1. DEBBIE FRENCH EDCI 5870 OCTOBER 30, 2012

2.  Title of research project:  “An Investigation of the NITARP/ SSTPTS Astronomy Research Experience for Teachers”  Purpose: The purposes of this study are to document teachers’ experiences with NITARP or SSTPTS has changed their views about astronomers, how astronomy is done, and how participating in this program has changed their view of scientific inquiry.  The following articles focus on other research experiences for teachers (RETs), why they are needed, and an evaluation of teacher training programs. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

3. ReferenceCategory 1 Westerlund, J. F., et al. (2002). Summer Scientific Research for Teachers: The Experience and its Effect. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 63-83. RET 2 Raphael, J., Tobias, S., Greenberg, R. (1999). Research Experience as a Component of Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 147-158. RET/Teacher Training 3 Taylor, J. A., Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary School Physics Teachers’ Conceptions of Scientific Evidence: An Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 721-736. Teacher’s Views of Inquiry 4 Dresner, M., Worley, E. (2006). Teacher Research Experiences, Partnerships with Scientists, and Teacher Networks Sustaining Factors From Professional Development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 1-14. RET 5 Buck. P. (2003). Authentic Research Experiences for Nevada High School Teachers and Students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 48-53. RET 6 Adams, P. E., Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning Science Teacher Cognition and Its Origins in the Preservice Secondary Science Teacher Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633-653. Teacher Training RESEARCH ARTICLES

4. Source Number Description of RET experience: Outcomes 18-Week summer research experience at a large university. Teachers were matched with researchers of similar interests in science and math. -Increased content knowledge by 28% (pg. 75). -Communication with research mentor (56%) (pg. 76). -Collaboration on research -Presenting at talks -Publishing papers -Researcher visits teacher’s school -Teachers implement more scientific inquiry in the classroom. 2Future Teachers Research Program at University of Arizona. Compared pre- service teachers who did a research experience in content field with those who did not. -Increased content knowledge -Increased level of comfort with teaching that knowledge -Teachers feel they can better answer student questions regarding what scientists do. -Increased professional relationships that continued after the program. SUMMARY OF RET EXPERIENCES

5. Source Number Description of RET experience: Outcomes 4Teachers in the Woods. The program was a five- week summer institute that partnered teachers with researchers to work together on authentic scientific research projects in biology, geology, and archeology. Increased collaboration between teachers and scientists. Increased collaboration between teachers and teachers from other districts (some teachers may be only teacher for that subject and feel isolated). Increased content knowledge Increase in lab skills (or confidence with) Self-described increase in “status.” Teachers saw themselves differently after doing authentic research! 5Nevada Science Teacher Enhancement Project (N- STEP). RET projects were mainly in geology and environmental science. Teachers were uncomfortable with the open research schedule and would have preferred a more structured schedule. No statistically significant results were found for either survey on increased level of the understanding of the nature of science after the research experience. SUMMARY OF RET EXPERIENCES, CONTINUED

6. Source Number Description of Research:Outcomes 3This study looked at teachers’ conceptions about scientific evidence. They focused on how teachers defined and identified consistency and reliability of data. This study examined how teachers evaluated experimental procedures and how they wrote their own. All participating teachers were better at identifying flaws in experimental designs created by someone else than they were at creating their own scientific study (pg. 726). Teachers often confused consistency with reliability of data and used those terms interchangeably (pg. 725). Valued consistency of data over obtaining a value close to the accepted value (pg. 730). Teacher experience, at least in this study, did not matter. What mattered, according to Taylor and Dana, was that these teachers have never participated in authentic research experiences. 6This research studied how teachers developed a framework of their own knowledge on how to teach. Most teachers integrated the following concepts into their framework of teaching science: student- centered learning, cooperative learning, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (633). OTHER ARTICLES

7.  Teachers are better at critiquing others’ experimental designs than developing their own, even when they have the requisite content knowledge.  There are a variety of programs that provide RET to either pre- service or experienced teachers.  Some RET do show an increase in teacher content knowledge, professional contacts developed, and teacher efficacy. Others do not.  There is a need to determine the short- and long-term effectiveness of RETs.  RETs need to be evaluated by an external evaluator, or the data may be skewed.  RETs were still effective after 4-5 years. Teachers were implementing similar research programs at their school. IMPLICATIONS FOR MY RESEARCH