professional development for the …eprints.qut.edu.au/25966/1/stephen_garrett_thesis.pdf ·...

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE INTEGRATION OF

BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.

Stephen Thomas Garrett BSc (Hons), Grad Dip Ed.

Principal Supervisor: Dr Gillian Kidman

Associate Supervisor: Associate Professor Jim Watters

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Education (Research)

Centre for Learning Innovation

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2009

Page i

Paragraph of Keywords

Science education, biotechnology, socio-scientific dimension, professional development, qualitative research, retrospective case study, one-on-one interviews, focus group discussions contemporary science, science curriculum, content knowledge, practical skills, pedagogical knowledge, curriculum management.

Abstract

Views on the nature and relevance of science education have changed

significantly over recent decades. This has serious implications for the way in which

science is taught in secondary schools, particularly with respect to teaching emerging

topics such as biotechnology, which have a socio-scientific dimension and also

require novel laboratory skills. It is apparent in current literature that there is a lack

of adequate teacher professional development opportunities in biotechnology

education and that a significant need exists for researchers to develop a carefully

crafted and well supported professional development design which will positively

impact on the way in which teachers engage with contemporary science.

This study used a retrospective case study methodology to document the

recent evolution of modern biotechnology education as part of the changing nature of

science education; examine the adoption and implementation processes for

biotechnology education by three secondary schools; and to propose an evidence

based biotechnology professional development model for science educators. Data

were gathered from documents, one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions.

Analysis of these data has led to the proposal of a biotechnology professional

development model which considers all of the key components of science

professional development that are outlined in the literature, as well as the additional

components which were articulated by the educators studied.

This research is timely and pertinent to the needs of contemporary science

education because of its recognition of the need for a professional development

model in biotechnology education that recognizes and addresses the content

knowledge, practical skills, pedagogical knowledge and curriculum management

components.

Page ii

Table of Contents

Paragraph of Keywords………………………………………………………….….i Abstract……………………………………………………………………………....i Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………….………..v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….…v Statement of Authorship…………………………………………………………...vi Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………...vii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………

1 1.1

Background………………………………………………………………………………….….…...1

1.1.1 The Researcher……………………………………………….………………………........3

1.2

Context………………………………………………………………………………….………..….4 1.2.1 What is Modern

Biotechnology?.........................................................................................4 1.2.2 The Australian

Context……………………………………………………………..….…..5 1.2.3 The School Science Curriculum and

Biotechnology……………………………….….…..6 1.2.4 The Biotechnology

Curriculum……………………………………………………………8 1.2.5 Teachers and Biotechnology ............................................................................................. 10

1.3 Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Significance .................................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 Thesis Outline ................................................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 16 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 The Changing Nature of Science Education .................................................................................. 17 2.3 The Science Teacher as Learner .................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Professional Development ............................................................................................................. 20 2.5 The Impact of Teacher Concerns on Professional Development Programs ................................... 24

Page iii

2.6 Teacher Professional Development in Science .............................................................................. 27 2.7 Professional Development and Student Learning .......................................................................... 28 2.8 What Makes for Good Professional Development ......................................................................... 31 2.9 Biotechnology Professional Development ..................................................................................... 33 2.10 Summary and Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................... 39 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Case Study Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 40 3.3 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 43

3.3.1 Participants ....................................................................................................................... 44 3.3.2 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 45 3.3.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 49

3.4 Research Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 52 3.5 Ethics .............................................................................................................................................. 54 3.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 54

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 55 4.1 Preamble ......................................................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Context ........................................................................................................................................... 56 4.3 Recent Evolution of Modern Biotechnology Education ................................................................ 58

4.3.1 Discussion of Impacting Events and Mechanisms ............................................................ 59 4.3.1.1 CSIRO Outreach Program ........................................................................... 59 4.3.1.2 Government Policy: The Smart State Vision ............................................... 61 4.3.1.3 Biotechnology Online .................................................................................. 62 4.3.1.4 Technology, Maths and Science Centres of Excellence (TMSCE) .............. 62 4.3.1.5 The Queensland Science Summit ................................................................. 63 4.3.1.6 BEU/ BEC .................................................................................................... 63 4.3.1.7 Spotlight On Science .................................................................................... 64 4.3.1.8 Current Biology Syllabus ............................................................................. 65 4.3.1.9 Australian Biotechnology Education Network (ABEN) .............................. 66 4.3.1.10 Queensland Biotechnology Education Network .......................................... 67 4.3.1.11 BioBus - The Travelling Biotechnology Exhibition .................................... 68 4.3.1.12 Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics .... 69 4.3.1.13 Biotech Babble ............................................................................................. 69 4.3.1.14 Science Education Strategy .......................................................................... 70

Page iv

4.3.2 Participating School Profiles ........................................................................................... 70 4.3.3 Summary of Impacting Events and

Initiatives………………………………..................74

4.4 The Process of Adoption and Implementation ............................................................................... 74 4.4.1 Factors Influencing the Adoption of the New Curriculum. ............................................. 75

4.4.1.1. Resources ........................................................................................................ 76 4.4.1.2. Knowledge/Skill Acquisition.......................................................................... 81 4.4.1.3. Syllabus .......................................................................................................... 85 4.4.1.4 The Human

Element………………………………….………..…….………..90

4.4.2 The Process of Implementation ........................................................................................ 90 4.4.3 Changes in Teacher Concerns. ......................................................................................... 92

4.5 Biotechnology Professional Development Key Components ........................................................ 94 4.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 97

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... ……99 5.1 Evolution of Modern Biotechnology Education ............................................................................ 99

5.1.1 Biotechnology Education Events and Initiatives .............................................................. 99 5.1.1.1 Contribution to the Biotechnology Education Context .................................. 100 5.1.1.2 Direct Impact on the Uptake of Biotechnology Education ............................ 100 5.1.1.3 The Direction of Biotechnology Education ................................................... 100

5.2 Teacher Concerns......................................................................................................................... 101 5.3 A Proposed Model for Biotechnology Professional Development .............................................. 103

5.3.1 The Necessity for a Biotechnology Professional Development Model .......................... 103 5.3.2 Towards a Sustainable Biotechnology Curriculum ........................................................ 105 5.3.3 Key Components of a Biotechnology Professional Development

Model………….…...108

5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 108

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 111

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 125

Page v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Essential Biotechnology Equipment and Consumable Items………………….…….........10

Table 3.1 Alignment of Data Sources, Data Collection Methods and Research

Questions…………………………………………………………………….…….….....51

Table 4.1 CSIRO

Workshops……………………..……………………………………………......61

Table 4.2 Summary of Impact of Events and Mechanisms on Subject Schools………………….....75

Table 4.3 Themes and Factors in the Biotechnology Stories of Educators…………………...…….77

Table 4.4 Biotechnology Equipment Possessed by Each School………………………..……..…...78

Table 4.5 Key Components and the Professional Development Programs……………….…….......96

Table 4.6 Additional Key Components Aligned with the Professional Development

Programs……………………………………………………………………….…….…98

Table 5.1 Summary of PD Key Components………………………………………..……….…....105

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1 A Timeline of Impacting Factors…………………...………………..……….…..…....100

Figure 5.2 Towards a Sustainable Biotechnology Curriculum…………………………….….…...107

Page vi

Statement of Authorship

The work contained in this thesis is original and has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signed:

Stephen Garrett

Date: March 12, 2009

Page vii

Acknowledgements

I sincerely thank my Principal Supervisor, Dr Gillian Kidman and Associate Supervisor, Associate Professor Jim Watters for their assistance and support throughout the process leading to the completion of this thesis. I am most appreciative of their time, guidance and the wisdom they shared with me. They have contributed significantly to ensuring that this learning experience was a most beneficial one for me. My sincere thanks also go to the educators with whom I worked throughout the data collection period. Their contributions through sharing their experiences were greatly appreciated. Thank you to my family for their love, patience and understanding throughout the process.

Chapter 1 Introduction

This thesis provides a retrospective analysis of the professional development

(PD) in biotechnology education of a group of secondary science teachers and

scientific assistants, with particular reference to the classroom implementation of

biotechnology-specific laboratory learning experiences and acquisition of practical

skills. The thesis does not consider the PD associated with the teaching of

controversial issues and their socio-scientific implications.

Biotechnology is an emerging significant domain of knowledge in

contemporary science, and reform of biology education at school level is responding

to the challenge of building staff capacity. Hence, developing teachers’ conceptual

understanding and appropriate teaching skills is paramount to a successful

implementation of biotechnology as a component of contemporary curricula. This

chapter outlines the background (Section 1.1) to this study, describes the context

(Section 1.2) of the study, the purposes (Section 1.3), and the significance of this

research (Section 1.4). Finally, it includes an outline of the remaining chapters of the

thesis (Section 1.5).

1.1 BACKGROUND

Science is an important part of the school curriculum and is described by

curriculum developers as a forward looking, collaborative human endeavour which

embraces a process of inquiry involving questioning, predicting, hypothesising,

investigating, gathering and organising data, testing, refining, explaining and

communicating, in order to make sense of the world (Curriculum Corporation, 2006).

To be able to evaluate the significant impacts that arise from scientific endeavours,

citizens need to be scientifically literate. Scientific literacy is defined by the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as the ability to

use scientific knowledge and processes not only to understand the natural world but

to participate in decisions that affect it (OECD, 2006).

Views about the purpose of science education have changed significantly in

recent years, with one realisation being that an essential element of science education

is to help students to develop a deeper understanding of the world around them to

enable them to engage in relevant discourse about science in everyday life

(Goodrum, Hackling & Rennie, 2001). These changing perspectives have serious

implications for the way in which science is taught in secondary and tertiary

education. In particular with respect to teaching controversial socio-scientific issues,

that is, where there is an interplay between science and society which encompasses

social dilemmas with conceptual or technological links to science (Sadler, 2004),

which arise from areas of study such as biotechnology (Gray & Bryce, 2006).

In recent years, there has been a growth not only in biological knowledge, but

also, significantly for teacher education, in the types of knowledge manifested in

biology (Reiss, 2007). Biotechnology, which is a group of technologies based on the

application of living systems and/or biological processes to solve problems, is

emerging internationally as a scientific and commercial force that is having a

significant impact on humankind (Commonwealth Biotechnology Ministerial

Council, 2000; Moses, 2002; National Research Council Canada, 2005). Aspects of

biotechnology and some associated learning experiences are currently being

integrated and embedded in science syllabuses throughout the world. Embedding

biotechnology education creates a number of challenges, not least is that many

experienced science teachers are unfamiliar with the subject matter (Bryce & Gray,

2004). Compounding this problem is that the policy-practice interface is under-

researched (Jenkins, 2004).

As the uptake of biotechnology into the curriculum gathers momentum, a real

and significant need is arising for researchers to examine models of professional

development which will impact on the way in which teachers think about, and reflect

on science in the modern world (Gray & Bryce, 2006). As suggested by Eiser and

Knight (2006):

…there is a significant need for the development of suitable strategies for

ongoing teacher PD with an emphasis on the emerging knowledge areas in

science. (p. 92)

It is apparent in current literature (Gray & Bryce, 2006; Hewson, 2007) that

there is a lack of adequate teacher professional development opportunities in

biotechnology education which consider the multi-dimensional aspect of professional

practice, strengthen teachers’ foundation in the knowledge, practical skills,

pedagogical and socio-scientific dimensions of biotechnology education and inspire

them as practitioners to deepen their commitment to contemporary science education

and debate. To date, teachers have relied in most part on professional development

sessions that have been regarded as ‘ad hoc’, ‘top-down’, ‘just-in-time’, ‘hit and

run’, ‘show and tell’, piecemeal (Senate Employment, Education and Training

References Committee, 1998), which, according to Adey, Hewitt, Hewitt and Landau

(2004) are universally condemned in the research literature as being ineffective ways

for teachers to learn. These are generally the types of professional development

sessions provided by tertiary institutions, government departments, industry outreach

programs and individuals from within the education community (Loucks-Horsley,

Love, Stiles, Mundry & Hewson, 2003). Whilst these professional development

attempts have been well-meaning and have simultaneously addressed several of the

key aspects of effective biotechnology professional development, anecdotal evidence

indicates (particularly with reference to practical skill development) that they have

lacked the ability to present a sustainable and totally relevant professional

development program that takes into account the syllabus, financial constraints in

schools, the needs of adult learners, and effective pedagogical practices to ensure

positive student learning outcomes. It is proposed that there is the necessity for a

more relevant and well researched approach.

1.1.1 The Researcher

The researcher of this study has significant grounding in biotechnology

content and laboratory techniques. Prior to becoming an educator, the researcher

worked in biotechnology research in both university and medical research

laboratories. As an educator, the researcher incorporated numerous biotechnology

learning experiences into his teaching and was subsequently appointed by the state

education department to coordinate the state Biotechnology Education Network,

where his role included the design and implementation of a biotechnology

professional development program for educators. As a result, the researcher has been

intimately involved in the evolution of biotechnology education within schools in his

state.

1.2 CONTEXT

1.2.1 What is Modern Biotechnology?

Biotechnology is a broad term for a group of technologies based on the

application of living systems and/or biological processes to solve problems. The

practice of biotechnology has, from antiquity, been an integral part of human culture,

with traditional biotechnology applications such as brewing, fermentation and

directed plant and animal breeding programs having been around for thousands of

years. Since the mid-1970s, biotechnology has evolved more specialist applications,

including the direct and overt manipulation of genetic material. ‘Modern’

biotechnology accesses the breadth of nature’s diversity, using cellular and

molecular processes to develop new products that combine functions and traits, are

environmentally benign and treat global challenges (Biotechnology Australia, 2005).

Biotechnology is now a powerful enabling technology, with applications that

have the potential to revolutionise many industry sectors, as well as having the

potential to change our fundamental perceptions of what it is to be human. It is

quickly establishing itself as a cornerstone of contemporary science, and is currently

one of the major scientific areas of public interest. As its growth continues to

accelerate, biotechnology generates health and environmental benefits and is set to

make a progressively significant impact on the economies of nations throughout the

world, and on the lives of their citizens (Commonwealth Biotechnology Ministerial

Council, 2000; The Biotechnology Institute, 2005). The National Research Council

Canada (2005) states:

It is believed that the transformative nature of biotechnology eventually will

impact most sectors of the global economy. Biotechnologies are often regarded

as the most significant S&T (science and technology) of the current century,

with impacts exceeding those of information and communications technologies.

(p. 9)

While biotechnology is now generally recognised as having important

multidimensional societal impacts, it was not until the first agricultural and medical

products began to reach the public domain in the 1990s that the global general public

came face-to-face with biotechnology and needed to begin to make decisions about

their personal attitudes towards this science, due to the many ethical, moral and

social concerns about its applications. Fortunately, governments, scientific

establishments, industry and consumer groups all recognise the need for the public to

be helped to understand the technical, economic and ethical facts and significance of

biotechnology, and to make informed decisions for themselves. Internationally,

multiplicities of public educational initiatives have resulted, with varying degrees of

enthusiasm and urgency (Moses, 2002).

1.2.2 The Australian Context

Biotechnology holds the promise of improved health and welfare for all

Australians and has the potential to deliver productivity, competitiveness and

sustainability benefits to our nation. In the future, the standard of living enjoyed in

Australia will be strongly influenced by whether we can grasp the opportunities

presented by biotechnology (Commonwealth Biotechnology Ministerial Council,

2000). Australia has already developed a world class reputation in biotechnology

research and application, and Governments at all levels within Australia are working

to ensure that there is access to the skills and knowledge needed to keep pace with

this global revolution (Commonwealth Biotechnology Ministerial Council, 2000).

There is also the recognition that community attitudes are a crucial issue in the

development of the Australian biotechnology sector (Commonwealth Biotechnology

Ministerial Council, 2000).

The Australian Government has followed most other developed countries in

its decision to develop a national biotechnology strategy. In July 2000, the Australian

government launched the National Biotechnology Strategy, managed by

Biotechnology Australia, to provide a framework for the development of Australian

biotechnology (Biotechnology Australia, n.d.). Funding has been provided for

targeted initiatives to support the Government’s vision. The key objective of the

National Biotechnology Strategy is to provide a framework for Government and key

stakeholders to work together to ensure that developments in biotechnology are

captured for the benefit of the Australian community, industry and the environment,

while safeguarding human health and ensuring environmental protection. In July

2004, under Backing Australia’s Ability- Building Our Future through Science and

Innovation, the Australian Government provided further funding to continue the

National Biotechnology Strategy until 2008. Biotechnology also benefits from access

to funding through other Government programs in the health, agriculture,

environment, industry and education portfolios.

The National Biotechnology Strategy outlines the Government’s vision and

support for biotechnology, including its undertaking to ensure that Australians have

access to world class education in biotechnology. Through Biotechnology

Australia’s Biotechnology Online school resource (Biotechnology Australia, 2005)

balanced and factual information about biotechnology is provided to students and

teachers. It has been designed to fit with Australian State and Territory Science

curriculum statements, with cross-over into Studies of Society and the Environment

to allow for broader discussion of the issues. This resource aims to address the need

for Australian secondary schools to have access to up-to-date information about

biotechnology. It supplements other educational resources by providing

informational text, case studies, online and off-line activities for students, and

support notes for teachers.

In addition to the Australian Government’s contribution to biotechnology,

State and Territory governments also commit substantial resources to its

development. There is general agreement between the Australian, State and Territory

Governments that more can be done cooperatively to help build on Australia’s

strengths in biotechnology and, in 2004, a National Approach Work Program was

agreed to by Australian Governments to build collaboratively on national strengths in

biotechnology to avoid duplication and dilution of effort.

1.2.3 The School Science Curriculum and Biotechnology

It has been argued by Millar (1996) that the school science curriculum should

be designed to promote scientific literacy, so that the majority of students have the

opportunity to become scientifically literate. In a report on science education in

Australian schools, Goodrum et al., (2001) stressed the need for science education to

prepare students for their future roles as citizens in an age of science and technology,

in order to enable them to confidently contribute to debates and make reasoned

judgements about moral, ethical and social issues and the role of science and

technology in shaping their lives. Dawson and Soames (2006) have noted that the

importance of scientific literacy has received significant emphasis in science

education.

In line with impacts being felt across all areas of Australian society, it has been

identified that students are increasingly operating in a national and global society and

economy (Curriculum Corporation, 2006), which has resulted in the science curricula in

Australia undergoing a series of significant changes. This mandated curriculum

change has been significant in that it has played a critical role in creating a purpose

to pursue biotechnology education and a need for teacher professional development

in knowledge, pedagogical, socio-scientific and practical aspects of biotechnology

education.

At the July 2003 Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training

and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) meeting, Ministers agreed to the development of

Statements of Learning for Science that define and deliver common curriculum

outcomes to be used by education jurisdictions across Australia to inform their own

curriculum development in the science domain. These Statements of Learning for

Science have been developed collaboratively by State, Territory and Australian

education authorities and provide a description of the body of knowledge, skills,

understandings and capacities which it is essential that all students in Australia should

have the opportunity to learn. Australian education jurisdictions have agreed to

implement these collaborative statements in their own curriculum documents in order to

achieve greater consistency in curricula (Curriculum Corporation, 2006).

Within this atmosphere of evolving curricula with scientific literacy goals and

an emphasis on students learning to work the way “real” scientists work by

investigating, understanding and communicating in real life contexts, modern

biotechnology has three characteristics that make it ideal for inclusion in the

Australian schools’ curricula (Schibeci, 2004b). These are:

1. Cutting edge science and technology;

2. Science and technology with direct social implications; and,

3. Directly relates to innovation and the Commonwealth’s Backing

Australia’s Ability initiative, as well as state government initiatives.

In addition, because of the constant media attention paid to areas of

biotechnology such as genetically modified foods, forensics and human health

applications, biotechnology holds high intrinsic interest value to contemporary

science students.

The declining recruitment to science is seen as a large problem in Western

countries. ROSE, the Relevance of Science Education, is an international

comparative project meant to gather and analyse information from learners to shed

light on affective factors of importance to the learning of science and technology

(ROSE, 2008). This study has ascertained the lack of relevance to students of the

science curriculum as one of the major reasons for student disenchantment with

school science. However, the ROSE study does show that recruitment of Western

students to the biological sciences is not falling, which may indicate that the

biological sciences have direct relevance to the students (Schreiner & Sjøberg,

2007). This is supported by the research of Kidman (2008), where biology students

indicated that they would enjoy a redesigned biology curriculum that better reflects

the reality of modern science and technology.

An inspection of curriculum statements for each Australian state and territory

shows that existing curriculum links can be found in Junior and/or Senior Science

subjects that enable biotechnology to be currently integrated and embedded within

the Science curricula (Biotechnology Australia, 2005).

1.2.4 The Biotechnology Curriculum

If we consider the positioning of biotechnology in international curricula, it

would seem that to a large extent, curriculum writers have positioned ‘modern’

biotechnology in the senior sciences (particularly biology) with a strong applied

science focus. In contrast, ‘traditional’ biotechnology tends to be positioned in the

junior sciences, thereby limiting the ability of these students to engage with

contemporary science (France, 2007). This also significantly limits their

opportunities to explore and critically debate the cost-benefit-risk dilemmas that

arise from contentious areas such as cloning, stem cell technology, genetic

modification, and the resulting ethical issues (Phoenix, 2000).

The challenge for educators is to teach students in both the junior and senior

sciences about biotechnology and get them excited at the prospects and opportunities

of pursuing further study or a career in this high value area, or in allied areas such as

marketing, communications, finance and law (Daugherty, 2007). One way to

accomplish both goals is to offer an intensive curriculum of study that exposes

students to not just the science of biotechnology, but the applications as well (Moss,

2007). Regardless of whether students continue in the scientific or business arenas of

biotechnology, or if they pursue other interests, they will be more scientifically

literate citizens who can better evaluate the growing number of bioethical and

bioeconomical issues (Daugherty, 2007).

There are many basic concepts and laboratory skills that individuals must

master in order to pursue further study or work in the field of biotechnology

(Daugherty, 2007) or to contribute to socio-scientific discussions in a meaningful

manner. An analysis of existing overseas biotechnology curricula (Daugherty, 2007;

Moss, 2007) suggests that teachers need a good foundation of knowledge and

laboratory proficiency in basic molecular biology, specifically related to DNA and

protein structure and function, in order to be able to provide effective, student-

centred learning experiences that have a positive impact on student learning, and to

be able to design authentic assessment items. In addition, these teachers need to

understand the nature of science, science in society, and how to deal with

controversial issues in the classroom.

According to Moss (2007), biotechnology topics and their sequence of

presentation should be designed to introduce key concepts in an efficient and logical

manner to enable students to have reinforcement of previously studied concepts as

well as learn the applications of the concepts. Daugherty (2007) states that the

curriculum should be grounded in the philosophy that the concepts of science

support the processes of science.

The basic biotechnology practical learning experiences that support a

biotechnology curriculum require essential items of equipment that may not be

commonly found in most high school laboratories (Moss, 2007). This equipment is

supported by a range of consumable items which varies widely depending on the

activities undertaken (Moss, 2007). These equipment and consumable items are

listed in Table 1.1.

TABLE 1.1:

Essential Biotechnology Equipment and Consumable Items.

EQUIPMENT CONSUMABLE ITEMS

Electrophoresis Chambers Agarose

Power Supplies Electrophoresis Buffers

Micropipettes DNA

Incubator Nucleic Acid and Protein Stains

Waterbath Pipette Tips

Microcentrifuge Microcentrifuge Tubes

Ultraviolet Light Source Enzymes

Thermocycler

1.2.5 Teachers and Biotechnology

Teachers are the key people who determine what is taught (or not taught) in the

classroom (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008), so it is important to identify that which teachers

perceive as being the enablers and barriers to their conducting learning experiences, for

example a course in biotechnology, with their students. It is also important to know

what encourages and discourages science teachers from including biotechnology in the

secondary curriculum, and to improve their confidence to teach biotechnology topics

(Leslie & Schibeci, 2006).

As previously stated, the location of biotechnology education is mandated by

the curriculum, but the way it is understood and included by teachers in their science

programs is clearly influenced by the interests, knowledge, education and

professional experiences of individual teachers (Leslie & Schibeci, 2006). Very few

teachers have ever become fully fledged members of the scientific community

(Duschl & Osborne, 2002), that is, most science teachers have not had any practical

experience in the field they are teaching. It is not surprising, then, that few science

teachers have a good understanding of modern biotechnology as many would have

completed their own education with little or no biotechnology or molecular biology

in their degree (Schibeci, 2004b), which certainly holds true for older science

teachers. The younger teachers on the other hand, may have received more molecular

biology in their own training, and are more likely to emphasise biotechnology where

appropriate in their teaching. There is also some dichotomy among science teachers

with regard to the aspects of biotechnology that they teach, where some treat

biotechnology in the context of the biological sciences (content and laboratory

techniques), and those with some social science background use biotechnology as an

opportunity to explore and critically debate the dilemmas and ethical issues that arise

from its application (Phoenix, 2000).

A survey conducted by Leslie and Schibeci (2003) revealed that Australian

science teachers’ understanding of biotechnology varies greatly. Moreover, the limit

of their content knowledge affects their perception of that content and whether or not

the teacher includes it into their science program. If teachers do not have sufficient

background knowledge in the area of biotechnology, lack the necessary laboratory

skills to pass on to their students, or lack the confidence to deal with controversial

socio-scientific issues, they are unlikely to try something new in the classroom. In

addition, these teachers may fail to identify the misconceptions or lack of

understanding that students may have about biotechnology (Dawson & Shibeci,

2003).

Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs have been repeatedly associated with positive

teaching behaviours and student outcomes (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Their

level of understanding of the subject matter influences teacher confidence, and

increasing confidence relates to the way in which the concepts are treated in the

classroom. The work of de Laat and Watters (1995) has shown that teachers with a

stronger background in specific science topics were more self-efficacious and

innovative in their approaches to teaching science. With increased confidence,

teachers are more likely to expose students to the content in more diverse ways

(Tomanek, 1992). Teachers with a well-developed knowledge and understanding of

the content are able to adapt materials to suit learners of different abilities and

learning styles, and are able to make links with other ideas or to other learning areas,

thereby promoting exploration of related issues in relevant contexts (McDiarmid,

1995). These teachers are able to enhance understanding by the students and are also

able to recognise student misconceptions or misunderstandings, moving these

students to more scientifically acceptable conceptual understandings.

While researchers argue that meaningful improvement in education rests with

teachers, not with government, academics and curriculum developers (Atkin &

Black, 2003), it cannot be expected for science teachers to change the curriculum

without support. Clearly, professional development for science teachers is required.

Through an effective and sustainable professional development program, science

teachers must be enabled to include biotechnology education as an accessible aspect

of the science curriculum and to have a meaningful and positive effect on student

scientific literacy, that is, on their understanding of basic scientific concepts,

language, history and philosophy, as well as an acquisition of skills. This

requirement has implications for continuing professional development of science

teachers, lending significance to the proposed research, as to date, no model of

professional development for biotechnology education exists in Australia that

reflects these implications for the local context.

The success of the process of curriculum reform relies on informed teachers

who are ultimately responsible for the implementation of new syllabi, assessment

practices and student performance (Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003). The rapid

changes in contemporary science, coupled with a growing emphasis on the role and

responsibility of learners to construct meaning and regulate their learning (Tytler,

Smith, Grover & Brown, 1999) necessitate that teachers re-examine their subject

knowledge and assumptions about the nature of science learning and teaching (Bell

& Gilbert, 1996; Borko & Putnam, 1995) and develop their professional skills.

However, for many teachers, change is not easy to achieve or sustain due to

inadequate professional support and resources (Atkin & Black, 2003; Wallace &

Louden, 2003).

Professional development is an essential element of comprehensive teacher

preparation for teaching a new, complex and contentious area of science such as

modern biotechnology, which demands much of teachers, including a deep

knowledge of the subject matter; a good understanding of how students learn and

think; and a commitment to working closely with colleagues (including laboratory

technical support staff) to design learning activities and appropriate assessments

(American Federation of Teachers, 2002). Without professional development, school

reform and improved achievement for all students will not happen. Education

departments and academics can set forth a visionary scenario for the future of

science education, but unless the classroom teacher understands the science, is

committed to reforming the curriculum and knows how to make it happen, their

vision will not be realized. This requires a carefully crafted, well supported

professional development design (American Federation of Teachers, 2002).

1.3 PURPOSES

This study had three purposes, and seven research questions:

P1. To document the recent evolution of modern biotechnology education in

schools as part of the changing nature of science education.

RQ1. How have current teacher professional development processes

been cultivated, to support the integration of biotechnology into

classroom practice?

P2. To examine the process used by secondary schools to adopt and

implement a new science curriculum – modern biotechnology.

RQ2. How were teachers influenced to adopt the new curriculum?

RQ3. How did teachers actually implement the new curriculum?

RQ4. How did concerns raised by teachers, change over time as they

incorporated biotechnology into their classrooms?

RQ5. What factors were related to changes in the patterns of teacher

concerns and use of the new curriculum?

P3. To propose an evidence-based professional development model for

biotechnology education for science teachers.

RQ6. Why is a biotechnology professional development model

necessary?

RQ7. What key components are required in a biotechnology

professional development model?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE

This research is significant in that it addresses an apparent void in the

research literature. It identifies barriers and critical success factors which will help

inform decisions by school systems, teacher professional associations and university

teacher education faculties in supporting teachers and teacher educators to acquire

the skills and knowledge needed to ensure effective engagement with 21st Century

science education in the school setting. The research forms the first stage of a

planned future implementation and evaluation of a sustainable model of best practice

for biotechnology education professional development. This will enable science

teachers to integrate biotechnology specific skills-based laboratory learning

experiences into classroom practice, and ensure that there are positive student

learning outcomes.

1.5 THESIS OUTLINE

Chapter One outlines the background to this study, identifying that there has

been significant change in recent years regarding views about the purpose of science

education, and that these changing perspectives have serious implications for the

teaching of science. These views and their inherent implications are linked to a

significant degree to the emergence of contemporary areas of science, including

modern biotechnology. It is noted in this chapter that both Australian and other

governments and education agencies recognise the importance of understanding

biotechnology to the acquisition of scientific literacy by their citizenry, and that the

school science curriculum supports the embedding and integration of biotechnology

education. However, it has also been noted that in order for the process of curriculum

reform to be successful, a carefully crafted biotechnology professional development

design is required to support science educators.

In Chapter Two, a review of the literature presents an overview of the current

thinking and perspectives on the complex nature of teacher professional development

in science and describes the trends and approaches that are apparent. A theoretical

framework is offered, through which the literature is analysed and the data analysis

is informed. The need for significant reform across the board is argued and the need

for partnerships to enable significant collaboration and coordination between the

stakeholders and professional development providers is highlighted, with the

suggestion that professional development models are complex and need due

recognition by system leaders. The chapter concludes with evidence based

suggestions from the literature for the inclusion of particular design components in a

biotechnology professional development program.

Chapter Three outlines the research design chosen to undertake this study and

discusses the methodology used to collect data from identified Queensland educators

(teachers and laboratory technicians) who had previously engaged in biotechnology

professional development over a five year period (2003 - 2007).

Chapter Four presents the results of the analysis of the content of documents,

individual interviews and focus group discussions, addressing each of the Research

Questions.

Chapter Five concludes the thesis with an analysis and discussion of the

findings of the research and uses the implications of these findings to propose an

evidence-based professional development model for biotechnology education.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Although there are a significant number of research studies focusing on the

effects of professional development programs on teachers and teacher practice,

students and student performance, there are a relatively small number of research

studies that consider professional development effects on student learning with

specific reference to science. Prior to Hewson (2007), previous reviews of

professional development in science (Kennedy, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999)

outlined very few relevant studies. One reason why there are so few studies of

professional development in science is the complexity of what is being studied. The

connection between teacher learning outcomes, student learning outcomes,

knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and skills, along with school, home and community

contexts is complex and long (Hewson, 2007), requiring multiple levels of

professional development evaluation (Guskey, 2000).

This literature review examines the current thinking and perspectives on the

complex enterprise of teacher professional development in science, including the

changing nature of science education; the science teacher as learner; perspectives on

teacher professional development in science; professional development and student

learning; the attributes of good professional development programs, and

biotechnology professional development. Although there are many aspects of

professional development that are shared across disciplinary contexts and there is

much to be learned from studies that make no reference to the subject matter of

science, studies included in this literature review have an explicit focus on teachers

of science due to the specific character of the teaching/learning process within this

discipline. This analysis does not explicitly review literature from outside the

discipline of science but the influence of more generic literature is inherent in many

of the studies examined.

From the literature review, there is a clear indication that the current

literature is deficient in studies that focus on supporting teacher engagement with

contemporary science such as biotechnology and in enabling its integration into

classroom learning experiences to effect positive student learning outcomes. There is

an identified need for research for the design and implementation of a relevant

professional development program for science teachers.

2.2 THE CHANGING NATURE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

In recent years, the impetus for research by the science education community

into an appropriate science curriculum for the new millennium has been provided by

various stimuli, but perhaps most significantly by the scientific literacy movement.

This research into the changing nature of science demonstrates an increasing

awareness that the paradigm of science extends beyond a narrow reductionist view

and fact-based certainty (Jenkins, 1992; Miller & Osborne, 1998; Solomon &

Thomas, 1990), and that it requires consideration of the pedagogical content

knowledge required by teachers as well as an increasing appreciation of the socio-

scientific impact of science (Gray & Bryce, 2006), to enable the development of

scientific literacy by students. Researchers have stated that redesigning the school

science curriculum to improve student levels of scientific literacy prepares them for

their future role as citizens (Jenkins, 1999; Popli, 1999; Solomon & Thomas, 1990),

by developing their critical awareness (Kind & Taber, 2005; Miller & Osborne,

1998). Osborne (2000) questioned whether, to date, this has been adequately

achieved.

Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) prepared a major national research

report on science education in Australian schools in which they stressed the need for

the science curriculum to prepare students for their future roles as citizens in an age

of science and technology. They reported that students need to be:

…skeptical and questioning of claims made by others about scientific matters,

to be able to identify questions and draw evidence-based conclusions, and to

make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and well-

being. (p. 166)

Dawson and Soames (2006) added to this statement by saying that:

A high level of scientific literacy can help young people to question the claims

of the scientific community, weigh up evidence about scientific issues, use

critical thinking skills and enable them to use their understanding of science to

make well-informed and balanced decisions. (p. 184)

To be effective, the school science curriculum needs to place less emphasis

on the narrow view that science is simply a body of knowledge, and more emphasis

on the broader processes that operate within the scientific community, so that

students are better prepared for decisions with a socio-scientific dimension. This is

not to say that content knowledge is unimportant. As Shymansky, Henriques,

Chidsey, Dunkhase, Jorgensen, and Yore (1997) acknowledge, it is important to

recognise that neither teaching nor learning take place in the absence of content

knowledge, but rather in isolation, content knowledge may not be sufficient in itself

to enable students to make rational decisions (Harding & Hare, 2000).

Reforming science teaching, however, is difficult because science classrooms

are complex environments. Numerous studies have reported on the challenges

associated with helping both inservice and preservice science teachers implement

change in the classroom (Beck, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2000; Crawford, 1999; Naylor

& Keogh, 1999; Tobin, Kahle, & Fraser, 1990). In a review of research on science

teaching, Keys and Bryan (2001) stated that the field needs further research on

teachers as they attempt to implement the methods advocated in reform documents.

2.3 THE SCIENCE TEACHER AS LEARNER

Teachers work in a community where learning is regarded as a natural and

expected component of the professional activity of teachers and schools (Clarke &

Hollingsworth, 2002). A literature search focusing on the science teacher as learner

returns many results which focus on the development of understanding and

knowledge of science teaching generally - there are few studies specific to science

teaching that focus on what can be accomplished in the science classroom with

respect to a combination of a reformed curriculum and new pedagogical methods

(Huffman, 2006). This presents both a challenge and opportunity to researchers as it

highlights the need for a more concerted effort in this area.

The views and expectations for teaching have changed over time in conjunction

with the views of the nature of learning. We are witnessing significant changes in our

understanding of knowledge itself: how new knowledge is created, what is important to

know, how new information is obtained, and how people learn. Research into teacher

learning was originally based on a developmental (pathway) model (Fuller, 1969; Fuller

& Brown, 1975), however, over time, ‘good teaching’ became aligned with the notion

of reflective practice (Clarke, 1995; Loughran, 1996; Schön, 1987). These developments

proceeded simultaneously with the growth in understanding of constructivism, which

reflected a shift in the views of the nature of learning from a predominantly behaviourist

model to more cognitive and phenomenological models (Clarke & Erickson, 2004).

Thus, through the developments in examination of teacher practice, the notion of teacher

as learner has emerged as an important construct in extending perceptions of quality in

science teaching and learning. As a descriptor, the term “teacher as learner” is apt as it

challenges the traditional view of science teaching as being transmissive. Science

teacher as learner suggests a concern, from the science teacher’s perspective, for the

improvement of teaching practices - an ongoing commitment to teach science for

understanding and to better align their teaching with their expectations for their

students’ learning. This means that the notion of science teacher as learner is clearly

related to understandings of contemporary theoretical perspectives on learning

(Loughran, 2007).

The literature shows a clear distinction between beginning and experienced

secondary science teachers (the two ends of a continuum) as learners. In their study of

science teachers moving from preservice to the early years of teaching, Adams and

Krockover (1997) found that much learning occurs in the initial shifts from didactic

teaching practices, that is, excessively instructional, toward conceptual/constructivist

teaching and learning practices as a result of reflection and the need to develop

satisfying approaches to professional practice. However, when experienced science

teachers are faced with unfamiliar content (such as biotechnology), they become

beginning science teachers again (White, Frederiksen, Frederiksen, Eslinger, Loper &

Collins, 2002). Geelan (1996) showed how, when an experienced teacher is placed in

the position of learner, the need to articulate understandings of teaching and learning is

catalysed, the teacher experiences an induction phase (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994)

where there is a need for genuine support and guidance so that the science teacher can

begin to emerge as a result of confidence gained through risk-taking and experimenting

with practice, as highlighted in Trumbull’s (1999) longitudinal study.

2.4 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The science of developing teachers is the domain of professional

development, which teachers access throughout their careers to update their

knowledge and skills. There are a number of well-established international journals

dedicated to this area as a field of study (e.g., Journal of Science Teacher Education;

Teaching and Teacher Education) as well as journals that focus on continuing

professional development in specific levels of education or areas of study (e.g.,

Journal of Biological Education). From these journals and other sources of data

emerge a number of major trends and findings related to continuing professional

development in general and in relation to science education.

The United States National Science Education Standards (National Research

Council, 1996) state that professional development for teachers should be analogous

to professional development for other professionals where activities, formal and

informal programs are undertaken by individuals to learn about and reflect on

education theory and practice to increase or improve skills. In their study into

developing a model of teacher professional development for the integration of

information and communication technology into classroom practice, Downes et al,

(2001) reported on the importance of considering professional development as an all-

embracing term which includes the continuum from pre-service teacher education to

the continuing professional development of experienced teachers. This is how

professional development is considered in this proposal. Pre-service teacher

education refers to the formal programs provided by academic units within

universities or equivalent institutions, to teachers who are not yet registered.

Continuing professional development refers to any activity that develops existing

teachers’ professional skills, knowledge and expertise. Systemic professional

development refers to an overall coordinated system-level strategy of professional

development (American Federation of Teachers, 2002) for the teachers, laboratory

technical staff, school leaders, curriculum developers, head office and district

personnel and other relevant professional staff.

Non-educators often refer to teacher professional development as teacher

training- a term many educators feel has an unprofessional connotation and therefore

dislike, as it carries the perception of dealing with competency training, rather than

professional education (National Academy of Sciences, 1996). In general, two types

of professional development have been identified in the literature- individually based

and systemic. In-service, workshops and staff development are synonyms for

professional development activities for teachers that can be found in this report. As

stated by the American Federation of Teachers (2002):

Professional development is a continuous process of individual and collective

examination, improvement of practice and reflection. It should empower

individual educators and communities of educators to make complex decisions;

to identify and solve problems; and to connect theory, practice, and student

outcomes. Professional development should also enable teachers to offer

students the learning opportunities that will prepare them to meet world-class

standards in given content areas and to successfully assume adult

responsibilities for citizenship and work. (p. 4)

To assist in the establishment of effective professional development, the

American Federation of Teachers (2002) prepared a set of guidelines, based on

research evidence, for creating professional development programs- Principles for

Professional Development. The guidelines state (pp. 4 – 10) that professional

development should:

1. Deepen and broaden knowledge of content.

2. Provide a strong foundation in the pedagogy of particular disciplines.

3. Provide knowledge about the teaching and learning processes.

4. Be rooted in and reflect the best available research.

5. Align its content with the standards and curriculum that teachers use.

6. Contribute to measurable improvement in student achievement.

7. Be intellectually engaging and address the complexity of teaching.

8. Provide sufficient time, support, and resources to enable teachers to

master new content and pedagogy and to integrate this knowledge and

skill into their practice.

9. Be designed by teachers in cooperation with experts in the field.

10. Take a variety of forms, including some we have not typically

considered.

11. Be job-embedded and site specific.

Professional development for science teachers is currently of considerable

importance, as internationally a new vision of learner-centred instruction is being

developed (Hewson, 2007). In parallel with this ongoing reform there has been a

major push to develop new curricula that contain significant changes in what

students are expected to learn, as science has a rapidly changing knowledge base and

expanding relevance to societal issues (National Research Council, 1996). This push

necessitates science teachers having ongoing opportunities to build their

understanding and abilities. Science teachers must also have opportunities to develop

understandings of how students with diverse interests, abilities, and experiences

make sense of scientific ideas, and what is required to support and guide them.

Teachers require the opportunity to study and engage in research on science teaching

and learning, and to share with colleagues what they have learned. Undertaking

professional development to become an effective science teacher is a continuous

process that stretches from pre-service experiences to the end of a professional career

(National Research Council, 1996).

Although it may seem prudent to put the majority of effort for reform into

pre-service education, Anderson and Mitchener (1994) indicate in their review of

research on science teacher education that although important and influential,

improved pre-service teacher education will never be the key impetus to education

reform. The proportion of new teachers entering the profession each year is a small

subset of the total teaching force, meaning that it will take considerable time to effect

change in the teaching profession as a whole if this is the sole means by which it is

done. In addition, new teachers enter the profession without much power, meaning

that there is little chance that they were able to influence their colleagues.

Consequently, focusing the provision of professional development on practicing

teachers is clearly one of the most essential aspects of science education reform, if

not the most important aspect (Huffman, 2006), because in this current climate of

reform and educational context change, teachers’ existing practices and beliefs may

not be well matched with the revised demands of the reform efforts (Hewson, 2007).

This is not to say that research results from studies of biotechnology education with

practicing teachers should not be extended and extrapolated to programs of science

teacher education, to address the potential that pre-service teachers may learn more

about how to teach science than about the science and scientific concepts (Russell &

Martin, 2007).

When considering professional development of practicing science teachers, it

is necessary to recognise two essential focal points (Hewson, 2007) - the teachers

who are experiencing professional development (Broekhuizen & Dougherty, 1999),

and the explicit professional development programs that they are undertaking. It

should also be recognised that the ultimate purpose of professional development is

the improvement of student learning (Hewson, 2007).

Traditionally, those who provided professional development to teachers were

considered to be trainers. Now their roles have broadened immensely. When

appropriate, in addition to being trainers they have to be facilitators, assessors,

resource brokers, mediators of learning, designers, and coaches (Loucks-Horsley,

1996). It is useful at this point to consider who should be termed as a ‘professional

developer’. Boyd, Banilower, Pasley and Weiss (2003) identified a wide array of

individuals who could be considered as providers of professional development, and

although teachers often are their own personal professional developers, for the

purposes of this study a professional developer was regarded as someone who is

responsible for the professional development of others.

In order to optimally facilitate the professional development of science

teachers, it is necessary to understand the process by which teachers grow

professionally and the conditions that support and promote that growth (Clarke &

Hollingsworth, 2002). However, research on teacher professional development in

science is complicated and difficult due to its inherently complex nature, which

consists of a number of interrelated components such as the curriculum; the teaching

and learning environment; teacher beliefs and practices; teacher professionalism; and

the inherent nature of science (Hewson, 2007). The pathways of influence of

professional development from the original activity to student learning proceed

through intervening variables of teacher learning and classroom enactment-pathways

which are complicated and bound to the educational and social environments of

schools and communities. This necessitates research focusing on the nature of the

relationships between these components, while concurrently exploring each of these

components in its own right (Hewson, 2007).

2.5 THE IMPACT OF TEACHER CONCERNS ON PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

A fundamental consideration that has implications for those developing or

leading teacher professional development is that learning brings change, and

supporting people in change is critical for learning to take hold (Hord, Rutherford,

Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Loucks-Horsley, 1996). Teachers progress through

stages of interest and commitment when learning new teaching strategies or using

new curricula. Knowledge of this process can help professional developers to reach

an understanding of why it is so difficult to effect the same degree of change in

everyone, and why the immediate results of professional development programs may

not be the changes that were expected.

The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is arguably the most robust

and empirically grounded theoretical model for the implementation of educational

innovations (Anderson, 1997). It is a well documented model of attitude change

which is helpful in determining the sequence of change as new teaching programs

and expectations are implemented. CBAM applies to anyone experiencing change,

that is, policy makers, teachers, parents, students (Loucks-Horsley & Stiegelbauer,

1991). The model is a theory of change that describes, explains, and predicts

probable teacher behaviors in the change process. It holds that people considering

and experiencing change evolve in the kinds of questions they ask and in their use of

the innovation. The model is made up of two strategies, the Stages of Concern and

the Levels of Use (Hord et al., 1987).

The concerns model identifies and provides ways to assess seven stages of

concern. The seven stages are: Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management,

Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing. The first stage, Stage 0, Awareness,

indicates that a teacher has little concern or involvement at this time with the new

program. The other six stages reflect three categories: Self, Task, and Impact. The

Self category is derived from two stages Informational and Personal. It is in the Self

category that teachers express a general interest in the new program and would like

to know more about it (Pedron & Evans, 1990). They also question how the new

program will affect them. The Task category deals with Management. Teachers learn

the processes and tasks of the new program and how to implement the change. They

focus on information and resources. The final category, Impact, deals with

Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing. The stages in this final category focus

on the program’s impact on the students’ achievement and teachers work

cooperatively in implementing the program. The teachers also consider the benefits

of the program and consider ideas for improvement. In general, early questions are

more self-oriented and when these questions are resolved, questions emerge that are

more task-oriented. Finally, when self- and task concerns are largely resolved, the

individual can focus on impact and improvement of process (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).

These stages of concern are the most important tool in the concerns model

because they can be used to measure the level of concerns of teachers involved in

program change (Christou, Eliophotou-Menon, & Philippou, 2004). These stages

have major implications for professional development as they point out the

importance of attending to where people are and addressing the questions they are

asking when they are asking them. The kinds and content of professional

development opportunities can be informed by ongoing monitoring of the concerns

of teachers. Acknowledging these concerns and addressing them are critical to

progress in a reform effort.

The second strategy within CBAM- Levels of Use, entails eight different

levels of change that teachers experience when they are implementing a new

program and can be used to determine where a teacher stands at any given time in

relation to the change process. With the Levels of Use, the first level is Non-Use,

which is where the schools have not expressed an interest. The second level is

Orientation; the school is acquiring awareness of the new program. The third level is

Preparation and this is when the school is preparing for the new program by training

teachers and ordering materials. Mechanical Use is the fourth level. It is here where

the implementation of the new program is occurring, and the teachers are having

difficulty teaching the new materials often resorting to the manuals; their frustration

levels are high and the teachers are still not convinced. The fifth level is Routine and

by now the teachers have created a routine and feel comfortable using the new

program. They are getting the hang of it and want to get better at teaching it. The

focus is on the teaching process, not the outcome. It is essential that school leaders

make sure that a school does not stabilise at the routine level (Hord et al., 1987).

Refinement is the sixth level where the teacher is using the program to increase the

expected benefits within their classroom. The teacher can see the impact of this

program working and uses the program to maximise the effects of student

achievement (McCarthy, 1982). It is in the seventh level, Integration where the

teacher believes that the program is important to him/her and combines his or her

own efforts with related activities of other teachers and colleagues to enable student

achievement (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). The final level, Renewal, is where the teacher

re-evaluates the quality of use of the program in their classroom, seeks major

modifications, and explores new developments as a staff and school. The level of use

that a teacher progresses to in implementing a change can be impacted on by the

characteristics of the professional development (Anderson, 1997).

Professional developers who know and use CBAM, design experiences that

are sensitive to the questions that educators are asking, at the time they are asking

them. Learning experiences evolve over time, take place in different settings, rely on

varying degrees of external expertise, and change with participant needs. The

strength of CBAM is that it is designed to pay attention to individuals and their

various needs (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).

2.6 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE

An analysis of the outcomes and limitations of traditional ‘up-date’ (Nasseh,

1996) or ‘top-down’ (Van Driel, Beiiaard & Verloop, 2001) professional

development programs can be used to argue that sustainable future models of

professional development should take account of the current broad consensus that

teachers play a central, key role in any model of educational improvement. What this

implies, is that if science teaching is to address student scientific literacy more

effectively, future forms of effective professional development must recognise that

the teacher is at the heart of any professional development program, and hence

involve teachers in reflecting on the scientific, the social and the pedagogical

dimensions to ‘new science’, and to relationships between them in the interests of

improved classroom learning. In other words, if teachers are not involved,

educational reform will not happen. It is also essential to recognise that it is the

teachers themselves who are responsible for their own professional development

(Kennedy, 1999; Shapiro & Last, 2002; Wilson & Berne, 1999). These propositions

are supported by numerous studies of a range of contexts in Australia, the United

Kingdom and the United States, some of which are outlined below.

Case studies involving one or two teachers (Appleton & Asoko, 1996; Hand

& Prain, 2002; Roseberry & Puttick, 1998) have allowed in depth consideration by

researchers of aspects of science professional development activities and the

implementation of new ideas by the teachers. These studies have concluded that

teacher inservice is more beneficial where there is a degree of teacher ownership of

the process; it effectively models the principles being taught and provides regular

ongoing support and resources.

In studies involving larger numbers of teachers participating in a range of

professional development programs (Briscoe & Peters, 1997; Garet, Porter,

Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2001; Sandholtz, 2002; Supovitz & Turner, 2000), it

was found that there was a strong relationship between the extent of a teachers’

professional development and their adoption of reform-oriented teaching practices.

These studies showed that program support structures (external support and peer

collaboration), were key to the development of the content and pedagogical

knowledge of the teachers and in sustaining their commitment and enthusiasm.

Additionally, teachers appreciated opportunities to explore, reflect, work on

authentic learning tasks, and engage in hands-on, active learning.

It is also important to consider how science teachers develop professionally.

Bell and Gilbert (1996) argue that, to enable development to take place, teacher

development programs must be aware of each of the interwoven components of

personal practice, professional practice and social development. They propose that

developmental progression takes place through a number of phases, where each of

these components is developed, thereby empowering teachers to reconstruct what it

means to them to be a teacher of science within a collegial group.

Teacher professional development in science is about the science; teachers

and their teaching practices, methodologies and activities; students and their

learning; and about the educational contexts in which these take place. It is also

about teachers being adult learners and professionals, who have a stake in the

continuing development of their professional practice, both as individuals and as

members of a collegial professional community. The complexity of teacher

professional development in science suggests that researchers consider not only the

teachers who are experiencing the professional development, but also the systems in

which these professional development programs are embedded, and that they also

consider the outcomes that the programs seek to achieve and the processes that were

undertaken to achieve them. These considerations significantly enhance the

likelihood of programs being successful (Hewson, 2007).

2.7 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND STUDENT LEARNING

The domain of teacher professional development in science extends beyond a

tidy, focused coherent perspective of activities and participants to include the

ultimate improvement of student learning. In the context of systemic reform, teachers

are now expected to achieve better student outcomes in relation to defined areas of

knowledge. Professional development for teachers reflects the need to demonstrate

how new pedagogical approaches can be used in practice in relation to specific topics

and subject-matter areas and also to provide evidence that it is focusing on

improving outcomes for students (Carney, 1998). Modelling new pedagogies in non-

specific and decontextualised ways has been demonstrated not to work (US

Department of Education, 2001).

There is a positive correlation between student achievement in science and

teacher professional development (Coughlin & Lemke 1999; Davis 1999; Delannoy,

2000; Groundwater-Smith, 1998; Smith, 1999). Wenglinsky and Silverstein (2007)

outline substantial evidence that well-formulated and sustained professional

development programs for science teachers, that address laboratory skills, hands-on

learning, instructional technology and formative assessment, can significantly

improve student achievement in science.

An important aspect of professional development should also be a focus on

understanding how learners learn. Professional development should not contain the

implicit assumption that a focus on teaching equals a focus on learning; that teacher

professional development will somehow result in better student learning. While it is

reasonable to assume that better teaching will have some positive effect on learning,

it is also essential for professional development to focus deliberately on learners and

learning (Claxton, 2002).

Effective professional development fosters a deepening of subject-matter

knowledge, a greater understanding of student learning and a greater appreciation of

student needs. All these points are important, as students learn in different ways and

come from diverse cultural, linguistic and socio-economic backgrounds (National

Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996).

It is worthwhile to consider some studies chronologically and in more detail.

Monk’s (1994) longitudinal study found a close correlation between student

achievement in science and teacher preparation in science. The Monk study

identified that the best predictor of student performance in science was teacher

participation in professional development programs. Parke and Coble (1997)

conducted a study in the United States on a small coherent group of teachers and

their students and were able to demonstrate a connection between professional

development, teacher’s instruction, and student achievement. A statewide (Ohio)

systemic initiative in the United States was the context for a study connecting

professional development and student learning (Kahle, Veece, & Scantlebury, 2000),

in which analysis showed a positive relationship between the standards-based

professional development and students’ science achievement and attitudes, mediated

by teaching practices that were related to teacher participation in the professional

development. An extensive analysis (Wenglinsky, 2000) of the performance of

science students on the 1996 American National Assessment of Education Progress,

found that student scores tended to be higher where their science teacher had

undertaken significant professional development. Likewise, Fishman, Marx, Best and

Tal (2003), demonstrated in their study conducted in the United States, that as a

result of professional development, teachers reported an increase in their confidence

in being able to support student learning, and, an evaluation of student learning

showed that there was a statistically significant improvement. Further support comes

from an analysis of Columbia’s Summer School for science teachers (Wenglinsky &

Silverstein, 2007), which led them to describe substantial evidence that professional

development programs for science teachers can significantly improve student

achievement in science as well as increase their student’s interest.

As pointed out by Hewson (2007), in studies where a positive effect on

student achievement can be demonstrated, much of the professional development

provided to teachers encompassed a range of strategies and had several

commendable characteristics. There were intensive sessions where teachers had the

opportunity to build knowledge and explore implications for teaching, followed by

opportunities to utilize these approaches in their teaching, with interspersed

reflective sessions to discuss aspects of implementation encountered in the specific

circumstances of their classrooms.

These studies lead to the conclusion that of the many steps needed to improve

student outcomes in science, none is more important than the provision of well-

formulated and sustained professional development programs for science teachers.

2.8 WHAT MAKES FOR EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Professional Development Project of the National Institute for Science

Education in the United States explored whether the science, mathematics, and

professional development communities shared a common understanding of what

effective professional learning experiences look like, and how teacher development

should be nurtured (Loucks-Horsley, Styles & Hewson, 1996). They examined a

variety of standards and related materials in which they noted a great deal of

consensus. Despite addressing the question from separate perspectives and

disciplines, the different materials they reviewed largely reflected a common vision

of effective professional development. According to that shared vision, the best

professional development experiences for science educators included the following

seven principles (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1996, pp. 1-4):

1. They are driven by a clear, well-defined image of effective classroom

learning and teaching.

2. They provide teachers with opportunities to develop knowledge and

skills and broaden their teaching approaches, so they can create better

learning opportunities for students.

3. They use instructional methods to promote learning for adults which

mirror the methods to be used with students.

4. They build or strengthen the learning community of science and

mathematics teachers.

5. They prepare and support teachers to serve in leadership roles if they are

inclined to do so.

6. They consciously provide links to other parts of the educational system.

7. They include continuous review of the professional development

programs.

The professional development team of the National Institute for Science

Education went on to explore the nature of professional development practice

through a process of collaborative reflection with five accomplished professional

developers in science and mathematics, over the period of a year (Loucks-Horsley,

Hewson, Love & Stiles, 1998). They agreed that the practice of professional

development is a process of design. Professional developers have outcomes which

they wish to achieve, impacted upon by the particular context (group of teachers and

circumstances) unique to the professional development program. This necessitates

that their professional development design matches the desired outcomes to the

context, probably requiring compromises in order to maximise desirable outcomes.

One important way that Loucks-Horsley et al., (1998) identified to help ensure

lasting reform is to involve teachers from the very beginning so the innovations can

develop from within the classroom. Such an approach would help teachers to adapt

new ideas to their own circumstances and could thus significantly increase the

impact of reform.

The most recent version of this design framework (Loucks-Horsley et al,

2003) has several major elements. There is a generic planning process where the

professional development program developers progressively input their knowledge

and expertise into the steps of the process. Subsequent to implementation of the

program, there is feedback from the reflective evaluation of the project on the

processes and on the various inputs to the project. Thus, this is a dynamic

framework.

The relationship between professional development programs and science

teachers’ practice was also explored by Fishman et al, (2003). From their research,

they developed a model of teacher learning. As with Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003),

they considered teacher professional development to be a process of design, where

those undertaking the professional development necessarily consider a range of

inputs to enable the design of an effective professional development program.

Although there is much in common between the Fishman and the Loucks-

Horsley design frameworks, by focusing explicitly on teacher practice as an outcome

of professional development programs, Fishman et al. (2003) have gone beyond

Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003). Fishman et al. considered teacher learning to be the

primary criterion for determining the effectiveness of a professional development

program. In addition, Fishman adopted the viewpoint of Richardson (1996), that

there needs to be consideration of the way in which the enactment of teachers’

knowledge, beliefs and attitudes influences student learning and consequently,

student performance. They also recognised that student learning influences teacher

learning, and that the curriculum influences the choice of professional development

activities. Fishman et al’s study is a valuable framework in that it emphasises the

importance of the influence of teacher learning through professional development on

both classroom practice and student learning. In addition, it highlights the various

important aspects of professional development that need to be considered in the

design and evaluation of professional development programs.

In another important study of over 1000 mathematics and science teachers,

Garet et al. (2001) undertook a national evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional

Development Program, a program aimed at improving the teaching and learning of all

students by providing teachers with high quality, sustained, and intensive professional

development opportunities. Garet et al. compared the effects of a number of

characteristics of professional development and provided empirical support for ‘best

practice’ addressed in much of the literature on professional development. Their study

confirmed that good professional development does change teacher practices, and

teacher perception of their subject. Sustained and intensive professional development,

focused on academic content with opportunities for hands-on, active learning, and

coherently related to practices in schools, is what is reported as being most effective by

teachers.

Although these studies present a common vision of the best professional

development experiences for science educators, and an agreed position that the practice

of professional development is a process of design aimed at achieving identified

outcomes within a particular context, there is no specific recommendation in any of the

studies regarding the ideal amount of professional development and over what period it

should be implemented.

2.9 BIOTECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

An analysis of the literature thus suggests that biotechnology professional

development needs to include the following essential design components:

1. Instruction in fundamental content and concepts (Garet et al., 2001).

2. Modelling of the teaching of biotechnology through the use of

exploration, concept development and application, and skills

development (Garet et al., 2001).

3. Guided discussion in underlying conflicts that address the socio-

scientific aspects of biotechnology (Bryce & Gray, 2004; Gray & Bryce,

2006).

4. Instruction in effective pedagogic strategies for improved classroom

learning (Gray & Bryce, 2006).

5. A means of reflective practice (Fetters, Czerniak, Fish & Shawberry, 2002;

Fishman, et al., 2003; Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003, Nasseh, 1996).

In designing any biotechnology professional development activities, a key

component requiring consideration is the availability of educational resources that

are required to support meaningful student engagement with the identified

biotechnology contexts and learning experiences. Biotechnology resources

essentially fall into two broad categories- information and equipment/consumables.

A review by France and Bolstead (2004) identified a wealth of biotechnology

information resources, including textbooks, laboratory practical protocols and web

based resources provided by government departments and individuals from both the

education and biotechnology communities, though Dawson and Schibeci (2003)

believe that further curriculum materials similar to Biotechnology Online

(Biotechnology Australia, 2005) need to be developed and implemented in schools.

2.10 SUMMARY AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In concluding the literature review, a summary of the major literature

informing this research and an emerging theoretical framework are provided.

The studies reviewed acknowledge that the ultimate aim of teacher

professional development programs in science is to effect changes in teacher practice

to improve students’ science learning (Hewson, 2007). The professional

development in science frameworks studied as part of this review included studies of

programs that provide professional development to teachers of science, the

classroom practices that result from teacher participation in these programs, and the

effects on the students who experience these classroom practices. Together, they

have provided complementary perspectives on teacher professional development,

which serve to highlight the many components that make up the complex processes

that are an intrinsic and important part of any teacher professional development in

science program.

With regard to the professional development programs reviewed in this

literature review, the research is largely descriptive, focusing on project design.

Fishman et al., (2003) were the only researchers who focused on program activities.

The major studies were primarily concerned with the effects of teacher professional

development programs on teacher practice (Bell & Gilbert, 1996; Fishman et al.

2003; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003), with the research

being both descriptive and evaluative, grounded in teacher knowledge and beliefs,

teaching methodologies and teacher learning. Not surprisingly, these studies provide

a significantly clearer picture of the participating teachers and their teaching, than

they do of what is learned by the teachers as a result of participating in science

professional development programs. Other studies focused on students, and sought to

link classroom practice to student performance as outcomes determined by scores on

achievement tests (Huffman, Thomas & Lawrenz, 2003; Wenglinsky, 2000;

Wenglinsky & Silverstein, 2007). With respect to professional development program

planning, no studies systematically used the comprehensive professional

development design framework outlined by Lourks-Horsley et al. (2003) which was

derived from consideration of the practice of professional developers. Only one study

(Huffman et al. 2003) explicitly used any components of this framework.

In the reviewed literature, little explicit reference was made of the link

between curriculum change and professional development. However, curriculum

change was a factor impacting on both the three schools in this study and the

requirement for teacher professional development, thus it has been implicitly

considered.

Most of the teachers participating in the reviewed studies implicitly accepted

that aspects of their teaching were problematic in the context of the constraints of

their classrooms and schools, and were prepared to incorporate new activities into

their teaching in order to develop their classroom practice. In addition, the teachers

acknowledged experiencing social development through collaboration with their

peers and mentors, and demonstrated that without continuing support gained through

collaboration, they were unlikely to make major changes to their teaching practices,

particularly if these changes impacted on their core professional beliefs (Bell &

Gilbert, 1996). Finally, despite the proposition of the importance placed on the

interaction involving teachers, their classroom practice and student performance, this

interaction was essentially ignored in the context of professional development

programs.

It is not surprising that there are extensive variations across studies of teacher

professional development in science, given that the effects on teachers and students

are complex, and that the limited availability of resources to devote to the studies

results in compromise and trade-offs. Hence, a broad array of complementary

research and data collection methods needs synthesis to provide an accurate, overall

picture of the field. Although existing studies encompassing a variety of approaches

have laid a substantive platform, they also illustrate the need for many more studies

of teacher professional development in science, to complete the picture.

The literature review has identified that a change in the science curriculum is

occurring, and that the implementation of this change presents both educators and

researchers with significant challenges. Teachers cannot engage their students if they

do not have sufficient knowledge, pedagogy and skills themselves, leading to the

recognition that there is the need for science teachers to be enabled to confidently

and competently teach contemporary science such as biotechnology. In this regard it

becomes necessary to consider both the teachers who are experiencing professional

development and the professional development programs that they are undertaking.

Shulman (1999) noted that the distinguishing feature of a teacher is the ability

to transform subject matter into classroom actions which support and enhance

learning. This capacity is described by Shulman as pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK). If the curriculum content changes, then the teacher’s pedagogical content

knowledge, classroom actions and practices will also need to change. Currently,

there is a need for significant reform of continuing professional development in

science, as existing professional development does not adequately address the need

to change classroom practices (Gray & Bryce, 2006; Lewis, 2006). The case for

reform is supported by Wenglinsky and Silverstein (2007), who noted that of the

many steps needed to improve science education, none is more important than

improving teacher education through the development and dissemination of

empirically verified professional development programs for science teachers.

The literature (Fishman et al., 2003; Garet et al., 2001; Gray & Bryce, 2006;

Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; NAS, 1996) has revealed aspects of professional

development that need to be considered in the design and implementation of an

‘ideal’ professional development program for science educators. According to the

literature, the ideal program has twelve key components. It is:

1. Specifically Designed- Designed to meet identified educational needs, in

a context where there is a well-defined image of effective learning and

teaching.

2. Collaborative- Developed and implemented through the collaboration of

professional development providers and educators thereby recognising

and valuing both the ‘expert’s’ input and the professional contribution of

the educators.

3. Content Appropriate- Develops conceptual knowledge, practical skills

and pedagogical content knowledge.

4. Learner-Centred- Recognises that teacher learning should parallel

student learning.

5. Active- Values and encourages continuing involvement of the

participants.

6. Challenging- Provides opportunities for teachers to confront and examine

their beliefs about the nature of science, in light of new paradigms and

philosophies.

7. Communal- Stimulates and supports new partnerships, networks and

learning communities among participating educators and scientists.

8. Supportive- Prepares teachers to serve in leadership roles.

9. Reviewed- Ensures that evaluation is a continuous process that is used to

improve the program.

10. Guided- Has a charismatic person or group providing strong leadership.

11. Supported- Encouraged and supported by school districts and school

administrators.

12. Integrated- Links to other parts of the educational system.

In the past, many innovative projects have not been successful because

teachers fail to implement the content as intended by the professional developer(s).

Van Driel et al. (2001) have concluded that this can often be attributed to their being

delivered through a traditional top-down approach which has failed to acknowledge

the teachers’ existing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. In addition, they have not

taken account of the students and the culture in which the reform is to be embedded

(Tobin & Dawson, 1992).

A fundamental consideration in implementing professional development is

that it brings about change, and teachers need to be supported as they progress

through stages of interest and commitment as a result of this change. CBAM is a well

documented theoretical model of change that is useful in describing, explaining and

predicting probable teacher behaviours in this process of change. CBAM can be used

to design experiences for the needs of participants at any given time.

Studies into the characteristics of effective professional development for

science educators have determined that the practice of professional development is a

process of design based on distinct identified principles. A biotechnology

professional development framework including additional essential design

components is proposed as having emerged from the current literature.

Chapter 3 Research Design

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the research design chosen to undertake this study and

discusses the methods used to collect data from identified Queensland educators

(teachers and laboratory technicians) who had previously engaged in biotechnology

professional development over a five year period (2003 - 2007).

The aim of the research study was to identify effective biotechnology

professional development strategies using the Queensland situation as a case study,

and use them to propose a biotechnology PD program. In order to achieve this aim,

each of the intervention PD programs that were identified was mapped against the

theory outlining effective professional development as presented in Chapter 2. An

alternative would have been to have used the theoretical framework and identified

those practices which were theoretically sound, and determine how they were

developed. However, this alternative may have presented a problem through the

potential to introduce bias, as this would to a large extent have been a self-critique as

the researcher developed and delivered many of the professional development

sessions.

As indicated in Chapter 1, the study had three purposes, and seven research

questions:

P1. To document the recent evolution of modern biotechnology education in

schools as part of the changing nature of science education.


been cultivated, to support the integration of biotechnology into

classroom practice?

P2. To examine the process used by secondary schools to adopt and

implement a new science curriculum – modern biotechnology.







P3. To propose an evidence based professional development model for

biotechnology education for science teachers.


necessary?



This study was guided by the belief that the individuals involved with the

biotechnology professional development were people who had feelings, values,

needs, and purposes that affected their participation in any activities (Elbaz, 1981).

The choice of a case study design allowed an intensive, in-depth examination of an

individual’s adoption and implementation processes and discovered the

characteristics of those processes (Sanders, 1981). This included examining and

understanding teachers’ views of these processes (Elbaz, 1981). Multiple sources of

data and multiple methods for gathering data were used to guard against bias and to

improve the trustworthiness of the study (Merriam, 1988).

The chapter proceeds with an overview of the case study research

methodology and methods, including the selection of participants, data sources

(document content analysis, interviews and focus groups), data analysis and

limitations of the methodology. The chapter concludes with the ethical

considerations.

3.2 CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Case studies are a form of qualitative descriptive research which play an

important role in educational research (Mertens, 2005). A case study is a type of

ethnography which “is an in depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity,

event, process, or individuals) based on extensive data collection” (Creswell, 2005,

p. 439). Case-study research employs intensive description and analysis of a

phenomenon or social unit (Merriam, 2002) and examines the relationships of all

variables in a situation, allowing as near complete understanding of the situation as

possible (Palmquist, 2005). Although case studies can reveal richness, depth and

diversity for a particular context, it cannot be assumed that a small number of case

studies will be representative of a given population. However, recurring themes

emerging from a number of case studies exploring the same phenomenon can lead to

confidence in the data.

In this research study, a case-study design as outlined by Yin (2003) was

used to generate data from anecdotal records, teacher interviews, and focus group

dialogue, in order to explore issues pertaining to biotechnology education in schools

and the accompanying skill improvement professional development workshops, with

the aim of proposing an effective professional development model for contemporary

science education.

Yin (2003) identified three types of case studies: exploratory, explanatory,

and descriptive. An exploratory research design tries to precisely define the research

question and form hypotheses. In an exploratory case study, the collection of data

occurs before theories or specific research questions are formulated. Descriptive

research design goes a bit further and tries to describe different characteristics of a

phenomenon, using a theory to guide the collection of data. The explanatory research

design tries to explain a course of events and relate how things happened. According

to Yin (2003), this thesis represents explanatory research because it tries to answer

‘how’ questions. However, because existing literature about biotechnology

professional development is scarce, this research can also be classified as somewhat

exploratory.

To ensure methodological rigour, Yin (2003) recommends the following steps

in the design of a case study:

1. Develop the research questions. Yin (2003) suggests that "how" and

"why" questions are especially appropriate for case study research.

“How” questions focus in on description and documentation (e.g. RQ1 –

RQ4), whereas “why” questions attempt to elicit explanation, theory and

model building (e.g. RQ6).

2. Identify the propositions (if any) for the study. Propositions help narrow

the focus of the study and are statements akin to hypotheses that state

why you think you might observe a specific behaviour or relationship.

All case studies may not lend themselves to the statement of

propositions, especially if they are exploratory. However, Yin (2003)

says the researcher should be able to state the purpose (in lieu of

propositions) of the study and the criteria by which an explanation was

judged successful.

3. Specify the unit of analysis. Specification of the case involves the

identification of the unit of analysis and establishment of the boundaries

as clearly as possible in terms of who is included, the geographic area,

and time for beginning and ending the case. Once the case has been

identified, the unit of analysis can then be described within the context

of the case. For this study the unit of analysis was the school, with the

study undertaking an identification of issues across three schools in

relation to the elements of the biotechnology professional development.

4. Establish the logic linking the data to the propositions. Yin (2003)

suggests that researchers attempt to describe how the data was used to

illuminate the purpose statements. He recommends use of a type of

time-series pattern-matching strategy in which patterns of data are

related to the theoretical propositions.

5. The criteria for interpretation of the findings should be explained. No

statistical tests are typically appropriate for use as a criterion for case

study decisions. Yin (2003) suggests that researchers use judgment to

identify "different patterns [that] are sufficiently contrasting" (p. 27).

Although the study adopted the research design of Yin (2003), the case study

had a retrospective component involving the previous professional development

experiences of the participants. In the context of social and educational research,

retrospective case studies are a valuable exploratory tool. The term refers to those

studies which investigate possible cause-and-effect relationships by observing an

existing condition or state of affairs and searching back in time for plausible causal

factors (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). In effect, researchers ask themselves

what factors seem to be associated with the existing condition or state of affairs. The

researcher is thus examining retrospectively the effects of an event or series of events

on a subsequent outcome, with a view to establishing a causal link between them.

Retrospective research, then, is a method of teasing out possible antecedents or

determinants of events that have happened and cannot, therefore, be engineered or

manipulated by the investigator (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000).

This study was designed as a single case study which used multiple

perspectives (schools A, B and C) to address the research questions and was not

designed as a comparative case study. The instruments used for data collection were

designed specifically to collect data that could identify barriers and critical success

factors that could be incorporated into a biotechnology professional development

framework, and were not designed to gather data which could be used to draw

comparisons between the school sites with respect to their implementation of

biotechnology education. However, the data collected as responses to some interview

questions and as aspects of discussion within the focus groups, do give rise to some

opportunities to compare and contrast the experiences of the schools.

3.3 METHODS

In this study, the focus was on a group of educators and their retrospective

development into modern biotechnology educators over a five year period (2003 -

2007). Their history of modern biotechnology professional development

experiences was documented, and within this history, the evolution of their skill

acquisition was explored. The initial focus of attention was to document the whole

professional development experience available via the analysis of the content of

relevant documents. This professional development experience encompassed a

variety of professional development events offered by a number of providers. An

exploration and examination of specific components of their professional

development experiences then followed, via the techniques of individual and focus

group interviews.

3.3.1 Participants

Three schools were selected to contribute as case studies. The contributing

schools included a large inner city secondary school (school A) located in the state’s

capital city; a large secondary school (school B) located in the state’s second largest

city; and one large regional city secondary school (school C). These schools were

selected on the basis that their staff had attended at least one biotechnology

professional development workshop (emphasizing the acquisition of practical skills)

during the time period studied, and had attempted the implementation of laboratory

learning experiences gained from the professional development.

Individual participants were purposefully selected from these schools, with a

total of 11 individuals from the selected schools accepting an invitation to participate

in the interview and focus group phases of the study. Data gathering continued until

it was determined that the database was saturated, that is, further data did not provide

any new information or insights for the developing categories for analysis and

interpretation (Creswell, 2005). At this point, no further participants were

interviewed.

Selected individuals had combinations of the following characteristics:

1. Was a practicing school science teacher (middle or senior school)

2. Was a practicing laboratory technician within a secondary school

3. Had participated in one or more of the following modern biotechnology

professional development workshops that were each conducted as stand-

alone 1½ hour sessions within the context of a 1 or 2 whole day program:

a. DNA extraction – plant, animal, yeast, bacterial and/or plasmid.

b. Agarose gel electrophoresis – dyes and/or DNA

c. Restriction endonuclease digestion of DNA

d. Liquid column chromatography – dyes and/or protein

e. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

f. Bacterial transformation

g. Protein extraction

h. Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

k. Basic microbiology

l. Bioremediation

m. Water quality testing

n. ELISA (enzyme-linked ImmunoSorbent assay)

o. Plant tissue culture

In order to invite qualified participants from the identified schools to

contribute, an e-mail was sent to selected individuals and followed-up by a phone

call. It was expected that the majority of individuals were not easily contactable by

phone during working hours; therefore e-mail was considered the more appropriate

form of initial contact. An appointment time was subsequently negotiated with those

individuals who elected to contribute to the study.

3.3.2 Data Sources

This case study drew upon four data sources: (1) documents from the public

domain (including web-pages, brochures and syllabus documents/work programs),

(2) one-on-one interviews with key educators who led the implementation of

biotechnology at each school site, (3) focus groups comprising educators (other than

the key educator) involved with biotechnology education and (4) units of teacher

planned work as corroborating evidence.

Documents selected for inclusion in this study were both paper based and

electronic (Internet) based. Despite all of the documents being accessed from the

public domain, they were carefully scrutinised and cross-checked with other

documents to ensure that they represented accurate data. The researcher did not infer

that the public availability of documents ensured their accuracy (Creswell, 2005). All

documents related to professional development opportunities for Queensland

teachers or laboratory technicians, or defined the context within which the

professional development was conducted.

Documents were selected that addressed the following considerations:

1. They enabled an understanding to be gained of the context or domain of

biotechnology education and the role of the document within that context

or domain.

2. They described biotechnology professional development opportunities

that existed during the time frame of the study.

3. They provided information to support the redesign of biotechnology

professional development experiences to make them more effective.

Some documents that were selected for analysis incorporated references to

past events, meaning that the data were constantly presenting updated reports on the

phenomenon being studied. As a result, interest was not primarily in the immediate

impact of each document, instead the interest lay in the document’s context and

significance, as well as how each document helped to define the situation and clarify

meaning.

One-on-one interviews are particularly useful for acquiring the story behind a

participant’s experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around

the topic. Interviews may be useful as follow-up to certain respondents to

questionnaires, e.g., to further investigate their responses (McNamara, n.d.).

A blend of Patton’s (1987) General Interview Guide Approach and

Standardised, Open-ended Interview Approach was used to generate an interview

protocol. Patton’s general interview guide approach ensured that the same general

information was collected from each interviewee (see Appendix 1), thus providing

some focus within the interview, but the semi structured basis still allowed a degree

of freedom and adaptability in seeking insights from the interviewee. A characteristic

of this approach was that topics and issues to be covered in the interview were

specified in an outlined form in advance; the interviewer decided the sequence and

wording of questions in the course of the interview. The standardised, open-ended

interview aspect of the blend ensured that the same open-ended questions were asked

of all interviewees, facilitating faster interviews that were more easily analysed and

compared. Answering the same questions also increased the comparability of

responses as data were complete for each person on the topics addressed in the

interview. Interviewees were encouraged to openly discuss their experiences in the

interviews.

The relative strengths of this blended interview protocol were that the outline

increased comprehensiveness of the data and made the data collection somewhat

systematic for each respondent. The general interview guide approach allowed

flexibility within the interview to explore different professional development

experiences, whilst the standardised, open-ended interview questions allowed the

researcher to target specific characteristics of particular experiences with consistency

between interviewees. Interviews were therefore fairly conversational and

situational.

For the purpose of this study, one teacher at each school was selected to be

part of the one-on-one interview process. The individual interviewed was the

principal teacher behind the school’s biotechnology program. This person was seen

as having the greatest insight into the school’s achievements and experiences and

therefore was potentially the richest source of data. In addition, the laboratory

technician at School C was interviewed because of her extensive experience within

her school district in training and supporting other laboratory technicians in

biotechnology education.

The interview data that were collected related to the educators’ perception of

professional development workshops he/she attended. These workshops were a

subset of the professional development experiences described through the document

content analysis phase of the study. The collection of individual educator data (see

Appendix 1) included background, experience and knowledge questions, and gave

interviewees the opportunity to express opinions, and feelings (Patton, 1990). This

was necessary to ensure the reliability of information as well as provide an

opportunity for participants to bring to light and to clarify any concerns (Creswell,

2005). Interviews were audio recorded as well as written notes being taken. The

interviews were conducted prior to the focus group interviews.

Focus Group Interviews are both a financially and time efficient means to

collect information about issues (Marshall & Rossman, 1999), as they can facilitate

much discussion and group interaction that can lead to beneficial complementary

insights for the researcher. Possibilities are maximised for unanticipated but highly

pertinent matters being raised. (Hopkins 1993). Focus groups can be used to collect

shared understanding, as well as views from specific individuals (Creswell, 2005),

and are “… data rich, flexible, stimulating to respondents, recall aiding, and (are)

cumulative and elaborative” (Fontana & Frey, 1998, p. 365).

They are especially well suited to uncovering and documenting the “why”

behind opinions, and in obtaining much more depth and breadth of analysis from

participants than is available from individual data collection methods (Hesse-Biber

& Leavy, 2006; Krueger, 1994). It was anticipated that the focus group meetings

would expand into narratives in which stances were articulated, explored, and

sometimes challenged by other members of the focus group (Connelly & Clandinin,

1999).

Focus group sessions were conducted at school sites A and B, but not at

school site C due to its isolated geographical location, which made it difficult for the

researcher to visit the school at a time which was acceptable to all potential focus

group participants. At school site A, there were 6 focus group participants, and at

school site B there were 3 participants. Both of these groups also included the

principal teacher who was the subject of the one-on-one interview. This

consideration was deliberate. Initially it was considered to exclude the principal

teacher from the focus group to free the focus group teachers of any influence or

perceived constraints imposed by the presence of the principal teacher. However,

upon initial discussions with staff at schools A and B it was discovered that there

was no opposition from staff to the inclusion of the principal teacher in the focus

groups. The focus groups met after the one-on-one interviews, and it was anticipated

that participants’ stories would provide a different perspective on biotechnology

professional development and teaching to that which was gained from the principal

teacher interviews.

The focus group discussions were structured by first making sure that all

participants were made aware that the purpose of the focus group was to discuss both

positive and negative experiences encountered through undertaking biotechnology

professional development. Prior to arrival at the sessions, participants were asked to

think about all of their positive and negative experiences with biotechnology

professional development, and to make a mental note of their “top three” in each

category to bring to the meeting. This process ensured that before the focus group

discussion began, the participants were prepared with a range of their own

independent experiences to share with the group.

A questioning route/set of steps was developed and implemented for the

focus group interviews in order to impose some structure on the sessions and to limit

the possibility of the discussion heading off on unrelated tangents. Firstly, the

participants were asked to nominate and describe their most significant positive

biotechnology professional development experience and how this experience assisted

in their implementation of learning experiences in their classroom. This process was

conducted in a manner that was mindful of ensuring that all participants had the

opportunity to contribute and also limited the potential for any individual to

dominate the discussion. Detailed discussion was facilitated on each positive

experience nominated.

The same process was then followed for negative experiences encountered by

the focus group participants. The final stage of the focus group sessions was

unstructured open-ended discussion to allow the participants to raise any other issues

related to their biotechnology professional development experiences and the

enablers/barriers to their classroom implementation of learning experiences. The

focus group sessions were audio taped and written notes were also taken.

3.3.3 Data Analysis

In order to answer the research questions, the data analysis was designed to

uncover the content of the documents and the content, characteristics and

organisational aspects of the professional development experiences. Table 3.1

presents the research questions aligned with the data sources and data collection

methods.

The researcher was a prominent participant in the development of many

biotechnology experiences and as a consequence, was familiar with the majority of

documents and professional development events. As a result, the researcher was

“involved” with the concepts, relevance, processual development of the experiences,

and the internal logic of many of the documents. Coding and descriptions used in the

analysis were therefore straight forward, but were subjected to reviews and rechecks

to ensure oversights did not occur and that missing or underrepresented categories

were detected and adjustments made (Altheide, 1996).

TABLE 3.1

Alignment of Data Sources, Data Collection Methods and Research Questions.

Data Source Method Used Research Question

Answered

Intra-organisational Documents

Inter-organisational Documents

Classroom Teacher

Laboratory Technician

Work Program

Unit of Work

Document Analysis

Document Analysis

Interview, Focus Group

Interview, Focus Group

Document Analysis

Document Analysis

1, 2, 6, 7

1, 2, 6, 7

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3, 6, 7

3, 6, 7

Document analysis refers to an integrated and conceptually informed method,

procedure, and technique for locating, identifying, retrieving, and analysing

documents. It can be defined as any symbolic representation that can be recorded or

retrieved for analysis (Altheide, 1996). Relevance, significance and meaning are

thus illuminated. This study was an analysis of the content of relevant documents,

where the process of conducting the document analysis aligned with Altheide’s

(1996) notion of Ethnographic Content Analysis, and Salminen, Lyytikainen and

Tiitinen’s (1999) Process Modelling- the approach to the document analysis

generally flowed from the original idea about the topic to materials relating to the

setting or context.

The process of document content and artifact analysis encompassed several

parts: finding and gaining access to the documents, collecting data from them,

organising the data, and analysing the data. The progression from data collection to

interpretation was reflexive and iterative. The analysis of the documents proceeded

using a qualitatively orientated research approach, with the documents being allowed

to reveal their secrets in an inductive or grounded way. This approach preserved the

processual character of the professional development experiences.

Interview analysis was based on the blended interview protocol for the one-on-

one interviews and the questioning route for the focus group discussions. These were

designed to enable the collection of data on professional development workshop

effectiveness across six main areas:

1. Increasing the educators’ content knowledge

2. Positively impacting on the educators’ pedagogical practice

3. Facilitating links between the workshop and the science curriculum

4. Impacting on the educators’ attitudes towards modern biotechnology

5. Encouraging formation of networks with scientists working in industry

settings, or other science educators

6. Instruction in the use of specialised equipment and technology.

Large amounts of spoken words were audio recorded and needed to be

converted into the written form. Accurate transcriptions were made of all interviews

and focus group discussions. Pauses in a response were noted as these may have

indicated an inability or reluctance to answer a question. Large margins were left on

transcription documents to allow for coding notes during initial analysis. Although

the interviewees were offered the opportunity to view transcripts and check the

accuracy of what was recorded and reported on, no-one accepted the invitation.

The analysis of the interviews and focus group interview data involved re-

storying, which is (Creswell, 2005):

…the process in which the researcher gathers the stories and analyses them for

key elements of the story (e.g. time, place, plot and scene) and then rewrites the

story to place it in a chronological sequence. (p. 480)

Extensive reading, sorting, searching through materials, comparing within

categories, coding, adding key words and concepts, and finally writing mini-

summaries of the categories led to understanding, and allowed the themes to emerge.

The goal was to understand the processes and character of the professional

development experiences, and to derive meaning from them. In particular to gain a

deep understanding and insight into participants’ lived experiences. Emerging

categories included characteristics of social interaction (e.g. time, place, and manner

of activity), which led to questions such as: How was the professional development

done? Who did the professional development? What was its rationale? By answering

these questions the “dramaturgical character” (Goffman, 1959) of the professional

development experiences was captured. That is, the process and meaning of the

interaction.

3.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Although educational research can positively contribute to the decision–

making processes that impact on programming and the curriculum, there are

inevitably issues which arise out of research studies that can limit their ability to

answer all of the questions (Hiebert, 2003). There were limitations identified in this

research study and these are acknowledged by the researcher.

First, as has been reported in Sections 1.1.1 and 3.3.3, the researcher was a

prominent participant in the development of many of the biotechnology experiences

reported on by the participants. As a result, the researcher was “involved” and ran

the risk of data distortion (Creswell, 2005) and thereby introducing bias into the

study. In order to overcome this potential, the researcher did not undertake any direct

analysis of the biotechnology programs, rather, analysing the data collected from the

participants who engaged in these programs. The limiting of data analysis to the use

of data that were actually collected as part of this study, the supporting of researcher

statements by the use of direct quotes from educator participants, and the openness of

the results to scrutiny by participants and research supervisors have also countered

the opportunity for the introduction of personal bias.

Second, as the three schools selected as case studies represented success

stories, the results from these case studies were not necessarily indicative of the

biotechnology professional development experiences of all Queensland secondary

schools and therefore cannot be taken as indicating that all of the barriers and critical

success factors to the uptake of biotechnology education have been considered.

However, as the represented schools have extensive combined professional

development experiences over the time period studied, it is anticipated that the data

collected are capable of informing theoretical perspectives.

Third, owing to time constraints, information was sought and recorded at a

single interview and/or focus group session. It was not possible to provide

participants with additional structured opportunities to share further memories,

thereby potentially casting doubt on the completeness of the data. However, since the

data collection process was conducted as quite exhaustive interviews and

discussions, significant opportunity existed to collect sufficient data, and participants

were invited to submit further data by email or telephone if they felt it could add to

the research findings. No participants took up this invitation.

Fourth, the CBAM model traditionally involves a questionnaire which is

administered at several points during a longitudinal study. This study was not

longitudinal and did not employ a questionnaire. Instead, the CBAM constructs were

considered as themes. In this way, CBAM was only a useful tool for conceptualising

the individual position of each of the participants on the level of use, and stage of

concern continuums. In addition, the successful nature of the schools selected with

respect to biotechnology education meant that concerns were not as significant as

they may have been at other school sites.

Finally, a key limitation of retrospective case study design lies within the

cause and effect relationship being investigated. The researcher cannot know

for certain whether the causative relationship between professional development

and the current level of classroom implementation was identified. It may be that no

single factor was the cause, or a particular outcome may have resulted from different

causes on different occasions. With this research design, whenever a relationship is

discovered, there is the problem of deciding which is the cause and which the effect;

the possibility of reverse causation has to be considered.

3.5 ETHICS

This research study was deemed by Queensland University of Technology

University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) as meeting the

requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and

was awarded ethical clearance. The researcher fully informed the participants of the

exact purpose of the study and the methods that were to be employed. The

interviewees were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary,

anonymous, and able to be withdrawn without penalty at any time. All participants

were given contacts for the researcher and the principal supervisor.

3.6 SUMMARY

This chapter outlined the research design chosen to undertake the study and

proceeded with an overview of the retrospective case study research methodology

and methods, including the selection of participants, data sources (document content

analysis, interviews and focus groups) and data analysis. The chapter outlined the

three phases involved in this research study- the documentation of the biotechnology

professional development, the conduct of interviews and focus groups to obtain

evaluative data, and finally, the analysis of the collected data. The chapter concluded

with a discussion of the limitations of the research and the ethical considerations.

Chapter 4 Results

4.1 PREAMBLE

This chapter reports on the results of the research described in the preceding

chapters of the thesis. This retrospective study has focused on a group of educators

(teachers and laboratory technicians) from three separate schools, and their

development into modern biotechnology educators through their participation in

professional development events over a five year period (2003 - 2007).

First, through the analysis of the content of documents, the whole

biotechnology education experience that has been available to educators within the

nominated time-frame is documented. Second, this analysis is followed by the results

from individual interviews and focus group meetings which explore and evaluate the

biotechnology education experience and, within this history, the evolution of

educator skill acquisition through professional development. A critical examination

then takes place to determine how the educators were influenced to adopt and

implement the new curriculum and how their concerns changed over time in

response to a range of impacting factors. Third, the key components of a

biotechnology professional development model are identified from the literature and

the stories of the participants.

This chapter addresses Research Questions 1-5 and Research Question 7:


been cultivated to support the integration of biotechnology into

classroom practice?









The remaining research question (RQ6), which relates to the necessity for

biotechnology professional development, is considered in Chapter 5 of this thesis.

4.2 CONTEXT

This study is located in Queensland, Australia. Queensland has a unique

system of externally moderated school-based assessment for senior subjects. In

Queensland, senior students are taught and assessed by their schools; they do not

undertake any subject-specific public exams - unlike students in other Australian

states and territories. Currently, what is taught in classrooms in Queensland is

determined by the Queensland Studies Authority (QSA). The Queensland Studies

Authority is a statutory body responsible for the provision of a range of services and

materials relating to syllabuses, testing, assessment, moderation, certification,

accreditation, vocational education, tertiary entrance and research (Queensland

Studies Authority, 2007).

QSA syllabuses set the criteria and standards that teachers use to make

judgments about student achievements. Before schools offer any subject, they must

submit programs of study (Work Programs) to the QSA, outlining how the course

will be delivered and assessed, based on the school’s interpretation of the syllabus.

These programs are reviewed to ensure they meet syllabus requirements, and indicate

that there will be sufficient scope and depth of student learning to reflect the general

objectives and meet the exit criteria and standards. A rigorous quality-assurance

framework ensures reliable and comparable assessment of student achievement

across the state.

One of the QSA's core functions is to facilitate the transition to tertiary places

for Year 12 students. The QSA ranks eligible Year 12 students for tertiary selection

and issues Tertiary Entrance Statements. The decisions are made on the basis of

school based assessment and a common core skills test taken by students. Each

student’s performance is calculated, and an Overall Position (OP) score assigned to

that person. An OP is a student's statewide rank based on overall achievement in

QSA-approved subjects and on their achievement in the Queensland Core Skills

(QCS) Test. The QCS Test does not test particular knowledge of specific Year 12

subjects. It tests the Common Curriculum Elements, a set of generic skills identified

in the Queensland senior curriculum. It indicates how well the student has done in

comparison to all other OP-eligible students in Queensland. A student's individual

QCS Test result is not used on its own in the calculation of their OP - instead, group

results are used as part of a statistical scaling process.

Of relevance to biotechnology education is the QSA’s provision of Senior

syllabuses for Biology, Chemistry, Multi-Strand Science (a broad-based general

science subject) and Science 21 (an inter-disciplinary science subject) as they each

present teachers with opportunities for the inclusion of theoretical and practical

biotechnology learning experiences. In particular, the general objectives of the

Biology syllabus present a significant opportunity for students to engage with

contemporary science. These general objectives are categorised as:

• Understanding biology- This objective provides opportunities for students

to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the key concepts and

ideas of biology.

• Investigating biology- This objective provides opportunities for students

collectively and individually to access, collect, derive and interpret

quantitative and qualitative biological data. Students are required to

critically and creatively question, observe, construct ideas, make choices,

analyse data, make decisions and solve problems to demonstrate the

processes involved in biological investigation. An assessable component

within this general objective is the Extended Experimental Investigation,

where students undertake laboratory-based or fieldwork experiments to

answer an open-ended practical research question.

• Evaluating biological issues- This objective aims to develop in students

the ability to embrace current biological understandings and ideas to

evaluate the effects of their application on present-day and future society.

• Attitudes and values- The focus of this objective is for students to

develop heightened levels of sensitivity to the implications of Biology for

individuals and groups in society.

The three schools (A, B and C) that participated in this study were

government schools in the state of Queensland, Australia, and included one large

inner city secondary school (school A), one large outer metropolitan secondary

school (school B) and one large regional city secondary school (school C). These

schools were selected as they represented a range of educational contexts and their

staff had attended at least one biotechnology professional development workshop

during the time period studied and they had attempted implementation of learning

experiences that they had gained from the professional development.

4.3 RECENT EVOLUTION OF MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

This section provides an identification of the policies and resources that

prevailed when biotechnology was emerging as an important aspect of the

curriculum, and outlines how these have impacted on the schools (A, B and C) that

were the subject of this study. The presented data deals with Research Question 1:


been cultivated to support the integration of biotechnology into

classroom practice?

Document content analysis has enabled the identification of a range of events

and initiatives that have impacted on the evolution of biotechnology education, and

cultivated the need for professional development for educators. While this study is

primarily concerned with a five year period (2003-2007), consideration is given to a

limited period of time either side of this window where the extended time frame

sheds further light on the study. Fourteen impacting events and initiatives have been

identified through the document content analysis. These are listed in chronological

order.

4.3.1 Discussion of Impacting Events and Mechanisms

Fourteen events and programs that have impacted the delivery of biotechnology

programs and contributed to professional development initiatives in science of relevance

to biotechnology are now discussed.

4.3.1.1 CSIRO Outreach Program

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

has produced a range of biotechnology education resources since 1997 to assist

students and teachers to learn more about biotechnology (CSIRO, 2008; Streiner,

personal communication, 2008). In addition, the CSIRO Science Education

Centres, located in the capital city and a large regional city, have offered a number

of school workshops that have provided hands-on learning experiences in the area

of biotechnology (see Table 4.1). Biotechnology workshops were available at the

Centres and these workshops travelled to schools through an initiative titled ‘Lab

on Legs’.

Schools B and C had experienced CSIRO biotechnology practical

experiences at their schools and nominated that these were the first practical,

modern biotechnology activities that their students had engaged with. They

suggested that while they were worthwhile, they lacked the flexibility to be able to

be accessed when it suited the curriculum, and there was no professional

development component for teachers.

We were visited by the CSIRO program a few years ago. It was good, but it

was hard to get them to come when we needed them- when it fitted in with the

content of the unit we were teaching. That was the same with the BioBus

people. Plus, with the CSIRO one, the kids had to pay and we (the teachers)

got nothing out of it. (Tom, School B).

TABLE 4.1:

CSIRO Workshops

Program Name

Activity Description

Grade Time(hrs)

Hands on

Debate CSIRO Centre

School Lab

Gene Technology

in Action

DNA Extraction &

Electrophoresis

8 - 10

1.5

11 - 12

2

Genetic

Engineering

Genetic

Transformation

11 - 12

2

4.3.1.2. Government policy: The Smart State Vision

The Smart State vision was established in 1998 by the Queensland

Government and was about using knowledge, creativity and innovation to maintain

prosperity and quality of life for all Queenslanders (Queensland Government, 2008).

Its intention was to position Queensland at the forefront of the global 'knowledge

economy' to become a regional leader in 'smart' industries, including biotechnology

and health research. It was also about Queensland having a skilled and diversified

economy, known for its ability to discover, develop and apply knowledge.

The Smart State Strategy, which arose from this initiative, had a strong focus

on strengthening the State’s educational foundations. The Queensland Government

recognised that education was one of the drivers which provided the building blocks

that supported innovation to build the physical and human capital of the State and

therefore was committed to improving general education standards by adopting

international best practice in education delivery (Department of the Premier and

Cabinet, 2006).

The Smart State Strategy gave rise to the Science State – Smart State

initiative (Spotlight on Science, 2003 – 2006) whose six-step action plan formed the

model for the development of the strategies used by the Queensland Biotechnology

Education Network. Schools A and C were both part of this network, and as such

were impacted on indirectly by the Smart State vision. In addition, in successfully

applying for a 2006 Showcase Award for Excellence in Schools, School A outlined

their commitment to biotechnology education because of its importance to the Smart

State agenda.

4.3.1.3. Biotechnology Online

Biotechnology Online (Biotechnology Australia, 2005) is a resource

developed in 2001 which aimed to address the need for Australian secondary schools

to have access to balanced, factual, up-to-date information on biotechnology. It has

enabled schools to supplement their current educational resources with an online

resource that contains informational text, case studies, worksheets, online and off-

line activities for students, and advice to teachers to enable them to become familiar

with applications of modern biotechnology. The resource enables teachers and

students to understand the differing points of view on current practices, and the

ethical and moral questions that form a part of the present debate on biotechnology.

The Biotechnology Online School Resource is produced and maintained by

the multi-departmental Australian Government agency Biotechnology Australia and

has been designed to fit with Australian State and Territory Science curricula, with

cross-over into Studies of Society and the Environment to allow for broader

discussion of issues. The first version of Biotechnology Online was produced in

2001 in collaboration with curriculum-development bodies, science teachers and

state and federal education departments. This resource was subsequently updated in

2005.

Each of the three schools in this study used Biotechnology Online as both a

teaching tool and as a resource for students to access in order to research the ethical

concerns which arose out of applications of biotechnology. For example, Rob in

School A argued that the resource enabled students to go beyond the norm and

expand their horizons:

Biotechnology Online is a good resource for broadening horizons for what

biotech actually is. (Rob, School A).

In addition, School A hosted a meeting in 2007 at which a diverse group of

experienced and pre-service teachers and teacher educators conducted a review for

Biotechnology Australia of the Biotechnology Online School Resource.

4.3.1.4 Technology, Maths and Science Centres of Excellence (TMSCE)

In 2001, the State Education Department established eight Technology,

Maths and Science Centres of Excellence in a range of primary and secondary school

sites throughout the state (Education Queensland, 2002). School sites were selected

where there was a particular focus on the curriculum areas of Mathematics and/or

Science, and on using the latest forms of technology as key learning tools. These

centres were places where students could enhance their interest and achievements in

technology, maths and science through an extensive array of programs and activities.

As sources of innovation and enrichment, the centres were intended to provide

opportunities for Queensland students and teachers to move to the forefront of

modern schooling and play a leading role in shaping science and maths education of

the future. The Centres ceased receiving funds in 2005 after a statewide independent

evaluation of their achievements indicated limited achievement of outcomes.

The aim of the centres was to improve student outcomes in technology, maths

and science and to capture students’ interests and imagination, particularly in the

middle years of schooling. The centres were intended to provide opportunities to:

• improve student performance in maths and science

• increase student participation rates

• extend students’ experience and expertise with the latest forms of

technology

• expand teachers’ knowledge base.

One of the TMSCEs provided funding in July 2002 and January 2003 that

enabled the development of practical biotechnology learning experiences and the

accompanying manuals. These resources were subsequently disseminated to a

number of schools, including Schools A, B and C, through professional

development. Ultimately, another State High School became a TMSCE and provided

further professional development to all three schools as well as supporting Schools A

and C as members of the Queensland Biotechnology Education Network.

4.3.1.5 The Queensland Science Summit

In 2002, the roles of science and science education were discussed around the

state, leading to the Science Summit which was held in Brisbane and chaired by the

state’s Chief Scientist. Following that meeting, a Steering Committee comprising

experts in science, industry, education and government prepared a report that set out

key principles for a new approach to science education in Queensland which would

give students access to the opportunities provided by science and technology in the

modern world and the knowledge economy. That report was used as the basis for a

renewed vision for science education, Science State – Smart State (Queensland

Government, 2003).

This summit was important to the subject schools in that the renewed vision

for science which it initiated, helped to bring biotechnology education to the fore and

laid the basis for the opportunities in biotechnology education which were seized by

these schools.

4.3.1.6 BEU/ BEC

Initial discussions regarding funding to develop biotechnology education took

place with one of the TMSCEs in May 2002, with the first funding provided in July

2002. At that point, the fledgling project was known as the Biotechnology Education

Unit (BEU). Follow-up funding was provided by the same TMSCE in January 2003

to enable the development of practical biotechnology learning experiences and the

accompanying manuals. At that time, BEU underwent a name change to the

Biotechnology Education Centre (BEC).

In July 2003 the TMSCE that had provided the funding was split into 3 sites,

with each site assuming responsibility for one of each of the mathematics, science,

and technology components of the original TMSCE. The site of the Biotechnology

Education Centre assumed responsibility for the science component. Funding was

provided to fund a full time coordinator at this site and to cover ancillary costs. July

2004 saw further funding granted for the coordinator. In December 2004, the site’s

Biotechnology Education Centre was recognised as a key component of the TMSCE

project in Queensland.

Additional funding was made available to BEC from the local City Council in

term 4, 2003 and in term 1, 2004. This funding was granted to enable business

scoping and infrastructure development to take place. BEC developed further

resources and provided professional development on biotechnology education to

schools, including Schools A, B and C.

4.3.1.7 Spotlight On Science

From the Science State - Smart State initiative, the Queensland Education

department developed a six-step action plan (Spotlight on Science) as part of a vision

for improving Queensland science education and enhancing community

understanding of the role science plays in everyday life (Queensland Government,

2003). It was designed to give Queensland students the science education and skills

needed for the twenty-first century. The action plan aimed to increase the scientific

literacy of Queenslanders, increase the number of Queensland students aspiring to

careers in science, and improve the overall quality of science education in the Smart

State.

A high-level task force was set up to implement this action plan, chaired by a

prominent science educator known as the Queensland Science Education

Ambassador. This broad-based task force included members from government,

industry, education providers, research organisations and teacher associations.

Through the task force, the Government established new approaches to bringing

together educators and other important community, industry and government sectors.

The action plan targeted students, teachers and the learning environment, and

sought to strengthen partnerships. To make students aware of the importance of

modern science to their future world, there was a determination to attract and retain

outstanding science educators at all levels.

The task force oversaw an ambitious program of professional development

for science teachers, including Science Links programs and district forums. The State

Government established networks of educators to promote best practice in teaching

and instituted prestigious awards to recognise leaders in the field: Westfield

Premier’s Educational Scholarships, New Professional Scholarships, Premier’s

Smart State Teacher Excellence Scholarships, and Peter Doherty Awards for

Excellence in Science and Science Education. Two individuals at each of Schools A

and C were recipients of awards and Schools A and C both achieved Science Success

School Awards in recognition of their engagement with contemporary science

education (Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 2008).

The Queensland State Government allocated $14 million towards this

comprehensive vision for science education, which integrated existing initiatives and

developed new directions from 2003 - 2006.

4.3.1.8 Current Biology Syllabus

A Biology Senior Syllabus was launched in 2004, for general implementation

in 2005 and was amended in 2006. It replaced a Biological Science Senior Syllabus

(1998). As well as a revised structure for the General Objectives, the new Biology

Syllabus included subtle changes to the wording of the Rationale and Global Aim,

where references were made to future scenarios and emerging issues and their

relatedness to Biology. In addition, the Attitudes and Values General Objective also

had a subtle change in wording, to reflect concerns with implications of science

instead of concerns with impacts of science (Queensland Studies Authority, 2004).

The current Biology Syllabus has included the General Objective, Evaluating

Biological Issues. This objective aims to develop the ability in students to embrace

current biological understandings and ideas in order to be able to evaluate the effects

of their application on present-day and future society.

The previous Biological Science course structure was based on 9 Core Topics

which had a compulsory time allocation. One of these Core Topics- Genetics,

provided schools with a limited opportunity to replace traditional learning

experiences with modern biotechnology based learning experiences. In this old

syllabus, once the compulsory time allocation for the Core Topics had been satisfied,

schools could then choose to spend the remainder of the course time on Elective

Topics (Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, 1998). This

presented an additional, albeit limited opportunity for schools to engage with

theoretical and practical based biotechnology learning experiences.

In the current Biology Syllabus, 6 Key Concepts have replaced the 9 Core

Topics and schools are encouraged to develop a course of study that reflects the

interconnectedness of these Key Concepts. Schools may choose to do this in a

variety of ways through the development of contextualised, thematic or problem-

based units. This flexibility in the current Syllabus in allowing schools to choose and

develop units that are relevant to students and use local resources, has opened up a

significant potential for schools to now engage with biotechnology education.

In addition, the current syllabus has appended a sample biotechnology unit

entitled Biotechnology – Fantastic New Technology or Certain Disaster? It is

suggested as a 30 hour unit, developed for use with a Year 12 class. The unit builds

upon knowledge previously developed in relevant Key Concepts and Key Ideas.

Each of the subject schools confirmed that they had increased the

biotechnology content of their Senior Biology course in line with the increased

opportunities presented by the 2004 Biology Senior Syllabus. In addition, Schools A

and C nominated that they had also incorporated some theoretical and practical based

biotechnology learning experiences into their Chemistry programs in anticipation of

greater flexibility being written into the Chemistry Syllabus that was being trialled at

the time of this study and which had a significant number of design similarities to the

Biology Syllabus.

4.3.1.9 Australian Biotechnology Education Network (ABEN)

The inaugural meeting of the Australian Biotechnology Education Network

took place on Thursday 30 September 2004, at Greenmount Beach Resort,

Coolangatta, Queensland (Schibeci, 2004a). At that meeting, ABEN was defined, its

proposed role was outlined, and the potential positive outcomes for Australian

Biotechnology education were discussed. Guidelines for ABEN membership were

drawn up and a list of specific actions to be undertaken by each participant was

agreed upon. A proposal was put forward to seek funding from a variety of sources

to enable the concept to move forward. No funding was able to be secured and no

further meetings took place.

The concept of a Biotechnology Education Network was taken and used as a

basis for the formation of the Queensland Biotechnology Education Network of

which Schools A and C were members.

4.3.1.10 Queensland Biotechnology Education Network

The Queensland Biotechnology Education Network (QBEN) was formed in

February 2005 and operated until 2007. QBEN strongly supported the Spotlight on

Science initiative, and as such developed its strategies to align with Spotlight on

Science’s six-step action plan (Author Unknown, 2005). QBEN’s six-step action

plan was developed to:

1. Improve the scientific literacy of Queenslanders

2. Encourage more young people to aspire to careers in science

3. Improve the overall quality of science education in the Smart State.

Ten foundation schools were invited to join QBEN based on their

commitment to Biotechnology in the science curriculum and active involvement in

Professional Development for staff in this area of science. Two more schools

subsequently joined the network. As part of QBEN, these schools gained the ability

to network with like-minded educators, share ideas and grow together professionally.

Opportunities and information were freely shared throughout the network.

Geographically, this group of twelve schools covered the majority of the state. Each

school, as a member of QBEN, served as a resource to their local and wider district,

providing Professional Development activities and advice for schools wishing to

integrate biotechnology into the curriculum.

The QBEN network originated with a structure of dependant support from a

Technology, Maths and Science Centre of Excellence. As schools identified with a

specific area of biotechnology, they sought additional expert assistance including

tertiary and industry links. This growth allowed the school to become independent

and to act as a resource for other schools in that area of interest. Areas of

specialisation included Plant Tissue Culture, Forensics, Molecular Biology,

Aquaculture and Biomedical Sciences This process was aimed at ensuring the

sustainability of the QBEN project.

QBEN was strongly focused on inspiring science- making it exciting,

fascinating and relevant. This began with inspiring the Science teachers of

Queensland. The prime activity of the network was hands-on professional

development supported by technical advice and resources. At that time, supported

biotechnology professional development was not readily available from any other

source in Queensland.

At the QBEN launch, an initial grant was pledged from Spotlight on Science,

with a further grant made in April 2005 from the Curriculum Strategy Branch

(Science) for equipment for the twelve ‘hub’ schools. This funding was shared

equitably among the schools, which included Schools A and C.

4.3.1.11 BioBus - The Travelling Biotechnology Exhibition

The BioBus was a mobile biotechnology exhibition travelling throughout

Queensland, visiting schools and communities from 2005 - 2007. It was another

Smart State initiative through which the Queensland Government demonstrated its

ongoing commitment to strengthening the State’s biotechnology industry. The

BioBus also helped to demystify some of the perceptions surrounding biotechnology

and ensure that Queensland communities better understood the significance of how

biotechnology discoveries could benefit all Queenslanders.

The BioBus primarily travelled to rural and regional Queensland areas to

enable students from schools all over Queensland to have the opportunity to

participate in classroom activities and to explore the range of interactive and

informative exhibits. Both Schools B and C were visited on two occasions by the

BioBus.

4.3.1.12 Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics

The Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics

(ASISTM) Project commenced in 2005 and is part of the Australian Government's

Boosting Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics Teaching (BISTMT)

Programme. It has had a significant impact on both biotechnology resources and

professional development. This seven-year Project is aimed at identifying and funding

school cluster initiatives, with expected outcomes including the fostering and

development of innovation in schools, and promoting world class learning and teaching.

Three significant biotechnology projects have been funded in Queensland through this

initiative, with one of these projects based at School C and described on the ASISTM

(2008) website as:

A Science Experience for the New Millennium- conducted at School C’s

Biotechnology Education Centre with partner organisations the Australian

Institute of Marine Science, a local University and regional schools. This

project has transformed the traditional science classroom into an interactive

laboratory, and hosted numerous biotechnology professional development

sessions for teachers and laboratory technicians.

4.3.1.13 Biotech Babble

This free newsletter is published by a Biotechnology Education Consultant

and commenced as a monthly publication in 2006 and evolved into a quarterly

publication. It was conceived to inform, educate and support education professionals

(both teachers and laboratory technical staff) to ensure the provision of quality

biotechnology and microbiology learning experiences for students. It is emailed to a

mailing list of over 300 Queensland educators, as well as being available to

download at www.biotek.com.au. All of the participants in this study subscribed to

this publication and several mentioned that they appreciated the content of the

articles as the subject matter was not readily available in any current Biology text

book.

I’ve received Babble since the first issue. There’s been some great ideas for

student pracs (practical activities) and the background notes have covered stuff

that’s not in our Biology textbook. (Tom, School B).

The technical notes have sometimes made experiments easier to prepare. (Joan,

School C).

4.3.1.14 Science Education Strategy

The Spotlight on Science action plan has been followed by the Science

Education Strategy 2006-2009. The major focus of the Science Education Strategy is

currently the provision of targeted high quality professional development for primary

and secondary teachers of science. This is being approached in four ways, one of

which is Working with University Partners, where six Science Centres of Innovation

and Professional Practice (SCIPP) were established to facilitate professional

development for teachers, principals and school curriculum leaders in collaboration

with university partners (Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 2007). The

SCIPPs were selected to be based in a cluster of schools, both primary and

secondary. At the time of writing, each SCIPP works with a partner university to

deliver the professional development needs of teachers within each cluster. The

SCIPPs also work with other clusters, sharing ideas, programs and expertise. SCIPPs

bring together teachers, students, universities, research bodies, Government

departments and science-based industries and employers. They draw on these

different fields of expertise to design and deliver innovative professional

development. School C was identified as a SCIPP and has continued to deliver

biotechnology professional development.

4.3.2 Participating School Profiles

The following overview of the biotechnology education profiles of the

schools involved in this study has been assembled from information provided by the

educators during interviews and focus groups. These profiles provide an overview of

the context in which the study has been conducted.

School A

School A is a moderate sized high school, catering for an established inner

city suburban district of the capital city. Biotechnology is an important component of

the science curriculum at school A. Through the Secondary School Renewal

Program, biotechnology was chosen as a specialist area of science study at the school

because of its importance and potential contribution to the growth of the State’s

economy and the political agenda. Equipment appropriate to biotechnology was

purchased and in 2001/2002, staff with expertise in the area of biotechnology was

employed. As a member of the Queensland Biotechnology Education Network, the

staff have delivered Biotechnology PD and established a loans scheme for other high

schools in their region.

An “Academy of Science”, specialising in biotechnology and Biology, was

established at the school in 2002 to provide accelerated pathways for academically

high achieving students in Years 8, 9 and 10. Biotechnology units and practicals

were also embedded in several electives and the school has endeavoured to

incorporate biotechnology as a major context for their new Senior Biology,

Chemistry and Science 21 programs. A partnership was established with a local

university to enable capable senior students to gain credit towards a Bachelor of

Biotechnology or Bachelor of Bio-molecular Science degree through university

modules embedded in the curriculum.

In 2005, School A was awarded the status of Specialised School of Science in

Biotechnology by Education Queensland, through a policy initiative titled Spotlight

on Science. In addition, in 2006 the school received a Department of Education

‘Showcase Award for Excellence in Innovation’ for their incorporation of

biotechnology into their science programs.

School B

School B is located in a rapidly expanding region of the state’s second largest

city, which has a developing biotechnology and health science industry.

Biotechnology is an expanding component of the science curriculum at this school.

The staff and students consider biotechnology ‘exciting’ and enjoy the learning

experiences, with the students relating well to this area of science. The key teachers

have continued to research appropriate learning experiences in biotechnology to

ensure the continued expansion of biotechnology education at the school.

Learning experiences in biotechnology are engaged with by students in the

Biology and year 10 Science courses, with some students electing to use

biotechnology laboratory techniques to undertake Extended Experimental

Investigations (laboratory-based or fieldwork experiments to answer an open-ended

practical research question), which are an assessable practical component of these

courses. The Senior Biology course engages with biotechnology in the Disease,

Genetics and Evolution units, and Year 10 Science in the Disease unit.

The school is fairly well resourced with respect to biotechnology equipment,

with purchases being made out of the school science budget over time as part of their

commitment to engage with contemporary biology, and some equipment was

acquired as a gift from a pathology laboratory. The school has had no financial or

collaborative support from the tertiary sector or individuals from industry.

School C

School C is located in a large provincial city. Biotechnology is a significant

component of the science curriculum at School C, with both staff and students

enjoying and valuing biotechnology education. Over time, the science department

has consciously and deliberately charted a path along a contemporary science

continuum that has required a change of staff beliefs, values and teaching practices,

as well as a significant commitment of both personal and school time.

The staff made a conscious effort to be part of all new syllabus trials, which

precipitated a massive overhaul of Work Programs to enable the inclusion of

biotechnology, using real world contexts, and a challenging hands-on inquiry

process, in line with research literature (Tytler, 2007) and school/science department

beliefs and values. In addition, the teaching staff has been conscious of developing

student scientific literacy.

Biotechnology is written into the Biology, Chemistry, Multistrand (general

science), Marine and year 10 Science work programs. In terms of assessment, there

is a range of assessment items used, including traditional exam questions, oral

presentations and reports on experimental investigations.

The initial impetus for change was brought about by financial support from a

State Government initiative. In addition, the school principal contributed from school

funds. These funding windfalls were supplemented with significant funds from an

Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics (ASISTM)

grant. The school is now a Science Centre of Innovation and Professional Practice

(SCIPP) and hence is expected to facilitate professional development for teachers,

principals and school curriculum leaders in collaboration with university partners.

These funding opportunities and the links developed with the local university as a

result of the ASISTM project and SCIPP have enabled the school to become well

resourced and supported with respect to biotechnology equipment.

Over the past two years, the staff at the school has been responsible for the

provision of professional development for teachers and laboratory technicians from

both public and private schools within their regional network. The school also

administers a loans scheme, where biotechnology equipment is available to local

schools at no cost and the school laboratory technician provides the appropriate

technical support.

4.3.3 Summary of Impacting Events and Initiatives

A summary of the events and initiatives impacting on the uptake of

biotechnology education within schools A, B and C for the time period 2003 – 2007

is presented in Table 4.2. It is worth noting that apart from the Biology Syllabus

there were no curriculum materials that could be included in this study which

supported the uptake of biotechnology.

It can be seen from Table 4.2 that School C was comprehensively engaged

with the impacting events and initiatives, whereas Schools A and B were engaged to

a lesser extent. Teachers from each of the schools attended BEC and QBEN

professional development and were proactive in using Biotechnology Online

resources in their teaching as well as subscribing to Biotech Babble for additional

resources. This has supported their actions to increase the content of their Senior

Biology courses.

TABLE 4.2:

Summary of Impact of Events and Mechanisms on Subject Schools.

Impacting Events and Initiatives School

A

School

B

School

C

Visited by CSIRO Outreach Program

Biotechnology Online Used for Teaching/Learning

Attended BEC Professional Development

Spotlight on Science Education Awards- School Educator

Current Biology Syllabus

QBEN Member

Attended QBEN Professional Development

Visited by the BioBus

ASISTM Funded Project

Staff Received Biotech Babble

Identified as a SCIPP

4.4 THE PROCESS OF ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

This section deals with Research Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5:







These research questions are addressed through data collected from a group

of 11 educators (six from School A, three from School B and two from School C),

via focus group discussions and interviews, where they shared their stories about

their individual professional development journeys and changes in their thinking

with regard to the implementation of a new science curriculum. Their individual and

collective experiences were also explored with regard to the implementation process

undertaken for the new curriculum.

4.4.1 Factors Influencing the Adoption of the New Curriculum.

This section relates to Research Question 2. Additional rigour and insight has

been added into the study by layering the analysis through representing the data

using interconnected levels of themes (Creswell, 2005). The interviews and

discussions that occurred as part of this study have identified thirteen minor themes

that influenced educators in their uptake and implementation of contemporary

biotechnology education. These thirteen minor themes have been organised into four

major themes and where appropriate factors which impacted on these themes have

been described. These results are summarised in Table 4.3.

The order of the themes listed does not imply that a hierarchy of importance

was attributed to them by the subjects or that it is a representation of the frequency of

their nomination, but rather reflects the order in which they emerged during the

interviews and focus groups, due both to the order of questions asked and the logical

progression of the discussions.

TABLE 4.3:

Themes and Factors in the Biotechnology Stories of Educators

Major Themes Minor Themes

Factors

Resources Physical Equipment Teaching/Learning Environment

Time Program Writing Learning Experience Development Assessment Design Skills Development Funding Applications

Personnel Laboratory Technician Key Teacher Critical Friend

Knowledge/Skill Acquisition

Professional Development

Background Knowledge Skills Development

Constant Updating Syllabus

Work Program Unit of Work Learning Experiences Sourcing

Catering for Student Diversity Assessment Pedagogy

The Human Element

Teacher Training Cognitive Challenge Coping with a Paradigm Shift

The major themes, minor themes and factors listed in Table 4.3 are discussed

individually in each of the following sections.

4.4.1.1. Resources

The first theme emerging from the data was “Resources”. These included

Physical, Time and Personnel.

Physical: Each of the schools in this study was fortunate in their level of

biotechnology equipment resourcing and the appropriateness of the physical

environment.

Equipment: The biotechnology equipment and the number of each item for

each of the schools at the time of this study are listed alphabetically in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4:

Biotechnology Equipment Possessed by Each School

Equipment Item School

A

School

B

School

C

Supporting

Consumable Items

Horizontal Electrophoresis Tank

6 4 12 Agarose, TAE buffer, DNA, Enzymes, sample loading dye, DNA stain

Incubator 1 2 1 -

Microcentrifuge 1 1 1 Microcentrifuge tubes

Micropipette 6 6 6 Micropipette tips

Platform Shaker - - 1 -

Power Source 6 4 14 -

Spectrophotometer 1 6 - Cuvettes

Thermal Cycler 1 - 1 Tubes, enzymes, dNTPs

UV Light Source 1 1 1 -

Vertical Electrophoresis Tank

- 1 2 Pre-cast gels, TGS buffer, sample loading dye, size standards, protein stain

Vortex Mixer - - 1 -

Waterbath 3 1 1 Waterbath sample floats

This list also itemises the consumable items held by the schools to support the

use of the equipment in the classroom. All schools could be considered to be well

resourced with respect to the essential biotechnology equipment as outlined by Moss

(2007). This enabled them to undertake a variety of classroom learning experiences.

Teaching/Learning Environment: Each of the schools had existing, dedicated

laboratory facilities that had fixtures that enabled the seamless uptake of

biotechnology practical activities. The biotechnology teaching laboratories at each of

the schools were inspected by the researcher and found to comply with Physical

Containment Level 1 (Standards Australia, 2002), which is required for

biotechnology practical learning experiences which involve the genetic manipulation

of organisms (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, 2000).

Time: Each school site nominated that a significant commitment of time had been

required in order that they could become biotechnology engaged. The schools

provided teachers with time for program writing and to plan, which has needed to be

reflective, ongoing and long term; to develop learning experiences and assessment;

to be trained, and to write funding applications. In addition, teachers needed to be

prepared to contribute a significant amount of their own time to ensure success. Susie

(School A) felt from her school’s experience that:

Becoming a biotechnology ‘engaged’ school should be realized through the

implementation of a 5-year plan. Schools shouldn’t try to do it all at once as it is

overwhelming!

Program Writing: Since biotechnology education is in its infancy in

Australian schools and guiding documents are not readily available, each of the

studied schools acknowledged that they had undertaken program writing to enable

the uptake of biotechnology education. As offered by Rob (School A):

You need an opportunity to sit down and write a program…If you don’t have that,

biotech won’t get put in.

None of the schools nominated whether in writing these programs, attention had

been given to contemporary investigative orientations in curricula and whether these

programs were embedded in pedagogical practices that recognised how students

learn. These schools anticipated that program writing would continue to be a

required activity for some time to come as no formal biotechnology program is

known to be in draft form.

Learning Experience Development: Some biotechnology learning activities

required time for development, while others were able to be sourced. However, the

latter invariably needed to be adapted to suit an individual educator’s context. This

necessitated a substantial apportionment of time to ensure success for students with

the learning experience as it generally required trialling and further modification.

Susie (School A) felt from her own experience that:

There are biotechnology learning experiences out there if you look for them, but they

mostly need to be adapted to suit your program. This takes time.

Assessment Design: Assessment instruments used by the schools to assess

biotechnology student learning were ad hoc and piecemeal, mostly designed on site

to suit the particular school’s needs. There were no banks of assessment instruments

to draw from. The conception, design, trialling and ongoing modification of

assessment instruments posed a significant drain on teacher time.

Skills Development: New laboratory skills (e.g. micropipetting, gel loading)

were invariably encountered and learnt at biotechnology professional development

opportunities. However, mastery of any newly acquired skill required practice over

time.

Funding Applications: Schools A and C acquired a significant amount of

their biotechnology equipment, resources and staff support through successful

funding applications. This required a significant time allocation to source, identify

and apply for the funding. In addition, the funding required ongoing and follow-up

reporting on the expenditure.

Personnel: Discussion of personnel focused on the roles of the laboratory

technician, key teacher and critical friend.

Laboratory Technician: The consensus of opinion of educators at each school

strongly indicated that an appropriately trained, knowledgeable and valued

laboratory technician was a fundamental requirement for their school’s effective

ongoing engagement with biotechnology education. As offered by Jane (School A):

A labby who understands or who has experience, is a valuable asset- a must

have.

The teachers felt that it was essential that their laboratory technicians were ‘on-

board’ from the commencement of their programs and that they were able to

experience all the professional development opportunities alongside the teaching

staff. Not only were these individuals valued for their roles in the management of

learning experiences, through setting them up and ensuring that they worked, they

were, in some cases, a valued member of the teaching team by being present in

classrooms to assist the teacher where required.

School C’s Head of Science, Fran, felt that their laboratory technician was

instrumental in their level of engagement with biotechnology, and was the ‘go to’

person for teachers in their biotechnology laboratory program as she possessed

several years of practical experience in the laboratory techniques from previous

employment in a research laboratory.

If you give Joan a topic she goes and finds an activity. She is ahead of me and

the teachers! (Fran, School C).

Joan revealed that over the past two years, she had conducted formal ‘train

the trainer’ sessions in DNA extractions and electrophoresis for her peers from both

public and private schools in their local regional network. These schools had adopted

aspects of the biotechnology program from Joan’s school (School C). Joan also

acknowledged that she administered a loans scheme, where biotechnology equipment

was available to local schools that pay for consumables at cost, but no equipment

loans costs. Initially Joan went out with the equipment to run student learning

activities. Now that she has trained the other laboratory technicians, schools borrow

the equipment and use it as required, with Joan still available if needed. There was

no charge to any schools for Joan’s time.

School B’s teachers noted that while their original laboratory technician had

been at their school for some time, they did not realise that she had skills from

previous industry experience that had been unrecognised, yet were essential to their

school’s progressive uptake of this contemporary science.

I don’t know how it would work if our labbie wasn’t on-board. Ours (laboratory

technician) ran one-on-one sessions on microbiology and electrophoresis for

existing staff. She also in-serviced each new teacher... When she left, we were

fortunate in that her replacement was a young university graduate who had

biotechnology experience and skills from her university course. (Tom, School

B).

Key Teacher: It was expressed at each site that it was important to have a key teacher

on site who was either experienced in biotechnology or who was willing to put in the

extra time and personal commitment to become the resident ‘expert’. Paul (School

A) felt that this was essential:

Having someone with Susie’s breadth of experience was absolutely essential.

(Paul, School A).

In addition to any coordination time (available at schools A and C), these individuals

spent a lot of their own time (lunch breaks, before and after school) setting up and

trialling experiments and training staff. As pointed out by Jane from School A:

She (Susie) showed us a number of times what to do. It took more than once to

be shown how to use the equipment. (Jane, School A).

In addition, where possible the key teachers also offered their services as an extra

teacher in laboratory classes to ensure the success of the learning experience and to

maximise the participation and enjoyment of the students.

Critical Friend: The educators defined a critical friend as being anyone from

a laboratory technician who helped to run activities in the classroom, a fellow

teacher who was jointly experiencing the same issues, through to a technical, content

or pedagogy ‘expert’. Fran, from School C was very definite about the significant

value of a critical friend:

Your greatest resource is a critical friend. (Fran, School C).

While several other educators stated that they needed ongoing access to a ‘critical

friend’.

Teachers at each of the schools studied had the availability of ongoing access

to an external ‘critical friend’ who was able to offer the provision of technical

support, resources, professional development, in-class support and advice on

pedagogy.

4.4.1.2. Knowledge/Skill Acquisition

The second theme emerging from the data was “Knowledge/Skill

Acquisition”, with Professional Development and Constant Updating presenting as

factors.

Professional Development: All of the educators were of the definite opinion that

both content and laboratory skills should be addressed in any biotechnology PD,

along with a significant hands-on experimental component that can be directly

transferred into the classroom.

Hands-on is a must. (Tom, School B).

It was felt that any PD should not be done in isolation; it should be followed

up with some sort of consolidation time. In addition, syllabus links must be made

obvious to the educators attending the PD.

Getting into the syllabus and seeing where it (biotechnology education) fits is a

very big part of what you need to do. The success of it is if the teachers can find

where they can put it in their program. If you don’t tell them then sometimes

they don’t know. If you don’t even suggest that in your PD then they go away

with nothing. It needs to be linked into the syllabus (Marg, School A).

There have been a few times we have been to a PD and seen experiments that

we have not implemented as we haven’t seen where we can put them. (Jane,

School A).

Staff at School C related that whole staff ‘in-house’ PD delivered by an

outside provider had proven to be the most effective form of PD for them, as all of

the staff were able to appreciate the learning experiences being successfully

undertaken in their own teaching laboratories. In addition, staff appreciated the

‘expert enthusiasm’. They suggested that one day of PD was not sufficiently

effective and that biotechnology PD should be run over two consecutive days to

maximise the benefits and to minimise costs.

School B maintained that any included activities must realistically be able to

be engaged with in the school laboratory and that cost needs to be acknowledged as

an important consideration for schools. The PD activities must also be adaptable to

broaden the ability to undertake them in a range of school contexts. Where possible,

cheaper mock/generic versions of learning experiences should also be outlined in PD

programs. Regardless of the learning experiences, extensive safety advice and advice

on standard operating procedures should be addressed.

Julie (School A) offered that if you look at a lot of the science centre courses

in the UK, they are all 4 days.

They are all quite extended, where the first 2 ½ days you learn what you need to

do for your 10 weeks, then you come back 5 months later and you have another

1½ days to review, reflect, talk about it. Primary Connections is done the same

way.

Susie (School A) suggested that as well as participants being provided with a

resource package at the PD event, the concept of PD should extend outside the

bounds of instructional interaction- participants should be given a pre-PD package to

familiarise themselves with prior to the face-to-face sessions.

There was a concensus across the schools that the ‘train the trainer’ model of

professional development was not ideal for biotechnology education.

With something like biotechnology, a one-day train-the-trainer PD just does not

work. You need to have school resources and facilities at the same level as that

used in train-the-trainer model to be able to train people up to the same level

and even then you don’t achieve the same result. (Paul, School A).

Of considerable concern to the educators was that this model of PD is only as

good as the ‘trained’ presenter. Under this model there is a dilution of the ‘passion’

of the initial trainer, and since biotechnology education is potentially confronting and

daunting to a significant number of science educators it is an advantage to have an

almost ‘evangelical’ person conducting the PD. If schools do elect to engage with the

train the trainer model, the in-house trainer would need to be very carefully and

strategically selected and trained to ensure the maintenance of passion and to avoid

disenfranchising other members of staff.

In addition, as offered by Neil (School A):

The problem is finding the time to train everyone else, and not worrying about

covering your own classes.

Both the science teachers and the laboratory technicians felt that it was

essential that laboratory technicians attend biotechnology PD as they were key

people in ensuring the success of the uptake of learning experiences in the schools.

The laboratory technicians themselves felt that it was valuable to be professionally

developed in the student learning experiences along with the teachers, as with

biotechnology, they found themselves spending more time in the classroom as a

‘teaching’ member than with other science topics. They also felt that they required

additional PD and support as a specialised group, as they had further PD

requirements to the teachers in that they needed to know more aspects of any

particular learning experience, as they were often required to trouble shoot and/or

improvise when invited into the classroom.

We also need to know all the preparation of learning experiences, setting up and

clean-up - what goes on behind the scenes. (Joan, School C).

However, one teacher (Tom, School B) felt that teachers also needed the preparation

knowledge and skills in case of the laboratory technician’s absence or change of

personnel.

Although it was felt by the laboratory technicians that the ‘ethics’ aspect of

biotechnology and the socio-scientific arguments were good to know from a personal

perspective, it was not seen as being as relevant as the hands-on learning

experiences, as it didn’t require laboratory technicians to prepare the learning

experiences or have contact with students.

Background Knowledge: Most of the educators identified that they

commenced their engagement with biotechnology education with a relatively poor

knowledge and understanding of this field of science. Since contemporary

biotechnology is still a relatively new area of education and it advances so rapidly,

much of the content has not yet made it into school textbooks, making it difficult to

access information written at an appropriate level. This highlighted the importance of

including background content and notes in PD sessions as this may be the only

access to appropriately written content available to the educators.

Skills Development: It was recognised by both the teachers and laboratory

technicians that a particular set of practical skills were required to undertake most

biotechnology practical learning experiences. These skills were often novel, even for

experienced science educators. Consequently, the need for a significant hands-on

component as part of biotechnology PD was identified.

Constant Updating of Knowledge and Skills: It was strongly felt by the educators

that they needed a source for updates. Access to ongoing professional development

opportunities were desired, along with opportunities to access and engage with

institutional lecture series, visiting scientists (especially younger ‘real world’ ones)

and outreach programs.

4.4.1.3. Syllabus

The third theme emerging from the data was “Syllabus”, with Work Program,

Unit of Work, Learning Experiences, Assessment and Pedagogy presenting as

factors.

There was general agreement that existing syllabus documents had the scope

to enable schools to engage with both theoretical and practical biotechnology

learning experiences and that existing work programs in most schools could undergo

minor adjustments to accommodate biotechnology. As schools were more readily

incorporating biotechnology into their work programs across a range of subjects, it

was felt that there was a significant need to assist teachers in interpreting the syllabus

documents and highlighting opportunities that existed for the inclusion of further

biotechnology learning experiences that addressed knowledge, practical and socio-

scientific dimensions. It was felt that this would best be achieved through

professional development, giving teachers deeper knowledge and greater hands-on

experience.

It was also generally agreed that the Junior Science syllabus (1-10 outcomes

based framework) had more room to move to enable the introduction of

biotechnology. In addition, as the controversial socio-scientific aspects of

biotechnology are often first dealt with in Junior Science courses, it makes sense to

introduce the laboratory techniques at this point to enable students to see the link

between laboratory practices, their applications and their potential consequences.

This is more meaningful as none of these aspects are then dealt with in isolation.

Need to have them understand and appreciate the techniques to engage more

meaningfully with controversial topics such as cloning, and conversely the

importance of the practical activities is brought home by its potential

applications. Not just the activity in isolation – it’s meaningless. (Rob, School

A).

The teachers felt that while the new Biology syllabus gave schools the

opportunity to use a wider range of contexts or content to cover the key concepts,

there was still a slow uptake of biotechnology education. The most common

explanation for this among the teachers was that nothing significant happened

without time and effort. There needed to be an opportunity for an interested group of

individuals to sit down, design and articulate a program that addressed the syllabus

objectives. Currently, schools-

… end up constructing a work program based on the background knowledge of

staff who are teaching the subject at the time. If you don’t have that, biotech

won’t get put in. (Neil, School A).

Some teachers felt that the new Science 21 syllabus may offer increased

opportunities for the inclusion of biotechnology due to a perceived greater flexibility.

There’s more flexibility in Science 21. (Rob, School A).

One concern that was raised was the predisposition of some teachers of

incorporating biotechnology content and practical activities that immerse students

immediately in high level molecular biology and deal exclusively with DNA

manipulation. This approach was pointed out by several teachers to be a meaningless

exercise in many ways, particularly because of cost and the requirement for

specialised equipment and techniques.

There’s no point in doing lots of fancy stuff and having fancy gear if you

haven’t brought them (students) through from (year) 9, 10. (Julie, School A).

Work Program: Staff at each school expressed an opinion that there was room in

the syllabus for the inclusion of biotechnology and they had incorporated both

theoretical and practical learning experiences into their science curricula by writing

them into their individual subject work programs.

Unit of Work: Although each of the schools engaged with biotechnology embedded

within subject units, there was considerable discussion at School A about the

potential and merits for designing a stand alone 10 week biotechnology unit of work

which would be designed as a logical continuity of learning experiences that

scaffold, that people can come in, build up, hit their ceiling, drop out, and can be

tailored and modified to drop into different subjects.

You’ve got a module that theoretically you can drop to any school. The idea is

that the teacher can read through it… As the teacher is going through it, the

teacher will definitely see the logic behind it and this will probably be a self-

motivator for the teacher…The project is logical, it’s progressive, each step you

build on what you learnt in the previous step. There are no quantum leaps… If

you had this manual that had 10 experiments in it, you can have web links; you

can have a website somewhere that accompanies the book. The website can

have PowerPoint presentations in it. The book can be self-contained; it can have

everything in it…The students will tell you what’s wrong with it and what’s

right with it…you’ve basically got a whole editorial process happening. (Rob,

School A).

Learning Experiences: In order to ‘legitimise’ biotechnology and not just have it as

an interest item or ‘show and tell’, inclusive learning experiences needed to be

selected and developed which allowed students to explore biotechnology concepts

using real world contexts, and a challenging hands-on inquiry process.

Biotechnology should be thought of as an educational experience rather than as

a series of activities. An integration of biotechnology content and activities

across a subject’s topics is preferable to isolated biotechnology learning

experiences or demonstrations…It (biotechnology) must fit into the curriculum

and not just be interest items or show and tell. (Susie, School A)

…using real world contexts, and a hands-on inquiry process, in line with the

school or science departments’ beliefs and values. There has been a conscious

push from the beginning to an ‘inquiry classroom’, where students are

challenged. There is evidence in the research literature as this being good

practice (Fran, School C).

Sourcing: Although many biotechnology based learning experiences can be

sourced, mostly through web searches, success in using them can be varied. It was

noted that a preferred source for reliable learning experiences was PD, as the

learning experiences presented have been trialled and modified prior to presentation.

In addition, the person presenting the PD becomes a source of technical assistance.

The science staff at our school are committed to updating and increasing their

biotechnology knowledge and skills. We’d definitely prefer to do this through

PD. (Fran, School C).

There’s been no doubt that PD workshops have been the best thing for us. Not

just because it ensured that we can make the experiments work with the

students- well mostly anyway, but also because it has given us someone to call

on for technical help, or to troubleshoot. (Tom, School B).

Catering for Student Diversity: To a certain extent, student diversity was

considered in the design of biotechnology activities and units of work at the schools.

In general, student diversity was catered for by embedding biotechnology across a

range of junior and senior science subjects, with it scaffolded to cater for a less

academic clientele, and explored more deeply with high end academic students.

We scaffold our biotechnology program so that the content is dealt with in least

depth in year 10, then we deal with it in slightly more depth with our Gifted and

Talented year 10 students and in Science 21 to cater for a less academic senior

clientele. Then we have the greatest academic rigour in Biology and Chemistry.

(Fran, School C).

Assessment: While there were some biotechnology based assessment tasks

(experimental investigations, oral presentations and exam questions) embedded in a

range of senior subjects across the schools studied, educators at each school stated

that there was the potential to create more.

Our current assessment tasks need to be modified to include more

biotechnology based questions. The potential to create more (biotechnology)

assessment items needs to be explored. (Susie, School A).

We currently have some senior students using biotechnology explorations for

their EEIs, but there’s definitely the potential to create more biotechnology

based assessment items. (Tom, School B).

Pedagogy: The topic of pedagogy was not voluntarily raised by any teacher, either

in interviews or focus group discussions. When the teachers were asked to comment

on pedagogy with respect to implementing the syllabus, they did acknowledge the

importance of effective pedagogical practice but were not inclined to discuss it

further, instead opting to steer the discussion back to talking about the development

of appropriate learning experiences and professional development. The only time

that pedagogy was raised by a teacher was in relation to the production of a ten week

biotechnology unit and the associated professional development of teaching staff that

would be required. In this context, Neil (School A) suggested that appropriate

pedagogy should be addressed for each of the included activities.

4.4.1.4 The Human Element

The final theme emerging from the data was “The Human Element”, with

Teacher Training, Cognitive Challenge and Coping with a Paradigm Shift as factors.

Teacher Training: When teachers at School A were asked if they were seeing any

evidence of biotechnology skills in undergraduate teachers, they responded in the

negative and stated that teachers coming from a Bachelor of Education background

wouldn’t have had the same exposure to biotechnology techniques as those coming

from a Bachelor of Science. Neil felt that if schools were looking at building a

biotechnologically competent staff, then these individuals were most likely going to

be university science graduates. Paul stated that concerns over the level of content

knowledge of Bachelor of Education graduates compared to post graduate Diploma

of Education graduates were raised at a recent Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) consultation. One strong message that came out was that

Bachelor of Education graduates may not have as deep knowledge of science

content.

Rob felt that:

One of the advantages of developing a 10 week biotechnology unit along with a

professional development package is that it can be given to a teacher training

course to help develop trainee teacher laboratory skill competencies in

biotechnology.

Cognitive Challenge: As no teachers at any of the subject schools had a specialist

biotechnology degree, incorporation of some theoretical and practical aspects of

biotechnology into the curriculum presented a considerable cognitive challenge to

staff. This had necessitated a significant allotment of personal time to reading and

internalising content from journals, research articles, textbooks and websites, which

added to teacher stress.

Our staff are still challenged (by biotechnology education) as none of them have

a biotechnology degree. Lots of time is spent reading. (Fran, School C)

Coping with a Paradigm Shift: Anecdotally, it would appear that some older (and

often highly experienced) science teachers are already struggling to cope with the

paradigm shift in contemporary science education, from content based science

delivered through ‘chalk and talk’ to process driven science education delivered

through guided discovery. These educators are now being further challenged to

accept a novel area of science and in some cases are ‘opting out’ to teach science

subjects that are more traditionally taught or relocating to a site where biotechnology

is not yet part of the curriculum.

Because our journey required a change of staff beliefs and teaching practices,

there was initially resistance from some staff and they either chose to accept the

changes or move on to another school. (Fran, School C).

4.4.2 The Process of Implementation

This section relates to Research Question 3 and examines the process by

which teachers implemented biotechnology education.

School A

Biotechnology was chosen as a specialist area of science study at School A

because of its importance and potential contribution to the growth of the State’s

economy and the prevailing political agenda at the time. In order to support their

decision to pursue biotechnology education, the school purchased appropriate

biotechnology equipment, employed staff with expertise in this area of science and

allocated coordination time for the key teacher. In addition, a partnership was

established with a local university to enable students to gain credit towards selected

degrees through university modules embedded in the Senior curriculum.

An “Academy of Science”, specialising in biotechnology and Biology, was

established at the school to provide accelerated pathways for academically high

achieving students in Years 8, 9 and 10. Biotechnology units and practicals were

embedded in several electives and the school made a conscious decision to

incorporate biotechnology as a major context for Senior Biology, Senior Chemistry

and Science 21.

The school became a member of the Queensland Biotechnology Education

Network, which enabled them to access professional development, support and

funding.

School B

The school initially engaged with biotechnology through staff realisation that

biotechnology practical learning experiences needed to be embedded in the science

curriculum at their school to enable students to experience contemporary scientific

contexts. The science department acknowledged the past professional experiences of

the laboratory technician and utilised her as a key person to up-skill the other staff in

conjunction with their attendance at external professional development.

To support this process of engagement, biotechnology equipment was

purchased out of the school science budget and was supplemented over time as part

of an ongoing commitment. Aside from some equipment being acquired as a gift

from a pathology laboratory, the school received no funding or support from the

tertiary sector or the State Education Department.

Biotechnology content and practical learning experiences were written into

the year 10 Science and Biology course structures, with some students having used

biotechnology explorations for senior Extended Experimental Investigations. The

staff and students both enjoyed and valued the biotechnology learning experiences,

resulting in a commitment from the key teachers to research further appropriate

learning experiences in order to expand the biotechnology component of their

science curriculum.

School C

The review process of the Science Department at School C resulted in the

science staff adopting a philosophy of science education which required a change of

staff beliefs, values and teaching practices. The staff consciously and deliberately

charted a path along a contemporary science continuum which precipitated a massive

overhaul of all science subjects to enable the inclusion of biotechnology, using real

world contexts, and a challenging hands-on inquiry process. Biotechnology learning

experiences and assessment options were written into the Biology, Chemistry,

Multistrand Science, Marine Studies and year 10 Science programs. This required a

significant commitment of both personal and school time. Coordination time was

funded for a key teacher to be off-line to assist with the process.

The process of change was supported through seed funding from QBEN and a

contribution from school funds. This was supplemented with an ASISTM grant and

SCIPP funding which enabled the school to develop links with university partners.

The funding and the links enabled the school to become well resourced and

supported with respect to biotechnology equipment.

4.4.3 Changes in Teacher Concerns.

This section relates to Research Questions 4 & 5 and examines the level of

concerns held by the educators as they incorporated biotechnology education into

their classrooms, and how these concerns changed over time.

As discussed in Chapter 2, a fundamental consideration which has potential

implications for the uptake of biotechnology education is that teachers progress

through stages of interest and commitment when learning new teaching strategies or

using new curricula, and need to cope with the concerns that these bring. The

Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a well documented model of attitude

change which is helpful in determining the sequence of change as new teaching

programs and expectations are implemented. The model is made up of two strategies,

the Stages of Concern and the Levels of Use (Hord et al., 1987).

The model identifies and provides ways to assess seven Stages of Concern.

The seven stages are: Awareness, Informal, Personal, Management, Consequence,

Collaboration, and Refocusing. The teachers who were the subjects of this study

were in the final stages, Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing and were

representative of the category termed Impact. In these final stages, the teachers were

focused on the biotechnology education program’s impact on the students’

achievement, and worked cooperatively in implementing the program. The teachers

also considered the benefits of the program and considered ideas for improvement.

The Levels of Use entails eight different levels of change that teachers

experience when they are implementing a new program and can be used to determine

where a teacher stands at any given time in relation to the change process. These

Levels of Use are Non-Use, Orientation, Mechanical Use, Preparation, Routine,

Refinement, Integration and Renewal.

Across the three schools, all the educators who took part in this study had

reached at least the fifth level- Routine. They had created a biotechnology teaching

routine, felt comfortable using it and wanted to get better at teaching it. The focus

was on the teaching process, not the outcome. Half of the interviewees indicated that

they had reached at least the sixth level, Refinement. They were using the

biotechnology program to increase the expected benefits within their classroom.

These teachers could see the impact of their biotechnology program working and

used the program to maximise the effects of student achievement. It was apparent

that the key teachers at schools A and C had reached the seventh level, Integration,

and believed that the program was important to them and combined their own efforts

with related activities of other teachers and colleagues to maximise student

achievement. No teachers at any of the schools had reached the eighth level,

Renewal. That is, no individual, staff body or school had re-evaluated the quality of

use of their biotechnology education program or sought major modifications.

4.5 BIOTECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT KEY

COMPONENTS

This section deals with Research Question 7:



This research question is addressed through data collected from the literature

and via interviews and focus group discussions with the subject group of educators

from the three school sites.

As outlined in the theoretical framework (2.10), an examination of the

literature relating to professional development for science teachers revealed aspects

that need to be considered in the design and implementation of an ‘ideal’

professional development program. According to the literature (Fishman et al., 2003;

Garet et al., 2001; Gray & Bryce, 2006; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; National

Academy of Sciences, 1996), the ideal program has twelve key components.

During the interviews and focus group discussions, the participants in this

study nominated these twelve key components as being important to them for

inclusion in a biotechnology professional development program. However, they

revealed that these key components were not all present in the three separate

biotechnology professional development initiatives that they experienced (see Table

4.5).

It can be noted that no single program contained all twelve of the key

components. The QBEN professional development program was the most closely

aligned to the ideal model, and as it evolved from the BEC professional development

program this could be expected. The professional development presented by the

BioBus was a one-off, hit and run experience for educators and as such had limited

opportunity to address the key components.

TABLE 4.5:

Key Components and the Professional Development Programs

Key Components

Professional Development Programs

BEC QBEN BioBus

1. Specifically Designed

2. Collaborative

3. Content Appropriate

4. Learner-Centred

5. Active

6. Challenging

7. Communal

8. Supportive

9. Reviewed

10. Guided

11. Supported

12. Integrated

The participants also proposed that effective biotechnology professional

development should possess additional components that influenced them in their

uptake and implementation of contemporary biotechnology education. These reflect

the themes and factors identified in Section 4.3.1. They proposed that it should be:

1. Preparatory- Engages each participant in a pre-professional development

package of content and curriculum materials to ensure their preparedness

for the program.

2. Physically Relevant- Designed for the practical activities to be conducted

in a school laboratory.

3. Inclusive- Professionally develops all relevant members of a school’s

staff at the same time. It does not follow the train-the-trainer model.

4. Explicit- Allows educators to engage with a range of appropriate learning

experiences as a contextual application of the syllabus, with implicit

links to curriculum documents being made explicit.

5. Up-Skilling- Provides significant opportunities for educator acquisition

of contemporary laboratory skills using modern laboratory equipment.

6. Safety Focused- Provides a thorough grounding in the workplace, health

and safety implications of practical based biotechnology education.

7. Socially Aware- Provides a guided discussion of socio-scientific aspects,

which takes into consideration the beliefs and knowledge held by the

educators.

8. Resourced- Provides extensive teaching resources and post-professional

development access to a range of equipment and consumables through

industry or institutional loans.

The professional development programs were assessed for their alignment

with these additional key components. The data are presented in Table 4.6. It can be

noted that none of these programs contained all eight of the additional key

components. The QBEN professional development program was again the most

closely aligned and the BioBus again reflected that it had limited opportunity to

address the key components.

Table 4.6:

Additional Key Components Aligned with the Professional Development Programs

Additional

Key Components

Professional Development Programs

BEC QBEN BioBus 1. Preparatory

2. Physically Relevant

3. Inclusive

5. Up-Skilling

6. Safety Focused

7. Socially Aware

8. Resourced

4.6 SUMMARY

This chapter outlined the results of a retrospective study on a group of

teachers and laboratory technicians and their development into modern

biotechnology educators over a five year period (2003 - 2007). Through document

content analysis, the whole biotechnology education experience that was available to

educators within the nominated time-frame was documented. This was followed by

the results from individual interviews and focus group meetings which explored and

evaluated the components of the educator’s professional development experiences

and examined the influences and processes used to adopt and implement modern

biotechnology education in the studied schools, and how educator concerns changed

over time. In addition, the key components of a science professional development

program were described and compared to the professional development programs

experienced by the educators.

The chapter addressed six of the seven research questions. An analysis of the

data and consideration of the final research question, which relates to the

development of a biotechnology professional development model, are dealt with in

Chapter 5.

Chapter 5 Analysis

In this study, the recent evolution of modern biotechnology education in

schools was documented as part of the changing nature of science education. This

chapter discusses the findings of the research and uses the implications of these

findings to propose an evidence-based professional development model for


5.1 EVOLUTION OF MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

This section discusses the data collected from documents and retrospective

case studies relating to educator experiences with biotechnology education and the

subsequent processes of the embedding and integration of this biotechnology

education in school programs. The first part of this section provides a contextual

analysis of the events and initiatives that were identified through document content

analysis as having impacted on the evolution of biotechnology education, shaping

the biotechnology educational context for the subject schools and thereby cultivating

the need for professional development.

5.1.1 Biotechnology Education Events and Initiatives

While this study was primarily concerned with a five year period (2003-

2007), consideration is given to a limited period of time either side of this window

where the extended time frame sheds further light on the study.

Fourteen impacting events and initiatives were identified through the analysis

of the content of the documents. These events and initiatives provided a backdrop

and can be considered as either contributing to the biotechnology education context

or directly impacting on the educators’ uptake of contemporary biotechnology

education. The relationship between them can best be appreciated when they are

arranged along a timeline (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. A Timeline of Impacting Factors.

5.1.1.1 Contribution to the Biotechnology Education Context

These factors have not had a direct influence on the uptake of biotechnology

education by the educators involved in this study, but they have contributed to the

creation of a biotechnology education context, either by providing opportunities for

engagement (CSIRO); written resources (Biotechnology Online); policies and

directions (Smart State Vision, TMSCE, Science Summit, BEU, Spotlight on Science

and Science Education Strategy); curriculum opportunities (Biology Syllabus) or a

platform (ABEN). In combination, these have legitimised the inclusion of

biotechnology education within the school curriculum and created the need for

biotechnology professional development.

5.1.1.2 Direct Impact on the Uptake of Biotechnology Education

The remaining factors have not only contributed to the biotechnology

education context, they have also had a direct impact on the uptake of contemporary

biotechnology education within the subject schools. This has been achieved through

the provision of professional development (BEC, QBEN and BioBus); provision of

classroom learning experiences and technical support (Biotech Babble); funding

(ASISTM) and nomination as a biotechnology professional development provider

(SCIPP).

5.1.1.3 The Direction of Biotechnology Education

When the events and initiatives that have contributed to the biotechnology

education context, and directly impacted on the educators’ uptake of contemporary

biotechnology education are arranged along a continuum, a sense of direction and

change of emphasis can be inferred.

Firstly, there is a direction which can be argued to have arisen from the

deliberate implementation of policies and initiatives. The Smart State Vision (1998)

set the agenda for The Smart State Strategy, which had a strong focus on

strengthening the State’s educational foundations. In 2002, through the Science

Summit’s renewed vision for science education, the Smart State Strategy gave rise to

the Science State – Smart State initiative (Spotlight on Science, 2003 – 2006) with a

six-step action plan as part of a vision for improving Queensland science education.

The Spotlight on Science action plan was followed by the Science Education

Strategy 2006-2009.

When all of the initiatives are viewed in combination, a change in emphasis

can be observed along the continuum with respect to the process of uptake of

biotechnology education by the schools studied. Initially, through the professional

development provided by BEC, there was an emphasis on staff professional

development as a ‘just-in-time’ response to a perceived need by those schools who

were already attempting to engage with biotechnology education. The evolution of

BEC into QBEN saw a change in this emphasis, with the professional development

being supported by the development of a range of student learning experiences and

resources, with supplementary resources available through Biotech Babble. This was

in response to teacher needs and the launch of a more flexible Biology Syllabus.

From the interviews and focus group discussions, educators articulated that their

emphasis was now moving to a position where they wish to align their biotechnology

education efforts and the science curriculum.

It would be suggested that this change of emphasis is in response to

educational circumstance rather than being a planned shift. It could be argued that

the change of emphasis is a reversal of that which would be expected for the

implementation of a new science curriculum, where opportunities to engage with

biotechnology education would be embedded in the curriculum, student learning

experiences designed and then educators enabled through professional development

to provide content, skills and pedagogy. Irrespective of the journey undertaken to

arrive at the current situation with respect to educator engagement with

biotechnology education, a need exists for an evidence based model for


5.2 TEACHER CONCERNS

As discussed in Chapter 4, identifying concerns and supporting people during

change is critical for learning to take hold. The Concerns Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) was the model of attitude change used in this study to determine the

sequence of change experienced by the subjects as the new teaching programs and

expectations were implemented.

The results indicated that these teachers were in the final Stages of Concern,

and in the higher Levels of Use with respect to biotechnology education. It is evident

from these results that the educators were well progressed through the stages of the

Concerns Based Adoption Model. It could be argued that due to the characteristics of

the participants selected for this study they had actually entered the model at Stages

and Levels that were higher than would normally be observed when educators have

new programs imposed on them, meaning also that there was a reduced pattern of

change within the continuum that could be observed. This study was conducted in

three schools that, from the early days, were highly committed to change. They had

the initiative, support and self-efficacy to engage with contemporary science and to

ensure the success of its implementation. The challenge of taking on biotechnology

was seen as an opportunity and not a threat. Each of the educators was voluntarily

engaged, and dedicated to ensuring the success of biotechnology education at their

school, so did not have the concerns that one may expect from individuals who are

pressured into being part of an initiative. While there were obstacles identified by the

subjects, they were not expressed as concerns, with each person expressing a

commitment to overcoming these obstacles.

Had the researcher included schools in this study whose staff had not

attended biotechnology professional development workshops or had not attempted

implementation of learning experiences that they had gained from the professional

development, a greater range of concerns would have been evident along with a more

pronounced pattern of change in these concerns. This does not mean that because the

participants were purposefully selected and did not represent a general cross-section

of the science teaching community, that CBAM was an ineffective model to use in

this study, rather, the model has been useful in that it exemplifies that teachers

progress through Stages of Concern and Levels of Use when learning new teaching

strategies or using new curricula and that it is important to identify these in designing

a professional Development program, in order to tailor the program to the needs of

those undertaking the professional development, to assist them in coping with the

concerns that this process brings. It would be expected that a biotechnology

professional development program designed for the educators in this study would

have significantly different characteristics than a program designed for educators

who were encountering biotechnology education for the first time. This would be due

in large part to consideration of aspects of the CBAM model.

In general, early participants are more self-oriented and then become more

task-oriented. Finally, when self- and task concerns are largely resolved, the

individual can focus on impact and improvement of process (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).

This has major implications for the design of biotechnology professional

development as it highlights the importance of monitoring the concerns of teachers

and attending to the needs of individuals. Developers of biotechnology professional

development who know and use the Concerns Based Adoption Model will design

experiences that are sensitive to the questions that educators are asking, at the time

they are asking them. Acknowledging concerns and addressing them will be critical

considerations to enable progress in this reform effort.

5.3 A PROPOSED MODEL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

Prior to proposing an evidence based model for biotechnology professional

development, it will firstly be established that a biotechnology professional

development model is necessary.

5.3.1 The Necessity for a Biotechnology Professional Development Model

This section deals with Research Question 6:


necessary?

As outlined in Chapter 4, the literature suggests that the ideal science

professional development program has twelve key components. In addition, the

participants in this study proposed that an effective biotechnology professional

development program would possess a further eight components (see Table 5.1).

TABLE 5.1:

Summary of PD Key Components.

Science PD Key Components

Identified from the Literature

Biotechnology PD Key Components

Nominated by Participants

1. Specifically Designed

2. Collaborative

3. Content Appropriate

4. Learner-Centred

5. Active

6. Challenging

7. Communal

8. Supportive

9. Reviewed

10. Guided

11. Supported

12. Integrated

1. Preparatory

2. Physically Relevant

3. Inclusive

4. Explicit

5. Up-Skilling

6. Safety Focused

7. Socially Aware

8. Resourced

The participants revealed that these twenty key components were present to

varying degrees in their biotechnology professional development experiences and

consideration of collected data demonstrated that no single program contained all of

the key components. In particular, the programs failed to value the professional

contribution of the educators, or provide opportunities for these educators to examine

the nature of contemporary science, thus failing to fully prepare them for the

implementation of biotechnology education. It is suggested that this situation arose

from the lack of an ‘evidence-based’ approach to planning and implementation,

resulting in biotechnology professional development which had limited effectiveness

and lacked sustainability. This indicates that there is a need for a properly researched

biotechnology professional development model.

The implication of this aspect of the study lends support to the position that a

significant need exists for researchers to develop a carefully crafted and well

supported professional development design which will positively impact on the way

in which teachers engage with contemporary science and subsequently impact on the

learning of their students. This design should be inclusive of input from tertiary

stakeholders, industry and research organisations, and should be open to change, that

is, it should be dynamic and able to respond to variably impacting issues of teacher

experiences and concerns, workload, motivation and the teaching and learning

environment.

5.3.2 Towards a Sustainable Biotechnology Curriculum

It is proposed from the data that were generated from the analysis of the

content of the documents that the foundations of a supportive infrastructure and

integration opportunities both exist for the development of a sustainable

biotechnology curriculum. In order to progress from these foundations to achieve a

desirable outcome, it is necessary to firstly identify the drivers of contemporary

biotechnology education uptake and then develop an appropriate professional

development model.

From the literature and from data collected in this study, these drivers have

been identified as Policy and Professional Development.

Policy: Appropriate education policy is required to be formulated and

implemented in order to build on the foundations of a supportive infrastructure and

opportunities for the integration of biotechnology education.

Professional Development: An effective biotechnology professional

development model should consider each of the following.

1. Biotechnology Content Knowledge- educators need to be aware of

resources to enable them to acquire the knowledge necessary to

understand key concepts associated with contemporary biotechnology.

2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge- educators need to experience and

become competent with a range of pedagogies required to enable

effective student engagement with biotechnology.

3. Practical Skills- a range of practical skills which are unique to

biotechnology need to be acquired and developed.

4. Curriculum Management- opportunities for the integration and

embedding of biotechnology in line with existing syllabus documents

need to be explored and made explicit.

This proposal is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. Towards a Sustainable Biotechnology Curriculum.

5.3.3 Key Components of a Biotechnology Professional Development Model

In order to achieve a sustainable biotechnology curriculum, a professional

development model is proposed which takes into account the twelve key components

of an ideal science professional development program, combined with the eight

additional components identified by this study. It is proposed that the professional

development model:

1. Is designed to meet identified educational needs, in a context where there

is a well-defined image of effective learning and teaching.

2. Is developed and implemented through the collaboration of professional

development providers and educators thereby recognising and valuing

both the ‘expert’s’ input and the professional contribution of the

educators.

3. Engages each participant in a pre-professional development package of

content and curriculum materials to ensure their preparedness for the

program.

4. Develops knowledge, practical skills and pedagogy.

5. Is conducted in a school laboratory to facilitate a relevant physical

context.

6. Recognises that teacher learning should parallel student learning.

7. Professionally develops all relevant members of a school’s staff (teachers

and laboratory technicians) at the same time. It does not follow the train-

the-trainer model.

8. Allows educators to engage with a range of appropriate learning

experiences as a contextual application of the syllabus, with implicit

links to curriculum documents being made explicit.

9. Provides significant opportunities for educator acquisition of

contemporary laboratory skills using modern laboratory equipment.

10. Provides a thorough grounding in the workplace, health and safety

implications of biotechnology education.

11. Provides extensive teaching resources and post-professional development

access to a range of equipment and consumables through industry or

institutional loans.

12. Values and encourages continuing involvement of the participants.

13. Provides opportunities for teachers to confront and examine their beliefs

about the nature of science, in light of new paradigms and philosophies.

14. Provides a guided discussion of socio-scientific aspects, which takes into

consideration the beliefs and knowledge held by the educators.

15. Stimulates and supports new partnerships, networks and learning

communities among participating educators and scientists, which

facilitates access to a critical friend.

16. Prepares teachers to serve in leadership roles, including that of key

teacher.

17. Ensures that evaluation is a continuous process that is used to improve

the program.

18. Has a charismatic person or group providing strong leadership.

19. Is encouraged and supported by school districts and school

administrators.

20. Links to other parts of the educational system.

5.4 CONCLUSION

The nature of science is changing, and in particular, associated with

contemporary biotechnology, is a growing social, ethical and moral impact of

science on society, necessitating scientifically literate citizens in the future. These

citizens are currently in our schools and the level of their scientific literacy will

evolve from their science education experiences. However, it is apparent in current

literature, that there is a lack of adequate teacher professional development

opportunities in biotechnology education (Gray & Bryce, 2006; Hewson, 2007) that

will positively impact on this evolution.

The purpose of this study was threefold- to document the recent evolution of

modern biotechnology education; to examine school adoption and implementation

processes for biotechnology education; and to propose an evidence based

biotechnology professional development model. This was undertaken using a

retrospective case study research methodology.

Document content analysis was used to document the recent evolution of

modern biotechnology education as part of the changing nature of science education,

while one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions generated data that enabled

the examination of the process used by secondary schools to adopt and implement a

new science curriculum. A combination of these data sources along with the

literature review enabled the proposal of an evidence based biotechnology

professional development model for science educators.

Through the document content analysis, the whole biotechnology education

experience that was available to educators within the studied time-frame was

documented, resulting in the identification of impacting events and initiatives. These

events and initiatives were considered as either contributing to the biotechnology

education context or directly impacting on the educators’ uptake of contemporary


Three schools were selected to contribute to this study as case studies on the

basis that their staff had attended at least one biotechnology professional

development workshop during the time period studied (2003 – 2007), and they had

attempted implementation of learning experiences that they had gained from the

professional development. Individual participants from these schools were

purposefully selected to participate in the interview and focus group phases of the

study. These educators had experienced a range of professional development

initiatives and had integrated and embedded biotechnology in their science programs.

This meant that they had an experienced practitioner’s perspective with respect to the

components that they felt were essential to include in a biotechnology professional

development model.

The data collected in this study showed that while educators accepted that

there was a supportive infrastructure and integration opportunities to enable the

inclusion of contemporary biotechnology into the curriculum, the educators clearly

articulated that despite having attended biotechnology professional development in

the past, they were inadequately equipped for a more complete embracing of this

contemporary science, particularly in the areas of content knowledge, laboratory skill

acquisition, knowledge of appropriate pedagogy, and curriculum management.

The findings of this study suggested that there was a need to develop a model

of biotechnology professional development. The literature review conducted as part

of this study identified the key components of a science professional development

model, and the educators who took part in the interviews and focus group discussions

articulated additional components for inclusion in a biotechnology professional

development model. This has led to the proposal of a model for biotechnology

professional development which considers all of the key components of science

professional development that are outlined in the literature, as well as the additional

components which were articulated by the educators studied.

Further research is required to enable this proposed model to be used to

design, implement and evaluate a professional development program to support

educators in the uptake of contemporary biotechnology education and to achieve the

outcome of a sustainable biotechnology curriculum.

References

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and

its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633-653.

Adey, P., Hewitt, G., Hewitt, J., & Landau, N. (2004). The Professional

Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Sage. New Delhi.

American Federation of Teachers. (2002). Principles for Professional Development.

Author, Washington.

Anderson, S. (1997). Understanding teacher change: revisiting the concerns based

adoption model. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Curriculum

Inquiry 273.

Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education.

In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook Of Research On Science Teaching And

Learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher’s progress toward using

a constructivist view of learning to inform teaching in elementary science.

Science Education, 80, 165-180.

ASISTM. (2008). NQBEC- A Science Experience for the New Millenium. Retrieved

January, 2008, from http://project.asistm.edu.au/special/successful.asp?r=7&

state=QLD

Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside Science Education Reform: A History of

Curricular and Policy Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Author Unknown. (2005). QBEN, Queensland Biotechnology Education Network

2005-2007. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.qben.eq.edu.au/

documents/QBEN% 20Strategic%20plan.doc.

Bailey, D., & Palsha, S. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and

implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research,

85(4), 226- 233.

Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). Teacher beliefs regarding the

implementation of constructivism in their classroom. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 11(3), 323-343.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science

Education. London: Falmer Press.

Biotechnology Australia. (n.d.). National Biotechnology Strategy. Retrieved October

26, 2007, from http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.

ShowContent&objectID=538B635B-BCD6-81AC-1E1B66BB24EA3184

Biotechnology Australia. (2005). Biotechnology Online. Canberra: Biotechnology

Australia. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.biotechnology.gov.au.

Borko, H., & Putman, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teachers' knowledge base: A

cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R.

Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New

Paradigms And Practices (pp. 35-65). New York: Teachers College Press.

Boyd, S. E., Banilower, E. R., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2003). Progress and

Pitfalls: A Cross-Site Look at Local Systemic Change Through Teacher

Enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved November 2,

2007, from http://www.horizon-research.com/LSC/news/progress_and_pitfalls

.pdf

Brisco, C., & Peters, J. (1997). Teacher collaboration across and within schools:

supporting individual change in elementary science teaching. Science

Education, 81(1), 51-65.

Broekhuizen, L. D., & Dougherty, B. (1999). Teacher diversity: Implications for

professional development. Research report prepared for the Pacific Resources

for Education and Learning, Honolulu, HI.

Bryce, T. G. K., & Gray, D. S. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to

science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal

of Science Education, 26(6), 717-733.

Carney, J. M. (1998). Integrating technology into constructivist classrooms: an

examination of one model for teacher development, Journal of Computing in

Teacher Education, 15 (1): 7-15.

Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menton, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns

regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of

CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics 57, 157-176.

Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: reflective

practice under scrutiny, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3):243-261.

Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2004). The nature of teaching and learning in self-study,

in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., and Russell, T. L. (Eds.).

The International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching Practices (Volumes 1 &

2). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional

growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.

Claxton, G. (2002). Building Learning Power: Helping Young People Become Better

Learners. Bristol: TLO.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th

Ed.). New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Commonwealth Biotechnology Ministerial Council. (2000). Australian

Biotechnology: A National Strategy. Author, Canberra.

Coughlin, E. C., & Lemke, C., (1999). Professional competency continuum:

Professional skills for the digital age classroom. Retrieved November 2, 2007

from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=159.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, J. (1999). Shaping professional identity: Stories of

educational practice. London, Ontario: Althouse Press, University of Western

Ontario.

Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an

inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175-194.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. (2nd Ed.). New Jersey, Merrill Prentice

Hall.

CSIRO. (2008). CSIRO Science Education Centres. Retrieved April 21 from

http://www.csiro.au/csiro/channel/pchat.html.

Curriculum Corporation. (2006). Statements of Learning for Science. Retrieved

August 22 from www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/science_06.

Daugherty, E. (2007). Biotechnology, science for the new millennium. Saint Paul:

Paradigm Publishing Inc.

Davis, N. (1999). Teacher education and information technology: Challenges for

teacher education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education,

8(1), p. 3.

Dawson, V. & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’

understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education,

25(1), 57–69.

Dawson, V., & Soames, C. (2006). The effect of biotechnology education on

Australian high school students’ understandings and attitudes about

biotechnology processes. Research in Science & Technological Education,

24(2), 183-198.

de Laat, J., & Watters, J. J. (1995). Science teaching self-efficacy in a primary

school: A case study. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 453-464.

Delannoy, F. (2000). Teacher Training or Lifelong Professional Development?

Worldwide Trends and Challenges, TechKnowLogia, 10-13. Retrieved

November 2, 2007 from www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_Articles/PDF/193.pdf

Department of Education, Training and the Arts. (2007). Science Education Strategy

2006 – 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://education.qld.gov.au/

curriculum/ area/science/strategy.html

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, (2006). Smart State Progress Report

2006/07. Brisbane, Queensland Government.

Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers,

M., & Williams, M. (2001). Making Better Connections: Models of Teacher

Professional Development for the Integration of Information Communication

Technology into Classroom Practice. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profil

es /making_better_connections.htm

Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation

discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

Education Queensland. (2002). Technology, Maths and Science Centres of

Excellence. Brisbane, Queensland Government.

Eiser, S., & Knight, B.A. (2006). Knowledge renewal in the 21st century: Developing

a professional network of biology teachers. In B. Walker-Gibbs & B.A. Knight

(Eds.), Re-visioning research and knowledge for the 21st Century (pp. 89-100).

Teneriffe: Post-Pressed.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s practical knowledge: Report of a case study.

Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43–47.

Fetters, M., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting,

challenging and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic

change professional development programme, Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 13(2), 101-130.

Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student

learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.

Fontana, A. and Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin

and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361-376).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

France, B. (2007). Location, location, location: Positioning biotechnology education

for the 21st Century. Studies in Science Education 43, 88 – 122.

France, B., & Bolstad, R. (2004). Enhancing Biotechnology Education in New

Zealand Schools. A Literature Review of Approaches to Raise Awareness and

Enhance Biotechnology Education in Schools. Wellington: Ministry of

Research, Science and Technology.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A developmental conceptualization.

American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

Fuller, F., & Brown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.). Teacher

Education (74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.

Part 2, 25-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What

makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Geelan, D.R. (1996). Learning to communicate: Developing as a science teacher.

Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(1), 30-34.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status and Quality of

Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools. A Research Report

prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/

publications/ 2001/science.

Gray, D. S., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education:

implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal

of Education. 36(2), 171-192.

Groundwater-Smith, S. (1998). Putting Teacher Professional Judgement to Work.

Educational Action Research 6(1) pp. 21 - 37.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Corwin Press.

Hand, B & Prain, V. (2002) Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in

junior secondary science: A Case Study Science Education 86, (6) 737-755.

Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in the classroom:

Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 37(3) 225-236.

Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell

& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (pp.

1179-1203). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick,

W. G. Martin and D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and

Standards for School Mathematics. (pp.5-24). Reston, VA. The National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Hopkins, P. E. (2003). Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups. Area

39(4), 528 – 535.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking

Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Huffman, D. (2006). Reforming pedagogy: Inservice teacher education and

instructional reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Published on-line

13 May 2006.

Huffman, D., Thomas, K., & Lawrenz, F. (2003). Relationship between professional

development, teachers’ instructional practices, and the achievement of students

in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 378 – 387.

Jenkins, E. W. (1992). School science education: Towards a reconstruction. Journal

of Curriculum Studies, 24, 229-246.

Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of

science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710.

Jenkins, E. W. (2004). Science Education: research, practice and policy. In: E.

Scanlon, P. Murphy, J. Thomas and E. Whitelegg. (Eds.). Reconsidering

Science Learning. Routledge Falmer.

Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional

development. NISE Brief 3(2), Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with

teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 631-645.

Kahle, J. B., Veece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle

school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (37), 1019-1041.

Kidman, G. (2008). Asking students: What key ideas would make classroom biology

interesting? Teaching Science. 54(2), 34-38.

Kind, V., & Taber, K. S. (2005). Science: Teaching School Subjects 11-19, London,

Routledge Falmer.

Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leslie, G., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003). What do science teachers think biotechnology

is? Does it matter? Australian Science Teachers’ Journal. 49(3), 16-21.

Leslie. G., & Schibeci, R. A. (2006). Teaching about designer babies & genetically

modified foods: Encouraging the teaching of biotechnology in secondary

schools. The American Biology Teacher, 68(7), 98-103.

Lewis, J. (2006). Bringing the real world into the biology curriculum. Journal of

Biological Education, 40(3), 101-106.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional Development for Science Education: A

Critical and Immediate Challenge. In R. Bybee, (Ed.). National Standards &

the Science Curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing

Professional Development For Teachers Of Science And Mathematics.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).

Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and

Mathematics. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). Using knowledge of change to guide

staff development, in A. Lieberman and L. Miller (Eds.). Staff Development for

Education in the 90s: New Demands, New Realities, New Perspectives. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of Effective

Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Education: A

Synthesis of Standards. NISE Brief, 1(1). Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin.

Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing Reflective Practice: Learning About Teaching

and Learning Through Modelling. London: Falmer Press.

Loughran, J. J. (2007). Science teacher as learner. In Lederman and Abell (Eds)

Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1043-1066). Philadelphia: Erlbaum.

Marshall, & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCarthy, B. (1982). Improving Staff Development Through CBAM and 4Mat.

Educational Leadership, 40(1), 20- 26.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learning for all students: A framework for

the professional development of Kentucky teachers. East Lansing, MI: National

Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

McNamara, C. (n.d.). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. Retrieved

October 25, 2007, from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.

html.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and

evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 53-78.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. Examples for discussion

and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research And Evaluation In Education And Psychology:

Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, And Mixed Methods (2nd

Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School

Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future.

London: Nuffield Seminar Series: Interim Report V3.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2003).

Joint Communiqué from the Fifteenth MCEETYA Meeting. Retrieved August

22, 2008, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/joint_comm

_file .pdf

Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science

teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-

145.

Moses, V. (2002). Agricultural Biotechnology and the UK Public. Trends in

Biotechnology, 20, 402-404.

Moss, G. A. (2007). Biotechnology- A Comprehensive Curriculum Guide for a One

Semester Course at the High School (Grades 11-12) or Community College

Level. USA, Booksurge.

Nasseh, B. (1996). Continuing professional education models. Retrieved November

2, 2007, from http://www.bsu.edu/classes/nasseh/bn100/profess.html

National Academy of Sciences. (1996). The role of scientists in the professional

development of science teachers. The National Academy of Sciences.

Retrieved October 18, 2007, from

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309049997/html/ 1.html

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Retrieved October

19, 2007 from http://www.neafoundation.org/cgi-bin/advsearch/search.cgi?q=

socio-economic

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National

Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council Canada. (2005). Looking Forward: S&T for the 21st

Century. Retrieved June 13, 2008 from http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/

Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: Theory into

practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2) 93-106

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. (2000). Handbook on the Regulation of

Gene Technology in Australia. Author, ACT.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing

Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy- A Framework for PISA 2006.

Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/broseit/

9806031E.PDF

Osborne, J. (2000). Science for citizenship. In M. Monk and J. Osborne (Eds.).

Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say (pp. 225-240).

Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers Designing Curriculum as Professional

Development: A Model for Transformational Science Teaching. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773-789.

Palmquist, M. (2005). Case Study: Introduction and Definition. Colorado State

University. 2005.

Patton, M. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage

Publications, Newbury Park.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pedron, N., & Evans, S. (1990). Modifying Classroom Teachers' Acceptance of the

Consulting Teacher Model, Journal of Educational and Psychological

Consultation (1)2, p189- 201.

Peers, S. E. P., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for

teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum

innovation, Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89-110.

Phoenix, D. A. (2000). The Science of the millennium. Journal of Biological

Education, 34(3), 115–116.

Popli, R. (1999). Scientific literacy for all citizens: Different concepts and contents.

Public Understanding of Science, 8, 123-137.

Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. (1998). Biological Science

Senior Syllabus. Author, Brisbane.

Queensland Government. (2008). Smart State Strategy 2008 – 2012. Retrieved May

22, 2008, from http://www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/strategy/

Queensland Government. (2003). Science State Smart State: Spotlight on Science.

Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/science/

sciencestate.html.

Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science: Years 1 to 10 Sourcebook.

Author, Brisbane.

Queensland Studies Authority, (2004). Biology Senior Syllabus. Author, Brisbane.

Reiss, M. J. (2007). What should be the aim(s) of school science education? In

Corrigan, D., Dillon, J. & Gunstone, R. (Eds), The Re-emergence of Values in

the Science Curriculum (pp. 13-28). Rotterdam: Sense.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.

Sikula & T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher

Education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Rosberry, A. S., & Puttick, G. M. (1998). Teacher professional development as

situated sense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education,

82, 649–677.

ROSE. (2008). The Relevance of Science Education. Retrieved August 22, 2008,

from http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/.

Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to Teach Science. In S. K. Abell & N.

G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education. Mahweh,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical

review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.

Salminen, A., Lyytikainen, V., & Tiitinen, P. (2000). Putting documents into their

work context in document analysis. Information Processing & Management,

36(4), 623-641

Sanders, J. R. (1981). Case study methodology: A critique. In W. W. Welch (Ed.),

Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings of the 1981

Minnesota evaluation conference. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and

Evaluation Center.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice training or professional development: Contrasting

opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 18, 815-830.

Schibeci, R. A. (2004a). ABEN minutes.

Schibeci, R. A. (2004b). Preparing technological citizens: A proposed 'Centre for

Biotechnology Education'. Technologies, Publics and Power. Akaroa, New

Zealand, 1-5 February.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design

for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

Schreiner, C & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity

construction - two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, Dillon, J. &

Gunstone, R. (Eds.), The Re-emergence of Values in the Science Curriculum.

Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Senate Employment Education and Training References Committee. (1998). A Class

Act: Inquiry into the Status of the Teaching Profession, AGPS, Canberra.

Shapiro, B. L., & Last, S. (2002). Starting points for transformation: Resources to

craft a philosophy to guide professional development in elementary science. In

P. Fraser-Abder (Ed.), Professional development of science teachers: Local

insights with lessons for the global community (pp. 1-20). New York:

Routledge Falmer.

Shulman, L. S. (1999). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. In

J Leach & B. Moon (Eds.). Learning and Pedagogy London: Paul Chapman

Publishing Ltd.

Shymansky, J. A., Henriques, L., Chidsey, J., Dunkhase, J., Jorgensen, M., &

Yore, L. D. (1997). A professional development system as a catalyst for

changing science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 29-42.

Smith, K. (1999). Assessing Student Teachers, The Michigan and Ohio Journal of

Teacher Education, 12(1), 22-35.

Solomon, J. & Thomas, J. (1990). Science education for the public understanding of

science. Studies in Science Education, 33, 61-90.

Standards Australia. (2002). Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS

2243.3:2002, Safety in Laboratories Part 3: Microbiological aspects and

containment facilities.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on

science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of research in

science teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

The Biotechnology Institute. (2005). Retrieved 18 October, 2007 from:

http://www.biotechinstitute.org/

Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the

myths of schooling. Educational Technology Research and Development,

40(1), 81-92.

Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds). (1990). Windows Into Science

Classrooms: Problems Associated With Higher-Level Learning. London:

Falmer Press.

Tomanek, D. (1992). Studying content as a part of a curriculum process. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco.

Trumbull, D. J. (1999). The new science teacher: Cultivating Good Practice. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Tytler, R. (2007). Re-Imagining Science Education: Engaging Students in Science

for Australia's Future. Australian Education Review 51. ACER Press

(Australian Council for Educational Research).

Tytler, R., Smith, R., Grover, P., & Brown, S. (1999). A comparison of professional

development models for teachers of primary mathematics and science, Asia-

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3) 193-214.

US Department of Education. (2001). Building Bridges: The mission and principles

of professional development. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from:

http://www.ed.gov/G2K/bridge.html.

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(2), 137-158.

Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2003). What we don't understand about teaching for

understanding: Questions from science education. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 35(5), 545-566.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into

discussions of teacher quality. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from:

http://www.ets.org/Media /Research/pdf/PICTEAMAT.pdf.

Wenglinsky, H., & Silverstein, S. (2007). The science training teachers need.

Educational Leadership, 64(4), 24-29.

White, B. T., Frederiksen, J. R., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins,

A. M. (2002). Inquiry island: Affordances of a multi-agent environment for

scientific inquiry and reflective learning. Paper presented at the International

Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Seattle, WA.

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional

knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional

development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review Of Research In

Education, 24, 173-209. Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1

Interview Questions/ Focus Group Stimulus.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS/ FOCUS GROUP STIMULUS. Teacher Characteristics:

• Coded Identity____ • Gender ____ • Science Qualifications ________________ • Biotechnology Industry Experience _________________________________ • Years of Teaching Experience _____ • Schools Taught at ______________________________________________ • Current Science Subjects Taught ___________________________________ • Current Grades Taught ___________________________________________

STRUCTURAL FEATURES

CORE FEATURES

Activity

Form of Activity Reform Traditional

(Study group/ (Workshop/ Network) Conference)

Duration

Contact Timespan

Participation

Reform Traditional Collective Individual




Activity

Content Focus

Opportunities for Active

Learning

Degree to which Activity Promotes Coherence in

Teacher’s PD

Knowledge

Skills

Issues

- Reviewing Student Work - Feedback on Teaching - Skills Practice - Discussion of Issues

- Consistent č Teacher Goals - Aligned č Syllabus - Encouraged Prof. Networks

Knowledge

Skills

Issues



Knowledge

Skills

Issues



Knowledge

Skills

Issues



TEACHER OUTCOMES -Knowledge & Skills- Where they enhanced?

Act

ivity

Cur

ricul

um

(uni

ts/

stan

dard

s)

Inst

ruct

iona

l M

etho

ds

App

roac

hes

to

Ass

essm

ent

Use

of

Tech

nolo

gy o

r Eq

uipm

ent

D

iver

sity

of

Teac

hing

St

rate

gies

Dee

peni

ng o

f K

now

ledg

e of

B

iote

chno

logy

CHANGE IN TEACHING PRACTICE To what extent did you make changes to your teaching practices in each of the following domains? (none > significant). a) Work Programs b) Cognitive challenge of biotechnology classroom activities c) Instructional methods employed d) Types of assessment e) Equipment/ technology usage f) Approaches taken to student diversity ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR CODED IDENTITY _______