“When compared with high-achieving countries around the world, the U.S. appears to be significantly behind in providing certain kinds of professional learning opportunities” (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009, p. 39). The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between sustained, targeted professional development in mathematics and student performance in the United States and in the high-achieving countries listed in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. The research for this study involved teachers and students in a consortium of school districts in the state of Ohio, formed to meet the challenge of closing the achievement gap in mathematics and science for students in the United States. The findings indicate that professional development can be seen as a significant contributing factor in the learning cycle and that sustained, targeted professional development has a positive effect on student achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD., & CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In SykesG., & Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BirmanB. F., DesimoneL., PorterA. C., & GaretM. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works.Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
3.
ChenC. C., ReysB. J., & ReysR. E. (2009). Analysis of the learning expectations related to Grade 1–8 measurement in some countries.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1013–1031.
4.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf
5.
ElmoreR. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
6.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
7.
GaretM., BirmanB., PorterA., DesimoneL., & HermanR. (with YoonK.). (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
8.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & KwangS. Y. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
9.
GonzalezE. J., & DiaconuD. (2004). Quality assurance in the TIMSS 2003 data collection. In MartinM. O., MullisI. V. S., & ChrostowskiS. J. (Eds.), TIMSS 2003 Technical Report.Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
10.
GuskeyT. R. (1995). Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from the North Coast Regional Educational Laboratory Archives.
11.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
GuskeyT. R. (2002). Does it make a difference?Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.
13.
GuskeyT. R., & SparksD. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning.Journal of Staff Development, 17, 34–38.
14.
JacobB. A., & LefgrenL. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement.Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50–79.
15.
KillionJ. (2002a). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
16.
KillionJ. (2002b). What works in the elementary school: Results-based staff development.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/connect/projects/elwhatwork.pdf
17.
ManouchehriA. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas (teacher educators and teachers as researchers).Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 276–286.
18.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Rev.). Oxford, OH: Author.
19.
RogersM. P., AbellS., LanninJ., WangC., MusikulK., BarkerD. (2007). Effective professional development in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ and facilitators’ views.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 507–532.
20.
ShahaS. H., LewisV. K., O'DonnellT. J., & BrownD. H. (2004). Evaluating professional development: An approach to verifying program impact on teachers and students.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
21.
SparksD. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
22.
StiglerJ., & HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap.New York: Free Press.
23.
ThompsonC., & ZeuliJ. (1999). The frame and tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In SykesG., & Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook on policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
24.
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.
25.
WenglinskyH. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26.
WenglinskyH. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
27.
WilliamsP. R., TabernikA. M., & KrivakT. (2009). The power of leadership, collabortion, and professional development: The story of the SMART Consortium.Education and Urban Society, 41(4), 437–456.
