Fostering Inquiry: The Impact of Cross-Curricular Professional Development on STEM Teacher Practices

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of sustained, inquiry-based professional development (PD) on K-12 STEM educators’ instructional practices, with a particular focus on integrated mathematics and science teaching. As STEM education becomes increasingly vital in preparing students to address global challenges, educators face the challenge of adapting their teaching strategies to foster meaningful, engaging, and effective learning experiences. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has emerged as a promising approach through its emphasis on student-driven exploration and collaborative learning. However, its effective implementation often requires targeted PD. This qualitative study examines the ConocoPhillips Applied Math Program (AMP!), a sustained teacher PD program focused on mathematics and science instruction, to investigate how it supported teachers’ shift toward inquiry-based practices. Semi-structured interviews with six past AMP! participants revealed that the program positively influenced teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and confidence, leading to better student engagement and achievement. This study also highlighted the importance of addressing the practical challenges of IBL implementation, such as teachers’ time constraints and resistance to adopting new pedagogical strategies. The findings emphasized the need for PD programs to prioritize adaptability and provide long-term support and content aligned with teachers’ immediate needs.

1. Introduction

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education has become a central focus within K-12 educational research due to its critical role in preparing students to address complex global challenges (Elliott et al., 2022). Challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and rapid technological advancement demand that students develop a broader skill set beyond technical competencies (Miller, 2015). Consequently, teachers face the urgent challenge of developing effective instructional strategies that not only engage students in meaningful learning but also address the depth and complexity of these subjects. It is essential to foster creative and innovative learners and thinkers who can thrive in the diverse and complex environments of today’s world (Robinson & Aronica, 2016). Educational scholars and practitioners are working toward shifting from traditional rote modes of instruction to ones that actively engage students in authentic learning (Buchanan et al., 2016). A growing body of research shows that student-centered methods offer more opportunities for students to research, explore, collaborate, be creative, and make choices about their own learning (Núñez & León, 2015). However, questions remain regarding how teachers learn and adapt effective instructional practices to enhance STEM learning outcomes.

One promising approach to meet this challenge is inquiry-based learning (IBL), particularly when it focuses on integrating mathematics and science (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2015). The intersection of these two subjects presents a unique opportunity to foster dynamic learning methods, such as IBL, because both inherently involve exploration, problem-solving, and the application of theory to real-world situations. IBL offers an effective framework for promoting the shift toward more student-centered learning processes and strategies (Buchanan et al., 2016). IBL prioritizes student-driven exploration, critical thinking, and problem-solving while leveraging the natural overlap between mathematics and science to foster a cohesive understanding of both disciplines (Honey et al., 2014). IBL allows students to make decisions about the problems they investigate, leading to greater engagement and deeper learning (Noguera et al., 2015). Research shows that greater autonomy through IBL helps students build self-confidence in their knowledge as they work and learn through questioning and problem-solving (Núñez & León, 2015). While students play a central role in the inquiry process, teachers are instrumental in scaffolding learning to support the development of inquiry skills—an undertaking that requires extensive PD. Many K-12 STEM educators, though proficient in their disciplines, often lack the capacity to shift their teaching approaches in order to implement integrated STEM approaches without targeted IBL PD (Cavlazoglu & Stuessy, 2017).

Research consistently demonstrates that well-designed PD programs significantly enhance teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and confidence in STEM instruction, which improves student achievement (Chetty et al., 2014; Cohen & Hill, 1998). However, traditional models of short-term workshops have proven inadequate for fostering lasting changes in teaching practices, leading to a shift toward more sustained and comprehensive PD frameworks (Wei et al., 2010). Sustained PD allows teachers to learn strategies for connecting concepts across mathematics and science to foster a more holistic approach to STEM education.

Despite a growing body of research on STEM education, there is still limited understanding of how PD programs focused on inquiry-based learning shape educators’ instructional practices within STEM disciplines. Much of the existing research available on general IBL practices remains focused on student academic achievement through examination of grades or test scores, but these are only partial instruments for measuring student outcomes (Kogan & Laursen, 2014; Zafra-Gómez et al., 2015). This gap in the literature calls for an investigation into how participation in inquiry-based PD influences educators’ practices, using qualitative methods to gain deeper insights from educators’ perspectives. By addressing this gap, this study aims to contribute to understanding the design and effectiveness of PD programs that support inquiry-driven STEM teaching and inform curriculum design and instructional strategies.

