Tina Williams_Capstone-Tina

Implementing Effective STEM Professional Development Programs for Elementary Educators
via Kopernik Observatory and Science Center and other Non-Profit Organizations
BY
TinaMarie Williams
B.S. Human Development, Binghamton University, 2013
CAPSTONE PROJECT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Masters of Public Administration
in the Graduate School of
Binghamton University
State University of New York
2015

i
©Copyright by
TINAMARIE WILLIAMS, 2015
All Rights Reserved

ii
Accepted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for
the degree of Masters of Public Administration
in the Graduate School of
State University of New York
2015
May2015
Nadia Rubaii___________________________________________________________________
Associate Professor
Department of Public Administration
George Homsy_________________________________________________________________
Assistant Professor
Department of Public Administration
Drew Deskur___________________________________________________________________
Executive Director
Kopernik Observatory and Science Center

Running head: IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
iii
Executive Summary
In 2014, the Kopernik Observatory and Science Center sought to expand their programs
and services. The Executive Director chose to undertake the development of a professional
development program for local educators in Broome County School Districts. In order to assist
Kopernik in the implementation of the program, I employed three different data collection and
analysis strategies to provide findings and recommendations regarding effective program models
and leadership styles to design effective professional development for educators.
First, I conducted four interviews with executive directors from other non-profit science
organizations that offered professional development to educators. Then, I conducted five
interviews with educators from three school districts in Broome County, New York. Finally, I
administered eleven surveys to educators who participated in the pilot launch of Kopernik’s
professional development program. Based on thematic coding and analysis the data yielded six
findings which were,
1. Professional development programs are typically funded through a variety of grants and
do not charge fees to participants.
2. Organizations that engage and interact with multiple stakeholder receive the most
funding.
3. Broome County elementary lack the time and resources to engage students in science.
4. Formal training for new educational standards have not been made available, making it
difficult for teachers to implement in the classroom.
5. The most successful professional development programs are interactive, content specific,
allow for pedagogical practice, and are evaluative.

IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
iv
6. Professional development programs that are collaborative, hands-on, and engaging are
most likely to positively influence classroom practices and lead to greater student
achievement.
These findings led me to provide four recommendations, which Kopernik may choose to
employ,
1. The organization should seek additional funding for program implementation through
collaboration with various organization and stakeholders, and apply for grants.
2. The organization should design a series of annual professional development workshops
as well as a workshop to disseminate Next Generation standards
3. The organization should wait to implement the professional development program in
alignment with New York States adaptation of Next Generation Standards.
4. Kopernik Observatory and Science Center should create a professional development
website.

v
Table of Contents
Problem Definition........................................................................................................................ 1
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 2
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 9
Professional Development Program Interviews ................................................................... 10
Procedures............................................................................................................................. 11
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 11
Broome County Elementary Educator Interviews............................................................... 15
Procedures............................................................................................................................. 15
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 16
Professional Development Pilot Surveys............................................................................... 18
Procedures............................................................................................................................. 18
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 19
Strengths and Limitations ...................................................................................................... 21
Findings........................................................................................................................................ 22
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 38

vi
References.................................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix F .................................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix G.................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix H.................................................................................................................................. 56
Appendix I ................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix J................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix K.................................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix L .................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix M ................................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix N .................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix O.................................................................................................................................. 71

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Professional Development Process Evaluation ……………………………………… 12
Figure 2 In Vivo Coding Manual …………………………………………………………….... 14
List of Tables
Table 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Table 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Table 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Table 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

1
Problem Definition
The Kopernik Observatory and Science Center is a non-profit 501c3 organization with a
mission “to offer hands-on investigations using advanced telescopes, computers and other tools,
encouraging the discovery of the wonders of the Universe” (Kopernik, 2014). The organization
is seeking to expand its role in the Southern Tier by providing professional development (PD) for
K-12 teachers in order to help enhance science education. To be successful the organization
faces a series of challenges that it will have to overcome in order to implement the new program
effectively.
It is difficult for public service organizations to implement new programs for a number of
reasons. These challenges include the ‘finitude, normativity, and complexity’ associated with
addressing social and political issues (Rittel & Weber, 1973). For organizations to overcome
these obstacles they must be adaptive and develop strong relationships with their constituents in
order to create a leadership community that supports mutual continuous growth for all
stakeholders involved. Another challenge that organizations have to overcome when
implementing new programs is ensuring effective leadership through collaboration. This may
require organizations to create a new conceptual model of professionalism by developing a
synergistic partnership among a variety of stakeholders and organizations. This requires an
organization to focus on bringing diverse stakeholders together, as opposed to separating people
by rank or organization (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2006).
The way in which these struggles manifest for Kopernik are that school districts are
centralized and operate as a hierarchy, which creates a silo effect. Irish & O’Callahan define a

2
silo as “a phenomenon that occurs when system components fail to communicate with each
other” (2013, p.7). Each school district in Broome County and different schools within districts
have their own individualized needs that Kopernik has to address. In order for Kopernik to
overcome these challenges, two broad research questions need to be answered:
Research Questions
1. What is the best organizational model that Kopernik can utilize in order to implement
an effective professional development program that can receive future funding?
2. What leadership qualities will Kopernik have to develop in order to create a PD
program that can foster a synergistic relationship where teachers, schools, and
districts in Broome County can continuously engage with one another to promote
collaboration and growth?
The Kopernik Observatory should focus on two tasks to implement a professional
development program. The first is expanding the scope and capacity of the organization
using innovative means. The second is creating effective leadership strategies, among various
stakeholders. The Kopernik Observatory has services that have been traditionally rooted in
the study of the sciences related to astronomy, physics and engineering. In order for
Kopernik to implement a successful PD program for science educators, it may have to further
its professional expertise in biology, chemistry, and earth sciences. The organization should
also incorporate math and language arts in to their educational workshops (Schweingruber,
Helen, & Quinn, 2012).

3
Recent changes and additions to national and state education policies have been made to
develop a more comprehensive way to apply theoretical concepts to pedagogical practice.
The U.S Department of Education released the executive summary “Race to the Top” (2009)
to provide a framework and guidelines for how to improve the nation’s education practices.
Part of these guidelines focused on enhancing science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) in schools. New federal standards were created to demonstrate how science topics
should be designed and how to incorporate math and language arts knowledge but do not
provide a specific curriculum to implement it (Common Core Standards, 2013). New York
State is currently in the process of developing new science standards, in alignment with the
new federal standards. NYS schools will have to comply with both sets of standards in order
to receive additional funding from the federal and state level. Kopernik needs to be adaptive
to the fast-paced changes that occur in education policy in order for the PD program to be
effective.
School districts have to comply by the standards that the federal and state policies
prescribe but they do have control over the curriculum that they use. Throughout the summer of
2014, I conferred with instructional superintendents from five school districts in Broome County,
as well as directors from Broome-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services. All five
administrators expressed individual needs regarding science education because of their particular
school curriculums. BOCES directors expressed that school districts within the Broome Tioga
region operate mostly independent of one another. Furthermore, superintendents stated that
different schools within each district do not communicate often. Kopernik must act as an
effective leader to bring different school districts together in sharing knowledge.

4
Kopernik must expand the organization as a whole in order to deliver the services and
resources necessary to provide professional development to educators in Broome County. This
involves becoming more dynamic in different areas of science by networking with organizations
that have expertise in STEM knowledge and research. Kopernik has to engage school districts by
facilitating communication. Schools should be able to share resources so that the silo that
currently exists among educational services within the region can be dissipated and school
districts can become more homogenous. The PD program has the capacity to be a success if
Kopernik can overcome these challenges and implement the program effectively.
Literature Review
There are challenges associated with effectively implementing successful professional
development programs, which are similar to the difficulties all public administrators face when
defining social problems and developing policies that will ameliorate them. The challenge that is
intrinsic for all social organizations is defining and solving social issues and disseminating
differences in perceptions by creating diverse networks within an organization and in
collaboration with other organizations (Boxelaar, Paine, & Beilin, 2006; Irish & O’ Callahan,
2013; Ospina & Foldy, 2010).
Rittel and Weber (1973) have attributed this challenge to the finitude, normativity, and
complexity of the social sciences. Finitude refers to the limited capacity of the cognitive skills,
resources, or networks that organizations have. Complexity refers to the difficulties
organizations encounter while working within and among various administrative hierarchies, and
how that effects the competencies of organizations to come up with solutions to problems,

