To meet the growing demand for teacher learning opportunities, the educational community must create scalable professional development models and study their effectiveness. In this chapter, we argue that design-based implementation research (DBIR) is ideally suited to these efforts, and we use two research projects in which we are currently involved as illustrative cases: CSR Colorado and Implementing the Problem-Solving Cycle (iPSC). The core of CSR Colorado is Collaborative Strategic Reading, an instructional approach designed to enhance reading comprehension in content classes. The focus of iPSC is the Problem-Solving Cycle, a mathematics professional development (PD) program designed to help teachers improve their instruction through closely examining mathematics problems, student thinking, and pedagogical practices. Each project works with a school district to bring a PD model to scale, and both projects are studying the structures and resources needed to build the district's capacity to sustain the model beyond the duration of the research. The chapter describes each project and discusses the successes and challenges we experienced as we collaborated with the districts and schools to carry them out. By highlighting two very different projects we show how, through different means, it is possible to achieve the same ultimate end of a scaled-up program for improving instructional practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional Development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
2.
BorkoH., KoellnerK., JacobsJ., MangramC., KhachatryanE., & VirmaniR. (2012, April). Preparing teacher leaders to facilitate mathematics professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
3.
CobbP., & SmithT. (2008). District development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In KrainerK. & WoodT. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol. 3. Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (pp. 231–254). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
4.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
5.
CoburnC. E., ToureJ., & YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111, 1115–1161.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiryEducational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
8.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
9.
GoosM., DoleS., & MakarK. (2007). Designing professional development to support teachers’ learning in complex environments. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 8, 23–47.
10.
GreenleafC. L., LitmanC., HansonT. L., RosenR., BoscardinC. K., HermanJ., … JonesB. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717.
11.
HillH. C., SchillingS. G., & BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.
12.
JacobsJ., BorkoH., KoellnerK., SchneiderC., EiteljorgE., & RobertsS.A. (2007). The Problem-Solving Cycle: A model of mathematics professional development. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 10(1), 42–57.
13.
JacobsJ., KoellnerK., & FunderburkJ. (2012). Problem solved: Middle school math instruction gets a boost from a flexible model for learning. Journal of Staff Development, 33(2), 32–34, 39.
14.
KlingnerJ. K., BoardmanA. G., & McMasterK. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices?Exceptional Children, 79, 195–211.
15.
KlingnerJ. K., VaughnS., ArgüellesM. E., HughesM. T., & AhweeS. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.
16.
KlingnerJ. K., VaughnS., SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–21.
17.
KoellnerK., JacobsJ., & BorkoH. (2011). Scaling up mathematics professional development: Critical features for developing instructional leadership skills and building teachers’ capacity. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 115–136.
18.
KoellnerK., JacobsJ., BorkoH., RobertsS. & SchneiderC. (2011). Professional development to support students’ algebraic reasoning: An example from the Problem-Solving Cycle Model. In CaiJ. & KnuthE. (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 429–452). New York: Springer.
19.
KoellnerK., JacobsJ., BorkoH., SchneiderC., PittmanM., … FrykholmJ. (2007). The Problem-Solving Cycle: A model to support the development of teachers’ professional knowledge. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 271–303.
20.
KoellnerK., JacobsJ., KingC., JohnT., & BorkoH. (2012, April). Professional development for mathematics teachers: Examining the impact on knowledge and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
LevinB. (2010). Leadership for evidence-informed education. School Leadership and Management, 30, 303–315.
23.
LittleJ. W. (1990). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
24.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
NewmannF. M., KingM. B., & YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259–299.
26.
PenuelW. R., CoburnC. E., & GallagherD. J. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research–practice design partnerships. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 237–255.
27.
PenuelW. R., FishmanB. J., ChengB. H., & SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.
28.
PenuelW. R., FishmanB. J., GallagherL. P., KorbakC., & Lopez-PradoB. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93(4), 656–677.
29.
PutnamR., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
30.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
SandersM. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111, 1693–1712.
32.
SpillaneJ. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143–175.
33.
StokesL. (1997). Short-term policy support for long-term school change: A dilemma for reform-minded practitioners. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 371–384.
34.
SweeneyD. (2010). Student-centered coaching: A guide for K-8 coaches and principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
35.
The Teaching Commission (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York: The Teaching Commission, The CUNY Graduate Center.
36.
VaughnS., KlingnerJ. K., SwansonE. A., BoardmanA. G., RobertsG., … Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964.