This study aims to explore how participation in a sustained, inquiry-based PD program focused on mathematics and science instruction affects educators’ teaching practices. It emphasizes the importance of IBL in fostering effective STEM education and improving cross-curricular integration in these subjects. Using Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of effectiveness, this research evaluates the impact of PD on educators’ adoption of integrated IBL strategies and their attitudes toward this teaching method. This study seeks to provide insights into the design and effectiveness of PD programs that support inquiry-driven, cross-curricular STEM teaching and add to the growing body of literature on STEM teacher education.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Inquiry-Based Learning

IBL is an educational approach that emphasizes active student engagement in the learning process, where students are encouraged to ask questions, explore problems, and construct their own understanding of the material (Caswell & LaBrie, 2017). Rooted in constructivist theory, which posits that learners build knowledge through experiences and interactions with their environment, IBL has gained significant attention in K-12 education as an effective method for fostering critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and deeper learning (Bybee, 2010). Research indicates that IBL can enhance students’ motivation and engagement by making learning more relevant and connected to real-world issues (Sinatra et al., 2017). In a comprehensive literature review, Saunders-Stewart et al. (2012) found that IBL benefits students by enhancing their knowledge and skills, increasing motivation and self-efficacy, fostering greater creativity, and improving attitudes toward learning. Studies by Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) and Zafra-Gómez et al. (2015) reported higher academic achievement both in grades and test scores among students who participated in IBL experiences. Further research highlights positive outcomes for IBL in areas such as problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, and reasoning skills (Noguera et al., 2015), all of which are beneficial to future academic success. Given these findings, it is important to continue researching IBL and supporting K-12 teachers in the adoption of these strategies to enhance STEM teaching and learning.

Although inquiry is student-centered, teachers play a vital role in guiding students through the process, especially when students are beginners and require more structured support for their inquiry skills (Zangori et al., 2012). Gholam (2019) explained that from a teacher’s perspective, inquiry-based teaching focuses on moving students beyond basic curiosity into the space of critical thinking and understanding.

Research also highlights that despite its potential benefits, there are challenges to implementing IBL effectively in K-12 settings. Some scholars argue that teachers may require extensive training to facilitate inquiry-driven lessons (Quigley et al., 2011) and that teachers’ understanding of inquiry, including its many pedagogical and curricular nuances, is still problematic (Flick & Lederman, 2006). Without appropriate resources and support, the benefits of IBL may not be fully realized, especially in educational settings where teacher support and training are underfunded.

2.2. Teacher Professional Development

Teacher PD plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality of STEM education in K-12 schools, and it is essential that educators are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and pedagogical strategies necessary to teach these subjects effectively (Kumar et al., 2024). Research consistently underscores the importance of PD programs specifically tailored to meet the needs of STEM teachers, providing them with both subject-specific content knowledge and instructional strategies (Kowalski et al., 2020). A growing body of literature shows that effective PD for STEM educators can enhance teachers’ content knowledge, improve their confidence in teaching STEM subjects, and increase student achievement (Chetty et al., 2014; Cohen & Hill, 1998). For example, studies have demonstrated that PD programs that are collaborative, sustained, and focused on classroom practice lead to improvements in both teacher and student learning outcomes (Blank & de las Alas, 2010).

However, there is debate about the effectiveness of current PD models and their implementation. One criticism is that many PD programs that are offered as one-time workshops or short-term events fail to provide meaningful, sustained support for teachers (Supovitz & Turner, 2000). These programs often lack follow-up, making it difficult for teachers to transfer new knowledge and strategies into their daily teaching practices. Because short-term PD has been shown to produce limited impact, PD providers in the US have been moving away from one-time workshops and are increasingly shifting to providing teachers with more sustained PD (Hartwell, 2003; Wei et al., 2010). Another criticism concerns the equity of access to high-quality STEM PD. Teachers in low-income or rural schools may have less access to high-quality PD opportunities due to logistical challenges or limited funding (Wei et al., 2010). As a result, disparities in PD opportunities can exacerbate inequities in STEM education, leaving certain groups of students underserved.

2.3. Cross-Curricular Math and Science Focus

In recent years, integrating math and science education has gained prominence as part of broader efforts to strengthen STEM education in K-12 schools (Huang et al., 2022). A cross-curricular approach that combines math and science, rather than teaching these subjects in isolation, is seen as a way to deepen students’ understanding of both subjects while highlighting their interconnectedness in real-world problem-solving (Guzey et al., 2020). Scholars argue that this integrated model helps students grasp the relevance of math in scientific inquiry while simultaneously improving their mathematical skills through practical applications in science contexts (Mohamad Hasim et al., 2022). This approach also fosters a more holistic understanding of STEM disciplines, equipping students with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for future STEM careers (Boda & Brown, 2020). Yet, teachers face significant challenges in implementing this integrated approach, and these challenges are further compounded in schools where PD opportunities are limited. For example, having the resources necessary to design interdisciplinary lessons that meet subject-specific standards while making meaningful connections between math and science.

3. Conceptual Framework

The Kirkpatrick 4-Level Model of Effectiveness has been widely applied in studies focused on K-12 education to evaluate the effectiveness of various teaching practices, PD programs for educators, and curriculum interventions (Achuthan et al., 2023). While originally developed for corporate training, the model has proven adaptable to educational contexts by offering a structured way to assess both immediate learning outcomes and the long-term impacts of educational initiatives (Alsalamah & Callinan, 2021). The Kirkpatrick model has made considerable contributions to the theory of evaluation and its practice (Cahapay, 2021), as well as being highly cited in academic research (Jain et al., 2021).

Kirkpatrick’s model offers a structured approach to evaluating the effectiveness of PD programs by looking at four key levels: (1) reaction, (2) learning, (3) behavior, and (4) results. Each level provides a different perspective on the success of a program, helping to evaluate both immediate feedback and long-term impact on learners and their organizations (Zheng et al., 2017). Its application in K-12 settings provides insights into how teacher PD, academic programs, and curriculum reforms affect student learning and behavior. The four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model are outlined briefly below (Cahapay, 2021):

Level 1: Reaction

• This level describes the degree to which participants are satisfied with the training program. It assesses if they find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs.

Level 2: Learning

• This level assesses the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, and values from the program. This level also measures the confidence and commitment with which the participants will be able to perform the expected changes.

Level 3: Behavior

• This level examines the extent to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back in their work environment.

Level 4: Results

• This level evaluates the degree to which targeted outcomes occur that can be attributed to the training program.

The present study uses Kirkpatrick’s model to analyze each phase of the teacher PD program. The model’s output provides insights into participants’ post-training outcomings, including knowledge gain, ability to apply what they have learned, and behavioral changes resulting from the training.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Context and Participants

To address the problem outlined in this research, this study focuses on the Applied Mathematics Program (AMP!), an inquiry-based PD initiative that supports science and math teachers in developing and implementing interdisciplinary STEM lessons. The problem this study highlights is the challenge teachers face adapting their instructional practices to integrate math, science, and the incorporation of IBL to better meet the STEM learning needs of today’s students. AMP! addresses this challenge by fostering collaboration between math and science educators to develop lessons that emphasize curricular overlaps. AMP! is structured as a year-long program that includes a summer institute followed by regular sessions throughout the academic year, offering over 110 h of sustained PD. Therefore, by examining this program, this study aims to provide valuable insights into a sustained PD model that supports K-12 teachers in improving STEM education through inquiry-based learning and cross-curricular collaboration.

The program is designed for teams of math and science teachers from the same campus with the intention that the teachers could support each other on their own campus and establish professional learning communities. The teacher participants receive training in inquiry-based instructional coaching, creating standards-based lessons, and making connections between math and science content. They are organized into grade-level cohorts to receive targeted support in both content-specific and cross-curricular areas. Throughout the program, the teachers present interdisciplinary lessons that combine math and science content in an inquiry-based format, encouraging students to ask questions and construct their understanding.

The AMP! program also includes mentoring and support focused on improving questioning techniques, culturally responsive teaching, and effective cross-curricular instruction. This PD model enables math and science teachers to work together in designing lessons that integrate both disciplines, thus reflecting real-world STEM applications and enhancing students’ understanding of the interconnectedness of these fields.

The target population for this study consists of K-12 teachers who participated in AMP! and later became AMP! facilitators, meaning they began to co-teach the new participants alongside the program’s teacher educators. During PD sessions, the AMP! leadership team observes the participants in their classrooms and identifies those who have demonstrated strong inquiry skills and content knowledge. These teachers are then invited to return as facilitators.

We chose to focus on facilitators because their extended involvement in the inquiry-based PD program helped them refine their understanding and practice of integrating inquiry into teaching. By studying these experienced facilitators, we were able to gather valuable insights from experts with a deep understanding of inquiry-based learning.

To recruit participants, the AMP! leadership team provided the researchers with the contact information of the 12 current facilitators who could offer valuable insights for this study. We contacted all 12 via email to inform them of this research study and their rights as participants. Six of the twelve facilitators agreed to participate and scheduled interviews. The selected facilitators represent the broader group in terms of gender, experience, and prior involvement with AMP!. These teachers meet the program’s criteria for selecting facilitators due to their significant teaching experience.

Before the interviews began, the researchers verbally obtained consent from the participants, ensuring they understood that the interviews would be audio recorded. They were reminded that they could stop the interview at any time and skip any questions they did not feel comfortable answering. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure ethical standards were met for this study.

Table 1. Research participant demographics.

Research Participant (RP)	Gender	Subject(s) Taught	Years in Education	Years as AMP! Facilitator
RP 1	M	AP Computer Science, Algebra I	18	1
RP 2	M	6th Grade Math and STEM	12	2
RP 3	F	7th and 8th Grade Math	11	4
RP 4	F	5th Grade Bilingual	17	2
RP 5	F	8th Grade Math and Algebra I	19	4
RP 6	F	6th Grade Math and Science	13	3

summarizes the participants’ demographics.

