IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTPMENPPING INGiIIIMADFJAKIMPiIMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Implementing Effective STEM Professional Development Programs for Elementary Educators via Kopernik Observatory and Science Center and other Non-Profit Organizations

BYTinaMarie Williams B.S. Human Development, Binghamton University, 2013

CAPSTONE PROJECT

iIIIMADFJAKIMPiRunning Head: IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 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 York20151i

Copyright by TINAMARIE WILLIAMS, 2015All Rights Reservedii

vii

Accepted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Public Administrationin the Graduate School of Binghamton University State University of New York 2015

May2015

Nadia Rubaii___________________________________________________________________Associate ProfessorDepartment of Public Administration

George Homsy_________________________________________________________________Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Public Administration

Drew Deskur___________________________________________________________________Executive Director Kopernik Observatory and Science Center

ii

Executive SummaryIn 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 Koperniks 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.Running head: IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT4. 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.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 standards3. 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. IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Table of Contents

Problem Definition1Research Questions2Literature Review4Methodology9Professional Development Program Interviews10Procedures11Data Analysis11Broome County Elementary Educator Interviews15Procedures15Data Analysis16Professional Development Pilot Surveys18Procedures18Data Analysis19Strengths and Limitations21Findings22Recommendations32Conclusion38References40Appendix A44Appendix B46Appendix C47Appendix D48Appendix E50Appendix F52Appendix G53Appendix H56Appendix I59Appendix J60Appendix K62Appendix L64Appendix M65Appendix N69Appendix O71

List of Figures Figure 1 Professional Development Process Evaluation 12Figure 2 In Vivo Coding Manual .... 14

List of Tables Table 1 . 17Table 2 . 18Table 3 . 28Table 4 . 34

IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Problem DefinitionThe 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 & OCallahan define a 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). 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 nations 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. 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, 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 teachers 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 teachers knowledge and classroom learning style of activities. Researchers are interested in uncovering which models of PD implementation work best to improve student performance, and under what conditions (Evans, 2014; Penuel et al., 2007; Slepkov, 2008). The federal governments 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 & OCallahan, 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 & OCallahan, 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 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 & OCallahan, 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 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 (OLeary, 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 professionals 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 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 participants satisfaction through pre and post surveys (Anderson & Stillman, 2011), and involving school administrators to effectively track students potential achievement (Elmore, 2000; Irish & OCallahan, 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.MethodologiesTo 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, Union-Endicott, Maine-Endwell, Windsor, and Johnson City elementary school were also interviewed. Finally, elementary educators from Vestal school district, who participated in Koperniks 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 InterviewsDirectors 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. 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 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 EvaluationsOutcomes Increased FundingIncreased Enrollment

Online Networking Outputs Videos Curriculum Guides In Class Resources

CollaborationActivities Networking Fees Programs Offered

Funding TimeInputs Stakeholders OrganizationalAfter 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.

Figure 2. PD Interview Thematic Coding Manual

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 Koperniks professional networking database, based on local educators who had worked with Kopernik in the past. Twenty-one educators were identified through Koperniks 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 superintendents 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 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 AnalysisEducator 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 Koperniks 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. 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 students 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

961

731

701: Kopernik is a great facility to implement it

151: Only if it is in house Differs from PD interviews

301: Teachers crave finding new ways to learn, apply, and implement knowledge to children in the classroom

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

961

731

701: That would be a great thing to do

151: Schools are already beginning to do this and it will be helpful

301: 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 Koperniks 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 Koperniks professional development pilot program. The survey consisted of eight Likert-scale questions and seven open-ended questions, see Appendix N. The survey was used to assess the participants 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 AnalysisThe 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 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 educators 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.

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. 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 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 participantsFunding 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 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 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 scienceAll 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 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 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 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 standardsA 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 standardsAbsolutely 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 excitingWorkshop 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 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.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 Koperniks 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 teachers 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. 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 its 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 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: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 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 OrganizationType of GrantDeadlineLink

NASAMultiple ROSES opportunitiesVariesNASA ROSES

National Science FoundationInnovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST)12/2015ITEST

National Science FoundationDiscovery Research K-1212/2015Discovery

National Science FoundationNational STEM Education Distributed Learning (NSDL)12/2015NSDL

Institute of Education SciencesVariousVariesIES

National Education AssociationEducational LeadershipVariesNEA

Gladys Brooks FoundationEducation Grant5/29/15Gladys Brooks

Braitmayer FoundationK-12 Education2016 OpportunitiesBraitmayer

HondaSTEM EducationVariesHonda

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 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. 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 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 Koperniks 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. 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.ConclusionImplementing 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 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.

References

Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. (2014). The impact of the 'getting practical: Improvingpractical work in science' continuing professional development programme on teachers'ideas and practice in science practical work.Research in Science & TechnologicalInformation,32(3), 263-280.Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. A. (2013). Student Teachings Contribution to PreserviceTeacher Development A Review of Research Focused on the Preparation of Teachers forUrban 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 ofuncertainty.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 PublicAdministration,65(1), 113-126.Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth toPD participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal studyof 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 geoscienceProfessional development program to promote science education and provides hands-onexperiences 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 ina networked environment.Journal of Public Affairs Education,18(3), 585-610.Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on scienceeducation.Journal of research in science teaching,38(3), 296-316.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 insocial 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 ConceptualFramework.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 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.AdministrativeTheory & Praxis,32(2), 191-211.

Appendix ADate: March 9, 2015To: Tinamarie Williams, CCPAFrom: Sharon A. Bryant, ChairHuman Subjects Research Review CommitteeSubject: Human Subjects Research ApprovalProtocol Number: 3455-15Protocol title:Implementing Effective Professional Development Programs for Elementary STEM Educators through the Non-Profit SectorYour 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 occursAn 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.rtfPrincipal 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.rtfUniversity 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 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.rtfUpon 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: fileNadia Rubaii

Appendix BDate: March 25, 2015To: Tinamarie Williams, CCPAFrom: Thomas A. Burke, Research Compliance AdministratorSubject: Modification ApprovalProtocol Number: 3455-15Protocol title:Implementing Effective Professional Development Programs for Elementary STEM Educators through the Non-Profit SectorYour 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.phpUpon 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: fileNadia Rubaii

Appendix C#Science Center

1Birch Aquarium

2California Academy of Sciences

3Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center

4Cranbook Institute of Science

5Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum

6Exploratorium

7Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden

8Discovery Center Museum

10Chabot Space & Science Center

11Liberty Science Center

12Maryland Science Center

13The Lawrence Hall of Science

14NY Hall of Science

Appendix DInitial 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: organizational design that is being implemented greatest sources of funding teacher satisfaction ratings These questions are expected to lead to a broader conversational dialogue regarding the operations of the professional development programIn 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 Universitys Human Subjects Research Review Committee at (607) 777-3818.Thank you for your potential participation with this study. Sincerely, TinaMarie Williams Binghamton University B.S. in Human Development, 13MPA Candidate, Spring 15

Appendix EOral Consent and Audio Consent Letter for PD Interviews HELLOMy 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 Universitys 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 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 itYour 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?

Appendix FSemi-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?

Appendix G Initial Professional Development Thematic Coding through Process EvaluationInputs:16454676

OrganizationalServes surrounding public school district

some private schools

some neighboring counties

workshops taught by staff members and guest speakers90 percent in state

Variety of different programs

most workshops free never more than 100 dollars

Online interactive system

serves about 800 teachers a yearServes 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 administrationOpen to all participants; work directly with school districts 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 per workshop; minimum 2 to 6 annually vary based on funding

director conducts all workshops

interactive and hands-on

StakeholdersMembers provide dues

Surrounding UniversitiesNASAUS Dept of Defense

NASA

local university

Texas Christian University

Airforce Academy

membersUnderserved teachers

local districts

museums

NASA

NSF

NOAH

John Hopkins

local universities

Time2 week summer workshop

8 workshops throughout year

2 additional for challenged teachers

8 hour seminars offered on Saturdays or superintendents days2 day

8 hr/day workshops

4 hour nightly workshops

all day workshops

2 to 6 hours3 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:16454676

Programs OfferedBotany and BiologyVariety:

Teachers Night Out

College and Career Readiness

multiple day summer campsVariety:

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

FeesDoes 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 extensive programs have pre and post evaluations, student achievement over time is collected Grant funded exclusively teachers DO NOT pay

most are federal grants through stakeholder mentioned

internal evaluations are conducted for every workshop for the purposes of receiving fut