Received: 6 May 2018 

|
  Accepted: 17 July 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12306

R E S E A RC H PA P E R - I N T E G R AT E D ST E M E D U CAT I O N

Teachers’ views on and preferences for meeting their professional

development needs in STEM

David C. Owens1   |  Troy D. Sadler2  |  Christopher D. Murakami3  |  Chia‐Lin Tsai4

1
Department of Middle Grades and
Secondary Education, Georgia Southern
Abstract
University, Savannah, Georgia While much is known about the characteristics that researchers deem valuable for
2
School of Education, University of North professional development (PD), teachers’ perceptions of their PD needs are less un-
Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North derstood. In this study, we sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of their PD needs,
Carolina
3
including PD format, time frame, and topics covered, and how those perceptions
Falk School of Sustainability &
Environment, Chatham University, varied by teachers’ district size, grade level, subject area, and years of experience.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Participants included a statewide representative sample of 800 elementary and sec-
4
Applied Statistics and Research ondary STEM teachers with a wide range of teaching experience and from small to
Methods, University of Northern Colorado,
large school districts across Missouri. Each participant responded to the MO‐STEM
Greeley, Colorado
PD Needs Assessment, a 61- item Likert scale survey. We found teachers to be most
Correspondence interested in learning about real‐world issues and problem‐based learning to teach
David C. Owens, Department of Middle
Grades and Secondary Education, Georgia STEM content. Teachers’ participation in PD positively correlated with district size
Southern University, 11935 Abercorn St., and the manner in which PD is valued in their community of practice, while years of
Savannah, GA 31419.
teaching experience was negatively correlated with interest in virtually all categories
Email: dcowens@georgiasouthern.edu
of the survey, including formats of PD delivery and the majority of PD topics. We
Funding information
Office of Integrative Activities, Grant/
conclude with a discussion of the ways in which teachers’ expressed preferences for
Award Number: 1355406 PD ran contrary to what the literature suggests as best practices for PD.

KEYWORDS
STEM professional development, teacher preferences, formats, topics, time frames, participation

The landscape of education is in a state of constant change. New
standards and expectations for learning and assessment, as well
as changing student demographics and the availability of newer
technologies, suggest that much of what and how students are
expected to learn will change after teachers’ pre‐service prepara-
tion (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
2010). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) education is a particularly dynamic field, and teachers
who once taught STEM subjects in isolation are now tasked with
developing their students’ abilities to identify and build upon an
overlap in disciplinary concepts and practices in order to prepare
a workforce capable of meeting the societal needs of tomorrow
(Zollman, 2012). In this sea of change, teachers’ contribution
to student success in formal education remains instrumental
(Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014) and professional develop-
ment (PD) foundational in reforming their practice and enhanc-
ing their performance (Capps, Crawford, & Constas, 2012).
While the literature is robust in terms of those character-
istics that researchers have found to be effective for PD (e.g.,
Loucks‐Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry & Hewson, 2003),
less is understood about teachers’ perceptions of what suc-
cessful PD looks like. In fact, teachers often feel that PD is
irrelevant to the problems they experience in their everyday
classroom practice and fails to account for their improvement
needs (Rotherham, Mikuta, & Freeland, 2008). One high
school teacher participating in a science PD indicated that

© 2018 School Science and Mathematics Association     1

School Science and Mathematics. 2018;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm |
 |
2       OWENS et al.
One of the things that people who set up PD need
to think about is the teacher’s needs. And the
only way for people to find out is to ask teach-
ers. What do you need, what do you want? What
do you think would make you a more effective
teacher? (Park Rogers et al., 2007, p. 517)
The purpose of this study was to do just that. We posed the
following research questions:
1. When and in what formats do teachers want their PD
to occur?
2. What topics do teachers want their PD to address?
3. What PD‐relevant support do teachers have access to in
their home institutions?
4. How do teacher PD preferences vary by district size, grade
level, subject area, and years of experience?
This study explores these questions through an analysis
of perspectives from a large, statewide sample of teachers.
This is significant, as few studies exist of teachers’ percep-
tions of their PD needs, and of those that do, none have em-
ployed statewide, representative sampling procedures. This
study also adds new insights by exploring how K‐12 STEM
teachers’ PD needs might be differentially affected by district
size. By including a statewide sample, we were able to ac-
count for the challenges that might differentially impact the
PD needs of teachers based on the size of their school district
which may include leadership, funding, logistical barriers to
PD, and access to technology. This study sought to parse out
grade‐level, subject‐level, and experience‐related differences
across teachers of STEM subjects from small, medium, and
large school districts.
1  |  LIT E R AT U R E R E V IE W
Our review of literature is directed at explicating the nature
of effective STEM PD and teacher ideas about PD. We first
briefly review the literature documenting the characteristics
of effective PD. Then, we delve into teachers’ perceptions of
their own PD needs.
1.1  |  Research‐based characteristics of
effective PD
1.1.1  |  Timeframe of PD delivery/duration
PD should last long enough to provide teachers with sufficient
time to practice reformed instruction and receive feedback
(Guskey, 2003), including sustained support after they return to
their schools to implement the PD objectives (Loucks‐Horsley
et al., 2003). Thus, the PD should be ongoing and provide
opportunities for continued reflection and support that lasts
well after the PD has ended (Ball, 1996). In fact, extended col-
laborations between teachers and the PD facilitator should con-
tinue at the school level and include further opportunities for
coaching, observation, and follow‐up (Abdal‐Haqq, 1995). The
changes in teacher practice necessitated by current STEM goals
depend on such extended support (Borasi & Fonzi, 2002).
1.1.2  |  Formats of PD delivery/location
Though supported by early literature (Abdal‐Haqq, 1995),
school‐based PD has struggled to enhance teacher effec-
tiveness outside the schools’ current status quo, and techno-
logical advancement has made it easier to conduct effective
PD off‐site. As a result, school‐based PD may not be not as
important as previously thought. Rather, “collaboration be-
tween site‐based educators, who are keenly aware of critical
contextual characteristics, and district‐level personnel, who
have broader perspectives on problems, [which] seems es-
sential to optimize the effectiveness of professional develop-
ment” (Guskey, 2003, p. 749). Thus, it is not where the PD
happens that is crucial to its effectiveness. Rather, effective
PD needs to be well organized in whatever format or location
it is delivered.
1.1.3  |  Important aspects of PD design
Effective PD situates teacher education in classroom prac-
tice (Putnam & Borko, 1997) and serves as a clear model of
what classroom teaching and learning looks like, including
the use of a constructivist approach to facilitation (Loucks‐
Horsley et al., 2003). As such, the PD should support
teachers’ setting of goals that are in line with the stand-
ards‐based instruction and their development of strategies
to achieve those goals (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007).
This includes rooting PD in a knowledge base that informs
the content being taught and contributes to the teachers’
engagement in reformed teaching practices (Abdal‐Haqq,
1995), and designing it so that a high level of cognitive dis-
sonance is created, resulting in a transformative learning
experience (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999). As a result, the PD
should enhance teachers’ content and pedagogical knowl-
edge in such a way that their instruction has been trans-
formed to include a new repertoire of practice (Guskey,
2003; Loucks‐Horsley et al., 2003).
Additionally, PD should engage teachers as adult learners,
such that they are treated as professionals (Loucks‐Horsley
et al., 2003). Furthermore, because teachers generally arrive
at PD events having had experiences with teaching and learn-
ing (Abdal‐Haqq, 1995), PD should leverage their collective
experience by promoting collaborative, collegial interactions
around integral teacher practices (Guskey, 2003), including
the evaluation of student work and receipt of feedback from
OWENS et al.
peers and facilitators. Such PD mirrors the instruction that
teachers are expected to provide their students (Putnam &
Borko, 1997) and would be expected to enhance the qual-
ity of the instruction and the student learning outcomes that
result.
1.2  |  Teachers’ perceptions of their
PD needs
Few studies have sought teachers’ perceptions as to what
they would hope or expect to see in effective PD. In one such
study, Park Rodgers and colleagues (2007) compared science
and mathematics teachers’ views regarding the characteris-
tics of effective PD with those of the PD facilitators. In that
study, teachers’ perceptions fell into three categories. First,
teachers’ felt that effective PD should have direct an applica-
tion to the classroom and apply to curricular needs that are
specific to the subject and grade level taught. Second, the PD
should situate the teacher in the role of the learner so as to
experience the students’ perspective. Finally, the PD should
provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and develop
relationships that would contribute to the development of a
support network, including access to resources. These per-
ceptions mirrored those previously identified in the literature
through teachers’ self‐report evaluations of PD. The PD fa-
cilitators who were surveyed in the study echoed the percep-
tions of the teachers. They added that the PD should provide
ample opportunity for teachers to develop pedagogical con-
tent knowledge and time to reflect on their PD experience,
neither of which was mentioned by teachers. Furthermore,
PD facilitators added themselves as mentors to the collabora-
tive network of support that teachers should be encouraged to
build over the course of an effective PD.
Chval and colleagues (2008) focused their research on
understanding the perceptions of 241 grade 6–12 science
and mathematics teachers concerning previous experiences
with PD, aspects of PD that have constrained their partici-
pation in PD, and characteristics of effective PD that they
would hope to see in the future. They found that teachers re-
ported attending minimal PD, a problem that was worse for
rural teachers than for those teaching in urban or suburban
settings. The topic that mathematics and science teachers
indicated as their greatest perceived need was developing
critical thinking in science or math, while involving girls
or minorities in science or math and designing instruction
for English as a Second Language (ESL) students was per-
ceived to be the lowest need. Teachers also implicated rel-
evance and opportunities for networking as contributing to
effective PD.
Finally, in a study of 118 K–12 in‐service teachers from
one Midwestern school district, Zhang, Parker, Koehler, and
Eberhardt (2015) sought to understand teachers’ perceived
needs and determine whether they differed based on their
  
   3
|
teaching experience, grade level, and gender. The teachers’
greatest needs for improvement, which included improving
students’ content knowledge by making science more rele-
vant and engaging, addressing students’ misconceptions, and
teaching with inquiry or scientific reasoning, were signifi-
cantly related to their teaching experience. Veteran teachers
(>10 years) were more confident than their new (<3 years)
and somewhat seasoned (4–10 year) counterparts. In terms
of grade level, K–6 teachers indicated a significantly greater
need for improving their own content understanding, devel-
oping effective assessments, and finding good resources on
the Internet than did secondary teachers. The authors found
no significant gender difference in teachers’ perceived needs.
A variety of factors have been found to influence teach-
ers’ perceptions of their PD needs. For example, newer teach-
ers may have a greater need for improving their pedagogical
knowledge than more experienced teachers (Davis, Petish,
& Smithey, 2006). Elementary teachers might benefit more
from PD directed at STEM content than secondary teachers;
however, it is not clear how district size affects teachers’ per-
ceived needs, and whether the extent to which they engage in
teaching one or more STEM subjects affects their perceptions
of effective PD or the PD topics they find to be important.
Therefore, we were interested in expanding the empirical
knowledge base on teacher perspectives on PD with a state-
wide representative sample.
2  |  M ETHODS
2.1  | Sample
In order to generate a statewide representative sample of
STEM teachers, a list of all elementary teachers, as well as
secondary mathematics, science, technology, and engineer-
ing teachers in Missouri, was obtained from the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
and filtered by district code to include only teachers from
traditional public schools (not charter schools or other special
districts). Each teacher was assigned a code based on grade
level and subject area. From this group of 28,456 teachers,
a probability sample of 4,957 teachers was randomly se-
lected to participate in the survey. After Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval was obtained, an email recruitment let-
ter was sent to those in the sample showing accurate email
addresses—66% of the elementary teachers and 69% of the
secondary teachers. Because not all teachers had an email
address listed with DESE, both online and paper versions
were made available so that the sample would not be biased
toward teachers with email addresses. From the 4,957 teach-
ers invited to participate, 800 responses were recorded for an
overall response rate of 16%. The manner in which these 800
teachers were categorized by grade level, subject area, years
of teaching experience, and district size is described below.
 |
4       OWENS et al.

Teachers were characterized by the grade level and subject(s) relatively even distribution of teachers across years of expe-
they taught, as well as years of experience and the size of rience, though those with greater than 20 years of teaching
their school district (Table 1). experience composed the largest group (23%).

