The need for ocean professional development for teachers

Although ocean literacy advocates have made significant progress in advancing ocean literacy, the public at large still has a long way to go in terms of widespread incorporation of ocean- promoting behaviors (Strang, 2008; Hoffman and Barstow, 2007). A main part of the problem is the absence of widespread ocean literacy professional development among school districts and teachers (Cava, et al., 2005; Gillan, 2011; Stock, 2010). As Hoffman and Barstow (2007) explain, “Teachers must be provided with the professional knowledge and skills, as well as curricular resources, to better integrate ocean literacy education into their teaching” (58).

However, in order to effectively foster professional knowledge and skills, the educational community must first understand what teachers’ conceptualizations of ocean literacy are and the various patterns they take when incorporating professional development materials into their instruction. The research behind this article attempted to shed light on such pressing questions. I studied 12 Georgia teachers’ conceptualizations and ocean literacy inclusion following a professional development program in Hawaii called Project ISLE: Integrated Science Learning Experiences. In total, I formed eight main data assertions as a result of the study. This article discusses the findings from one assertion: the impact of administrative support on teacher inclusion.

Participants

The participants included 11 teachers (five elementary, three middle, three high school) and one elementary administrator from four public schools in Georgia (Table 2). Due to the grant requirements, all five elementary teachers and the elementary administrator came from the partner school on the grant. The six secondary teachers included three middle grade Earth science teachers; two high school teachers who taught chemistry, biology, and forensics; and one high school teacher who taught oceanography and biology. All Project ISLE participants completed an application including a basic questionnaire, essay, and letter of support from a member of the teacher’s administrative staff. To recruit program applicants, I presented at our grant’s partner school and gave an additional presentation at a local science teachers’ conference. The project directors selected participants from the applicant pool in a two-step process, due to the nature of the grant. First, we selected teachers employed at our high needs partner school. Next, we selected middle and high school teachers who showed outstanding commitment to improving the quality of their science teaching. In total, the 12 participants had an average of 11 years of experience and included 10 females and two males. All participants submitted letters of recommendation as part of their application for Project ISLE, so they each had support from at least one individual in their administrations at the start. Lastly, all program participants volunteered to take part in the study and were given pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.

Data sources

My data included 17 different sources that were collected from the 11 teachers and one administrator over the span of one year (Table 3). Data collected during the program included: observations of participants in the field, teacher blog posts, lesson sharing demonstrations, and teacher field journals. Although the vast majority of the data that informed this study was qualitative, a few quantitative instruments were used to triangulate some of the qualitative findings.

A critical piece of the data collected came from two surveys: a pre-program and a post-program survey. The pre-program survey included basic demographic information including subjects taught, years of experience, and educational background. These included open-ended questions like ‘What role does ocean science content play in your current classroom, if any?’ (Table 4) and more specific questions targeting the various ocean literacy essential principles, such as ‘In a typical school year, approximately how often do your classroom lessons include the following ocean-related topics?’ The pre-program survey also included individual context questions concerning teachers’ definitions and preliminary beliefs about Ocean Literacy and the role ocean science content and OL Essential Principles played in their classrooms.

Context: Teachers’ Classroom Inclusion Before Project ISLE

Before Project ISLE, most of the elementary and high school teachers stated that they typically included ‘low amounts’ of ocean science content in their classrooms (pre-program survey). On the other hand, two of the three middle grade Earth science teachers said they included ‘high amounts’ of ocean science content before the program because of the mandated state standards which include oceanography. The third Earth science teacher, Amy, said in her pre-program survey that she did not feel she included as much ocean content as she should in her classroom even though she taught the same sixth grade Earth science standards as the other two teachers. She explained she was not able to because: “It is hard to fit all of the state standards into a year; adding to them is a very rare opportunity” (Amy, Pre-program survey).

Methodology

To collect and analyze the data, I utilized grounded theory interpretive research (Erickson, 1986; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with inductive analysis (Charmaz, 2006) and constant comparative analyses as my methodological framework. In other words, I collected data from a wide variety of sources over the course of a year and then transcribed (if applicable) and analyzed each data source using line-by-line coding and focused coding (Strauss & Corbin 1998). This means I assigned specific codes to each line in order to develop emergent themes (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). I took several steps along the way to ensure that the data I collected were of high quality. For example, I systematically collected the data using consistent methods across sources, I maintained prolonged contact with participants, I conducted detailed audit trails of the data, and I had a panel of experts conduct critical reviews of instruments prior to implementation (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Silverman, 1993; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). Lastly, a few basic quantitative methods were used in order to determine teachers’ ocean literacy proficiency before and after Project ISLE, such as Likert-style survey questions.

Since this was mainly a qualitative study with a high number of data sources, the overall scope of the study was purposefully small (n = 12) in one professional development program. The smaller number allowed me to look in depth at each teacher’s growth over the year. Therefore, in addition to conducting one individual interview per teacher, I conducted one follow-up group interview and ongoing virtual discussions on a special Facebook group. However, due to the small number of teachers in this study, further research is necessary. This study may serve as a baseline for future studies concerning teacher professional development in ocean literacy.

