Supporting the Supporters: Professional Development for Science Coordinators

ABSTRACT

We investigated changes in district science coordinators’ understandings and practices following their participation in a statewide professional development (PD). Participants included 13 male and 34 female science coordinators from 42 different school districts in Virginia. Data included presurvey, postsurvey, and delayed postsurvey responses; follow-up interviews; and observations of the PD and of science coordinators at work in their district. Results indicated that science coordinator understandings about pedagogy and job responsibilities changed following the PD and were aligned with the goals of PD. However, coordinators’ practices following PD did not fully reflect their understandings about pedagogy. Results suggest that PD aligned with a situated learning framework, specifically the components of collaboration and authentic context, supports coordinators in changing their understandings and some of their practices.

KEYWORDS:

• district leadership
• professional development
• science coordinators

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed from the publisher’s website.

Notes

1. Mauchly’s chi-square approximation revealed that sphericity was violated, χ²(2) = 6.02, p = .049. Therefore, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .91). Tukey’s test of additivity was violated, F(2, 75) = 7.85, p = .006.

2. Omega squared indicated that 34% of the variance in scores for inquiry was attributable to the times when scores were evaluated, which suggests that coordinators believed that inquiry was an appropriate method of teaching science and maintained this belief a year later.

3. Mauchly’s chi-square approximation confirmed that sphericity was obtained, χ²(2) = 0.980, p = .68. Tukey’s test of additivity revealed that the data followed an additive model, F(2, 75) = 0.147, p = .70.

4. Omega squared indicated that 36% of the variance in coordinators’ scores for NOS was attributable to the timing of the surveys.

5. For PBL, Mauchly’s chi-square approximation revealed that sphericity was violated, χ²(2) = 6.45, p = .040. Therefore, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (ε = .90). Tukey’s test of additivity confirmed that the data followed an additive model, F(2, 75) = 0.272, p = .60.

6. Omega squared showed that 31% of the variance in the scores for PBL was attributable to the time when the scores were evaluated.

7. Mauchly’s chi-square approximation confirmed sphericity, χ²(2) = 3.46, p = .18. Tukey’s test of additivity revealed that the data followed an additive model, F(2, 75) = 1.3, p = .27.

8. Omega squared showed that 25% of the variance in the scores for using data to improve instruction was attributable to the timing of the surveys, which suggests that coordinators understood how this was important to their job responsibilities and that this was maintained a year later.

9. Mauchly’s chi-square approximation confirmed that sphericity was obtained, χ²(2) = 2.38, p = .30. Tukey’s test of additivity was violated, F(2, 75) = 4.25, p = .04.

10. Mauchly’s chi-square approximation revealed that sphericity was obtained, χ²(2) = 5.09, p = .08. Tukey’s test of additivity evidenced that the data followed an additive model, F(1, 75) = 1.04, p = .31.

11. Omega squared showed that 45% of the variance in the scores for strategic planning was attributable to the timing of the surveys.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation grant program. However, the results presented here do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government.