2.1.1  |  Grade level and subject area 2.1.3  |  District size

Using a 4×4 grid, teachers were asked to mark all options that
applied to their teaching assignment concerning grade level
(i.e., K–3, 4–6, 7–8, and/or 9–12) and subject area (i.e., mathe-
matics, science, technology, and/or engineering). Because they
were asked to select all that applied, some teachers are included
in more than one category. Teachers who indicated grades K–3
or 4–6 were assigned to the elementary group and those that
indicated teaching grades 7–8 or 9–12 were assigned to the sec-
ondary group. Of the 800 respondents, 27% were assigned to
the elementary group and 71% were assigned to the secondary
group. Grade level was not reported by 2% of the participat-
ing teachers. Two teachers who indicated teaching grades 4–12
were included in the secondary group.
Teachers also indicated what proportion of their teach-
ing was in each of the four STEM subject areas. At the el-
ementary grade level, only a small number of respondents
indicated exclusively teaching mathematics (n = 25), sci-
ence (n = 20), technology (n = 9), or engineering (n = 3).
More secondary teachers exclusively taught mathematics
(n = 171) or science (n = 244) as compared with respon-
dents teaching at the elementary level. In this study, subject
area comparisons included only secondary mathematics and
science teachers.
2.1.2  |  Years of teaching experience
Teachers selected from six options to indicate the number
of years they had taught at the K–12 level. There was a
T A B L E 1   Grade levels, subjects taught, and years of experience
by respondents
% of respondents
Teacher characteristic Total responses (N = 800)
Grades K–3 140 17.5
Grades 4–6 89 11.1
Four criteria were used to determine the size of a teacher’s
district: (a) number of elementary teachers per district, (b)
number of science teachers per district, (c) number of math-
ematics teachers per district, and (d) total student enrollment
in the district (Table 2). To determine their district size, each
teacher was assigned a value of 1 (small), 2 (medium), or 3
(large), for each of the four criteria. The sum of scores across
the four criteria was used to assign each teacher a district
size of small, medium, or large using aggregate size scores of
1–4, 5–8, and 9–12, respectively. The number of teachers in
each district size is reported in Table 3.
2.2  |  Survey development
Our research team developed the MO‐STEM PD Needs
Assessment Survey using the following framework. The
first section included two question clusters concerning
teacher demographics and PD participation: (a) three items
regarding grade level, subject(s) taught, and years of teach-
ing experience; and (b) two items regarding hours of PD
participation in the past 12 months and hours of partici-
pation in STEM‐specific PD. The second section included
five question clusters concerning teachers’ PD preferences:
(a) preferred timeframe of PD delivery (9 items, 3‐point
Likert scale from 1 = “Not interested” to 3 = “Definitely
interested”); (b) preferred format of PD delivery (10
items, 5‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Not important” to
5 = “Definitely interested”); (c) important aspects of PD
(8 items, 5‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Not important”
to 5 = “Extremely important”); (d) the importance of PD
topic areas (22 items, 4‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Not
important” to 4 = “Very important”); and (e) interest in
T A B L E 2   Criteria for scoring the subcomponents of district size
District size

Grades 7–8 197 24.6 Criteria Small Medium Large

Grades 9–12 399 49.9 1. Number of 1–49 50–200 >200
Mathematics 444 55.5 Elementary Teachers
Science 499 62.4 2. Number of Science 1–9 10–40 >41
Technology 154 19.3 Teachers
0–5 years 145 18.2 3. Number of Math 1–90 10–40 >41
Teachers
6–10 years 173 21.7
4. Total Number of <3000 3000‐10,000 >10,000
11–15 years 156 19.6
Students
16–20 years 142 17.8
Note. The range of values for each criteria was established by creating a roughly
Over 20 years 181 22.7
even distribution of all Missouri teachers into three groups.
OWENS et al.
T A B L E 3   Distribution of respondents by district size and grade level
Grade level
District size Elementary Secondary
Small 57 167
Medium 88 226
Large 75 161
Unknown 1 12
Total 221 566
PD topic areas (22 items, 3‐point Likert scale from 1 =
“Not interested” to 3 = “Definitely interested”). The final
section included two question clusters regarding teachers’
community of practice and school: (a) the availability of
and support for PD in their community of practice (7 items,
5‐point Likert scale from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 =
“Strongly agree”); and (b) the level of Internet access and
technology available at each teacher’s school building (5
items, 3‐point Likert scale (from 1 = “Never available” to
3 = “Always available” with a fourth option of “I don’t
know”). These survey items were designed in alignment
with Chval and colleagues (2008) where possible and were
reviewed by STEM educators, teacher educators, and pro-
fessional development providers from across Missouri.
The survey was administered to a stratified random sample
of STEM teachers from across Missouri as an online form
(via Qualtrics) or as a scannable paper survey.
2.3  |  Data analysis
Each response to individual items served as the unit of
analysis, so data were treated as nonparametric. Items were
analyzed individually for significant differences based on
the grade level (i.e., elementary or secondary) and subject
the secondary teachers taught (i.e., mathematics or sci-
ence) using Mann‐Whitney U tests (MWU), where effect
size was indicated by r (r = √z ). Spearman’s rank order
N
correlation was used to determine whether the number of
years of experience that a teacher had accrued (i.e., 0–2,
3–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, or >20 years) and district size
(i.e., small, medium, or large) were significantly correlated
with each item. Spearman’s rho (ρ) indicates the correla-
tion and serves as the effect size. Significance was set at
p = 0.05 for all analyses. All effect sizes were interpreted
using Cohen’s standard, where 0.1 represented a small as-
sociation, 0.3 a medium association, and 0.5 a large asso-
ciation (Cohen, 1988).
Teachers’ reported perceptions of the “importance of”
and their “interest in” 22 PD topic areas were combined into
a single “importance of/interest in” category in the interest
of saving space for this presentation. The response choices
for both categories were both on an ordinal scale. However,
  
   5
|
Unknown Total
7 231 (28.9%)
3 317 (39.6%)
2 238 (29.8%)
1 14 (1.8%)
13 800 (100.0%)
because the “importance of” item offered four response
choices while “interest in” only offered three (Appendix),
the two middle response options for “importance of” (i.e.,
“slightly important” and “moderately important”) were col-
lapsed into a single column using the average of the two re-
sponses. With “importance of” and “interest in” each having
three response options, they would be equally represented in
the newly combined “importance of/interest in” category. An
inter‐item correlation analysis conducted between teachers’
paired responses to the 22 “importance of” and “interest in”
PD topic items yielded correlations ranging from 0.468 to
0.691, suggesting that each pair of items assessed the same
content and that collapsing the two into a single category was
appropriate (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). As a result, paired
items were averaged into a single “importance of/interest in”
data point for each teacher’s response concerning each of the
22 PD topic areas and are hereafter referred to in terms of PD
topics teachers found to be the most valued (i.e., value associ-
ated with PD topics). Kruskal‐Wallis (KW) tests were used to
explore the differences in the ways in which elementary, sec-
ondary mathematics, and secondary science teachers ranked√
the PD topics. Effect size was indicated by Cohen’s w ( 𝜒N ).
2
MWU tests were used for post hoc analyses. For these analy-
ses, Bonferroni adjustments reduced the significance level to
p < 0.017 to reduce the potential for Type I error.
3  |  RESULTS
The results are organized in four sections. The first section
concerns teachers’ preferences for PD including preferred
timeframe of PD delivery, format of PD attendance, aspects
of PD that teachers found to be important, and PD topic areas
that teachers found to be the most valued. The second section
regards teachers’ general perceptions of how PD is valued
in their communities of practice. The third section entails
teachers’ perceptions of the reliability of online access at
their school. The final section includes participants’ reported
years of teaching experience with PD in general, as well as
STEM‐specific PD.
Comparisons of each question in all sections were made be-
tween elementary and secondary teachers, as well as between
 |
6       OWENS et al.
T A B L E 4   Statements regarding teachers’ interest in different timeframes of PD delivery by grade level, subject area, and years of teaching
experience
Rank Timeframe of PD delivery Grade level, r
1 One‐time, half‐day workshops E > S, 0.04
2 One‐time, all‐day workshops S > E, 0.04
***
3 Training or workshops during E > S , 0.12
school hours
4 Ongoing support programs E > S, 0.01
5 One‐time, short workshops (1–2 E > S*, 0.09
hr)
6 Recurring sessions during E > S***, 0.16
school hours
7 Recurring sessions outside of S > E*, 0.09
school hours
8 Intensive summer workshops S > E***, 0.19
***
9 Weekend trainings S > E , 0.18
Note. S = Secondary, E = Elementary, Mt =Mathematics, Sc =Science.
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
secondary mathematics and science teachers. Additionally,
each item was analyzed for potential correlation with years
of teaching experience and district size. Due to the number
of items analyzed and space considerations, each significant
result concerning every item is not addressed individually in
the results section; however, the results of all the analyses for
each item can be found in the corresponding tables.
3.1  |  PD preferences
The following section includes teachers’ preferences for the
scheduling and attendance format of PD. Items were grouped
into four clusters: the preferred timeframe of PD delivery,
preferred format of PD attendance, aspects of PD program
that teachers found to be important, and PD topic areas that
teachers found to be the most valued. Statements regarding
STEM PD preferences as they were ranked based on the re-
sponses of all participating teachers can be found in the table
corresponding to each cluster. Comparisons of teachers by
grade level, subject area, teaching experience, and district
size were made where appropriate.
3.1.1  |  Preferred timeframe of PD delivery
Teachers responded with their level of interest to nine state-
ments concerning their preferred timeframe for PD deliv-
ery. They generally preferred one‐time, half‐day, or all‐day
workshops and expressed the least interest in weekend train-
ings and intensive summer workshops. Ongoing support
programs ranked fourth (Table 4). Elementary teachers indi-
cated significantly greater interest in PD that occurred during
school hours as workshops (p < 0.001, r = 0.12) or recurring
Subject area, r Yrs. exp. (ρ)
**
Sc>Mt , 0.13 –0.13***
Sc>Mt, 0.08 –0.13***
Sc<Mt, 0.02 –0.13***
Sc>Mt, 0.04 –0.10**
Sc>Mt**, 0.13 – 0.14***
Mt>Sc, 0.03 –0.07*
Sc>Mt, 0.02 –0.05
Sc>Mt, 0.09 –0.06
**
Sc>Mt , 0.13 –0.00
sessions during school hours (p < 0.001, r = 0.16) than did
secondary teachers. Secondary teachers were significantly
more interested in PD that was scheduled outside of school
hours as recurring sessions (p = 0.02, r = 0.09), intensive
summer workshops (p < 0.001, r = 0.19), or weekend train-
ings (p < 0.001, r = 0.18). Science teachers were signifi-
cantly more interested in one‐time, half‐day workshops (p =
0.008, r = 0.13), one‐time, short workshops (p = 0.009, r =
0.013), and weekend trainings (p = 0.008, r = 0.013) than
were mathematics teachers. Teaching experience was con-
sistently negatively correlated with teachers’ perceptions of
PD for all the items, and for six of the nine items, that cor-
relation was significant. No significant differences between
teachers of different district sizes were observed.
3.1.2  |  Preferred format of PD attendance
Teachers responded as to their interest in 10 different means
of attending PD that included on‐site, off‐site, and virtual at-
tendance. Teachers generally indicated more interest in at-
tending face‐to‐face PD offered at their school site or within
the district or region and less interest in online, self‐paced
formats or using online communities and forums, such as
discussion boards. Teachers’ interest in the different for-
mats of PD delivery is ranked in Table 5. Secondary teach-
ers indicated a significantly greater interest in travelling to
participate in PD than did elementary teachers, whether that
be within their district or region (p < 0.001, r = 0.12) or at
central locations in the state (p < 0.001, r = 0.17), as well as
participating in online PD, including hybrid models of PD (p
= 0.003, r = 0.11) and online, self‐paced learning modules
(p = 0.05, r = 0.07). Elementary teachers were significantly
OWENS et al.   
   7
|
T A B L E 5   Teachers’ interest in formats of PD delivery by grade level, subject area, and district size

Rank Interest in format of PD delivery Grade level, r Subject area, r District size, ρ
1 Attending face‐to‐face programs E > S, 0.05 Mt>Sc, 0.05 0.101**
offered at my school site
2 Traveling to face‐to‐face programs S > E***, 0.12 Sc>Mt, 0.06 0.052
offered in my district or region
3 Collaborating with other teachers in E > S, 0.01 Sc>Mt, 0.01 0.108**
my school/district in a Professional
Learning Community
4 Observing an expert teacher working E > S**, 0.11 Mt>Sc, 0.01 0.027
in his/her own classroom
5 Traveling to face‐to‐face programs S > E***, 0.17 Sc>Mt*, 0.10 0.055
offered at central locations (1–2 hr.
travel time)
6 Receiving mentorship from an expert E > S, 0.06 Mt>Sc, 0.03 –0.036
teacher in my subject area
7 Participating in the hybrid model that S > E**, 0.11 Sc>Mt, 0.02 0.029
incorporates some face‐to‐face time
with online follow‐up opportunities
8 Viewing virtual trainings and E > S, 0.03 Mt>Sc, 0.04 –0.043
webinars
9 Completing online, self‐paced S > E*, 0.07 Sc>Mt, 0.07 0.020
learning modules
10 Using online communities and forums S > E, 0.03 Mt>Sc, 0.02 –0.040
like discussion boards, wikis, and/or
blogs
Note. S = Secondary, E = Elementary, Mt =Mathematics, Sc =Science.
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

more interested in observing an expert teacher working in
their own classroom (p = 0.004, r = 0.11). Teachers’ interest
in attending face‐to‐face programs offered at their school site
(ρ = 0.101, p = 0.01) and collaborating with other teachers
in their school/district in a professional learning community
(ρ = 0.108, p < 0.001) significantly correlated with district
size. Teaching experience was negatively correlated with the
perceptions of PD in all formats, and that correlation was sig-
nificant for all the 10 items.
3.1.3  |  Important aspects of PD
Teachers reported their perceptions of the importance of eight
aspects of PD: (a) accessing ready‐to‐use materials, (b) learn-
ing from other teachers, (c) learning about new and innovative
teaching strategies, (d) learning from experts in the field, (e)
learning about new ideas emerging from STEM fields, (f) net-
working with other teaching professionals, (g) receiving feed-
back on teaching practices, and (h) meeting PD requirements
from my school or district. Accessing ready‐to‐use materials
and learning from other teachers were identified as the most
important aspects of a PD program, while receiving feedback
on teaching practices and meeting PD requirements from their
school or district were the least important. Elementary teach-
ers indicated a significantly greater importance on improving
their teaching practice than did secondary teachers in terms
of learning about new and innovative teaching strategies (p <
0.001, r = 0.17), learning from experts in the field (p = 0.009,
r = 0.09), and receiving feedback on teaching practices (p =
0.004, r = 0.10). Science teachers found learning about new
ideas emerging from STEM fields to be a significantly more
important aspect of PD than did mathematics teachers (p = 0.04,
r = 0.10), while mathematics teachers found receiving feedback
on teaching practices to be significantly more important than
science teachers (p = 0.02, r = 0.12). As district size increased,
meeting PD requirements from their school or district became
significantly less important (ρ = −0.094, p = 0.01). Again,
years of teaching experience was consistently negatively cor-
related with teachers’ perceptions of PD for all the items.
3.1.4  |  Value associated with PD topics
Teachers shared their designations of value for 22 PD
topic areas. Teachers generally indicated the value of using
real‐world issues, using educational technologies to sup-
port learning, and problem‐based learning as PD topics
 |
8       OWENS et al.

T A B L E 6   Value associated with PD topics as compared between elementary, secondary mathematics, and secondary science teachers

Rank Comparisons

Item All E M S χ2 E.M, r E.S, r M.S, r

*** b
Using real‐world issues in the 1 5 2 1 23.893 M > E, 0.11 S>E , 0.24 S>Mb, 0.13
classroom
Use of educational technologies 1 1 3 6 1.214 E > M, 0.03 E > S, 0.05 M > S, 0.03
to support learning
Problem‐based learning 3 7 5 3 11.693** M > E, 0.00 S>Eb, 0.15 S>Mb, 0.14
Strategies for student use of 3 2 6 7 0.849 E > M, 0.05 E > S, 0.02 S > M, 0.03
mobile technologies
Integrating science, technology, 5 9 4 4 2.782 M > E, 0.01 S > E, 0.07 M > S, 0.00
engineering, and math
Instructional strategies for 5 3 7 9 5.004 E > M, 0.07 E > S, 0.11 M > S, 0.04
meeting the needs of diverse
learners
Mathematical practices 7 6 1 21 169.844*** M>Eb, 0.21 E>Sb, 0.46 M>Sb, 0.61
*** b
Inquiry‐based laboratory 7 11 15 2 81.98 E > M, 0.12 S>E , 0.32 S>Mb, 0.45
activities
Integrating authentic STEM 9 13 11 5 21.086*** E > M, 0.01 S>Eb, 0.19 S>Mb, 0.21
research into the classroom
Aligning instruction and 9 4 10 16 20.929*** E>Mb, 0.19 E>Sb, 0.21 M > S, 0.04
curriculum with standards
New Missouri learning 11 10 8 15 10.097** E > M, 0.05 E>Sb, 0.15 M > S, 0.10
standards
Integrating literacy practices 12 8 18 11 33.728*** E>Mb, 0.30 E>Sb, 0.15 S>Mb, 0.17
with STEM learning
Formative assessment for 13 14 12 12 2.368 M > E, 0.03 S > E, 0.07 S > M, 0.04
STEM learning
Interdisciplinary STEM 13 12 13 14 2.221 E > M, 0.08 E > S, 0.04 S > M, 0.04
teaching
Supporting girls and minorities 15 17 16 10 9.064* M > E, 0.04 S>Eb, 0.14 S>Mb, 0.11
in STEM
Scientific practices (e.g., 16 16 21 8 63.316*** E > M, 0.12 S>Eb, 0.28 S>Mb, 0.39
modeling and argumentation)
Common Core State Standards 16 15 9 22 105.499*** M > E, 0.07 E>Sb, 0.39 M>Sb, 0.48
for Mathematics
Preparing students for 18 19 14 20 3.428 M > E, 0.10 S > E, 0.03 M > S, 0.06
achievement tests
Next Generation Science 18 18 22 13 101.013*** E>Mb, 0.38 S>Eb, 0.12 S>Mb, 0.51
Standards
Supporting classroom discourse 18 20 17 18 15.752*** M>Eb, 0.17 S>Eb, 0.18 S > M, 0.01
*** b b
Analysis of "big data" 21 22 19 17 26.196 M>E , 0.19 S>E , 0.24 S > M, 0.05
Engineering design practices 22 21 20 19 12.885** M > E, 0.11 S>Eb, 0.17 S > M, 0.07
Note. S = Secondary, E = Elementary, M = Mathematics, S = Science.
For “Comparisons,” Bonferroni adjustments set the alpha value at 0.017, significance denoted byb.
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

and the least for the analysis of “big data” and engineer- problem‐based learning, and integrating authentic stem
ing design practices (Table 6). Science teachers assigned research into the classroom than did both elementary and
a higher value to using real‐world issues in the classroom, secondary mathematics teachers. Perceptions of the value
OWENS et al.
of strategies for student use of mobile technologies signifi-
cantly increased with district size (ρ = 0.077, p = 0.04),
while aligning instruction and curriculum with standards (ρ
= –0.084, p = 0.02) and preparing students for achievement
tests (ρ = –0.173, p < 0.001) significantly decreased with
district size. Years of teaching experience was consistently
negatively correlated with teachers’ reported perceptions
of the value of PD topics, with 19 of those correlations
being significant.
One theme that consistently appeared across comparisons
and correlations was the value assigned to supporting girls
and minorities in STEM. Secondary science teachers val-
ued this topic significantly more than elementary teachers
(r = 0.14, p = 0.005) and secondary mathematics teachers
(r = 0.11, p = 0.04). The value assigned to supporting girls
and minorities in STEM also increased significantly with dis-
trict size (ρ = 0.121, p < 0.001) but decreased with years of
experience (ρ = −0.104, p = 0.005).
3.2  |  General perceptions of the value of PD
in the teacher’s community of practice
Teachers indicated their level of agreement with seven
statements concerning their perceptions of how PD is
  
   9
|
valued at their school and its potential to aid their teaching
and student learning. Teachers generally indicated the most
agreement with their attending PD for STEM teaching and
learning to improve their instructional practices, believing
that participation in STEM PD would improve their teach-
ing and benefit students. Teachers least frequently agreed
with items concerning their ability to incorporate strate-
gies learned during STEM PD into their teaching practice
and that quality PD for STEM teaching and learning was
readily available. Statements are ranked by teachers’ level
of agreement in Table 7.
One theme that stood out was support for STEM PD
within each teacher’s school. Secondary science teachers
felt STEM PD would be received more positively at their
schools than did mathematics teachers (r = 0.10, p = 0.04),
and teacher perception that STEM PD would be positively re-
ceived at their school significantly increased with district size
(ρ = 0.104, p < 0.001) and decreased with teacher experience
(ρ = −0.086, p = 0.02). Similar concerns were exhibited at
the grade level, where elementary teachers felt significantly
less supported by their principals to pursue PD for STEM
teaching and learning than did their secondary counterparts
(p = 0.04, r = 0.07). Interestingly, teachers’ reported partic-
ipation in PD was significantly correlated with all the seven

T A B L E 7   Comparison of teachers’ perceptions of the value of PD by grade level and subject area, and correlations with years of teaching
experience, district size, and participation in PD over the past 12 months

Statements regarding STEM District size Participation

Rank PD Grade level (r) Subject area (r) Yrs exp. (ρ) (ρ) in PD (ρ)
1 I would like to attend PD for S > E, 0.05 Sc>Mt, 0.08 –0.12*** 0.028 .112**
STEM teaching and learning
to improve my instructional
practices.
2 My participation in STEM PD E > S, 0.00 Sc>Mt, 0.09 –0.16*** 0.038 .117**
would help to improve my
teaching.
3 The students in my school S > E, 0.05 Sc>Mt**, 0.13 –0.10** ‐0.07 .111**
stand to benefit from STEM
PD available to our teachers.
4 STEM PD would be received S > E, 0.04 Sc>Mt*, 0.10 –0.09* 0.104** .085*
positively within my school.
5 I have support from my S > E*, 0.07 Sc>Mt, 0.05 –0.09** ‐0.028 .123**
principal to pursue PD for
STEM teaching and learning.
6 I am able to adopt or adapt S > E***, 0.13 Sc>Mt***, 0.16 –0.04 0.067 .158**
strategies learned from
STEM PD programs into my
teaching practice.
7 Quality PD programs for E > S, 0.02 Sc>Mt, 0.09 –0.05 0.058 .205**
STEM teaching and learning
are readily available to me.
Note. S = Secondary, E = Elementary, Mt =Mathematics, Sc =Science.
*
p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
 |
10       OWENS et al.
items concerning teachers’ perceptions of the value of PD in
their community of practice.
Additionally, a few correlations with responses and years
of teaching experience were of interest. Years of teaching
experience significantly negatively correlated with teachers’
perception of having support from their principal to pursue
PD for STEM teaching and learning (p = 0.01, ρ = –0.09),
that STEM professional would be received positively within
their school (p = 0.02, ρ = –0.09), that the students in their
school would stand to benefit from the STEM PD available
to teachers (p = 0.01, ρ = –0.10), that their participation in
STEM PD would help improve their teaching (p < 0.001, ρ =
–0.16), and that they would attend PD for STEM teaching and
learning to improve their instructional practices (p < 0.001,
ρ = –0.119).
3.3  |  Reliability of Internet access at school
Teachers responded to five items concerning the reliability
of online access at their school. The items highlighted ac-
cess to the following online resources or tools: (a) email and
web browsing, (b) high-speed Internet, (c) learning manage-
ment systems, (d) lesson portals, and (e) social media sites.
Online access was positively correlated with district size for
all the five items. Four of the five items were significant (p
< 0.01), and the remaining item, “access to lesson portals at
my school,” approached statistical significance (ρ = 0.074,
p = 0.08). Only access to online learning management sys-
tems was found to be significantly different at the grade
level, with secondary teachers indicating greater access than
elementary teachers (p = 0.05, r = 0.08). No significant dif-
ferences in online access between mathematics and science
teachers were observed, nor were there any significant cor-
relations between years of teaching experience and any of
the items concerning online access. No significant correla-
tion was found between teachers’ participation in PD over the
previous 12 months and the level of Internet access at their
school.
3.4  |  Teachers’ participation in PD
Participants selected from nine time ranges the number
of hours of PD they participated in during the previous
12 months. The largest number of teachers (just over 30%)
indicated participating in 21–40 hr of PD during the previous
year. However, nearly 30% of the teachers indicated that they
did not participate in any STEM PD at all. Teachers’ reported
participation in PD significantly increased with district size
(ρ = 0.07, p = 0.04) and decreased with years of experi-
ence (p = 0.04, ρ = 0.07). Furthermore, teachers’ reported
participation in STEM PD, specifically, was significantly
greater for secondary teachers than for elementary teachers
(p < 0.001, r = 0.16), was nearly significantly greater for
secondary science teachers than for secondary mathematics
teachers (p = 0.08, r = 0.09), and significantly increased with
district size (ρ = 0.147, p < 0.001).
4  |  DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understand-
ing of STEM teachers’ perceived needs and preferences for
PD. In the following discussion, we address those findings
that stood out. First, we discuss the factors affecting teach-
ers’ participation in PD, including district size and the value
placed on PD in the teachers’ community of practice. Next,
we address the conundrums in PD facilitation including dis-
interest in PD reported by veteran teachers; district‐, grade‐,
subject‐, and experience‐related discrepancies in the signifi-
cance of providing support girls and minorities in stem; and
grade‐ and subject‐level differences in the perceived impor-
tance of using relevant issues to teach STEM content as a
PD topic. Finally, we discuss moving forward with what we
have learned to enhance future STEM PD including how to
address the discrepancies that arise between when teachers’
preferences for PD run contrary to what researchers say is
best.
4.1  |  Factors affecting teachers’
participation in PD
4.1.1  |  District size
We found that teachers’ participation in PD over the past year
significantly correlated with district size, mirroring Chval and
colleagues’ (2008) findings and suggesting that teachers from
smaller districts are not getting sufficient PD. A number of fac-
tors may mediate this relationship. For one, teachers’ percep-
tions that PD would be received positively within their school
decreased with decreasing district size, suggesting that a lack
of support for attending PD may account, in part, for the medi-
ocre PD attendance reported by teachers from smaller districts.
Additionally, teachers in smaller districts reported significantly
less reliable online access, suggesting that the scheduling of
PD, as well as the means by which PD content can be accessed,
may restrict their access to PD and thus may account to some
degree for the infrequent PD attendance of teachers from small
districts. That small districts are unable to support teacher PD
should not come as a surprise—district size has been found to
affect the ability of school districts to support teacher growth
and promote reformation (Dutro, Fisk, Koch, Roop, & Wixson,
2002), and smaller school districts spend far less on teacher
PD than do larger ones (Killeen, Monk, & Plecki, 2002). This
suggests that while PD facilitators from small districts need to
be creative in addressing the PD needs of teachers reported in
this study, there appear to be underlying, systemic issues that
OWENS et al.
preclude smaller districts from providing their teachers with
adequate PD.
4.1.2  |  Value of PD in the teacher’s
community of practice
The results from this study indicated that the manner in
which PD is valued in a teacher’s community of practice is
correlated with the amount of PD in which those teachers
participate. That is, teachers’ perceptions of their principals’
support for their pursuing PD, whether STEM PD would be
received positively within their school, whether there was
quality STEM PD available to them, whether they could
incorporate strategies learned during STEM PD into their
teaching practice, and whether they felt STEM PD would
improve their teaching or their students’ learning, all signifi-
cantly correlated with their participation over the previous
year. In this study, participation in STEM PD was positively
correlated with the value placed on PD by the teacher and by
their community of practice, which suggests that if sustained
development of teachers’ content knowledge and teaching
skills is to be a viable objectives, the teachers and their ad-
ministrations must first deem it to be valuable.
4.2  |  Conundrums in PD facilitation
4.2.1  |  Years of teaching experience
Years of teaching experience was negatively correlated with
interest in virtually all categories of the survey, including
each of the 7 formats of PD delivery and 20 of the 22 PD
topics. More experienced teachers also indicated that attend-
ing PD would be less valuable to their teaching and students’
learning, and would be less supported by their administration
than did less experienced teachers. While more experienced
teachers have reported greater confidence in teaching with
reformed practices, including inquiry and addressing stu-
dents’ reasoning and misconceptions than less experienced
teachers (Zhang et al., 2015), those practices are not neces-
sarily showing up in the classroom (Wee, Shepardson, Fast,
& Harbor, 2007). Thompson and Zeuli assert
It is widely accepted that, in order to realize re-
cently proposed reforms in what is taught and
how it is taught [as described in the standards
document]…, teachers will have to unlearn
much of what they believe, know, and know
how to do (Ball, 1988) while also forming new
beliefs, developing new knowledge, and master-
ing new skills. (1999, p. 1)
This represents a stance more recently reiterated by the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2010).
  
|
   11
Considering that senior teachers bring a great deal of experi-
ence to environments of teacher learning, but also need contin-
ued reform of their practices, future research might be directed
at how PD facilitators can best take advantage of experienced
teachers as a resource in PD while aiding them in reforming
their teaching practices so as to rejuvenate their motivation as
a lifetime learner and enhance their ability to deliver reform‐
oriented instruction.
4.2.2  |  Supporting girls and minorities
in STEM
Women represent a greater proportion of the U.S. popula-
tion than men and minorities are projected to comprise more
than half of the population by 2050. Together, these groups
represent a significant pool of untapped talent, and “failing to
cultivate these pools of potential STEM expertise is a waste
of our domestic resources and … imposes an opportunity
cost on national security interests, the U.S. economy, and our
quality of life” (Rodriguez et al., 2012, p. iv). Yet, despite an
increased focus on supporting girls and minorities in STEM,
disparity persists along gender and ethnic lines (National
Science Foundation, 2013). In general, the STEM education
community including major professional organizations (such
as the Society for School Science and Mathematics) and
funding agencies (e.g., NSF) recognize this issue as a critical
problem that deserves attention and resources. Therefore, the
relatively limited interest demonstrated by the teachers in this
study is cause for concern.
In this study, supporting girls and minorities in STEM
ranked 15 out of the 22 PD topics, slightly better than a sec-
ond to last place finish in Chval and colleagues’ (2008) study.
Furthermore, the value teachers placed on supporting girls
and minorities in STEM decreased with years of experience
and increased with district size, and science teachers per-
ceived supporting girls and minorities in STEM to be more
important than did elementary and secondary mathematics
teachers, even as inequity of representation is a persistent
problem in settings of mathematics (American Association
of University Women, 2010). We recognize that increasing
the representation and persistence of women and minorities
in STEM is a complex, challenging phenomenon requiring
nuanced approaches to instruction and a commitment from
a range of stakeholders (Syed & Chemers, 2011). Teachers’
recognition of the value in supporting women and minorities
across disciplines, grade levels, and school districts would be
a significant step toward doing so.
4.2.3  |  Relevant issues to contextualize
STEM instruction
Teachers reported being most interested in using real‐world
issues and problem‐based learning to teach STEM content.
 |
12       OWENS et al.
However, more experienced teachers were significantly less
interested in using real‐world issues in the classroom as a PD
topic when compared with less experienced teachers, as were
elementary and mathematics teachers when compared with
teachers of science. This is surprising, as definitions for lit-
eracy in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
each position the issue or problem component as a vital con-
text through which concepts should be understood (Zollman,
2012). Having conducted STEM research and professional
development, including the observation of 43 teachers,
Quigley, Herro, and Jamil (2017) agree that the most effec-
tive practitioners foregrounded problem‐solving scenarios
whose solutions required creativity and collaborative use of
skills that encompassed STEM disciplines. Making the issue
or problem the focal point of instruction is further supported
by both the Science‐Technology‐Society (Yager, 1987) and
Socio‐Scientific Issues (Sadler,Foulk, & Friedrichsen, 2017)
frameworks for teaching and learning, which are well recog-
nized for their potential for enhancing functional scientific
literacy (Roberts & Bybee, 2014).
4.3  |  Do we give teachers what they want or
what research says is best?
STEM education researchers suggest that teachers’ expressed
needs should be taken into account in the design of PD (e.g.,
Rotherham et al., 2008). The findings herein provide a myr-
iad of ways in which teachers’ expressed needs can be met.
For example, elementary teachers indicated less interest in
travelling to participate in PD or participating in online for-
mats and preferred to attend PD during school hours, while
secondary teachers preferred PD to be scheduled outside
of school hours. Additionally, teachers identified accessing
ready‐to‐use materials and learning from other teachers as
the most important aspects of a PD program, mirroring previ-
ous studies (Park Rodgers et al., 2007). By scheduling and
formatting PD in a manner that matches what the specific
teachers who will be attending prefer, including the provi-
sion of desired resources, facilitators are likely to increase
the teachers’ willingness to attend and engage in PD, as well
as their perception of its value and the overall quality of PD
in general.
In regard to some characteristics of effective PD, how-
ever, those designing and facilitating PD may have to
choose between what the literature suggests is effective
and what teachers have indicated as being preferable. For
example, researchers suggest that sustained support for
teachers that continues long after a particular workshop
has concluded is a requisite for the effectiveness of the PD
in terms of enhanced teacher practice and student learning
outcomes (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).
Yet, teachers indicated their greatest preference for one‐
time half‐day and all‐day workshop formats—formats that
PD researchers, such as Guskey and Yoon, have deemed as
“wasteful” (2009, p. 496). Additionally, teachers indicated
the least interest in receiving feedback on their teaching,
which also ran contrary to the literature, which indicates
that sustained support, including observation and feedback,
is a requisite for the effectiveness of PD (Abdal‐Haqq, 1995;
Ball, 1996). In cases, such as these, where the literature runs
contrary to teachers’ expressed needs, it is important that
PD facilitators bridge this gap by transparently developing
learning environments that make clear to the teacher par-
ticipants what they are doing and the value of a particu-
lar approach, particularly if that approach likely conflicts
with teacher preferences. This might be one way to include
characteristics, such as the idea of transformative learn-
ing experiences and use of student data to inform teaching
practice—characteristics identified as effective by research
(e.g., Park Rodgers et al., 2007; Thomspson & Zeuli, 1999)
but absent from teachers’ reported preferences.
ORCID
David C. Owens  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6163-1303
R E F E R E NC E S
Abdal‐Haqq, I. (1995). Making time for teacher professional devel-
opment. ERIC digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teaching and Teacher.
American Association of University Women. (2010). Why so few?
Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Washington, DC: Author.
Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning
of Mathematics, 8, 40–48.
Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What
do we think we know and what do we need to learn? Phi Delta
Kappan, 77, 500–508.
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional
development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact
of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through
teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44, 375–395.
Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (2002). Professional development that supports
school mathematics reform. Foundations series of monographs for
professionals in science, mathematics and technology education.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of
empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment
with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 23, 291–318.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the im-
pacts of teachers II: Teacher value‐added and student outcomes in
adulthood. American Economic Review, 104, 2633–2679.
Chval, K., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Musikul, K., & Ritzka, G. (2008).
Science and mathematics teachers’ experiences, needs, and expec-
tations regarding professional development. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4, 31–43.
OWENS et al.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and as-
sessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). New
York: McGraw‐Hill.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science
teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607–651.
Dutro, E., Fisk, M. C., Koch, R., Roop, L. J., & Wixson, K. (2002).
When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards‐based
professional development as a means to individual agency and col-
lective ownership. CIERA Report.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?
Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 750–784.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional devel-
opment? Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 495–500.
Killeen, K. M., Monk, D. H., & Plecki, M. L. (2002). School district
spending on professional development: Insights available from
national data (1992–1998). Journal of Education Finance, 28,
25–50.
Loucks‐Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P.
(2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science
and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of
Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
Park Rogers, M., Abell, S., Lannin, J., Wang, C. Y., Musikul, K.,
Barker, D., & Dingman, S. (2007). Effective professional develop-
ment in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ and facili-
tators’ views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 5, 507–532.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications
of the new view of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F.
Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teach-
ing. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a con-
ceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and
Mathematics, 117, 1–12.
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science liter-
acy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558).
New York, NY: Routledge.
  
   13
|
Rodriguez, C., Kirshstein, R., Amos, L. B., Jones, W., Espinosa, L.
L., & Watnick, D. (2012). Broadening participation in STEM: A
call to action. Unpublished report, NSF Grant No. HRD‐1059774.
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Rotherham, A. J., Mikuta, J., & Freeland, J. (2008). Letter to the next
president. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 242–251.
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model
for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of
Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5, 75-87.
Syed, M., & Chemers, M. M. (2011). Ethnic minorities and women in
STEM: Casting a wide net to address a persistent social problem.
Journal of Social Issues, 67, 435–441.
Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry:
Standards‐based reform and professional development. In L.
Darling‐Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Wee, B., Shepardson, D. P., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching
and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in profes-
sional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18,
63–89.
Yager, R. E. (1987). STS science teaching emphasizes problem solving.
Curriculum Review, 26, 19–21.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.
L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional de-
velopment affects student achievement. Issues & answers report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Zhang, M., Parker, J., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2015).
Understanding inservice science teachers’ needs for profes-
sional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26,
471–496.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for
learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 12–19.
How to cite this article: Owens DC, Sadler TD,
Murakami CD, Tsai C‐L. Teachers’ views on and
preferences for meeting their professional
development needs in STEM. School Science and
Mathematics. 2018;00:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ssm.12306
 |
14       OWENS et al.

APPENDIX
Based on your current teaching assignment, how important are the following teaching and learning topics?

Not Important (1) Slightly Important (2) Moderately Important (3) Very Important (4)
Use of educational technologies to
support learning (1)
Integrating literacy practices with STEM
learning (2)
Formative assessment for STEM
learning (3)
Problem‐based learning (4)
Interdisciplinary STEM teaching (5)
Scientific practices (e.g., modeling and
argumentation) (6)
Engineering design practices (7)
Mathematical practices (8)
Inquiry‐based laboratory activities (9)
Supporting girls and minorities in
STEM (10)
Preparing students for achievement tests
(11)
Using real‐world issues in the classroom
(12)
Analysis of "big data" (13)
Supporting classroom discourse (14)
Integrating authentic STEM research
into the classroom (15)
Next Generation Science Standards (16)
Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics (17)
New Missouri learning standards (18)
Instructional strategies for meeting the
needs of diverse learners (19)
Aligning instruction and curriculum
with standards (20)
Strategies for student use of mobile
technologies (e.g., iPads,
Chromebooks, smart phones) (21)
Integrating science, technology,
engineering, and math (22)

Based on your current teaching assignment, how interested would you be in participating in professional development about
these topics?
Definitely
Not Interested (1) Possibly Interested (2) Interested (3)
Using real‐world issues in the classroom (1)
Analysis of "big data" (2)
Supporting classroom discourse (3)
Integrating authentic STEM research into the
classroom (4)
(Continues)
OWENS et al.   
|
   15

APPENDIX   (Continued)

Definitely
Not Interested (1) Possibly Interested (2) Interested (3)
Next Generation Science Standards (5)
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
(6)
New Missouri learning standards (7)
Instructional strategies for meeting the needs of
diverse learners (8)
Aligning instruction and curriculum with
standards (9)
Strategies for student use of mobile technologies
(e.g., iPads, Chromebooks, smart phones) (10)
Integrating science, technology, engineering,
and math (11)
Use of educational technologies to support
learning (12)
Integrating literacy practices with STEM
learning (13)
Formative assessment for STEM learning (14)
Problem‐based learning (15)
Interdisciplinary STEM teaching (16)
Scientific practices (e.g., modeling and
argumentation) (17)
Engineering design practices (18)
Mathematical practices (19)
Inquiry‐based laboratory activities (20)
Supporting girls and minorities in STEM (21)
Preparing students for achievement tests (22)