January/February 2018 – Vol. 31 No. 2

Professional Development in 4-H: A Case for Reform

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

by Martin Smith, Lynn Schmitt-McQuitty, Andrea Ambrose, and Steven Worker

There is a recognized need to improve the levels of scientific literacy among K-12 youth in the United States (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley 2010; National Center for Education Statistics 2011). To accomplish this will require effective classroom-based science instruction and high quality science programs for youth in out-of-school time settings (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder 2009). Specifically, out-of-school time programs can help advance youth scientific literacy, ignite youths’ interest in science, and reinforce classroom learning by expanding curriculum offerings and complementing formal science instruction (Kahler and Valentine 2011; Mørch and du Bois-Reymond 2006).

Two of the factors that contribute to the low levels of youth scientific literacy in the U.S. are the use of didactic teaching strategies (Jorgenson & Vanosdall, 2002) and ineffective approaches to professional development of science educators (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). Didactic teaching strategies – lectures and presentations – emphasize the direct delivery of information and memorization of known facts (Jorgenson and Vanosdall 2002). These methods do not provide learners with an in-depth understanding of science content and do little to contribute to their abilities to use scientific thinking (Cole et al., 2002; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). Conversely, constructivist-based teaching strategies like inquiry are learner-centered, foster knowledge and skills development, and hold promise for improving youth scientific literacy (Beerer & Bodzin, 2004; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010).

Most professional development opportunities in science involve a highly skilled professional demonstrating knowledge and skills to less experienced individuals who are in the role of being passive recipients of information. Described by Lambert et al. (2002) as the “traditional approach” to professional development, this strategy perpetuates the use of didactic teaching methods and is viewed broadly as being ineffective (e.g., Garet et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003; Penuel et al. 2007). Furthermore, because science educators teach most commonly using methods by which they were taught (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998), to modify their practice “they must encounter multiple experiences with [effective pedagogical strategies] as learners” in order to use them effectively (Dantonio & Beisenherz, 2001, p. 14). Therefore, to become proficient at using effective pedagogical strategies to teach science, science educators require access to and participation in professional development opportunities that model constructivist-based, learner-centered methods (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; Smith & Schmitt-McQuitty, 2013).

The California 4-H Youth Development Program is part of a national community-based youth development organization. With a 100-year legacy of science programming, California 4-H offers a wide range of learning opportunities in out-of-school time settings through county-based offices throughout the state . Pedagogically, 4-H science programs and associated curriculum materials utilize experiential learning and inquiry (Worker & Smith, in press). To implement programs, the 4-H Youth Development Program relies heavily on volunteers – adults and teens – as non-formal educators who facilitate educational activities with youth (Boyd, 2004; Stedman & Rudd, 2006). However, as is true with most educators in other community-based programs that offer science programming, the majority of 4-H volunteers lack sufficient professional development to be successful (Chi, Freeman, & Lee, 2008; Smith & Schmitt-McQuitty, 2013). Thus, with youth learner outcomes associated with scientific literacy in mind, California 4-H is giving careful consideration to the design and implementation of professional development opportunities for 4-H volunteers (Smith & Schmitt-McQuitty, 2013).

Historically, professional development opportunities in 4-H have utilized mainly “traditional” methods: one-time, in-person workshops or seminars of short duration (Kaslon, Lodl, & Greve, 2005). However, such episodic strategies do not produce significant change in educators’ practice (Garet et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; Guskey & Yoon, 2009). In contrast, “reform-based” professional development strategies that take place over an extended period of time, utilize active learning strategies that provide educators direct experience using constructivist-based methods, occur within authentic contexts, and emphasize subject matter and pedagogical knowledge have been shown to be effective (Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).

To this end, the California 4-H Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET) Leadership Team, academic and program staff that provide statewide leadership in science education, has advocated for wider use of “reform-based” professional development strategies for 4-H volunteers. Specifically, the SET Leadership Team has promoted methods such as action research and lesson study that utilize communities of practice (CoPs) (Smith & Schmitt-McQuitty, 2013). Communities of practice are organized networks of peers working toward shared learning goals that arise through authentic practice whereby participants co-construct knowledge through social interactions (Buysse et al., 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991). A recent pilot study using lesson study with 4-H volunteers who implemented a science curriculum with 4-H youth in club settings revealed that the model has excellent potential for broader use (Smith, 2013). Further investigation of lesson study and other professional development models utilizing CoPs within the context of 4-H science programming has been recommended (Smith & Schmitt-McQuitty, 2013).

The California 4-H Youth Development Program endeavors to help advance the levels of scientific literacy among K-12 youth in the state. To accomplish this, the 4-H Program is seeking to improve the professional development of 4-H volunteer educators in order to increase their capacity to utilize effective science pedagogy in their work with youth audiences. Specifically, California 4-H strives to utilize “reform-based” professional development strategies as a means to provide science-learning opportunities for their volunteers that model best practices, provide direct experience, and occur in authentic settings.

For more information about 4-H and to access 4-H SET curriculum materials, please click here.

Steven Worker, Martin Smith, Andrea Ambrose, Lynn Schmitt-McQuitty are with the California State 4-H Office at the University of California’s Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources. Steven, Martin, and Lynn are members of CSTA.

References

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (eds.). (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Boyd, B. L. (2004). Extension agents as administrators of volunteers: Competencies needed for the future. Journal of Extension, 42(2).

Buysse, V., Sparkman, K., Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice in educational research: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263–77.

Chi, B.S., Freeman, J., & Lee S. (2008). Science in afterschool market research study. A study commission by the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley.

Cole, D.J., Mahaffey, G., Ramey, L., et al. (2002). Preparing quality science educators: A successful tripartite partnership. Paper presented at Ann Meeting of Association of Teacher Educators, Feb 2, 2002. Denver, CO. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461658.

Dantonio, M., & Beisenherz, P. C. (2001). Learning to Question, Questioning to Learn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Pelczar, M.P., and Shelley, B.E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an International Context (NCES 2011-004). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Garet, M. S, Porter, A. C., Desimone L, et al. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). Professional development that works: What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–50.

Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan 90(7), 495–500.

Jorgenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What we risk in our rush toward standardized testing and the three R’s. Phi Delta Kappan 83(8), 601-605.

Kahler, J., & Valentine, N. (2011). Stemming the gap. Education Digest 76(6), 54-55.

Kaslon, L., Lodl, K., & Greve, V. (2005). Online leader training for 4-H volunteers: A case study of action research. Journal of Extension, 43(2).

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., et al. (2002). The Constructivist Leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles K. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Minner, D. D, Levy, A. J, & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.

Mørch, S., & du Bois-Reymond, M. (2006). Young Europeans in a changing world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 113, 23-35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2009. NCES 2011-451. Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2011451.pdf

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Smith, M. H. (2013). Investigating Lesson Study as a Professional Development Model for 4-H Volunteers. California Agriculture, 67(1), 54-61.

Smith, M. H., & Schmitt-McQuitty, L. (2013). More effective professional development can help 4-H volunteers address need for youth scientific literacy. California Agriculture, 67(1), 47-53.

Stedman, N. L. P., & Rudd, R. (2006). Leadership styles and volunteer administration competence: Perceptions of 4-H county faculty in the United States. Journal of Extension, 44(1).

Supovitz, J. A., Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Worker, S. M., & Smith, M. H. (In press). Promising practices for science education in out-of-school time: Lessons learned from California 4-H in curriculum and professional development. Afterschool Matters.

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.

Leave a Reply

LATEST POST

Accelerating into NGSS – A Statewide Rollout Series Now Accepting Registrations

Posted: Friday, January 19th, 2018

Are you feeling behind on the implementation of NGSS? Then Accelerating into NGSS – the Statewide Rollout event – is right for you!

WHO SHOULD ATTEND
If you have not experienced Phases 1-4 of the Statewide Rollout, or are feeling behind with the implementation of NGSS, the Accelerating Into NGSS Statewide Rollout will provide you with the greatest hits from Phases 1-4!

OVERVIEW
Accelerating Into NGSS Statewide Rollout is a two-day training geared toward grade K-12 academic coaches, administrators, curriculum leads, and teacher leaders. Check-in for the two-day rollout begins at 7:30 a.m., followed by a continental breakfast. Sessions run from 8:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Day One and from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Day Two.

Cost of training is $250 per attendee. Fee includes all materials, continental breakfast, and lunch on both days. It is recommended that districts send teams of four to six, which include at least one administrator. Payment can be made by check or credit card. If paying by check, registration is NOT complete until payment has been received. All payments must be received prior to the Rollout location date you are attending. Paying by credit card secures your seat at time of registration. No purchase orders accepted. No participant cancellation refunds.

For questions or more information, please contact Amy Kennedy at akennedy@sjcoe.net or (209) 468-9027.

REGISTER

http://bit.ly/ACCELERATINGINTONGSS

DATES & LOCATIONS
MARCH 28-29, 2018
Host: San Mateo County Office of Education
Location: San Mateo County Office of Education, Redwood City

APRIL 10-11, 2018
Host: Orange County Office of Education
Location: Brandman University, Irvine

MAY 1-2, 2018
Host: Tulare County Office of Education
Location: Tulare County Office of Education, Visalia

MAY 3-4, 2018
Host: San Bernardino Superintendent of Schools
Location: West End Educational Service Center, Rancho Cucamonga

MAY 7-8, 2018
Host: Sacramento County Office of Education
Location: Sacramento County Office of Education Conference Center and David P. Meaney Education Center, Mather

JUNE 14-15, 2018
Host: Imperial County Office of Education
Location: Imperial Valley College, Imperial

Presented by the California Department of Education, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association/County Offices of Education, K-12 Alliance @WestEd, California Science Project, and the California Science Teachers Association.

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

The Teaching and Learning Collaborative, Reflections from an Administrator

Posted: Friday, January 19th, 2018

by Kelly Patchen

My name is Mrs. Kelly Patchen, and I am proud to be an elementary assistant principal working in the Tracy Unified School District (TUSD) at Louis Bohn and McKinley Elementary Schools. Each of the schools I support are Title I K-5 schools with about 450 students, a diverse student population, a high percentage of English Language Learners, and students living in poverty. We’re also lucky to be part of the CA NGSS K-8 Early Implementation Initiative with the K-12 Alliance. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by NGSS Early Implementer

NGSS Early Implementer

In 2015 CSTA began to publish a series of articles written by teachers participating in the California NGSS k-8 Early Implementation Initiative. This article was written by an educator(s) participating in the initiative. CSTA thanks them for their contributions and for sharing their experience with the science teaching community.

2018 CSTA Conference Call for Proposals

Posted: Wednesday, January 17th, 2018

CSTA is pleased to announce that we are now accepting proposals for 90-minute workshops and three- and six-hour short courses for the 2018 California Science Education Conference. Workshops and short courses make up the bulk of the content and professional learning opportunities available at the conference. In recognition of their contribution, members who present a workshop or short course receive 50% off of their registration fees. Click for more information regarding proposals, or submit one today by following the links below.

Short Course Proposal

Workshop Proposal Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

CSTA’s New Administrator Facebook Group Page

Posted: Monday, January 15th, 2018

by Holly Steele

The California Science Teachers Association’s mission is to promote high-quality science education, and one of the best practice’s we use to fulfill that mission is through the use of our Facebook group pages. CSTA hosts several closed and moderated Facebook group pages for specific grade levels, (Elementary, Middle, and High School), pages for district coaches and science education faculty, and the official CSTA Facebook page. These pages serve as an online resource for teachers and coaches to exchange teaching methods, materials, staying update on science events in California and asking questions. CSTA is happy to announce the creation of a 6th group page called, California Administrators Supporting Science. Learn More…

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.

Find Your Reason to Engage

Posted: Monday, January 15th, 2018

by Jill Grace

I was recently reflecting on events in the news and remembered that several years ago, National Public Radio had a story about a man named Stéphane Hessel, a World War II French resistance fighter, Nazi concentration camp survivor, and contributor to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The story focused on a book he had published, Time for Outrage (2010).

In it, Hessel makes the argument that the worst attitude is indifference:

“Who is in charge; who are the decision makers? It’s not always easy to discern. We’re not dealing with a small elite anymore, whose actions we can clearly identify. We are dealing with a vast, interdependent world that is interconnected in unprecedented ways. But there are unbearable things all around us. You have to look for them; search carefully. Open your eyes and you will see. This is what I tell young people: If you spend a little time searching, you will find your reasons to engage. The worst attitude is indifference. ‘There’s nothing I can do; I get by’ – adopting this mindset will deprive you of one of the fundamental qualities of being human: outrage.  Our capacity for protest is indispensable, as is our freedom to engage.”

His words make me take pause when I think of the status of science in the United States. A general “mistrust” of science is increasingly pervasive, as outlined in a New Yorker article from the summer of 2016. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Jill Grace

Jill Grace

Jill Grace is a Regional Director for the K-12 Alliance and is President of CSTA.