Although there is substantial evidence that high-quality professional development can improve teacher practices, less evidence exists for the effects of teacher professional development on intermediate outcomes, such as teacher practices, and their ultimate effects on K–12 student achievement. This work links professional development through teacher practices to examine their separate and combined effects on student achievement.
Research Questions
When teacher characteristics and teacher preparation program are controlled, what are the effects of teacher professional development on (1) teacher practices in mathematics and reading, and (2) subsequent student mathematics and reading achievement?
Population
The study uses students (n = 1,550–6,408) nested within teachers (n = 168–1,029) from six existing databases, two from the 2000 Beginning Teacher Preparation Survey conducted in Connecticut and Tennessee, and four from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP Mathematics 1996, 2000, and NAEP Reading 1998, 2000).
Research Design
This quantitative study employed a hybrid structural equation model built based on relationships indicated by the literature. Using extant large-scale data sets, the model was first tested using the smallest data set and then confirmed using successively larger state and national data sets.
Conclusions
Professional development has moderate effects on teacher practice and very small but sometimes significant effects on student achievement when the effects of professional development are mediated by teacher practice. In spite of differences in samples, academic subjects, and assessments, the effects of professional development on teacher practice and student achievement persist and are remarkably similar across analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmreinA. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1018. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
2.
BorkoH., & PutnamR. (1996). Learning to teach. In CalfeeR. C., & BerlinerD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673—708). New York: Macmillan.
3.
ByrneB. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
CamilliG.VargasS., & YureckoM. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1115. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15/
5.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
7.
CohenJ. (2002). AM Statistical Software (Version 0.06.01): Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
8.
CusickP. A. (1992). The educational system: Its nature and logic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
DelpitL. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280—298.
10.
DesimoneL. M.PorterA. C.GaretM. S.YoonK. S., & BirmanB. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Analysis and Policy Evaluation, 24, 81—112.
11.
DuckworthE. R. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching the learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
FlodenR. E., & BuchmannM. (1993). Detachment and concern: Conversations in the philosophy of teaching and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
FosterM., & PeeleT. (1999). Teaching and learning in the contexts of African American English culture. Education and Urban Society, 31, 177—189.
14.
GoldhaberD. D., & BrewerD. J. (1997). Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 505—523.
15.
HarrisD. N., & SassT. R. (2007, April). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
16.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HirschE. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don't have them. New York: Doubleday.
18.
KennedyM. M. (1998, April). The effects of inservice programs on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
19.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principals and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
20.
LabareeD. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39—81.
21.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L., & BetebennerD.W. (2002). Accountability systems, Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Researcher, 316, 3—16.
22.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
McCartneyK., & DearingE. (2002). Evaluating effect sizes in the policy arena. The Evaluation Exchange Newsletter, 8(S1–S121), 4&7.
24.
McCartneyK., & RosenthalR. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173—180.
25.
MunceyD. E., & McQuillanP. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
28.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
29.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS., & HedgesL. V. (2005). How large are teacher effects?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 237—257.
30.
PaigeR. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
31.
PaigeR. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
32.
PaigeR. (2004). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33.
PearsonP. D. (1996). Reclaiming the center. In GravesM. F. (Ed.), The first R: Every child's right to read (pp. 259—274). New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
RowanB.CorrentiR., & MillerR. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525—1567.
35.
SandersW., & HornS. (1995). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. In ShinkfieldA. J., & StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
36.
SandersW., & RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
37.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1—22.
38.
SpillaneJ. (2005, June). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-43. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. University of Pennsylvania.
39.
StodolskyS. S. (1998). The subject matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
SupovitzJ. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student achievement. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 81—98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
TraubJ. (2002, April 7). The test mess. The New York Times on the Web. Retrieved April 7, 2002, from http://www.nytimes.com
42.
ValliL. (2000). Beginning teacher survey. In National Partnership for Education and Accountability in Teaching (Ed.). Columbia, PA: National Computer Systems.
43.
ValliL.ReckaseM., & RathsJ. (2003, April). Teacher education, program outcomes, teaching practice, and pupil achievement on state tests. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
44.
ValliL.ReckaseM.RathsJ., & Rennert-ArievP. (2001). Beginning Teacher Survey Study final report. College Park: University of Maryland, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education.
45.
WallaceM. R. (2005). Making sense of the links: From government policy to student achievement. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
46.
WayneA. J., & YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89—122.
WilsonS.Darling-HammondL., & BerryB. (2000). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut's long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning. A research report. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
49.
WilsonS. M.FlodenR. E., & Ferrini-Mundy (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, in collaboration with Michigan State University.
50.
YoungsP., & KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643—670.
51.
ZhaoY. (2006, January 16). Creativity can't be taught, but it can be killed. Detroit Free Press. Accessed January 16, 2006, from http://www.freep.com
