A statewide longitudinal survey of 923 middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri was conducted from 2009 to 2011 to examine the amount of organizational resources for professional development that teachers received and the relationship between organizational resources and teachers’ participation in high-quality professional development. This study found that teachers who received an increased amount of organizational resources from 2009 to 2011 were more likely to increasingly participate in high-quality professional development activities during the same period. Therefore, it is important for districts and schools to continuously provide organizational resources for professional development to support and encourage their teachers’ participation in high-quality professional development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchinsteinB. (2002a). Community, diversity, and conflict among school teachers: The ties that blind.New York: Teachers College Press.
2.
AchinsteinB. (2002b). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.
3.
AkibaM. (2012). Professional learning activities in context: A statewide survey of middle school mathematics teachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(14), 1–20.
4.
AkibaM., & LeTendreG. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context.New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
BanilowerE. R., HeckD. J., & WeissI. 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.
6.
BirmanB. F., BoyleA., Le FlochK. C., ElledgeA., HoltzmanD., SongM., (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VIII—Teacher quality under NCLB: Final report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
7.
BorasiR., & FonziJ. (2002). Professional development that supports school mathematics reforms: Foundations series of monographs for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education.Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
8.
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. (2001a). CTP teacher survey scale definitions.Stanford, CA: Author.
9.
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. (2001b). Teacher survey: Autumn 2001.Stanford, CA: Author.
10.
ClarkeD. (1994). Ten key principles from research on the professional development of mathematics teachers. In AicheleD. B. & CoxfordA. F. (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
11.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
14.
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 Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.
15.
Editorial Projects in Education. (2011). Quality counts 2011 (national highlights report): Uncertain forecast: Education adjusts to a new economic reality.Bethesda, MD: Author.
16.
ElmoreR. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
17.
GamoranA. (2003). Access to resources. In GamoranA., AndersonC. W., QuirozP. A., SecadaW. G., WilliamsT., & AshmannS. (Eds.), Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change (pp. 65–86). New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
GamoranA., SecadaW. G., & MarrettC. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
19.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL. M., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
20.
GrodskyE., & GamoranA. (2003). The relationship between professional development and professional community in American schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1), 1–29.
21.
Hampden-ThompsonG., HerringW. L., & KienzlG. (2008). Attrition of public school mathematics and science teachers (No. 2008–077). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
22.
HargreavesA. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In BlaséJ. (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 46–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
HawleyW. D., & ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In Darling-HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
JohnsonS. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
KardosS. M., JohnsonS. M., PeskeH. G., KauffmanD., & LiuE. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 250–290.
26.
KingB. M. (2004). School- and district-level leadership for teacher workforce development: Enhancing teacher learning and capacity. In SmylieM. A. & MiretzkyD. (Eds.), Developing the teacher workforce (pp. 303–325). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
LeeV. E., & SmithJ. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.
28.
LeeV. E., & SmithJ. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103–147.
29.
LeeV. E., SmithJ. B., & CroningerR. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 128–150.
30.
LittleJ. W. (1984). Seductive images and organizational realities in professional development. Teachers College Record, 86(1), 84–102.
31.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
32.
LittleJ. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In Darling-HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 233–262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.
34.
Loucks-HorsleyS., HewsonP. W., LoveN., & StilesK. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
35.
LouisK. S., & MarksH. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.
36.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement.New York: Teachers College Press.
PetersonP. L., McCartheyS. J., & ElmoreR. F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119–153.
41.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
ScribnerJ. P. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238–266.
43.
ShulmanL. S., & ShulmanJ. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
44.
SpillaneJ. P., & ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
45.
SteinM. K., & CoburnC. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114, 583–626.
46.
VannemanA., HamiltonL., Baldwin AndersonJ., & RahmanT. (2009). Achievement gaps: How Black and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (No. 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
47.
WayneA. J., YoonK. S., ZhuP., CronenS., & GaretM. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.
48.
WeiR. C., Darling-HammondL., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad.Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
49.
WilsonS. M., & BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
