Understanding the Process of Changes

in Science Beliefs and Classroom

Practices from Immersive Research
Experience for Science Teachers

Lindsey Hubbard
North Carolina State University, United States of America

Katy May
North Carolina State University, United States of America

Stella Jackman-Ryan
North Carolina State University, United States of America
www.ijres.net

Margareta M. Thomson
North Carolina State University, United States of America

To cite this article:

Hubbard, L., May, K., Jackman-Ryan, S., & Thomson, M.M. (2024). Understanding the
process of changes in science beliefs and classroom practices from immersive research
experience for science teachers. International Journal of Research in Education and Science
(IJRES), 10(2), 502-523. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3337

The International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) is a peer-reviewed scholarly online
journal. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are
responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher
shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research
material. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any
financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations regarding the submitted work.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science
2024, Vol. 10, No. 2, 502-523 https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3337

Understanding the Process of Changes in Science Beliefs and Classroom

Practices from Immersive Research Experience for Science Teachers

Lindsey Hubbard, Katy May, Stella Jackman-Ryan, Margareta M. Thomson

Article Info Abstract

Article History This study explored 8 high school science teachers’ experiences in an 8-week
Received: immersive research laboratory professional development program. The aim was
28 September 2023
to understand their motivation for participating and what factors influenced
Accepted:
28 March 2024
changes in beliefs about science instructions. Mentor scientists and their lab
members hosted teachers for the duration of the program allowing teacher
participants to become active members of research. Results showed that
participants used three major lenses to understand their research experience: self
Keywords
as educator, self as learner, self as researcher. The use of overlapping lenses
Immersive research
provided participants with the impetus to change beliefs about science and
experience
Inquiry research practices in their classrooms. Ample time and collaboration in
Science Beliefs professional development is critical to changes in beliefs about science instruction.

Introduction

Science education reform in the last several decades has called for more inquiry-based instruction that more
closely mirrors the nature of science and scientific research (Capps & Crawford, 2013). This push to improve
science education, however, has left many teachers feeling under-prepared to meet the demands of reform. Various
forms of professional development have served to address this continued issue. Professional development broadly
refers to continued support for teachers through various education mediums. Teachers often rely on their own
beliefs to guide their teaching practices; however, rigorous professional development programs that offer the
opportunity for science teachers to have research experiences may shape or reshape their beliefs about science
education and inquiry-based learning (Southerland, Granger, Hughes, Enderle, Ke, Roseler, Saka, & Tekkumru-
Kisa, 2016).

Call for reform

The US government and the professional agencies tasked with reforming science education suggest instructional
changes for presenting science in the school curriculum, how science should be taught in schools, and how
students’ science learning outcomes should be assessed (i.e., NAS, 2006; NRC, 2011; NRC, 2012). These reforms
emphasize teacher practices that use innovative, inquiry-based teaching strategies that promote students’
conceptual understanding, application of higher-order thinking skills, knowledge construction, and the use of self-
regulatory learning strategies. This includes conducting experiments, interpreting data, making arguments, and

502
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

evaluating information (Lotter, Smiley, Thompson, & Dickenson, 2016). The US and other countries like the UK,
Ireland, the Netherlands, and Canada have undertaken a curriculum shift to increase science, mathematics, and
technology education at all grade levels, and to train teachers in adopting these more inquiry-based, constructivist
teaching approaches (Sharp, Hopkin, & Lewthwaite, 2011; Van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001).

A Shift to Active Learning - A Theoretical Stance

In contrast to traditional teaching practices, where students are passive recipients of instruction, science reform
recommendations emphasize a rethinking of teacher’s roles to that of facilitators of student learning, allowing
students to do the bulk of the intellectual work (Poon, Lee, Tan, & Lim, 2012; Richardson & Liang, 2008; Patchen
& Crawford, 2011; Maskiewic and Winters, 2012). These reforms encourage constructivist teaching strategies
and a shift in student learning, from acquisition of facts, to higher-order thinking skills that enable students to self-
regulate their learning, acquire more complex knowledge and skills, and ultimately become able to do science
(Michalsky, 2012; Southerland et al., 2016). In a constructivist, student-centered teaching approach, students are
actively involved in learning and share ownership of the learning process with teachers. Research shows that an
important tool in shifting instruction to this kind of approach is placing a greater emphasis on developing students’
and teachers’ higher-order scientific thinking (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Cognitive components (i.e.,
domain knowledge, strategies, and metacognition) and motivational components (i.e., instructional beliefs,
teaching efficacy beliefs) are crucial elements in understanding how teachers develop professionally and adapt
their instruction to a more reformed-based approach (Michalsky, 2012; Schraw et al., 2006).

Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices

Unfortunately, research shows that US teachers’ classroom practices often do not align with the above
recommendations for inquiry-based, student-centered teaching practices, which may be because few teachers have
experienced learning science through inquiry themselves (NRC, 2011, 2012; Lotter et al., 2016). As such, studies
have found that teachers have significant difficulties presenting science content using inquiry-based or
experimental approaches in their teaching (Anderson, 2002; Kamarski & Michalsky, 2009; Randi, 2004; Randi &
Corno, 2000, Thomson & Gregory, 2013; Thomson & Nietfeld, 2016; Smith & Southerland, 2007; Waters-
Adams, 2006).

