Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There is extensive empirical research on principles of effective teacher professional development (PD). However, teachers’ expectations of PD and how well these align with scientific recommendations are only rarely addressed. N = 125 teachers were presented with video vignettes on two evidence-based interventions of varying complexity for which they indicated their own PD preferences. Teachers’ preferences were then compared to scientific recommendations for effective PD. In line with scientific recommendations, teachers generally preferred coherent PD with a clear content focus and collective participation. However, there were large differences between individual teachers’ preferences as well as between PD features. A striking discrepancy between research and practice was found for PD duration: Most teachers preferred one-shot workshops (six contact hours at most). Surprisingly, teachers barely differed in their PD preferences for interventions of varying complexity, indicating that teachers have clearly defined notions of PD. Regression analyses on individual and contextual factors did not yield systematic results to explain teachers’ PD preferences. In sum, teachers’ desired short duration, their lacking awareness of adjusting PD for interventions of varying complexity, and individually significant deviations from scientific recommendations for PD make it necessary to clearly communicate evidence-based standards to teachers—and policymakers.

Plain language summary

Many studies have looked at what makes teacher professional development effective, but few have explored what teachers themselves want from it and how that matches up with what the research suggests. We showed videos about two different reading interventions to 125 teachers and asked them about their preferences for professional development. Overall, teachers preferred professional development that focused on specific content, and involved multiple teachers from their school. A surprising discovery was that many teachers preferred short workshops (no more than 6 hr), which doesn’t align with research suggesting longer, more continuous PD. Even more surprising was that teachers’ preferences for PD didn’t change for more complex reading interventions. In summary, teachers’ preference for short professional development and their lacking awareness for adjusting professional development for interventions of different complexity highlight the need to clearly communicate evidence-based standards to teachers and policymakers.

Keywords

teacher education evidence-based interventions teacher learning research-practice gap implementation

Introduction

Teachers’ professional development (PD) is a key factor that enables the successful and sustainable implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) (Guskey, 1985; Slavin, 2020). So far, evidence has accumulated from an increasing body of research outlining that effective PD typically shares the same set of core features (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009; Penuel et al., 2011). These features consist of (1) a strong content focus, (2) coherence with teachers’ individual circumstances, (3) active learning opportunities, (4) sustained duration, and (5) collective participation from teachers of the same school.

Since teachers are the central agents that implement EBIs and active co-constructors of PD, it is important to understand whether their expectations of PD coincide well with scientific recommendations or whether a gap exists between research and practice. Therefore, in this study we explore whether teachers’ PD preferences align with scientific recommendations of effective PD (research question 1; Figure 1). Moreover, research has shown that PD effectiveness can be co-determined by contextual and individual teacher characteristics (Piasta et al., 2010) as well as characteristics of the EBI itself (Fullan, 1986). We therefore also examine how individual and contextual factors relate to teachers’ PD preferences (research question 2), and whether they are influenced by an intervention’s complexity (research question 3; Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Framework for studying the relations between scientific recommendations and teachers’ preferences of professional development features.

To that end, we conducted a video vignette study in which 125 primary school teachers were presented with two EBIs of different complexity. Teachers indicated their preferences for five PD features for each EBI and gave information about individual and contextual characteristics. Since the effectiveness of PD highly depends on teachers’ commitment (King, 2002), the teachers’ self-identified needs help us understand which PD programmes can find approval in the implementation process of EBIs.

Previous Findings and Ensuing Research Questions

Core Features of Effective PD

A major goal of PD is to initiate a change process in which teachers gain knowledge and acquire positive attitudes about the presented content to be able to transform their teaching practices (Desimone, 2009). While PD programmes are generally regarded as a key to teacher change (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Guskey, 1985), analyses of their effectiveness have tended to produce rather disappointing results (Garet et al., 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Timperley et al., 2007). Additionally, methodological difficulties of measuring effective PD, that is, heterogeneous and limited standardized outcome measures, pose a challenge to PD research. However, researchers usually agree that a certain set of features needs to be considered for PD to be effective (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009; Penuel et al., 2011). Specifically, Desimone (2009) provided the following five core features of effective PD:

Content focus. Content focus comprises the two dimensions of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), and emphasizes that PD programmes dealing with subject-specific and subject-didactic learning are generally more effective than those that deal with more generic principles, for example, pedagogical or psychological content (Garet et al., 2008; Timperley et al., 2007; West & Staub, 2003). The idea behind this is that focusing on a specific content facilitates teachers in connecting their knowledge directly to tangible classroom practices, as opposed to the more abstract nature of general pedagogical content (Desimone, 2009).

Coherence. Coherence is defined as the extent to which PD content is oriented towards teachers’ individual learning needs and their school’s circumstances rather than informing teachers about generic principles that require translation to their individual conditions (Garet et al., 2001; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). Effective PD programmes, for example, are known to focus on teachers’ real-world classroom experiences, to initiate discussions about individual students, and to acknowledge teachers’ prior knowledge (Penuel et al., 2011).

Active learning. PD programmes that include active learning activities such as observing, reviewing student work or making presentations generally result in improved teacher outcomes as opposed to programmes in which teachers only passively listen to lectures (Garet et al., 2001; Kang et al., 2013). Connecting content learning with hands-on activities helps teachers to build up knowledge about an EBI’s procedure and about their students’ learning processes (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010).

Duration. Numerous studies emphasize the importance of providing ongoing support rather than providing brief, one-time workshops (D. K. Cohen & Hill, 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Yoon et al., 2007). The rationale behind an extended duration is that it helps teachers establish routines and provides opportunities to address challenges encountered in the implementation process. Scientific recommendations on the ideal duration of PD differ but share a consensus that effective programmes span over 20 hr, extend beyond 6 months and include follow-up contact (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2007). Even this 20-hour benchmark is considered conservative: In their meta-analysis, Yoon et al. (2007) discovered that all nine PD programs leading to an increase in student achievement provided an average of 49 contact hours per year. Regarding the time span of PD, Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) noted that, among the 35 successful PD programs they reviewed, none comprised a one-day event.

Collective participation. A large body of research has so far associated collective participation with PD effectiveness (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). Collective participation is defined as the extent to which multiple teachers from the same school participate in the same learning opportunities (as opposed to PD with individual teachers from many schools). This collective engagement enables teachers to exchange ideas, provide feedback, and collaboratively address practical questions (Desimone, 2009). Beyond its impact on student learning, collective participation is linked to changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015).

In this study, these five features are used as a theoretical framework to compare teachers’ PD preferences with scientific recommendations (Figure 1). Ideally, teachers should approve of these features to a substantial extent since the features have been shown to facilitate the implementation of EBIs; here, “substantial” approval of a PD feature is defined as an approval rating of at least 60% out of 100%, since 60% represents a noticeable preference towards evidence-based features. We claim that it is problematic if individual teachers remain below this 60% threshold because this would indicate a deviation from scientific recommendations. For the feature duration, the thresholds are already set to 20 hr (contact time) and 180 days (time period), as proposed by Desimone (2009).

Because many PD programmes are offered as short one-shot workshops (Desimone et al., 2006) and adopt a top-down approach in which knowledge is imparted to teachers (Sandholtz, 2002), it seems plausible that teachers are unaware of the benefits of sustained and active PD. We therefore hypothesize that teachers prefer shorter and less active PD than is scientifically recommended. For content focus, coherence and collective participation, we assume that teachers’ PD preferences coincide well with scientific recommendations. This is expected because, so far, studies on math and science teachers’ PD preferences have indicated high levels of approval for PD that provides subject-specific content that can be directly applied to their own circumstances and that includes opportunities for collaborative learning (M. P. Rogers et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2015). Against this background, we pose the following research question and hypotheses:

Research question 1: Are teachers’ PD preferences in accordance with scientific recommendations for effective PD?

Hypotheses: In line with scientific recommendations, it is expected that teachers prefer PD programmes that focus on subject-didactic and subject-specific content, that are coherent with their circumstances and that allow for collective participation. Deviating from scientific recommendations, it is hypothesized that teachers prefer shorter PD and a more passive role in PD activities.

Mechanisms of PD Preferences

Teachers’ PD preferences not only depend on structural features but may also be co-determined by individual, contextual and intervention-related characteristics (Figure 1; Piasta et al., 2010; Postholm, 2012). We therefore also investigate the impact of teacher and context characteristics as well as intervention-related characteristics.

Teacher and Context Characteristics

PD preferences might be influenced by the individual preconditions that teachers bring into the learning process, since this has been shown to be the case for PD effectiveness (Piasta et al., 2010). In particular, teachers’self-efficacy, their conviction of teaching effectively, has proven to be a powerful source of variation in teaching practices (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). So far, studies have linked high self-efficacy to more frequent use of innovative practices (Pan & Franklin, 2011) and teachers’ general commitment to PD (Geijsel et al., 2009). Moreover, if teacher learning is understood as a process of changing one’s knowledge, attitudes and practices (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Desimone, 2009; Guskey, 1985), then a teacher’s attitude towards the subject matter can be seen as another variable with predictive power for teachers’ PD preferences. For instance, Chen et al. (2021) reported that preschool teachers’ pedagogical beliefs towards STEM were associated with a higher self-reported need for PD (r = .70 p < .001 N = 150). Similarly, we expect that high levels of self-efficacy and a favorable attitude towards the EBI lead to an approval of scientific PD recommendations, such as higher levels of collective participation and coherence. However, high self-efficacy and positive attitudes might also lead to a preference for shorter PD, because teachers already feel secure about the subject matter and, thus, are able to implement congruent EBIs independently without extensive support from PD.

