Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) programs are a burgeoning approach to engage teachers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) research that they can translate into their K‐12 classrooms. Despite an increase in studies of RETs, there is a need for comparison of RET and non‐RET teachers' student outcomes. This mixed methods, quasi‐experimental comparison study, using a revised third‐generation activity theory framework, investigates how an RET program for preservice and early career STEM teachers impacted participating teachers and their students up to 8 years after RET participation. Specifically, we conducted a matched comparison of student achievement data from students of nine RET teachers versus many non‐RET comparison teachers within the same districts (n = 830–1132 students). We also investigated student and teacher perceptions of classroom practices through surveys (n = 576 students) and interviews (15 teacher interviews). Omnibus tests revealed no statistically significant differences by treatment in math or science achievement. However, students of the RET teachers reported stronger perceptions of STEM career awareness, greater value for learning STEM subjects, and a greater propensity to persist in STEM course tasks (three of the five constructs measured). This was consistent with teacher interview responses in which RET teachers spoke about STEM career awareness in a broader context for understanding the value of STEM in society, and also discussed struggles in research and attempts to bring this mindset to their students, which may have resulted in greater student engagement in their courses. Implications for teacher education and for supporting science and engineering practices in STEM classrooms are discussed along with recommendations for further research on the impacts of RET programs guided by a revised third‐generation activity theory framework informed by this work. 

Phenomena‐based approaches have become popular for elementary school teachers to engage children's innate curiosity in the natural world. However, integrating such phenomena‐based approaches in existing science courses within teacher education programs present potential challenges for both preservice elementary teachers (PSETs) and for laboratory instructors, both of whom may have had limited opportunities to learn or teach science within the student and instructor roles inherent within these approaches. This study uses a convergent parallel mixed‐methods approach to investigate PSETs' perceptions of their laboratory instructor's role within a Physical Science phenomena‐based laboratory curriculum and how it impacts their conceptual development (2 instructors/121 students). We also examine how the two laboratory instructors' discursive moves within the laboratory align with their's and PSETs' perceptions of the instructor role. Qualitative data includes triangulation between a student questionnaire, an instructor questionnaire, and video classroom observations, while quantitative data includes a nine‐item open response pre‐/post‐semester conceptual test. Guided by Mortimer's and Scott's analytic framework, our findings show that students primarily perceive their instructors as a guide/facilitator or an authoritarian/evaluator. Using Linn's knowledge integration framework, analysis of pre‐/post‐tests indicates that student outcomes align with students' perceptions of their instructors, with students who perceive their instructor as a guide/facilitator having significantly better pre‐/post‐outcomes. Additional analysis of scientific discourse from the classroom observations illustrates how one instructor primarily supports PSETs' perspectives on authentic science learning through dialogic–interactive talk moves whereas the other instructor epistemologically stifles personally relevant investigations with authoritative–interactive or authoritative–noninteractive discourse moves. Overall, this study concludes by discussing challenges facing laboratory instructors that need careful consideration for phenomena‐based approaches.