5
implement them successfully, and evaluate them effectively. Normativity refers to the fact that
because of the complexity of working with a multitude of administrative hierarchies, there are
bound to be conflicting values and opinions that organizations will have to disseminate to
implement a new program (Farrell & Hooker, 2013; Rittel & Weber, 1973). To implement a
successful professional development program for elementary educators that improves the
availability of resources, enhances curriculum, and provides hands on activities, an organization
needs to have a knowledge and an understanding of the needs of its constituents. New education
policies and initiatives have placed an added emphasis on continuous professional growth.
Because of this, there are additional challenges associated with effectively implementing
professional development.
Policy makers, administrators, schools, and communities emphasize the importance of
professional development for schoolteachers and educators (Elmore, 2000; Penuel, Fishman,
Yomaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). The federal government and the U.S. Department of Education
recently implemented national standards to assess teacher’s performance (Race to the Top, 2009)
to evaluate how performance affects student achievement. Recent studies have shown that PD
has a positive impact on science teachers classroom performance (Fakayode, Pollard, Snipes, &
Atkinson, 2014) and content knowledge (Abrahams, Reiss, & Sharpe, 2014Szteinberg), which
has led to greater school and student success (Balicki, Banks, Clinchot, Cullipher, Huie,
Lambertz, Lewis, Ngai, Weinrich, Talanquer, & Sevian, 2014). Other educational studies have
evaluated how different types of PD implementation influences teacher’s knowledge and
classroom learning style of activities. Researchers are interested in uncovering which models of

6
PD implementation work best to improve student performance, and under what conditions
(Evans, 2014; Penuel et al., 2007; Slepkov, 2008).
The federal government’s increased involvement in education has affected teaching and
learning. Enhanced educational hierarchies and greater centralization affects how, and by whom,
PD programs are created and implemented. Educational policies will continue to evolve and so
must PD programs in order to be successful (Elmore, 2000). This requires strong professional
leadership to foster an environment where people and networks become comfortable and willing
to change the organizational and relational structure in which they operate as policies evolve
(Lemke, 2000; Ospina & Foldy, 2010).
Organizational and disciplinary silos create another challenge to effective collaboration.
Hierarchies within an organization can cause misunderstanding in communication and hinder
progression (Boxelaar et al., 2006; Ospinal & Foldy 2010). Diverse organizations may share a
common mission or position but have alternative interests in solutions, which can create
competition over the limited resources available to implement programs (Besel, Williams, &
Klak, 2011; Boxelaar et al., 2006). Educational silos that exist also create a challenge for
organizations when attempting to implement professional development programs for teachers
(Boxelaar et al., 2006; Irish & O’Callahan, 2013; Lemke, 2000). Schools have become
increasingly isolated from each other and their communities, limiting capacity of the district and
hindering student achievement (Elmore, 2000; Irish & O’Callahan, 2013). To implement a
successful PD program that encourages collaboration and removes the barrier silos create, a
strong organizational model that encourages participation among all stakeholders and networks

7
must be adopted (Boxelaar et al., 2006; Ospina & Foldy, 2010; Lemke, 2001; Penuel et al.,
2007).
Developing a ‘constructivist’ model of leadership is one of the most effective ways to
implement collaborative models of professional development (Ospina & Foldy, cited from
Parsons, Bales, & Shills, 1953; Penuel et al., 2007). The theoretical framework behind the
constructivist model of leadership is sociocultural learning theory, which propagates that all
learning occurs as a mutual relationship (Ospina & Foldy, p. 295) between an individual and
their social, cultural, and historical environment (Anderson & Stillman, 2013, p. 5; Kapucu,
2011). The theory supports the notion that a strong leadership organization can successfully
‘prompt cognitive shifts’ (Ospina & Foldy, p. 297) that allow for new shared goals and
objectives to be established (Anderson & Stillman, 2013). The new goals that are established
must be collaborative in order to eliminate vertical silos and promote development (Boxelaar et
al., 2006; Irish & O’Callahan, 2013).
Organizations can facilitate strong leadership among individuals and produce proactive
interpersonal partnerships by embracing diversity and including multiple stakeholders from the
public, non-profit, and private sector (Besel et al., 2011; Fakayode et al., 2014; Ospina & Foldy,
2010). Diverse stakeholders include individuals and organizations who have a vested interest in
enhancing educational opportunities and have a unique set of knowledge, experience, and skills
to develop progressive solutions to do so. Developing interpersonal relationships among
organizations creates a greater pool of intellectual and fiscal resources, which has the potential to
make positive restructuring more likely to be successful. To implement a professional

8
development program throughout an entire region successfully, the educational organization
must first form cohesive relationships with the participating school districts, teachers, and
community members (Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Kapucu, 2011; Penuel et al., 2007). The
leadership organization must create a strong relationship among these siloed networks by
embracing the different needs and interests and foster a line of communication that syndicates
individual goals into collective goals (Ball, Ben-Peretz, & Cohen, 2014; Ospina & Foldy, 2010;
Rittel & Weber, 1973). Once an educational organization develops a strong relationship with
various stakeholders, it is necessary for them to maintain participation and awareness by
implementing a PD model that is evaluative and effective.
Numerous studies have assessed how effective different implementation models of
professional development programs are in the field of public administrators (O’Leary, Williams,
Plein, & Lilly, 1998), as well as, in the field of education (Ball et al., 2014, Desimone, Smith, &
Phillips, 2011; Evans, 2014; Penuel et al., 2007; Slepkov, 2008). Other studies have focused on
the effectiveness of PD implementation specific to science educators (Abrahams et al., 2014;
Fakayode et al., 2014; Szteinberg et al., 2014). All of the studies had findings that indicated that
the two most important factors that affect the success of PD program of any kind are the amount
of PD time offered and the level of interaction and engagement between participants and the
organization. PD programs should be implemented over an extended period by providing
continuous interaction and learning opportunities throughout the development of a professional’s
career (Evans, 2014; Penuel et al., 2007). PD programs should also provide an environment
where professionals can network with one another and work together to formulate solutions to
common problems (Abrahams et al. 2014; Anderson & Stillman, 2013). Finally, they should

9
provide enhanced learning materials that educators can use in their classroom through various
outlets, like distance learning (Andronie, 2014; Penuel et al. 2007).
Professional development programs and continuous professional learning have positive
effects on student learning and achievement (Abrahams et al., 2014; Desimone et al., 2013;
Kapucu, 2011). However, there are limitations in the research findings. One limitation is that
most PD programs do not measure whether participation effectively alters educators teaching and
classroom practices in such a way that enhances student learning across a variety of institutions
(Anderson & Stillman, 2011; Penuel et al., 2007; Slepkov, 2008). This means that organizations
will have to develop an operative way to independently evaluate their own success. Two possible
ways to evaluate PD programs are by continuously assessing participant’s satisfaction through
pre and post surveys (Anderson & Stillman, 2011), and involving school administrators to
effectively track students potential achievement (Elmore, 2000; Irish & O’Callahan, 2013). To
implement a successful PD program and organization must develop a strong implementation
model and convey collaborative leadership to break down silos among schools and develop
collective beliefs regarding equitable student achievement among all districts.
Methodologies
To develop a better understanding of the potential challenges and benefits Kopernik may
face when implementing effective professional development programs for elementary educators,
three separate research methods were employed in order to conduct the most comprehensive
analysis possible. First, executive/program directors of science centers throughout the US who
have implemented PD programs were interviewed. Then, experienced educators from Vestal,

10
Union-Endicott, Maine-Endwell, Windsor, and Johnson City elementary school were also
interviewed. Finally, elementary educators from Vestal school district, who participated in
Kopernik’s pilot PD program, were surveyed. The methodology section describes how the data
collection and analysis strategies for each method were employed. It includes how participants
were selected to participate, the procedures of the data collection and the qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the data that was used to determine findings and recommendations.
Finally, the strengths and limitations that exist within the research methodology are outlined and
described to assess the benefits and minimize the potential risks.
Professional Development Program Interviews
Directors of non-profit science centers that have professional development programs for
educators were interviewed in order to assess what organizational models other organizations
were using to effectively run their programs. Interview participants were first selected by
identifying non-profit science centers that had professional development programs available for
educators via a database available on www.tryscience.com. There were 40 organizations, located
throughout the United States, in the database. Organizations were then evaluated and narrowed
down based on how extensive their professional development programs were in regards to the
number of annual workshop offered. Organizations that hosted between two and twenty-six
annual workshops were selected, based on the potential capacity for Kopernik to replicate. A
total of fourteen organizations that met the criteria were identified, see Appendix C.

11
Procedures
After potential participants were identified, the contact information of executive directors
was collected on their organizational websites, and they were contacted via email, see Appendix
D. Five directors responded and three directors consented to participate. However, one director
ran two distinct programs for different organizations located in two different states, so their
interview was counted for twice. After directors consented to participate, phone interviews were
conducted between March 7, 2015 and March 26, 2015. All interviews were recorded, based on
the consent of participants, see Appendix E. The interviews were semi-structured in nature and
lasted about a half hour to forty-five minutes. The interview consisted of seven to nine structured
questions regarding the organizational design of the PD program that was being implemented,
the organizations greatest sources of funding, and satisfaction ratings of participants, See
Appendix F. Probing and clarifying questions were asked based on the responses provided which
lead to broader conversational dialogue regarding the organization. After interviews were
complete, I transcribed the recordings manually and synthesized the transcriptions with the notes
I took throughout each interview.
Data Analysis
Professional development interviews were analyzed qualitatively using different
measures of thematic coding. Initially interviews were assessed individually based on process
evaluations of each organization. The data was descriptively coded, or chunked, based on
categories of inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes, see Appendix G. Inputs included how the
program was organized, the stakeholders involved, and length of time of services. Activities
included the types of programs being offered, how the model is implemented over time, and the

12
types of networking relationships that are formed. Outputs included enhanced science knowledge
and resources for elementary educators, teacher satisfactions, and increased collaboration and
engagement. Outcomes included, greater funding, higher satisfaction ratings, increased student
achievement, and increased involvement in science education. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Professional Development Program Process Evaluation
Enhanced Student Achievement
Enhanced Science Knowledge and Resources
Objective External Evaluations
Outcomes Increased Funding
Increased Enrollment
Online Networking
Outputs Videos
Curriculum Guides
In Class Resources
Collaboration
Activities Networking
Fees
Programs Offered
Funding
Time
Inputs Stakeholders
Organizational

13
After process evaluations for each organization were conducted, I further analyzed the
data using in vivo coding based on specific codes and sub-codes I created based on pre-
prescribed themes. The four category codes and sub codes were based on were: (1)
implementation model, (2) leadership style, (3) funding, and (4) level of success. For a full list of
codes and sub codes, see Appendix H. The analysis of the coding was used to create a coding
manual based on the most prominent and interesting similarities and differences found within the
process evaluations of each organization, see Figure 2. Furthermore, tables were created to
represent the amount of times each code and sub code was identified to further analyze data to
conduct relevant findings; raw data charts for this data can be found in Appendix I.
Three prominent themes emerged from the data analysis. The first is that there are
varieties of different kinds of workshops that can be implemented to create professional
development opportunities but the most common were day long, interactive, curriculum
workshops that focused on specific learning module topics. The second theme was that the
capacity and number of workshops is dependent on the funding that is available through grants.
The third theme was that strong leadership and administration that promoted engagement,
information-sharing, and two-way communication had the greatest rate of success in terms of the
amount of funding the organization received and the amount of annual workshops they hosted.

14
Figure 2. PD Interview Thematic Coding Manual
Codes Categories Figure 2. PD Interview Coding Manual
Length of Workshop
All day Themes
Location of Services
On-Site
Number of constituents
State Wide
Capacity
Number of Annual Workshops
Collaboration
Local Universities
National Science Organizations
Membership
Students, Families, Community Members
Information Sharing
Newsletter
Website Information
Grants
Federal
Independent Science Organizations
Additional Resources
Participant Payments
Evaluations
Pre and Post Assessment
School District Records
External Evaluations
Accreditation
Replication of Program
Theory
Model of
Implementation
Leadership &
Administration
Funding
Results and
Successes of
Program
Capacity and Number of
Workshops is Dependent on
funding available. Additional
funding sources leads to greater
capacity which leads to more
extensive evaluations, which in
turn, leads to more funding
There are a variety of different
types of workshops that are
implemented through Professional
Development Programs. The most
common are day long, interactive,
curriculum workshops focused on
specific learning module topics
Strong Leadership and
Administration, which included
collaborating with similar
organizations and universities,
actively engaged community
members, and participated in
open information sharing were
the most successful in terms of,
the number of annual
workshops, the number of
annual constituents, rate of
funding, and ability to create
objective evaluative measures
The most successful PD programs are interactive, focused on specific content topics,
and have secured enough support and funding through: active leadership,
engagement with multiple stakeholders, and use of objective evaluative measures

15
Broome County Elementary Educator Interviews
Elementary Educators in five Broome County School districts were interviewed in order
to assess the specific needs that educators in the area may have. This information was used to
provide findings and recommendations to Kopernik about the specific constituents they intend on
serving. I limited the number of school districts I chose to conduct interviews with based on the
five superintendents I conferred with over the summer. The school districts that Kopernik and I
worked with over the summer of 2014 were Vestal, Union-Endicott, Maine-Endwell, Johnson
City, and Windsor. Initially, I contacted the superintendents to ask for permission to interview
their elementary educators. After the school consented, superintendents emailed a proposal to
educators for participation, see Appendix J. Additionally, potential participants were identified
through Kopernik’s professional networking database, based on local educators who had worked
with Kopernik in the past. Twenty-one educators were identified through Kopernik’s network
connections: seven from Maine-Endwell, five from Vestal, 5 from Windsor, 2 from Johnson
City, and 2 from Union Endicott.
Procedures
After potential educators were directly identified I contacted them via email, see
Appendix J. Seven educators responded to my direct email, and one educator responded to the
superintendent’s call for participation. Five educators agreed to participate in the interviews. The
interviews were conducted the week of March 23, 2015 to March 27, 2015. Each interview was
recorded, based on the consent of the participants, see Appendix K. Each interview took twenty
minutes to a half hour to conduct. The interviews were semi-structured and consisted of eight
open-ended questions, see Appendix L. Educators were asked questions regarding their overall

16
experience as an educator, past professional development experiences, current needs, opinions of
Common Core and Next Generation, and perceptions regarding Kopernik hosting a PD program.
The questions led to an open dialogue that encouraged educators to actively discuss their
experiences and concerns. After interviews were complete, I transcribed the recordings manually
and synthesized the transcriptions with the notes I took throughout each interview.
Data Analysis
Educator Interviews were analyzed qualitatively using thematic coding based on each
question, see Appendix M. Questions two and four evaluated the effectiveness of PD programs
and curriculum development. Questions three, six, and seven pertained to teachers professional
needs. Questions five and eight assessed how participants perceived Kopernik’s capacity as an
organization to aid in their professional needs and the needs of their constituents. The data
revealed some mixed results among the opinions of participants. In response to whether or not
past PD programs had been effective all educators agreed that they found past workshops
effective. However, two participants expressed that there were not enough professional
development opportunities focused on science education and that past workshops focused
heavily on math and ELA. One participant stated, “PD is more geared towards common core and
STEM PD is too infrequent to have a lasting impact on classroom practices.”
In regards to the resources that educators need in order to teach science effectively,
participants felt that their greatest challenge was engaging students and making science
interesting. One educator expressed that the curriculum is content heavy and science is taught
through ELA modules, making it difficult to create hands on demonstrations to practice.

17
Teachers expressed that the most helpful resources available would be interactive videos and
materials for in-science experiments. Additionally, two teachers felt that they needed training on
how to operate new technology. Interview questions regarding Common Core elicited the most
mixed results. Two teachers fully supported the curriculum and claimed that the have seen
positive changes in the last three years. The other participants also agreed that they have seen
improvements in student’s critical thinking but they also believed that students were losing out
on other important skills. One teacher stated, “It is currently sucking the imagination and
creativity out of children and drowning them in text, making it difficult for educators to engage
them effectively.
Two questions that yielded unanimous results were numbers five and eight. In regards to
both questions, when asked if they believed if Kopernik would be an effective organization to
implement professional development for educators in STEM learning, all five agreed that it
would be utilizable, see Table 1. When participants were asked whether they would be interested
in utilizing an online networking system where teachers in Broome County could communicate
and share resources, as well as find additional resources, all five agreed that it would be
beneficial, see Table 2.
Table 1: Question 5: Do you believe that implementing a professional development workshop will
be useful?
Participant # 1: utilizable
96 1
73 1
70 1: “Kopernik is a great facility to implement it”
15 1: Only if it is in house Differs from PD interviews
30 1: “Teachers crave finding new ways to learn, apply, and
implement knowledge to children in the classroom”

18
Table 2: Question 8: Do you believe it would be effective and beneficial for Kopernik to create an
internet network liaison where teachers in Broome County can communicate and share
resources and materials?
Participant # 1: utilizable
96 1
73 1
70 1: “That would be a great thing to do”
15 1: Schools are already beginning to do this and it will be
helpful
30 1: “Would be so beneficial for teachers to be able to share
resources – the internet would probably be the most
efficient and effective outlet to utilize it”
Professional Development Pilot Surveys
Surveys were administered to all elementary educators and aides at Vestal School District
who participated in Kopernik’s Professional Development pilot on Friday, March 13, 2013. The
pilot was held at Vestal High School on their school superintendent day. Kopernik delivered the
same workshop twice. The first pilot ran from 8:00am to 10:00am and the second pilot ran from
10:00am to noon. Four educators participated in the first workshop and seven educators
participated in the second workshop All eleven participants completed the Likert-scale questions,
but only the four participants from the workshop completed the open-ended questions in the
survey.
Procedures
The survey was administered in the last ten minutes of the workshop and was optional to fill out.
It was provided to all participants of Kopernik’s professional development pilot program. The
survey consisted of eight Likert-scale questions and seven open-ended questions, see Appendix

19
N. The survey was used to assess the participant’s satisfaction with the workshop, the level of
engagement they felt existed, and recommendations for Kopernik to apply to future workshops. I
input the Likert-scale data from the eleven surveys in to an Excel spreadsheet and then
transcribed the open-ended responses of the four surveys.
Data Analysis
The eight Likert-scale questions in the survey were evaluated quantitatively. The
questions were rated on a scale of 1: Strongly Disagree to 5: Strongly Agree. The data was
analyzed in Microsoft Excel and descriptive statistics were conducted to uncover the standard
deviation and mode related to each survey question. The survey responses yielded positive, but
limited results. All respondents answered each Likert-scale question as a four or five, indicated
that they strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the workshop; they felt the workshop was
engaging, and that it enhanced their professional expertise. All four participants in the first
workshop responded to the open-ended questions of the survey, but none of the seven
participants of the second workshop answered any of the open-ended questions. Based on the
differences between the responses to open ended questions in the first pilot and the second pilot I
chose to analyze the Likert-scale questions of each pilot separately. All participants of the first
pilot answered five to every question, indicating that they were highly satisfied with the
workshop. However, in the second workshop there were mixed responses of four and five. I
conducted a chi-square analysis to assess whether there was a significant difference in response
rate between the first group and the second group using a significance level of p ≤ .05. The
analysis indicated that there was a significant difference in response rate between the first group

20
and the second group. However, these finding are limited because of the small sample sizes. For
a copy of all the raw data findings, see Appendix O.
The seven open-ended questions were utilized to conduct a narrative assessment based on
what participants found to be the most effective about the pilot workshop and how Kopernik
could improve the program in the future. The narrative assessment consisted of comparing the
responses to questions of each participant. The data did not need to be coded thematically
because responses among four participants were not long and all made similar statements. The
data indicated that the parts of the workshop that they found the most useful were, the interactive
video that was shown, learning how to apply engineering demonstrations in the classroom, and
being provided with specific activities. The Likert-scale and open-ended data also indicated that
participants felt that the workshop was highly engaging and interactive. One respondent stated,
“It was fun being able to learn about three different activities.” Open ended responses and Likert-
scale responses indicated that the greatest weakness of the workshop was the time limitation
participants had. Participants felt that they needed more time in order to solidify their knowledge
and one participant stated, “I would have loved this workshop to be a double session, SUPER
WORKSHOP!” I compared responses about what educator’s greatest professional needs were to
the responses from the educator interviews. Similar findings emerged indicating that the greatest
resources teachers need are in class activities and demonstrations to engage students and, more
frequent and engaging professional training and development in STEM education.

21
Strengths and Limitations
The strengths of my research design is that three different data collection measures have
been utilized to provide the most comprehensive analysis possible. All three data collection
measures were used to assess potential organizational models and collaborative leadership tools.
Specifically, the coding method for professional development surveys was extensive. I coded the
data in three different ways in order to get as much information as I could, despite limited data.
Furthermore, the data collection technique allowed me to obtain information about organizations
on a national level, and address the individualized needs of Broome County educators. This
makes the research applicable to similar organizations who are interested in implementing a
similar program and I was also able to provide specific recommendations for Kopernik to utilize.
The limitations of my research were that there was a small sample size for each method
and I had limited response rates. Only five professional development directors chose to
participate in the professional development interviews and only five teachers chose to participate
in the educator interviews. Furthermore, educators from only three of the five participating
school districts were interviewed directly. Also, while eleven teachers completed the survey
following the professional development pilot, only the four teachers who attended the morning
session gave detailed responses to the open ended questions. This may be attributed to the time
of day that the second workshop was held, which was right before lunch and dismissal. It may
also be that the first workshop was more engaging because there were less participants. Because
of this, my analysis and therefore my findings are not generalizable and lack external validity.

22
Findings
Data analysis, based on thematic coding, narrative assessment, and descriptive statistics,
guided by prior research conducted in the literature review, presented six significant findings.
The first two findings were developed based on the thematic coding of professional development
interviews. These findings are:
1. Professional development programs are typically funded through a variety of grants
and do not charge fees to participants and,
2. Organizations that engage and interact with multiple stakeholder receive the most
funding.
Findings three and four were developed based on the data analysis of both educator interviews
and surveys. These findings are:
3. Broome County elementary lack the time and resources to engage students in science
and,
4. Formal training for new educational standards has not been made available, making it
difficult for teachers to implement the curriculum in the classroom.
Finding five and six are based on a culmination of all of the data collected. These
findings are:
5. The most successful professional development programs are interactive, content
specific, allow for pedagogical practice, and are evaluative, and

23
6. professional development programs that are collaborative, hands-on, and engaging
are most likely to positively influence classroom practices and lead to greater student
achievement.
Finding 1: Professional Development programs are typically funded through a variety of
grants and do not charge fees to participants
Funding is one of the most important aspects for an organization to consider when
deciding whether or not it has the capacity to expand and create new programs. This is especially
true for non-profit organizations, such as Kopernik, that operate on a limited budget. Professional
development directors expressed in interviews that the majority of their funding comes from
grants. Most of the grants received are federal education grants through the Department of
Education and, for one organization, the Department of Defense. Other grants are administered
by national science organizations such as, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
Institute of Educational Sciences (IES). Additionally, organizations can also receive grants from
private lender organizations, such as the local Broome County Klee Foundation. Grants can be
used for a specific workshop program or they can be applied to the entire sphere of educational
enhancement for the organization. How grant funds are utilized is dependent on what type of
grant it is and what purpose the grant is intended to serve.
Organizations were able to provide free professional development by utilizing grants
specific to enhancing teacher development. None of the organizations, except one, charged
educators for participation. In fact, most organizations provided a stipend of $100 to $150 dollars
for participation plus additional resources. Furthermore, teachers were also able to receive credits

24
for participation within three of the organizations. One director explained that all programs are
free to participants and that after teachers enroll and participate they must complete a survey,
which the organization assesses. After the organization evaluates the program, it sends the
findings to the grant donor and they receive a reimbursement within the month to provide
teachers with a stipend for participating. Because of the positive feedback and the extensive
evaluative techniques, the organization is able to secure funding to keep the professional
development program in operation.
Finding 2: Organizations that engage and interact with multiple stakeholders receive the most
funding
Funding is an integral component of organizational capacity so it is important to
understand how successful programs manage their budgets. Organizations that receive the most
funding are able to offer more numerous and extensive professional development. The capacity
and the number of workshops that organizations can implement are dependent on the amount of
funding they have available. Additional funding sources from donations, fundraisers, and
membership fees leads will help promote organizational growth. In order for organizations to
receive additional sources of funding they must be engaged and interact with multiple
stakeholders that can provide these fiscal resources. The most influential stakeholders include
local universities and similar professional organizations. Other sponsors are community
members, local government officials, and local businesses.
Engaging diverse stakeholders requires strong administrative leadership. These skills
include information sharing, open two-way communication, and consistent positive interaction

25
with various groups of people. Organizations that accomplished this were more successful in
terms of the number of annual workshops delivered, the number of annual constituents served,
their rate of funding, and their ability to evaluate their programs objectively. This finding was
uncovered based on the comparison of process evaluations among the PD directors interviewed.
One organization in particular had the most extensive program and funding. The organization
had a relationship with a university who provided external evaluations for the program in order
to secure a 120,000-dollar federal grant. The organization used the grant to create an extensive,
in house, online communication system to make it easier for teachers and professionals to get
access to materials, communicate with one another, and sign up for workshops. The program has
received so much attention that other organizations have worked with them in order to replicate
their model.
Finding 3: Broome County elementary educators lack the time and resources to engage
students in science
All of the educators in Broome County interviewed mentioned that it has become
increasingly difficult to demonstrate science practice in the classroom actively. Teachers
discussed that because Common Core measures have become increasingly emphasized, time
spent on science has been cut down to only a half an hour each day. Furthermore, science lessons
are based on the Common Core ELA curriculum guidelines, which do not provide children with
the ability to apply theoretical concepts pedagogically. Teachers unanimously agreed that hands
on materials were needed to do in class experiments and activities in order to apply knowledge

26
concepts. Teachers expressed the need for these materials to be of little to no cost, easy to obtain,
and applicable to the curriculum.
Additionally, one teacher from Windsor expressed that science textbooks for her second
grade classroom were extremely outdated, and that she only had five textbooks for a classroom
of 28 students. The same teacher also expressed the need for additional classroom resources such
as telescopes and metric measurement tools in order to engage students. Furthermore, within the
open-ended responses of the surveys, participants expressed that they found the video shown in
the beginning of the pilot workshop to be engaging and believed it would be an effective
resource to utilize in the classroom and that they would like to have access to more resources and
videos like it.
The teachers interviewed also explained that professional workshops they participate in
need to be applicable to their coursework curriculum. Educators expressed how valuable and
minimal their time is. Teachers have a great deal of pressure on them and have many
expectations that they are expected to fulfill. One of them is that they are expected to participate
in a certain number of professional development hours every year in order to remain qualified to
teach. Teachers tend to choose in PD programs that are the most efficient and effective. One
educator expressed that in-house PD programs are more suitable because it does not require
teachers to travel outside of their school building. Furthermore, the literature shows that
educators are also likely to sign up for PD programs that have the greatest impact on their
professions. Multiple sources in the literature expressed that the added emphasis on Common
Core and teacher evaluations have left little room for science practice (Elmore, 2000; Fakayode

27
et al., 2014). Because of this, educators are less likely to sign up for PD programs related to
science unless it is emphasized in the school curriculum.
Finding 4: Formal training for new educational standards have not been made available,
making it difficult for teachers to implement in the classroom
Literature regarding professional development for science educators highlights the
importance of adapting practices around the new standards to promote continuous professional
growth (Abrahams et al., 2014). Based on the responses from the educators interviewed, all
teachers agreed, to a certain extent, that the new standards were beneficial and effective.
Teachers expressed that they have seen growth and improvement since the first year of Common
Core implementation and that students are able to notice concepts more quickly, think more
critically, and express themselves more logically. Some teachers were bigger proponents than
others were. A second grade teacher, from Maine-Endwell, was in full support of the new
standards and expressed that when longitudinal studies are conducted in the future, benefits will
become more apparent. However, a kindergarten educator, also from Maine-Endwell, expressed
that while they saw the potential benefits of a more rigorous curriculum, they believed it was too
developmentally advanced for four and five year olds. One teacher stated, “Students no longer
have time to socialize and play, and that is how children learn at a young age.” The same teacher
also expressed that they believed children were missing learning other valuable things, like
developing fine motor skills and, creative and imaginative thinking.
While all teachers expressed a certain degree of support for the new standards, some also
expressed that their attitude towards the curriculum have changed since the first year of

28
implementation. A lot of this has to do with teachers becoming more comfortable with the new
material, and gaining a better understanding of their expectations after a school year of
experience. Every single educator expressed that their greatest struggle with the Common Core
adaptation is that they were not given enough time to prepare and did not receive adequate,
professional training on how to effectively alter the curriculum in alignment with the standards.
When teachers were asked if they would be interested in a PD seminar that focused specifically
on Next Generation standards once they were implemented in New York State they unanimously
agreed that, not only would they be interested but, that they felt it would be necessary, especially
because elementary teachers tend to lack formal expertise in STEM education. A description of
responses is presented in table 3.
Table 3: Educator responses on “how to integrate the new Next Generation Science standards
into professional development and the classroom”
How to integrate
new standards
A series of
seminar
workshops
should be held
in the summer
before the next
gen standards
are
implemented to
help teachers
understand how
read the charts
and become
acquainted with
the new
standards
Absolutely
necessary to have
PD training courses
that help teachers
disseminate the new
standards and
provide tools for
how to integrate the
curriculum in to the
classroom
effectively
Slower pace,
update to make
more
developmentally
appropriate;
allow kids to be
kids; learning
should be hands
on and exciting
Workshop that
explicitly
explains Next
Gen is
necessary
Start
implementing
workshops
once Next
Gen is finally
adapted – if
you try and
do so before
hand there
will be no
buy in
“Implement
the first
series of
workshop
to launch
the
program as
a summer
seminar
before Next
Gen is
adapted
locally”
Additionally, one teacher expressed that school districts are implementing new, interactive
technologies in to the classroom, but that they lack formal training on how to utilize these

29
resources most effectively. It is especially important that teachers be provided with the
information, knowledge, and resources to utilize the expensive technology that schools are
investing money in. These tools have the ability to make a profound and positive difference on
student learning if utilized effectively. Furthermore, the narrative assessment of the open ended
responses to surveys found that many participants had little or no knowledge of engineering,
modules or hands on classroom activities and one stated, “the school does not focus on science
nearly enough and technology and engineering practice is not even in the curriculum.”
Finding 5: The most successful professional development programs are interactive, content
specific, allows for pedagogical practice, and evaluative
Professional development interview participants indicated that a combination of diverse
workshops that coincide with school curriculums need to be implemented throughout the year in
order to be beneficial to teacher. Program directors expressed that their PD workshops were
hands on and interactive. None of the directors interviewed had programs that were lecture or
seminar style. Program models differed in terms of length of time and the topics that were
available based on the capacity and focus of the organization. One organization was a botanical
center and chose to offer professional development in topics only related to botany and biology.
Another organization, most similar to Kopernik, was a Science and Astronomy Center and
focused professional development on physics, astronomy, and engineering. The other
organizations were full service science centers and so they were able to offer more integrated
services based on their extensive areas of expertise and large staff size.

30
These findings differ somewhat from the expectations based off the literature that
Kopernik would have to expand the scope of the organization to include other areas of science in
order to offer a professional development program. What is most important for implementing
effective professional development is not broad knowledge of every science topic but rather
extensive expertise in a specific area of science that will allow teachers to build-upon and
enhance the knowledge they already have. Educators expressed in interviews that they have a
basic understanding of science concept but they are lacking the expertise to turn basic concepts
in to ‘real-life’ experiments in order to apply them. Focusing on specific topics is the most
effective way to solidify knowledge, and this concept directly coincides with the basic principles
of the Next Generation standards.
However, there may be potential for disparity in Kopernik’s ability address the
crosscutting concepts of interdisciplinary science topics expressed within the new standards
effectively, if they choose not to expand the scope of their organization. This challenge was
expressed in the literature review in regards to the complexity, normativity, and finitude of both
the social and physical sciences (Farrel & Hooker, 2013; Rittel & Weber, 1973. However, it is
important to note that what teacher’s value most from PD programs is the ability to engage and
share resources with other professionals. Teachers also like to be provided with take-away
materials to utilize in the classroom and receiving additional curriculum and interaction
resources after the workshop through newsletters and online resources. Providing tangible
resources and materials that would otherwise not be available and can be utilized to guide
classroom practices is an effective way to positively alter teaching practices and enhance student
achievement.

31
Finding 6: Professional development programs that provide continuous growth and learning
opportunities are most likely to positively influence classroom practices and lead to greater
student achievement
Successful professional development cannot be a “one-stop” shop. It must be developed
over time to provide opportunities that will allow participants to continue to grow. One director
stated, “If only one workshop a year is available, teachers will likely not sign up for it, and if
they did it would not have a lasting impact on their classroom practices.” Directors also stated
that multiple workshops throughout the year are necessary because science and technology
evolve so rapidly and new discoveries are being made every day. Furthermore, directors stated
that in order to be eligible for grants, organizations need to prove that their programs are
effective, and one way to do so is to provide a variety of opportunities for educators to
participate to more adequately assess the impact it has on teacher development.
Educator interviews indicated that all teachers yearned for continuous professional
growth. All interviewees expressed that they value professional development opportunities and
that their experiences with them have benefited their professional expertise. One teacher
explicitly stated, “I love participating in professional development. I love learning new things
that I can bring back to the classroom and provide to my students. I think it is so important that
as educators, we never stop learning. I would love to have more access to professional
development in science, I think it’s something teachers in the area are really struggling with right
now and would be universally beneficial.” Additionally, based on the interviews of professional
development directors, I found that the organization that received the most support and reached

32
the greatest amount of constituents annually also offered the greatest number of programs
throughout the year.
One aspect of this finding that is important to keep in mind is that while teachers desire
additional professional development their time is extremely limited which can make it difficult to
participate. Professional development workshops should be developed and implemented based
on the availability of teachers. In one educator interview, the teacher expressed that the most
effective professional development workshops are “in-house,” meaning teachers do not have to
travel outside of the school building and the program comes to them. However, professional
development interviews indicated that all organizations host their workshops on-site, meaning
teachers have to come to them. It will be important for Kopernik to align their programs with the
specific needs of their constituents while also keeping in mind their own organizational capacity.
The organization will have to consider what the best location for the program is in order to host
the most engaging workshop. These ideas are discussed further in the following
recommendations section.
Recommendations
After analyzing the data and uncovering the above-mentioned findings, four
recommendations have been made for Kopernik to implement a successful professional
development program. The first two recommendations focus on the tasks for Kopernik to
accomplish before the program is launched. These recommendations are:

33
1. Seek additional funding for program implementation through collaboration with various
organizations and stakeholders, and apply for grants and,
2. Design a series of annual workshops, as well as, a workshop specific to the Next
Generation standards.
Recommendations three and four are intended to help guide Kopernik through
implementation and extending development. These recommendations are:
3. Implement the program in alignment with New York States adaptation of Next
Generation Standards and,
4. Create a Professional Development Website.
Recommendation 1: Seek additional support for program implementation through
collaboration with various organizations and stakeholders, and apply for grants
There are variety of means that Kopernik can utilize in order to secure additional support and
funding to implement this program. One of the greatest resources available to Kopernik is
Binghamton University. Kopernik has utilized the Department of Public Administration in the
past to employ interns for research and development. Kopernik should continue to work with the
MPA department and consider expanding upon relationships in the College of Community and
Public Affairs. Kopernik can utilize the resources that the Center for Applied Research and
Community Development (CACRD) provides as an external evaluator for the program in the
future. External evaluations that show that the program is effective will help secure future
funding. Kopernik can also work with grant writers in order to apply for additional funding.
Kopernik has already been successful at securing one grant, but the grant will not be enough to

34
cover all of the expenses expected. I researched grant opportunities that are coming up within the
next year that Kopernik may be eligible to apply for. Table 4 provides a list of these grants, the
organization that is funding it, application deadlines, and a link to application information.
Table 4. List of Available Grants
Organization Type of Grant Deadline Link
NASA Multiple ROSES opportunities Varies NASA ROSES
National Science Foundation Innovative Technology
Experiences for Students and
Teachers (ITEST)
12/2015 ITEST
National Science Foundation Discovery Research K-12 12/2015 Discovery
National Science Foundation National STEM Education
Distributed Learning (NSDL)
12/2015 NSDL
Institute of Education Sciences Various Varies IES
National Education Association Educational Leadership Varies NEA
Gladys Brooks Foundation Education Grant 5/29/15 Gladys Brooks
Braitmayer Foundation K-12 Education 2016
Opportunities
Braitmayer
Honda STEM Education Varies Honda
Additionally, I recommend that Kopernik also continue to work the Roberson Museum and
Science Center located in Binghamton, New York. Roberson and Kopernik have worked
together in the past and share a similar mission. Roberson is a slightly larger organization; they

35
have more full time staff members and programs available. Roberson has also begun to look in to
implementing professional development programs in response to the upcoming changes to the
state standards. If Kopernik were to work with Roberson and implement professional
development together, they could both have more extensive program development, produce more
annual programs, and secure a greater amount of future funding. Another science center in
Binghamton that Kopernik may want to utilize is the Discovery Center of the Southern Tier. The
DCST may be able to provide Kopernik with additional hand-on materials and resources to teach
lessons to students.
Additionally, Kopernik may wish to consider implementing their workshop through the
Broome Tioga Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES). BOCES offers a multitude of
different types of professional development for educators in Broome and Tioga County, but not
much STEM education. The resources they have and the relationship they have with school
districts makes this a much less expensive option for both the organization and participants.
Finally, Kopernik may wish to reach out to Tracey Toome, the executive director of professional
development for the Challenger Education Center in Colorado. This particular organization has
provided professional development for over ten years. The organization works with other science
centers to help them replicate their model and guide them through implementation. Tracy is one
of the executive directors I conducted an interview with and she expressed that it was okay to use
her name and information as a reference for future development purposes and urged Kopernik to
contact her if they should need any guidance in the future.

36
Recommendation 2: Design a series of annual workshops, as well as, a workshop specific to
the Next Generation Standards
The findings discussed the importance of making a variety of workshops available
annually, in order for teachers to continuously build upon and solidify their skills. This requires
designing more topic workshops based on the current design model that has already been
created. Teachers felt that, in regards to the new Next Generation standards, they would need
more focused and formal training, in order to understand the new standards and guidelines. The
current design model only accents subject workshops and topics listed within the standard
guidelines. A more comprehensive workshop should be designed, that integrates all of the
smaller topic frameworks, and thoroughly explains the curriculum, guidelines, and expectations
in regards to the new standards, once they are adapted. Within the scope of Kopernik, and
dependent on how much additional funding the organization can secure, I believe Kopernik has
the capacity to deliver between five to ten workshops annually.
Recommendation Three: Wait to launch the program in alignment with New York States
adaptation of Next Generation standards
New York State is in the process of adapting the federal standards and is hoping to
implement new state standards by the 2016 – 2017 school year. The organization will have to
continue following along with policy updates to prepare themselves for when the new standards
are implemented. After New York State releases the standards, Kopernik will have to
disseminate them, in terms of their alignment to the national standards. I recommend that
Kopernik wait to launch the program for two reasons. The first is because the organization will

37
need time to continue building the program, based on prior recommendations. They will need to
develop a more comprehensive workshop to explain the new standards and they will need to
develop more topic related workshops. This will require both time and money. Within the next
year, Kopernik should continue researching and applying for professional development and
education related grants through local organizations, and state and federal grants. The second
reason is that the NYS school curriculum currently focuses so heavily on common core. Because
of this, most professional development participation is geared towards math and ELA. Teachers
lack the time to participate in extensive professional development unless it will directly influence
them professionally, as expressed in finding three. If the state standards and curriculum do not
focus on science, teachers will not see STEM PD as practical, due to their time limitations.
Therefore teachers will not participate in professional development for science unless there are
updated standards and curriculum guidelines for how to implement them in the classroom.
Recommendation Four: Create a Professional Development Website
In order to continue to engage educators and promote continuous growth, a website or a
link attached to Kopernik’s existing website, should be created, for teachers and administrators
to stay connected and up to date with continuing professional development opportunities made
available by Kopernik. The website can provide newsletters and a listserv of upcoming events to
educators and past PD participants. The website can also provide a place for teachers to sign up
for workshops and additional organizational events that may be of interest to them. Furthermore,
the organization can use the website to provide distance-learning materials like videos,
worksheets, curriculum guidelines, and activity ideas for teachers to use in classroom practice.

38
Finally, the website can provide a messaging board where teachers can network with one
another, discuss their experiences, and share resources, quickly and easily. The website will help
promote engagement and collaboration as can also provide advertising for PD programs at a
minimal cost. Educators expressed that a website would be the most effective way to engage a
large constituent base and would be the most utilizable resource for communication and resource
sharing.
Conclusion
Implementing an effective professional development program that is engaging and
collaborative requires proper time, funding, resources, and organizational capacity. The most
successful professional development programs are interactive and focus on specific content
topics. The Kopernik Observatory and Science Center can secure enough support and funding to
effectively implement a professional development programs by engaging multiple stakeholders
through active leadership, providing continuous opportunities for professional growth, and
developing objective evaluative measures.
Kopernik has to consider a few more options, outside of the recommendations, in order
for the new program effective. These decisions will be determined based on the funding and
physical capacity of Kopernik. These will include whether or not to charge teachers for
participation, make workshops free, or provide stipends to participants. Kopernik should also
consider whether it would be more effective to host workshops on-site (organization) or in-house
(school buildings). Finally, Kopernik should measure whether it has the fiscal capacity to

39
provide take away materials for teachers to use in classrooms to do demonstrations and hand-on
learning activities with students.
Kopernik has the capability to provide hands-on, engaging, and effective professional
development workshops to Broome County educators that will enhance STEM knowledge for
both teachers and students. The findings uncovered that the service is something that is not only
desired, but is a necessity, in the region. Furthermore, there is confidence that the organization
will be a successful entity, and teachers are willing to utilize the services. The recommendations
will help guide Kopernik on how to implement their program the most effectively. If Kopernik
can continue to develop strong and effective leadership qualities, work with other organizations
and school districts, and develop additional capacity through funding, a professional develop
program geared towards STEM education will be an excellent new entity to the Southern Tier.

40
References
Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. (2014). The impact of the 'getting practical: Improving
practical work in science' continuing professional development programme on teachers'
ideas and practice in science practical work. Research in Science & Technological
Information, 32(3), 263-280.
Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. A. (2013). Student Teaching’s Contribution to Preservice
Teacher Development A Review of Research Focused on the Preparation of Teachers for
Urban and High-Needs Contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3-69.
Andronie, M. (2014). Measuring the E-Learning and Distance Learning Systems Performance.
eLearning & Software for Education, (1).
Besel, K., Williams, C. L., & Klak, J. (2011). Nonprofit sustainability during times of
uncertainty. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(1), 53-65.
Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., & Beilin, R. (2006). Community engagement and public administration:
Of silos, overlays, and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 65(1), 113-126.
Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to
PD participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study

41
of elementary students and teachers in Title I Schools.Teachers College Record, 115(5),
1-46.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fakayode, S. O., Pollard, D. A., Snipes, V. T., & Atkinson, A. (2014). Offering a geoscience
Professional development program to promote science education and provides hands-on
experiences for K-12 educators. Journal of Chemical Education,91, 1882-1886.
Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2013). Design, science and wicked problems. Design Studies, 34(6),
681-705.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Transforming teaching in every school. Professional
capital (515-517). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Irish, C., & O'Callaghan, W. G. (2013). Who Is Responsible for Education in a Community?
Implications of Living in the Education Silo. National Civic Review, 102(2), 17-19.
Kapucu, N. (2012). Classrooms as communities of practice: Designing and faciliating learning in
a networked environment. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 585-610.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science
education. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(3), 296-316.

42
O'Leary, R., Williams, D. G., Plein, L. C., & Lilly, R. (1998). Professional and career
development: The MPA portfolio approach. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(4),
277-285.
Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in
social change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292-307.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
PD effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). Part One: A New Conceptual
Framework. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.
Slepkov, H. (2008). Teacher professional growth in an authentic learning environment. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 85-111.
Szteinberg, G., Balicki, S., Banks, G., Clinchot, M., Cullipher, S., Huie, R., Sevian, H. (2014).
Collaborative PD in chemistry education research: Bridging the gap

43
between research and practice. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1401-1408.
U.S. Department of Education, (2009). Race to the Top, Executive Summary. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Common Core National Education Standards. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/
Zavattaro, S. M. (2010). Municipalities as public relations and marketing firms.Administrative
Theory & Praxis, 32(2), 191-211.

44
Appendix A
Date: March 9, 2015
To: Tinamarie Williams, CCPA
From: Sharon A. Bryant, Chair
Human Subjects Research Review Committee
Subject: Human Subjects Research Approval
Protocol Number: 3455-15
Protocol title: Implementing Effective Professional Development Programs for
Elementary STEM Educators through the Non-Profit Sector
Your project identified above was reviewed by the HSRRC and has received an expedited
approval pursuant to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations, 45 CFR
46.110(7). The Informed Consent document has been approved – for a period of one year –
with the following Waivers: 46.116 (4) Waiver alternate treatment, 46.116 (6) Waiver of
requiring whether medical treatments are available if injury occurs
An expedited status requires that you will be required to submit a Continuing Review
application annually as outlined by Federal Guidelines: 46.109 (e) An IRB shall conduct
continuing review of research covered by this policy at intervals appropriate to the degree of
risk, but not less than once per year, and shall have authority to observe or have a third party
observe the consent process and the research.
If your project undergoes any changes these changes must be reported to our office prior to
implementation, using the form listed
below: http://humansubjects.binghamton.edu/2009_Forms/012_Modification%20Form.rtf
Principal Investigators or any individual involved in the research must report any problems
involving the conduct of the study or subject participation. Any problems involving the
recruitment and consent processes or any deviations from the approved protocol should be
reported in writing within five (5) business days as outlined in Binghamton University –Human
Subjects Research Review Office - Policy and procedures IX.F.1 Unanticipated problems/adverse
event/complaints. We also require that the following form be
submitted. http://humansubjects.binghamton.edu/Forms/Forms/Adverse%20Event%20Form.rt
f
University policy requires you to maintain as a part of your records, any documents pertaining
to the use of human subjects in your research. This includes any information or materials

45
conveyed to, and received from, the subjects, as well as any executed consent forms, data and
analysis results. These records must be maintained for at least six years after project
completion or termination. If this is a funded project, you should be aware that these records
are subject to inspection and review by authorized representative of the University, State and
Federal governments.
Please notify this office when your project is complete by completing and forwarding to our
office the following
form:http://humansubjects.binghamton.edu/Forms/Forms/Protocol%20Closure%20Form.rtf
Upon notification we will close the above referenced file. Any reactivation of the project will
require a new application.
This documentation is being provided to you via email. A hard copy will not be mailed unless
you request us to do so.
Thank you for your cooperation, I wish you success in your research, and please do not hesitate
to contact our office if you have any questions or require further assistance.
cc: file
Nadia Rubaii

46
Appendix B
Date: March 25, 2015
To: Tinamarie Williams, CCPA
From: Thomas A. Burke, Research Compliance Administrator
Subject: Modification Approval
Protocol Number: 3455-15
Protocol title: Implementing Effective Professional Development Programs for
Elementary STEM Educators through the Non-Profit Sector
Your project, identified above, was reviewed by the HSRRC and your modification, which
consists of move from focus group data collection design to multiple telephone interviews, has
received an expedited approval pursuant to the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) regulations, 45 CFR 46.110(b)(2). Researcher previously requested a waiver of
documentation of informed consent which was granted.
If your project undergoes any other changes, these changes must be reported to our office
prior to implementation.
Please notify this office when your project is complete by completing and forwarding to our
office the Protocol Closure form, found at the following
link: http://research.binghamton.edu/Compliance/humansubjects/COEUS_Docs.php
Upon notification we will close the above referenced file. Any reactivation of the project will
require a new application.
This documentation is being provided to you via email. A hard copy will not be mailed unless
you request us to do so.
cc: file
Nadia Rubaii

47
Appendix C
# Science Center
1 Birch Aquarium
2 California Academy of Sciences
3 Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center
4 Cranbook Institute of Science
5 Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum
6 Exploratorium
7 Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden
8 Discovery Center Museum
10 Chabot Space & Science Center
11 Liberty Science Center
12 Maryland Science Center
13 The Lawrence Hall of Science
14 NY Hall of Science

48
Appendix D
Initial Email to Executive/Program Directors to participate in an Interview
Dear [Potential Executive/Program Director],
My name is TinaMarie Williams and I am a Master of Public Administration candidate at
Binghamton University. I am currently conducting research in order to complete my
requirements for graduation. The information will be utilized by the nonprofit 501c(3) Kopernik
Observatory and Science Center, located in Vestal, NY, in order to implement a new
Professional Development program, which will offer science curriculum workshops and
resources for elementary educators in Broome County, New York.
I am inviting you to participate in a research study that is seeking to uncover what the best model
of Professional Development implementation for elementary educators is and what types of
leadership qualities are necessary in order for an organization to create a successful Professional
Development Program. You are being asked to participate because your organization was listed
on a database via tryscience.org as a science center that offers professional development
programs for educators.
The nature of the study is to participate in a 30 to 45 minute recorded, anonymous, semi-
structured phone interview regarding the organizational and leadership model of your
Professional Development program, as well as how the program is funded. The interview will be
scheduled based upon your personal availability. We expect approximately 25 organizations,
located nationally to participate.
If you agree to participate:
- please email me back indicating your interest as well as your available schedule to
conduct the interview
- The interview will consist of 7 to 9 structured questions regarding:
o organizational design that is being implemented
o greatest sources of funding
o teacher satisfaction ratings
- These questions are expected to lead to a broader conversational dialogue regarding the
operations of the professional development program

49
In order to protect confidentiality of all participants, if you consent interviews will be recorded
but names of individuals and organizations will not be used in the transcription of information.
I will make my findings and recommendations available to you after the study is complete, upon
your request.
If you have any questions regarding this research, you can contact me, TinaMarie Williams at
631-278-4143.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with
Binghamton University or the Kopernik Observatory and Science Center. If you decide to
participate, you are not obligated to answer all questions, and may choose, for any reason, to stop
at any time.
Questions about your rights as a volunteer in research can be directed to Binghamton
University’s Human Subjects Research Review Committee at (607) 777-3818.
Thank you for your potential participation with this study.
Sincerely,
TinaMarie Williams
B.S. in Human Development, 13’
MPA Candidate, Spring 15’

50
Appendix E
Oral Consent and Audio Consent Letter for PD Interviews
HELLO—My name is TinaMarie Williams and I am a Masters of Public Administration degree
candidate at Binghamton University. I am currently conducting research in order to complete my
requirements for graduation. The information will be utilized by the nonprofit 501c(3) Kopernik
Observatory and Science Center, located in Vestal, NY, in order to implement a new
Professional Development program, which will offer science curriculum workshops and
resources for elementary educators in Broome County, New York.
I am inviting you to participate in a research study that is seeking to uncover what the best model
of Professional Development implementation for elementary educators is and what types of
leadership qualities are necessary in order for an organization to create a successful Professional
Development Program. You are being asked to participate because your organization was listed
on a database via tryscience.org as a science center that offers professional development
programs for educators.
The nature of the study is to participate in a 30 to 45 minute anonymous, semi-structured phone
interview regarding the organizational and leadership model of your Professional Development
program, as well as how the program is funded. This interview was scheduled based upon your
personal availability. I expect approximately 10 organizations, located nationally to participate.
The name of your organization will not be used in any of the research and your individual
anonymity will be protected.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with
Binghamton University or the Kopernik Observatory and Science Center. If you decide to
participate, you are not obligated to answer all questions, and may choose, for any reason, to stop
at any time.
If you have any questions regarding this research, you can contact me, TinaMarie Williams at
631-278-4143. Questions about your rights as a volunteer in research can be directed to
Binghamton University’s Human Subjects Research Review Committee at (607) 777-3818.
Do you consent to participate?
Audio Consent:
You have already agreed to participate in a research study entitled Implementing Effective
Professional Development Programs for Elementary STEM educators conducted by TinaMarie
Williams. I am asking for your permission to allow myself to include an audio recording of our

51
interview as part of that research study. You do not have to agree to be recorded in order to
participate in the main part of the study. If you do not consent to being recorded, I will take notes
during our interview.
The recording(s) will be used for transcription and analysis of your responses in order to code for
themes and similarities of your organizations professional development program implementation
and leadership in comparison to other non-profit science centers professional development
program implantation and leadership styles.
The recording(s) will not include any identifying information at all. Your individual anonymity
and the anonymity of your organization will be fully protected.
The recording(s) will be conducted on my personal IPhone using the RecordACall App. The
recordings will be stored in a locked folder on my IPhone. Furthermore, my IPhone is password
protected and I will be the only person who has access to it
Your verbal consent to continue with this interview grants myself, TinaMarie Williams,
permission to record you as described above during the participation in the proceeding interview
I will not use the recording(s) for any other reason than that/those stated in the consent form
without your permission.
Do you consent to being recorded for the purposes of this interview?
If they say yes, begin recording and repeat the above script and then proceed:
Do you have any questions about the research project? May I proceed with the first question?

52
Appendix F
Semi-Structured Interview Questions for Executive/Program Directors of Professional
Development Programs
1. How long has your PD program been in operation?
2. How many teachers/school districts is the program available to?
3. What design model does the organization use to implement program(s)?
4. Does the organization offer additional resources (distance learning, science supplies,
access to professional information, i.e. NASA)
5. What is the programs main source of funding?
6. Has the program received any rewards? If so, which ones?
7. Has the organization collected any data to assess the satisfaction rating of teachers who
participate in the program(s)? If so, what has the information indicated?
8. Has the program been ranked by any outside evaluative organizations? If so, how well
has the program ranked?
9. What are the expectations for the future of the program regarding Common Core and
Next Generation Standards?

53
Appendix G
Initial Professional Development Thematic Coding through Process Evaluation
Inputs:
16 45 46 76
Organizational Serves
surrounding
public school
district
some private
schools
some
neighboring
counties
workshops taught
by staff members
and guest
speakers
90 percent in
state
Variety of
different
programs
most workshops
free – never
more than 100
dollars
Online
interactive
system
serves about 800
teachers a year
Serves the entire
state and has
organizations come
from out of state to
replicate model –
contact about advice
Online system
created in house to
get information to
teachers,students,
family, and
administration
Open to all participants; work
directly with schooldistricts
within county – intended to
connect with underserved
teachers
typically help on Saturdays –
do not provide sub teachers
for participation
no longer do distance
learning – lack of funding; all
internal evaluations
curriculum already aligned
with next gen; program is
hosted on site at the science
center; no placeholder fee –
workshops are free
fifty educators perworkshop;
minimum 2 to 6 annually –
vary based on funding
director conducts all
workshops
interactive and hands-on
Stakeholders Members provide
dues
Surrounding
Universities
NASA US Dept of Defense
NASA
local university
Texas Christian
University
Airforce Academy
members
Underserved teachers
local districts
museums
NASA
NSF
NOAH
John Hopkins
local universities

54
Time 2 week summer
workshop
8 workshops
throughout year
2 additional for
challenged
teachers
8 hour seminars
offered on
Saturdays or
superintendents
days
2 day
8 hr/day
workshops
4 hour nightly
workshops
all day
workshops
2 to 6 hours
3 day workshops
curriculum
workshops
throughout the year
(day long)
summer sessions
(day long and
continuous)
Usually all on Saturdays all
day workshops (8 hours)
Activities:
16 45 46 76
Programs Offered Botany and
Biology
Variety:
“Teachers
Night Out”
College and
Career
Readiness
multiple day
summer camps
Variety:
Guest speakers –
astronauts
interactive
demonstrations
presentations
see above
2 to 6 annually based on funding
and where the grant is coming
from – mostly astronomy,
physics,and engineering related
Fees Does not charge
teachers
8 to 10
programs a year
Training classes
to align
curriculum to
Common Core
Part of program
fee charged to
teachers
community
service is free
for guest
speakers
grant funding
evaluations of
every workshop
– surveys
Program fee
charged to
teachers for some
programs – mostly
just to fill slots –
teachers reimburse
specific loans for
specific
workshops:
NASA – space
grant, US Dept of
Defense – air force
3 day workshop,
infrastructure for
in house computer
system
all programs are
evaluated –
Grant funded exclusively –
teachers DO NOT pay
most are federal grants through
stakeholder mentioned
internal evaluations are
conducted for every workshop
for the purposes ofreceiving
future grants
evaluations are Likert scale
surveys completed by
participants
updating workshops to include
Next Gen workshops
provide 100 dollar stipends for
teachers

55
extensive
programs have pre
and post
evaluations,
student
achievement over
time is collected
grant funds are received monthly
Networking Local
Universities
Public School
Districts
Internet
Resources
Teachers enroll
to receive credit
Newspaper
Local
University
School
Districts
Local school
districts – student
records; federal
organizations,
science
organizations,
members, state,
TCU – external
evaluations
NASA
NSF
NOAH
John Hopkins
local schooldistricts
tried to push for newspaper
media through PR but was
ineffective
Outputs:
16 45 46 76
In Class Resources Take deposits for
resources:upon
completion of
course teachers are
refunded and get to
keep resources
Curriculum guides Curriculum guides
used to facilitate
schoolfield trips to
coincide with PD
sessions
NASA dvds,education
booklets, worksheets,
curriculum guides,in
class demonstrations
depends on workshop
Curriculum Guides Curriculum Guides
are online to
download
handed out during
workshops
See above Yes: Science at Home
Curriculum Guides
available in all science
subjects
Videos Pictures on website NASA interactive
video presentations
Yes: DIY science
comes with videos to
demonstrate
Online
Connections
Sign up to Become
a member
Annual Newsletter Extensive in house
online networking
system– took 6
years to create
through a 150k
grants through Dept
of Defense
Online DIY science
materials; Talk to a
Teacher online and
phone resource

Tina Williams_Capstone-Tina

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Tina Williams_Capstone-Tina

Similar to Tina Williams_Capstone-Tina (20)

Tina Williams_Capstone-Tina