Purpose:Policymakers and administrators are increasingly focusing on professional development as a means to improve teaching quality. In this study, the authors examine whether professional development in mathematics is primarily performing an educative function by addressing weak teacher preparation, or a catalytic function by serving mainly teachers who already have a strong content knowledge of mathematics.
Methods:The data used are from the teacher surveys completed for the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The analysis is conducted using multinomial logit results transformed into relative risk ratios that indicate the relative odds that a teacher will participate in sustained, medium-length or brief (mathematics)content-focused professional development.
Findings:The results indicate that teachers with strong content knowledge in mathematics—measured by type of degree in mathematics and self-reported preparedness to teach different topics in mathematics—are more likely to take sustained content-focused professional development than teachers with weak content knowledge in mathematics. Thus, professional development is primarily serving teachers with already strong content area expertise in mathematics, rather than addressing content knowledge gaps for teachers less prepared to teach mathematics.
Implications for Practice:Options for administrators include: (a) encourage teachers to take challenging professional development by scaffolding and matching activities to teachers’ level of expertise, (b) build links between the activities and the school’s vision, and(c) require teachers to take high-quality professional development. The most powerful but also the most challenging recommendation is for district and school administrators to stop providing low-quality, ineffective professional development.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
2.
Battista, M. T. (1986). The relationships of mathematics anxiety and mathematical knowledge to the learning of mathematical pedagogy by preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 10-19.
3.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
4.
Borman, G., & Rachuba, L. (1999). Qualifications and professional growth opportunities of teacher in high- and low-poverty elementary schools. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 366-381.
5.
Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Carlsen, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
8.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
9.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
10.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 311-329.
11.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
12.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
15.
Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P., & Zucker, A. (1998, March). The SSIs and professional development for teachers: Evaluation of NSF’s Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program (Monograph). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
16.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). Using data on enacted curriculum in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
Creighton, T. (2001). Data analysis and the principalship. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 52-57.
18.
Cwikla, J. (2002). Mathematics teachers’ report about the influence of various professional development activities. Professional Educator, 24(2), 75-94.
19.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151.
20.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8nl/
22.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
23.
Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
24.
Desimone, L., Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., & Yoon, K. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers?Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
25.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers’ instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
26.
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997, October). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in community School District #2, New York City (Monograph). Pittsburgh, PA: High Performance Learning Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
27.
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, & school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1985). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.
29.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
30.
Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 155-163.
31.
Firestone, W. (1996). Images of teaching and proposals for reform: A comparison of ideas from cognitive and organizational research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 209-232.
32.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.
33.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(3), 915-945.
34.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (NCES Publication No. 97-535, pp. 197-210). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
35.
Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 502-541.
36.
Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (1996, fall). Exploring the relationships between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34-38.
37.
Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 37-42.
38.
Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state survey results. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
39.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.
40.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
41.
Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 193-211.
42.
Ingersoll, R. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality (NCES Publication No. 96-040). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43.
Ingersoll, R. (1997). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan Online. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/king9806.htm
44.
Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American Secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
45.
Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
46.
Kelly, W. P., & Tomhave, W. K. (1985). A study of math anxiety/math avoidance in preservice elementary teachers. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(5), 51-53.
47.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
48.
Killion, J. (1998, Fall). Scaling the elusive summit. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 12-16.
49.
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals?Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 576-580.
50.
Levin, B. (1999). What is educational administration, anyway?Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 546-561.
51.
Lippman, L., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. (with Burton, R., Smith, T. M., & Kaufman, P.). (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty (NCES Publication No. 96-184). Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
52.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
53.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
54.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
55.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271.
56.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-32.
58.
Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
59.
Monk, D. H., & King, J. R. (1994). Multi-level teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The role of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary policy issues: Choices and consequences in education. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
60.
Mullens, J. (1998, November). Validating teacher responses on instructional practice self-report surveys: Findings from a recent field-test. Prepared for the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference, New York City, 1998.
61.
Mullens, J. E., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using surveys and case study field test results to improve item construction. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
62.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
63.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for the teaching of school mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
64.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65.
Porter, A. C. (1998, October). Curriculum reform and measuring what is taught: Measuring the quality of education processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York.
66.
Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. E. (1988). Good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 75-84.
67.
Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993, October). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
68.
Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73-88.
69.
Rech, J., Hartzell, J., & Stephens, L. (1993). Comparisons of mathematical competencies and attitudes of elementary education majors with established norms of a general college population. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 141-145.
70.
Reynolds, A. (1995). The knowledge base for beginning teachers: Education professionals’ expectations versus research findings on learning to teach. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 199-221.
71.
Rhine, S. (1998). The role of research and teachers’ knowledge base in professional development. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 27-31.
72.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
73.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
74.
Rowan, B., Schilling, S. G., Ball, D. L., & Miller, R. (with Atkins-Burnett, S., Camburn, E., Harrison, D., & Phelps, G.). (October, 2001). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in surveys: An exploratory study. State College, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Study of Instructional Improvement.
75.
Scheerens, J. (1995). The selection and definition of international indicators on teachers. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), Measuring Educational Quality Conditions (pp. 59-79). Paris: OECD.
76.
Scribner, J. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 238-266.
77.
Shulman, L. (1992). Merging content knowledge and pedagogy: An interview with Lee Shulman. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1), 1-6.
78.
Simon, M. A., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
79.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
80.
StataCorp. (2001). Stata Reference Manual: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
81.
Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C., (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum—the Reform Up Close study (CPRE Research Report Series #31). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
82.
Stout, R. T. (1996). Staff development policy: Fuzzy choices in an imperfect market. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4(2), 1-17.
83.
Streifer, P. (2000). School improvement: Finding the time. NASSP Bulletin, 84(612), 66-71.
84.
Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 465-489.
85.
Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ explicit beliefs about multiplication and division. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 79-96.
86.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
87.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999b). The NAEP 1996 Technical Report (NCES 1999-452). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
88.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001-517). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
89.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
90.
Webb, N. L., & Romberg, T. A. (1994). Reforming mathematics education in America’s cities: The urban mathematics collaborative project. New York: Teachers College Press.
91.
Weiss, I. R., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway, C. J., & Bond, S. L. (1998). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement: Year three cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
92.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality (Policy Information Center Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
93.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1-31. Retrieved March 27, 2002, from epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12
94.
Wolter, K. M. (1985). Introduction to variance estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
95.
Youngs, P., & King, B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643-670.
