Five (+) Guiding Principles for Professional · PDF fileFive (+) Guiding Principles for...

Five (+) Guiding Principles for Professional Development

Summary Report Professional Development Literature Review

for Project Learning Tree, Strategic Planning Initiative

Prepared by PEER Associates April 2013

PEER Associates, Inc. is responsible for the quality and content of this report.

Principals Amy Powers and Michael Duffin can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]. Senior Research Associate Chris Hardee can be contacted at

[email protected]. Suggested citation: Hardee, C., Duffin, M., and PEER Associates. (2013). Five (+) guiding principles for

professional development: Summary report, professional development literature review. Project Learning Tree, Washington, DC.

PLT PD Literature Review Summary Report, April 2013 www.PEERassociates.net page 1

Project Summary Why did we do this evaluation/literature review?

• To begin implementation of Goal #2 of the PLT Strategic Plan by injecting research-based best practices into the conversation about evaluation of and potential revisions to the PLT professional development (PD) model and approach.

What were we trying to learn?

• What existing research says about best practices in professional development in general and in environmental education (EE), place-based education (PBE), and science educational settings where information is available.

What data did we collect? Several strategies helped focus and prioritize our research to fit within the project timeframe and scope including:

• Mining the bibliographies of recent PD literature reviews (rather than starting with a search of electronic databases by key words) to uncover a wide range of relevant references from which a more targeted inquiry could be undertaken.

• Focusing on references published in the last 10 years, with the most recent, in general, chosen as the starting place. Exceptions were made to this chronological bias, if content seemed particularly relevant, the reference was repeatedly cited, or the study was identified as seminal.

• Prioritizing journal articles, rather than books, to maximize time efficiency while also capitalizing on the rigor of the peer review process.

Applying these strategies, a group of researchers emerged as thought leaders in the PD field and certain references repeatedly appeared in bibliographies. Annotations were systematically coded to determine dominant themes, characteristics, and features of PD models, all of which served as the foundation for our guiding principles and recommendations. The literature review identified a total of approximately 75 references, from which the 27 deemed most relevant were selected for annotation (see References Appendix). Additional data, much of it background provided by PLT at the start of the project, included:

• PLT Evaluation Summary Report • PLT Strategic Plan (Implementation Report, Implementation Update) • PLT Learning Community Segments and Desired Competencies • PLT Program Diagram; Information for PLT State Sponsors • PLT Facilitator Handbook (selected sections) • PLT PD survey • PLT RevGen Preliminary Findings • Start-up meeting with PLT staff • Interviews with PLT PD Advisory Committee members


What did we learn? Researchers and professional education groups have used a variety of organizing principles, taxonomies, hierarchies, and standards to describe best practices and guidelines for the PD field. Key organizational guidelines include: the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) (2010) guidelines; North American Association for Environmental Education’s (NAAEE) Guidelines for the Preparation and Professional Development of Environmental Educators (2004); American Federation of Teacher’s Guidelines for PD (2002); National Research Council’s (NRC) National Science Education Standards’ Standards for Professional Development of Teachers of Science (1996). The categorization used in the research literature varied from a broad architecture of the PD landscape and models, to overarching lists of specific features, to menus of specific and practical activities or initiatives. Like different layers of data on a GIS map, each approach to organizing PD best practices provided a unique perspective on the PD landscape. While each view was distinct, a common conceptual framework, overarching principles, themes, and topics resonated throughout the research. One quote that succinctly summarizes the main themes observed across the literature we reviewed is:

“Effective professional development is intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice; focuses on the teaching and learning of specific academic content; is connected to other school initiatives; and builds strong working relationships among teachers.” (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009)

The 5+ Guiding Principles that follow are a synthesis and summary of the general themes that emerged from the research literature. They are listed in order of expected relevance to PLT. This ranking reflects our interpretation of the research coupled with possible bias about importance to PLT and is open to discussion.


Guiding Principles Derived from Professional Development Literature Review

Commissioned by Project Learning Tree, March 2013 Guiding Principle #1 – More is Better

Long-term sustainable and intensive PD, rather than a one-shot workshop, is needed to change student performance, which is an agreed upon outcome of “effective” PD.

Guiding Principle #2 – Clarify & Prioritize Outcomes

Clarity about outcomes is necessary to help define the appropriate PD program model and features.

Guiding Principle #3 – Create Collaborative, Reflective Learning Communities

When communities of teachers from the same grade, subject, school, or organization can interact and collaborate over time, PD is more effective.

Guiding Principle #4 – Embrace Online Tools

Online tools and technology provide powerful PD opportunities that can be used to complement but should not necessarily replace face-to-face activities.

Guiding Principle #5 – Five Core Features

PD best practices frequently include these features: integrated content & pedagogy; coherence with standards and policies; active learning opportunities; mentoring/coaching/apprenticing; and individual learning.

Guiding Principles “+” – Additional Supporting Ideas

Though not as strongly represented in the body of research evidence, attending to the following PD dimensions can help increase the effectiveness of PD: Standardization Versus Flexibility; Importance of the Facilitator; Pilot Testing; Evaluation; Context; and Caveats.


Guiding Principle #1 – More is Better Long-term sustainable and intensive PD, rather than a one-shot workshop, is needed to change student performance, which is an agreed upon outcome of “effective” PD. There was consistent support in the research literature for a sustained and long-term professional development program or approach. It was also generally agreed that professional development should be designed to affect not only teacher knowledge and practice but also student performance and achievement (see Guiding Principle #2), which is the result of changes in teacher practice. There was general agreement that one-shot programs are not effective PD. However, there was no single definition of what constitutes “effective” professional development because there is no universal outcome that all PD programs are working towards. Supporting Information

Research Summary

a) Duration, which includes both total contact hours and overall timespan, was the most discussed dimension of PD in the body of research.

b) Research cited 20-hour, 50-hour, and 80-hour contact models as being most “effective” for PD. c) Research agreed that “sustained” and “intensive” PD is the most “effective.” d) Research indicated that one-shot, six-hour workshops do not lead to changes in teacher practice,

student achievement or school culture and, therefore, are not “effective.” e) Mechanisms described that increase the duration of PD included: leadership clinics, networking,

learning communities, online forums, workshops and conferences, study groups, professional networks and collaboratives, task force work, and peer coaching.

f) Long-term, sustained PD programs and activities are required to increase teacher knowledge and practice and student achievement/performance.

PLT Current Practice

a) PLT’s primary PD model is a 6-hour workshop for formal educators. Half-day workshops are the most common format for the early childhood educators. PLT has a strong attachment to this model.

b) Other formats, including week-long and two-day formats, are used in some states. c) Previous PLT evaluation findings reported that educators cited the 6-hour workshop as the best

format, and that the more time commitment required, the less likely they would be to attend. d) Previous PLT evaluation findings also reported, however, that facilitators requested more contact,

support, reunions, content refreshers, etc. e) How could revenue generation be adjusted to parallel the goal of deeper engagement?

Research Detail

1. “…intensive professional development programs can help teachers to increase their knowledge and change their instructional practices.” (Borko, 2004)

2. “… research suggests that professional development of 14 hours or less has no effect on student learning, while longer-duration programs show positive and significant effects on student achievement.” (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009)

3. “Researchers have found that it can take 50 or more hours of sustained professional learning to realize results for students.” (Learning Forward, NSDC, 2011)

4. “…two separate evaluations of a year-long program designed to promote inquiry-based science instruction found that teachers who received 80 or more hours of professional development were significantly more likely to put the given teaching strategies into practice than were teachers who had received many fewer hours. Further, the more intense, long-term professional development teachers have, the greater the achievement gains posted by their students during the following years. (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009)


Guiding Principle #2 - Clarify & Prioritize Outcomes Clarity about outcomes is necessary to help define the appropriate PD program model and features. There was strong agreement in the research literature that professional development models, features, and characteristics are inextricably tied to desired learning outcomes. Possible outcomes were reported as varying across a continuum: from simple knowledge about where to find resources; to changes in teacher knowledge and practice; to improvements in student performance and achievement; to a more global shift in school culture. Changes in teacher attitudes, behavior, and practice were seen as a precursor to changes in student performance and achievement. Evaluation was frequently cited as an important component of any PD effort to measure outcomes. Supporting Information

Research Summary a) PD best practices should explicitly aim at improvement in student performance and achievement

as well as teacher knowledge and practice. b) Changes in teacher practice lead to changes in student performance and achievement. c) Whole-school change was not frequently mentioned as an outcome. d) PD outputs should be measurable and evaluation should be part of every PD program. e) Three steps reported for achieving “effective” PD included: plan, do, and evaluate.


a) PLT’s desired PD “competencies” and levels of use have been recently refined but not yet fully implemented. They are listed in the Learning Community Segments and Desired Competencies document.

b) Outcomes (such as student performance/achievement and whole-school change) are not clearly articulated in PLT’s standard PD models, while outputs (desired competencies) are (see recommendation above).

c) PLT’s Strategic Plan Goal #2 cites “youth environmental literacy” (as stated by NAAEE) as an ultimate goal.

d) Delivering PD to 30+K educators yearly and revenue generation are driving forces for PLT PD. e) Is the goal of PLT PD to affect small change in lots of teachers or big change in a few teachers? Is

it more about teacher practice change, student achievement, or whole school change?

Research Detail 1. “Effective professional development should have a coherent vision with clearly articulated goals,

measurable outcomes for teacher learning, and support for sustained growth of teachers.” (National Geographic Society, Roadmap, unpublished)

2. “…we test for three kinds of outcomes: Do teachers learn? Do they change their practices? And, most important, does student achievement increase as a result?” (Desimone, 2006)

3. “Learning Forward stresses that the primary purpose of professional development is to improve student achievement.” (Killion, 2011)

4. Diffusion/dissemination of information by itself does not lead to successful implementation (research literature, mailings, promulgation of practice guidelines). Training alone, no matter how well done, does not lead to successful implementation. Implementation by edict does not work. Implementation by “following the money” does not work. (Fixsen & Blasé, 2007)

5. “For decades, studies of professional development focused mainly on teacher satisfaction, attitude change, or commitment to innovation, rather than professional development’s results or the processes that make it work.” (Desimone, 2006)


Guiding Principle #3 – Create Collaborative, Reflective Learning Communities When communities of teachers from the same grade, subject, school, or organization can interact and collaborate over time, PD is more effective. The research reported a growing recognition of learning communities (LC) as an important component of effective professional development. As reported, inherent in LC structure is an increase in PD duration and the fact that learning comes from many sources, not just from top-down implementation. Many forms of social engagement have been shown to be effective. Supporting Information

Research Summary a) Learning communities and ongoing interaction have been increasingly shown to be a way of

extending PD program duration and creating effective programs. b) Other forms of “social construction of knowledge” that have been shown to contribute to effective

PD include mentoring/coaching/apprenticing.

PLT Current Practice a) Some PLT workshop participants attend in self-selected pairs or small groups. b) Some opportunities currently exist for PLT trained educators to collaborate following the initial

workshop, including email/written communications, social media, school visits, and advanced workshops; much of it is implemented at the state level, with some also offered from National (social media) and the GreenSchools program.

c) Only 28% of states provide regular follow-up and support to trained teachers. Research Detail

1. “… [there is] evidence that strong professional learning communities can foster teacher learning and instructional improvement.” (Borko, 2004)

2. “Some schools have begun to create new models of induction (i.e. support for new teachers) and ongoing professional development for teachers and principals. These models feature mentoring for beginners and veterans: peer observation and coaching; local study groups and networks for developing teaching within specific subject matter areas.” (Garet, et al 2001)

3. “Collaborative approaches to professional learning can promote school change that extends beyond individual classrooms. When all teachers in a school learn together, all students in the school benefit.” (Darling-Hammond and Wei, 2009)

4. “Learning networks (online) are emerging as another form of professional learning.” (Killion, 2011) 5. “Just setting up a social networking site does not mean that you have a community. In fact, the challenging

issues are not the technical issues, they are the cultural issues of getting the community going.” (Crow, 2010)

6. “Overall, the kind of high intensity, job-embedded collaborative learning that is most effective is not a common feature of professional development across most states, districts, and schools in the United States.” (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009)


Guiding Principle #4 – Embrace Online Tools Online tools and technology provide powerful PD opportunities that can be used to complement but should not necessarily replace face-to-face activities. Research shows that online tools and technology are inherently good at the sharing of resources, knowledge, and experience, and can create forums where everyone learns from everyone else. While PD done online is democratizing and inexpensive, it still requires an investment to establish the forum, build participation, and offer valuable content and experiences through the efforts of trained and effective facilitators. Supporting Information

Research Summary a) Research reported online PD being increasingly effective as well as inexpensive, though still

requiring attention to standards and trained facilitators. b) A starting list of possible online tools and platforms includes: Elluminate Live, Ning, e-

newsletters, Google sites/docs, wikis, social bookmarking, and social media. c) According to some research, teachers do not like to use Facebook for PD because it is too public a

forum. PLT Current Practice

a) PLT’s online efforts to date are minimal. Eight states offered online workshops in the past 12 months, including email and social media.

b) PLT has an e-newsletter for maintaining contact with alums, but it is not used to its full potential. There is only 50% subscription, and list management is an issue, despite some investment in upgrades and improvements.

Research Details

1. “Professional development is about sharing resources, knowledge and experience. Participation is key. The web is good at that.” (Crow, 2010)

2. “Technology tools provide an effective environment for ongoing, job-embedded professional learning. Educators do not have to carve out significant amounts of time to stay connected with and energized by collegial conversations. Further, we have learned that technology can be a great equalizer.” (Chesbro & Boxler, 2010)

3. “Technology has tremendous potential to expand access to professional development, enhance learning for educators, and produce significant results for educators and their students. However, it must be designed appropriately, using pedagogical technologies that enhance the learning rather than become the focus of the learning; it must meet stringent standards for effective professional learning; and it must meet the identified needs of learners, with a focus on changing practice and improving student achievement.” (Killion, 2011)

4. “Delivery preferences point to the need for professional development that features in-person or face-to-face workshops at the local or regional level. The most popular way to deliver EE professional development to these respondents would be a full day, hands on, local or regional, single topic or limited theme meeting or seminar in the winter.” (Fleming, 2009)

5. “A recent study of online professional development reported, “Collectively, the four trials provide strong evidence that participation in a coordinated series of three OPD [online professional development] workshops has positive effects on teachers’ instructional practices and content knowledge.” (Killion, 2011)


Guiding Principle #5 – Five Core Features PD best practices frequently include these features: integrated content & pedagogy; coherence with standards and policies; active learning opportunities; mentoring/coaching/apprenticing; and individual learning. As one literature review stated, “a growing body of empirical research suggests that a core set of features is common to effective professional development.” While there was not unanimous agreement on the features and their exact definitions, there was enough agreement to list the following as being worth considering: 1) Content/Pedagogy – integrate subject matter and material about how students learn; 2) Coherence – ensure that PD is consistent with school/district/state and field of study reforms, policies, and standards, plus teachers PD needs and knowledge/beliefs; 3) Active Learning – actively engage participants in the meaningful analysis of teaching and learning in day-to-day context; 4) Mentor/Coach/Apprentice – provide opportunities for in-class follow-up with trained teachers; 5) Individual Learning – design activities for individual inquiry and reflection. Supporting Information

Research Summary

a) A cluster of recurring features appeared in many of the lists of PD core features, standards, models, guidelines from researchers and professional development organizations.


a) PLT curriculum materials present both content and pedagogy in an integrated fashion. b) PLT curriculum, materials currently address the following national standards: Common Core,

FOSS Full Option Science System, Head Start – Child Outcomes Framework, NAEYC – National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Science Standards, National Social Studies Standards, PLT Green Schools? Correlation, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, The Private Eye.

c) PLT curriculum, materials are correlated by most states to their state standards. d) It is unclear how PLT PD consistently incorporates these five core features and to what degree.

Research Detail 1. Core Features: “Research suggests that a core set of features is common to effective professional development.

These core features provide a starting point from which researchers and school administrators can asses its effectiveness. These core features are: a focus on content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation.” (from Abstract, Desimone, 2006)

2. Active Learning: “We focus in particular on four dimensions of active learning: observing and being observed teaching; planning for classroom implementation; reviewing student work; and presenting, leading, and writing.” (Garet et al, 2001)

3. Content/Pedagogy: “There are two basic purposes of teacher in-service education programs - subject matter understanding and preparation in teaching methods.” This emphasis on content and methods, often as separate considerations, existed well into the 1990s, despite challenges (e.g., the increasing use of pedagogy to indicate that content and methods are often inseparable and should be treated as such) and resulting variations in PD offerings (e.g., combined content/methods courses, courses in pedagogy).” (Marcincowski, unpublished)

4. Mentor/Coach/Apprecntice: “As Joyce and Showers (1983, 1995, 2002) conclude, effective training requires not only presentation of theory and modeling, but also low-risk practice and coaching or ongoing study to support implementation of the new learning. Their now famous Table of Implementation Effects… is a fundamental planning guide for those responsible for professional development.” (Killion, 2011) (See Appendix A)


Guiding Principles “+” – Additional Supporting Ideas Though not as strongly represented in the body of research evidence, attending to the following PD dimensions can help increase the effectiveness of PD: Standardization Versus Flexibility; Importance of the Facilitator; Pilot Testing; Evaluation; Context; and Caveats.

Standardization Versus Flexibility

a) “A professional development program must be well defined and clearly specified before researchers can investigate how it is enacted by multiple facilitators in multiple settings, and what resources are needed to ensure its effectiveness.” (Borko, 2004)

b) “My search through the literature did not yield any professional development programs for which there is adequate evidence that they can be enacted with integrity by multiple facilitators or in multiple settings.” (Borko, 2004)

The Importance of the Facilitator

a) “A small number of studies investigated the role of the facilitator during the design and pilot testing of DMI and VCMPD. These studies suggest that the facilitator is crucial to the success of the professional development program. Facilitators must be able to establish a community of learners in which inquiry is valued, and they must structure the learning experiences for that community. Facilitators must be able to use the curriculum flexibly. (Borko, 2004 cited Remillard & Geist, 2002; Seago, 2004).

Pilot Testing

a) “LeFevre also notes the importance of extensive pilot testing, so that program designers can envisage the challenges and pitfalls that potential users might face and take these issues into account when revising both the professional development curriculum and support materials for facilitators.” (Borko, 2004)

Evaluation

a) “For decades, studies of professional development focused mainly on teacher satisfaction, attitude change, or commitment to innovation, rather than professional development’s results or the processes that make it work.” (Desimone, 2006)

b) “A longitudinal field study of multiple professional development programs could address important issues such as: how each intervention operates in diverse settings, program fidelity across sites, impact on teacher and student learning, resources required for enactment, and policies that support enactment.” (Borko, 2004)

c) “For almost any study, no matter what the design, we have to decide how to measure teacher experiences, learning, and instruction. Observations, interviews, and surveys are the most common ways to collect such data.” (Desimone, 2006)

Context

a) “Because all professional development is context-bound, we do not believe that one solution or approach to the problems of helping teachers learn new practices is warranted.” (Fishman, Marx, & Tal, 2003)

Caveats

a) “PD research is in its infancy; not attracted programmatic researchers…Those who hope to do a meta-analysis of the research literature and come up with a series of best options will be disappointed. “ (Joyce et al, 2010)

b) “Little is known about whether PD can have a positive impact on achievement when a program is delivered across a range of typical settings and when its delivery depends on multiple trainers. Despite a consensus in the literature on the features of effective PD, there is limited evidence on the specific features that make a difference for achievement.” (Wayne et al, 2008)

c) “There is a large literature describing "best practices" in professional development, drawing on expert experiences. Despite the size of the body of literature, however, relatively little systematic research has been conducted on the effects of professional development on improvements in teaching or on student outcomes.” (Garet, Desimone, Birman, Yoon, 2001, page 917)


Appendix A: Table of Implementation Effects From Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (see reference, Guiding Principle #5, Mentor/Coach/Apprentice) “The Now Famous Table of Implementation Effects”

Note: “+” indicates the addition of a further layer of PD training.


Appendix B: Annotated References Of the approximately 75 references identified for this literature review (see Appendix C), the 27 deemed most relevant were selected for annotation. The 14 articles marked with an asterisk (*) and for which links are provided constitute a recommended introductory reading list. *Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15, see http://edr.sagepub.com/content/33/8/3.abstract to purchase.

Abstract: Teacher professional development is essential to efforts to improve our schools. This article maps the terrain of research on this important topic. It first provides an overview of what we have learned as a field, about effective professional development programs and their impact on teacher learning. It then suggests some important directions and strategies for extending our knowledge into new territory of questions not yet explored. *Chesbro, P., & Boxler, N. (2010). Weaving the fabric of professional development in the 21st

century through technology. JSD, 31(1), 48-53, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.learningforwardmississippi.org/attachments/File/Resources/NSDC_article_Weaving_the_Fabric_-_Technology1.pdf

Introduction: Networked learning supported by 21-century technology is reweaving the fabric of how educators acquire and create new knowledge. At the Alaska Educational Innovations Network (AEIN), we believe this has the potential to change how a profession looks at professional development. No longer will exchange of ideas be limited by time, distance, and local community. We have learned that using technology to support networks around a shared purpose enhances professional development and provides fertile ground for professional learning communities. Carefully selected technological tools, in conjunction with skilled human facilitation, allow for diverse voices to emerge in a climate of trust and respect. Educators have access to the expertise that lies within a larger group. More importantly, the group’s combined wisdom creates new knowledge that both strengthens the individual and enriches the learning community. Networks allow complex, diverse, and effective systems of professional learning to emerge. The goal of our U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership grant was to create a network of professional development and distributed leadership with educators across the geographically dispersed distances of Alaska, many not reachable by road. As Alaska makes up almost 20% of the total landmass of the United States, we knew that it would be necessary to connect people through technology. However, we did not know the advantages that technology would offer to ongoing, job-embedded, rich professional learning. Our contexts have forced us to look differently at networked learning and our charge to promote the ongoing conversation, reflection, and inquiry that lead to examination and change of practice. *Crow, T. (2010). Learning no matter where you are: Q & A with Chris Dede. JSD, 31(1), 10-17,

downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/slmonline/SLM_508_sp11/articles/Learning_No_Matter_Where_You_Are.pdf

Sidebar from article (abstract not available): Chris Dede is the Timothy E. Wirth Professor in Learning Technologies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His research interests include the use of emerging technologies in education, with emphases on online professional development, scaling up innovations, and immersive interfaces for learning. A frequent speaker for education, research, and policy audiences, Dede’s recent published work includes:


• “Building university faculty and student capacity to use wireless handheld devices for learning,” by Ed Dieterle and Chris Dede. In Mark van’t Hooft and Karen Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous Computing: Invisible Technology, Visible Impact, 303–328. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

• “Collaborative design of online professional development: Building the Milwaukee professional support portal,” by David Eddy Spicer and Chris Dede. (2006, October). Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 679-699.

• “Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning,” by Chris Dede. (2009, January 2). Science, 323(5910), 66-69.

• “Lessons learned from studying how innovations can achieve scale,” by Christopher Dede, Saul Rockman, and Allyson Knox. (2007, Spring). Threshold, 4-10.

• “ ‘Neomillennial’ learning styles propagated by wireless handheld devices,” by Edward Dieterle, Chris Dede, and Karen Schrier. In Miltiadis Lytras and Ambjorn Naeve (Eds.), Ubiquitous and Pervasive Knowledge and Learning Management: Semantics, Social Networking and New Media to Their Full Potential, 35-66. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2007.

• Online Professional Development for Teachers: Emerging Models and Methods, by Chris Dede (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2006.

• “Studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment,” by Diane Jass Ketelhut, Chris Dede, Jody Clarke, Brian Nelson, and Cassie Bowman. In Eva Baker, Jan Dickieson, Wallace Wulfeck, and Harold F. O’Neil (Eds.), Assessment of Problem Solving Using Simulations, 37-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

• see papers from www7.nationalacademies. org/bose/Gaming_Sims_Commissioned_Papers.html). *Darling-Hammond, Wei, (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status

Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad, National Staff Development Council, 2009, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_short_report.pdf

From the Introduction: Every year, virtually all of the nation’s three million teachers participate in some form of professional learning: These activities can include workshops, study groups, mentoring experiences, opportunities to view other teachers’ classrooms, and numerous other formal and informal learning experiences. Professional learning can have a powerful effect on teacher skills and knowledge and on student learning if it is sustained over time, focused on important content, and embedded in the work of professional learning communities that support ongoing improvements in teachers’ practice. When well-designed, these opportunities help teachers master content, hone teaching skills, evaluate their own and their students’ performance, and address changes needed in teaching and learning in their schools. Educators and policymakers increasingly recognize the importance of providing high quality learning opportunities to help transform teaching. As students are expected to learn more complex analytical skills in preparation for further education and work in the 21st century, teachers must learn to teach in ways that develop higher-order thinking and performance. Ensuring student success requires a new kind of teaching, conducted by teachers who understand learning and pedagogy, who can respond to the needs of their students and the demands of their disciplines, and who can develop strong connections between students’ experiences and the goals of the curriculum. Efforts to improve student achievement can succeed only by building the capacity of teachers to improve their instructional practice and the capacity of school systems to promote teacher learning. The following pages provide a comprehensive survey of the existing research on effective professional learning, followed by snapshots of the various ways in which professional learning is being redesigned in the rest of the industrialized world, strategies that we might consider adopting or expanding in this country.

Using nationally representative data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2003-04


Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)—the most recent available—the report also examines the status of opportunities and supports for professional development available to teachers nationally and across states. We sought to determine whether current policies and practices are aligned with what research shows to be effective professional development practices. We also explored differences in opportunities and supports for professional development across school contexts (e.g., grade level, location, and student subgroup). In addition, we examined differences in teachers’ access to professional development opportunities and supports in different types of school communities. *Darling-Hammond, Wei, (2009). Professional Development in the United States: Trends and

Challenges, Phase 2 of Three-phase Study, 2010, National Staff Development Council, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2010.pdf

Abstract: This report is the second part of a three-phase research study of teacher professional learning opportunities in the United States. In the first report, "Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad" (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Richardson, Andree, & Orphanos, 2009), an in-depth review of the research on effective professional development served as the basis for evaluating the current status of professional learning in the United States in relation to learning opportunities in other countries. The report found that opportunities for sustained, collegial professional development of the kind that produces changes in teaching practice and student outcomes are much more limited in the United States than in most high-achieving nations abroad. This second report utilizes several data sets to update that examination of professional learning opportunities for U.S. teachers. It analyzes the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)--a major national dataset--over three administrations of the survey (2000, 2004, and 2008), comparing teachers' responses on professional development questions in order to evaluate the progress of professional development efforts in the states over the last decade. This report finds that there has been progress among states in the provision of induction supports to beginning teachers and professional development on the content of the subjects taught. Nearly 75 percent of beginning teachers now participate in induction programs, and 80 percent report having a mentor. These opportunities are more available, however, to teachers in suburban districts than to those in urban or rural schools and those serving larger proportions of low-income and minority students. Appended are: (1) Data and Methodology; and (2) Results from the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey. (Contains 131 tables, 7 figures and 3 footnotes.) [For related reports, see "Teacher Professional Learning in the United States: Case Studies of State Policies and Strategies. Technical Report" (ED515891) and "Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and Abroad. Technical Report" (ED504168).] Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote

teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 2–14. Abstract: Curriculum materials for Grades K–12 that are intended to promote teacher learning in addition to student learning have come to be called educative curriculum materials. How can K–12 curriculum materials be designed to best promote teacher learning? What might teacher learning with educative curriculum materials look like? The authors present a set of design heuristics for educative curriculum materials to further the principled design of these materials. They build from ideas about teacher learning and organize the heuristics around important parts of a teacher’s knowledge base: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge for topics, and pedagogical content knowledge for disciplinary practices. These heuristics provide a context for a theoretically oriented discussion of how features of educative curriculum materials may promote teacher learning, by serving as cognitive tools that are situated in teachers’ practice. The authors explore challenges in the design of educative curriculum materials, such as the tension between providing guidance and choice.


Dede, Chris, (2006). Online Professional Education for Teachers: Emerging Models and Methods, 2006

Introduction: In Online Professional Development for Teachers, the authors look closely at exemplary online professional development programs, compare them carefully with one another, and draw helpful conclusions about them--both for those who develop online programs and for teachers and administrators in search of professional development programs that make a difference. How can professional development for teachers be more efficient and effective? This essential question lies at the heart of this timely and useful book. In an era marked by a heightened emphasis on school reform, the education and professional development of teachers is widely regarded as the keystone to educational improvement. Recently a bewildering array of online professional development programs has arisen. But how effective are these programs and how do they compare with one another? A book that brings clarity and insight to this burgeoning and influential field, Online Professional Development for Teachers will be of great value to researchers, policymakers, administrators, and teachers as they work to make the most of online professional development. *Desimone, L.M. (2006). A Primer on Effective Professional Development, Phi Delta Kappan

March 1, 2011 92: 68-71, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.gcisd-k12.org/cms/lib/TX01000829/Centricity/Domain/78/A_Primer_on_Effective_Professional_Development.pdf

Abstract: Research suggests that a core set of features is common to effective professional development. These core features provide a starting point from which researchers and school administrators can assess its effectiveness. These core features are: a focus on content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. From the introduction: Teacher professional development is one of the keys to improving the quality of U.S. schools. Many education reforms rely on teacher learning— and the improved instruction that ideally follows — to increase student learning, so understanding what makes professional development effective is critical to understanding the success or failure of school reform. But what makes professional development effective? For decades, studies of professional development focused mainly on teacher satisfaction, attitude change, or commitment to innovation, rather than professional development’s results or the processes that make it work. Moreover, the range of experiences that count as professional development make measuring its effectiveness a challenge. Scholars acknowledge that we need more empirically valid methods of studying professional development (Wayne et al. 2008). And with the recent emphasis on data-driven decision-making and accountability, administrators are having to become more sophisticated in how they evaluate the professional development in their schools. Fortunately, a growing body of empirical research suggests that a core set of features is common to effective professional development. These core features that lead to teacher learning provide a starting point for assessing professional development programs, and they lead to a core conceptual framework for judging whether professional development is doing what we want it to do — increasing teacher knowledge and instruction in ways that translate into enhanced student achievement. When we want to know whether teacher professional development is working, we should first decide how to define professional development, measure its core features, use the conceptual framework to judge whether it’s producing the desired results, and to keep an open mind about the tools we use to assess its effectiveness.


Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.

Abstract: Professional development is key to standards-based reform, yet there is little empirical evidence upon which to base decisions of design or implementation. This paper presents a model of teacher learning and an analytic framework linking professional development to student and teacher learning. Our approach begins with an analysis of relevant content standards, and uses evidence of student performance to gauge areas of need. Professional development is evaluated using a combination of teacher reflection, classroom observation, and ongoing assessment of student performance. An example of this framework and process in use is presented in the context of an urban systemic reform program in science. Fixsen & Blase, Evidence Based Education to Benefit Students and Society, National

Implementation Research Network, 2007, Power Point. [NOTE: this is the source of the chart in Appendix A]

Fleming, L. (2009). Environmental education professional development needs and priorities study,

Funded by EETAP - through a cooperative arrangement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Abstract: Using interview, focus group and questionnaire data, the Environmental Education Professional Development Needs and Priorities Study identified 89 professional development needs for environmental educators, the top priorities for the next 5 years (2010-2015), gaps in current offerings, and work needed to advance education for environmental literacy. Of immediate need is professional development that helps environmental educators:

• Conduct comprehensive EE programs with diverse audiences in local communities • Share models of what works, work together, and network • Address environmental sustainability, stewardship, and climate change • Apply research knowledge to practice about how to

o motivate for citizen participation, action, attitude and behavior change o connect others with nature o engage diverse audiences and partners o help students learn o instruct adults

• Comprehend and apply basic EE fundamentals, core concepts and instructional techniques, and the Guidelines for Excellence

• Teach and implement critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, and inquiry • Integrate EE into K12; Science, Technology, Engineering & Math projects; No Child Left Behind; and

state standards • Increase funding, leadership, administrative/executive skills, and communication skills • Perform needs assessments, build evaluation into program design, develop objectives, and conduct

outcomes evaluation


*Garet, M.S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001 Winter). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.imoberg.com/files/Unit_D_ch._24_--_Garet_et_al._article.pdf

Abstract: This study uses a national probability sample of 1,027 mathematics and science teachers to provide the first large-scale empirical comparison of effects of different characteristics of professional development on teachers’ learning. Results, based on ordinary least squares regression, indicate three core features of professional development activities that have significant, positive effects on teachers' self-reported increases in knowledge and skills and changes in classroom practice: (a) focus on content knowledge: (b) opportunities for active learning; and (c) coherence with other learning activities. It is primarily through these core features that the following structural features significantly affect teacher learning: (a) the form of the activity (e.g., workshop vs. study group); (b) collective participation (Teachers from the same school, grade. or subject: and (c) the duration of the activity. *Guskey, (2003).What Makes Professional Development Effective? American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, 2003. Vol 84, 10, pp 748-750, available for purchase from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/84/10/748.short

Abstract: This article describes an analysis of 13 recently developed lists of the characteristics of èffective professional development.' Results show that these lists vary widely in their content and differ in the criteria used to define èffectiveness.' In addition, the research that supports them is inconsistent and often contradictory. It concludes that significant progress in defining such characteristics will require agreement as the criteria for effectiveness and clear descriptives of impartial contextual factors. (3pp.) After an examination of 13 recent lists of characteristics of `èffective professional development,'' Mr. Guskey concludes that they vary widely and that the research that supports them is inconsistent and often contradictory. Nonetheless, he argues, we need to seek agreement on criteria for effectiveness, along with clear descriptions of contextual factors. Joyce, Bruce, and Calhoun, Emily, (2010). Models of Professional Development, Corwin and

Sage Ltd. This book presents an inquiry into professional development aimed at sorting out its varieties, the organizational processes designed to make them work, and the effects they can have when they are implemented properly. Killion, Joellen, & Kennedy, Jacquelin, (2012). The Sweet Spot in Professional Learning, JSD,

October 2012, Vol. 33, No. 35, pp. 10-17. Abstract: The article discusses on the need of educators in the U.S. to enhance their professional learning to boost their effectiveness. It states that everything is possible in education when student learning goals and educator performance standards are coordinated. It suggests that decisions about content and outcomes of professional learning are important to have effective professional learning. *Kllion, Joellen, (2011). The Changing Face of Professional Development, EDge Magazine: Phi

Delta Kappa, May/June 2011, downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/60979103/Changing-Face-of-Professional-Development

Abstract: Technology increases access to and availability of professional learning and expands the way educators acquire information and meet their personal and professional goals for continuous development. It has tremendous potential to expand access to professional development, enhance learning for educators, and produce significant results for educators and their students. However, it must be designed appropriately, using


pedagogical technologies that enhance the learning rather than become the focus of the learning; it must meet stringent standards for effective professional learning; and it must meet the identified needs of learners, with a focus on changing practice and improving student achievement. In the last decade, the potential of online professional development has grown exponentially, yet attention to the potential pitfalls is essential to ensure that the benefits continue to outweigh the downsides. Learning Forward Deputy Executive Director Joellen Killion weighs technology's effects on professional learning in this EDge magazine report available to PDK members only. While technology has potential to produce significant results, Killion stresses it must be designed appropriately, meet stringent standards for effective professional learning, and meet the identified needs of learners, with a focus on changing practice and improving student achievement. Kreider, H., & Bouffard, S. (2006). Questions and answers: A conversation with Thomas R. Guskey.

The Evaluation Exchange, XI(4), Winter 2005/2006. Retrieved April 4, 2006 from the Harvard Family Research Project web site at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue32/qanda.htm

Abstract not available *Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning, (2011),

http://www.learningforward.org/standards/ - .UUBybVtAT6I Introduction: Increasing the effectiveness of professional learning is the leverage point with the greatest potential for strengthening and refining the day-to-day performance of educators. Standards for Professional Learning is the third iteration of standards outlining the characteristics of professional learning that lead to effective teaching practices, supportive leadership, and improved student results. Learning Forward, with the contribution of 40 professional associations and education organizations, developed the Standards for Professional Learning. (See the Standards Revision Task Force and the Standards Advisory Team.) The standards make explicit that the purpose of professional learning is for educators to develop the knowledge, skills, practices, and dispositions they need to help students perform at higher levels. The standards are not a prescription for how education leaders and public officials should address all the challenges related to improving the performance of educators and their students. Instead, the standards focus on one critical issue -- professional learning. These standards call for a new form of educator learning. The decision to call these Standards for Professional Learning rather than Standards for Professional Development signals the importance of educators taking an active role in their continuous development and places emphasis on their learning. The professional learning that occurs when these standards are fully implemented enrolls educators as active partners in determining the content of their learning, how their learning occurs, and how they evaluate its effectiveness. The standards give educators the information they need to take leadership roles as advocates for and facilitators of effective professional learning and the conditions required for its success. Widespread attention to the standards increases equity of access to a high-quality education for every student, not just for those lucky enough to attend schools in more advantaged communities. For most educators working in schools, professional learning is the singular most accessible means they have to develop the new knowledge, skills, and practices necessary to better meet students' learning needs. The use of Standards for Professional Learning by school systems and educators indicates commitment to effective professional learning. Further, use of the standards to plan, facilitate, and evaluate professional learning promises to heighten the quality of educator learning, performance of all educators, and student learning. Increased educator effectiveness makes possible a shift from current reality to the preferred outcomes of enhanced student learning results -- a goal to which all educators subscribe.


Marcincowski, Tom, (2010). A Review of the Literature and Research/Evaluation Studies on Professional Development in Environmental Education in General and Selected EE Approaches in Specific, Prepared by Dr. Tom Marcinkowski, Florida Institute of Technology, June 2010, (partial draft, unpublished)

From the introduction: The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings of research and evaluation studies that pertain to professional development in environmental education, with particular attention to the Selected EE Approaches featured in the accompanying research bibliography and charts. In this context, the purpose of this Introduction section is to present an overview of key aspects of professional development in environmental education (EE), as this will help frame the review, and present different perspectives on professional development apparent in this review (e.g., terminology used for, approaches to, substance of, and guidelines for professional development). Mayor & Fortner, (1987). Relative Effectiveness of Four Modes of Dissemination of

Curriculum Materials, Journal of Environmental Education, Fall 1987, 19(1). Abstract: An evaluation of four different dissemination modes distributing activities developed through a teaching materials development program was performed. The activities, developed for use in middle schools, focused on Great Lakes topics in science, history, and social studies. It was found that short intensive workshops were more effective than longer workshops both in participation use of materials and in transmission of the materials to other potential users. The difference in usage seems to be related to differences in the professional orientation of teachers attracted into the two different types of workshops. Simply giving activities to prospective resulted in no usage. Those individuals who took the trouble to mail order the material used them but at a somewhat lower frequency than those who participated in a workshop. It is included that short intensive workshops are the most cost effective way of ensuring usage of the type of curriculum materials disseminated in this program. *Moon, Jean, Michaels, Sarah, Reiser, Brian J. (2012). Science Standards Require a Teacher-

Learning Rethink, Education Week online, November 30, 2012, downloaded March 14 2013 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/30/13moon.h32.html

From the introduction: Science education is giving us an opportunity to rethink the state of professional development and preservice education for teachers. The specific opportunity creators are two complementary documents: the Framework for K-12 Science Education (released in 2011 by the National Research Council, of which Brian J. Reiser is a member and contributing author), which identifies key scientific and engineering practices that all students should master by the time they graduate from high school; and the voluntary Next Generation Science Standards , which will be released in early 2013. The framework rests on well-respected research about how children learn and the ways in which to develop supportive environments for coherent science learning. The standards will identify student-performance expectations aligned with the framework. When finalized, the Next Generation Science Standards will offer a set of science standards—like the English/language arts and math common core—that can be held in common across all states that elect to adopt them. *National Geographic Society, Recommendations and Guidelines for the Design and Evaluation

of Professional development and Instructional Materials in the Geographical Sciences, A Report from the Committee of Professional Development and Instructional Materials (Draft to be published May 2013)

From the introduction: This report is a product of the Road Map for Education in the Geographical Sciences project, which has been supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The “Road Map” project was initiated in response to a directive from Congress in the NSF’s FY2010 budget to “work with external partners with experience in geographic education to improve geography teaching, training, and


research in our Nation’s schools” (HR. 3288, 2009, p. 767). In the spring of 2010, four national organizations—the National Geographic Society, the Association of American Geographers, the American Geographical Society, and the National Council for Geographic Education—responded to this opportunity with a proposal to create a set of consensus reports that would lay out a “road map” for efforts to improve geographic education at a large scale over the coming decade. Building on three decades of collaboration, the four partner organizations felt that it was time to launch an initiative that would have impact at a large-scale across the U.S. over the course of the new decade. The Road Map Project was designed to provide a plan for that initiative. Its goal is to learn from the lessons of earlier educational improvement efforts in geography and other subjects in order to establish guidelines and set priorities for this new initiative. O’Dwyer, L., Masters, J., Dash, S., DeKramer, R.,Humez, A., & Russell, M. (2010). E-learning

for educators: Effects of on-line professional development on teachers and their students: Executive summary. www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/EFE_Findings2010_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

From the introduction: Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in on-line delivery of professional development (OPD). This interest is driven largely by a desire to improve access to and convenience of professional development, as well as improve cost-efficiency. Despite this increased interest in OPD, there is a dearth of scientifically-based research exploring the effects of OPD on teacher and student outcomes. To address this lack of evidence, researchers at Boston College conducted a set of four randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of OPD on teacher knowledge, teacher practices, and student achievement. For two trials, the effect of teachers’ participation on student practices was also examined. The four studies summarized in this executive brief are part of a larger project known as the e- Learning for Educators (efe) Project. The efe Project is a ten-state initiative designed to expand each state’s capacity to deliver high-quality OPD that addresses teacher quality and student achievement needs. As part of the initiative, four randomized controlled trials were conducted with teachers from multiple states to evaluate the effects of OPD on teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices, and on students’ content knowledge and practices. The four independent trials employed the same research design, but focused on a single grade level and subject area: fourth grade English language arts (ELA), fifth grade mathematics, seventh grade ELA, and eighth grade mathematics. This executive brief summarizes findings from each of the four trials. *Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R. & Gallagher, L.P. (2007, December) What makes

professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958, available for purchase at http://aer.sagepub.com/content/44/4/921.abstract

Abstract: This study uses a sample of 454 teachers engaged in an inquiry science program to examine the effects of different characteristics of professional development on teachers’ knowledge and their ability to implement the program. The authors analyzed results from a survey of teachers served by 28 professional development providers within a hierarchical linear modeling framework. Consistent with findings from earlier studies of effective professional development, this study points to the significance of teacher’s perceptions about how coherent their professional development experiences were for teacher learning and program implementation. The authors also found that the incorporation of time for teachers to plan for implementation and provision of technical support were significant for promoting program implementation in the program


Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2010). Professional development for computer enhanced learning: A case study with science teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26, 3–12.

Abstract: The preparation of science teachers to integrate computers in their teaching seems to be a challenging task, and teacher educators need to undertake systematic and coordinated efforts for effectively preparing teachers to teach with computers. The present study implemented a professional development approach for in-service science teachers regarding the pedagogical uses of computers in teaching and learning, and examined its effectiveness. The results showed that the approach was effective in adequately preparing science teachers to design computer enhanced learning with various computer applications. Specifically, the majority of the teachers who participated in the study selected appropriate science topics to be taught with computers, transformed science content with appropriate computer tools and computer supported representations, identified computer-supported teaching tactics, and integrated their computer-enhanced activities in the classroom with inquiry-based pedagogy. The results of the study provide baseline data about the effectiveness of the approach, and they can be used for comparison purposes in future studies, which may be conducted with the intention of further validating or even improving the suggested professional development approach. Weiser, Brenda, Collegiality and Better Science Teaching, Science and Children, January, 2012,

pp. 52-55. Abstract not available *Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the

evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Downloaded March 14, 2013 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf

From the introduction: How does teacher professional development affect student achievement? The connection seems intuitive. But demonstrating it is difficult. Examining more than 1,300 studies identified as potentially addressing the effect of teacher professional development on student achievement in three key content areas, this report finds nine that meet What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards. That only nine meet standards attests to the paucity of rigorous studies that directly assess the effect of in-service teacher professional development on student achievement in mathematics, science, and reading and English/language arts. But the results of those studies—that average control group students would have increased their achievement by 21 percentile points if their teacher had received substantial professional development—indicates that providing professional development to teachers had a moderate effect on student achievement across the nine studies. The effect size was fairly consistent across the three content areas reviewed.


Appendix C: References The literature review identified a total of approximately 75 references from which the 27 deemed most relevant (*) were selected for annotation. Alexander, S., & Henderson-Rosser, A. (2010). Do-it-yourself professional development. Learning & Leading

with Technology, 37(8), 24-28. Alouf, J. L., & Bentley, M. L. (2003, February). Assessing the impact of inquiry-based science teaching in

professional development activities, PK-12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Jacksonville, FL.

Appleton, K. (2008). Developing Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge Through Mentoring Elementary

Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education 19(6): 523 – 545. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory

of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Banilower, E. R. (2002). Results of the 2001-2002 study of the impact of the local systemic change initiative

on student achievement in science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., & Porter, A. (2000, May). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28–33.

Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2007). Analysis of the quality of professional development

programs for mathematics and science teachers: Findings from a cross-state study. Washington DC: CCSSO.

*Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational

Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Brunvand, S., Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., & Maybaum, J. (2002). Teacher expectations of online professional

development. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), International conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 516–517). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Chesbro, P., & Boxler, N. (2010). Weaving the fabric of professional development in the 21st century

through technology. JSD, 31(1), 48-53. Clewell, B. C., Campbell, P. B., & Perlman, L. (2004). Review of evaluation studies of mathematics and

science curricula and professional development models. Submitted to the GE Foundation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Corcoran, T., McVay, S., & Riordan, K. (2003). Getting it right: The MISE approach to professional development. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teachers’ beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementations: Two

case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235–250.

*Crow, T. (2010). Learning no matter where you are: Q & A with Chris Dede. JSD, 31(1), 10-17. *Darling-Hammond, Wei, (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on

Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad, National Staff Development Council.


*Darling-Hammond, Wi, (2010). Professional Development in the United States: Trends and Challenges,

Phase 2 of Three-phase Study, National Staff Development Council

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.

*Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning.

Educational Researcher, 34(3), 2–14. *Dede, Chris, (2006). Online Professional Education for Teachers: Emerging Models and Methods Dede, C., Ketelhut, J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. (2009). A research agenda for online

teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional

development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.

*Desimone, L.M., (2011). A Primer on Effective Professional Development, Phi Delta Kappan, March 1,

2011, 92: 68-71. Desimone, L.M., (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development: Toward Better

Conceptualizations and Measures, Educational Researcher, April 1, 2009 38: 181-199.

Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers’ instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.

DuFour, R. 2002. The Learning-Centered Principal. Educational Leadership 59(8): 12 – 16. National

Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

DuFour, R. 2004. What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61 (8): 6–11. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. *Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve

professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. *Fixsen & Blase, (2007). Evidence Based Education to Benefit Students and Society, National Implementation

Research Network, 2007. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A

Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

*Fleming, D.L., (2010/2009). Environmental Education Professional Development Needs and Priorities. (Funded by EETAP - through a cooperative arrangement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Tucson, AZ.


*Garet, M.S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001, Winter). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., & Herman, J. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program [and] technical appendices. U.S.: District of Columbia.

Gerard et al 2011, Professional development for Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science, Review of

Educational Research, Vol. 81 (3) pp 408-448. Gibbs, T. J., & Howley, A. (2000). "World class standards" and local pedagogies: can we do both? (EDO-RC-

OO-8). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. *Guskey, (2003). What Makes Professional Development Effective? American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, 2003. Kappan Magazine, Vol 84, 10, pp 748-750. Guskey, (2000). Evaluating Professional Development (Corwin).

Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (2004). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. In E.

M. Guyton & J. R. Dangel (Eds.), Research linking teacher preparation and student performance: Teacher education yearbook XII (pp. 233–247). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Guskey, T. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 5–12. Hamos, J. E., Bergin, K. B., Maki, D. P., Perez, L. C., Prival, J. T., Rainey, D. Y., Rowell, G. H.,

VanderPutten, E. (2009). Opening the classroom door: Professional learning communities in the math and science program. Science Educator, 14–24.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-

Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heitin, Leina, (2012). Pairing Up, Education Week, Spotlight on Professional Development, 2012, pp. 2-5

Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W.A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and

practice. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Hudson, P. (2004). Specific mentoring: a theory and model for developing primary science teaching practices.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 139-146. Huffman, D., Thomas, K., & Lawrenz, F. (2003). Relationship between professional development, teachers’

instructional practices, and the achievement of students in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 378–387.

Joyce, B., Calboun, E., Carran, N., & Halliburton, C. (1994, March). Exploring staff development theories:

The Ames study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Chicago.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


*Joyce, Bruce, and Calhoun, Emily, (2010). Models of Professional Development, Corwin and Sage Ltd.

Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (NISE Brief No. 3[2]). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Science Education.

Killion, J. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff

Development Council. *Killion, Joellen, (2011). The Changing Face of Professional Development, EDge Magazine: Phi Delta Kappa,

May/June 2011.

*Killion, Joellen, (2012). The Sweet Spot in Professional Learning, JSD, October 2012, Vol. 33, No. 35, pp. 10-17.

Kohler, F. W., Crilley, K. M., Shearer, D. D., & Good, G. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teacher and

student outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 240-250. *Kreider, H., & Bouffard, S. (2006). Questions and answers: A conversation with Thomas R. Guskey. The

Evaluation Exchange, XI(4), Winter 2005/2006. Lakshamanan, A. B., Heath, B. P., Purlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and

professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 534–551.

*Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning, (2011), Oxford, OH.

Liebermann, J., & Hoody, L. (2002). Closing the Achievement Gap: using the Environment as an Integrating

Context for Learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Stiles, K. E. (2001). Professional development designed to change teaching and

learning. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Professional development planning and design (pp. 13–24). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P.W. (2010). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin. Loucks-Horsley, Susan, Matsumoto, Carolee, (1999), Reseaerch on Professional Development for Teachers of

Mathematics and Science: The State of the Scene, School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 99, Issue 5, pages 258–271, May 1999.

Lujan, N., & Day, B. (2010). Professional learning communities: Overcoming the roadblocks. Delta Kappa

Gamma Bulletin, 10–17. *Marcincowski, Tom, (2010). A Review of the Literature and Research/Evaluation Studies on Professional

Development in Environmental Education in General and Selected EE Approaches in Specific, Prepared by Dr. Tom Marcinkowski, Florida Institute of Technology, June 2010, Partial Draft.

Marx, R. W., Freeman, J., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (1997). Professional development of science

teachers. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.


*Mayor & Fortner, (1987). Relative Effectiveness of Four Modes of Dissemination of Curriculum Materials, Journal of Environmental Education, Fall 1987, 19(1)

Meichtry, Y., & Smith, J. (2007). The impact of a place-based professional development program on teachers’

confidence, attitudes and classroom practices. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 15–31. Meyer, J., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2003). The 4W’s of sustained professional development for science teachers.

Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (p. 18). St. Louis, MO: U.S. Department of Education.

*Moon, Jean, Michaels, Sarah, Reiser, Brian J., (2012). Science Standards Require a Teacher-Learning

Rethink, Education Week online, November 30, 2012. *National Geographic Society, Recommendations and Guidelines for the Design and Evaluation of

Professional Developmemt and Instruction Materials in the Geographical Sciences: A Report from the Committee on Professional Development and Instructional Materials, Draft, to be published May 2013

National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy

of Sciences. National Staff Development Council, (2011). Standards for Professional Learning, Learning Forward. *O’Dwyer, L., Masters, J., Dash, S., DeKramer, R.,Humez, A., & Russell, M. (2010). E-learning for

educators: Effects of on-line professional development on teachers and their students: Executive summary.

Opfer & Pedder, (2011). Conceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning, Review of Educational Research

September 1, 2011 81: 376-407.

Paul, G., & Volk, T. L. (2002). Ten years of teacher workshops in an environmental problem-solving model: teacher implementation and perceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(3), 10-20.

*Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R. & Gallagher, L.P. (2007, December). What makes professional

development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: An analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294–315.

Peyton, R.B. (1984). Chapter 7: Environmental education related to teacher training. In L. Iozzi (Ed.), A

summary of research in environmental education, 1971-1982. The second report of the National Commission on EE Research. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, #2, pp. 131-135. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Birman, B. F. (2003). Providing effective professional

development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Science Educator, 12(1), 23–40. Quint, J., T.M. Akey, S. Rappaport, and C.J. Willner.2007. Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and

Student Achievement Suggestive Evidence from Three Urban School Districts. Richardson, W. (2011, January 19). Investing in teachers as learners. Education Week, 30(17), pp. 21, 24.


Robertson, W. C. (2001). Community Connections for Science Education, Volume 1: Building Successful

Partnerships (ED 455 107). Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association.

Ross, J. (in press). Online professional development: Design, deliver, succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sawchuck, Stephen (2009). The Online Option, Education Week, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp 15-17. Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for

future study and a state-of the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77–87. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to

assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review 69(3), 237-269.

Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy 14(3), 331-356.

Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000, November). The effects of professional development on science

teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Swars, S., & Caitlin, M.D. (2010). Changes in teaching efficacy during a professional development school-based science methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 193–202.

*Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2010). Professional development for computer enhanced learning: A case study

with science teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26, 3–12. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature.

Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher

professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-479. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic

professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739. *Weiser, Brenda, Collegiality and Better Science Teaching, Science and Children, January, 2012, pp. 52-55. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An exami-

nation of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209. [from Yoon 2007 and NGS Roadmap]

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional Development in the United

States: Trends and Challenges. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council. Winther, A. A., Volk, T. L., & Shrock, S. A. (2002). Teacher decision making in the 1st year of implementing

an issues-based environmental education program: a qualitative study. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(3), 27-33.


*Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Yoon, K. S., Garet, M., Birman, B., & Jacobson, R. (2007). Examining the effects of mathematics and science

professional development on teachers’ instructional practice: Using professional development activity log. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Five (+) Guiding Principles for Professional · PDF fileFive (+) Guiding Principles for...

Documents

Transcript of Five (+) Guiding Principles for Professional · PDF fileFive (+) Guiding Principles for...