Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from educational reforms

(1)

Research paper

Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from educational reforms

Berit S. Haug

^*

, Sonja M. Mork

Institutional Afﬁliations for Both Authors: the Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, Postbox 1106, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s

Large-scale qualitative study based on national professional development including respondents from all over Norway.

Educative curriculum as part of PDP has potential to foster sustainable teacher learning.

Modelling effective strategies are useful in order to teach according to reform visions.

Student motivation is driver for changes in teachers’attitudes and beliefs.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 8 April 2020 Received in revised form 8 December 2020 Accepted 11 January 2021 Available online 29 January 2021 Keywords:

Professional development 21st century skills Science and literacy

Educative curriculum materials Instructional strategies Teacher learning

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this paper is to accentuate teachers’voice and examine what teachers consider as useful professional development for promoting 21st century skills as presented in educational reforms. The teachers participated in a professional development program designed to support teachers in bridging the gap between visionary reforms and classroom practice. Over a three-year period, 56 courses were conducted, reaching 1187 teachers. Results from this large-scale qualitative study show that teachers highlighted instructional strategies modelled during the course as supportive together with easy access to teaching resources and increased conﬁdence. Implications for future professional development programs are discussed.

1. Introduction

Educational reforms set ambitious goals for student learning. To prepare students for handling the complexity of modern societies, policy documents and educational reforms around the globe call for 21st century skills (T.Kennedy&Sundberg, 2020). Such skills and competencies involves the abilities to engage in high-level reasoning, understanding content and to apply and transfer knowledge to solve problems (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015;National Research Council, 2012;OECD, 2018). Teachers are vital in the execution of educational reforms, and several scholars

stress that teachers need support to carry out this task (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019; Granger, Bevis, Southerland, Saka, &Ke, 2019). In the literature, weﬁnd ample suggestions of successful approaches and effective professional development programs (PDP), however, this is mainly from the researcher’s point of view (Borko, 2004; Capps, Crawford, &

Constas, 2012;Darling-Hammond, Hyler,&Gardner, 2017;Stadler

&Jorde, 2012). To bridge the gap between reform visions and the

classroom, we believe it is important to accentuate the teacher voice. Therefore, we examined whatteachersconsidered as useful support in light of new demands from educational reforms.

21st century skills have been classiﬁed in three broad domains (National Research Council, 2012). Thecognitivedomain includes competencies related to cognitive processes and strategies, knowledge and creativity, for example critical thinking, reasoning and argumentation. Theintrapersonaldomain concerns beliefs and

*Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.S. Haug), s.m.mork@

naturfagsenteret.no(S.M. Mork).

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t a t e

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103286

(2)

motivation in learning, metacognition and self-regulated learning.

The interpersonal domain includes competencies related to collaboration and leadership, for example effective communication and responsibility. Such competencies are not new; they have been highly recognized for centuries. However, the development of advanced modern societies creates a need for all students to ac- quire these competencies and be able to apply them in multiple areas regardless of future occupation (National Research Council, 2012).

The 2006 Norwegian curriculum reform has been denoted as a literacy reform since it became mandatory that all subject focus on reading, writing, mathematics, digital and oral skills on the pre- mises of each subject (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/

2013). In addition, the science curriculum got a stronger emphasis on scientiﬁc practices. Both literacy skills and scientiﬁc practices are associated with 21st century skills (National Research Council, 2012). To better prepare students for their future lives and ca- reers, a curriculum renewal is taking effect between 2020 and 2022.

In this renewal, the concept of deeper learning is emphasized and referred to as the development of students’understanding of key elements within a subject and an ability to apply their knowledge and skills to novel problems and situations inside and outside of school, both individually and in collaboration with others (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). Thus, deeper learning is closely related to 21st century skills as described above, and we use the terms interchangeably.

In the present study, we asked Norwegian primary school teachers, participating in a PDP in science, what they regarded as important for promoting deeper learning in science. As already mentioned, the changes in classroom practices demanded by reform visions ultimately rely on the teachers, and the teachers’voice must be heard. For many teachers science reforms mean substantial changes and require a depth of science knowledge and set of instructional practices that they commonly do not possess (Capps et al., 2012; van Driel, Meirink, van Veen,&Zwart, 2012). Previ- ous research indicates that primary teachers struggle to know science content and how to engage students in inquiry-based science and scientiﬁc practices, which are essential parts of most science reforms (Fitzgerald, Danaia,&McKinnon, 2019;Nilsen&Frøyland, 2016;Stadler&Jorde, 2012). Another demanding task for teachers is to integrate literacy in all subjects as required by the Norwegian curriculum and highlighted as vital for deeper learning (Møller, Prøitz,&Aasen, 2009). Thus, teachers need to reﬁne their knowledge and skills to be able to enact reform-based curriculum, and like other learners, they need support and guidance. (Ball&Cohen, 1996;Borko, 2004). Effective PDPs are considered key to teacher learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017), and to support teachers’ professional growth we designed the PDPScience Keys. A vital part ofScience Keysis educative curriculum materials designed to promote deeper learning by integrating multiple science practices and literacy with content, included in a detailed teacher guide (Mork, Haug, Henriksen, Jorde, & Frøyland, in press; Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldsmith, 2012). According to Taylor et al.

(2015), there is a pressing need for empirical work to better understand teacher learning fostered through the use of educative curriculum materials as part of PDPs. Our contribution to this call is to provide evidence from the teachers’point of view.

There is a concern in the scholarly literature that most studies of PDPs are small-scale (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; van Driel et al., 2012).

The present study is a large-scale qualitative study, based onScience Keys which was a collaboration between teacher education institutions inﬁve Norwegian regions. Over a three-year period, 56 courses were conducted all over Norway, reaching 1187 teachers.

