Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research

Jan H. van Driel*, J. A. Meirink, K. van Veen, R. C. Zwart

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature reviewpeer-review

Abstract

This review provides an overview of the the current state of research on professional development in science education. An analytical frame was used, based on what is known about PD from educational research. Clarke and Hollingsworth's model for teacher professional growth was also used to categorise the studies according to their aims and outcomes. Exemplar studies in each category are highlighted. In total, 44 recent studies were selected, all referring to science PD. The results show an increase in the number of PD studies in science education in recent years. Most PD programmes are aimed at enhancing teacher cognitions as well as classroom practice. Most recently, there seems to have been an increase in programmes that also aim at improving student outcomes through PD. All studies applied most of the characteristics drawn from research on what makes PD effective. However, school organisational conditions were not usually taken into account. Moreover, there has been a very little research on the role of facilitators and their impact on the outcomes of a PD programme.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)129-160
Number of pages32
JournalStudies in Science Education
Volume48
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • professional development
  • science teaching
  • inservice
  • teacher learning
  • DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION
  • DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
  • INQUIRY
  • KNOWLEDGE
  • IMPACT
  • INSTRUCTION
  • CLASSROOM
  • ACHIEVEMENT
  • STRATEGIES
  • MODELS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this