Professional development is an important partof a science teacher's career (National Research Council [NRC], 1996a).A common option for professional development during a teaching career isthe attainment of a master's degree (Suter, 1993). While master's degreeprograms are typically composed of graduate courses and various experiences,they vary widely in their structure and title (Knapp, McNergney, Herbert,& York, 1990). For example, a science teacher can elect to participatein a subject-specific, an education-based, a field-based, or an interdisciplinaryprogram (see Clark, Johnson, Kessler, & Schultz, 1984; Cocke, Impey,& Dunlap, 1994; Parker, Breneman, & Tunheim, 1990; Trowbridge,1979). At the completion of a program, a science teacher may earn, to namea few, a Master of Arts, Master of Science, Master of Instruction, or Masterin Education degree. Clearly, the science teacher who is looking for amaster's degree program may choose from several options.

     This study was conducted to examine two typesof master's programs; a subject-specific master's program and an education-basedmaster's program. Specifically, this study identified the themes focusingon the benefits and detriments that in-service science teachers experiencedwithin their respective programs. The information from this study alsoprovides insight into the type of student that participates in each program,and suggests how master's programs could be better structured to meet theneeds of science teachers. 

     The master's degree is the most common advanceddegree that is earned among mathematics and science teachers (Suter, 1993).In 1990, the National Research Council reported that 63% of 10th - 12thgrade science teachers held master's degrees. Even though there are costsand benefits with earning a master's degree (Knapp, McNergney, Herbert,& York, 1990), it is likely that teachers will continue to participatein master's programs. Turner (1990) concluded that teachers will pursuemaster's degrees for the on-going professional development and the needto meet state or district requirements for continued certification or advancedstudy.

     Even with the popularity of Master's degrees,there is little research pertaining to the development and impact of master'sprograms on science teachers. One study, completed by Spector (1985), qualitativelygenerated a model for a master's degree in science education. Based upontwo years of data collection, Spector made several recommendations thatpertained to the structure and course work of a master's program. She suggested,to state a few, that science teachers should have opportunities to studyother areas of science, not just the discipline of their current certification(e.g. biology, chemistry, physics); participate in special courses thatupdate science knowledge in order to participate in graduate level sciencecourses; and understand science education as a discipline separate butrelated to science and education.

     There is a base of literature on in-serviceeducation in science that is relevant to the development of master's programs.Two documents, Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation'sSchools (NRC, 1990) and the National Science Education Standards(NRC, 1996a), specifically address the development of in-service programsfor science teachers. Both documents call for the development of in-serviceprograms that emphasize the learning of science and education in a pedagogicallyappropriate environment, and preparing science teachers to be mentors andfacilitators of change. Ideally, science teachers would develop an "understandingof what to teach with understanding of how to teach" (NRC,1990, p. 70), while preparing to be leaders in the science education profession.In addition, both documents stress the importance of collaboration amongscience teachers, teacher educators, and scientists. As science teachersassimilate the knowledge of their in-service programs and begin to enactspecific methodologies in their classrooms, they need colleagues with whomto reflect upon their own theory and practice. All members of the collaborativecould support one another and learn from each other.

     Studies of the needs of in-service secondaryscience teachers also have direct implications for the development andimpact of master's programs. Recent studies have found that secondary scienceteachers are interested in learning about student motivation, acquiringnew teaching methods, obtaining instructional materials, using computerseffectively, and updating their personal knowledge (Baird, Easterday, Rowsey,& Smith, 1993; Baird & Rowsey, 1989; Enochs, Oliver, & Wright,1990; Germann & Barrow, 1995). In addition, secondary science teachershave expressed the importance of in-service sessions being offered at moreconvenient times, reduced in cost, and located in close proximity to theirschools or homes (Germann & Barrow, 1995). Overall, in-service scienceteachers are willing to engage in professional development activities thatmeet their perceived needs.

The Master's Programs

     In-service science teachers in Arizona havethe option of pursuing a master's degree or a specified number of professionaldevelopment hours to meet the Arizona Department of Education's teacherstandards. Thus, the master's programs described herein are not mandatedand require that science teachers have a baccalaureate degree and teachingexperience before they apply to the program.