4.2. Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the AMP! PD program on teachers’ instructional practices. This PD program specifically focuses on training teachers in developing and implementing inquiry-based, cross-curricular lessons in mathematics and science. This study is guided by the following research question and sub-question:

• RQ: How does participation in inquiry-based PD shape educators’ instructional practices in STEM education?
  • Sub-RQ: How does the use of inquiry-based learning support cross-curricular alignment between math and science in the classroom?

By addressing these questions, this study aims to contribute to the broader dialogue on effective PD strategies that support learning across K-12 STEM education.

4.3. Study Design

To answer the research questions, this study employed a qualitative approach to understand how participation in inquiry-based PD shapes teachers’ instructional practices in STEM education. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six K-12 teachers who participated in AMP! and currently serve as AMP! facilitators to gain insights into their experiences with inquiry-based PD. The interview questions were purposefully grouped to evaluate each of the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model. For example, to assess Kirkpatrick’s Level 2: Learning, participants were asked, “Can you discuss ways in which your teaching practices have evolved since participating in AMP!?” To evaluate Level 4: Reaction, participants were asked, “How have your students responded to the introduction of inquiry in your classroom?”

Thematic analysis was then used to code the interviews and identify emerging themes using Owen’s (1984) criteria for identifying themes (repetition, reoccurrence, or forcefulness). Two researchers were involved in the coding process, with each independently coding the data for each Kirkpatrick’s levels. Afterward, the researchers met to compare their findings and refine the themes for each level. In the event of discrepancies or differences in coding, the researchers engaged in discussions to resolve the issues and reached a consensus through mutual agreement.

4.4. Data Collection

Data for this study were collected through semi-structured interviews with each of the six selected participants. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and were recorded and then transcribed using Otter.ai transcription services (Da Silva, 2018). The research team reviewed the audio recordings and transcriptions generated by Otter.ai, correcting any inaccuracies identified during this process. While the initial transcription was largely accurate, any discrepancies were addressed to ensure the transcripts faithfully reflected the spoken content. After verification, the transcripts were anonymized, and all participant names were removed to maintain confidentiality.

4.5. Data Analysis

A deductive approach to thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data. This approach began with the application of pre-established categories based on Kirkpatrick’s model (reaction, learning, behavior, and results). Using this framework, we identified and coded relevant units of data within the transcripts.

To identify themes, we first read through the transcripts to gain a general understanding of the data and identified units relevant to the research questions. We then went back to the data and coded them by highlighting sections that addressed the categories of interest. Next, we grouped related segments of text into provisional themes using Owen’s (1984) criteria for identifying themes (repetition, reoccurrence, or forcefulness). We then discussed the initial codes and themes. Then, we reread the data and refined the themes by comparing codes. We continued refining the themes until we reached a point where further revisions no longer yielded significant new insights.

5. Results

The coding process was based on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation, which we applied as follows:

Level 1: Reaction

• Participants’ immediate satisfaction and perceived relevance of the program.

Level 2: Learning

• Knowledge or skills gained from the program.

Level 3: Behavior

• Changes in participants’ behavior or application of learning.

Level 4: Results

• The program’s impact on broader outcomes or performance.

5.1. Level 1: Reaction

Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 of evaluating training effectiveness assesses participants’ reactions to a program. The participants’ feelings, engagement, and perceptions of the content’s relevance to their work were studied. Data gathered during the interviews with the research participants showed mixed reactions to the PD at Level 1, where there were concerns about practicality and time constraints, balanced with acknowledgment of the potential benefits of the program.

For example, in speaking of the application of the inquiry-based strategies to their lesson plans, one participant noted, “The biggest issue for me was time… we had a district scope and sequence, roadmap that explained what had to be taught before each checkpoint administered by the district” [RP3]. Another research participant similarly expressed concerns about the time required to adopt inquiry-based strategies, particularly when considering the need to prepare students for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exams and meet the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. The participant stated the following:

“I know teachers feel very limited with the things that we have to do, and ultimately everything that has to get done throughout the year to get towards the STAAR test. So, to take an entire class period that is maybe only going to hit one TEKS just doesn’t seem practical, so that was a barrier.” [RP5]

These comments reflect a potential frustration with the practical challenges of integrating the PD content into existing instructional plans, especially as the participants feel constrained by district or state policies. These feelings of being overwhelmed illustrate a potential disengagement with the training, as initially, the participants struggled to see how the strategies could fit within their workloads.

The research participants also expressed hesitancy to shift their instructional practices to align with the inquiry-based learning approaches promoted by the PD. One participant noted, “Time is a really big barrier and making a change, not knowing if it’s going work… that’s just a natural struggle like change is hard” [RP5]. This reflected the participant’s concerns about the risks associated with adopting new strategies and uncertainty about their effectiveness, which may negatively impact their perceptions of the program’s value.

On the other hand, some of the research participants conveyed positive perceptions of the PD’s value, noting improved outcomes despite initial time investments. One research participant shared, “There is more prep work on the front end but the end results are better. You have to be okay with organized chaos, you have to be okay with noise and discussions” [RP6].

In summary, the results revealed a nuanced view of the participants’ reactions to the PD. While the participants’ concerns about time constraints and the practical application of new strategies were evident, they also acknowledged the potential for improved outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for PD programs to address challenges to implementation and clearly communicate potential positive outcomes to participants to enhance their buy-in and engagement.

5.2. Level 2: Learning

Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 evaluates the knowledge, skills, or confidence participants gain during PD. This level assessed the extent to which the research participants acquired new strategies and competencies that can be applied in their classrooms.

A prominent example from the data is the strategies participants acquired to integrate IBL into their classrooms. For instance, a participant described gradually adopting IBL practices by incorporating a technique known as “notice and wonder” into their daily teaching routine. The participant recalled,

“I started simply with just a notice and wonder routine. And I tell [teachers], you don’t have to go full fledge into something crazy, right. But if you just start by opening it up to include more voices… offer some opportunities for kids to dive into an exploration… That’s sort of what I did. And it wasn’t every day….” [RP2]

This technique involves presenting students with an image or text and encouraging them to carefully observe and notice details (Tabuzo, 2023). Then, students are encouraged to generate questions based on their observations as a way to foster curiosity and facilitate deeper inquiry.

The participants reported that “notice and wonder” was a manageable strategy given their time constraints and made inquiry-based teaching more accessible. One participant noted that implementing small changes, such as integrating “notice and wonder” routines helped prepare them for more substantial transformation in their teaching practices over time. The participant stated, “it was something that happened gradually and then eventually took over… I started with small things, like small changes, and then that led to full inquiry” [RP6].

Another skill participants developed through the PD was the use of the 5E model to design inquiry-based lessons. The 5E model is a pedagogical framework comprising five stages—engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate—that guide students through an active learning process to construct their own understanding of concepts (Bybee, 2010; Polanin et al., 2024). This framework was particularly beneficial for the teachers who entered the profession through alternative certification programs and lacked formal training in lesson design. For example, one participant, whose background was in victim studies and criminal justice rather than education, emphasized how the program equipped them with the necessary skills to independently create 5E lessons and implement inquiry-based approaches effectively. They credited the program with filling gaps in their pedagogical knowledge and giving them the skills to design effective lessons.

“I didn’t have an engaging lesson for [metals, nonmetals, and metalloids], like I couldn’t… figure out something. So it was great to be able to team up with three other educators and then come up with this phenomenal lesson together to try to engage [the students]. So I think by going through that process, and really creating a 5E lesson from scratch with a TEKS that I needed, helped me prepare myself to then go back to class when I’m by myself, and then look at other TEKS I was maybe struggling with, and then develop a 5E lesson from that. So not only did [AMP!] teach me actually the physical process of developing a 5E lesson because I was an alternative certified teacher… my degree is in victim studies in criminal justice… so I didn’t necessarily have those skills of creating a lesson. So AMP really gave me those skills so that I can independently create more 5E lessons on my own with that inquiry, and the 5E model.” [RP6]

Another key theme was the participants’ improved understanding of integrated STEM education. During the interviews, the research participants highlighted how natural overlaps between math and science content provided a foundation for authentic inquiry in their STEM lessons. For example, one participant noted how recognizing and leveraging these connections allowed them to design interdisciplinary activities that made STEM concepts more meaningful to students. The participant stated the following:

“When I was a participant, I was having a little hard time finding those connections, even though I already had the experience that I guess it was the way the TEKS were paced or segmented in my district, where you know, math and science did not communicate. The pacing for math had nothing to do with the pacing with science. So that was for me, a learning piece. Now as the lead and creating those lessons and finding that application of both math and science within each other I feel like it’s so much easier to just integrate.” [RP4]

The findings from Level 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model suggest that the PD program successfully supported the participants in gaining new knowledge, skills, and confidence. The research participants reported improved collaborative capacity and an enhanced understanding of integrated STEM approaches that helped them design more engaging learning experiences for their students. These findings highlight the program’s impact on both technical competencies and broader PD.

5.3. Level 3: Behavior

Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 evaluates how participants apply what they learned from PD in their work environment. In the context of this study, Level 3 examined whether the participants were able to apply the new knowledge and strategies in their teaching practices as a result of the training. The data collected reflected behavioral changes in how the teachers navigated the challenges of implementing new teaching strategies. For example, when discussing how their teaching practices changed after participating in AMP!, one participant shared the following:

“… when I think about... my first three years of teaching, versus my last three years of teaching, that’s not the same person, like it’s completely different, like, I almost feel bad for my kids who had me in my first three years… but I think a lot of the progression had to do with me rethinking my teaching philosophy and finding out what brought me so much joy. And a lot of that was when kids had aha moments. And the aha moments would come from when I wasn’t teaching in what can only be labeled as the traditional way.” [RP3]

This statement demonstrates a shift in behavior, where the participant began to gradually integrate inquiry-based strategies into existing lessons and question their own teaching practices. This highlights that the participants learned ways to adapt such that they were able to implement the new strategies into their existing routines and constraints and modify them to engage their students. The data also indicated that the participants overcame initial hesitations about applying new strategies and became more open-minded and willing to apply new practices. For example, a research participant stated the following when speaking of their experience:

“The whole process of AMP! allowed me to be more open-minded to change and other strategies. I think before, I was so focused on procedurally, like, what my classroom is like, it is this, I teach this, we practice this, they do that. So I think it was just becoming more open-minded and allowing myself to be vulnerable to change.” [RP5]

The findings suggest that in addition to providing participants with skills and content knowledge that fostered individual growth, the PD program also facilitated a shift in teacher behaviors, encouraging collaboration and professional networking. This empowered participants to take on leadership roles within their educational settings. One research participant shared that their role is focused on “building capacity in teachers so they can build capacity in students”, indicating a deeper understanding that effective learning extends beyond individual improvement. The fact that several of the participants returned to the program to help others further illustrates the behavioral shift toward leadership. The participants also credited their willingness to step into leadership positions to the relationships and connections they formed with colleagues and cohort members during the PD.

5.4. Level 4: Results

Level 4 of Kirkpatrick’s model evaluates the broader impact of PD on student outcomes, including increased engagement or tangible improvements in education quality. The data revealed several positive impacts on students’ confidence and critical thinking skills, which are evidence of the long-term effects of the PD on educational outcomes. One research participant emphasized the development of student confidence and inquiry skills over the course of the school year by commenting the following:

“By the end of the school year, students feel more confident in their abilities, to not second guess themselves and to explore, ask the questions, research the questions they don’t know towards the end. Everybody gets comfortable with inquiry at the end.” [RP6]

This reflects the PD’s success in equipping the participant with the skills necessary to cultivate a classroom culture that values curiosity, critical thinking, and active engagement. The ability of students to approach learning with confidence and persistence demonstrates both the systemic and student-centered outcomes achieved through the PD program.

Similarly, another participant shared the following:

“But ultimately, I feel it falls on the teacher… if your kids trust you, and you establish that level of trust, they’re going to allow you to teach him, they’re going to want to hear what you have to say… if you come into my classroom, if you look at the way the kids are interacting, they’re more respectful. They’re engaged in the learning, they’re walking around, they’re interacting with them. each other about the content, they are respectful, you know, they know what’s expected of them.” [RP2]

This highlights the teacher’s belief that establishing trust is key to fostering a productive classroom environment. It reflects the outcomes of the PD program in building confidence in teachers to manage classroom dynamics and promote student engagement. The participant observed that students are more likely to be focused on learning, demonstrating how the PD influenced both teacher practices and student behavior in the classroom.

RP1 described how the PD program encouraged a shift toward inquiry-based learning in the classroom, making lessons more engaging and interactive. The teacher explained the following:

“There’s a little bit of fun that comes with inquiry. So for [the students], it looks a little bit different than [their] normal traditional math lesson might look. [I ask] them to think about something and be okay with not having the right answer, [this] was hard to get off the ground...For example, we did lemonade taste test where I made lemonade to talk about ratios with kids… I would say that for the lower end of my students, their engagement rose the most because they were given a level playing field.” [RP1]

This shift in teaching practice led to increased student engagement, particularly among lower-performing students. This shows how the PD program empowered the teacher to implement creative strategies that benefit a wide range of learners.

Another research participant observed increased engagement from female students in their classroom when using IBL. The participant noted that girls became more actively involved in activities like building models or using tools due to the authentic nature of the lessons they were able to create using the lessons from the PD program. The research participant also mentioned that more girls than boys started to participate in a science club, with girls not only joining but also inviting friends and expressing pride in their work. These findings show that as a result of the PD, the participants were able to translate their improvement in behavior (Level 3) into tangible, meaningful results in students’ educational experiences.

This illustrates how the PD program encouraged the teachers to adopt inquiry-based learning and create more interactive and engaging lessons. The teacher described how they used a hands-on activity to help students understand complex concepts, such as ratios, in a more accessible way. This shift in teaching practice led to increased engagement, particularly among lower-performing students, showing how the PD program empowered the teachers to implement creative strategies that benefit a wide range of learners.

6. Discussion and Recommendations

This study applied Kirkpatrick’s model of effectiveness to evaluate the impact of participating in inquiry-based PD on educators’ instructional practices in STEM education. The findings reflect improvements across various levels of teacher development and classroom practices, as detailed in the following subsections. Additionally, this study addressed the sub-question of how IBL supports cross-curricular alignment between math and science. The evidence shows that IBL plays a crucial role in fostering this alignment by creating a learning environment where students engage in exploration, questioning, and problem-solving.

The data revealed that through IBL, the participants were able to develop lessons that intentionally integrated math and science. For example, one participant noted that learning how math and science could work together in a meaningful way significantly improved their ability to create lessons that taught these subjects together, rather than separately. This approach facilitated a more cohesive teaching and learning experience. IBL allows students to apply their understanding of both math and science in a holistic manner, promoting deeper comprehension and problem-solving skills and ultimately enhancing the overall learning environment.

6.1. Level 1: Reaction

The data revealed that the participants’ immediate reactions to the PD were influenced by practical constraints, concerns about change, and the perceived benefits of the training (Duncan & Chinn, 2021). While some of the participants found the program content engaging, initial broader acceptance was hindered by the participant’s perception that time limitations and district curricular benchmarks were incompatible with applying the PD training in their classrooms. Despite these initial hesitations, the research participants who had expressed these concerns still began to implement IBL strategies. As they progressed, they recognized the value of IBL and developed ways to apply it effectively, gradually overcoming the initial barriers they had perceived. This finding is consistent with the work of other scholars. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (2019) conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with science teachers who had adopted inquiry-based teaching methods and identified extreme time constraints as one of the most significant barriers to implementation. To alleviate these factors, PD programs should address these concerns by incorporating more explicit connections to participants’ daily responsibilities and providing strategies for time management. Additionally, it is important for PD programs to align content with teachers’ immediate needs and demonstrate clear benefits of applying PD learning early on to improve success in subsequent training levels. While PD programs offer valuable support to individual teachers, it is also important to acknowledge and address the broader systemic issues at the school and district levels. PD programs should be considered part of a multifaceted approach to supporting teachers in inquiry-based teaching, complemented by policy changes that alleviate systemic challenges like lack of resources and rigid curricula (Duncan & Chinn, 2021). Future research should explore how to integrate these broader systemic changes alongside PD efforts to create a more sustainable shift toward IBL.

The findings also highlighted hesitancy among teachers to adopt new instructional strategies. Research by Dean (1977) and Duncan and Chinn (2021) echoes these findings by emphasizing that resistance to curricular innovation is a common challenge in education. Addressing this resistance requires teacher support and alignment between organizational standards and the new practices. Additionally, Ginsberg and Abrahamson’s (1991) multi-institution project on inquiry-oriented pedagogy demonstrated that having champions for change significantly improved the adoption of new strategies. These insights emphasize the importance of sustained PD initiatives (Supovitz & Turner, 2000) supported by facilitators who champion and encourage teachers through the change process.

6.2. Level 2: Learning

The participants reported gains in both technical skills and broader professional competencies, including enhanced collaboration and a deeper understanding of integrated STEM education. The PD program’s focus on interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration resonated with the existing research. For example, Frykholm and Glasson’s (2005) study on integrating mathematics and science instruction through collaboration found that teacher participants improved their ability to plan authentic, engaging lessons. Similarly, Gellert and Gonzalez (2011) demonstrated that peer collaboration among mathematics teachers led to improved teaching practices and higher retention rates.

The findings indicate that to help ensure that the knowledge, skills, and confidence gained during PD are consistently applied in classroom settings, it is important for PD programs to include explicit strategies for sustaining collaborative networks and provide additional resources for implementing integrated STEM approaches.

6.3. Level 3: Behavior

The findings at this level generally underscored the importance of fostering adaptability and a growth mindset among the participants to translate learning into sustained classroom practice. The program facilitators demonstrated shifts in teaching practices despite implementation challenges. For example, the gradual adoption of inquiry-based strategies, integrating small, manageable changes into their lessons rather than overhauling them entirely, showing adaptability to time constraints and workloads.

Effective PD programs should support teachers in applying new knowledge and skills to real-world teaching environments. Research by Hartwell (2003) highlighted the value of providing teachers with opportunities to practice new behaviors in supportive environments and receive constructive feedback from peers. Hartwell added that programs conducted over extended periods, rather than one-off workshops, are more effective in building confidence and ensuring lasting behavioral shifts. This is consistent with the findings of Supovitz and Turner (2000), who noted that short-term PD, such as one-time workshops, often fails to provide sustained support for teachers and lacks follow-up, making it difficult to transfer new strategies into daily practices. PD providers have thus shifted toward more sustained programs, as longer-term support has shown a greater impact on teacher development (Wei et al., 2010). To improve Level 3 outcomes, PD initiatives should focus on fostering resilience and understanding professional growth as a continuous process.

6.4. Level 4: Results

The results level revealed tangible improvements in student engagement and performance, particularly among diverse student populations. As supported by Watt et al. (2013), inquiry-based learning fosters inclusivity by creating collaborative environments where diverse perspectives are valued. Such approaches engage all students through exploration and critical thinking, helping foster equitable opportunities for participation and contribution. The findings emphasize the need for PD programs to prioritize equity, inclusive practices, and skills that promote lifelong learning.

These data correlate with the findings of Antoine et al. (2021), whose study examined if student success in mathematics would be impacted by having educators participate in AMP!, the PD program this study is focused on. Antoine et al. (2021) found that students of teachers in AMP! significantly outperformed comparison students on Algebra I and eighth grade mathematics standardized tests and participant teachers had significant gains in Algebra content post-tests. Fernández et al. (2023) conducted a longitudinal study on students taught by AMP!-trained teachers and found that students of AMP!-trained teachers, who were trained between 2014 and 2019, were more likely to choose STEM majors in college compared to students who were not taught by AMP!-trained teachers. The study also revealed that the impact was especially significant for female students, particularly Black female students, whose likelihood of selecting a STEM major doubled when their teachers had participated in AMP! training. This further highlights the potential of PD programs to improve academic outcomes and increase the representation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.

While implementation hurdles such as time constraints and resistance to change remain, the program demonstrated a multifaceted impact on teachers’ PD and classroom practices. The findings suggest that beyond equipping participants with skills and content knowledge that fostered individual improvement, the PD program also promoted collaboration and professional networking, empowering the participants to lead within their educational settings. For example, a research participant remarked that their role involves “building capacity in teachers so they can build capacity in students”. This statement reflects an understanding that effective learning extends beyond individual improvement, fostering an effect of growth that is carried out throughout the teacher and school community. Notably, research participants returning to the program to help other teachers learn is also a testament to their growing leadership roles. Moreover, the participants attributed their willingness to assume leadership roles to the connections they developed with colleagues and cohort members during the PD. Despite initial challenges, the participants did implement key components of the AMP! program in their classrooms. Over time, they adapted and applied inquiry-based learning strategies, reflecting the programs’ influence on both their teaching practices and professional growth. By addressing practical challenges, emphasizing collaboration, and fostering adaptability, PD programs can create lasting improvements in teaching and learning outcomes.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights the impact of inquiry-based PD on educators’ instructional practices in STEM education. As mentioned in the literature review, one criticism concerns the quality of access to high-quality STEM PD. As a result, disparities in PD opportunities can exacerbate inequities in STEM education, leaving certain groups of students underserved. To address these systemic challenges and scale PD in underfunded schools, it is important to form partnerships with universities, engage corporate sponsorships, and advocate for policy changes that provide the necessary resources to make high-quality PD more accessible to teachers in underserved areas.

Across all levels, the findings emphasize the potential for PD to foster meaningful changes in teaching practices and student engagement. However, this study also underscores the importance of addressing the practical challenges that can hinder program effectiveness. Notably, the program demonstrated improvements in fostering inclusivity and equitable learning opportunities, particularly among diverse student populations. These findings emphasize the importance of designing PD initiatives that prioritize equity, adaptability, and long-term teacher support to promote sustainable improvements in STEM education practices.

8. Limitations of This Study

The limited sample size of this study impacts the generalizability of its findings, which are specific to AMP! participants. While the insights from the facilitators highlight the program’s impact on pedagogical practices, the small participant pool and reliance on self-reported data introduce potential limitations. This includes recall bias, where research participants may not accurately remember specific details and their accounts may be influenced by their current roles as facilitators and instructional coaches on their campuses. It is also important to note that the data reflect the participants’ perceptions rather than objective classroom observations conducted by the researchers.

Future research should address these limitations by including a larger and more diverse sample, employing mixed-method designs, and exploring the impact of inquiry-based learning on specific student populations. Moreover, observational studies could further illuminate the barriers teachers encounter in implementing inquiry-based methods and their effects on classroom management and engagement. Lastly, future research could follow up with program participants to explore the long-term impact of the program. It would be valuable to examine whether teachers continue using the inquiry-based model a year or more after completion and any challenges or success in maintaining these practices. A longitudinal study could provide deeper insights into the sustainability and lasting effects of the program on teaching practices.