House Al 2014

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
VOL. 51, NO. 1, PP. 84115 (2014)
Research Article
Impact of a StudentTeacherScientist Partnership on Students and Teachers
Content Knowledge, Attitudes Toward Science, and Pedagogical Practices
Ana K. Houseal,1 Fouad Abd-El-Khalick,2 and Lizanne Destefano3
1
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, Illinois
3
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, Illinois
2
Received 19 September 2011; Accepted 25 October 2013

Abstract: Engaging K-12 students in science-based inquiry is at the center of current science education
reform efforts. Inquiry can best be taught through experiential, authentic science experiences, such as those
provided by StudentTeacherScientist Partnerships (STSPs). However, very little is known about the impact
of STSPs on teachers and students content knowledge growth or changes in their attitudes about science and
scientists. This study addressed these two areas by examining an STSP called Students, Teachers, and
Rangers and Research Scientists (STaRRS). STaRRS was incorporated into the existing long-standing
education program Expedition: Yellowstone! For teachers, a pre-test, intervention, post-test research
design was used to assess changes and gains in content knowledge, attitudes, and pedagogical practices. A
quasi-experimental, pre-testpost-test, comparison group design was used to gauge gains in students content
knowledge and attitudes. Data analyses showed significant positive shifts in teachers attitudes regarding
science and scientists, and shifts in their pedagogical choices. Students showed significant content knowledge
gains and increased positive attitudes regarding their perceptions of scientists. The findings indicate that
STSPs might serve as a promising context for providing teachers and students with the sort of experiences
that enhance their understandings of and about scientific inquiry, and improve their attitudes toward science
and scientists. # 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 84115, 2014
Keywords: studentteacherscientist partnerships; attitudes toward science and scientists; geoscience;
inquiry; professional development; Yellowstone National Park; middle school
For the past three decades, national science education reform efforts have consistently and
strongly endorsed inquiry-based learning as the most effective way of connecting students to
science (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989). The National
Science Education Standards (NSES; National Research Council [NRC], 1996) defined inquiry in
two ways. First, inquiry was framed as a set of integrated processes representing the diverse ways
in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived
from their work (p. 23). The NSES called for enabling students to develop the skills needed to do
inquiry, as well as develop understandings about the nature of inquiry. Second, inquiry was
conceived as a teaching strategy and learning approach, which could frame science education.
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation Biocomplexity in the Environment Program; Contract
grant number: EAR-0221743.
Correspondence to: A. K. Houseal; E-mail: ahouseal@uwyo.edu
DOI 10.1002/tea.21126
Published online 19 November 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
85
Reform efforts continued to redefine and broaden the scope of science education should look
(e.g., NRC, 2000, 2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8
(NRC, 2007) summarized more than a decade of research on science teaching and learning, and
proposed four strands of proficiency in science education: (a) Knowing, using, and interpreting
scientific explanations of the natural world, (b) generating and evaluating scientific evidence and
explanations, (c) understanding nature and the development of scientific knowledge, and (d)
participating in scientific practices and discourse (p. 36). The report Learning Science in Informal
Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (NRC, 2009) added two other strands for students,
namely, to: (a) Experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the
natural and physical world, and (b) think about themselves as science learners and develop identity
as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contribute to science (p. 4) (also see, Krajcik,
Czerniak, & Berger, 2003). A most recent reform document, A Framework for K-12 Science
Education (NRC, 2011), laid a roadmap for future science curriculum development focused on
student performance expectations that are tightly aligned with three critical dimensions: scientific
and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Drawing on this
framework, The Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] (Achieve, Inc., 2013) emphasized
student engagement with scientific practices across the K-12 curriculum.
The aforementioned reports (e.g., AAAS, 1989; NRC, 2000, 2007, 2009, 2011) have
emphasized the need for multiple ways to engage students with scientific inquiry in the sense of
participating in normative scientific practice akin to those that take place and govern scientific
work (NRC, 2009, p. 70). These are sometimes called authentic science experiences (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002), which aim to engage students in finding evidence-based answers to questions
and problems in natural contexts with no pre-determined solutions (McKay & McGrath, 2006).
The present study is focused on StudentTeacherScientist Partnerships (STSPs), which provide
for a meaningful context to engage students with actual or authentic scientific investigations.
Rationale
It is well documented that student learning of science depends on teachers having adequate
knowledge of science (NRC, 2007, p. 296). Knowledge of science, in this sense, is more than
just understanding science content. Only when teachers become more comfortable with both
science content and the processes through which claims to scientific knowledge are generated and
validated, will they be able to enact the vision of the science education reforms outlined above
(NRC, 1996). That is, science teachers need to develop pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for
teaching, which address both the substantive and syntactic dimensions of their disciplines
(Schwab, 1978; Shulman, 1986, 1987, 1992). Toward enabling science teachers to develop their
PCK, the NRC (2007) reiterated the need to provide teacher professional development (PD) that
includes experiential learning opportunities with time to: (a) generate answerable questions, (b)
think scientifically, (c) analyze phenomena, (d) interpret evidence, and (e) engage in meaningful
discourse about the validity of generated claims. The latter behaviors are typical of research science
culture. Partnering with scientists or basing a partnership on aspects of scientific field research could
provide a powerful context to engage teachers with such scientific practices. Indeed, providing such
direct experiences for teachers, which are modeled after ways we want them to teach their own
students is what Taking Science to School highlighted as an important trend (NRC, 2007, p. 311).
Studentscientist partnerships is one strategy that employs authentic, inquiry-based learning
to provide students and teachers with access to the scientific community and allow for their
engagement with actual scientific research. The benefits to students (i.e., engagement with
authentic science), and scientists (i.e., securing additional resources for data collection efforts)
often are highlighted in such partnerships (Harnik & Ross, 2003b; Wormstead, Becker, &
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
86
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Congalton, 2002). However, the crucial engagement and intermediary role of science teachers
often seems to either be taken for granted or subsumed by the assumptions underlying the
partnerships. In this study, we use the label STSPs to highlight the central role that teachers play
both as studentslearning about scientific research, and teacherstransforming what they
learn into pedagogical enactments that progressively approximate scientific practice. In this sense,
STSPs are defined as partnerships in which students, teachers, and scientists work together to
answer real-world questions about a phenomenon or problem the scientists are studying. STSPs
are based on conducting scientific research that is enhanced by pre-college student participation
(Tinker, 1997), and are believed to provide teachers and students with meaningful firsthand
experiences of scientific practices.
This study was undertaken in the context of a STSP titled, Students, Teachers, and Rangers
& Research Scientists: Investigating Earth Systems at Mammoth Hot Springs (STaRRS).
STaRRS is an embedded STSP, meaning the components of the partnership were designed for
integration into an existing educational program. Consistent with the aforementioned centrality
of science teachers to such endeavors, an additional key feature of this partnership was to also
focus on teacher needs by providing them with extensive, research-based, on-going PD.
Moreover, on-going, site-based, year-long support for participant teachers was built into the
partnership, and intended to problems with content, inquiry processes, and logistical issues
(including those with equipment and protocols developed for the partnership) so that teachers are
better equipped to address related challenges. In the context of student and teacher engagement
with STaRRS, this study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the impact of
participation in the STaRRS partnership on teachers science content knowledge, attitudes
toward science and scientists, and pedagogical strategies? and (2) What is the impact of
participation in the STaRRS partnership on students science content knowledge and attitudes
toward science and scientists?
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
The literature attributes several benefits to STSPs, which fall into two categories: Benefits for
education (participating teachers and their students) and benefits for scientists (the scientist or
research group in need of specific data). Stated educational benefits include providing authentic
experiences (Donahue et al., 1998; Harnik & Ross, 2003b; Moss, Abrams, & Kull, 1998; Tinker,
1997), which in turn give students increased understanding of the scientific research process
(Evans, Abrams, Rock, & Spencer, 2001; Finarelli, 1998; Harnik & Ross, 2003b; Ross et al., 2003;
Wurstner, Herr, Andrews, & Alley, 2005). STSPs also have been described as vehicles for
changing students attitudes toward and interest in science (Caton, Brewer, & Brown, 2000;
Comeaux & Huber, 2001; Ross et al., 2003; Wormstead et al., 2002; Wurstner et al., 2005). Some
studies found that particular partnerships led to perceived increases in students understanding of
specific content. The latter perceived gain was considered to be an important feature even though
no supporting empirical data were collected (Finarelli, 1998; Gilmer, 1997). Benefits for teachers,
including gains in content knowledge and an increased use of inquiry-based instructional
strategies, have been noted as well (Caton et al., 2000; Comeaux & Huber, 2001; Evans et al.,
2001; Ross et al., 2003; Wormstead et al., 2002).
For scientists, the benefits of STSPs are twofold. Many studies found that STSPs give
scientists the ability to collect data that would be difficult or impossible to acquire without extra
help (Lawless & Rock, 1998; Wormstead et al., 2002; Ross et al., 2003, Tinker, 1997; Wurstner
et al., 2005). Secondly, partnerships provide a vehicle to engage with K-12 education in a way that
brings more effective teaching strategies to college level instructors through scientists personal
engagement with K-12 educators (Caton et al., 2000; Donahue et al., 1998).
87
Experiential Learning and Authenticity

To a major extent, the impact of STSPs is premised on the effectiveness of experiential
learning, which Kolb (1984) described as knowledge that results from the combination of
grasping and transforming experience (p. 41). The roots of experiential learning can be traced to
Deweys (1943) progressive education with its emphasis on learning through experience. Rogers
(1959) further posited that experiential education is meaningful when there is personal
involvement, self-initiation, and the freedom to explore. These scholars felt it was important to
create educational experiences that resemble or, better, provide immersion within, disciplinary
practice. Students, thus, become immersed in a discipline beyond its substantive content; also
learning about its syntactic nature, that is, the inquiry procedures used to determine the validity of
substantive disciplinary content (Schwab, 1978).
While inquiry-based science learning can provide some insight into the work of scientists, it
does not necessarily entail engagement with authentic scientific practice (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). The word authentic is frequently used in the education literature to describe
experiential activities and contexts that mirror activities conducted by practitioners (e.g., Harnik
& Ross, 2003a; Wormstead et al., 2002). When used in reference to science experiences,
definitions of authenticity differ, ranging from modeling what scientists do (NRC, 1996) to
focusing on student-designed investigations that produce artifacts representing student learning
(Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997).
Experiential learning can connect the process of authentic scientific inquiry with inquirybased learning. STSPs make such a connection possible. Usually, STSPs are built and maintained
between university scientists and K-12 teachers and students. Authenticity for STSPs is ensured
by the fact that a major aim is the generation of new scientific knowledge using the participation of
K-12 students to make meaningful contributions that were central to scientists work
(Barstow, 1996). A major driver for STSPs is a real scientific problem, which could benefit from
a distributed data collection effort both to mitigate recourse limitations and enhance the reach of
scientists (e.g., geographically or temporally). Data quality often is paramount. Thus, if required,
the Research Scientists Granting Organization sometime fund the provision of sophisticated
equipment to students. Moss et al. (1998) endorsed the benefits to science, but also highlighted the
reciprocal benefits to science education. They argued, that in order for students to be involved in
the process of doing scientific research [and, thus, serve the science], they must first begin to
develop an understanding of what that process entails (p. 150). Indeed, Moss et al. found that
limiting student involvement to specified data collection protocols, which aimed to answer
scientists questions in a STSP also limited the scope of the project for the students (p. 159).
They recommended that students also be allowed to explore questions they developed themselves.
Links between student data to the research scientists questions in the partnership were considered
to be less important than student participation in the processes of science:
Whether scientists make use of data from student-generated areas of inquiry is unimportant.
What is important is that students will be both contributing to authentic research, by
following provided protocols, and will be experiencing a broader range of what the research
process entails by exploring their own questions. (p. 159)
The sorts of educational benefits advocated for by, among others, Moss et al. (1998), it turns
out, are synergistic with scientists needs because STSPs can, thus, serve as vehicles to fulfill
outreach and broader impact requirements for scientific research, which often are mandated
by U.S. federal funding agencies. Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber (2008) also emphasized
these broader educational benefits to learners accruing from STSPs, noting that:
88
HOUSEAL ET AL.
When students engage in science as practice, they develop knowledge and explanations of
the natural world as they generate and interpret evidence. At the same time, they came to
understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge while participating in
science as a social process. (p. 35)
While STSPs appear to be ideal contexts that provide all elements necessary for mutual
benefits for science and science educationincluding interactive, authentic experiences for
studentsthey have had a history fraught with challenges. Developing and sustaining effective
and reciprocally beneficial partnerships is rather difficult.
Challenges Facing STSPs
Definitions of STSPs, such as those advocated by Barstow (1996) essentially suggest or
assume that students involved in authentic science experiences would or should perform tasks in
a manner that corresponds to that of scientists. Such definitions, nonetheless, are problematic
because, given their age and training, K-12 students are not in a position to perform professional
scientific inquiry. Instead, Lee and Songer (2003) argued, there is a need to make distinctions
between professional and student scientific inquiry. For instance, authentic skills learned by
students may be conceived of as those that will enable students to cope with everyday life problems
beyond classroom settings (Brown, 1993). Another approach to addressing this definitional
problem is to adopt the notion of hybrid activities (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Brown et al.
(1989) argued that students must wrestle with emergent problems that contain authentic activity.
They used the term hybrid activities to describe specific types of authentic, experiential, science
activities, which are framed by one culture but attributed to another. For example, such
experiences include scientific investigations in which the practitioner already knows the outcome,
but the student does not. Still, even after addressing issues associated with defining authenticity
within STSPs, such partnerships are faced with substantial challenges.
To start with, the need for extensive wide-ranging data collection had raised several concerns
related to the quality and use of student data. Indeed, data quality has been the focus of much of the
literature on STSPs (Dolen & Tanner, 2005; Evans et al., 2001; Harnik & Ross, 2003b; Lawless &
Rock, 1998; Ross et al., 2003; Tanner, Chatman, & Allen, 2003). Other challenges for STSPs have
been identified by a small body of literature and include similarities and differences between the
culture of science and school science (Barstow, 1996; Carr, 2002; Moreno, 2005; Tinker, 1997), and
the identification of good questions, projects, or studies for partnerships (Doubler, 1996; Tinker,
1997). Carr (2002), Barstow (1996), Caton et al. (2000), Ledley, Haddad, Lockwood, and Brooks
(2003), Moreno (2005), and Tomanak (2005) identified many cultural challenges facing STSPs,
which at times are invisible to each set of participants. There are basic differences in the knowledge
base among participant students, teachers, and scientists, as well as disparities in the ways conflict
is viewed and dealt with. For example, while unrelenting and critical scrutiny of data protocol
implementation is considered part and parcel of scientific discourse, it could be considered offputting from a pedagogical perspective. These and other differences can create misunderstanding
between the partnering university research science and education cultures.
Challenges beyond cultural differences that often appear in the literature fall loosely into five
categories: (a) content knowledge background needs of teachers and scientists, (b) accuracy and
relevance of student data, (c) securing and negotiating resources for both scientists and teachers
(materials, time, and personnel), (d) communication needs and barriers, and (e) outside factors
affecting both the educational and research communities. In many cases, existing literature tells us
that if the above challenges inherent in STSPs are not addressed, they can seriously impede a
partnership (Evans et al., 2001; Ledley et al., 2003; Moreno, 2005; Tanner et al., 2003).
89
The bulk of extant studies have focused on identifying and addressing challenges associated
with STSPs. However, systematic empirical studies aimed at gauging the often-stated benefits of
STSPs for participating students and teachers are virtually absent. The present study aimed to
address this gap in the research literature by investigating whether STSPs actually result in
increased content knowledge and improved attitudes toward science among middle school
students and their science teachers, as well as desired shifts in participating teachers instructional
practices. The present study also shed light on components of STSPs that may facilitate growth
among students and teachers.
Addressing Challenges Facing STSPs
Along with identifying the abovementioned challenges, researches have put forth a number
of recommendations for mitigating the impact of such challenges (e.g., Carr, 2002; Caton
et al., 2000; Doubler, 1996; Harnik & Ross, 2003b; Lawless & Rock, 1998; Ledley, Haddad,
Lockwood, & Brooks, 2004; Moreno, 2005; Tinker, 1997). These recommendations can be
condensed into seven domains: (a) True partnerships need to be structured with an eye toward
addressing hierarchical issues and power imbalances between scientists, teachers, and students;
(b) partnerships must include open and frequent communication among the partners; (c) the need
of all participants must be incorporated into the partnership design and activities, including those
of the research scientists and the students; (d) data quality and use must be addressed; (e) research
questions pursued by students need to be carefully selected so that they are appropriate for a
partnerships context; (f) long-term relationships must be actively developed with attention to
sustainability; and (g) a third-party liaison should be included in the partnership. This is a person
who is familiar with the worlds and cultures of both education and scientific community. The
liaison acts as a facilitator to help mediate relationships in the partnership and raise the scientists
and educators understanding of each others goals and needs. As will become evident below, these
recommendations were given due consideration when designing and implementing the STaRRS
partnership.
Method
This study used a quasi-experimental design with two components. Impact of the STaRRS
partnership on participant students science content knowledge and attitude toward science and
scientists was assessed using a pre-testpost-test, non-randomized, comparison group design. A
pre-testpost-test single group design was used to assess impact on teachers science content
knowledge, attitudes, and pedagogical strategies. The STaRRS partnership served as the
intervention for students and teachers in the treatment group.
Development of the STaRRS STSP
The STaRRS STSP was created to attend to some of the challenges noted in the literature. The
primary challenge being to address the importance of students doing more than just collecting data
for the scientists research project, as this offers limited opportunities for them to be involved in
the process of doing scientific research. The activities were designed to help students engage in
authentic science experiences grounded in the tools, techniques, attitudes, and processes of
scientific inquiry. Additionally, STaRRS provided students with opportunities to explore
questions of their own interest, collect scientific data, and communicate their results to audiences
beyond their classrooms.
Three scientific fieldwork components at Yellowstone National Park (YNP) were developed
for STaRRS. These included the use of (a) whole group photographic data collection at specific
locations to monitor change in YNP hot springs geomicrobiology over time; (b) small group
90
HOUSEAL ET AL.
descriptive hot springs data collection using specified protocols to provide students with
experiences collecting extensive sets of data about a system at a single point in time; and (c) small
group, student-generated research investigations in which students used their knowledge of the
system to develop relevant, answerable research questions. These research activities provided a
full inquiry cycle and research experience for students and connected them to a larger scientific
research project (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Population and Participants
Expedition: Yellowstone! (E:Y!) is a long-standing, curriculum-based residential environmental education program located in YNP. E:Y! provides 4- or 5-day experiences for fourth
through eighth grade students focusing on the areas of geology, ecology, and human history. The
present partnership was designed to enhance and supplement the geology portion of the E:Y!
experience for students and teachers.
The target population for the study was teachers who bring their students to E:Y! These
teachers are dedicated to providing extraordinary experiences for their students. The recruitment
pool included 45 experienced E:Y! teachers who were planning to bring students to YNP during
the 20082009 school year. From this pool, nine teachers from eight schools in six U.S. states
volunteered to participate in STaRRS. Volunteering to be in the treatment group required the
ability to participate in an initial summer workshop and be scheduled to participate in E:Y! during
the 20082009 school year. The nine treatment teachers had between 5 and 21 years of experience.
Five of the schools were public and three were private. Five teachers brought 5th graders, one a
combined group of 5th and 6th graders, another brought 7th graders, and one 8th graders for a total
of 193 students in the intervention group. Five groups were self-contained with one teacher
instructing students in all subject areas. Each of these five groups brought all students from that
particular grade level to E:Y! Of the remaining three groups, one was self-contained, with all
students of that age from the school attending E:Y! However, the STaRRS teacher was not their
regular classroom teacher. The final two groups had only a portion of the schools students
attended E:Y! In both cases, students applied to attend and spent extra time outside of regular
classes preparing for the trip. The STaRRS teachers for the latter two groups were far removed
from their students everyday classes; one was a second grade teacher, the other a resource reading
specialist.
Eleven more E:Y! teachers, most of whom could not participate in the initial summer
workshop for various reasons, from nine schools in three states volunteered as participants in the
comparison group. The comparison group teachers had between 5 and 25 years of teaching
experience. All of the students in these groups attended E:Y! with their primary teacher. The
comparison group comprised a total of 187 students: Four 6th grade classes, four 4th grade classes,
and one combined 5th and 6th grade class. Only one of the comparison schools was private, and
this was the only school whose students applied to participate in E:Y! and spent time outside of the
regular school day to prepare for their expedition. Every teacher who volunteered for the study
was accepted.
Intervention
The STaRRS partnership was developed with the intention of embodying essential characteristics for success, as well as addressing some of the STSP challenges identified in the literature,
including: (a) data accuracy issues, (b) communication difficulties, (c) resource availability, (d)
participants needs, and (e) cultural differences (i.e., school science versus scientific practice)
through the use of a third-party liaison (Carr, 2002; Caton et al., 2000; Doubler, 1996; Harnik &
Ross, 2003a; Lawless & Rock, 1998; Ledley et al., 2004; Moreno, 2005; Tinker, 1997).
91
Components and Goals of the Partnership. STaRRS had two main components. These
components consisted of a summer PD workshop for teachers and on-going school-year support
for teachers and their students. The workshop was a 4-day, 45-hour intensive workshop that took
place in YNP and covered four areas: (a) hot springs geomicrobiology, (b) specific field tools, (c)
hot springs field science, and (d) integration and transfer to classrooms.
There were three main goals developed by the partnership for participant teachers. The first
goal was to provide teacher PD that included content enabling teachers to make explicit
connections to how the study of Mammoth Hot Springs (MHS) helps the broader scientific
community understand early earth environments, ancient and modern coral reef systems, and the
search for life on other planets. The second goal focused on ways of making science more
accessible to students by involving them in data collection processes. Finally, the workshop was
designed to model for teachers the field experiences in the same way their students would be
involved in them during their expeditions. This approach provided an opportunity for teachers to
work on integrating the target content and processes within their own school contexts.
Field science was defined by the partnership as investigations (using scientific practices) that
could only be conducted in situ (or on location). Questions developed by teachers and students had
specific parameters. These parameters prevented the development of questions that could be
answered by other research methods, including Internet, journal, or personal communication
sources. Specific field tools, in this case, were selected for their use at the hot springs, though they
were also appropriate for classroom and playground settings. Finally, questions were developed
such that they made use of the data collection tools.
To accomplish these goals, the university PD team, including geologists, rangers, and
education specialists, provided field experiences in YNP, in which teachers learned content about
the hot springs in the field and how to use the specifically chosen tools. Teachers were able to
directly connect with the hot springs systems and prior research, and begin to ask and answer their
own questions through the planned inquiry sessions. After the on-site field experiences, additional
assistance was provided to STaRRS teachers by the primary author in the form of school visits,
electronic communications, and conference calls.
STaRRS Pre-Expedition Preparation. STaRRS teachers spent approximately two additional
weeks of class time, beyond the normal E:Y! preparation time, getting their students ready for
their STaRRS expeditions. During this additional preparation time, they taught the students how to
use the various tools, some basic hot springs systems content, and scientific inquiry skills, mostly
related to asking questions that lend themselves to investigation using data available through
project tools. Teachers did this initially using content the students were familiar with, and then
they expanded it to hot springs content. During this pre-expedition preparation time, many
teachers utilized their STaRRS peers and participated in on-line discussions. The primary author,
as the liaison, spent time in each classroom for 13 days prior to the expedition to support teachers
during this process. Communication between the teachers, students, scientists, and among other
STaRRS teachers was facilitated throughout the school year using on-line discussion boards,
weekly emails, and video conferencing.
Differences Between STaRRS and Comparison Group Expeditions. At E:Y!, STaRRS
students spent more time studying MHS geology than regular E:Y! groups (up to 8 hours vs. 3).
Table 1 illustrates the differences between a regular experience (Comparison groups) and one that
involved the STaRRS intervention (Treatment groups) during their time at Yellowstone. The
STaRRS expedition strayed from the regular E:Y! schedule on days 1 and 2. Instead of dividing
the second day between Norris Geyser Basin and MHS, STaRRS groups spent the entire day at the
92
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Table 1
Summary of instructional focus and time spent during E:Y! and STaRRS expeditions
Time Spent
Days and Focus
Instructional Activities
Day 1: Stewardship
Evening
Day 2: Geology
Stewardship content
Geology content
Geology content
Norris Geyser Basin hike
Mammoth Hot Springs hike
12 hours
2 hours
1 hour
23 hours
23 hours
Ecology content
Ecology hike
Human history content
Human history hikes
Campfire
Cleaning up and checking out
2 hours
67 hours
2 hours
67 hours
2 hours
2 hours
Evening
Day 3: Ecology
Evening
Day 4: Human history
Evening
Day 5: Wrap up
E:Y!
STaRRS
12 hours
1 hour 1 hour STaRRS
1 hour STaRRS
N/A
56 hours including field work
12 hours presenting
2 hours
67 hours
2 hours
67 hours
2 hours
2 hours
Note: Shading indicate differences.
hot springs. At MHS, rangers led some of the usual E:Y! geology activities and then teachers
guided their students through the three components of the partnership in the field. Students
collected photo point data, grid transect data (creating a picture of a specific point of the hot
springs at a given moment in time), and collected data to answer questions that they had developed
prior to leaving for the field. Eliminating the driving time between the locations provided more
time for data collection at three different hot springs. At the end of this field experience, students
synthesized their findings and presented their preliminary results to their peers. On several
occasions a visiting scientist or other Yellowstone Park staff attended these presentations.
STaRRS Post-Expedition Follow-Up. Following E:Y!, STaRRS teachers spent approximately
two additional weeks guiding students through further analysis, processing, and data preparation
for formal presentations of their findings within their community. Some groups presented these
findings to their families and friends during a special evening event, others presented their results
to school board members at a regular board meeting. One school submitted their presentations to
the regional science fair.
A 3-day follow-up workshop for STaRRS teachers was conducted at the end of the study. This
final workshop gave teachers, rangers, and scientists a chance to reflect on the experiences, learn
new content, and plan for future work.
Comparison Group Participation. Comparison groups attended their regular E:Y! expeditions with no additional time spent prior to, at, or after E:Y! on geology or field science concepts.
Comparison group teachers did not attend any PD or receive any school year support from the
STaRRS staff. For the data collection, they administered the same instruments to their students
prior to and following their expeditions. For the submission of these assessments, each teacher
received a digital camera and an infrared thermometer. Later they were also given access to the
STaRRS curriculum (http://repository.uwyo.edu/starrs_curriculum/) and invited to participate in
data collection of photo points the following year.
Procedures and Instruments
As described earlier, as a part of the intervention, treatment students experienced the STaRRS
partnership in their classrooms and embedded in their E:Y! experience, while comparison students
93
engaged in typical E:Y! expedition activities during the same school year. Hereafter, treatment
students will be referred to as STaRRS students and comparison students as E:Y! students.
To answer the first research question, data were collected from the teachers prior to their
initial and final PD workshops. Three assessments were used. The first covered earth science
content, the second surveyed teacher attitudes, and the third was an extensive survey of enacted
curriculum. The second research question was answered by collecting pre- and post-expedition
data from both E:Y! and STaRRS students using two assessments. The first focused on specific
earth science content and the second surveyed students attitudes regarding science and scientists.
Assessing Participants Science Content Knowledge. The Geoscience Concept Inventory
(GCI) was used to assess teachers science content knowledge. The validity and reliability of
the GCI was established through the work of Libarkin and Anderson (2008) using RASCH
analysis. They reported a KR-20 classic test reliability of 0.69 with an item separation
reliability of 0.99 (Libarkin & Anderson, 2008). For this study, 25 questions were selected for
use with STaRRS teachers. Initially, the GCI sub-test construction guidelines were followed in
order to ensure reliability of this measure. In addition to the required 15 items, 10 other
questions that were closely aligned with E:Y! content were selected. Next, another RASCH
analysis, using Winstep1 and the test results from a pilot group of Rangers and teachers
(n 15) was conducted on this item subtest. This analysis indicated the questions fell along the
continuum identified by the original assessment developers in the pathway map. Thus, all of the
items for the subtest were used in the ANCOVA analysis to assess changes in STaRRS teachers
content knowledge.
A modified version of the GCI (Libarkin & Anderson, 2006) was developed for use with
participant middle school students. Questions were selected from the original instrument and
adapted for younger students and new questions were developed to match E:Y! and STaRRS
content. The final instrument covered three geosciences content areas: general knowledge; E:Y!
content, and STaRRS content. The GCI for Middle Level Students (GCI-MLS) consisted of 22
questions (11 multiple choice and 11 short-answer). Table 2 includes examples of questions from
both the GCI and the GCI-MLS. Two scientists, two middle level science teachers, E:Y! rangers,
and the researchers established the content validity of the instrument by matching the items to
NSES earth science content standards and state standards for Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.
The E:Y! content subsection was composed of concepts taught by Rangers during a typical
expedition, including general hot springs formation, tectonic plate movement, and erosion
(causes and effects). STaRRS content items assessed specific geoscience concepts taught during
STaRRS expeditions, including types of typical environments that supported early life and the
Hot Springs Facies Model (Fouke et al., 2000), a specific scientific model used to study hot
springs systems.
The CGI-MLS reliability was established in two ways. First, a testretest reliability rating
was achieved by using assessments from a group of 36 E:Y! students who took the measure right
before and after their expedition. The Spearman coefficient reliability for the instrument was 0.69.
Due to the non-linearity of the questions, the GCI-MLS was also subjected to a RASCH analysis
using students pre-tests (n 187). This analysis indicated that the test was well matched to the
sample and generally fit the model developed by Libarkin and Anderson (2008). The pathway map
showed most of the items fell on the path, close to the vertical center. Because the purpose of the
test was to measure improvement, the spread of the items from easy to difficult was considered
carefully, and it was determined that a progression from easy to difficult items was evident in the
GCI-MLS. The Wright map, item statistics and case statistics were checked for problems and the
GCI-MLS was determined to be an adequate measure for growth.
94
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Table 2
GCI for teachers and GCI-MLS for studentssample questions
Question
Category
Instrument
Sample Questions
Response Choices With Correct

Responses Highlighted
GCIa
STaRRS
(1) Some scientists claim that

they can determine when the
Earth first formed as a planet.
Which technique(s) do
scientists use today to
determine when the Earth first
formed? Choose all that
apply.
(A) Comparison of fossils found

in rocks
(B) Comparison of different
layers of rock
(C) Analysis of uranium and
lead in rockb
(D) Analysis of carbon in rock
(E) Scientists cannot calculate
the age of the Earth
GCI and
GCI-MLSb
General
knowledge
(18) What is groundwater?
(A) All liquid water that resides

beneath the Earths surface
(B) Muddy mixture of water and
dirt that lies beneath the
Earths surface
(C) Only the water found in
underground lakes and rivers
that is clean enough to drink
(D) Only water that is moving
beneath the Earths surface
Only water that is not
moving beneath the
Earths surface
GCI and
GCI-MLSb
E:Y!
(14) Fossils are studied by

scientists interested in
learning about the past. Which
of the following can become
fossils? Circle all that apply.
(A) Bones
(B) Plant material
(C) Marks left by plants
(D) Marks left by animals
(E) Animal material
(like scatanimal feces)
GCI-MLSa
General
knowledge
(13) Are rocks and minerals

alive?
(A) Yes, rocks and minerals

grow
(B) Yes, rocks are made up of
minerals, and minerals are
like plant cells
(C) Yes, rocks and minerals are
always changing
(D) No, rocks and minerals do
not reproduce
Questions were unique to each instrument.

Question and answer choices were identical on both instruments.
Assessing Participants Attitude Toward Science and Scientists. Five 10-question scales from
The Test of Science Related Attitudes (ToSRA) developed by Fraser (1981) were chosen for
teachers. The scales were: (a) Social Implications of Science (SIS), (b) Normality of Scientists
(NS), (c) Adoption of Scientific Inquiry (INQ), (d) Adoption of Scientific Attitudes AD-ATT), and
(e) Leisure Interest in Science (LEI). The ToSRA was originally developed for use with middle
and high school students. However, it has been used in several studies with adults including
95
undergraduates (Newbill, 2005). Newbill reported reliability coefficients for the scales at 0.82,
which she determined to be sufficiently close to Frasers (1981) original reliability (0.84). A small
pilot study using 15 volunteer E:Y! teachers and Rangers produced a reliability rating of an
average of 0.68 for the five scales being used with the teachers. Individual values for each area
were: SIS 0.77; NS 0.66; INQ 0.90; AD-ATT 0.32; and LEI 0.75. The low reliability for
AD-ATT matches earlier data on this instrument, in that for all of Frasers (1981) work show in an
average here of 0.67. The latter construct has typically shown a lower reliability coefficient than
the other scales. When an item analysis was conducted on this scale, two of the questions (#19 and
#39) had higher than average SDs. Both of these were phrased in the negative. Number 19 says,
Finding out about new things is unimportant and item 39 states, I am unwilling to change my
ideas when evidence shows that the ideas are poor. Both of these statements require selecting
what would be double negatives for a positive attitude score, which may have created confusion
for the survey takers. Based on the reliability coefficient, the results from this particular scale
should be considered with this in mind.
Participant students were administered four ToSRA scales: NS, INQ, LEI, and Enjoyment
of Science Lessons (ENJ). The reason only four scales were used with students was to
prevent assessment fatigue. It was anticipated that it would take 30 minutes to administer the
GCI-MLS and another 20 minutes to complete the ToSRA with the four chosen scales, which
were deemed the most relevant of the six available scales. Pre-test data (n 366) was used to
calculate Cronbachs alpha. The four scales were found to have a high degree of internal
consistency with the following values: NS 0.67; INQ 0.77; ENJ 0.93; and LEI 0.87.
Their average (0.81) matched the averages reported by Fraser (1981) of 0.80 for Year 7 Australian
students and 0.78 for 9th grade U.S. students. Table 3 includes sample questions from each of the
scales used.
Assessing Teachers Pedagogical Strategies. The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) is a
large multiple-choice inventory that assesses teacher instructional decision-making. It is used to
provide educators, administrators, and researchers information on the indicators of classroom
practice. They were developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers and have been
thoroughly field tested to ensure validity and reliability (Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001). The
science surveys contain more than 150 questions in three areas: (a) instructional practice, (b)
subject content, and (c) teacher characteristics. STaRRS teachers were instructed to complete the
SEC surveys at the outset and conclusion of the study keeping in mind their most recent school
year and corresponding set of students. The two administrations were undertaken 1 year apart.
While the student groups were different, all of the teachers except one had taken their prior group
of students to E:Y!, so the two groups were considered to be as equivalent as possible for the
purposes of this instrument.
The surveys asked teachers to first determine the amount of time spent throughout the entire
school year in 27 broad content areas. Then they identified the amount of class time spent eliciting
each of five student expectations: (a) memorization and recall, (b) performing procedures, (c)
communicating understanding, (d) analyzing information, and (e) applying concepts. The overall
instructional time spent, content areas, and expectations, called cognitive demands, are then
represented by three-dimensional graphics that resemble topographic maps. They show the
amount of time spent crossed with content topics and corresponding areas of cognitive demand.
When compared, these maps provide a visual overview of the changes teachers reported in their
teaching practice from pre- to post-STaRRS intervention. The five topic areas of focus for STaRRS
were measurement in science, nature of science, ecology, science and technology, as well as acids,
bases, and salts. Examples of questions and response matrices can be found in Table 4.
96
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Table 3
ToSRA scales for teachers and studentsdescription and examples of positive and negatively phrased
statements
Example Phrases
Scale
Description
Positive
Negative
Social Implications of
Science (SIS)a
Manifestation of attitudes
toward the role of
science in society
Money spent on
science is well
worth spending
Scientific discoveries
are doing more harm
than good
Normality of Scientists
(NS)
Manifestation of attitudes
toward scientists as
normal people
Scientists like sports as

much as other
people do
Scientists are LESS

friendly than other
people
Attitude to Scientific
Inquiry (INQ)
Acceptance of inquiry as
a scientific way of
thinking
I would prefer to find

out why something
happened by doing
an experiment than
by being told
Doing experiments are

not as good as
finding out the
information from
teachers
Enjoyment of Science
Lessons (ENJ)b
Enjoyment of learning
experience in science
classes
Science lessons are fun
I do NOT like science

activities
Adoption of Scientific
Attitudes (ADATT)a
Adoption of scientific
attitudes and habits of
mind
In science reports I
report unexpected
results as well as
expected ones
I am unwilling to
change my ideas
when evidence
shows the ideas are
poor
Leisure Interest in
Science (LEI)
Interest in science-related
activities outside of
school
I would enjoy visiting

a science museum
on the weekend
Listening to a talk on
the radio about
science would be
boring
Scale present on teacher version of ToSRA only.

Scale is present on student version of ToSRA only.
All other scales are present on both teacher and student versions of the ToSRA.
b
Data Analysis
The primary researcher scored the teachers GCI, and ToSRA items using keys provided by
the instrument developers (Fraser & Butts, 1982; Libarkin & Anderson, 2008). All GCI and
ToSRA pre- and post-assessments and spreadsheets were re-scored and checked by two
independent scorers, producing an inter-rater reliability of >0.99 for scoring and data entry. The
students GCI-MLS and ToSRA were scored by a single research assistant, under the supervision
of the primary researcher, using keys developed by the primary researcher (GCI-MLS) and
instrument developers (Fraser & Butts, 1982). Ten percent of the GC-MLS and ToSRA pre- and
post-assessments were randomly selected and re-scored by the researchers, producing an interrater reliability of 0.97 for the pre-test and 0.99 for the post-test for the GC-MLS 0.99 for the pretest and post-test for the ToSRA. The SEC data were scored by the instrument providers (http://
seconline.wceruw.org/secWebHome.htm) and rechecked by the researchers.
Teacher GCI pre- and post-test scores were analyzed in three groups. The first covered the
entire test, including all 25 items. Then each of the two subsections (general knowledge and E:Y!
content) were analyzed. Since the hypothesis being tested was directional, a one-tailed dependent
97
Table 4
SECsample questions and response choices
Category and Instructions for
Rating
Instructional Activities in
science
How much of the science
instructional time in the target
class do students use to
engage in the following tasks?
Response Choices
Sample Questions/Items
Amount of instructional time

0None
1Little (Less than 10% of
instructional time for the
school year)
2Some (1025% of
school year)
3Moderate (2650% of
school year)
Time on topic
Indicate the amount of time
spent on each topic covered
in this class
4Considerable (More than

50% of instructional time
for the school year)
Response codes
0 None
Indicate relative emphasis of

each student expectation for
every topic taught:
1. Memorize facts/
definitions/formulas
2. Conduct investigations/
perform procedures
3. Communicate understanding
of science concepts
4. Analyze information
5. Apply concepts/make
connections
28Write about science in a

report or paper on science
topics
33Do a science activity with

the class outside the classroom
or science laboratory (e.g.,
field trips or research)
Nature of science:
102Nature of scientific
inquiry/method
(Not covered)
1 Slight coverage
(Less than one class/lesson)
2 Moderate coverage
(One to five classes/lessons)
Expectations for students
25Listen to the teacher explain

something about science to the
class as a whole
Science and technology:

204Design or implement a
solution or product
3 Sustained coverage
Measurement and calculation in

science:
412Data displays (e.g., tables,
charts, maps, graphs)
(More than five classes/

lessons)
Response codes
0 No emphasis
(Not a performance goal for
this topic)
Animal biology:
807Structure and function
1 Slight emphasis
Ecology:
(Less than 25% of time on this

topic)
2 Moderate emphasis
1,301Food webs/chains
(2533% of time on this topic)

3 Sustained emphasis
Earth systems:
2,006Erosion and weathering
(More than 33% of time on this

topic)
Note: Survey of Instructional Practices Teacher Survey Grades K-12 Science (Blank et al., 2001).
98
HOUSEAL ET AL.
sample t-test model was used to compare teacher scores prior to and at the conclusion of the study.
Descriptive statistics were generated for each of the five teacher ToSRA scales. Next, pre- and
post-test differences were analyzed using dependent sample t-tests. Each of the ToSRA scales
measures a different construct and combining them does not produce a meaningful score (Fraser
& Butts, 1982). Thus, analyses focused on comparing scale scores rather than the total scores.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze student pre- to post-test score
differences for the GCI-MLS and ToSRA using the pre-test scores as the covariate. This approach
controlled for any differences in pre-test scores for the treatment and comparison groups. In
addition, the GCI-MLS data were analyzed in four sections (the total test and three subsections)
and the ToSRAwas analyzed as four separate scales.
Results
Impact on Teachers Content Knowledge, Attitudes, and Pedagogical Strategies
Content Knowledge. Although the differences for the GCI scores on the total test (TT) were
found to be statistically significant (see Table 5), the difference represented an average of one
point gain on the 25-item test. This finding could be of questionable practical significance. The
pre-test average GCI score in Libarkin and Andersons (2005) original study with undergraduate
students (n 2,215) stood at 41%. Libarkin and Anderson reported that undergraduates in their
study who pre-tested high (which they defined as above 60%) exhibited no change in their posttest scores. The STaRRS teachers pre-test average was 71%. Thus, it is very likely that the
instrument was not sensitive enough to show gains in teacher content knowledge because of a
ceiling effect. STaRRS teachers were among a self-selected group with solid understandings of
geological and earth science concepts related E:Y! experience. The reader is reminded that the
geology and earth science topics addressed in the GCI used in the present study were most closely
aligned with E:Y! and STaRRS content.
Attitudes. In the area of attitudes toward science and scientists, STaRRS teachers
demonstrated statistically significant gains on four of the five ToSRA scales (see Table 6). The
greatest gains were on the NS and LEI scales with effect sizes of 0.97 and 1.09, respectively.
Smaller gains were detected for SIS and AD-ATT. These findings demonstrate a possible impact
of STaRRS participation on teachers attitudes. The differences also were practically significant
since each of the observed attitude differences were greater than one third of a standard deviation,
which was defined by Cohen (1988) as a moderate effect size. In fact, the effect size of NS was
nearly a whole standard deviation, and LEI was greater than 1.0 SD. INQ showed no change. This
latter finding could be due to the fact that this self-selecting group of STaRRS teachers joined the
Table 5
Descriptive statistics and dependent samples t-tests for STaRRS teachers GCI findings
Subsection
(# of Items)
Pre-Test M
(SD)
Range
Post-Test
M (SD)
Range
Difference
M (SD)
Significance
TT (25)
GK (19)
E:Y! (6)
17.76 (2.87)
13.40 (2.54)
4.36 (1.29)
1422
1017
16
18.82 (2.80)
13.77 (2.38)
5.05 (0.66)
1523
1117
46
1.06 (1.72)
0.37 (0.96)
0.69 (1.19)
0.042
0.130
0.050
Note: n 9.

p < 0.05, one-tailed.
99
Table 6
Dependent samples t-tests for STaRRS teachers ToSRA pre-post-assessment differences by scale
Scale
SIS
NS
INQ
AD-ATT
LEI
Pre-Test M (SD)
40.1
37.3
39.6
40.6
39.4
(3.28)
(3.97)
(2.88)
(2.07)
(3.10)
Range
3545
3143
3342
3743
3444
Post-Test M (SD)
41.9
40.1
39.8
42.4
41.4
(3.00)
(4.60)
(2.25)
(1.51)
(2.59)
Range
3746
3248
3744
4045
3845
Difference M (SD)
1.80
2.80
0.20
1.80
2.00
(2.15)
(2.90)
(2.78)
(2.39)
(1.83)
Significance
0.014
0.007
0.413
0.021
0.004
Note: n 9.


program specifically to increase the amount of inquiry-based science they were teaching, so that
this scale was not affected by this project.
Pedagogical Strategies. The impact of STaRRS participation on pedagogical strategies was
assessed using the SEC. These surveys provide a wealth of information on the domains, as well as
depth and breadth of teaching practice. Only a small portion of the data has been selected for
presentation in Figures 15.
Content maps developed using the SEC software allows for viewing these data in threedimensional space. The maps show how science content topics align with the cognitive demand
expectations of the teachers. These data are then overlaid with shading and contour lines
representing the percentage of instructional time dedicated to corresponding domains. The maps
resemble topographic maps and are read in a similar manner. The horizontal grid lines correspond
with the topic areas and the vertical ones correspond with six categories of student cognitive
expectations. These expectations correlate with Blooms Taxonomy (Bloom, Hastings, &
Madaus, 1971). Lower level thinking skills are on the left, and more complex and higher level
thinking skills are on the right. The locations where the grid lines intersect are called
measurement nodes. At each of the nodes, the shaded bands of color represent increases or
decreases in reported teaching time.
Comparisons of the SEC pre- and post-content maps provided evidence of favorable
pedagogical shifts in the STaRRS teachers classrooms practice. These shifts were evident in both
time dedicated to various science topics and teachers cognitive expectations of students related to
both E:Y! and STaRRS curriculum content areas. The following sections highlight five of these
specific areas with examples.
Measurement in Science. Figure 1 shows teacher reported shifts in instructional focus for the
subtopic areas covered under measurement in science over the course of the study (one
academic year) in both content and student expectations. The most noticeable shifts are in three
areas. The first is found at the nodes where mass, weight, and length intersect with performing
procedures (A1) and (A2). The second applies to temperature (B1) and (B2) across all expectation
areas. The final area is related to data displays (C1 and C2). In the last two topic areas, teachers
reports of content show an increased distribution of breadth of cognitive expectations.
Nature of Science. On the nature of science maps (Figure 2), three measurement nodes stand
out. The first two can be seen where nature of scientific inquiry/methods intersect with performing
procedure and applying concepts at (D1) and (D2). Teachers reported increased time spent in both
areas. The largest shift, however, was reported by teachers at the node where scientific habits of
mind intersect with communicating understandings (E1) and (E2).
100
Figure 1.
HOUSEAL ET AL.
SECMeasurement and calculation in science.
Ecology. Three areas of interest (Figure 3) are found in the center of the ecology maps along
F1 and F2. The pre-test map supports the claim that this topic was already present in the STaRRS
teachers curriculum (Yellowstone Association Institute/Yellowstone National Park [YAI/
YNP] 2004), and teacher expectations were mostly focused on engaging student in communicating their understanding. However, these maps demonstrate that, by the end of the study, teachers
reported substantial increases in time spent having students communicate their understandings
(F2) in three subtopic areas: food webs and chains, ecosystems, and adaptations and variations.
Additionally, teachers reported spending more time having students apply concepts about food
webs and chains (G1) and (G2) and ecosystems (H1) and (H2). All of the concepts displayed on
this map are specific to E:Y! and their Ecology Day curriculum, the day that followed the Geology
Day/STaRRS curriculum during the expedition, not to the STaRRS components of the expedition,
which entails that the impact of the STaRRS intervention spilled into additional areas of
participant teachers curriculum.
Science and Technology. The findings apparent in the science and technology subsection
indicate a greater distribution and increase in time reported at the end of the study in this area
IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 101
Figure 2.
SECNature of science.
(Figure 4). At the outset, STaRRS teachers reported their strongest area of focus to be at (K1)
where performing procedures intersects with laboratory tools and safety. The increase in this
subtopic area (K2) could represent an increase in emphasis on the safe use of tools in the field and
student behavior expectations while collecting data at hot springs. Both safety and behavior are
covered in detail at all expeditions, but field notes from the STaRRS expeditions match the
teachers reported increases in durations dedicated to this area because more time was spent at the
hot springs conducting field research.
Another area showing an increased emphasis is found at the node where the relationship
between scientific inquiry and technological design and communicating understanding intersect
(J1) and (J2). This finding may represent the increased time the teachers spent with the students
developing answerable questions and designing field research projects prior to and during the
expeditions. These data are reinforced by qualitative data, including those from field notes, as well
as teacher and student interviews.
pH. The final map (Figure 5) shows the topic areas related to acids, bases, and salts. This is a
content area usually covered more in-depth above the eighth grade level (NRC, 1996).
However, pH was an area of minimal focus at the outset of the study and was most likely related to
the regular E:Y! curriculum (YAI & YNP, 2004). Small increases by the end of the study
represented additional time spent across all cognitive demand areas in acids, bases, behaviors and
strengths (L2) and pH (M2), which may have been due to attention to pH as a result of the
development and selection of field research questions by students. Both STaRRS teachers and
102
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Figure 3. SECEcology.
their students were especially interested in colors produced by microbial mats observed at MHS.
Because of this interest, every teacher had at least one student group explore the relationships
between the colors and pH levels of the spring water, which would have necessitated extra
instructional time and focus on pH.
It is important to note that of the nine teachers only seven reported teaching pH within their
classrooms. This is most likely an artifact of the difference in the grade level and subject matter
taught by the teachers versus the groups they brought to Yellowstone. For example, one STaRRS
teacher taught much younger students in the regular classroom (second grade) and pH is not an
appropriate topic for primary grades. Therefore, this teacher did not report data for either year.
In summary, most of the STaRRS teachers reported changes in the amount of time spent
teaching and the demands they made of their students, not only in topic areas related to the
STaRRS content, but in some cases, in more general science content areas. This was evidenced by
the movement along the continuum of cognitive demand as defined by the SEC, from teaching
lower level thinking skills to more complex ones, as appropriate for the specific content area. In
some cases, such as the use of specific scientific tools and measurements, this meant moving from
memorization and recall to performing procedures. In other areas, such as inquiry, logic and
reasoning, students spent more time communicating understanding and applying concepts.
Figure 4. SECScience and technology.
Impact on Students Content Knowledge and Attitudes

Content. Since RASCH analysis determined that the items on the GCI-MLS were a good fit
and an adequate measure for growth, the raw data were used in the analyses. Table 7 shows the
differences, ranges, and percentage gains in E:Y! and STaRRS students pre- and post-test GCIMLS scores. One reason to present the data in this format is that they more closely correlate with
the ways assessment data are usually presented in classrooms. Analysis revealed (see Table 8) that
STaRRS group students made statistically significant gains (p < 0.01) in all areas as compared to
E:Y! students. Cohens d was calculated for the results using Thalheimer and Cooks (2002)
methodology. The effect sizes of the total test (0.91) and STaRRS subsections (1.33) gains were
very large, compared to the E:Y! students subsection (0.43) and general knowledge subsection
(0.23), which showed moderate gain and small gains, respectively.
Attitudes. STaRRS students results significantly differed from E:Y! students on the ToSRA
in two areas: NS and LEI (see Table 9). The percentage of increase on the NS scale and decrease on
the LEI scale are shown graphically in Figure 6. STaRRS students exhibited a positive change
(p < 0.01) on the scale measuring their views of scientists as regular people. On the leisure interest
in science scale, E:Y! students showed an increased negative attitude that was significantly larger
(p < 0.05) than STaRRS students. As far as the latter finding is concerned, although E:Y! and
STaRRS students all exhibited more negative attitudes toward engaging in science-type activities
in their leisure time, STaRRS students decrease was significantly less than E:Y! students. This
may imply that the experience of STaRRS helped to decrease a known pattern of declining interest
in science as students go up the K-12 ladder (e.g., American Association of University
Women, 1994).
104
Figure 5.
HOUSEAL ET AL.
SECAcids, bases, and salts.
Table 7
GCI-MLSE:Y! and STaRRS students pre-test/post-test/difference scores and percentage gains
Groups
Pre-Test M (SD)
TT (42 items)
E:Y!
11.60 (4.47)
STaRRS
13.18 (4.87)
GK (21 items)
E:Y!
8.33 (3.27)
STaRRS
9.24 (3.33)
E:Y! content (7 items)
E:Y!
1.64 (1.24)
STaRRS
1.77 (1.37)
STaRRS content (14 items)
E:Y!
1.63 (1.37)
STaRRS
2.16 (1.64)
Range
Post-Test M (SD)
Range
Difference M (SD)
% Gains
224
228
13.68 (4.81)
20.12 (6.66)
325
435
2.09 (4.18)
6.93 (6.18)
4.8
16.7
217
119
9.28 (3.44)
10.98 (3.68)
117
318
0.95 (3.36)
1.74 (3.61)
4.5
8.2
05
05
1.93 (1.33)
2.75 (1.50)
06
06
0.29 (1.46)
0.98 (1.75)
4.1
14.0
06
06
2.47 (1.62)
6.39 (3.18)
06
012
0.84 (1.71)
4.23 (3.16)
6.0
30.0
Table 8
ANCOVA GCI-MLS with pre-test covariates
Source
SS
TT pre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
2,604.57
TT pre-test
3,185.46
Error
9,053.73
GK pre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
133.01
GK pre-test
1,079.31
Error
3,512.71
E:Y! Content pre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
54.37
E:Y! pre-test
63.84
Error
659.86
STaRRS content pre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
1,178.50
STaRRS pre-test
195.53
Error
2,130.30
df
MS
1
1
361
2,604.57
3,185.46
25.08
103.85
127.01
0.000
0.000
1
1
361
133.01
1,079.31
9.73
13.67
110.92
0.000
0.000
1
1
361
54.37
63.84
1.82
29.74
34.93
0.000
0.000
1
1
361
1,178.50
195.53
5.90
199.71
32.97
0.000
0.000
Note: E:Y! n 180, STaRRS n 186.

p < 0.01, two-tailed.
Table 9
ANCOVA ToSRA scales with pre-test covariate
Source
NSpre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
NSpre-test
Error
INQpre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
INQpre-test
Error
ENJpre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
ENJpre-test
Error
LEIpre-test covariate
E:Y!/STaRRS
LEIpre-test
Error
SS
df
MS
827.35
2,173.92
10,733.70
1
1
366
827.35
2,713.92
29.33
28.211
92.54
0.000
0.000
77.82
6,209.78
15,207.72
1
1
366
77.82
6,209.78
41.51
1.87
149.45
0.172
0.000
94.81
13,615.19
23,595.62
1
1
366
94.81
13,615.19
64.47
1.47
211.19
0.226
0.000
243.85
11,226.78
20,946.88
1
1
366
243.85
11,226.78
57.23
4.26
196.86
0.040
0.000
Note: E:Y! n 182, STaRRS n 187.


106
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Figure 6. E:Y! and STaRRS students change (%) on ToSRA subscalesnormality of scientists and leisure interest in
science.
There were no differences on either the INQ or ENJ scales. The INQ scale matched the lack
of change in the teachers ToSRA scores. It is possible that inquiry was already a part of teaching in
classrooms both for the treatment and comparison groups, so, the students did not perceive any
differences during the school year when the study was undertaken. In a sense, all participant
teachers, ones who make the effort to bring groups of 1232 students on a 4- to 5-day hands-on
field expedition at YNP, are likely not representative of the typical population of teachers (Bob
Fuhrmann, Director of E:Y!, Personal communication, March 2006).
Discussion and Conclusions
The evidence indicates that participation in STaRRS did impact students and teachers
geoscience content knowledge and attitudes toward science and scientists, as well as the selfreported pedagogical practices of teachers. This research study is, to the best of our knowledge,
the first to provide empirical evidence showing a direct impact of an STSP on valued educational
outcomes for science teachers and their students. The present findings stand as a contribution to
the research literature on STSPs. But why did engaging teachers and students with park rangers
and scientists in authentic science research activities result in measurable change for teachers and
students on particular outcomes? How can these results be connected to current reform efforts in
science education? What are the implications for future partnerships, particularly when framed in
the context of current reform efforts? Two emergent themes serve both to frame and inform a
discussion of these questions. The first relates to STSPs as a vehicle and catalyst for change in K12 science education. The second theme speaks to the tangible benefits of situating teacher PD
through experiential learning within an STSP, and establishing both functional and strategic links
between the PD and STSP.
Scientific Practice in Science Education
Engaging K-12 students with authentic inquiry experiences that progressively approximate
scientific practice has been a consistent and major theme in science education reforms for the past
half century (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). While some progress has been achieved in this regard,
much remains to be desired: K-12 science instruction largely continues to be incommensurate
with how scientists conduct their practice (Anderson, 2007; Talanquer, Tomanek, &
Novodvorsky, 2013). Toward achieving this goal, reforms have called for, explicitly or implicitly, a
three-step process for effecting change. The first step is to promote science teachers understandings
of scientific content and inquiry through engagement with the sort of experiences we expect them to
enact in their own classrooms. The NRC (2007) called for engaging teachers with ongoing
opportunities to learn science. . . [that] should mirror the opportunities they will need to provide for
their students (p. 7). In the case of Taking Science to School (NRC, 2007), these opportunities
would be related to the generation and evaluation of explanations of the natural world, understanding
nature and the development of scientific knowledge, and engagement in scientific practices and
discourse. The Framework (NRC, 2012) states that science teacher PD should prepare teachers to
meet the challenges of the Next Generation Science Standards in terms of disciplinary core ideas,
crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices (Wilson, 2013, p. 312). The sort of PD opportunities
dedicated to this end and closest in their approach to STSPs, have taken the form of teacher authentic
research apprenticeships (Sadler, Burgin, McKinney, & Ponjuan, 2009).
The second step is to support teachers as they engage with the process of transferring their
newly acquired understandings and skills for the purpose of transforming their own instructional
practice. In this regard, the reforms and literature on best practice have for called long-term on-site
support and PD, as well as teacher coaching and mentoring (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Wei,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; NRC, 2001), in addition to just-in-time assistance that
draws on the potential of new technologies and social media to make high-quality science PD
available to all teachers (Wilson, 2013, p. 312). The extent to which these two steps are
interlocking has varied across interventions, which has translated into differential impacts in
terms of effect on science teachers disciplinary knowledge, understandings of nature of science
and the development of scientific knowledge, and/or instructional practice (Bell, Blair, Crawford,
& Lederman, 2003; NRC, 2001; Sadler et al., 2009). Obviously, the more meaningfully
coordinated the two steps are, the more potent their effect.
The third step, and arguably the most important, often is assumed to necessarily follow from
the first two: The assumption is that the combined impact of the first two steps eventually
transform students experiences in science classrooms to include engagement with approximations of authentic inquiry or scientific practice. This assumption has proven to be problematic, to
say the least. Anticipated large-scale transformations in terms of teacher instructional practices
and student learning experiences are yet to be realized (Arzi, 2012; Jones & Carter, 2007). It is the
very nature of this third step that sets high quality STSPs apart from high quality science teacher
authentic research internships coupled with meaningful classroom support.
STSPs as Catalysts for Change
Rather than assuming change in student experiences will automatically follow as a result of
working at the level of teachers (i.e., improving teacher knowledge and skills and supporting their
efforts to bring about change), STPSs build student agency into the very process of change. Thus,
the aforementioned two interlocking steps with an assumed impact on the third is replaced with a
three-interlocking-step process, which intersects the domains of scientific research, teacher PD
and pedagogical practice, and student learning experience. In other words, STSPs create a
transformative space at the intersection of these three domains that increases the likelihood of
impacting student and teacher outcomes, thus, bolstering the process of change classroom
instruction. Next, we discuss a number of episodes documented in the course of implementing
STaRRS, which shed light on how the incorporation of students as a third axis in the partnership
transformed the nature of interactions within this shared space and contributed to the documented
positive impacts on students and teachers knowledge and attitudes, and teacher self-reported
instructional practice.
Breaking Down Barriers. First, the inclusion of students in STaRRSand by extension
similar STSPsseemingly resulted in elevating the status of science teachers to equals as fully
108
HOUSEAL ET AL.
recognized partners with practicing scientists. Often, by virtue of substantial gaps in terms of
training and scientific expertise, teachers engaged in authentic scientific internships necessarily
find themselves locked in a hierarchical relationship with scientists. These relationships are
associated with the extent to which the teachers can or, more often cannot, make meaningful
contributions to the scientific tasks at hand. In comparison, the introduction of students and the
necessity of attending to their needs in an STSP makes the pedagogical expertise of teachers and
their deep knowledge of students an indispensible resource to the partnership. Thus, teachers
voices and contributions now have a significant place in the course of decisions associated with the
implementation of not only pedagogical matters, but scientific ones as well.
An illustrative example transpired when scientists presented the transect grids (to be used for
the second set of data collection by STaRRS students) at the first teacher workshop. Almost
immediately teachers (and rangers) subjected these protocols to critical revision due to factors that
would inhibit data collection as originally conceived. Scientists had envisioned a one-by-one
meter transect grid, which may have been an appropriate size for an adult to carry into the field.
Teachers highlighted the importance of taking the stature of a 1014 year-old into consideration
and suggested a revised 50 cm 50 cm frame for the grid, which the scientists accepted. Similarly,
because of teacher and ranger input, other aspects of the data collection protocol, which involved
skills such as sketching, taking photographic evidence, and communicating with scientists, were
also revised to better match student abilities while still meeting the scientists need for the
collection of reliable data.
Such intense interactions with the science research team, carried out as peer-to-peer
discussions, might have helped reshape some of the teachers attitudes about scientists. Since the
protocols shared during the workshop were not finalized, the involvement of teachers and rangers
in the revision process allowed them to take active part in this aspect of doing the science. In this
sense, the interactions between teachers, rangers, and scientists were quite collegial with mutual
respect and appreciation for the varied sets of knowledge and expertise that each group brought to
the partnership. Although these kinds of critical discussions and design iterations are common in
science, students, teachers, or the general public often does not experience them. Most of the latter
audiences receive science in the form of finalized product; cleaned-up sound bites. Participating in
the protocol revision process may have given the teachers new insights into how field research is
planned and set up, but also into the social dimensions of doing science as a collective and dynamic
endeavor. Such interactions and insight most likely were behind the marked increase in participant
teacher attitudes toward science and scientists as measured by the ToSRA. Indeed, the largest
gains for teachers were evident in the case of the NS and LEI sub-scales with respective effect
sizes of 0.97 and 1.09. Teachers now experienced scientists as normal folk and as colleagues
with whom they can interact at ease. The observed increase in the leisure interest in science could
be attributed to the specific nature of the STaRRS experience, being situated in outdoor and
naturally appealing settings as compared, for instance, to indoor research laboratories.
Evidence of Change. Second, the inclusion of students in the partnership made proximal any
improvements in student outcomes, which might have facilitated some of the observed changes in
teachers instructional practices. The abovementioned model of bringing about change in teacher
practice is premised on first changing their knowledge and beliefs in the hope of getting them to
eventually change their instruction. In a sense, teachers are asked to suspend judgment about the
alternative instructional models (e.g., reform-oriented instruction) with which they are being
presented, to learn how to implement these strategies, and then to actually undergo the process of
relegating their own approacheswhich might have worked well for them in the pastin favor
of these alternatives, because the latter will eventually bring about improvements in student
outcomes. It is not hard to see that, in this case, student outcomes are distal and far removed from
the context and timeframe, sometimes by several months if not longer, where teachers experience
the new and much desired strategies. Guskey (2002) argued against such model, which had proven
time and again to be less than optimal (Jones & Carter, 2007). Instead, Guskey suggested that
change in teacher instructional practice follows evidence of change in student outcomes: This is
exactly what STaRRS and carefully designed STSPs can provide.
At several stages in the STaRRS experience, teachers and students were working, literally,
side by side on scientific inquiry both in the sense of collecting data on behalf of the science
research team (genuine inquiry mostly from the perspective of teachers, and some students) and
collecting data to answer student-generated questions (genuine inquiry mostly from the
perspective of students, and some teachers). Along the way, teachers were constantly receiving
formative feedback from students about their experiences and a firsthand account of how student
learning was unfolding. This formative feedback provided initial proximal assessments of the
impact of STaRRS on student outcomes.
In the context of attempting to answer scientific questions about the hot springs systems at
Yellowstone, there were three main research activities connecting the students, teachers, rangers,
and scientists: Gathering photo point data, collecting specific transect data, and generating
student-driven field research studies. These activities were designed to give teachers and students
experience with a full cycle of scientific inquiry, while at the same time connecting teachers and
their classroom communities to a broader scientific research project. This full cycle of scientific
inquiry was heavily encouraged at all expeditions, even within an already packed schedule. In
spite of time constraints, analysis of field data and presentations of findings were carried out on site
by students at the end of Geology Day. These presentations served two purposes. First, they helped
students refine their thinking and make connections across their activities. Many students reported
in post-evaluation interviews that it was through giving their own, and watching others,
presentations that they really understood what they were doing and how scientific inquiry worked.
Second, the presentations served to provide feedback to teachers, and gave them evidence of
student learning long before the post-test was administered. The following anecdote serves to
illustrate the impact of such feedback on teachers.
One of the STaRRS groups brought teachers, instead of parents, as chaperones. Two of these
teachers approached the first author at the end of the data collection portion of the field experience,
just prior to student data analysis and presentation of findings. They indicated their concern about
the amount of time spent on the project, including the extra week spent prior to the expedition
teaching STaRRS content and processes, and the similarly extended time spent on these activities
on site. They felt that after more than 6 hours in the field the students did not seem to get it.
However, right after student data processing and presentations, the two teachers returned to report
that now they thought the students got it! And now, so do we! Evidence of student understanding
during the presentations was overwhelming and had produced clear change in these chaperoning
teachers perspective and attitudes toward extended engagement with inquiry that builds on
students own research questions. One could only assume that STaRRS teachers must have
experienced such shifts at much deeper and lasting levels, which could have translated into
changes in their instructional practices.
Indeed, the present evidence indicated major changes and shifts in teachers self-reported
pedagogical strategies as reported on the SEC. To be sure, these changes could be attributed to
compliance to the STaRRS curriculum by teachers and the requirements of the partnership.
Nonetheless, evidence of changes in instruction related to a content area, namely ecology, which
110
HOUSEAL ET AL.
was not a part of the STaRRS curriculum, adds confidence to the assertion that participation in the
partnership impacted teachers pedagogical strategies beyond the STaRRS curriculum.
Addressing Student Needs
Third, it was attention to student needs that might have resultedat least, to a significant
extentin the measured impact on their attitudes and content knowledge, as well as on teachers
content knowledge. Based on the arguments of Moss et al. (1998), STaRRS did not limit student
involvement to just scientist-prescribed data collection and analysis activities. STaRRS students
explored questions related to their areas of interest, which served to make experiences at YNP E:
Y! more authentic for them. Developing answerable questions, nonetheless, was a novel skill for
students and most of the STaRRS teachers. For these teachers, their only experience developing
their own questions was at the STaRRS workshop. They had not used or taught this skill to their
students before, which now they found themselves having to deliver on. This is not surprising as
most science curricula, including those written for guided inquiry, often provide the actual
questions for teachers to use in student exploration. The teachers need for support in this area was
addressed through the development of a set of activities. The activities were fleshed out in the
STaRRS classrooms during the year and shared with the rest of the group through bimonthly
communications and web-conferences.
Being able to develop answerable research questions is a specific skill, and one that is not
always well understood. In order to develop good questions, prior knowledge must include not
just the concepts, but also an understanding of the relevant tools (including their limitations) and
procedures. Hansson and Yarden (2012) explored the possible influences of separating
procedural knowledge from the development of research questions. They found that as
participant teachers in their study improved their ability to perform laboratory procedures using
specific tools and protocols, their ability to develop appropriate research questions also
improved. In other words, engagement with thinking about and putting forth answerable
questions could have served as both an incentive and meaningful context for students and
teachers to internalize the requisite science concepts and inquiry skills. In the context of STaRRS,
learning about all these aspects was meaningfully intertwined. In a sense, the benefits for
STaRRS teachers and students did not simply arise just from the research experience itself.
Rather, having scaffolded opportunities to learn about the geobiology content of the university
research group, the uses and limitations of several tools, and the characteristics of the hot springs
system provided teachers and their students a foundation on which to ask and research their own
questions. In turn, the very act of engagement with trying to answer these questions further
deepened student and teacher understandings of these disciplinary concepts and inquiry
processes, and better refined their inquiry-related skills.
STaRRS student content knowledge gains showed both anticipated and less anticipated
outcomes. On the STaRRS content subsection of the GCI-MLS, comparison students were not
expected to do as well, and they did not. After all, comparison teachers were not privy to the new
science content, tools, and techniques of studying hot springs. However, STaRRS students did
significantly better on all sections of the GCI-MLS including the portion attributed to E:Y!
content. This subsection addressed content that is taught at all expeditions. STaRRS students also
performed better on the general knowledge portion of the test. This subsection was matched to
NSES (NRC, 1996) and State standards and represented knowledge that is aligned with curricula
in most schools. These findings indicate that the STaRRS experience enhanced students science
content knowledge beyond areas directly presented to them in pre-expedition class work and in
expedition experiences and instruction. As noted above, students experiences as a whole may
have led them to learn other geoscience topics with greater understanding.
Furthermore, the authenticity of the research site added to the richness of students and
teachers experiences and helped them to build rather flexible skills. Weather, safety, and the
quality of the hot springs (which can be incredibly variable in their flow rate) at the time of data
collection, sometimes limited the use of particular questions that student and teachers had
developed before coming to YNP. When STaRRS groups arrived at the study site, over half of
them had to change their questions to fit the current conditions. The first STaRRS expedition
shared these glitches with the upcoming expeditions and teachers spent more time developing
questions than was originally planned. It made a difference. Students who came up with their first
set of questions prior to their field experience were able to do so again in the field with relative
ease. The STaRRS experience highlights the importance of actively and explicitly teaching such
skill and providing activities and support to help both students and teachers negotiate what many
consider as one of the most difficult inquiry skills to learn and teach (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004;
NRC, 1996).
Connections to Current Science Education Reform Efforts
By now, the connections of STSPs, such as the STaRRS partnership, to the most recent wave
of reform efforts in science education as embodied in the Framework documents (NRC, 2011) and
associated NGSS (Achieve, 2013) should have come into sharp focus. When carefully structured
and executed, STSPs can provide valuable PD activities for science teachers and learning
opportunities for K-12 students to engage with scientific practices and develop deep understandings of disciplinary ideas. The latter are two of the three major axes targeted in these reforms.
The third axis, related to crosscutting concepts, would follow closely when it comes to concepts,
such as patterns, scales and proportion, systems and systems models, and stability and change,
which could be targeted in an STSP like STaRRS. Indeed, several crosscutting concepts were
explored by scientists, teachers, rangers, and students using the Hot Springs Facies Model (Fouke
et al., 2000), a conceptual systems model that aids the understanding of a hot springs sedimentary
environment. Calcium Carbonate is deposited and grows (forming the rock called travertine) in
very predictable patterns at a variety of scales. The scales used in this partnership ranged from
millimeters to meters and were studied and correlated to abiotic (non-living) parameters, such as
spring water flow rate and temperature, and biotic (living) factors such as ranges of colors
exhibited in microbial communities.
In this regard, it does not escape us that while using STSPs as a context for teaching
disciplinary content and scientific practices is very promising, the implementation of such
partnerships could be challenging. Effective STSPs require planning, attention, and flexibility.
Key attributes include the ability of these partnerships to: (a) connect teachers and students to
research science, while at the same time support core conceptual science learning through the
integration of scientific practices and cross-cutting concepts; (b) use accompanying experiential,
research-based PD that addresses the needs of scientists, teachers, and students; and (c) provide
student ownership of knowledge through asking and answering their own research questions
within the partnership. Developers of future STSPs should consider the critical importance of
connecting the two types of research activities by having accurate scientific data collection lead to
the development and implementation of student-driven research. Further research on these key
attributes will enable us to develop more solid and sustainable models for future STSPs.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Biocomplexity in the
Environment Program (grant number EAR-0221743) and a supplementary Research
Experience for Teachers Program award. The products are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the funding agency. The authors wish to acknowledge the important
112
HOUSEAL ET AL.
contributions of the Fouke Lab at UIUC, including Amanda Oehlert, Holly Vescogni, Kathy
Yang, Dr. Robert Sanford, and Dr. Bruce Fouke, the Division of Resource Education and Youth
Programs at Yellowstone National Park, including Rangers Bob Fuhrmann, Ellen Petrick,
Melanie Condon, Trudy Patton, Michael Breis, Matt Ohlen, and Sabrina Diaz, and the E:Y!
and STaRRS teachers and their students, who must remain unnamed in this forum.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok, R., . . . Tuan,
H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397419.
Achieve, Inc. (2013). The next generation science standards (NGSS). Retrieved from http://www.
nextgenscience.org
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all
Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association of University Women. (1994). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America:
Executive summary: A nationwide poll that assesses self-esteem, educational experiences, interest in math
and science, and career aspirations of girls and boys ages 915 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807830). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arzi, H. J. (2012). ChangeA desired permanent state in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin,
& C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 883898). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Barstow, D. (1996). The richness of two cultures. National Conference on Student & Scientist
Partnerships: Conference Report. Cambridge, MA: TERC. Retrieved from. http://www.terc.edu/ssp/
conf_rep/ncssp_2/richtwo.htm
Bell, R., Blair, L., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? The impact of a science
apprenticeship program on high school students understandings of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487509.
Blank, R. K., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and
standards in mathematics & science: Results from survey of enacted curriculum project. Washington, DC:
CCSSO.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation
of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, A. (1993). Leading technological change. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal,
14(4), 2130.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
Carr, K. (2002). Building bridges and crossing borders: Using service learning to overcome cultural
barriers to collaboration between science and education departments. School Science and Mathematics, 102
(6), 285298.
Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about
energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 715.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: A theoretical
framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175218.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Comeaux, P., & Huber, R. (2001). Students as scientists: Using interactive technologies and
collaborative inquiry in an environmental science project for teachers and their students. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 12(4), 235252.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and Abroad. Dallas,
TX: National Staff Development Council.
Dewey, J. (1943). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dolen, E., & Tanner, K. (2005). Moving from outreach to partnership: Striving for articulation and
reform across the K-20 science education continuum. Cell Biology Education, 4(1), 3537.
Donahue, T. P., Lewis, L. B., Price L. F., & Schmidt, D. A. (1998). Bringing science to life through
community-based watershed education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1), 1523.
Doubler, S. J. (1996). Two-way partnerships: An introduction to SSPs. National Conference on Student
& Scientist Partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.terc.edu/ssp/conf_rep/ncssp_1/twoway.htm
Evans, C. A., Abrams, E. D., Rock, B. N., & Spencer, S. L. (2001). Student/scientist partnerships: A
teachers guide to evaluating the critical components. American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 318323.
Finarelli, M. G. (1998). GLOBE: A worldwide environmental science and education partnership.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1), 7784.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). TOSRATest of science related attitudes. Hawthorne, Victoria, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J., & Butts, W. L. (1982). Relationship between levels of perceived classroom individualization and science-related attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 143154.
Fouke, B. W., Farmer, J. D., Des Marias, D. J., Pratt, L., Sturchio, N. C., Burns, P. C., & Discipulo, M. K.
(2000). Depositional facies and aqueous solid geochemistry of travertine depositing hot springs (Angel
Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.). Journal of Sedimentary Research, 7(3),
565585.
Gilmer, P. J. (1997, March). Teachers learning science by doing science. Paper presented at the meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice, 8(3/4), 381391.
Hansson, E., & Yarden, A. (2012). Separating the research question from the laboratory techniques:
Advancing High School Biology teachers ability to ask research questions. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 49(10), 12961320.
Harnik, P. G., & Ross, R. M. (2003a). Developing effective K-16 geoscience research partnerships.
Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 58.
Harnik, P. G. & Ross, R. M. (Eds.). (2003b). Assessing data accuracy when involving students in
authentic paleontological research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 7684.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 10671104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle
school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lawless, J. G., & Rock, B. N. (1998). Student scientist partnerships and data quality. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 7(1), 513.
Ledley, T. S., Haddad, N., Lockwood, J., & Brooks, D. (2003). Developing meaningful student-teacherscientist partnerships. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9195.
Ledley, T. S., Haddad, N., Lockwood, J., & Brooks, D. (2004 , January). Involving students in authentic
research through studentteacherscientist partnerships. Paper presented at the 84th AMS Annual Meeting,
Seattle, WA.
Lee, H., & Songer, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(8), 923948.
Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses:
Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 394401.
Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2006). The geoscience concept inventory: Application of Rasch
analysis to concept inventory development in higher education. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of
Rasch measurement in science education (pp. 4573). Elmsford, NY: JAM Publishers.
Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2008). Development of the geoscience concept inventory. In D.
Deeds & B. Callen (Eds.), Proceedings of the National STEM Assessment Conference (pp. 148158).
Springfield, MO: Drury University.
114
HOUSEAL ET AL.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science.
Elementary School Journal, 97, 341358.
McKay, M., & McGrath, B. (2006). Real-world problem-solving using real-time data. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3641.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to
work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Moreno, N. (2005). Science education partnerships: Being realistic about meeting expectations. Cell
Biology Education, 4(1), 3032.
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Kull, J. A. (1998). Can we be scientists too? Secondary students
perceptions of scientific research from a project-based classroom. Journal of Science, Education, and
Technology, 7(2), 140161.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education standards. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning.
Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new
millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
NRC. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newbill, P. L. (2005). Instructional strategies to improve womens attitudes toward science.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in
the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (pp. 184256). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Ross, R. M., Harnik, P. G., Allmon, W. D., Sherpa, J. M., Goldman, A. M., Nester, P. L., & Chiment, J. J.
(2003). The mastodon matrix project: An experiment with large-scale public collaboration in paleontological
research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 3947.
Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research
apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235256.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.),
Science, curriculum and liberal education (pp. 229272). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15
(2), 414.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 122.
Shulman, L. (1992). Ways of seeing, ways of knowing, ways of teaching, ways of learning about
teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 393396.
Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students understanding of inquiry:
What do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50, 189208.
Tanner, K. D., Chatman, L., & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Science
teaching and learning across the school-university divideCultivating conversations through scientistteacher partnerships. Cell Biology Education, 2, 195201.
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified
methodology. Retrieved from www.work-learning.com
Tinker, R. F. (1997). Student scientist partnerships: Shrewd maneuvers. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 6, 111117.
Tomanak, D. (2005). Building successful partnerships between K-12 and universities. Cell Biology
Education, 4(1), 2829.
Wilson, S. M. (2013. , April 19). Grand challenges in science education: Professional development for
science teachers. Science, 340, 310313.
Wormstead, S. J., Becker, M. L., & Congalton, R. G. (2002). Tools for successful studentteacher
scientist partnerships. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 277284.
Wurstner, S., Herr, C., Andrews, G., & Alley, K. (2005). Teacher/Scientist partnership develops a
simulated natural disaster scenario to enhance student learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5),
522530.
Yellowstone National Park (YAI), & Yellowstone National Park (YNP). (2004). Expedition: Yellowstone! A curriculum-based residential program for grades 48 in Yellowstone National Park. (Available from
the Formal Education Branch Division of Interpretation, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY
82190).

House Al 2014

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

House Al 2014

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

VOL. 51, NO. 1, PP. 84115 (2014)

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming

Received 19 September 2011; Accepted 25 October 2013

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Experiential Learning and Authenticity

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Note: Shading indicate differences.

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Response Choices With Correct

(1) Some scientists claim that

(A) Comparison of fossils found

(18) What is groundwater?

(A) All liquid water that resides

(14) Fossils are studied by

(13) Are rocks and minerals

(A) Yes, rocks and minerals

Questions were unique to each instrument.

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Scientists like sports as

Scientists are LESS

I would prefer to find

Doing experiments are

Science lessons are fun

I do NOT like science

I would enjoy visiting

Scale present on teacher version of ToSRA only.

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Amount of instructional time

4Considerable (More than

Indicate relative emphasis of

28Write about science in a

33Do a science activity with

Expectations for students

25Listen to the teacher explain

Science and technology:

Measurement and calculation in

(More than five classes/

(Less than 25% of time on this

(2533% of time on this topic)

(More than 33% of time on this

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

SECMeasurement and calculation in science.

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 101

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 103

Figure 4. SECScience and technology.

Impact on Students Content Knowledge and Attitudes

SECAcids, bases, and salts.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 105

Note: E:Y! n 180, STaRRS n 186.

Note: E:Y! n 182, STaRRS n 187.

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 107

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 109

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 111

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 113

IMPACT OF A STUDENTTEACHERSCIENTIST PARTNERSHIP ON STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 115

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi