A standards-based formative evaluation of a national professional development program for science teachers

The 1996 National Science Education Standards provided educators and policy makers with a major impetus for constructive change in science education. The Standards not only specified what science content should be taught, but also provided organization for future science curricula. A major theme that pervades the Standards is that the classroom teacher is the most important component of classroom change and that reform efforts should be directed at improving the teaching of science through professional development for science teachers.; In response to the National Science Education Standards, the Science Teachers Organization (pseudonym) prepared a professional development program for science teachers that was intended to acquaint teachers with the Standards and bring about reform of science teaching by changing teachers' instructional strategies and procedures. This program, named Preparing Schools for Science (PSS), was designed for use in all of the 50 states, but was first introduced in a southwestern state referred to as Utopia in this dissertation.; Using the Provus Method of Discrepancy Evaluation, a design and installation audit of the Preparing Schools for Science Program was performed. Suggestions for program improvement, as well as a complete evaluation design for the PSS Program, were presented. Specific program modifications suggested by the research included an improved organization of personnel to monitor and supervise the program, more sustained professional development workshops, a stronger network of support for teachers.; Five major implications for future professional development programs emerge from this research. (1) A needs analysis should be conducted before a program is designed in order to ensure that the program meet the needs of those for whom it is intended. (2) The length and type of training are the most important factors in ensuring that teachers have sufficient time to incorporate and learn how to use new ideas. (3) Additional personnel are needed to conduct the training and follow-up with the Points of Contact (POCs) in the Program. (4) Financial support for the Key Leaders who serve as trainers of the points of contact is needed to provide the means for the key leaders to fully implement the program and maintain contact with the POCs. (5) The program should have a thorough and well-planned evaluation design, and data collection should be done in a timely fashion by a skilled evaluator.