Master of Science degree

     The Master of Science degree in General Biologywas designed to serve secondary biology teachers throughout the state ofArizona. The program began in 1993 and has been revised annually basedupon participants' comments and the science education literature. It isprimarily a summer-based program, although some courses are scheduled inthe evenings or on weekends during the school year. Teachers begin theprogram by taking two courses designed to update their biology background,and an integrated course on biology laboratory curricula and pedagogy thatincludes classroom follow-up with on-line discussion of teaching. The secondsummer, teachers begin a biology research project under the supervisionof a science faculty member. In addition, teachers take a course to developa lesson that transfers their new knowledge about, curricula, pedagogy,biology content, and science research into the classroom. This course alsohas classroom follow-up and on-line discussion components. Nine units ofelectives, six in the biological sciences and three in any field relatedto the individual's teaching, are also taken. The third year, as culminatingactivities, participants present a workshop to disseminate their lessonsto other teachers and write a thesis on their biology research. The educationalpart of the program emphasizes thinking about what and how one teachesby familiarizing participants with laboratory curricula that are classroomtested prior to dissemination and pedagogical practices that are groundedin cognitive research (NRC, 1990). The science component of the programemphasizes updating teachers' biology content knowledge and providing teacherswith a biology research experience on which they may draw as they developclassroom activities (NRC, 1990, 1996a, 1996b). Instructional approachesinclude inquiry, discussion, cooperative groups, and judicious use of lecture(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Lawson 1994; NRC 1996b; Osborne,1996). Initially, the program was designed to be completed in three years.It is a permanent degree offering within the College of Science and currentlyreceives funding from the National Science Foundation. Participants receivesummer stipends and tuition waivers for four courses.

     There are twenty-three participants in theMaster of Science degree in the General Biology program, and they havean average of eight years of teaching experience. The fifteen females andeight males are secondary level instructors, with six in the middle schoolsetting and seventeen in the high school setting. Two participants areNative American, while the reminder is Anglo-American. The participantswere selected with the following criteria: a minimum of eighteen unitsof biological science, a GPA of 3.0 in their biology course work, evidencethat they want to use more hands-on activities, evidence that they wantto implement new materials and methods in their teaching, evidence of sharingmaterials and information with other teachers, and indications of leadershipqualities.

Master of Arts degree

     The Master of Arts degree in Education witha science education emphasis, is a general program that is tailored tomeet the needs of all science teachers: earth science, chemistry, biology,or general science specialists. Teachers in this program take three corecourses in education; one or two courses in science education; one optionalcourse that concentrates on the history and philosophy of science or multi-culturaleducation; and fifteen hours of graduate level science courses. The educationalpart of the program emphasizes becoming a reflective practitioner (Schön,1983), creating an informed practice (Shulman, 1986; 1987), and examiningvarious aspects of curricula (e.g. state/national standards, enacted curriculum),instruction (e.g. questioning, cooperative learning, inquiry), and cognition(e.g. Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner). The science portion of the program allowsteachers to work with science faculty to enhance their depth of knowledgein a specific discipline or broaden their knowledge in several areas, dependingupon their own needs. The content requirements are consistent with therecommendations in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996a).The instructors of the courses hold Ph.D.'s in Education, Science Education,and various fields of science; all are interested or active in scienceeducation. Science teachers who elect to participate in this program attendcourses throughout the year, and they have the option to exit the programin a way that best demonstrates their knowledge and understanding. Theexit options include a portfolio, thesis, written comprehensive exam, communityservice project in education, scholarly paper, or revising some aspectof university science instruction. Exit options, other than the comprehensiveexam, are guided by committee and begin early in the student's program.Students in this program do not regularly receive stipends or tuition waivers.

     There are eleven participants in this Masterof Arts degree in Education program, and they have an average of four yearsof teaching experience. The three males and eight females represent alleducational levels: two elementary teachers, four middle school teachers,four high school teachers, and one school nurse who striving to improveher educational techniques with students in the informal setting. All ofthe participants are Anglo-American. In order to enter the program, participantsare required to have a minimum of fifteen hours of educational course workand an overall GPA of 3.0. In addition, letters of recommendation and awritten personal statement are reviewed by faculty in the department todetermine if the program is appropriate for the participant.

Participants

     Four participants, varying in degree of completionand from different schools, were selected to be interviewed from each program.Participants from the General Biology Program were sent a letter invitingthem to participate voluntarily in an evaluative study of that programwith the assurance that their identity would be known only to the researchassistant. Ten of the twenty-three teachers in the program volunteeredto participate, and four were randomly selected for the study describedin this paper. Two participants had completed the second year of the curriculumand two had completed the third year, needing only to write the thesis.Three participants were high school teachers, while one was a middle schoolteacher. All four participants were female.

