Examining Science Educators’ Perspectives on Learning Progressions in a Climate Change Education Professional Development Program

ABSTRACT

In the context of a weeklong summer professional development program focused on climate change education, we conducted a qualitative case study investigating how science educators’ understandings of learning progressions (LPs) informed their ideas about climate change teaching practice. Participants (N = 27) in the Climate Academy were middle school (n = 14), high school (n = 7), higher education (n = 2), and informal (n = 4) science educators from 2 Mid-Atlantic states in the United States. In cooperation with other Climate Academy facilitators, we engaged participants in a variety of professional learning activities, among which were exploring LPs and their potential utility for informing climate change teaching practice. During these activities with LPs, the science educators engaged with LPs on 2 constructs relevant to climate change: carbon cycling and sea level rise. We collected data in the forms of observational field notes and personal interviews to gain insight into participants’ perspectives on LPs and their potential utility for supporting instructional decision making related to climate change. Our analysis of the data indicated that participants related LPs to 4 key areas: advancing student understanding, assessing student understanding, instructional planning, and providing instructional supports. We found that our participants assimilated LP ideas into their preexisting views of teaching and learning, which could facilitate or hinder transformation in their instructional approaches. Implications apply directly to science educator professional development in climate change education and in general to professional development in science education that includes LPs as a focus.

KEYWORDS:

• climate change education
• learning progressions
• professional development programs
• science education
• sea level rise

Funding

This material was based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1043262. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material were those of the author(s) and did not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.