The research on professional development (PD) consists mostly of studies utilizing cross-sectional data. We examined effects of change in school-level PD on change in teachers’ practice longitudinally. Using survey reports from 1,722 teachers in 31 schools implementing a popular comprehensive school reform (America’s Choice), we found that although schools were implementing the same reform model, they varied in their implementation of PD. Teachers successfully changed their practice toward reform-aligned instructional goals only in schools demonstrating high growth in providing reform-aligned PD (both in the content and process of their PD). Our findings have implications for understanding interventions in schools and for thinking about the rigor of PD effects on teaching.
ArbaughF.BrownC. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change?Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536.
2.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BallD. L.ForzaniF. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511.
4.
BerendsM. (2004). In the wake of A Nation At Risk: New American School’s private sector school reform initiative. Peabody Journal of Education, 79, 130–163.
5.
BerendsM.BodillyS.KirbyS. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
BerendsM.ChunJ.SchuylerG.StocklyS.BriggsR. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
7.
BiancarosaG.BrykA. S.DexterE. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 7–34.
8.
BirmanB.LeFlochK. C.KlekotkaA.LudwigM.TaylorJ.WaltersK.. . . YoonK. S. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, volume II—Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
9.
BlankR. K.de las AlasN. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: How meta analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers.
10.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
11.
BormanK.BoydstonT.LeeR.LanehartR.CotnerB. (2009, March). Improving elementary science instruction and student achievement: The impact of a professional development program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
12.
CamburnE.HanS. W. (2006). Factors affecting the validity of teachers’ reports of instructional practice on annual surveys (Working paper of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
13.
ChurchM. B. (2000). Comprehensive school reform demonstration program: The third wave and its preliminary effects (PREL Briefing Paper). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
14.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.
15.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.
16.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
17.
CorrentiR. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 262–295.
18.
CorrentiR.RowanB. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–338.
19.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR. C.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.
20.
DesimoneL. M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–480.
21.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
22.
DesimoneL. M.PorterA.GaretM.YoonK.BirmanB. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.
23.
FennemaE.CarpenterT.FrankeM.LeviL.JacobsV.EmpsonS. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
24.
GaretM. S.CronenS.EatonM.KurkiA.LudwigM.JonesW.. . . SztejnbergL. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
25.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
26.
GaretM. S.WayneA.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK.DoolittleF. (2011). Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
27.
GlazerJ. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s Choice, 1998–2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 269–297.
28.
HamiltonL. S.McCaffreyD.KleinS. P.StecherB. M.RobynA.BugliariD. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 1–29.
29.
HarrisK. R.LaneK.GrahamS.DriscollS.SandmelK.BrindleM.SchatschneiderC. (2012). Practice-based professional development for strategies instruction in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 103–119.
30.
HawleyW.ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In SykesG.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
HellerJ. I.DaehlerK. R.WongN.ShinoharaM.MiratrixL. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 333–362.
32.
HillH. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17, 111–127.
33.
KennedyM. (1998). Form and substance of inservice teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
34.
KingM.BrunerG. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 79–103.
35.
KnappM. S. (2003). Professional development as policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109–157.
36.
LauraB.McMeekingS.OrsiR.CobbR. B. (2012). Effects of a teacher professional development program on the mathematics achievement of middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 159–181.
37.
LeinhardtG. (1980). Modeling and measuring educational treatment in evaluation. Review of Educational Research, 50, 393–420.
38.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.SpybrookJ. (2013). Literacy coaching to improve student reading achievement: A multi-level mediation model. Learning and Instruction, 25, 35–48.
39.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
40.
McCaffreyD.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.KleinS. P.BugliariD.RobynA. (2001). Relationships among teaching practices, curriculum, and student achievement in high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 493–517.
41.
NelsonM. C.CordrayD. S.HullemanC. S.DarrowC. L.SommerE. C. (2012). A procedure for assessing intervention fidelity in experiments testing educational and behavioral interventions. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39, 374–396.
42.
NeumanS. B.CunninghamL. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566.
43.
NewmanD.FinneyP. B.BellS.TurnerH.JaciwA. P.ZacamyJ. L.Feagans GouldL. (2012). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) (NCEE 2012-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
44.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
45.
PoglincoS.BachA.HovdeK.RosenblumS.SaundersM.SupovitzJ. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
46.
PowellD. R.DiamondK. E.BurchinalM. R.KoehlerM. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312.
47.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
48.
RothK. J.GarnierH. E.ChenC.LemmensM.SchwilleK.WicklerN. I. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.
49.
RowanB.CamburnE.BarnesC. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In CrossC. (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
RowanB.CorrentiR.MillerR. (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.
52.
RowanB.CorrentiR.MillerR.CamburnE. (2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In SchneiderB.SykesD. (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 637–651). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
53.
RowanB.MillerR. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 252–297.
54.
SailorsM.PriceL. R. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 110, 301–322.
55.
SaxeG.GearhartM.NasirN. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79.
56.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
57.
SmithM. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. Elementary School Journal, 100, 351–375.
58.
SpillaneJ.ZeuliJ. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1–27.
59.
SteinM. K.SmithM. S.SilverE. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 237–269.
60.
SteinM. L.BerendsM.FuchsD.McMasterK.SáenzL.YenL.ComptonD. L. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 368–388.
61.
SupovitzJ. A.MayerD.KahleJ. B. (2000). The longitudinal impact of inquiry-based professional development on teaching practice. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356.
62.
SupovitzJ. A.PoglincoS. M.BachA. (2002). Implementation of the America’s Choice Literacy Workshops. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
63.
SupovitzJ. A.TurnerH. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
64.
TanF. E. S. (2008). Best practices in analysis of longitudinal data: A multilevel approach. In OsbornJ. (Ed.), Best practice in quantitative methods (pp. 451–471). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
65.
TuckerM. (2004). Reaching for coherence in school reform: The case of America’s Choice. In GlennanT. K.BodillyS. J.GallagherJ. R.KerrK. A. (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives of leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 197–258). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
66.
VernezG.KaramR.MarianoL.DeMartiniC. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: A focus on implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
67.
WayneA. J.YoonK. S.ZhuP.CronenS.GaretM. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479.
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.
