Search for: All records

This design-based research study describes the instructional design process, benefits, and lessons learned in providing District Science Coordinators (DSCs) with differentiated professional development. Two cohorts of DSCs participated in a two-year professional development (PD) program (12 in Cohort 1 and 11 in Cohort 2) that met synchronously once per month and assigned asynchronous modules to DSCs based on a pre-assessment performance. DSCs provided feedback for each module and the entire program through surveys and interviews. DSCs’ engagement in the program was also tracked through the differentiated modules. DSCs’ responses indicated that the PD program provided them with a community of practice and the knowledge, skills, and confidence to advocate for science education. Lessons learned throughout the process included that DSCs needed intermediate deadlines, modules needed to be divided into smaller topics, and more consistent feedback should be provided throughout the implementation. This study provides practical suggestions for designing differentiated PD programs for educators and offers a possible format to help create communities of practice for educators. 

This article explores science teachers’ implementation of science and engineering practices (SEPs) under different instructional settings. We compared the number of SEPs science teachers reported using in face-to-face instruction (traditional), online-only instruction (virtual), or HyFlex instruction (synchronously online and in-person) from August 2020 to May 2021. Records and artefacts of the teachers’ instructional practices were collected over three one-week periods. Interview data were used to validate teachers’ instructional activities, the context of SEP implementation, and their challenges when navigating the different instructional settings. Through a lens of consequential transition perspective, our findings revealed that science teachers implemented significantly more SEPs in a HyFlex or traditional setting than in a virtual setting. The results also showed that regardless of the instructional setting, elementary and secondary teachers generally implemented few investigating SEPs. Among elementary teachers, developing explanations and solutions were the most frequently used SEPs across all instructional settings. Among secondary teachers, the developing explanations and solutions SEPs and evaluating SEPs were prevalent but varied across the different instructional settings. Our findings suggest that science teachers need to continue to build their knowledge and practice of the SEPs, and have different supports to facilitate their SEP implementation in different instructional environments.