Research investigating teachers’ beliefs argues that changing teacher classroom practices depends in part on
changing teachers’ instructional beliefs (Pajares, 1992; Maskiewic and Winters, 2012), but studies within the US
and UK (i.e., Smith & Southerland, 2007; Sharp et al., 2009, 2011) shows that many teachers’ beliefs about
science teaching are simply not in line with reform recommendations and inquiry-based teaching. Teachers’
instructional decisions, their curriculum orientations, and the ways they enact or fail to enact reform in their
science teaching are greatly influenced by their beliefs about science teaching (Southerland et al., 2016). Thus,
understanding teachers’ belief systems and how they impact classroom practices will help determine the types of
experiences that are important for their teacher preparation and PD programs as they progress through their
careers.

503
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

Professional Development

Professional development programs, in addition to shaping teachers’ knowledge of skills and content, can help
address beliefs about inquiry-based, active, and student-centered science teaching. The national standards
recommend teacher education and professional development programs expand beyond domain and pedagogical
knowledge, to emphasize the acquisition and application of higher-order thinking skills (e.g., analysis, application,
evaluation), which will support adopting more research-based practices during instruction. Still, in a study of US
teachers’ reformed practices, Smith and Southerland (2007) found that teachers have a difficult time
understanding and implementing reform-based changes in their classroom teaching, even after completing
workshop training on reform practices. Thus, teachers often choose to rely on their personal beliefs about effective
science teaching and choose to apply those in the classroom, despite having the tools for implementing reform
offered to them (Mansour, 2009). Strategically structuring PD experiences to shape teachers’ beliefs about their
science teaching can support such shifts to more reform minded instruction (Southerland et al., 2016).

Influential Factors of Successful PD

Certain factors related to professional development programs impact whether teachers successfully change
teachers’ beliefs and practices related to inquiry-based science teaching, implement inquiry-based teaching
practices, and ultimately impact students’ science research literacy (Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova,
2012). Therefore, programs must incorporate certain factors, including adequate duration, collaboration, and
immersive research experiences (Borko, 2004). Though there is not one definitive length for PD programs, there
is agreement that programs must spend an extended number of hours and days in order to be effective, and
improvements to inquiry-based instruction are often seen after 80 hours of participation in PD (van Driel, Meirink,
van Veen, and Zwart, 2012; Lotter, Thompson, Dickenson, Smiley, Blue, & Rea, 2018).

Teachers tend to benefit from programs that encourage collaboration and co-learning, allowing them to utilize
each other’s expertise and shared experiences (van Driel, Meirink, van Veen, and Zwart, 2012; Herrington,
Bancroft, Edwards, & Schairer, 2016). PD programs that create communities of practice allow teachers to
construct knowledge, collaborate, and problem solve together, thereby making them active learners (Lotter et al.,
2016). Teacher education programs in England and Wales introduced a system of professional development in
teachers’ respective communities of practice, where teachers were provided with training in specialized
professional communities with the capacity to help teachers improve their content knowledge, and positively
influence their instructional beliefs and attitudes around science teaching (Sharp et al., 2011).

Creating positive attitudes towards science teaching and instructional beliefs can impact the quality of teachers’
science teaching in the long run (Waters-Adams, 2006). The literature shows that teachers’ participation in
immersive research experiences is critical for developing the fluency necessary to teach high-quality inquiry-
based science, yet few teachers have had such experiences (Southerland et al., 2016). One strategy for
incorporating these components for effective PD is the use of “summer institutes,” where teachers work alongside
academic, government, or industry scientists in authentic laboratory settings for an extended period of time,

504
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

usually six to ten weeks during the summer (Southerland et al., 2016). Research Experiences for Teachers (RET)
have been shown to impact changes in beliefs and practices related to inquiry-based science, even among teachers
with varying years of teaching experience (Herrington et al., 2016).

Lack of PD Opportunities for Some Teachers

Research shows that many teachers in the US lack opportunities for science professional development, especially
programs specifically tailored to meet teachers’ instructional needs for their grade level or student
demographics (i.e., Thomson, Huggins, & Williams, 2019; Peters-Burton & Frazier, 2012). Teachers from high-
poverty schools, in which a majority of students identify as minority students, or economically disadvantaged face
particular challenges in finding programs that present a good fit for their needs (Jacob, 2007).

This Study

The current study is part of a larger, five-year project (Thomson, Roberts, & Hubbard, 2020), funded by the
National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The overarching goal is to help teachers and
students from high-poverty schools improve their science research literacy and improve science teaching. Every
year, for five years, teachers from public schools with a large number of economically disadvantaged students are
selected to participate in an immersive science research program. Teacher participants join the program for eight
weeks during the summer break between academic years, and are immersed in and become fully participative in
their host research labs. This program is designed to be constructive and collaborative amongst participants,
mentor scientists, and researchers. Participants are encouraged to collaborate with one another (Richman, Haines,
& Fello, 2019) as well as with university faculty (Southerland et al., 2016).

Within this particular cohort, the purpose of this study was to provide an extensive and immersive learning
experience for science teachers without prescribed outcomes and to understand what aspects of the professional
development experience shaped their understanding of science teaching. The following research questions guide
this study:
1. How do teachers engaged in an immersive science research program describe their experiences, as related
to their motivations for attendance, expectations, program relevance, and program challenges?
2. What factors influenced changes in teachers’ beliefs about science instruction and the way they
implemented instruction in the classroom after the program attendance?

Method
Participants

Participants (N=8) were seven certified science teachers and one pre-service science teacher. With the exception
of one pre-service teacher, all participants taught high-school science at public schools with relatively high
populations of disadvantaged students. Table 1 shows the demographic data of each participant.

505
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

Table 1. Participants’ Demographics

Participant Race/ Gender Age Yrs Subjects Taught

Pseudonym Ethnicity Exp.