Beyond that, contextual characteristics can be hypothesized as having explanatory power for teachers’ PD preferences, since they are associated with teachers’ practices and students’ motivation and performance (Maehr & Midgley, 1996). On a classroom level, teachers’ perceptions of their students’ learning motivation and academic abilities might determine the options teachers believe they have in instructional decisions (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999; Sweet et al., 1998). If teachers perceive their students as unmotivated and low performing, they might prefer longer and more coherent PD as an additional support to implement EBIs. On a school level, cooperation among teachers and principal support are two other well-established predictors of PD effectiveness: Cooperation among teachers, that is, teachers who share materials and ideas, is an important mediator between PD offerings and improvements in teacher knowledge and instructional practices (Ingvarson et al., 2005; Postholm, 2012). Further, principal support has a direct influence on teachers’ PD activities by providing organizational opportunities for PD. It is, for example, associated with teachers’ use of innovative instructional practices (Banilower et al., 2007; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Therefore, teachers experiencing principal support and cooperation might be expected to prefer shorter and less coherent PD, since they already receive extensive structural support from their school.

As a second research aim, this study seeks to examine teachers’ PD preferences depending on individual and contextual characteristics. On the one hand, there are specific directional hypotheses that derive from previous research (listed below). On the other hand, we also aim to further explore the data to get better insight into additional relationships between individual context characteristics and teachers’ PD preferences:

Research question 2: How do teacher characteristics (self-efficacy, attitude towards subject matter) and context characteristics (students’ learning motivation, students’ academic abilities, cooperation and principal support) influence teachers’ PD preferences?

Hypotheses: Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy and positive attitudes towards the subject matter will prefer shorter PD. Teachers who believe they have high-performing and motivated students, feel supported by their principal and experience cooperation will prefer shorter and less coherent PD. Relationships between the remaining individual context characteristics and teachers’ PD preferences are examined exploratively.

Intervention-Related Characteristics

In addition to individual and contextual characteristics, teachers’ PD preferences can also be influenced by the type of intervention that is presented in PD. Specifically, an intervention’s complexity has been discussed as an explanatory variable for teachers’ adoption of an intervention (Fullan, 1986). It has been found, for instance, that teachers are more likely to approve of simple than complex EBIs (Henninger, 2010). Several factors have been put forward in the discussion of what constitutes an EBI’s complexity: On the one hand, the experienced workload can affect teachers’ perception of an innovation (E. M. Rogers, 2003; State et al., 2017). For example, State et al. (2017) reported that the time spent on implementation plays a role for high school teachers’ acceptability ratings for an EBI. On the other hand, an innovation’s scope can determine an EBI’s complexity (Century et al., 2012). For instance, if an innovation consists of several parts and requires advanced knowledge, this can influence the perception of an EBI (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2011). Consequently, teachers should be accompanied more intensively by PD (e.g., through longer PD programmes and collective participation) to implement complex EBIs. Van Keer and Verhaege (2005) accordingly found that a longer and more extensive PD programme can help reduce teachers’ experienced workload during the implementation of an EBI on reading instruction in primary schools. This third research question therefore guided our study:

Research question 3: How do intervention-related characteristics (simple vs. complex) influence teachers’ PD preferences?

Hypotheses: For a complex EBI, we expect teachers to choose a PD programme with a longer duration and more collective participation.

Method

Sample

A power analysis using 3.1. G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) to estimate the required sample size for one-sample t-tests (difference from constant) indicated that 101 cases were needed to test a small estimated effect size of d = .25 with an alpha level of .05 and a desired power of .80 (J. Cohen, 1992). The final sample included 125 German primary school teachers from the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia who were contacted via e-mails and newsletters. On average, participants were M = 40.54 years (SD = 12.11) old. The percentage of female participants (84%) was higher than that of male participants (16%), which is typical for primary school teachers in Germany (Terhart, 2014). Participants had an average of M = 13.87 years of professional teaching experience (SD = 11.17) and were currently teaching reading in first grade (22%), second grade (24%), third grade (26%), fourth grade (21%), fifth grade (6%), and sixth grade (2%). All participants held a university degree. Most of them had studied either German and Mathematics (61%), or German and General Science (38%)—a specific subject in primary school covering Geography, History and Biology. Their PD experiences within the last 2 years ranged from participating in no teacher training at all (11%) and one teacher training (22%) over between two and four teacher trainings (38%) to more than four teacher trainings (29%). Teachers’ participation was voluntary and unpaid, but after completing the survey, teachers were given free access to the instruction material that was introduced in the video vignettes.