     The department's graduate program coordinatoridentified participants from the education program. A research assistantand a university researcher contacted the first four participants to explainthe project and inquire about their interest in participating in the study.Each participant consented to participation with the agreement of anonymityand access to the findings. The participants were also in varying degreesof completion in regard to their program: two were in their final year,one was in his second year, and one was in her first year. One male andone female were middle school teachers, and one male and one female werehigh school teachers.

Data Collection and Analysis

     A qualitative study was conducted as a meansof exploring participants' perceptions about the benefits or detrimentsof their respective programs. The limited and varied population, and thetypes of data that would answer the research question reinforce a qualitativeapproach (Maxwell, 1996). Furthermore, a qualitative approach can providean understanding of perceptions, evolve and describe salient themes, andprovide a basis for further qualitative and quantitative work (Bogdan &Biklen 1992).

     To collect participants' perceptions, semi-standardizedinterviews were used (Berg, 1998). Berg (1998) states that this type ofinterview involves a number of predetermined questions presented in anorder and language appropriate for people in the study. The interviewercan digress or probe beyond the predeveloped questions in order to gaina further understanding of the topic discussed. The interview questionsin this study were structured to reflect the goal of the research, yetopen enough to allow participants to discuss topics of importance to them(Berg, 1998; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Marshall & Rossman, 1989).Interviews in this study lasted one to two hours, with seven transcribedfrom audio tapes and one transcribed from an extensive note taking session.A research assistant and university researcher conducted all of the interviews.

     The analysis guidelines, specifically the conceptualizationof the data, the coding of the data, and the development of categoriesin terms of properties and dimensions, were drawn from Miles and Huberman(1994). During this process, each researcher in this study independentlyread each interview and coded passages or phrases with simple descriptors.The researchers then met, discussed and labeled each passage. Each passagereceived a code that represented the consensus of the researchers. Throughoutthe labeling process, codes were revised and redefined as suggested byMiles and Huberman (1994).

     During the reduction of data, each researcherrevealed a unique perspective concerning the two programs. The first authoris a university researcher with a Ph.D. in Science Education and worksextensively with science educators in the Master of Arts in Education program,the second author is a university researcher with a Ph.D. in Biology anddirects the Master of Science in General Biology program, and the thirdauthor is a graduate assistant pursuing a doctoral degree in education,with an emphasis in science education. The different perspectives of theresearchers and their on-going discussions about the data decreased thebias that could occur with one researcher, and contributed to the objectivityand reliability of the findings (Huberman & Miles, 1994).

     The initial inductive analysis resulted in77 codes that represented the benefits and detriments of the two programs.Through consensus of the researchers, categories were created from thecodes, then transformed into themes (Huberman & Miles, 1994) that representedparticipants' perceptions of each master's program. The interpretativeprocess allowed the researchers to explore different pathways through thedata (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996), while the diverse perspectives of theinvestigators and the varying backgrounds of the eight participants providea basis for triangulation of the final themes (Denzin, 1978).

Limitations

There are several limitations that need to be acknowledged in this study.First, the number of participants interviewed was small; thus data collectedmay not portray the perceptions of the actual population. Second, the studyis exploratory in nature, which limits the generalizability of the study.Third, the data collected from participants was self-reported, and maynot reflect actual events. Fourth, the researchers had inherent biasesthat may have affected collection and analysis of the data. These limitationsnotwithstanding, we have confidence that our findings do provide informationabout a topic that has not been explored.
 

     The original analysis resulted in 41 codesfor the General Biology Program, and 36 codes for the education program.Table 1 shows the benefits or detriments that three or more participantsidentified about each program.
 
 

     The benefits that the participants in the educationdegree program identified included the flexible nature of the program bothin terms of time and course selection, the importance of the program totheir professional development, and the financial benefits that would comefrom their districts. The unanticipated benefits pertained to their furtherunderstanding of educational research.

     While the resulting codes revealed the benefitsof each program, they also revealed the detriments. Participants in thegeneral biology degree program found the summer program extremely demandingupon their time, while participants in the education degree program foundthat there was little opportunity to work with fellow science educators.

    Master of Science in General Biology Themes

    Participants in the General Biology Programfelt that their classroom instruction was different.

     The teachers described a variety of changesin their instruction. Several talked about giving students somewhat morefreedom to explore their interests and make discoveries on their own (P.199-202,213-221; M.227-229; N144-147). For some, classroom dialogue increased amongstudents and between the teacher and students (M.57-62, 98-101, 223-234;N.153-156). For example, one teacher described learning how to ask questionsto get a variety of responses so a discussion could take place, ratherthan just standing up and imparting information (M.57-62). Participantsalso reported less emphasis on memorization (N.53-60); having studentsdo more and different activities (P.199) and implementing activities thatlet students do science (N.76-84, P.231-236). For example, one teacherdescribed developing field trips with a clear purpose such as determininghow aspect, slope, and elevation affect plant distribution, instead oftaking students on trips just to see something and have fun, with littlelearning taking place as she did previously (L.78-80, 204-225).

    Participants in the General Biology Programbenefited from interactions with their peers and university scientists.

     All participants felt that talking and sharingideas with the other teachers in the program was beneficial (L.24-28; M.236-238;N.85-87; P.83-93, 166-170). One person described it as sharing ideas with"teachers who want to do great things in their classrooms" (L.27-28). Inaddition, most participants benefited from their university contacts, especiallynoting the mentoring they received from supportive research advisors (M.49-52,90-94; N.288-292; P.104-107, 302-309).
 

    Participants in the General Biology Programfelt an increased confidence personally and professionally.

     Participants' personal confidence increasedas a result of mastering difficult science concepts as well as sophisticatedlaboratory protocols and equipment in both course work and the researchlaboratory (P.272-279; L.59-69, 74-77, 232-236; M.130-137; N.113-132).For example, one participant described her experience in a laboratory coursethat was taught at a high level. She had to work hard to understand, butdemonstrated to herself that she could master the material and sophisticatedprocedures (P.133-139, 145-149). Some participants also gained personalconfidence from "being a scientist" (P.107-114, L.59). Ultimately the gainin personal confidence increased participants' professional confidenceabout teaching science concepts (L.59-69, 232-236), reducing content coverage(M.75-80), developing curriculum for the science classroom (L.109-115),interacting with their school colleagues about instructional matters (L.236-242,M.124-137), and attending or participating in professional meetings (N.133-139,P.81-94). For example, one participant felt she now was able to teach DNAand biotechnology concepts at a high level because her students not onlyunderstood the concepts and enjoyed the lesson, but complemented her onhow well she knew material and taught it (L.59-69, 232-236).

    Master of Arts in Education Themes

     Participants in the education programvalued the educational emphasis.

     The participants of the education program valuedreading and scrutinizing educational research articles and the modelingof effective instruction (3.121-125; 1.250-264, 96-98; 4.73-76; 2.194-198;4.73-76). The information that was provided, through articles or examples,was valuable to the participants as they constructed and supported theirideas about instruction and curricular change in the classroom (2.394-439;3.250-253; 2.188-193; 4.61-68). For example, one participant found theinformation essential as she developed curriculum guides for her school(2.215-247), while another participant was able to redirect his instructionas he came to understand constructivist theory (3.136-146). Even thoughall of the participants valued the educational information they were getting,they also expressed the desire for their courses to include more research,writings, or examples that were more applicable to their own classroomteaching (1.21-27; 1.63-64; 4.124-129; 3.196-203; 2.199-205).

    Participants in the education program feltcomfortable with their educational background and valued pedagogical contentknowledge.

    Participants in this program were comfortable with theirunderstanding of science content, and they attributed their comfort levelto the degrees that they held in science and their previous work experiencein various science fields (1.210-215; 2.48-51; 3.228-231; 4.34-37). Asthey sought to improve their science instruction, participants wanted totake additional courses that emphasized pedagogical content knowledge (1.45-513.185-203; 2.104-107; 4.193-195). They wanted, for example, to take coursesthat demonstrated how to facilitate learning in the high school chemistryclassroom (1.45-48), and courses that would inform the teaching of middlelevel chemistry and biology (3.191-192; 2.106-107).

     The master's programs in this study did havedifferent benefits and detriments, and they served different populationsof science teachers. Participants in the General Biology Program soughtthe opportunity to update and expand their science knowledge and experiences.Success in rigorous science courses and a research experience resultedin increased personal confidence. In addition, participants benefited greatlyfrom discussions and sharing with fellow teachers, both in the curriculumcourse and informally. Participants expressed an increased professionalconfidence about teaching biology and moving into leadership roles in theteaching community. However, the summer courses and research experiencewere demanding and often left teachers with little or no break before thestart of school.

     For the participants in the education program,this program was an important part of their on-going professional development.Teachers in this program viewed themselves as professionals who shouldbe actively engaged in building their education and content knowledge base.The variety of courses, the times when courses were offered, and the readingand analyzing of educational research were considered beneficial to theparticipants. Yet, the program did not create a community of science educatorsthat shared instructional ideas and discussed the current science educationreforms.

     Even though both programs had separate anddistinct qualities, they also shared some common recommended trends. First,science teachers were being prepared to be leaders in the field (NRC, 1990,1996). The biology program enabled participants to develop a broader professionalconfidence that resulted in their serving on school committees, and attendingand participating in local science teacher conferences. The teachers inthe education-based program already considered themselves to be advocatesof the profession and their participation in the program enhanced and clarified"their science education voice." Second, participants in both programsdid have the opportunity to improve their understanding science in certainareas (Spector, 1985). Teachers in the biology program took two requiredcourses to update their knowledge in biology as well as elective courses,while teachers in the education-based program continued taking graduatelevel science classes that were available in their subject areas. Third,participants were able to update their personal knowledge pertaining toscience education (Baird, Easterday, Rowsey, & Smith, 1993; Baird &Rowsey, 1989; Enochs, Oliver, & Wright, 1990). Participants in bothprograms updated their knowledge in different ways. Some participants learnedabout new instructional methods (e.g. the learning cycle, cooperative learning,open-ended inquiry), while others learned about the recommendations forpractice (e.g. constructivism, the National Science Education Standards).Still other participants valued advancing their knowledge of science oreducational research.

     While certain aspects of teacher developmentwere met effectively, this study identifies areas each program needs tostrengthen. The biology program needs to provide teachers with more opportunitiesto study science education research so they may better appreciate its importance,while the education-based master's could have provided more opportunitiesto experience content in an inquiry setting. Courses that focus on pedagogicalcontent knowledge would benefit both programs. For different reasons, bothprograms had limited opportunities for participants to study differentareas of science; an important program quality specifically identifiedby Spector (1985). Furthermore, neither master's program fully met theteacher needs that previous studies had identified. Specifically, learningabout students' motivation, training teachers to assume additional rolesin science education, using the community as a resource, meeting the needsof inclusion or diverse students, obtaining instructional materials, learningto use computers effectively, and emphasizing the philosophical, historical,and social base of science (Baird, Easterday, Rowsey, & Smith, 1993;Baird & Rowsey, 1989; Enochs, Oliver, & Wright, 1990; Germann &Barrow, 1995; Spector, 1985). In addition, sessions were not always offeredat convenient times (Germann & Barrow, 1995).

     Obtaining a master's degree is an importantpart of being a professional and we are in favor of master's degrees aspart of teachers' on-going professional development. We do not feel that any one program can effectively meet the entire list of "teachers' needs" identified in the research literature. We advocate developing and studying programs with particular foci and strengths to increase the variety of quality professional development opportunities available. By sharing both short and long term information about the strengths of different programs, advisors can help teachers select the science education master's program and elective courses that best fit the individual's needs, and master's program coordinators can modify their programs to better meet the needs of in-service science teachers.

     Both programs have made changes based on this study. The most pressing need in the General Biology Program was to reduce the stress level of participants and make the program more survivable. The course schedule was revised to provide a longer summer break for teachers and the most demanding course, the curriculum course, was redesigned to reduce the time spent in class and the number of assignments. These changes appear to have reduced the stress level of the participants. The next focus will be on improving the pedagogical content knowledge and education research opportunities for participants.

     For the directors of the education program, a meaningful analysis revealed not only the convergence of the participants' ideas, but the inconsistencies and contradictions among all participants (Mathison, 1988). In this case, all participants provided direction to the science education program. First, it was apparent from the analysis that there needed to be more opportunities for science educators to meet with one another. As a result, a group has been formed in the College of Education that encourages networking among all science teachers. The members of this informal organization, Sci-ed-cats, participate in sharing sessions; social events, state and national science education conferences, and they facilitate state and national conferences. Second, education participants commented that they wanted more courses that emphasized learning and teaching in the science classroom. There are currently three instruction and curricula courses for graduate students in science education, with a new course pertaining to cognition and science education being offered next year. These comments, and comments by general biology participants, revealed that they knew little about the variety of courses in the program and the content within the courses. As a result, information about the courses is now disseminated each semester to program participants, schools and pre-service science teachers. Unfortunately, these comments also revealed that various science disciplines were uninformed about the program and unable to participate effectively by creating courses that are applicable to the needs of science teachers. Cross campus discussions with scientists who participate in science education has resulted in new courses and new educational opportunities for secondary teachers in chemistry, entomology, hydrology, and geology. Finally, the comments from this analysis have been shared with the graduate coordinator. During program review, he plans to share the findings with the non-science education faculty so that they may reexamine aspects of their instruction.

        Baird, W. E., Easterday, K., Rowsey, R. E., & Smith, T. (1993). A comparison of Alabama secondary science and mathematics teachers: Demographics and perceived needs. School Science and Mathematics, 93 (4), 175-182.

        Baird, W. E., & Rowsey, R. E. (1989). A survey of secondary science teachers' needs. School Science and Mathematics, 89 (4), 272-284.

        Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

        Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

        Clark, R., Johnson, R., Kessler, R., & Schultz, K. (1984). Recruiting talent into public school teaching: An analysis from one successful pilot program. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (6), 2-4.

        Cocke, W. J., Impey, C. D., & Dunlap, J. L. (1994). A content-based Master's program for science teachers. Physics Teacher, 32 (8), 502-505.

        Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

        Enochs, L. G., Oliver, S., & Wright, E. (1990). An evaluation of the perceived needs of secondary science teachers in Kansas. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1 (4), 74-78.

        Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill.

        Germann, P. J., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). In-service needs of teachers in biology: A comparison between veteran and nonveteran teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 57 (5), 272-277.

        Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning. Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

        Knapp, J. L., McNergney, R. F., Herbert, J. M., & York, H. L. (1990). Should a master's degree be required of all teachers? Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (2), 27-37.

        Lawson, A. E. (1994). Research on the acquisition of science knowledge: Epistemological foundations of cognition. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 131-170). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

        Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.

        Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

        Maxwell, J. A., (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

        Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

        National Research Council (NRC) (1990). Fulfilling the promise: Biology education in the nation's schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

        National Research Council (NRC) (1996a). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

        National Research Council (NRC) (1996b). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

        Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructvism. Science Education, 80 (1), 53-82.

        Parker, O. J., Breneman, G. L., & Tunheim, J. A. (1990). Improving science instruction: A collaborative curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 67 (4), 327-329.

        Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books

        Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

        Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

        Spector, B. S. (1985). Generating a desired state for master's degree programs in science education through grounded theory research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (4), 327-345.

        Suter, L. E (Ed.) (1993). Indicators of science and mathematics, 1992. Washington, DC; National Science Foundation.

        Turner, R. L. (1990). An issue for the 1990's: The efficacy of the required Master's degree. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (2), 38-44.

        Trowbridge, L. W. (1979). Alternative graduate program in science education. Science Education, 63 (5), 641-47.

About the Authors...

Julie Luft is an assistant professor of science education in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education. She taught middle and high school science
prior to earning her Ph.D. in science education. As a science educator in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education, she has received several
in-service and research grants, she continues to coordinate the Master of Arts degree in Education with an emphasis in science education, and she
teaches a variety of graduate and undergraduate science education courses. She has been recognized by the College of Education for her service in
science education and her mentoring of science education students.

Martha Narro is a former assistant professor in the Department of Biochemistry and the former head of the Graduate Studies Program in the
Master of Science in General Biology Program. While in the Department of Biochemistry, she taught graduate courses in the Master of Science in
General Biology Program and undergraduate courses to preservice biology teachers. Martha was instrumental in the development and enactment of the
Master of Science in General Biology Program. In 1996, she received the Distinguished Achievement in Science Education Award from the College of
Science.

Jeanne Slaughter is a doctoral student in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education and her area of emphasis is science education. She has
held assistantships in the Departments of Teaching and Teacher Education and Biochemistry. She is currently involved in the general education
preservice program, in which she supervises student teachers and places practicum students.

To get to the top of this page, click here. 

To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here. 

To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.