Erik AA M 50+ 16 Biology, Physical Science, Forensics, Earth

Science, Geology

Nora Swed. Amer. F 41-50 4 Forensics, Earth Science, Aquatics

Fran W F 41-50 15 Middle school science, Earth and

Environmental Science

Rich W M 19-30 4 Biology, Earth Science

Cali W F 19-30 0 N/A (preservice teachers)

Joel AA M 19-30 2 Earth, Environmental, Physical Science

Macy W F 19-30 4 Earth Science, Biology

Mia W F 50+ 20 Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science

Recruitment

Teachers were recruited through emails from the research assistant associated with the project, school
administration, and through word of mouth from previous program participants. Teachers interested in the
program completed an online application consisting of short questions about background information, interest in
science research, and school district information. Preference was given to applicants who met the following
criteria: science teachers that taught at schools with higher populations of students utilizing free and reduced lunch
services, science teachers that expressed interest in conducting laboratory-based research, and teachers that had
less than 10 years of science teaching experience. As noted, some participants fell outside of these criteria, but
based on the application pool, those teachers that best fit criteria were chosen.

Data Collection

In-person focus groups were conducted twice during the PD Program. The first was conducted by the research
assistant after the first two weeks of the program. The second focus group was conducted by the principal
investigator, during the last week of the program. Individual interviews were conducted via phone, 4-6 months
after completion of the program, depending on the participants’ schedule. These interviews were conducted by
the research assistant and a graduate student associated with the project. Two participants, Joel and Mia, did not
complete the second focus group or the individual interviews. Mia left the program at the halfway point to take a
new teaching position. Joel was absent the day the second focus group was conducted and did not participate in
individual interviews.

506
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Data Analysis

All focus groups and individual interviews were transcribed verbatim by the research assistant. Data were coded
by the research assistant and an additional graduate student associated with the program. In phase one of coding
the focus group and interview transcripts, both coders used inductive coding, following the guidance of Merriam
and Tisdell (2015). Simultaneous, in vivo, and descriptive coding was used to assign meaning to pieces of text
(Creswell and Poth, 2016). Each coder used open coding to generate an initial list of codes, yielding 103 codes
and subcodes. Phase two of analysis used axial coding to work towards agreement on all codes, combining codes
that represented similar data, resulting in 53 codes. Next, in a continuous and iterative process of axial coding, the
coding scheme was developed to categorize all codes into major themes. Three major themes, represented as
lenses, emerged from the coding process. Codes that did not directly answer the research questions, or provide
additional understanding to the overall study were not used in the results, <<but can be found in the coding scheme
in appendix A.

In an effort to explain the process that occurs in the program, elements of grounded theory were used in the data
analysis as “participants in this study would all have experienced the process” (Creswell and Poth, 2016, p. 82).
Grounded theory, as used in this study, “might help explain practice or provide a framework for future research”
(Creswell and Poth, 2016, p. 82). The results of this analysis are presented through lenses that emerged in analysis,
which provided insight into the “interactions or process through interrelating categories of information based on
data collected from individuals” (Creswell and Poth, 2016, p. 83).

Results

The purpose of this research was to understand teachers' motivations, expectations, and challenges when
engaged in an immersive science research program, and what factors influenced changes to their beliefs about
science instruction. Three major themes we describe as lenses through which participants engaged in the
program emerged: self as educator, self as learner, and self as researcher. The lenses can also be thought of as
perspectives or identities. Analysis also revealed that it was through these lenses that participants were able to
see what changes could be made to better connect their students to science. Experiences in the program evoked
these three lenses through various challenges, successes, disappointments, and realizations.

Connecting Students to Science

Because participants saw connecting students to science as their goal as well as the process through which they
experienced the program, it will be highlighted additionally through each lens. In the beginning of the program,
Mia comments on her motivation to start the program, explaining, “...that was the reason why I came here, to
understand the techniques, the tendencies, the trends and to get a better way to translate that for [my students].”
A common belief among participants was confidence that their students possess the ability to become scientists
and to conduct scientific research if they know which pathways to take. Rich explained his beliefs, saying, “I think
they can. They just need to know what steps they need to take in order to do that”. Other participants remarked

507
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

on the program's ability to reveal specific steps participants can take to become involved in science and science
research. In essence, the theme of connecting students to science was evident across participants' reflections of
their professional goal for participating in the program as well as their own learning process.

Understanding How Lenses Interact

Though teachers clearly described experiences that represented themselves as educators, learners, and researchers,
these were not discrete lenses that occurred independently, but were inherently connected to one another. Each
lens and its substantive codes will be detailed individually. As figure 1 shows, there were areas where lenses
overlapped, with codes that highlighted the bridge that participants used to connect the multiple lenses, these are
subthemes. The overlap of lenses will be detailed as transitions between each of the three major themes with sub
themes italicized. As an example, participants were often looking through the lenses of educator and researcher
when understanding the disconnects between laboratory-based science research and classroom science. Grounded
theory shows movement through phases, or a process (Creswell and Poth, 2016). In general, participants began
the program thinking more like an educator, then moved to thinking like a learner, and eventually expressed
thinking like a researcher. Though each participant did not move through this process in exactly the same ways,
the nature of the program suggests that participants will generally move in that direction while using multiple
lenses to see and understand a problem and solution. Because the laboratory-based science research seemed so
different from their classroom science, participants reported being initially unsure of how the program would fit
their needs as a classroom teacher. Though the program did not meet some of the expectations of the participants,
the fit of the program was a catalyst allowing participants’ to connect to the lenses of self as educator, self as
learner, and self as researcher.

Figure 1. Overlapping Lenses

As seen from Figure 1, each lens overlaps with other lenses to provide a deeper understanding or a clearer look at
how to connect students to science.

508
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Self as Educator

Participants applied to the program as pre-service or active classroom teachers, and returned to their classrooms
after the program to continue teaching science. Data revealed that participants most often thought of themselves
as teachers and educators, making self as educator the most prevalent lens through which participants initially
engaged in the program. Self as educator was most often demonstrated through participants’ views and
conversations around what could be taken directly from the program and used in their classrooms. The idea of
having something to take back to the classroom became a major code under the umbrella of self as educator called,
takeaways. Participants expressed excitement about taking educational resources back to their students and
classrooms. Additionally, takeaways provided insight into how participants were constantly looking for ways to
connect their students to science through resources and opportunities. Resources included new information, new
skills, new supplies, online tools, and the potential to bring their students back to visit the university and labs in
the future.

During focus groups, participants referred to one another as resources, explaining how they worked
collaboratively to make sense of and maximize their experiences. This experience, collaboration of cohort,
specifically captured the community of teachers and their experience of working together to solve problems. In
particular, Cali mentioned how important it was for her as a preservice teacher to experience this type of
collaboration with teachers that have already been in their classrooms for a few years, saying,
“As a preservice teacher, I know that the more experiences I have with other teachers, with scientists in
the classroom, anything, any perspectives I can gain are going to make me better prepared when I walk
into my classroom on the first day.”
Joel also expressed his appreciation for learning from one another, saying,
“... some of the conversations that we have and what we can take away from them, I feel are a lot more
beneficial … like a conversation you would have with your mentor teacher or another teacher before
school or after school...now we're actually helping each other... think problems through, think situations
through, or just open our eyes to new opportunities.”
Under self as educator, participants often referred to the program as giving them credibility as a science teacher.
Macy mentioned this view in the second focus group saying, “I think it gives me street cred, not only in...the
science field, but more so in the education field of … just having that exposure. I think it's total street cred.” Later,
during her individual interview, she reaffirmed this experience by reflecting on her students’ perception of her,
saying,
“they can see me as a viable and reliable science teacher... I've done the science and so I think that they
feel that confidence in me and they feel... that I know what I'm talking about and so they're going to listen
and learn as well.”

Overlap of Educator and Learner

It was common for participants to think about and refer to their students’ perspectives throughout the summer
program. There were several distinct times when participants were looking through both the lens of self as

509
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

educators and self as learner. When pressed to learn new things, participants reflected on how their students might
feel while learning. Cali spoke about some of her challenges in learning concepts she’d never heard of, but that
this experience connected her to her students’ feelings. She explains,
“...on the other hand it's been nice because….what does it feel like to be a student in the classroom? ….
it's giving me a perspective … to understand how some of my students might feel when there are these
questions…And so it's been an exercise in humility and understanding, asking questions and feeling what
it feels like to not know the basics.”
Participant’s experiences in the labs and identifying with their students’ perspectives allowed them to use the lens
of a learner.

Self as Learner

The aim of this and other immersive PD experiences for teachers is to elicit the experience of being the learner
with the overarching goal of translating the experience to students (Blanchard, Southerland, & Granger, 2009).
Participants were immediately immersed into the day-to-day activities of their host labs. Just like students in a
classroom, for many participants this was their first time learning certain concepts and techniques related to
environmental health sciences. As participants began facing adversity and struggles, the differences between their
expertise in the classroom and their novelty in the lab revealed the gap between what they knew and what they
needed to learn to be successful in the lab. Differences in knowledge among the participants, as well as between
participants and their labmates were captured as knowledge differences.

Information overload highlighted the feeling of being overwhelmed when learning these new and unfamiliar
concepts, techniques, and scientific disciplines. Cali noted that as a chemistry teacher, a lot of the biology-specific
vocabulary felt new to her. Asking more questions highlighted how participants took ownership in addressing and
remediating differences in knowledge. Erik says,
“I had to really press myself. And what I really found out, I had to go out of my comfort zone to ask the
really smart people, "Hey, can you help me out? Because I don't know what I'm doing."

Despite any struggles encountered in the lab, participants’ interest in learning the subject matter fueled their
persistence in the program. The code excitement/interest/enjoyment captured the genuine enthusiasm that
participants had for the subject matter and experience. Cali says, “it’s so much fun. And everyday I'm excited to
come again. What are we gonna learn about today?” and Macy remarked, “a program like this really stimulates
me and excites me.” This code captures the genuine interest and passion that the participants expressed for this
kind of immersive, constructive learning experience.

Overlap of Learner and Researcher

Participants were in a constant state of learning, but this was almost always overlapping with another lens. A key
feature of this program is immersing teachers in current research and experiments in environmental health science
labs. As such, participants were forced to learn through iteration and find eventual success through initial mistakes.

510
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Not only did this allow participants to take on a learner’s perspective, it also highlighted the inherent nature of
scientific research. What were initially perceived as failures by participants (e.g., the need to repeat a technique
multiple times before it was perfected), were not only genuine learning experiences, but also genuine research
experiences. Trial and error, repetition, and adjustments are all critical pieces of the research process. Many
participants reflected on the feeling of failing at certain procedures, or having to learn from their mistakes in order
to ultimately be successful. This was captured in the code, learning from mistakes. Erik expressed that learning a
new technique in his lab required persistence and patience because, “that technique was difficult and it wasn't just
the first time, it wasn't just the fourth time. It was a number of times before we really understood.” Other
participants also recounted the need to repeat running a gel, pipetting a liquid, working with fish embryos, and
identifying differences in working with RNA or DNA. Still, the teachers ultimately recognized the ability to
respond to initial failures, and stay committed to learning. Mia made a summative statement about this experience,
“you make a mistake, you learn from it”.

