+A proposal to fund a PESTO workshop in 1999 was not funded because reviewers felt there was not enough material being presented to the teachers.

The first workshops were presented under the name Coalition of University and Business for Education (CUBE). CUBE 1 was a three-week summer workshop for 30 K-5 teachers where they learned about teaching hands-on science on the themes of water, trash and outdoor education. CUBE 2 hosted a new group of 25 teachers and followed a similar format. The workshops were presented by science faculty from the UWEC Chemistry (Dr. Eierman), Geology (Dr. Hooper), Biology (Dr. Brakke) and C&I (Dr. Hollon) departments. Three local K-12 teachers helped develop and present some of the material. Four UWEC student teachers were also hired to help organize, present, and support the activities. Twenty-three different people from the university and community made science and technology presentations. Three tour days were held in which participants visited six local facilities to observe science and technology in action.

Strong efforts were made to give teachers the knowledge and the materials needed to put hands-on science activities into their classroom teaching. Teachers were presented with a three ring binder describing many of the hands-on activities seen in the workshops. In CUBE 2, a CUBE box, filled with every sort of material or device necessary to carry out the science activities, was also given to each school in the Eau Claire school district. Participants were also given funds to purchase science supplies. Teachers earned two graduate credits for participation in the workshop. These were classic make-and-take workshops, emphasizing hands-on science activities that could be presented and stored conveniently in the elementary school setting.

The evaluations consisted of a pre- and a post-survey completed by the teachers on the first and last days of the workshop. We have also received anecdotal, informal feedback. Teachers indicated no change in their perception of their knowledge of science compared to other fields and strong agreement that hands-on science is harder to teach, but more meaningful to children than textbook science. Teachers showed a significant gain in their confidence in teaching hands-on science and a large increase in their knowledge of local science resources outside the classroom. Participants indicated that the CUBE workshops met their expectations, that the presenters were knowledgeable and effective and that there were many opportunities for interaction and collaboration.

Participants were asked, "What additional ways can the university, the school district and local business collaborate to improve classroom science instruction?" Responses included: give teachers time and resources to develop curriculum, increase funding for science (materials), have university students visit the classroom to present science, continue CUBE, provide teachers with speaker lists, and have business and university people visit the classrooms to find out what is happening there. We considered these issues as we developed CUBE 3, which was structured to provide teachers with support and time to design science curricular materials.

CUBE 3 represented a significant departure in terms of organizational structure. Twenty-three K-5 teachers worked in teams over three weeks to develop hands-on science curricular materials for use in their teaching. Four faculty members and one local elementary teacher served as instructors, helping teachers in their development activities. Teachers chose their own topics to work on and were provided with a variety of resources during the development activities. Teachers gathered and modified written materials and supplies, e.g. collections of different types of locally occurring rocks. Each group wrote and submitted a curricular package and presented an oral report on the materials that they developed. Teachers were provided funds to purchase supplies during the workshop and in the following school year and they earned one graduate credit for participation in the workshop. Teachers were also offered funds to pay for substitutes so they could visit each other's classrooms during the following school year.

CUBE 3 achieved its goal of enabling teachers to develop skills and materials to teach science more effectively. Because the teachers chose the topics with feedback from the CUBE instructional staff, the developed materials had a high potential to be used immediately. The role of the instructional staff was to help the teachers find and understand information that was pertinent to teaching the chosen topics. Many of the teachers had participated in CUBE 1 and 2 in which they were shown and given a wide variety of science materials. In CUBE 3, they customized and organized those materials to fit into their lessons. Most teachers enjoyed the opportunity to control the topics and activities they engaged in during the workshop. Anecdotal information suggests that the teachers really used the written materials and supplies they gathered. However, no teachers visited other classrooms during the following school year. Teachers did not find time for this and hesitated to request substitutes. There were no other follow-up activities in CUBE 3.

Teaching Elementary Earth Science (TEES) was attended by 25 K-6 teachers interested in earth science. Two faculty members and one local middle school teacher served as instructors. The teachers worked in groups on development of earth science curricular materials. The instructors presented content sessions on requested topics of interest to the teachers and as they made the presentations they utilized teaching methods consistent with the National Science Education Standards (NSES). In addition, the instructors lead the participant teachers on a variety of local field trips, during some of which the teachers collected geologic samples of interest. Teachers also visited the middle school classroom of the one of the instructors to see his collections and displays. Teachers did curriculum development work on campus as well as at other sites.

Teachers presented their curricular materials in an oral report to the whole group at the end of the workshop. They implemented their new materials during the following school year. At the end of that year, the teachers returned for two follow-up days to complete their projects and make a final oral report regarding the success of their new materials and submitted a written report that included a copy of their revised curricular materials. Teachers were provided funds during the workshop and the subsequent school year to purchase supplies and they earned three graduate credits for completion of the summer workshop.

Surveys of teachers following the implementation of their new curricula showed that they utilized more hands-on and inquiry activities and that they felt more enthusiastic and confident in their teaching of earth science. They were pleased to have more resources both in the classroom and in the local community to use in their instruction. Teachers also reported that their students learned earth science more willingly and in greater depth. Teachers were pleased to have witnessed the workshop instructors teaching according to the Standards. Other conclusions from TEES are that teachers need to be aware of the expectations on them to develop curriculum (some teachers weren't comfortable with the independence), that at least one credit should be held until the final report is submitted and that two days were too much for the follow-up session. Once again, no teachers took advantage of the opportunity to visit a classroom of their peers.

The Superior Teaching of Elementary Physical Science (STEPS) workshop was attended by 26 K-6 teachers, while four faculty members and a local middle school teacher served as instructors. Teachers developed curricular materials in a three-week workshop, during which they were shown model science teaching (described below), utilized their newly developed science units in their teaching during the following school year and engaged in follow-up activities in spring. Each group submitted a complete packet of tested science curriculum materials, too.

The three-week workshop consisted of three phases. During the first three days, the participants worked together in small groups to experience inquiry-based science activities. These activities demonstrated ways to present science as a process in which the learner is actively engaged. Teachers investigated rusty nails, built small machines that have specified characteristics, investigated pendulums and developed a model explaining the behavior of three-layer carbon paper. The teachers also formed groups and chose a science topic to develop. They chose a theme, goals, products and content questions, prepared a written work plan and made a presentation to the whole group

The second phase lasted for most of the rest of the three weeks. The instructors planned and presented content sessions on requested science topics to interested participants. The optional science presentations were at a high school or introductory college level. Several field trips were also taken during the workshop to give teachers real-world context for science and technology in their teaching. The remainder of the time was spent by the participants developing their curriculum. Each group established its own schedule and method of developing their materials. Work was done in a workshop classroom, but much occurred in other locations such as the library, the teachers' schools or at home. Teachers also gathered science supplies using workshop funds.

The final phase of the workshop occurred on the last day when teachers shared the curriculum they had developed. Each small group made a 5 to 10 minute presentation describing their curriculum and the connection to the Standards. Each teacher also demonstrated one hands-on activity to the other teachers. Teachers were also provided with funds to purchase supplies during the following school year and they earned two graduate credits for participation in the workshop and one more credit for completion of the final reports the following spring.

The following spring two additional sessions were held. The purposes of the first meeting were to reestablish the communication lines within the group, to get an update on progress the participants were making in implementing their materials and to plan the follow-up activities for the rest of the spring. At the second meeting, each participant group made a 15-minute presentation on their project summarizing the curricular materials and described their implementation. A great deal of testimony was presented regarding how the new materials changed the in-class experiences of the participant teachers and their students. Teachers also submitted their final reports, which consisted of a package of curriculum materials, a reflective report from each individual and an exit questionnaire.

The participants said that they were able to use the workshop time to initiate changes in the way they teach science. They were appreciative of the time, freedom and support to move in a new direction. One participant said, "Change has to keep happening, but it is very time consuming. This workshop gave us the time to make changes." More than half the participants felt that having time to plan and prepare and having a chance to collaborate with professors and other teachers were the most valuable parts of STEPS. About half said no changes in the format of STEPS are needed but several said that goals that are more specific, more on-line experiences and more "progress checking meetings" during the year would make STEPS more helpful. All of the 19 participants who responded said that the STEPS program was very effective.

The TTL model was next extended to middle and high school teachers. A first attempt at getting funding was unsuccessful when reviewers felt there was too little material being "taught" to the teachers. A second proposal explained the TTL model better and was funded. Two "Physical and Earth Science Teaching Opportunity" (PESTO) workshops were attended by 14 and 28 middle and high school science teachers. Four UWEC faculty members served as instructors for the workshops. The format of the workshops was described earlier in this paper.

PESTO participants greatly valued the time and resources to develop their knowledge and curricula. They also valued being treated as professionals and colleagues by the instructors. They enjoyed seeing the model teaching, which helped them to understand what inquiry-based instruction means. Several of the participants utilized the actual example lessons in their own teaching during the following school year. Teachers also said they focused more on student's prior knowledge when teaching following the workshop. Teachers said they learned content and changed their pedagogy because of PESTO. The 6-12 teachers worked in more smaller groups or alone than their K-6 counterparts. For this reason, less of a community developed during the course of the workshop. In addition, some teachers seemed to need more check-in times during the workshop to help them keep on track. During PESTO 2, more whole group sessions and more check-in days were scheduled to help alleviate these situations.

In conclusion, the TTL model to middle and secondary has evolved into a mature and successful mode of professional development for K-12 teachers of science. Teachers at all levels were very positive about the opportunity that these workshops offered and many requested that more such workshops be held to enable them to continue their professional development in a format that provides them what they need.

"I came because it was free. I stayed because it was good!" That quote by a participant reflects teachers’ responses to the TTL model. Our evaluation data consistently indicate that teachers perceive TTL as professionally empowering and making a significant impact on their practice (Hollon, Eierman, Havholm & Hendrickson, 1999). One hundred percent of the participants for the past two years (N=42) indicated that they would participate again and would recommend it to other teachers. Responses to open questions about changes in thinking about science, teaching, learning, and assessment show a range of impacts. Money, credit, and other financial incentives were not identified as most significant, while time, freedom to work, and networking were listed most frequently as positive aspects. Some teachers found the freedom challenging and wanted more external control of their time, especially when many trips, small group sessions, and resources were available (Eierman, 1999; Havholm, 1998; Havholm & Eierman, 2000).

Data describing the impact of the TTL model come from two main sources. Teachers involved in the professional development programs (CUBE, TEES, STEPS, PESTO) reflected on changes in their own content understanding, their ideas about science teaching and learning, and their attitudes towards science, and student gains because of these changes. Staff administering the programs observed changes in teachers’ knowledge and attitudes. In addition, both teachers and staff have reflected on what components of the TTL model contribute to its success.

Science content knowledge: Both staff and participants expressed satisfaction with the "just-in-time" teaching model that emphasizes small-group instruction at times when participants are ready to learn. Nearly 100% of participants reported gains in science content knowledge. The greatest area of gain was in hands-on, real world, local and regional examples and applications of basic science content resulting from connecting teachers to the wealth of local resources. Examples include field trips to local examples of geologic features, visits to industrial sites that use physical and chemical processes and working at the university laboratories or at their own schools with physics demonstrations, chemical laboratory materials and geologic samples. These experiences turned book learning they already had into more accurate and concrete understanding of both the science and its applications.

TTL staff noted that although most teachers made gains in content understanding, the amount of progress varied widely among participants. Some teachers focused on relatively new content, while others focused on a very narrow but familiar topic and put their energy into classroom activity and materials development. In some teams, one teacher was already quite knowledgeable in the content areas pursued, and became the main content teacher for that group. In these cases, the rest of the group made the greatest gains in content knowledge.

Science pedagogy: Many teachers reported an increase in their understanding of science standards (national and state), and that they were challenged to consider alternative science teaching/assessment models through workshop activities. The changes teachers transferred into their own classrooms varied from individual to individual. Most included some component of inquiry-based learning. Examples of changes reported by teachers include: 1) eliciting student ideas, 2) requiring students to ask questions and make predictions, 3) requiring students to articulate their thinking and justify decisions, 4) adding student-driven investigations, 5) decreasing number of topics and increasing depth in some topics, 6) enriching content with local to regional examples, and 7) a change in assessment techniques to include measurement of process skills and real-world applications. One theme that is echoed in a number of teacher reports is that their TTL units were so successful that they were revising other units accordingly.

Teacher attitudes: Teachers consistently reported a more positive attitude about and a higher comfort level with the specific unit they developed or modified during their TTL program. They were self-confident and felt well prepared to teach the unit with all materials, including assessment tools, in hand. They also mentioned that they were able to make better connections between their topic and other parts of the curriculum because of their thorough preparation to teach it, and some found that their interest in a topic extended into their own non-professional lives. Some teachers expressed a change in their attitude towards standards-based and inquiry-based teaching; they now felt these could be effective. In fact, in earlier TTL workshops, some teachers began to question their district curriculum, which had not yet instituted a standards-based curriculum.

Impact on student learning: Documenting the scope and nature of impact of TTL projects on student learning remains a challenge. Yet, the available evidence suggests that many students are benefiting from teachers’ improved knowledge, attitudes, and readiness to teach science through inquiry. In one workshop (TEES) we had teachers determine the number of students impacted in some way by their changed curriculum. This group of about 25 teachers reported 788 students affected during the course of the implementation phase in their own classes or classes of colleagues who got involved. This indicates the potential impact of this kind of program.

Teachers’ reports about students’ responses to TTL-designed units included evidence from students’ oral and written work, such as a variety of student reports, journals, science logs, and idea webs, as well as student conversations, and in a couple of cases, student surveys. Teachers noted many examples of increased student enthusiasm and engagement in the science topic over previous years, and some noted that "difficult" students were motivated. They reported classroom discussions richer in science content and vocabulary, more complete and knowledgeable student written work, and greater student initiative including working on related activities during their spare time. Students asked more questions and initiated research related to the topic. In several cases, students became very attached to a topic and it became a recurring theme throughout the year. There were also examples of carry-over beyond the classroom, such as the article one student wrote on an exciting science activity for the student newspaper, discussions with parents and peers, and application of science concepts and skills at home and in the schoolyard. Many teachers indicated that their own increased interest in the topic helped generate student enthusiasm and motivation.

The current TTL model: The responses of middle and high school teachers in the PESTO projects mirrored those of elementary teachers who participated in early projects (e.g., CUBE and TEES). Teachers were very positive overall about their TTL experiences. Factors they cited as having the most impact for them were: 1) the time to focus on a curriculum development project of their own choosing, 2) the freedom to design their own project and their own work-plan, 3) the opportunity to talk with peers (other teachers and faculty) about teaching ideas, and 4) the individualized resources (money, facilities, people with expertise) available to help them achieve their goals. When asked to say specifically where they got the ideas used to plan changes in their instructional techniques, teachers noted three sources: 1) group activities and discussions conducted by staff that focused on teaching models and techniques, 2) individual discussions about pedagogy of specific units with PESTO staff, and 3) discussions with their peers about pedagogy. Content was learned primarily by individualized instruction from staff or consultants, and from resources (books, websites) provided by staff.

The TTL model has developed through the work of several different groups of people, including science teachers, science professors and education professors. Each group has a different set of issues that they believe to be significant about this mode of professional development. Below are statements from a participant teacher, from two scientist instructors, and from a science education instructor, that present different perspectives on the significance of the TTL model.

My association with the PESTO project started with its first year, the summer of 2000. I have been a middle school teacher with the Eau Claire Area School District for the past seven years. I have attended many classes and workshops in my search for quality professional development. Some have been worth my time, but more have been disappointing in the professional growth I have achieved through them. PESTO offered a different model of delivery that I found professionally and personally rewarding.

One of the more significant differences PESTO provided was the freedom to identify the area(s) I needed and wanted to strengthen to improve my teaching. Most of the development opportunities I had experienced prior to PESTO were delivered with a preset agenda. Parts of their plan may have helped me, but much of the time was focused on areas of little interest to me. PESTO not only allowed me this freedom of choice but also required it. Each participant developed plans for growth and put it in writing. We identified what we wished to accomplish and established links to existing curriculums. We designed what the final product would be, the process we would follow to get there, and the resources we would need to reach this goal. It was like creating a personalized "wish list" for professional development and receiving the power to achieve it. This was important not only to the teachers in the workshop but also to students in our classrooms. Teachers are in the "trenches" so to speak and are the most familiar with how students learn. With the freedom PESTO allowed participants, we could focus attention on projects tailored to our schools, our classrooms, and our students.

The UWEC staff facilitating PESTO also wanted to nurture a sense of community between the University and area teachers and the teachers themselves. The staff monitored the PESTO class and made their expertise readily available to the participants. After creating our own professional development plans, we were "matched" with the participating professor that best fit our needs. Participants had a one-on-one opportunity to work with professors in their area(s) of inquiry. Other workshops had certainly provided professional presenters, yet individualized time with these resources was not available. PESTO is different. For example, the participants identified fieldtrips that would add to their experience and the professors scheduled the trips, guided the trips, arranged transportation for the trips, and in many cases provided follow up information about the sites visited. These fieldtrips had a direct effect on student learning since they led to a number of participants going back to their schools and arranging for students to take part in similar fieldtrips to expand the learning experience.

Many of the participants in PESTO were also developing more "hands-on" or inquiry based activities (labs) to compliment the existing science curriculum in their classrooms. Again, the professors provided science laboratory rooms, supplies, resources, and themselves to assist the teachers in doing this. This form of tailored inquiry allowed my fellow teachers and myself to truly work as scientists in the areas we had identified. Science teachers are "closet" scientists with few opportunities to practice our craft. PESTO gave us the opportunity to do so, expanding our knowledge base and our students’ resources.

As a follow up many of the participating teachers have arranged for the PESTO staff to come into classrooms during the school year as guest speakers and presenters for students. In addition, college students working with the UWEC professors, hoping to be teachers themselves one day, have gained access to many more classrooms and teaching styles through the PESTO link. The potential of this connection to improve education for middle and high school students both now and in the future is priceless. Colleagues in the workshop networked with each other sharing ideas and activities. As one fellow participant said, "If I have questions or need ideas, I can contact any of these creative people."

Another area of support that PESTO offered to educators was financial assistance in the form of graduate credit for work done and stipends for attending the workshop. While this is not the first consideration of teachers looking for professional development opportunities, it is certainly a welcome one. Continuing education requirements are expensive and time consuming. Teachers who may not have opted to participate in a summer program may be motivated by the benefit of graduate credit earned at low or no cost. The organizers of PESTO also negotiated with participating school districts for small supply budgets to aid teachers in their project implementation. With shrinking school budgets, teachers are rarely allotted funds to use at their discretion. Unfortunately many great ideas are left unused for lack of funds. With these small supply budgets from our districts, most of the projects developed through PESTO are in use in classrooms today broadening and strengthening our students educational experiences.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of professionalism. Though teaching is considered a profession, we are not always treated as professionals. All too frequently, decisions are made for us, agendas are set to meet needs we do not express, and monies are spent without our input. However, the PESTO model of professional development gave us control over our own learning. The participating teachers and their needs were the focus of the project. There were no preset agendas; our professional goals were our own to set and achieve. Organizers of the workshop offered their assistance but never forced it upon us. Boundless resources were provided to us in a variety of formats, including personal interaction with the PESTO staff. The communication between workshop providers and participants allowed the networking of educators to take place. An atmosphere of sharing and mutual respect set the tone for the entire workshop. In short, PESTO treated the participating teachers as professionals; it was a most rewarding and gratifying experience. "It seems like if someone has something "bad" to say about PESTO, it would be their own fault, since we were allowed to design our own staff development, which is something I really appreciated…"

The beauty of the TTL model is that the workshop structure is consistent with inquiry-based teaching methods. Teachers are asked to be the primary investigators and learn and develop their curriculum in a manner similar to the way students are asked to investigate and learn in the classroom. The workshop instructors serve as consultants and guides rather than as purveyors of knowledge. The teachers work to dig out new material and methods with the help of the instructors. Teachers are treated as colleagues and co-investigators with valued understanding and opinions just as students in inquiry-based classrooms are considered collaborators and investigators. Many teachers have made profound changes in their teaching because they recognize that they have learned very well in the inquiry-based environment of the workshop and feel that their students will learn well that way, too. As scientists, we are appreciative that this model is consistent with the scientific method and with science education standards.

Teachers need the opportunity to work to develop and adapt their curriculum, but they need resources and support to make that work be effective. The TTL model provides teachers with time as well as intellectual, logistical and monetary support. The teachers are given freedom, but are also given clear expectations regarding what they must do to satisfy the workshop requirements. They are treated as professionals and universally respond as professionals. Rich conversations about science teaching occur with teachers at a variety of grade levels providing their unique perspectives. These interactions produce a vibrant community of learners who openly share their knowledge of teaching/learning and science. The materials they develop are top quality and are needed for and utilized in their teaching. It is a pleasure to be able to coordinate an experience that enables teachers to improve their science teaching and enrich themselves as scientists.

We have also found that the TTL experience has had a positive effect on our own classroom teaching. The process of science and scientific inquiry has become more a part of our courses because of our work with these issues in the workshops. These have made our students’ learning richer and fuller in terms of understanding how science works.

The TTL model is one example of an emergent community of learners where traditional boundaries and hierarchies are replaced by collaborative efforts to understand what it takes to improve classroom learning. Each time we complete a project, we end up with greater insights into the complexities of practice. We have come to function as partners, not always agreeing but always sharing the larger goal of making science interesting, accurate, and accessible.

University preservice teachers experience a more coherent set of learning experiences that include many more instances of learning science through inquiry and working with instructors who model the strategies they are expected to learn to use in their own teaching. As preservice teachers learn to design and use a range of approaches during their teacher education courses, they bring science learning experiences that are consistent with the messages sent through their education courses. The techniques modeled in methods courses are shaped by feedback from classroom teachers and in many cases are drawn from the examples presented by teachers in their TTL projects. In classrooms, preservice teachers are mentored by K-12 educators who value and use the same knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Thus, the collective impact on beginning teachers is far greater than could be achieved by any of the groups working alone.

A sense of trust and empowerment has emerged over the course of the projects. Teachers are trusted professionals invested in their own growth and who will make sound assessments of their own needs and act accordingly. University educators are trusted as knowledgeable yet not judgmental, and respectful of the teachers’ professional wisdom. . It has become possible and acceptable to balance the insights from research and theory with the wisdom of practice. We can call each other and ask, "Is this a dumb idea?" or "how would you teach this?" and recognize that there will be more than one best answer. We know much more now about the dilemmas and politics of other’s teaching situations that we did when the TTL projects began. It is rich knowledge.

The TTL staff and participants have modified details of program planning based on previous successes and failures. Some of the current issues and our responses are listed below.