The influence of administrative support

The elementary teachers received the highest level of administrative support. For example, Virginia described the effect that Project ISLE had on the school in her interview:

So I think this is a really special year that we were able to just make a school- wide splash about it…pardon the pun. (Laughs) But that’s what’s happening and I think that we’re all feeding off of a really positive energy, but what we’ve been able to do is let the other teachers know what an amazing resource Hawaii is for our country and for education and for science (Interview with Virginia, October 6, 2011).

As mentioned above, all of the five elementary teachers came from the partner school for the grant. Since the school’s administration agreed to partner with the Project ISLE leaders on the grant, they were more personally invested in the project’s success. For example, the entire administrative team at the Project ISLE partner school was supportive of the program, with the principal assisting in the development of the program and helping recruit teachers, the Parent Teacher Association assisting teachers with funds for flights, and an Instructional Coach attending the workshop personally (Virginia).

Such a high level of teacher participation and administrative support caused Hawaii and ocean literacy to become a school-wide theme at the elementary school. In addition to an increase in the number of lessons they included, the six Project ISLE participants also gave a workshop for the faculty at pre-planning; created a school-wide bulletin board about their personal experiences; and sent information home to parents (Figure 1).

As a result, other teachers who did not participate in the program also included Hawaiian -themed ocean literacy materials in their curricula with fifth grade teachers making brochures about island characteristics, third grade teachers holding a grade level luau, and the music teacher helping fifth graders to write their own Hawaiian- inspired chant. While certain items were not directly tied to ocean literacy essential principles, such as a luau, fun activities like this served as a tool or framework to incorporate ocean literacy.

Conversely, at the secondary level, the administrative pressures of high- stakes testing outweighed middle and high school teachers’ ambitions to include much of their professional development materials. One of the Earth s cience teachers, Lisa, described a decrease in the amount of ocean literacy she included in her classroom after Project ISLE because of high administrative pressures, which were preventing her from including ISLE ocean literacy material.

During Project ISLE, Lisa created a lesson plan for a school-wide Public Service Announcement concerning ocean environmental issues. She said, “These PSAs can be published in the [school] paper. Videos can be watched on the school distribution system or posted on School Tube. Perhaps a CD of all the PSAs could be compiled and distributed” (Lisa, Post-program survey). In her group interview response she explained their plan to create a mural about Hawaii using interdisciplinary work:

… we wanted to be able to do a cross-curricular type thing, like getting kids writing haikus or stories and just posting their work at different places along the mural. And as we learn these things in science you know the kids could talk about diagramming a wave or talking about ocean currents or … how do we depend on the oceans? …Even the math. You know, to be able to get the numbers in there. How big are the oceans? What’s the biggest ocean? Ranking them, comparing them in terms of square miles. …I think what we envisioned with the mural is getting all the teachers involved. It would be some language arts, mathematics, and the kids in all the different classes would be engaged in it and have a part in it as opposed to just our science classes (Response in Group Interview, Lisa, September 15, 2011).

However, their plans were unable to come to fruition due to a lack of administrative support and intense pressure on the teachers to improve standardized test scores. The section below describes their situation:

When I observed [Lisa and Amy]…both were very apologetic…Amy explained that she had not had a planning period in two weeks because she had daily data analysis meetings…Both teachers explained that they wanted to include more of their experiences, and that they had shown their students some pictures and shared stories, but they just did not have the time to plan new creative lessons… (Observation notes, February 16, 2012; Linsky, 2012, 117–118).

On the other hand, one Earth science teacher, Philip, received a high level of administrative support not only to include his professional development materials from Hawaii, but also to share them with others in his district. Like the elementary teachers, Philip delivered a professional learning workshop to other Earth science teachers at his school. What’s more, his principal hired a substitute teacher to allow him to deliver the same workshop for the other Earth science teachers at two other middle schools in his county. Philip’s administrator was not a participant in the program, and the reasons behind his administrator’s support are unclear. It is also unclear whether other administrator attendance at the middle or high school levels would have increased inclusion for the other secondary teachers.

Alissa and Lee, two high school forensics and chemistry teachers, only found time to teach one or two lessons. For example, Alissa collected sand samples at various places around the islands and created a murder mystery ‘Sands of Crime’ lesson for her forensics class. However, she admitted in her interview that that was the only time she felt that her standards and her administration allowed her to include her Project ISLE material. Lee echoed the same sentiments, only including one fish identification lesson. Therefore, Alissa and Lee’s ocean literacy inclusion remained low. Judy, on the other hand, who was an oceanography teacher, stated that she included material from Project ISLE “almost every day” (Table 5).

The increase or decrease in ocean literacy content inclusion following Project ISLE can be attributed to the teachers’ level of administrative support. Teachers included Project ISLE ocean literacy-based material both in their individual classrooms and within the larger school community if they received sufficient support and approval from their administration.