The repetition of learning through trial and error is inherent to the scientific research process. As such, learning
from mistakes became a subcode within the larger code, process of science and research. Both of these occur
when the self as learner and self as researcher lens overlap as seen in Figure 1. Process of science and research
captured discussion of the general nature of science, the research process, and commentary on specific techniques.
Rich remarked on the ubiquity of scientific inquiry when he said, “so as long as you keep asking questions…
you're a scientist technically and you're looking for solutions to those questions.” Mia commented on the ubiquity
of scientific outputs, “for many, science seems something very abstract and dry...when it's actually it pertains and
it touches every aspect of our life, from vitamins to the gadgets, to the, I don't know, spaceships, everything is
science.” Erik talked about the time that goes into thinking about a research question, before ever conducting an
experiment in the lab, explaining,
“...it really opened up my eyes to how they approach a particular problem. How they sit down and discuss
it, look at all the research and data before they even attempt to assign an elaborate procedure in what
needs to be done”.
The time participants spent learning content and working through mistakes to succeed in their labs allowed them
to transition from speaking about themselves only as learners, to speaking about themselves as researchers.

Self as Researcher

Over the course of the eight-week program, teachers became genuine members of their lab communities, working
for 30-40 hours per week. They made legitimate contributions to both the research and social dynamics. This gave
participants the opportunity to see themselves as contributing lab members, and highlighted the third lens, self as
researcher. Participants acknowledged that this program filled a need and provided an outlet for engaging in
scientific discussions with each other, their like-minded peers. Rich jokingly expressed his excitement, saying,
“I look forward to having these biological conversations and just science conversations with you guys in
general, because I'm not going to go home and have a conversation about transcription factors with my
wife who never took science classes. You know what I mean?”
The knowledge differences that participants initially felt when entering their labs were often addressed and

511
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

mitigated through effective science communication, allowing participants to really assimilate into the labs. Erik
explains his experience in science communication with mentors and their graduate students saying they would,
“break it down, to make it so that wherever level we were, it kind of made it all the same again.” Taking the time
to explain, talk about, and understand new concepts and techniques helped create a feeling of equality between
participants and their lab mates, thereby engendering feelings of confidence as practicing researchers. Participants
began referring to themselves as “professionals” and remarked on the research they were able to conduct on their
own. Participants spoke about this confidence in the lab and how it might translate into conversations with their
students.

The role of mentorship, both by a lab’s principal investigator and its graduate students, played a critical role in
effective science communication and supporting the participants’ experience as researchers. Participants remarked
on how their lab mates worked to ensure that participants were successful when completing various techniques in
the lab. The mentorship of faculty members and graduate students was often based in science communication
(e.g., discussing specific techniques, using diagrams to describe new concepts), but this desire to help each other
be successful researchers also pointed to a sense of community within labs and the program.
The code science community captured participants’ expressed feelings of being connected with a community
related to science and viewing the lab as a model community. Teachers’ immersion in the labs allowed them to
develop relationships with faculty members and graduate students as fellow researchers. Participants talked about
the sometimes-unexpected sense of connection and camaraderie within their labs. In the beginning of the program,
Erik talked about the importance of these supportive relationships in each lab, saying,
“It's something that I wish we could ... take this program, with the way we are treated as professionals,
and spread it across the teaching profession in the state. We would see a tremendous impact. I think we've
been in the greatly appreciated, with whatever skill that we came here with, we have been appreciated,
and walk with others even if their skill sets are different than ours”.

Participants noted throughout the program, the collaborative and communal nature of lab experiences led to co-
learning and idea sharing as researchers. Faculty and graduate students made an effort to understand how different
lab concepts could be applied in teachers’ classrooms. Mia explained, “They recognize the importance of bringing
this to the classroom. And I think that that's huge. So I really appreciate it.” Rich, Joel, and Mia remarked that the
mentors were likely learning from the teachers, just as they learn from their students. The science community
extended beyond each teacher’s lab, to other program participants and their labmates. There was a sense of
bonding among participants based on their shared experiences as researchers during the program. Mia explained
this experience as,
“It's so enriching because … you realize you're not the only nerd….People that have the same passion
like you, it makes you feel better professionally and it's like the future has a silver lining, no matter how
big it looks sometimes. But being with people of the same kind mental...frame and passions, I think that
that matters a lot as well. At least for me”.
Ultimately, the collaborative and constructive nature of the research, community, and co-learning that the program
facilitated highlighted how the program was greater than the sum of its parts.

512
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Overlap of Researcher and Educator

As the program concluded, participants were once again thinking of themselves as self as educator, but now
accompanied with the lens of self as researcher. Through both of these perspectives, participants began to think
and speak about reform to their teaching beliefs and teaching practices. Cali explained how the experience of
being immersed in the research process allowed her to learn by actually doing the research. She explained that
this process will ultimately impact activities for her students and better connect her students to science, saying,
“Really having students model what it was like to develop their own questions and their own scientific
investigations to analyze these questions and even having them create research poster type presentations
and practice. Going through that process, I feel now that I've actually been through that in a laboratory
setting, I would be more able to implement that as a student activity”.

As participants began to make connections between their own research experiences and their classrooms, they
realized the disconnect between academic science and what is taught in their classrooms is larger than they
previously realized. It was through both lenses, self as researcher and self as educator that participants were able
to see where real change could happen. Using both lenses, participants identified the disconnects between labs
and schools, addressed barriers to science teaching, and recognized applications to the real world and teaching
that inspired overall changes to teaching. Changes to teaching captures specific changes that participants made
in their classrooms upon completing the program. Rich often brought up questions around the relevance of what
is taught in schools compared to what actually happens in research labs. Recollecting about his first two weeks in
the program, he was reminded how important it is to teach his students the application behind the concepts,
explaining, “teaching these kids science in high school... they need to know why or else they can't make
connections to real world examples.” Recognizing the application behind the concepts allowed participants to
more clearly see the barriers to science teaching. Participants pointed to large class sizes and lack of time, funding,
and support as major barriers to high-quality science teaching. At the end of the program, Rich made a summative
statement, “... that's what's awesome about this program is, the reason is, is to bridge that gap between the teachers
and the doctorates, or the PhD students, or the people that are doing the research on the stuff that we're teaching.”
Erik reflected on a similar experience of bridging the gap between research and classroom science, saying,
“...my teaching model has changed dramatically, as opposed to just doing maybe a lesson plan and just
going over the review material and getting students involved with some of the basic fundamental
vocabulary, we now start with a research topic. We'll research it, look at it before we do an
experiment...and then we'll look at all the parameters, lay out what could be done with it. It's a hands on,
problem solving approach, like a project based learning approach. I've learned to apply from the
program...and you know the students are engaged more…. Topics [have] come alive because of the
experience that I had in changing the model. Students are no longer sitting in their desk taking notes.
They're up, they're moving, they're communicating with group communication and they're sharing their
experiences”.
Erik goes on to explain that when his students are engaging with the scientific method through inquiry, they no
longer see failure when their lab results are unexpected. Erik’s experience of adapting his own teaching approach
to more closely align with the practices of a research lab was common among other participants. Their own

513
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

experience with inquiry-based learning informed their beliefs about their students ability to engage with science
content in a similar way. As participants finished their time in the program and began planning for their return to
their classrooms, they reported feeling more confident in themselves and their abilities to not only conduct
research, but also to better teach science. Even though Cali did not have her own classroom yet, she commented
on her confidence, explaining,
“... I definitely feel much more confident in my ability to call myself a scientist after having spent this
[summer] in this program, which I think will increase my confidence in my own future classroom as I
work with my students, especially with inquiry-based lab activities... so I'm looking forward to seeing
what that will look like”.
When asked in the second focus group, “do you think you could be a scientist?” participants responded that they
had the abilities to be a scientist, but ultimately want to remain teachers. Macy said this of her ability to be a
scientists,
“I could see myself being a scientist or researcher, but I don't think I will ever switch gears and move
into that sector… I'm very passionate about education…. but I definitely think I am capable of doing it.
I just don't foresee wanting to ever make the switch”.
Joel had a similar take on his abilities to become a scientist saying, “I would love to go ahead and go and be a
scientist….make more money obviously, but to be honest, I feel like I'd be letting down kids if I left. I felt like it's
my calling….”. Additionally, Cali explained her view of herself in both roles, “I see myself as a scientist through
my role as a teacher, but I don't think that I will ever be a scientist in the context that I was this summer”.

Connecting Students to Science

These three lenses complemented one another, allowing participants to see the pathways for students, the barriers
to remove, and changes to be made more clearly than with any one individual lens. These concurrent lenses are
unique to teacher participants, as no other members of the network were learning from or operating from these
same three lenses. As seen in Figure 1, these lenses all overlapped, were highlighted by certain experiences, and
challenged by others, but all ultimately helped teachers build the skills and capacity to better connect their students
to science.

Discussion
Program Impacts

Quality science education is a priority in both the US and globally. Professional development offers the
opportunity for science teachers to gain content knowledge and experiences that may shape their beliefs about
quality science education. The PD experience outlined in this study provides an opportunity for immersive science
research, which shifts participants' beliefs about themselves, their students, and science teaching. The findings in
this study show that when teachers are in a research laboratory for eight weeks, conduct meaningful research, and
collaborate with scientists and peers, their beliefs about science and science teaching are impacted. What was so
influential about this experience? Teacher participants were not given specific curriculum or lesson plans to take
back to their classrooms and they did not receive any intervention about science education reform. They

514
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

experienced a genuine, iterative research process. Time, collaboration, and context of the program were requisite
features for participants to foster three crucial lenses from which they viewed the program. These three lenses,
self as educator, self as learner, and self as researcher, allowed participants to acknowledge and bridge the gap
between what happens in science research laboratories and what happens in their classrooms.

Time

Consistent with the literature (Borko, 2004; Lotter et al., 2018), time was an important factor of this professional
development program that influenced participants’ changes in beliefs. The duration of the program provided
participants with extended periods of time in their labs, working closely alongside their principal investigator
mentors, and each lab’s graduate students. Self as a researcher was an important lens for teachers to change their
beliefs. Sufficient time with this process was necessary for them to develop that perspective. Because self as
researcher was a lens experienced more regularly towards the end of the program, it took the duration of the
program for participants to really come full circle back to viewing self as educator with new beliefs. Time also
served as a crucial element in the development of collaborative relationships with peers and mentors, which were
an important outcome of this study.

Collaboration

The constructivist nature of the program did not prescribe any explicit end goals or outcomes, other than the
experience of science inquiry through working in a research laboratory. Participants constructed the nature of their
experience in the program with each other, their labmates, and themselves. Even though almost all participants
initially questioned if the program was a good “fit” for them, they all reported similar ideas of growth and new
perspectives, positive impacts on teaching, and new understandings and beliefs about the nature of science and
science inquiry (Capps & Crawford, 2013). Participants’ experiences in this program are consistent with Lotter et
al. (2016) in that teachers were “active participants in their learning” and it is “viewed as context dependent and
socially constructed through dialogue and collaboration with others (p. 2714). Consistent with literature, the
constructive nature of this program allowed participants to collaborate with other educators through dialogue,
reflection, and sharing experiences (Herrington et al., 2016; Lotter et al., 2016). As in other studies, the network
that participants built was extremely valuable and aided in the overall experience of the program (Pop, Dixon, &
Grove, 2010).

Context

The context of the program allowed participants to engage in inquiry-based learning for themselves. Consistent
with Lotter et al. (2016), participants developed confidence in scientific research, and because they learned
through inquiry and higher order thinking during the program, they are better able to facilitate classroom learning
in similar ways. Engaging in this learning process allowed participants to form new beliefs and connections to
science education. If we simply provided a list of these resources to a group of teachers, they would not necessarily
make any changes to their teaching or beliefs (Smith & Southerland, 2007). Participants were able to experience

515
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

something brand new to them; they now have access to different lenses that allow them to more clearly see how
a learner will experience science curriculum. The context of the program also provided a dynamic platform for
participants to develop their sense of identity around science (Avraamidou, 2019; Thomson & Nietfeld, 2016).

Conclusion

Learning from and working with professionals in different fields develops an influential network. This program
elicits exponential learning opportunities for all involved including, teachers, researchers, and scientists. Attrition
of two participants from the program prevents the data analysis and results to show the full picture of all
participants' experiences throughout the program and data collection process. Though both of these perspectives
were left out of some of the data analysis, their voices are still represented in data from the first focus group.
Future research interests include understanding the experience from the perspectives of the mentor scientists and
the graduate students that host high school science teachers for immersive summer research experiences. Future
research interests also include understanding students’ benefits from having a science teacher that has participated
in immersive summer research experiences.

Acknowledgements

The program highlighted in this report was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Award # 581806.
The study described in this report was initiated and conducted by researchers from a major university in the United
States. The results and conclusions reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the NIH.

References

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of science teacher
education, 13(1), 1-12.
Avraamidou, L. (2019). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: Rethinking recognition and emotions
through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1-23.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of
teacher change following an inquiry‐based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2),
322-360.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher,
33 (8), 3-15.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they
happening?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Sage publications.
Herrington, D. G., Bancroft, S. F., Edwards, M. M., & Schairer, C. J. (2016). I want to be the inquiry guy! How
research experiences for teachers change beliefs, attitudes, and values about teaching science as inquiry.

516
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(2), 183-204.

Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children,
129-153.

Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers’ professional growth in self-regulated
learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 161-175.
Lotter, C., Smiley, W., Thompson, S., & Dickenson, T. (2016). The impact of a professional development model
on middle school science teachers' efficacy and implementation of inquiry. International Journal of
Science Education, 38(18), 2712-2741.
Lotter, C. R., Thompson, S., Dickenson, T. S., Smiley, W. F., Blue, G., & Rea, M. (2018). The impact of a
practice-teaching professional development model on teachers’ inquiry instruction and inquiry efficacy
beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 255-273.
Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, C., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: The relationship
between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement.
International Journal of Science Education, 34, 153-166.
Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda.
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 25-48.
Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co‐construction of inquiry practices: A case study
of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley
& Sons.
Michalsky, T. (2012). Shaping self-regulation in science teachers’ professional growth: Inquiry skills. Science
Education, 96, 1106-1133.
National Academies of Science (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for
a brighter economic future. Washington: Author.
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Council on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education
Standards, National Research Council. Retrieved on May 13, 2013 from:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting
concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education
Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Patchen, T., & Crawford, T. (2011). From gardeners to tour guides: The epistemological struggle revealed in
teacher-generated metaphors of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 286-298.
Peters-Burton , E. & Frazier, W.M. (2012). Voices from the Front Lines: Exemplary Science Teachers on
Education Reform. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 179–190.
Poon, C-L., Lee, Y-J., Tan, A-L., & Lim, S. S.( 2012). Knowing inquiry as practice and theory: Developing a

517
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

pedagogical framework with elementary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 42, 303-327
Pop, M.M., Dixon, P., & Grove C. (2010). Research experiences for Teachers (RET): Motivation, expectations,
and changes to teaching practices due to professional development program involvement. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 22 (2), 127-147.
Richardson, G. M., & Liang, L.L. (2008). The use of inquiry in the development of preservice teacher efficacy in
mathematics and science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20 (1), 1-16.
Richman, L. J., Haines, S., & Fello, S. (2019). Collaborative professional development focused on promoting
effective implementation of the next generation science standards. Science Education International,
30(3).
Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 1825-1853.
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M.
Zeidner (Eds). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.651-685). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition
as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.
Sharp, J., Hopkin, R., James, S., Peacock, G., Kelly, L., Davies, D., & Bowker, R. (2009). Teacher preparation
and the national primary science curriculum: A twentieth-anniversary perspective. Research Papers in
Education, 24, 247-263.
Sharp, J. G., Hopkin, R., & Lewthwaite, B. (2011). Teacher perceptions of science in the National Curriculum.
International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2407-2436.
Smith, L.K., & Southerland, S.A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’
response to the tools of reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 44, 396-423.
Southerland, S. A., Granger, E. M., Hughes, R., Enderle, P., Ke, F., Roseler, K., Saka, Y., & Tekkumru-Kisa, M.
(2016). Essential aspects of science teacher professional development: Making research participation
instructionally effective. AERA open, 2(4), 2332858416674200.
Thomson, M.M., Roberts, R., & Hubbard, L. (January, 2020). Motivations and values: Immersive mentorship
science experiences. Presentation at the National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology (NITOP), St
Petersburg, FL.
Thomson, M.M., Huggins, E. & Williams, W. (2019). Developmental science efficacy trajectories of novice
teachers from a STEM-focused program: A longitudinal mixed-methods investigation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 77, 253-265.
Thomson, M.M., & Nietfeld, J. (2016). Beliefs systems and classroom practices: Identified typologies of
elementary school teachers from the United States. The Journal of Educational Research, 109 (4), 360-
374
Thomson, M.M., & Gregory, B. (2013). Elementary teachers' classroom practices and beliefs in relation to US
science education reform: Reflections from within. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11),
1800-1823.
Van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education:
The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158.
Van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies
on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of

518
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

research. Studies in science education, 48(2), 129-160.

Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding the nature of science and practice: The
influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 28, 919-944.

Author Information
Lindsey Hubbard Katy May

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5965-9385 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9542-4583
North Carolina State University North Carolina State University
602 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801 602 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801
Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 Raleigh, NC 27695-7801
United States of America United States of America
Contact e-mail: [email protected]

Stella Jackman-Ryan Margareta M. Thomson

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8407-7712 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9030-9196
North Carolina State University North Carolina State University
602 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801 602 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801
Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 Raleigh, NC 27695-7801
United States of America United States of America

519
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

Appendix A. Coding Scheme with Major Themes and Codes

Themes Codes/Subcodes Description

1.Self as 1.1 Takeaways Teachers discuss “taking” and “bringing” things, information,
educator 1.1.1 Resources ideas, applications “back" to their classroom, having access to new
1.2. Collaboration with information/exposure to equipment as a resource for themselves
cohort and their students, includes suggestions from other teachers on
1.3. Credibility as a science how to apply experience to classroom, commenting on working
teacher with and communicating specifically with teachers in the cohort,
feeling that having this experience in a research lab makes them
more credible as science teachers

2.Overlap of Educator and Learner Connecting with students’ needs through understanding students’
perspectives

3. Self as 3.1 Knowledge The differences in knowledge between mentors and teachers that
Learner differences sometimes creates tension, general excitement for participating in
3.1.1 Information the lab/research experience, teachers showing interest in science
overload and/or research experience, teachers trying to elicit interest to
3.1.2 Asking more science in their students, captures enjoyment of experience and
questions excitement of experience, showing interest in science and/or
3.2 Excitement/ research experience
enjoyment/ interest

4. Overlap of 4.1 Process of science and discussions about the nature of how things work and how things
Learner and research are in science, mentions of errors, failures, mistakes and the
Researcher 4.1.1 Learning from perception that these experiences are negative
mistakes

5. Self as 5.1 Science Teachers talking in scientific terms, talking about science to
Researcher communication others, talking with scientists, Guidance of lab members to
5.2 Mentorship teachers, mentors being helpful in growth process
5.3 Science Community

6. Overlap of 6.1 Disconnects between Teachers discuss barriers to teaching good science, including large
Research labs and schools class sizes, lack of supplies, lack of support from peers or
and Educator 6.2 Barriers administration.
6.3 Confidence Feeling a sense of confidence around lab work, research, science
6.4 Applications to real communication, etc. knowing more about the way science works,
world applying what teachers are learning in lab experience to their
6.5 Changes to teaching classrooms and lives, discuss the changes made to teaching

520
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Themes Codes/Subcodes Description

6.6 “I could be a practices since the program, teachers express the belief that they
scientists but I want to be have the ability to become a scientist but the drive and desire to be
a teacher” a teacher

7. Connecting Students to Science Mention of steps or path for students to take to get to science,
removing barriers for students to learn, providing better learning
experiences for students to learn science

8. Fit of program Teachers discuss if they are a best fit for the program or not,
teachers make suggestions to better the program, teachers feel that
the program is better fit for someone teaching biology, teachers
struggle to see application from program to their classroom,
teachers experiences don’t meet expectations but it’s not
necessarily a negative experience

521
Hubbard, May, Jackman-Ryan, & Thomson

Appendix B. Example Interview Protocol

“Hello (participant pseudonym). Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview which will last approx
20-30 min. Today is (insert date) and I, (researchers name) will conduct this interview. If you are ready, we’ll
start with our first question…”

1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself, about your teaching experience (Probe: i.e., subject taught, grade
level etc).
2. How long have you been in teaching? If you no longer teach, do you work in an educational related area?
Please give specific details.
3. You are one of the PD participants this past summer. How did you find out about this program?
4. What motivated you to participate (engage) in the EHS program?
5. Can you talk a little bit about what kind of expectations you had going into the EHS summer program?
Were these expectations met?
6. Describe a little bit your science teaching efficacy:
a) before and after your PD program.
b) at the present time: How confident are you now about your science teaching related to the EHS
topic?
7. What do you consider to be the most valuable about your participation in the EHS program?

522
 International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES)

Appendix C. Example Focus Group Interview Protocol

1. You are in the (insert week) of your summer PD program. Talk a little bit about your experiences so
far (Probe: a. What sort of experiences you had so far, b. Give some examples.)
2. Can you talk a little bit about your motivation to attend the PD program in EHS this summer?
3. How relevant is the work you’ve done so far in the lab for you as a science teacher? Do you think you
can use this experience and knowledge in your classroom teaching? (Probe: How, give me some
examples)
4. What do you find valuable about the PD program? And what do you consider being challenging?
5. Describe your science teaching efficacy at this time. How confident are you about your science teaching
related to the EHS topics?
6. Do you see yourself working as a scientist one day? Do you think you can be a scientist/ or have a career
in science, generally, or in EHS, particularly? (Probe: Why is that?)
7. Do you see your students working as a scientist one day? Do you think they can become scientists / or
have a career in science, generally, or in EHS, particularly?(Probe: Why is that?)

523