1. The model does not work for all teachers. Teachers must be self-motivated and have enough experience to have ideas about what component of their curriculum they want to develop. As we learned to applicants, we had fewer unsuccessful participants. We also learned to give only two credits for workshop completion and saved the third credit for completing the implementation and final reporting phase.
2. Defining a project of the right scope for the time available is difficult for some teachers. With experience, staff grew better at guiding teachers in setting realistic goals.
3. Teachers need to be self-directed, but they also need checkpoints with staff to be sure they are making progress, and so that staff can effectively provide needed resources.
4. There is a delicate balance between having too many and not enough group activities. One year we offered the group so many field trips, technology lessons and presentations on a variety of topics that some teachers had trouble focusing on and completing their own project. Another year both teachers and staff felt that collegiality did not develop throughout the group because we did not do enough activities together. So far our experience has been that the lower the grade level taught, the greater the collegial bonds are developed among teacher participants.
5. Formal interaction among participants during the classroom implementation phase in the form of peer observation was planned during an early TTL program. Although funds for substitutes were provided teachers did not take advantage of this opportunity. They felt the effort was not worth the potential gains.
6. It was difficult, given the budget, scope, and individuality of the TTL programs, to collect objective data on student gains resulting. We have relied on teacher reporting.
7. Securing funding for projects such as the TTL is challenging. Reviewers express concern that so much time is left unstructured and that the staff-participant ration seems excessive. Care must be taken in describing the roles of staff and showing how participants’ progress is monitored to make a convincing case to funding agencies.
8. Follow-up sessions in particular need to be carefully designed to make expectations and incentives clear. We learned that participants would rather work independently in advance rather than meet together to complete revisions. It also became apparent that some accountability for completing the work needed to be built into the follow-up sessions (we used the third credit and partial reimbursement) to encourage thoughtful revisions and production of polished final products.

The time-to-learn model is powerful. Through it, we are able to implement many of the characteristics of sound professional development highlighted in policy documents such as the National Science Education Standards, the literature describing sound professional development, and have done so in a manner that is responsive to teachers’ voices about their own professional growth. A next step is to secure support for more extensive and direct documentation of the ways that TTL approaches impact student learning and teachers’ thinking. We are also considering the ways that the community development accomplished in the current model might be extended to support other groups such as new faculty in Arts and Sciences departments, where there is often little or no real support for learning to teach well.

Clearly, the approach presented in this paper requires commitment beyond that of the participants. Institutional priorities must communicate a sense of value for collaborative effort. TTL approaches are time and resource intensive. Yet, the outcomes are diverse and reach many audiences. Replicating the approach used in the TTL projects, though, is less a matter of time and money than a matter of commitment to a way of thought. The time to learn model is a sound approach to improving the quality of science education at all levels.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001). Designs for Science Literacy. Project 2061. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coble, C.R. and Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1996). Science education. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 459-484). New York: Simon& Schuster/Macmillan.

Eierman, R., 1999, Final Report on the STEPS Project, Submitted to the Eisenhower Development Program, September 1999.

Garret, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, No. 4, 915-945.

Havholm, K.G., 1998, Final Report on the TEES Project, Submitted to the Eisenhower Development Program, September 1998.

Havholm, K. G. (1997). The role of the scientific community in the professional development of teachers. GSA Abstracts with Programs 29:A121. Invited presentation.

Havholm, K.G. and Eierman, R. (2000). Final Report on the PESTO Project, Submitted to the Eisenhower Development Program.

Hollon, R.H., Eierman, R., Havholm, K.G. and Hendrickson, J.E. (1999). Time to learn: A Teacher-driven Professional Development Experience in Science. Paper/poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the North Central Region of the Association of Educators of Teachers in Science, Eau Claire, WI, Oct, 1999.

Loucks-Horsley, S.L., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Academy of Sciences (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Sparks, D. & Loucks-Horsley, S.L. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of Staff Development (10) No. 4, pp 40-57.