Advertisement

ORIENTATIONS TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION: UNDERSTANDING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO PD OUTCOMES ACROSS MULTIPLE PROJECTS

  • Rose M. Marra
  • Fran Arbaugh
  • John Lannin
  • Sandra Abell
  • Mark Ehlert
  • Rena Smith
  • Dominike Merle-Johnson
  • Meredith Park Rogers
Article

Abstract

Given the large investment in teacher professional development (PD), further understanding of the factors that impact PD success is needed. In a previous study, the authors established a framework for categorizing PD projects using the notion of orientations. A PD orientation is comprised of project characteristics that drive the PD design and implementation for that project. In this study, we applied this orientation framework to 14 science and mathematics PD projects and examined the relationship between projects of differing orientations and PD outcomes (e.g. perceived improvement in teaching practices). The results provide support for the value of the framework and demonstrate that PD projects with different orientations exhibit differing participant outcomes. This study also provides evidence of the value of this research framework for understanding how PD implementation characteristics are related to PD outcomes, as well as points to the value of a “balanced” orientation where both content and pedagogy are addressed in equal parts.

Key words

assessment mathematics multi-site professional development professional development outcomes science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. S. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abell, S. K., Ehlert, M., Lannin, J., Marra, R., & Arbaugh, F. (2007). Missouri Department of Higher Education Improving Teacher Quality Grants Cycle 4 external evaluation report. Columbia, MO: Southwestern Bell Science Education Center, University of Missouri—Columbia.Google Scholar
  3. Abell, S. K., Lannin, J. K., Marra, R. M., Ehlert, M. W., Cole, J. S., Lee, M. H., et al. (2007). Multi-site evaluation of science and mathematics teacher professional development programs: The project profile approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(2), 125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, S. E., & Pedretti, E. (2006). Contrasting orientations: STSE for social reconstruction or social reproduction? School Science and Mathematics, 106, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  8. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professional development effective? Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research on the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  13. Desimone, L. M., 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, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systematic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., & Herman, R. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  17. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748–750.Google Scholar
  21. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Horizon Research, Inc (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.php.
  23. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–28.Google Scholar
  24. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Maxwell, S. (2001). When to use MANOVA and significant MANOVAs and insignificant ANOVAs or vice versa. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), 29–30.Google Scholar
  27. Musikul, K. & Abell, S. K. (2009). Professional development for elementary teachers of science in Thailand: A holistic examination. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. National Staff Development Council (NSDC) (2001). Standards for staff development (revised). Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm.
  30. Park Rogers, M. A., Abell, S. K., Marra, R. M., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K. L., & Cole, J. S. (2010). Orientations to science teacher professional development: An exploratory study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  33. Volkmann, M. J., Abell, S. K., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science & Education, 89(5), 847–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rose M. Marra
    • 1
  • Fran Arbaugh
    • 2
  • John Lannin
    • 1
  • Sandra Abell
    • 1
  • Mark Ehlert
    • 1
  • Rena Smith
    • 1
  • Dominike Merle-Johnson
    • 1
  • Meredith Park Rogers
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations