STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES OF SCIENCE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1075.2025-0132Keywords:
teacher professional development, science education, strategies, outcomesAbstract
This study explores the theoretical foundations of various models, approaches, and strategies for professional development in Science Education. The study identifies relevant models and strategies that contribute to professional growth through a systematic literature review. It highlights effective approaches that strengthen teachers’ knowledge, perception, and classroom practice. By integrating these strategies, the study aims to support Science teachers in adapting to educational reforms, fostering a more engaging and effective learning environment for students. The strategies employed in Science Teacher Professional Development (S-TPD) can be grouped into five main clusters: (1) Immersion Science experiences, (2) Technology-integrated approaches in S-TPD, (3) Collaborative structures in S-TPD, (4) Design-Based Research in S-TPD, and (5) Aligning and implementing science curriculum in S-TPD. Ultimately, the findings provide insights into designing professional development programs that address both instructional competence and the evolving needs of teachers in curriculum reform.
Downloads
References
[1] OECD, (2017). Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-74-en
[2] Bybee RW, (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association.
[3] Avalos B, (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.
[4] Desimone LM, (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140.
[5] Opfer VD & Pedder D, (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609.
[6] Darling-Hammond L, Hyler ME & Gardner M, (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
[7] Kloser M, Borko H, Martinez JF, Stecher B & Luskin R, (2017). Evidence of middle school science assessment practice from classroom-based portfolios. Science Education, 101(2), 209–231.
[8] Guskey TR, (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512.
[9] Penuel WR, Bell P & Neill T, (2020). Creating a system of professional learning that meets teachers’ needs. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(8), 37–41. doi:10.1177/0031721720923520.
[10] Loucks-Horsley S, Stiles KE, Mundry S, Love N & Hewson PW, (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.
[11] Loucks-Horsley S, Love N, Stiles KE, Mundry S & Hewson PW, (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
[12] Alexander PA, (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. doi:10.3102/0034654319854352.
[13] Anwar S, Bascou NA, Menekse M & Kardgar A, (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 19–42. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223.
[14] Cohen L, Manion L & Morrison K, (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New York: Routledge.
[15] Corbin J & Strauss A, (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[16] *Akuma FV & Callaghan R, (2019). Teaching practices linked to the implementation of inquiry-based practical work in certain science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21469
[17] *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. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1259535.
[18] *Tsaliki C, Papadopoulou P, Malandrakis G & Kariotoglou P, (2024). A long-term study on the effect of a professional development program on science teachers’ inquiry. Education Sciences, 14(6), Article 621. doi:10.3390/educsci14060621.
[19] *Hsu HP, Cheah YH & Hughes JE, (2023). A case study of a secondary biology teacher’s pedagogical reasoning and action with augmented reality technology. Education Sciences, 13(11). doi:10.3390/educsci13111080.
[20] *Jimoyiannis A, (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022.
[21] *Moosa S & Ramnarain U, (2023). The impact of an empowerment evaluation professional development program on physical sciences teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and behavioral intentions to integrate ICT into their science lessons. Frontiers in Education. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1159373.
[22] *Siry C, Wilmes SED & te Heesen K, (2025). Co-development and collaboration for responsive teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2024.2446100.
[23] *Cutucache CE, et al., (2017). Genuine faculty-mentored research experiences for in-service science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(8), 724–744. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1415615.
[24] *El-Hani CN & Greca IM, (2013). ComPratica: A virtual community of practice for promoting biology teachers’ professional development in Brazil. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1327–1359. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9306-1.
[25] Cutts Q, Robertson J, Donaldson P & O’Donnell L, (2017). An evaluation of a professional learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 30–53. doi:10.1080/08993408.2017.1315958.
[26] *Chan J & Erduran S, (2023). The impact of collaboration between science and religious education teachers on their understanding and views of argumentation. Research in Science Education, 53(1), 121–137. doi:10.1007/s11165-022-10041-1.
[27] *Bossér U, (2024). Transformation of school science practices to promote functional scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 54(2), 265–281. doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10138-1.
[28] *Peters-Burton EE, Tran HH & Miller B, (2024). Design-based research as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(3), 221–242. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2023.2242665.
[29] *Gandolfi HE, (2020). Teacher’s growth through the development of materials about nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(6), 610–630. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2020.1730049.
[30] *Christodoulou A & Osborne J, (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. doi:10.1002/tea.21166.
[31] *Henze I, van Driel J & Verloop N, (2007). The change of science teachers’ personal knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1819–1846. doi:10.1080/09500690601052628.
[32] *Penuel WR, Fishman BJ, Gallagher LP, Korbak C & Lopez-Prado B, (2009). Is alignment enough? Science Education, 93(4), 656–677. doi:10.1002/sce.20321.
[33] *Belland BR, Burdo R & Gu J, (2015). A blended professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 263–289. doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2.
[34] *Cullinane A, Hillier J, Childs A & Erduran S, (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of Brandon’s Matrix. Research in Science Education, 53(1), 193–212. doi:10.1007/s11165-022-10044-y.
[35] *Southerland SA, et al., (2016). Essential aspects of science teacher professional development. AERA Open, 2(4). doi:10.1177/2332858416674200.
