22-37.
Sparks, G. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41 (3), 65-72.
Siobhan Gibbons and Howard Kimmel
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Mark O’Shea
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Author Note: Siobhan Gibbons and Howard Kimmel, The Center for Pre-college Programs, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ; Mark O’Shea, Metropolitan State College of Denver.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Siobhan Gibbons, Center for Pre-college Programs, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to gibbons@admin.njit.edu.
Copyright School Science and Mathematics Association, Incorporated Oct 1997
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