The large number of teachers that informed this study contributed

to robust data and a strong teacher voice.

In the following, we present a review of literature central in the design ofScience Keysand for the associated research study.

1.1. Characteristics of effective teacher professional development There is a growing body of empirical research on the structure, content and outcomes of effective PDPs providing insights about characteristics of successful programs (Osborne et al., 2019).

Desimone (2009)argues that we have sufficient empirical evidence and research consensus on at least five core features that make professional development effective and hold promise for increased student achievement: (1) content focus; (2) active learning; (3) collective participation; (4) coherence; and (5) duration. Thefive features are widely used and implemented in design and studies of PDPs in allfields, including science education (Desimone&Garet, 2015; Osborne et al., 2019), and we included them when designing the PDP in the current study.

Content knowledgerefers to subject matter content and how students learn that content. An important element to ensure relevant learning opportunities for teachers is that PD-content is situ- ated in and explicitly linked to classroom practice (Borko, Jacobs,&

Koellner, 2010;Morrison, 2013;van Driel et al., 2012). In science education, content refers to more than conceptual knowledge, it also includes understanding of processes and practices of science and how scientiﬁc knowledge develops through inquiry (Crawford, 2014;Stadler&Jorde, 2012). From their review of PDPs focusing on inquiry-based science, Capps et al. (2012) argued that a change from a traditional approach to a more inquiry-based approach requires a considerable amount of content knowledge. This means that primary school teachers who typically have low level of science content knowledge may struggle to support their students in this work (Morrison, 2013;Roehrig&Luft, 2004).

Active learning is described as engaging teachers in activities where they are provided opportunities to make connections between their learning and their classroom instruction (Desimone, 2009; M.Kennedy, 2016). Teachers often struggle to understand how to teach science as inquiry, therefore, inquiry needs to be modelled for teachers during PDP (Crawford, 2014;Luft&Hewson, 2014; Morrison, 2013). Teachers need time and opportunities to share experiences, reﬂect on their learning and how to translate the PD-content to their teaching practice (Desimone, 2009; Marco- Bujosa, McNeill, Gonzalez-Howard, & Loper, 2017; Vrikki, Warwick, Vermunt, Mercer, & Van Halem, 2017). To engage teachers actively in learning, teacher educators need to listen carefully to the learning elicited through collaborative reﬂection to improve their knowledge of teacher learning and plan for future steps (Darling-Hammond&Oakes, 2019;Hamilton, 2019).

Collective participation means that teachers from the same school, grade or level participate in the PDP. This provides opportunities for teachers to build a collaborative learning community, which is related to a positive impact on teachers’ learning and motivation (Buczynski&Hansen, 2010;Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). This feature draws upon ideas from sociocultural theory, and the opportunity for teachers to be an active participant in a collaborative learning community is fronted as an essential component of high-quality PDP (Borko et al., 2010;Lieberman&

Wood, 2003).

Coherencemeans that PDPs should be consistent with teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, school curriculum and educational goals, reforms and policies. The importance of addressing teachers’attitudes and beliefs to alter their practice is well documented (Crawford, 2014; Donnell&Gettinger, 2015; Lotter, Harwood, &

Bonner, 2007). However,Guskey (2002)challenged the sequential chain of PDPs causing changes in teachers beliefs and attitudes

(3)

before changes in teaching practice. He argued that changes often take place only after teachers have experienced improved student achievement. Likewise,Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002)stressed that changes in beliefs happen in a non-linear way. Coherence also includes linking PD-content to the local context of the classroom (Ball&Cohen, 1996;Borko et al., 2010;Desimone, 2009). A main reason for less effective PDP is lack of guidance on how to integrate PD-content into daily practice (Desimone&Garet, 2015).

Additionally,van Driel et al. (2012)pointed out that coherence with leadership priorities is neglected in most studies on PDPs.

School leaders’support and provision of time play an inﬂuential role in teachers’ motivation and willingness to enact ideas and strategies from a PDP and ultimately the success and sustainability of a program (van Driel et al., 2012).

Duration refers to the length of the program and number of hours spent with the course holders. Scholars agree that programs should be of some duration to be effective, but what this means in hours or over how long period of time differs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; M. Kennedy, 2016). Development and changes of practice takes time, and long term interventions give teachers opportunity to discuss PD-content, try it out in their classroom, get coaching and receive feedback along the way, and reﬂect on results with colleagues (Capps et al., 2012;Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;

Desimone&Garet, 2015). In addition, teachers are more likely to implement new instructional materials when they participate in longer programs (Luft&Hewson, 2014).

1.2. Going beyond theﬁve features

Several studies designed by thefive features offer evidence of increased teacher knowledge, whereas others indicated that simply including thefive features does not ensure increased learning for either teachers or students (Desimone &Garet, 2015; Osborne et al., 2019). The conclusion was that the features were not specific enough to guide PDP design and it is unclear how to translate thefive general features into effective practice (Desimone&Garet, 2015; M. Kennedy, 2016). According to M. Kennedy (2016), one reason might be that teachers participating in PDPs have already developed a satisfactory and also largely habitual practice. Teachers may very well adopt new ideas but out of habit continue practice as usual. Moreover, some elements of teachers’knowledge and practice are more difficult to change. Specific routines that do not require new knowledge are less demanding than more complicated practices like involving students in reflection and discussions in line with 21st century skills (Desimone&Garet, 2015). Meissel, Parr, and Timperley (2016) recommended to design professional development on actual evidence of teachers’learning needs and not just content that students are supposed to learn. This includes situating PD-content in the types of activities teachers need to develop, identify what teachers need to know and do to engage successfully in those practices, and model preferred instructional practice (Ball&Cohen, 1996;Borko et al., 2010;Davis, Palincsar, Smith, Arias,&Kademian, 2017). Modelling of instructional strategies with teachers in the role of students, give participants the opportunity to experience the strategies as learners, followed by reflection on their learning from the teacher perspective (Borko et al., 2010). It has also been noted that teachers are more likely to try out classroom practices that have been modelled for them (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).

Several researchers have suggested educative curriculum materials in combination with PDP as a potential vehicle to support teacher learning (Ball&Cohen, 1996;Fogleman, McNeill,&Krajcik, 2011;Taylor et al., 2015), especially for primary teachers who teach science with limited science knowledge (Davis et al., 2017).

Educative curriculum materials are designed to address teacher

learning as well as student learning. In a study involving 125 teachers, Granger et al. (2019)found that teachers who enacted educative curriculum as part of the PDP experienced increased content knowledge, beliefs in inquiry-based teaching and self- efficacy compared to the reference group with limited PDP and enactment of traditional curriculum. Likewise, results from a study of PDP for science teacher educators demonstrated how educative materials contributed to develop teacher capacity for scientists working as teacher educators (Mork et al., in press). However, as Marco-Bujosa et al. (2017)argued, teachers use educative materials in different ways and for different reasons, and there is little research examining the impact on teacher learning. Their study on five science teachers indicated that teachers may use the curriculum as a resource only to support student learning and not reflect over the educative features.

Another aspect worth mentioning is how the interplay between teachers’personal and professional lives inﬂuences teachers’professional development. Studies of contextual factors show that teachers’ living conditions, wellbeing and job satisfaction contribute to variation in effectiveness, without being properly acknowledged by policymakers and school leaders (Day, Sammons, Gu, Kington,&Stobart, 2009;Nguyen, 2017).

1.3. Rationale for the current study

In PD-research, study designs vary from interviews of a handful teachers (Marco-Bujosa et al., 2017; Morrison, 2013), via quasi experimental approaches measuring either teacher or student learning (Osborne et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2015) to large-scale randomized control trials on student achievement (Darling- Hammond et al., 2017; Davis et al., 2017; Granger et al., 2019).

Few, if any, take the perspective of teachers, rather they focus on how the program facilitates teacher learning that in turn leads to improved student outcome. Even though there are variation in design, many studies are whatBorko (2004)refers to as type 1 studies, meaning examining one program in one location with one group of teachers in contrast to type 2 studies with one program implemented in different settings or by different providers. Van Driel and colleagues (2012)reviewed 44 studies referring to science PDP, and stated that studies comparing teachers from different school districts, state or countries was hard toﬁnd. However, in type 2 studies the providers’expertise might inﬂuence the effect of teacher learning and ultimately student achievement (Darling- Hammond et al., 2017; M.;Kennedy, 2016). Yet another aspect to consider regarding all types of PDP studies is that teachers typically need several iterations with PD-materials before enacting them purposefully in their classroom (Davis et al., 2017;Fogleman et al., 2011).

The current study can be categorized as a type 2 study inBorko’s (2004) term. Courses were held all over the country, within different institutions with different instructors that collaborated closely across institutions to minimize the provider effect. We were not interested in measuring how successful the implementation process had been, rather we wanted teachers’opinion on what they experienced as useful support enabling them to teach according to reform based curricula. The strength of the study lies in its qualitative nature with a large number of teachers. To our knowledge there are few, if any, other qualitative studies of this size. Addi- tionally, most of the efﬁcacy studies referred to as large scale within PDP do not refer to number of teachers, but number of students.

1.4. Research questions

In this study we examined the participating teachers’experiences from a PDP that included implementation of educative

(4)

curriculum materials designed to promote deeper learning. The research approach is qualitative in its nature, and to guide our research we asked the following questions:

1. What do teachers highlight as supportive for professional growth?

2. According to teachers, what obstacles do they encounter when participating in a PDP?

3. What do teachers refer to as inﬂuential for their classroom practice?

2. Methods

In this section, we present the context of our study, including the educative curriculum materials implemented by the participating teachers as part ofNN. We also describe our data collection procedures and provide a thorough account of our analysis.

2.1. Context of the study

Science Keyswas a collaboration between he Norwegian Centre for Science Education (NCSE) and 12 institutions (teacher education, science centers and resource centers for STEM-education) located inﬁve regions across Norway (Fig. 1), with NCSE as coor- dinator. The aim was to provide a sustainable and research based PDP in science for primary school teachers working with 5th-7th grade students (10e12 year olds).Science Keysbuilt on an existing PDP from NCSE including an educative curriculum integrating inquiry-based science and literacy (Cervetti, Pearson, Bravo, &

Barber, 2006). Altogether, 56 courses were completed throughout theﬁve regions with 1187 participating teachers, covering a large part of the country (Fig. 1). At least two teachers attended from each school to promote professional collaboration. Most of the participants were generalists, teaching several subjects to their students.

In Norway, all licensed teachers can teach science at primary school. There are no requirements for subject speciﬁc knowledge, and according to TIMSS 2015, 50% of Norwegian primary science teachers have not studied science as part of their education (Kaarstein, Nilsen,&Bl€omeke, 2016).

2.2. PDP design

Based on the research literature outlined above, Science Keys was designed with an emphasis on the following characteristics: a) aligning the PD-content to the national curriculum and situate the content in daily practice; b) extensive modelling of strategies and engaging teachers in student activities; c) implementing educative curriculum materials and reﬂect on the experiences, and; d) period of one semester with minimum two participants from each school.

Additionally, PDP instructors from theﬁve regions met regularly to discuss potential modiﬁcations regarding both the course content and how to teach the content to minimize provider effect (Darling- Hammond et al., 2017; M.;Kennedy, 2016).

The course took place over one semester with three single days including mandatory work between the course days (Fig. 2). During course days, the participants altered between the roles of teacher, college student and primary student. The different roles served different purposes; the teacher was introduced to the educative curriculum and discussed and reﬂected on the implementation process; the college student attended lectures on science content knowledge and the primary student tried out activities from the curriculum modelled by the course instructors. Research have shown that programs putting teachers in the role of students and providing support to make connections between teacher learning and classroom instruction, are more successful in terms of student achievement than PDPs focusing on lectures and demonstrations (e.g.Fogleman et al., 2011). All the time instructors were responsive to teachers’needs and tailored the content accordingly as recommended by Meissel et al. (2016). The course was in constant development, moving more and more towards an approach with teachers as the active part through extensive modelling from the instructors and minimizing traditional lectures.

Between course days, the teachers conducted up to 10 sessions of the educative curriculum and wrote a short reflection note on positive and challenging experiences related to the implementation. The submitted reflection notes served as starting points for the reflection sessions on next course day. We did not plan for inter- action between course days. There were at least two participants from each school, and they were encouraged to cooperate, discuss and reflect upon their experiences and act as support for each other.

2.3. Educative curriculum materials

The educative curriculum materials participants implemented in this study is based on the Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading (S/R) curriculum developed at Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, translated and modified tofit the Norwegian context. The curriculum builds on sociocultural learning theory with a do-it, read-it, write-it and talk-it approach, combining science hands-on inquiry activities and literacy. The literacy strategies and scientific practices that students engage in, are skills and competencies transferrable to other topics and subjects and typically associated with features of deeper learning (National Research Council, 2012).

The S/R curriculum consists of different units and they all include a detailed step-by-step teacher guide, several short textbooks, student investigation notebooks and materials for hands-on activities. The teacher guide is designed to support teacher learning as well as student learning, and includes instructional strategies that aim to create a positive learning community where students gain content knowledge and develop intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies in accordance with 21st century skills (Cervetti et al., 2012;National Research Council, 2012).

All participants enacted sessions from one unit, Chemical Changesthat consist of 20 sessions of 60 min. Due to experiences from previous PDPs the reﬂection sessions and discussions on Fig. 1.Map of schools with teachers participating in the PDP (red dots). (For inter-

pretation of the references to colour in thisﬁgure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

(5)

enactment were more fruitful when all participants worked on the same unit (Ødegaard, Haug, Mork,&Sørvik, 2014).

2.4. Data collection

Data were collected from multiple sources to examine what teachers highlight as useful and necessary for their professional growth as science teachers. Another reason for the rigorous and continuous data collection from all regions was to use the data to constantly improve ourselves as PD-providers and adapt the course content to teachers’reported needs. Our main data sources were course evaluations and reﬂection notes from the participating teachers (Table 1). From the ﬁve regions a total of 634 course evaluations were submitted, representing 55% of the participants.

The course evaluation was open ended with broad questions regarding teachers’opinion of the course, positive and challenging aspects regarding the teaching materials, and whether and how the PDP had affected their teaching practice. We could have asked for speciﬁc details, like what they thought about the instructional strategies we introduces, but we wanted to examine what the teachers emphasized without any leading questions. Course evaluation forms were handed out early on Day 3, encouraging all to submit by the end of the day. The attendance rate was lowest on Day 3, and from the participants that informed us of their absence, the reason was often shortness of staff or conﬂicting events. We considered creating a web-based course evaluation to reach those who did not attend Day 3, but decided to do only the pen-and- paper version due to former experiences with low response rates on web-based forms.

For the reﬂection notes, we asked the teachers to submit a brief description (1/2 page) of their successes and challenges from the implementation process (Fig. 2). Several teachers teamed up for the implementation process and handed in reﬂection notes collabora- tively, signed by Teachers at School NN. Thus, we do not know the

actual number of individuals who wrote reflection notes, only the number of reflection notes. Additionally, the procedures for col- lecting course evaluations and reflection notes varied between the regions. Even so, all regions are well represented.

Although we recognize that there can be limitations in self- reported data, the purpose of the present paper is precisely to accentuate teachers’voice. We believe that questionnaires can be just as informative as for example short term classroom observations.Desimone (2009)argue that well-constructed and adminis- tered observation, interviews, and surveys can elicit much the same information, and that social desirability bias can occur in any form of data collection. We argue that the relatively open questions and large sample is a strength in our study.

We also collected observational data (video/audio and notes) from some of the reﬂection sessions, mainly from the Capital area, and more randomly from courses in other regions. During the reﬂection sessions we had the opportunity to ask the teachers to elaborate on their statements, thus the notes and the transcribed video/audio data supported the other data sources and provided more robust and credible data. The participating teachers gave their permission to use all the data included in Table 1 for research purposes.

To handle the large amount of collected data, we used NVivo software program to organize the dataset and subsequently code the material.

3. Analyses

To identify what teachers highlighted as important for their professional development and for improving their teaching practice according to visionary reforms, we used thematic analysis as described byBraun and Clarke (2006)andNowell, Norris, White, and Moules (2017). Thematic analysis involves searching across the data set toﬁnd repeated patterns of meaning (Braun&Clarke, Fig. 2.Course model with mandatory work between course days and submission of course evaluation on day 3.

Table 1

Overall data set for all the regions displaying number of courses, participants, course evaluations, reﬂection notes and transcripts from reﬂection sessions.

Region Total Spring 2014eSpring 2016

Courses Teachers Course evaluations Reﬂection notes Transcripts/notes

Reﬂection sessions

Day 2 Day 3 Day 2 Day 3

West 11 259 138 66 1

East 11 211 127 120 10 1 2

Capital area 13 327 196 153 65 12 10

North 11 202 117 59 29 1 2

Mid 10 188 56 55 22

Sum 56 1187 634 (55%) 453 126 14 15

(6)

2006). Our analysis employed an inductive approach where the codes were generated from the data. However, the research questions and our knowledge of previous research on PDP and visions for science education will always influence how we read the texts and generated codes and themes. The approach was semantic in nature as we strived to focus on what the participants explicitly had communicated without interpreting what they might mean. The two authors coded the entire data set (course evaluations, reflection notes and observation data). It was an iterative and reflective process where we moved back and forth between the phases of generating initial codes, searching for themes and collating relevant coded data extracts into themes. The codes were defined with explicit boundaries and generated to cover both the short, decon- textualized answers in the course evaluations and the more elaborate contextualized reflection notes. Individual extracts of data were coded as many times as deemed relevant, thus, one citation could be assigned to more than one code. We checked the course evaluations for cross coding within each code, in order to get cor- rect frequency of participants for every code.

First, we coded all the data from one semester individually, la- beling the codes based on teachers’statements likeloved the hands- on materialsortoo time consuming.Then we compared our coding and grouped codes with similar content into agreed upon themes highlighting what teachers identify as supportive elements or obstacles for their professional growth. We applied the grouped codes to about half of the data set before we compared, discussed and resolved disparate coding and made thefinal adjustments and re- finements of the codes. Then we systematically applied thefinal codes to the entire data set. Lastly, we reviewed each other’s coding to make sure we interpreted the codes according to description.

The few cases of divergence in coding were resolved through discussions between the researchers.

4. Results

The analysis resulted in three broad themes, each with subor- dinate themes created from several initial codes as presented in

Table 2. Number of participants and frequency for each code are shown for the course evaluation only. In the course evaluation teachers addressed their opinion on the course, their successes and challenges from the implementation process, and whether and how the PDP had affected their teaching practice. When applicable, we applied the same codes for the reﬂection notes, reported as number of citations inTable 2, and observational notes. Reﬂection notes often represented several participants from the same school.

Therefore, we cannot provide any frequency count at individual level, only number of citations coded from the reﬂection notes. We use the themes to structure the presentation of the results. Because of a large amount of data and limited space, we do not present teacher quotes for all codes, and the citations we do include rep- resents the core and not the full scope of the codes.

4.1. Elements facilitating professional growth

Theﬁrst theme focused on what the participants reported as supportive and facilitated professional growth. This was further divided into subthemes addressing the course and the educative curriculum materials teachers enacted in their classrooms. Results for this theme are mainly from the course evaluation and reported as frequency of teachers for each code (Fig. 3). During the coding process we observed a large amount of generic statements praising the course for its relevance and the course instructors for being skilled and adapting the content to their needs. These were applied the code General comments with a frequency of 61%.

Regarding the course structure and content, 33% of the teachers accentuated the course’s focus on subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge as supportive elements. They frequently referred to getting pedagogical tips and engaging in content that was close to practice and adapted to their level. A typical response was:Tips and knowledge that enables the teacher to carry out thorough lessons about chemical reactions.

The course was carefully designed to engage teachers in practical activities to support their understanding of speciﬁc scientiﬁc ideas. 10% of the teachers mentioned the combination of theory and

Table 2

Overview of themes and codes including number of participants and frequency for each code in the Course evaluations and number of citations for applicable codes in the Reﬂection notes.

Themes Subthemes Codes Course evaluation Reﬂection notes

Number of participants (n¼634)

Frequency Number of citations Elements facilitating professional

growth

Course structure and content Sharing experiences 29 5%

Subject content and pedagogical content

210 33%

Alternate between theory and practice

62 10%

In the student role 101 16%

General comments 388 61%

Teaching materials Systematic and comprehensive 146 23%

Hands-on and web resources 512 81% 187

Obstacles for professional growth Course organization Course organization 154 24%

Implementation process Time consuming 330 52% 232

Teaching materials 364 57% 277

External factors 72 11% 178

Experienced professional growth Instructional strategies Literacy 268 42% 176

Scientiﬁc practices 179 28% 64

Pedagogical strategies 150 24% 110

Transfer within and across subjects 85 13% 32

Meta-perspective on teaching practice

Awareness of teaching practice 124 20%

Self-efﬁcacy 138 22% 42

Classroom management 173 27% 159

Plans for further use 150 24%

Motivation/interest Teacher 71 11% 50

Student 146 23% 336

(7)

practice as a positive experience from the course. However, they did not explicitly refer to any linking of theory and practice. The majority of statements simply sayThere was a good variation between theory and practice.It is possible they understood how the two were meant to reinforce each other without expressing it, but we do not ﬁnd evidence for such an understanding in our data material.

Throughout the course, participants altered between the roles of teacher, college student and primary student. Over hundred teachers (16%) pointed out that experiencing the teaching materials from a student’s point of view was useful for their teaching practice.

The statements were uniform, highlighting how it made them more prepared to teach their own students, for example:It was useful to do things on the course. It contributes to learning and makes it easier to do it in your own classroom.Having experienced activities in the student role also influenced teachers’self-efficacy and made them more confident before implementing with students, as illustrated by this example from the reflection notes:I felt this specific session was successful. I believe the reason was that I knew the material well and had tested it properly during course days.

Based on our observations of a number of reflection sessions with highly engaged teachers during course days, we expected a higher occurrence of the code sharing experiences from the course evaluations (5%). What we found, however, was that the participants specified different ways of sharing experiences. In the course evaluation, exchange of practical tips were highlighted, while observational notes from the reflection sessions showed a focus more towards the positive aspects of sharing experiences from the course with participating colleagues and others at the work place.

For example:It was very helpful to do it together and share experiences with a colleague, and we also introduced the teaching materials to other colleagues. In the reﬂection sessions, we also observed that the engagement from teachers who shared their positive experiences motivated the teachers who were more reluctant to enact the curriculum.

Next subtheme concerns how the teaching materials implemented between course days supported professional growth. 512 teachers (81%) mentioned hands-on materials and web resources in a positive manner in the course evaluation and so did 187 citations from the reﬂection notes. In all data sources, including observational notes from the reﬂection sessions, teachers emphasized easy access to digital resources, the detailed teacher guide, high quality student textbooks and notebooks, fun experiments

and the connection to the national and local curricula. Exempliﬁed by this quote:Easily accessible resources online that can improve the teaching. Actually, it is good for teachers to have a very detailed teacher guide to follow, especially when trying out new methods. At the same time, it is research based and cover several competence goals in the curriculum. In addition, a surprisingly large amount of teachers stated how thankful they were for the hands-on materials.

Several teachers described why this was helpful in words like this:

It was brilliant to get the box with hands-on materials - made it easier to get started. Usually, it takes too much work to get all you need to do experiments.

Another code describing the teaching materials is systematic and comprehensive. Typically, this was detailed descriptions from teachers on what they appreciated about the educative curriculum materials more than how it supported them. Elements teachers often referred to were the systematic variation between practice and theory as well as a comprehensive content:It is good because of its systematic approach and well-structured program design. It links concepts and practical activities in an excellent way. Good variation between reading, writing, doing and talking.

4.2. Obstacles for professional growth

To understand what is supportive for teachers’ professional growth we believe it is equally important to ask what teachers consider as obstacles when participating in course days and enacting course materials in their own classroom. Two subthemes covered this theme: course organization and implementation process. Regarding course organization, in the course evaluation participants accentuated shortage of information beforehand as an obstacle, especially referring to the workload between course days (Fig. 4). This relates to time (one of the biggest challenges concerning implementation), as most teachers had already planned the semester with little room left for additional program.

As shown inFig. 4, the main challenges for teachers regarding the implementation process was the teaching materials (57%) and how time consuming it was to enact the curriculum (52%). We see the same pattern in the reﬂection notes with 277 citations coded for teaching materials and time consuming was mentioned 232 times (Table 2). The challenging aspects of the teaching materials referred to its many components; it required a lot of time and effort to get an overview of the curriculum and prepare all the student resources. Some teachers pointed out that it was unusual and Fig. 3.Frequency of facilitating elements for professional growth in the Course evaluations.

(8)

difficult for them to follow a detailed teacher guide. The following citation is typical for this code across data sources:Too many student worksheets, too much copying, too many instructions to follow. It is demanding to get an overview. From the reflection notes we observed that teachers with the most negative comments were those who distanced themselves from the PD-content and during the reflection sessions we experienced less complaints among those who enacted all or much of the educative curriculum once or several times.

Something that surprised us was the many negative utterances about spending time on preparation. One of the more reﬂective participants wrote:You need to read the curriculum properly and be well prepared for the lessons (However, this should not actually be a challenge…^).

A statement that applied to many in both course evaluations and reflection notes was: Time was the biggest challenge. Teachers referred to the fact that they have limited number of science lessons, which made it very difficult to spend so much time on one topic. Additionally, they often spent more time than estimated for each lesson. In the reflection notes with more elaborate responses, we found several statements referring to student engagement as a reason for spending more time than planned. This is one example:

We think that each session was scarce on time. The students were so engaged and had so many thoughts, reﬂections and questions so the time justﬂew by.

The time issue was also related to the code external factors, which included obstacles for professional growth linked to situations beyond the PDP. These ranged from how teachers needed the time to prepare for National tests to summer/winter camp for the students, music/reading/English week for the whole school and people on sick leave. This was especially prominent in the reﬂection notes, mentioned 178 times.

4.3. Experienced professional growth

This theme addressed features teachers experienced as having direct impact on their current teaching practice. Based on teacher statements, we created three subthemes: instructional strategies, meta-perspective, and motivation (Table 2). Instructional strategies comprised different types of strategies and transfer of strategies within and between subjects. The most prominent being strategies promoting literacy. In the course evaluations, 268 teachers (42%) referred to reading and writing strategies as well as strategies that promoted student discussions, focused on the language of science and science key concepts (Fig. 5). A number of teachers pointed out how they used the concept wall with science key concepts to make the language of science visible and available for students. Based on

their positive experiences in science class, they also included concept walls in other subjects. The impact of literacy strategies was also evident in the reflection notes, exemplified by the following citation:I liked the concept wall very much, and this is something I will use actively from now on. Also, to pose questions before reading and post it in the book where theyfind the answer was a good method to focus the reading. I have transferred these strategies to other subjects.

The educative curriculum with its read, talk, write and do it approach strongly connect the literacy part to scientiﬁc practices.

Scientific practices were addressed by 28% in the course evaluations (Fig. 5), and it was evident that teachers felt the need for support on how to plan and conduct experiments. Several teachers reported that they did not usually do experiments with the students, or sometimes the students observed a teacher demonstra- tion. Teachers highlighted how the curriculum materials made them realize that inquiry-based activities not necessarily need to include large experiments requiring sophisticated equipment, and that scientific practices are more than just doing. One example of a teacher response from the course evaluation regarding how the program had influenced teaching practice was:I will try to be more practical and conduct experiments with the students. Small-scale instead of planning big experiments. Work with questions and hy- pothesis and make the students reflect on what they do.Engaging students in practices and reflective thinking is essential for promoting 21st century skills, and we found similar utterances in the reflection notes, especially regarding science practices. This was also supported during reflection sessions on course days, but only after the instructor followed up general utterances from teachers about how fun and compelling all the practical stuff was and asked specifically what it was that made it a success. Then teachers responded with detailed answers like:The practical part was successful even for academically challenged students. I see that doing the experiment multiple times was a good thing, also to pose the question beforehand and not after the experiment. Then you go on with the question in mind.

Many of the statements coded as pedagogical strategies were short and simply stated:Strategies in generalorEffective pedagogical methods and strategies that I will use in several subjects.However, numerous teachers, both in the course evaluations and the reflection notes, mentioned the strategy thinkepaireshare as partic- ularly successful (students think individually before they discuss with a partner and share their ideas with the whole class). Ac- cording to teachers, this strategy was a way of involving all students, making them reflect and talk science. Teachers typically referred to think e pair - share in connection with transfer of strategies within and between subjects: Think e paire share is something we absolutely will bring to other subjects, it makes students more active and confident enough to share their ideas.

The subtheme meta-perspective included teachers’reflections regarding professional growth as a result of the PDP. This sometimes overlap with the subtheme instructional strategies since many referred to strategies as a vehicle for change. Likewise, meta- perspective is closely related to the subtheme motivation. When enacting the curriculum teachers experienced highly motivated and engaged students. This was evident when teachers talked about classroom management, frequently addressed in both course evaluations (27%) and reflection notes (159 citations) (Table 2). We draw onEvertson and Weinstein (2006, p. 4) definition of classroom management:[T]he actions teachers take to create an envi- ronment that supports and facilitates both academic and social- emotional learning. This includes active participation by students, encouraging curiosity, motivation, independence, attentiveness and order. We present a citation from the reflection notes that sum up this code: The students were very motivated. They followed Fig. 4.Frequency of obstacles for professional growth in the Course evaluations.

(9)

instructions and focused on what they were supposed to focus on.

A number of teachers across the data sources simply stated that the teaching materials motivated students and made it easy to keep students engaged, without reﬂecting on their role as teacher. Such comments may indicate low level of self-conﬁdence regarding their ability to promote these reactions (Donnell &Gettinger, 2015).

However, those who did reﬂect on reasons for changes in classroom management emphasized how the detailed teacher guide made it easy to organize lessons, that the time spent on preparation paid off, and how allowing students to conduct experiments themselves together with the thorough approach of the curriculum increased student understanding and engagement. This is captured in a statement from the course evaluation:It has inﬂuenced my teaching practice because I see how this way of teaching engage students and promote learning.

Statements explicitly referring to modiﬁcations of own attitudes or behavior, were coded as awareness of teaching practice. In addition to what is mentioned above, teachers highlighted a number of factors that made them rethink their current practice:

level of student involvement; students were able to learn more than expected; amount of time on one topic; consistency and structure within and between lessons, and the importance of science key concepts and the language of science. We have selected two statements that exemplify how teachers changed their teaching to stimulate deeper learning:

I have changed my teaching methods in many subjects by including the student more in my teaching.

I will teach more systematically and structured. Do more preparation before experiments and give students more time to reﬂect. I see how useful it is to concentrate on one topic over time instead of doing a little bit of everything.

These reﬂections from the participants are very positive regarding their professional growth. However, we know that a challenge concerning PDPs is whether teachers continue the im- provements after the program ends or go back to business as usual (van Driel et al., 2012). We ﬁnd it promising that 24% of the teachers, on their own initiative in the course evaluation, explicitly stated that they will include the educative curriculum materials in their future practice (Fig. 5).

We have already mentioned how the teachers gained

conﬁdence to try out new things in the classroom because they tested the materials themselves during the course. In the course evaluation, 22% of the participants expressed how the course and/

or the teaching materials helped them become more confident in their science teaching, coded as self-efficacy (Fig. 5). Several of the statements are from novice teachers or teachers with no science background, but also experienced teachers felt more confident. The following statement captures the essence of this code, linking her own experience to deeper learning: To me, this course made me more confident in teaching this subject. I teach more in depth and even think it is more fun with science.

The last subtheme is motivation. As described in the code classroom management, teachers experienced highly motivated and engaged students during enactment of the curriculum. Student motivation is the code with most citations in the reﬂection notes (336 citations) (Table 2). Also during the reﬂection sessions, teachers talked about how eager and engaged students were.

Several teachers explicitly referred to positive comments from parents, for instance:Feedback from the families have been unam- biguously positive, and parents have reported that the kids have brought experiences and science language back home. At the same time they (the students) have been investigating chemical reactions at home and been active on the Internet to ﬁnd various reactions.

Furthermore, teachers specified how student motivation in turn stimulated their awareness and their confidence and motivation to teach science. This is one example from the reflection notes:The students’engagement has affected me as a teacher. We have spent more time on this than I had planned to do because they were so interested. The students motivated me.

5. Summary and discussion

Ourﬁrst research question aimed at exploring what teachers emphasized as useful for facilitating professional growth. What the majority of teachers highlighted as especially useful in facilitating their professional growth was easy access to teaching resources, including hands-on materials. Having necessary materials at hand lowered the bar and turned out to be a vital factor for teachers to actually implement PD-content. Engaging students in experiments is an essential part of inquiry-based science and scientiﬁc practices, Fig. 5.Frequency of experienced professional growth in the Course evaluations.

(10)

and in turn development of 21st century skills. Thus, it is important to equip teachers not only with knowledge and skills but also materials that enables easier implementation. Lack of good resources has previously been highlighted as an inhibiting factor for inquiry-based teaching (Fitzgerald et al., 2019).

Teachers’ statements that combining course and educative curriculum materials supported development of knowledge and skills necessary to promote students’deeper learning, conﬁrmed ﬁndings from other studies (Fogleman et al., 2011;Granger et al., 2019). Furthermore, teachers praised course content that was close to practice and adapted to their level. This was expected, as situating PD-content in practice and the sociocultural context of a classroom is regarded essential for effective teacher learning (Borko et al., 2010). Also, we know that primary school teachers typically have low levels of science knowledge and struggle to support their students to engage in science and literacy practices (Haug &

Ødegaard, 2015;Crawford, 2014;Stadler&Jorde, 2012).

There are some contradictions among the participants related to the teaching resources. The majority of teachers clearly saw how the teaching resources contributed to improve their teaching, however, more than half of the teachers found the detailed teacher guide overwhelming, alienating and overly time consuming. Those who closely followed the procedures and completed several sessions seemed more positive than those who tried a little bit of this and a little bit of that. This indicates that enacting educative curriculum material that might be very different from teachers’typical practice is challenging and requires commitment and effort, as proposed byTaylor (2015). Teachers who engaged with the materials over time, pointed out that at first, all their attention was directed to the detailed teaching guide. Only after teaching the curriculum several times, or sufficiently to familiarize with the strategies and content, they were able to reflect on their teaching and student learning. The need for several iterations is also known from the literature (Davis et al., 2017;Fogleman et al., 2011).

Findings in our study suggest that teachers need to invest time to engage with, and fully understand, materials developed to promote deeper learning. Lack of time is known as a limiting factor for teachers’ professional growth (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010;

Fitzgerald et al., 2019). However, teachers play a vital role for visionary reforms to succeed, and we concur withvan Driel et al.

(2012)that school leaders and school owners must be willing to provide sufﬁcient time and support for teachers’ professional growth.

Regarding our third research question, what teachers refer to as influential for their classroom practice, teachers accentuated effective instructional strategies that were modelled during the course as especially beneficial. They knew some of the strategies from either other subjects or their teacher training, but said they had never implemented them in science teaching. We believe this is connected to their limited science background and therefore they may struggle to know how to include these strategies when teaching science (e.g.,Morrison, 2013). One reason why teachers appreciated known strategies might be as Desimone and Garet (2015) suggested, specific routines that do not require new knowledge are less demanding than practices that are more complicated. Another reason is that these strategies enabled teachers to teach according to the visions in the national curriculum. Despite the fact that literacy has been emphasized as a vital part of every subject in the Norwegian curriculum since 2006, studies have shown that teachers are struggling to integrate literacy in their teaching practice (Møller et al., 2009). The same applies to science practices. Reports from TIMSS 2015 showed that Nor- wegian primary students rarely planned and conducted experiments, interpreted data nor observed and explained phenomena (Nilsen&Frøyland, 2016). Employing and understanding literacy

and science practices are vital for promoting 21st century skills and deeper learning in science. Thus, when strategies were organized and contextualized in the teaching materials and modelled during course days, teachers experienced that they got some necessary keys to improve their science teaching.

When viewing their teaching practice in a meta-perspective, teachers referred to greater awareness of features consistent with 21st century skills like student centered learning, allowing sufficient time for students to reason and argue, and motivation in learning. The participants who initially were reluctant to try out the materials and new teaching methods revealed that the observed effect on their students made them alter their opinion. This is an alternative pathway to the conventional model of PDP, where teachers change their beliefs and attitudes based on new knowledge, which in turn alters their practice and improve student learning (e.g. Desimone, 2009). Ourfindings are consistent with whatGuskey (2002)suggested, that significant changes in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes take place only after gaining evidence that new materials and teaching procedures promote student engagement and learning.Osman and Warner (2020)explained this in terms of cost-value; teachers remain motivated to implement PD- content when there is a high sense of value with possible bene- fits for students or teacher, despite a high degree of cost.

6. Conclusion and implications

A challenge concerning PDPs is how to promote sustained professional growth (Desimone &Garet, 2015; van Driel et al., 2012). We see that teachers tend to be very practical, and what they want through professional development are resources that are speciﬁc, concrete and close to practice, easy to implement and not too time consuming. Teachers are short on time, and especially appreciate ready-to-start materials with features that are some- what familiar and with recognizable links to national and local curricula. This is what teachers report as valuable for their classroom practice, andGuskey (2002)says that PDPs failing to address teachers’ needs will not likely succeed. The challenge for PDP providers is how to give teachers what they want and at the same time support them towards a deeper understanding and awareness that make them reconsider their knowledge and beliefs. This is necessary to promote sustainable changes and help teachers realize that there are no quick ﬁxes in developing a teaching practice consistent with visionary reforms.

We experienced that teachers were less articulate when describing their own learning compared to describing how the resources motivated their students. Teachers seemed to lack a language for talking about learning and their own professional growth. When asked to elaborate on their experiences during reflection sessions, the answers were vague referring to what they had done and not what they had learned (We did the experiments, it was fun for both students and teacher).In a number of occasions they put themselves aside and instead emphasized how the curriculum materials engaged the students and were responsible for their motivation and learning. We know that student learning is the ultimate goal, but for teachers to develop their classroom practice, they also need to reflect on their own learning (Marco-Bujosa et al., 2017). In hindsight, we see that it is not sufficient to include reflection sessions in the PDP to promote a collaborative learning community as recommended for effective PDP. We might have emphasized the translation of PD-content to practice and student learning (Desimone&Garet, 2015;Marco-Bujosa et al., 2017) over teacher learning (Vrikki et al., 2017). The course instructors need to lead the discussions and address teacher learning by engaging teachers in discussions and reflection on how the PD-content contribute to their professional growth and whether or not it