Find the Latest Resources in Education Today
SUBSCRIBE
Teachers get a taste of real-world science—with impressive results
Study shows link between hands-on science experiences for teachers and student engagement, success
Students of teachers who participate in lab and field research tend to show better achievement in STEM fields.
Giving teachers hands-on science experience not only helps improve student achievement, but also reduces teacher attrition, according to results from a Columbia University study.
Of the 145 teachers who completed Columbia University’s Summer Research Program (CUSRP) between 1994 and 2005, 32 New York teachers with similar backgrounds participated in a study to determine if taking part in hands-on science research enabled them to better teach their students.
“Teachers who participated in focused, intensive, and hands-on summer research programs produced a 10 percent increase in the pass rate of their students in New York state science Regents,” said Sam C. Silverstein, who founded the CUSRP and published the results of the study in Science magazine last fall.
“We also saw a three- to four-fold increase in retention compared to the national average for experienced teachers,” he said.
Silverstein said the reduced teacher attrition from classroom teaching leads to a school cost savings of $1.14 for every $1 invested in the program.
“If the program were brought to scale, it would be half as expensive and school systems could potentially save twice as much,” he said.
Better test scores among students of CUSRP teachers could be a result of those teachers’ field experiences, or they could mean those teachers are highly motivated, therefore encouraging their students to perform better in their classes, other researchers cautioned.
“It certainly seems reasonable to expect that teachers who have had research experiences are more effective than teachers who have not had such experiences. I am not sure, however, whether the research experiences make the teachers better, or if the more effective teachers are more likely to seek out research experiences in the first place. I expect that it is a little of both,” said David S. Hibbett, professor and interim chair of the biology department at Clark University in Massachusetts.
But Silverstein noted that in the year preceding a teacher’s entry to CUSRP, there were no significant differences in New York’s state science exam performance between participating and non-participating teachers’ students.
“This finding suggests that although teacher motivation probably contributes to their students’ improved achievement, it does not predestine this outcome,” he wrote. “The evidence suggests that the program’s impact on teachers drives the improvements in student science achievement.”
The percentage of their students passing the Regents test in biology, chemistry, and earth science was greater for teachers who took part in CUSRP than it was for teachers who did not participate in the program. The student pass rate for participating teachers also was higher after they experienced the program than it was before they took part.
3 Responses to Teachers get a taste of real-world science—with impressive results
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
teachers075
February 10, 2010 at 9:43 am
It would have been good to learn more about the program itself. Over half of this article pitched the effects without informing readers about the causes at a professional level. One day a week in a lab is not immersion.
JTGates
teachers075
February 10, 2010 at 9:43 am
It would have been good to learn more about the program itself. Over half of this article pitched the effects without informing readers about the causes at a professional level. One day a week in a lab is not immersion.
JTGates
brent800
February 15, 2010 at 7:19 pm
There is no evidence that the cause of student performance gains had anything to do with teachers doing research. Correlation is not cause. These teachers could be in excellent schools, using excellent materials & facilities and have the top students. I see this as a “puff piece” on the program mentioned.
Brent R Jones
brent800
February 15, 2010 at 7:19 pm
There is no evidence that the cause of student performance gains had anything to do with teachers doing research. Correlation is not cause. These teachers could be in excellent schools, using excellent materials & facilities and have the top students. I see this as a “puff piece” on the program mentioned.
Brent R Jones
jdubner
February 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
As stated in the article, and further described in the paper which appeared in Science (16 October 2009), the student pass rate was identical prior to the teacher’s participation in Columbia’s teacher professional development program. Though not mentioned in the article, the teachers were not from excellent schools. Their student’s pass rate was 47% prior to entering the program…as was the comparison group. The NYC average pass rate is 56%.
And in response to teachers075, the teachers are in the lab 4 days a week, 8 weeks in each of two consecutive summers. One day a week is devoted to pedagogical activities.
jdubner
February 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
As stated in the article, and further described in the paper which appeared in Science (16 October 2009), the student pass rate was identical prior to the teacher’s participation in Columbia’s teacher professional development program. Though not mentioned in the article, the teachers were not from excellent schools. Their student’s pass rate was 47% prior to entering the program…as was the comparison group. The NYC average pass rate is 56%.
And in response to teachers075, the teachers are in the lab 4 days a week, 8 weeks in each of two consecutive summers. One day a week is devoted to pedagogical activities.