Procedure

A vignette study with a within-subject design was conducted to explore teachers’ PD preferences for the implementation of EBIs. In an online questionnaire, participants were asked to provide information about their social demographics, individual characteristics and context characteristics. All participants were further presented with two video vignettes, informing them about a simple and a complex EBI on reading instruction in primary schools. After watching each video, participants first rated the perceived complexity of the EBI. They then indicated their preferences for five PD features that have been shown to be relevant for PD effectiveness (Desimone, 2009; Penuel et al., 2011). For half of the sample, the two different EBIs were presented in a swapped order to be able to control for anchor effects.

Material

In each video, an EBI on reading instruction was introduced to the participants. The EBI was based on an existing intervention and involved (1) an online tool to monitor student reading abilities, (2) teacher material for formative feedback discussions, and (3) differentiated reading instruction with prepared student material (Förster et al., 2018). In the videos, a speaker explained the basic concept of the components (e.g., that the online tool automatically evaluates the test outcomes and allows both teachers and students to review the scores). Additionally, participants gained a visual understanding of the material (e.g., by displaying the three types of student booklets used for differentiated reading instruction to promote three key aspects of reading literacy (reading accuracy, reading fluency, reading comprehension). The videos can be found in German under the following link in the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8f3gr/.

In order to examine how PD preferences vary for EBIs of different complexity, we further manipulated the intervention’s workload and scope to reduce the EBI’s complexity. The simple EBI thus differed in two aspects: (1) The diagnostic tool should only be used every 6 months, not every 3 weeks, and (2) the feedback discussions were omitted. A pilot study with N = 32 teachers was conducted to ensure the scripts’ understandability and the difference in complexity between the two EBIs.

Measures

An overview of all instruments is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of Instruments Used in the Study.

	Item example	M	SD	α	No. of items
Instruments for PD features
Content focus: subject-specific (0–100%)	PD with a focus on cognitive models of processing read information versus PD with a focus on important sub-skills for reading development.	67.85	18.94	—	1
Content focus: subject-didactic (0–100%)	PD with a focus on reading socialization in the family versus PD with a focus on effective instructional reading methods	68.76	17.90	—	1
Coherence (0–100%)	PD that offers a general overview versus PD that addresses the specific conditions of the participating teachers and their students.	64.63	20.81	.84	2
Active learning (0–100%)	Presentations by the teacher educator versus planning reading lessons with feedback from the teacher educator	52.90	21.09	.84	2
Duration: contact time (in hours)	What is an appropriate number of contact hours for a PD programme on this EBI?	7.86	6.41	—	1
Duration: time period (in days)	What time period should a PD programme on this EBI span?	15.65	39.48	—	1
Collective participation (0–100%)	With what percentage of your faculty would you like to participate in a PD programme on this EBI?	58.73	37.15	—	1
Teacher and contextual characteristics
Self-efficacy (Likert 1–7)	I trust myself to be able to inspire all students to read.	4.92	0.97	.84	5
Attitude towards the subject (Likert 1–5)	I like to regularly have my students work on reading tasks of varying difficulty.	3.79	0.63	.70	3
Students’ motivation (Likert 1–7)	My students learn willingly.	5.43	0.90	.85	6
Students’ reading abilities (Likert 1–5)	Please rate your students’ average level of reading comprehension.	2.90	0.68	.93	9
Cooperation (Likert 1–5)	My colleagues and I regularly exchange instructional material.	3.93	0.89	.93	6
Principal support (Likert 1–5)	My principal encourages innovative teaching practices.	3.45	0.78	.88	9
Intervention-related characteristics
Perceived complexity (Likert 1–5)	How much effort would be involved if you implemented this EBI in your classroom?	3.45	0.73	.76	3

Note. N = 125.

In the survey, teachers were asked to indicate their preferences for five PD features. For duration and collective participation, they did so in the form of open responses (Table 1). For coherence, content focus and active learning, PD descriptions were developed where participants could indicate their ideal percentage of two contrasting PD proposals. For instance, for active learning, participants could choose between a lecture versus planning their own reading lesson, and then they indicated the ideal amount of time that should be spent on these activities. They answered by selecting percentages for each option on a slider bar that ultimately added up to 100%. For the manipulation check, a complexity scale was developed; it was used to record the complexity for both EBIs. Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy towards reading (Schwarzer & Schmitz, 1999) as well as their attitude towards differentiated instruction (Frey & Asseburg, 2009) were recorded using standardized instruments. Constructs on contextual characteristics included teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation (Hardré et al., 2008) and their reading abilities (Begeny et al., 2008). On the school level, they indicated cooperative activities (Kullmann, 2009) and perceived principal support (Supovitz & Turner, 2000).

Statistical Analyses

A screening for missing data showed that no data was missing, probably because participants were instantly reminded in the online questionnaire if they skipped a question. The complex EBI was used as the default for our analyses because it closely matches an existing EBI (Förster et al., 2018). However, the Supplemental Material additionally provides all results for the simple EBI (https://osf.io/8f3gr/).

For hypothesis 1, we provide empirical cumulative distribution functions to visualize how teachers’ PD preferences align with theoretical thresholds from research. In doing so, we deviate from the analyses we preregistered. This was done to take the high variance in teachers’ answers into account and, thus, to allow for a closer, individual-oriented look at the data. However, results of t-tests that compare teachers’ mean values with the theoretical thresholds can additionally be found in the Supplemental Material.

To test hypothesis 2, we conducted multiple linear regression analyses with z-standardized variables. Based on the theoretical assumptions, teacher and context characteristics were represented as predictors for each PD feature. As stated above, this included specific directional hypotheses as well as an exploration of additional relationships between individual context characteristics and teachers’ PD preferences. We checked whether statistical assumptions for regression analyses were met; this was the case for multicollinearity (VIF values < 1.503; James et al., 2013), for autocorrelation in residuals (Durbin-Watson values = 1.708–2.059; Ali & Sharma, 1993) and for influential outliers (Cook’s distance < 1; Jensen & Ramirez, 1998). Q-Q plots and normality tests (Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov), however, displayed non-normal distribution for some constructs (duration: contact hours; duration: time period, collective participation). For that reason, we additionally ran all analyses using robust standard errors, and we report all deviations from the analyses without robust standard errors.

For hypothesis 3, we conducted paired t-tests to determine whether teachers’ desired PD characteristics depend on the EBI’s complexity. To calculate Cohen’s d for our within-subject design, we used the average SD of both EBIs as a standardizer and applied Hedges’s correction (Lakens, 2013). Since we used a counterbalanced design by varying the vignettes’ order of presentation, we additionally performed a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the same data to counterbalance sequence effects (Pollatsek & Well, 1995). Because these results are similar to those found in the t-tests, we report the latter, and we provide the results from the ANOVA in the Supplemental Material.

Results

Primary School Teachers’ PD Preferences in Comparison with Scientific Recommendations

Figure 2 provides empirical cumulative distribution functions of teachers’ PD preferences to compare them with scientific recommendations. The graphs show that most teachers preferred PD that clearly focuses on subject-specific and subject-didactic content: Only 20% of the teachers preferred PD that spends less than 60% of the available time on such content. Similarly, most teachers preferred PD that directly addresses their school’s specific circumstances rather than addressing general principles; however, a significant amount of 40% remained below the threshold of 60% here. For active learning, 60% of the teachers stayed below the threshold of 60%, indicating that the available time should rather be spent on passive learning activities like listening to a lecture. Teachers’ preferences for duration drastically deviated from scientific recommendations for effective PD regarding contact hours (<20 hr) and time period (<180 days): As their ideal duration, the majority of teachers preferred PD that lasts six contact hours at most. Further, they indicated that the PD programme should be stretched over less than a week. Teachers’ preferences for collective participation varied: While 30% of teachers wanted less than a quarter of their school’s teaching staff to participate in the same PD, almost 40% preferred that all of their colleagues participate. In total, 58% of the teachers remained below the 60% threshold here.

Figure 2.

Empirical cumulative distribution functions of teachers’ professional development preferences.

The Influence of Teacher and Context Characteristics

Teacher and context characteristics were examined as predictors for teachers’ PD preferences in regression analyses. In sum, none of our directional hypotheses can be supported: Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy and positive attitudes towards the subject matter did not prefer significantly shorter PD, and teachers who perceived high-performing and motivated students, principal support and cooperation did not tend to prefer shorter and less coherent PD (e.g., for self-efficacy and duration: β = .005, p = .963).

Additional exploratory analyses showed that self-efficacy represents a significant negative predictor for coherence (β = −.222, p = .031), while cooperation helps to explain variance in teachers’ preferences for collective participation (β = −.281, p = .010). Students’ learning motivation emerged as a significant predictor for subject-specific (β = .212, p = .039) and subject-didactic content (β = .207, p = .045), but these two coefficients were no longer significant when using robust standard errors. All other predictors added no significant share to variance explanation. The Supplemental Material displays all results of the regression analyses including p-values and standard errors.

Intervention-Related Differences in PD Preferences

In the study, 125 teachers indicated their PD preferences for both EBIs, and thereby rated the complex EBI (M = 3.45, SD = 0.73) as more complex than the simple EBI (M = 2.95, SD = 0.71), t₍₁₂₄₎ = 7.673, p < .001, 95% CI [0.63, 0.37], Hedges’s g_av = 0.73; 95% CI [0.49, 0.79]. Participants preferred a slightly longer time period for the complex EBI (M = 15.55, SD = 39.33) than for the simple EBI (M = 12.44, SD = 36.68), t₍₁₂₄₎ = −2.18, p = .031, 95% CI [−5.94, −0.28], Hedges’s g_av = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, −0.01]. Moreover, teachers preferred less collective participation for the complex EBI (M = 58.73, SD = 37.15) than for the simple EBI (M = 63.26, SD = 35.50), t₍₁₂₄₎ = 2.71, p = .008, 95% CI [1.22, 7.83], Hedges’s g_av = 0.12, 95% CI [0.03, 0.22]. Preferences for all other PD features did not show significant differences between the EBIs. Results for all features are provided in the Supplemental Material.

Discussion

Primary School Teachers’ PD Preferences

The starting point for this study on teachers’ PD preferences was the fact that teacher development constitutes a key requirement for the implementation of EBIs (Guskey, 1985; Slavin, 2020). Our results show that a majority of teachers preferred coherent PD with a strong content focus and high collective participation, which indeed aligns with scientific recommendations (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009). This result is consistent with previous findings of math and science teachers’ PD preferences (M. P. Rogers et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2015). However, distribution functions showed that individual teachers largely deviate from scientific recommendations. For coherence, for instance, 40% of the teachers remained below an approval rating of 60%. In that way, teachers’ PD preferences show a great diversity of patterns, demonstrating the scope of expectations and demands that teachers bring into PD programmes.

Our data further suggests a disparity between teachers’ preferences and scientific recommendations: A large majority of teachers preferred conventional one-shot workshops of at most six contact hours to implement EBIs. Moreover, teachers preferred teacher trainings that are completed within 1 week. Such short durations, however, usually show no significant effects on teacher and student outcomes (Yoon et al., 2007) and, thus, drastically deviate from scientific recommendations (Desimone, 2009). These preferences for such a short PD duration may potentially be explained by other competing work tasks, limited incentives and lacking gratification for PD participation (Desimone et al., 2006). Similarly, the distributions suggest a gap between research and practice for the feature “active learning.” Even though half of the teachers preferred a balance between active learning activities and theoretical input, 60% of the teachers did not show substantial approval for active learning opportunities, indicating that they would rather be entertained in PD programmes. Thus, these teachers seem to be unaware of the benefits of sustained and active PD, which might be due to the lack of opportunities to actually experience ideal PD programmes in their professional lives (Desimone et al., 2006; Sandholtz, 2002).

The heterogeneous data pattern in teachers’ PD preferences requires more variables to explain the variance. In general, however, our regression analyses yielded no systematic results despite the theoretical plausibility of the selected predictors (e.g., Piasta et al., 2010). This lack of a strong single predictor could be due to the complex interplay of circumstances in which teacher preferences for PD evolve. Factors on the micro level (teacher characteristics), on the meso level (school characteristics) and on the macro level (district or state characteristics) might constitute a situation-dependent interplay between various predictors. Rather than predicting teachers’ individual preferences, it may be more fruitful to group teacher preferences into clusters and to then examine the interrelations between potential predictors for these cluster variables.

To understand to what extent teachers consider content when formulating their PD preferences, we examined differences in PD preferences for EBIs of varying complexities. In general, teachers did not strongly differ in their PD preferences for a simple or for a complex EBI. When they did, for example, for the desired time span of PD and for collective participation, the effects of these differences turned out to be rather small. The fact that increased EBI complexity did not lead to a greater demand for longer or more coherent PD might suggest that teachers believe that PD content should adapt to available contact hours, not vice versa. This interpretation indicates that teachers have clearly defined notions of PD and repeatedly underlines teachers’ strong preference for short PD—a result that was already ascertained for research question 1. We interpret this finding as problematic because innovations in educational contexts usually require more extensive and process-oriented teacher learning (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2011; Van Keer & Verhaege, 2005). If teachers expect short PD for complex EBIs, they might abstain from longer PD early on, even though this would be more effective.

To conclude, two key findings emerge from our data: First, our results indicate that there are large differences between individual teachers’ preferences as well as between PD features, pointing towards a multiplicity of ideas and expectations of PD that teachers bring into the professionalization process. At the same time, there exists a mismatch between the PD teachers endorse (brief and compact) and the PD research recommends (sustained and extensive). Despite the consensus in research about core features of effective PD, our results thus point towards a gap between research and practice.

Limitations

Even though the EBIs were presented as videos to enhance experimental realism, the vignette descriptions and PD proposals were still confined to linguistic expressions. Also, dividing interventions into binary categories (simple vs. complex) of course does not represent their actual physical properties. In PD programmes, teachers would interact with the material and, thus, receive various impressions of both the EBIs and the PD programme (Desimone et al., 2006). Our study did not record teachers’ actions or attitudes in actual PD, which could provide a broader view on teacher learning in the implementation of EBIs. Further, limitations arise due to the challenge of defining threshold values for scientific PD features. Even though setting the threshold to 60% seems plausible, more research is required to clearly define the points beyond which positive teacher and student outcome is expected (Yoon et al., 2007). Guskey (2003) also critically remarked that it is not the formal checking off of PD characteristics that will show effectiveness but rather the way in which these characteristics are designed by individual people. For instance, a long PD programme will not automatically lead to positive effects but always depends on the interplay of numerous factors, including the teacher educator. Moreover, other PD features might offer further insight into teachers’ PD preferences. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), for instance, add the use of models, coaching and feedback to their set of effective PD features, which we did not consider in this study. Finally, our study included only primary school teachers and was conducted in Germany, where teacher PD is mostly voluntary and unpaid (Cramer et al., 2019). While we believe that implementing EBIs and offering apt PD represents an international challenge, this specific PD context should be kept in mind for the general interpretation of the results.

Implications

To conclude, our findings shed light on some of the challenges that arise in providing adequate PD for the implementation of EBIs. Particularly, the duration of PD programmes emerges as a relevant feature, revealing a discrepancy between what teachers prefer and what research says is effective. More research is needed on the reasons behind this discrepancy and the goals teachers pursue in PD (Ehlert & Souvignier, 2023). For instance, the availability of time and resources may help explain teachers’ preferences for short PD. An important next step to overcoming this research-practice gap is to clarify how one can increase teachers’ buy-in to take part in longer PD programmes (Desimone et al., 2006). For researchers, this may, on the one hand, include studying the role of incentives to encourage continuous and lifelong learning, and, on the other hand, to clearly communicate what PD “is likely to do and when” (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014, p. 467). For instance, researchers can provide educational policymakers with arguments for why longer and sustained PD programmes are needed. Since the PD preferences we report are likely to reflect the PD programmes teachers usually experience in their professional lives (Desimone et al., 2006), our proposition for policymakers is to now primarily invest in and provide incentives for PD programmes that are strongly based on evidence (Slavin, 2020).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241276172 – Supplemental material for Mind the Gap: How Teachers’ Professional Development Preferences Relate to Scientific Recommendations

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241276172 for Mind the Gap: How Teachers’ Professional Development Preferences Relate to Scientific Recommendations by Mareike Ehlert and Elmar Souvignier in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note on Open Science

The study’s design and analysis plan were preregistered in the Open Science Framework. The preregistration, the data, reproducible codes, study material and the Supplemental Material are available via the following anonymous link:

ORCID iD

Mareike Ehlert

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Data Availability Statement

The data are openly available in the Open Science Framework via the following link: .

References

Ali

M. M.

Sharma

S. C.

(1993). Robustness to nonnormality of the Durbin-Watson test for autocorrelation. Journal of Econometrics, 57(1–3), 117–136.

Alvidrez

Weinstein

R. S.

(1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.731

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Banilower

E. R.

Heck

D. J.

Weiss

I. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20145

Begeny

J. C.

Eckert

T. L.

Montarello

S. A.

Storie

M. S.

(2008). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading abilities: An examination of the relationship between teachers’ judgments and students’ performance across a continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.43

Borko

(2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 417–436.

Century

Cassata

Rudnick

(2012). Measuring enactment of innovations and the factors that affect implementation and sustainability: Moving toward common language and shared conceptual understanding. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-012-9287-x

Chen

Y.-L.

Huang

L.-F.

P.-C.

(2021). Preservice preschool teachers’ self-efficacy in and need for STEM education professional development: STEM pedagogical belief as a mediator. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01055-3

Clarke

Hollingsworth

(2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

10.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300089479.001.0001

11.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

12.

Cramer

Johannmeyer

Drahmann

(2019). Fortbildungen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern in Baden-Württemberg. In-service Training for Teachers in Baden-Wurttemberg. Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:16567

13.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

14.

Darling-Hammond

Richardson

(2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66, 46–53.

15.

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

16.

Desimone

L. M.

Smith

T. M.

Ueno

(2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04273848

17.

Desimone

L. M.

Stuckey

(2014). Sustaining teacher professional development. In Martin

Kragler

Quatroche

Bauserman

(Eds.), Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices, PREK-12 (pp. 483–506). Guilford Publications.

18.

Ehlert

Souvignier

(2023). Effective professional development in implementation processes - the teachers' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134(4), 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104329

19.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

20.

Förster

Kawohl

Souvignier

(2018). Short- and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 56, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.009

21.

Frey

Asseburg

(2009). PISA-2006-Skalenhandbuch: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA-2006 scale manual: Documentation of survey instruments]. Waxmann.

22.

Fullan

M. G.

(1986). Improving the implementation of educational change. School Organisation, 6(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136860060303

23.

Garet

M. S.

Cronen

Eaton

Kurki

Ludwig

Jones

Uekawa

Falk

(2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

24.

Garet

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

Desimone

Birman

B. F.

Yoon

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915

25.

Geijsel

F. P.

Sleegers

P. J. C.

Stoel

R. D.

Krüger

M. L.

(2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/593940

26.

Guskey

T. R.

(1985). Staff development and teacher change. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 57–60.

27.

Guskey

T. R.

(2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650308763702

28.

Hardré

P. L.

Davis

K. A.

Sullivan

D. W.

(2008). Measuring teacher perceptions of the “how” and “why” of student motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(2), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610801956689

29.

Henninger

(2010). Exploring the relationship between factors of implementation, treatment integrity and reading fluency [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts.

30.

Hochberg

E. D.

Desimone

L. M.

(2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461521003703052

31.

Ingvarson

Meiers

Beavis

(2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 10. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n10.2005

32.

James

Witten

Hastie

Tibshirani

(2013). An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. Springer.

33.

Jensen

D. R.

Ramirez

D. E.

(1998). Detecting outliers with Cook’s DI statistic. Computing Science and Statistics, 29(1), 581–586.

34.

Kang

H. S.

Cha

B.-W.

(2013). What should we consider in teachers’ professional development impact studies? Based on the conceptual framework of Desimone. Creative Education, 4, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.44A003

35.

Kelly

Cherkowski

(2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 169, 1063374.

36.

King

(2002). Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00067-1

37.

Kullmann

(2009). Lehrerkooperation an Gymnasien: Eine explorative Untersuchung zu Ausprägung und Wirkungen am Beispiel des naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts [Teacher cooperation in secondary schools: An explorative study on the characteristics and effects in science teaching] [Doctoral dissertation].

38.

Lakens

(2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

39.

Maehr

M. L.

Midgley

(1996). Transforming school cultures. Lives in context. Westview Press.

40.

Pan

S. C.

Franklin

(2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy, professional development, and Web 2.0 tools for integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28–40.

41.

Penuel

W. R.

Gallagher

L. P.

Moorthy

(2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth systems science. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864

42.

Piasta

S. B.

Dynia

J. M.

Justice

L. M.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Kaderavek

J. N.

Schatschneider

(2010). Impact of professional development on preschool teachers’ print references during shared read alouds: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(4), 343–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.482177

43.

Pollatsek

Well

A. D.

(1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.785

44.

Postholm

M. B.

(2012). Teachers’ professional development: A theoretical review. Educational Research, 54, 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.734725

45.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations. Social science (5th ed.). Free Press.

46.

Rogers

M. P.

Abell

Lannin

Wang

C. Y.

Musikul

Barker

Dingman

(2007). Effective professional development in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ and facilitators’ views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 507–532.

47.

Sandholtz

J. H.

(2002). Inservice training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00045-8

48.

Schwarzer

Schmitz

G. S.

(1999). Skala Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung [Scale teacher self-efficacy]. In Schwarzer

(Ed.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen [Scales for the assessment of teacher and student characteristics] (pp. 60–61). Springer.

49.

Shulman

(1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

50.

Slavin

R. E.

(2020). How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432

51.

State

T. M.

Harrison

J. R.

Kern

Lewis

T. J.

(2017). Feasibility and acceptability of classroom-based interventions for students with emotional/behavioral challenges at the high school level. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716648459

52.

Supovitz

J. A.

Turner

H. M.

(2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0

53.

Sweet

A. P.

Guthrie

J. T.

M. M.

(1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.210

54.

Terhart

(2014). Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf [Handbook of research on the teaching profession]. Waxmann.

55.

Timperley

Wilson

Barrar

Fung

(2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Ministry of Education.

56.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

Hoy

W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

57.

Vanderlinde

van Braak

(2011). A new ICT curriculum for primary education in Flanders: Defining and predicting teachers’ perceptions of innovation attributes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 124–135.

58.

Van Keer

Verhaege

J. P.

(2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’ experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.002

59.

West

Staub

(2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Heinemann.

60.

Yoon

K. S.

Duncan

Lee

S. W. Y.

Scarloss

Shapley

K. L.

(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). U.S. Department of Education, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

61.

Zhang

Parker

Koehler

M. J.

Eberhardt

(2015). Understanding inservice science teachers’ needs for professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9433-4

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB