EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Education and Culture
Lifelong learning: policies and programme
School education; Comenius
Education and Training 2020
Thematic Working Group
‘Professional Development of Teachers’
Literature review
Quality in Teachers’ continuing
professional development
Author: Francesca Caena
June 2011
© European Commission
Literature review
Quality in Teachers’ continuing professional developmenti
1. Teacher Professional Development:
the international state of the art
Reference
The significant, positive correlations between teacher quality and student
achievement, as most important within-school factors explaining
performance, and between in-service training and student outcomes, are
consistently borne out by research.
Angrist & Lavy, 2001;
Darling-Hammond et al., 2005;
Rivkin, Hanushek, Kain, 2005;
Rockoff, 2004
The European Union, focusing on high quality teaching as key prerequisite for high quality education and training, highlights the school’s
duty to provide young citizens with the competences they need to adapt
to globalised, complex environments, where creativity, innovation,
initiative, entrepreneurship and commitment to continuous learning are
as important as knowledge.
Council Resolution 2007/C
300/07 of 15.11.07;
Council Resolution 2008/C
319/08 of 21.11.08
In particular, promoting the development of teachers’ competence in
teaching transversal competences and heterogeneous classes, and
collaborating with colleagues and parents, are seen as essential.
Although the complexities of the teaching profession require a lifelong
learning perspective to adapt to fast changes and evolving constraints or
needs, international studies on teachers and their professional
development have shown that so far, in-service training is considered as a
professional duty in about a half of all European states, but it is in
practice optional in many of them. Incentives to encourage participation
in CPD appear few, and penalties for no participation are rare. In
accordance with the degree of centralization/ decentralization in national
education systems, the responsibility for planning and organizing CPD,
falls to schools or local authorities in a certain number of countries
(among others, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, as well as most
Nordic and Eastern European countries).
European Commission, 2007;
OECD, 2005;
Eurydice, 2009
The forms of support to teachers’ professional development can consist
in paid working time and substitutions (often discouraged for budget and
organisational reasons), funding of CPD costs sustained by teachers,
salary incentives, CPD as condition for salary progression and promotion,
national policies and campaigns (such as the recent one in Sweden).
OECD, 2005
An organized plan of support measures for new teachers in the first years
of their career - the most demanding and decisive stage of teachers’
development - is foreseen in only a small group of EU countries, among
which the UK, Luxembourg and Lithuania seem to have a wide range of
support activities. Induction programmes are reported as mandatory in
OECD TALIS, 2009
© European Commission
2
only ten states of the OECD study, with Canada (Quebec), Switzerland
and some US states offering the longest support (two years).
The form, content and context conditions of teachers’ professional
development (CPD) are extensively described and analyzed in OECD’s
recent TALIS survey, focussed on fostering educational performance and
effectiveness, outlining key variables for effectiveness in teachers. The
survey, which is based on the perceptions and self-reports of lower
secondary education teachers, points out that CPD activities appear to be
relatively loosely linked with school practices in the areas of instruction,
evaluation and feedback, and school leadership; this seems to
recommend policies aimed at a stronger integration of different
functional domains of schooling.
In the following literature review, professional development is defined, in
accordance with the perspectives of several studies taken into account by
the TALIS survey, as related to activities developing an individual’s skills,
knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher (excluding
Initial Teacher Education).
2. Educational effectiveness research and teacher
professional development: an overview
Diagram: Layers of analysis in
identifying contents and forms of
teachers’ professional
development, from Teachers’
Professional Development:
Europe in international
comparison, a secondary analysis
based on the TALIS dataset. Ed.:
Jaap Scheerens. European
Commission, Luxembourg 2010.
Literature on educational effectiveness seems to outline a conceptual
framework that can be described as an ‘onion-rings’ model, going from
the micro-level to the macro-level perspective – with individual teachers’
© European Commission
Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002;
3
personal characteristics (competences, beliefs and attitudes) at the core,
a second layer concerning teaching effectiveness in the classroom
(instructional repertoires), a further layer about teachers’ cooperation in
school contexts, and finally considering national policies and
organizational features (including issues of autonomy, accountability,
evaluation in education systems) as the outer layer.
Richardson & Placier, 2001
The literature mentioned here is focused mainly on policy-amenable
effectiveness features, considering the most favourable conditions for
teachers’ professional learning, above all in school contexts as
professional communities. Such a perspective takes stock of past failures
of CPD programmes informed by a deficit-mastery model, consisting in
‘one-shot’ professional development approaches, adopting instead a
‘change as professional learning’ perspective, inspired by adult learning
and situated cognition theories, according to the paradigm of the teacher
as reflective practitioner, taking responsibility for learning to improve the
quality of professional performance.
Anderson et al., 2000;
Putnam & Borko, 2000;
Sleegers, Bolhuis & Gejsel, 2005;
ten Dam & Blom, 2006
A shift can therefore be distinguished from a technical-rational-top-down
approach to CPD, towards a more cultural-individual interactive approach
to the professional development of teachers.
Since not all the learning of teachers promotes professional development
in practice and school improvement, existing literature gives some
indications about key professional learning activities that enable teachers
to tackle rapid changes: keeping updated; experimentation; reflective
practice; knowledge sharing; innovation.
Geijsel et al., 2009;
Janssen & van Yperen, 2004;
Kwakman, 2003;
Runhaar, 2008
As regards conditions affecting teacher learning, two theoretical
perspectives are usually taken into account:
Coburn, 2004;
Earl & Katz, 2006;
Nguni, Sleegers & Denessen,
2006;
Sleegers, Geijsel & van der Berg,
2002;
Toole & Louis, 2002;
Zwart, 2007
-
psychological factors (teacher cognition and motivation);
-
organisational factors (leadership, teacher collaboration, staff
relationships and communication, locus of control, opportunities for
teachers’ learning).
The latter factors are considered as prerequisites for linking teacher
professional development and school development. The second
theoretical perspective often refers to system theory on change, linking
structural, cultural and political dimensions of school workplace
environments to professional learning.
Scholars stress the need for research considering the interplay of the two
perspectives - psychological factors, together with leadership and
organisational conditions - deploying multi-level models. The few existing
studies seem to show that psychological factors have relatively large
effects on teacher learning, mediating the influence of leadership and
organisational conditions.
© European Commission
Geijsel et al., 2009;
Kwakman, 2003
4
Consistently with the recent learning and cognition theories mentioned
before, researchers have highlighted the importance of teachers’
empowerment through collaboration, as well as the development of
school cultures valuing shared responsibilities and values, revolving
around the concept of professional learning community (PLC). Scholars
converge on describing some features of professional learning
communities (PLCs), characterized by dimensions such as the focus on
student learning, shared values, collective responsibility, reflective
professional inquiry, collaboration, group and individual learning.
Mitchell & Sackney, 2000;
Stoll et al., 2006
The Professional Learning Community model is based on two basic
assumptions:
Bolam et al., 2005;
Supovitz, 2002; Vescio,
Ross & Adams, 2008
-
the idea of knowledge and learning as embedded in social contexts
and experiences, and promoted through interactive, reflective
exchanges;
-
the assumption that participation in a PLC leads to changes in
teaching practices and enhancement of student learning.
Recent empirical studies analysing the impact of PLCs on teaching and
student learning support the idea that participation in a PLC leads to
improvement in teaching practices, teaching culture, continuous teacher
learning, and focus on student learning; the latter seems to qualify as a
key element of successful PLCs. Moreover, the TALIS study, in describing
contextual variables for CPD, provides representations of some key
school characteristics for PLCs, namely a cooperative climate and
evaluation/ feedback mechanisms.
Imants, Sleegers & Witziers,
2001;
OECD TALIS, 2009
However, researchers warn about the need for more rigorous and robust
evidence for the claim that CPD in schools sustains improvement and
student learning enhancement, since the knowledge base on conditions
for teacher learning in the workplace appears fragmentary and
heterogeneous for concepts, methods and instruments, thus increasing
the difficulty of testing complex multi-level models about the impact of
teacher learning. Such complex models would be needed to understand
the dynamic, recursive links between conditions and effects – to decide
whether collaboration, leadership, teamwork and active participation in
the PLC turn out to be input, throughput or outcome of learning
processes.
Imants, Sleegers & Witziers,
2001;
Vescio, Ross & Adams, 2008
On the system-level (the outer layer of the rings model previously
described), recent research concentrates on the effects of
decentralization/ school autonomy, as well as evaluation/ accountability
mechanisms, with implications for the features of CPD and teacher
quality. The results can be considered as inconclusive, apart from a few
findings.
Fuchs & Wößmann, 2004;
Maslowski, Scheerens & Luyten,
2007;
Mons, 2007
Autonomy and decentralization seem to work better for student results if
Garet et al., 2001
© European Commission
5
coupled with external exit examinations - that is, accountability systems
matched with devolution seem to have positive effects on outcomes;
moreover, schools’ responsibility in hiring staff may influence the quality
of schooling.
Recent studies concerning the status of professional learning in the US
have also explored the ways in which policy can affect professional
learning, taking four high-performing states (Vermont, Missouri, New
Jersey and Colorado) as examples, selected on the basis of high levels of
teacher participation in CPD, research-consistent policies, and student
achievement improvements, but characterized by geographic,
demographic and policy context diversity.
Jaquith, Mindich & Chung Wei,
2010;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
Several common features supportive of professional development stand
out in the four US states selected as case studies:
-
professional development standards, with a body overseeing teacher
licensing, standards and development;
-
individual professional development plans required of teachers;
-
minimum levels of professional development for license renewal;
-
induction and mentoring requirements for beginning teachers.
In one state, there is also a strong system in place for ensuring the local
enactment of state-level policies through guaranteed levels of state and
local funding of CPD, CPD committees, and monitoring of regional
professional development centres and participants’ satisfaction.
3. School effectiveness research and teacher
professional development: insights
As far as the third layer of the onion-rings model is concerned, school
effectiveness researchii can provide interesting insights regarding
effective CPD and teacher learning, since researchers and practitioners
have shifted their interest from studying change as a phenomenoniii to
endeavouring to relate knowledge and strategies to school development
in a pragmatic, systematic and sensitive way. iv
The following strategies have been found to be generally effective in
promoting improvement in schools, especially when used together:
-
concrete, teacher-specific and extended training;
-
classroom assistance from local staff;
-
teacher observation of similar projects in other classrooms, schools
and districts;
-
regular project meetings focusing on practical issues;
© European Commission
Hopkins, Ainscow & West, 1994
6
-
teacher participation in project decisions;
-
local development of project materials;
-
principals’ participation in training.
This highlights the key role of the relationship between macro-level
policies and micro-level behaviour; policy implementation – i.e. school
improvement programmes - seems to be fundamental in determining
teacher quality and student achievement.
School improvement approaches, which consider the long-term goal of
moving towards the ideal type of self-renewing school as the centre of
change, rest on a series of assumptions:
-
reforms as sensitive to the situations of individual schools, where
improvement efforts need to adopt a ‘classroom-exceeding’
perspective, without ignoring the classroom;
-
a systematic approach to change, which must be carefully planned
and managed over years;
-
focus on internal conditions of schools: teaching-learning activities
but also school procedures, role allocations and resource uses;
-
accomplishing educational goals linked with the particular school
mission – not only student scores, but also developmental needs,
professional development needs and community needs;
-
a multi-level perspective, considering schools as embedded in an
educational system that has to work collaboratively – with the roles
of teachers, staff, local authorities as clearly defined and committed
to school improvement;
-
integrated implementation strategies – top-down and bottom-up –
where top-down policy can provide aims, overall strategy and
operational plans, and bottom-up school response can provide
diagnosis, priority goal setting, and implementation;
-
a drive towards institutionalization, where change is successful when
it has become part of the natural behaviour of teachers in the school.
A ‘new wave’ approach has endeavoured to merge school effectiveness
research and school improvement perspectives, underlining some
peculiar features of school quality improvementv:
-
learning level, teachers’ instructional behaviour, and classroom level
are targeted together with the school level;
-
multiple levers are pulled to encourage school and teacher
development, with the concern to utilize also all reinforcers and
initiators of change outside the school – local educational authorities,
as well as national policy agendas;
-
a tight organization of improvement programmes, focusing on the
© European Commission
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
Stoll & Fink, 1994;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
7
relevance of organizational cohesion, constancy and consistency, with
a commitment to enhanced organizational reliability and fidelity of
implementation. This ought to promote ‘ownership’ and ‘collegiality’
among the school staff.
Some findings coming from relevant school improvement projects can
thus be highlighted, as they can be related to effective teacher
professional development at the school level.
Hopkins & Ainscow, 1993;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
Increased staff development in decision-making, which is considered as a
key factor for school improvement, implies the development of clear
decision-making structures and organizational processes, with dynamic
and ongoing planning processes.
The importance of spending time building a collaborative culture within
the schools is also stressed, wherein teachers keep learning and feel
valued, risk-taking is promoted, and teachers are encouraged to
articulate their values and beliefs, developing a shared vision of the
school’s future.
All in all, there seem to be six conditions that underpin the work of
successful schools.
-
While teachers can often develop practice individually, there need to
be many staff development opportunities for teachers to learn
together for the whole school to improve.
-
Successful schools have ways of working that encourage feelings of
involvement from stakeholder groups.
-
Leadership is seen as a function to which many staff contribute,
rather than a set of responsibilities entrusted to an individual.
-
The coordination of activities is important to keep people involved;
communication within the school is an important aspect of
coordination, together with the informal interactions between
teachers.
-
Recognizing enquiry and reflection as important for school
improvement helps establish shared meanings around development
priorities, and better monitor policy implementation.
-
The processes of collaborative planning for development enable the
school to link educational aims to identifiable priorities, sequence
them over time, and maintain a focus on classroom practice.
Finally, developments in School Effectiveness /Improvement studies and
approaches concern two further perspectives. On one hand, there has
been increasing attention to the individual school context, with the
tailoring of interventions to the specific characteristics, background and
ecology of individual schools. On the other hand, evaluations of
effectiveness programmes in the US have pointed out a more marked
© European Commission
Stringfield et al., 1994
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
8
change in student outcomes in the presence of a strong pre-ordained
technology of programme levers or interventions, if compared with those
programmes which expect schools to supply the contents of change.
This seems to underlie the trend of re-conceptualizing staff professional
development activities with the provision of foundational material and
‘off the shelf’ models of school improvement that do not require school
elaboration, while respecting the context specificity of individual schools.
4. Teacher Learning and Continuous Professional
Development: relevant findings
To help young people learn the more complex and analytical skills they
need for the 21st century, teachers must learn in ways that develop
higher-order thinking and performance. To develop the sophisticated
teaching required for this mission, they must be offered more and more
effective professional learning. Meaningful learning is a slow and
uncertain process for teachers as well as for students, with some
elements that are more easily changed than others, according to the
interplay with teachers’ deeply-rooted beliefs and attitudes.
Borko, 2004;
Franke & Kazemi, 2001;
Greeno, 2003;
Shulman & Shulman, 2004
A wide, all-encompassing conceptualization of teacher learning and
development within communities and contexts is offered by Shulman &
Shulman: it includes the key elements of vision, motivation,
understanding, practice, reflection and community.
The findings presented here come from studies which mostly
conceptualize teacher learning and development as a process of active
individual construction and enculturation into social practices – linked to
changes in participation in socially organized activities, and to individuals’
use of knowledge as an aspect of their participation in social practices.
However, the following overview of findings also takes into account the
perspectives of evaluation literature and impact studies, in that they can
contribute to understanding which features of professional development
can actually make a difference.
It might be useful here to distinguish between professional learning and
professional development, which often appear distinct in theory and in
practice. If ‘professionals learn from experience and that learning is
ongoing through active engagement in practice’, professional
development features and delivery have often appeared at odds in
several countries and realities so far, extracting professionals from their
key professional learning environments (schools and classrooms) and
assuming that experts know best what contents and kind of PD teachers
need.
© European Commission
Bruce et al., 2010;
Sankaran et al., 2011;
Webster-Wright, 2009
9
In contrast with traditional CPD perspectives, teacher professional
learning is now mostly conceptualized in the literature as dynamic,
ongoing, continuous, and set in teachers’ daily lives - embedded in the
classroom context and constructed through experience and practice, in
sustained, iterative cycles of goal setting, planning, practicing, and
reflecting.
Teacher learning should therefore be embedded in the daily life of the
school and provide opportunities to inquire systematically about teaching
practices, their impact on students and about other issues of teachers’
work.
Examples of different types of collaborative, job-embedded professional
learning activities can be:
-
the analysis of the school’s culture;
-
peer observations of practice;
-
small-scale classroom studies about students’ written work;
-
analysis of student data;
-
study groups;
-
involvement in a development or improvement process (designing or
choosing new curricula or textbooks; assisting with the school
improvement plan);
-
case studies about patterns in students’ classroom behaviour.
Birman et al., 2000;
Boyle et al., 2005;
Desimone, 2009;
Guskey, 2000;
Hofman & Dijkstra, 2010;
Sato, Wei & Darling-Hammond,
2008
The collective participation of teachers from the same department, grade
or subject is more likely to be coherent with their experiences, afford
opportunities for active learning, and contribute to a shared professional
culture – the development of a common understanding of instructional
goals, methods, problems and solutions.
According to recent research, teachers agreed that the most popular
long-term professional development activities were peer observation and
sharing practice.
As part of this model of professional learning, the importance of teacher
collaboration comes to the fore. Traditionally, teaching is understood to
be a ‘uniquely isolated profession’; nevertheless, teacher collaboration is
identified by researchers and educators as one of the most relevant
features of school culture in order to foster teacher learning, satisfaction
and effectiveness. Collaboration arising from deep, individual and
continuous interest is clearly hard to achieve, requiring trust and risktaking; the ‘de-privatization’ of teaching implies changes of deeply-rooted
norms, cultures and practices.
Hindin, Morocco, Mott & Aguilar,
2007;
Fullan, 2007;
Fullan, Hill & Crevola, 2006;
Puchner & Taylor, 2006
The relevance of teacher efficacy for teacher effectiveness, as related to
powerful CPD experiences, ought also to be mentioned. The literature on
Bruce et al., 2010;
Bandura, 1997;
Bruce & Ross, 2008;
© European Commission
10
the topic defines teacher efficacy as the teacher’s self-assessment of
one’s own ability to support student learning; it is described as related to
teachers’ persistence facing obstacles in order to meet goals in their
practice, as well as with the tendency to changing, taking risks and
experimenting.
Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Palardy & Rumberger, 2008;
Puchner & Taylor, 2006;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001; Zambo & Zambo,
2008
Among the sources of teacher efficacy, the key ones appear to be
mastery experiences (i.e. direct teaching experiences that are challenging
but successful), together with vicarious experiences (observations of
peers of similar ability levels, teaching challenging ideas successfully) and
social/verbal persuasion (receiving positive feedback from students,
peers and superiors).
Teacher efficacy is therefore strongly connected to teacher professional
learning opportunities that can provide mastery and vicarious
experiences, thus raising teachers’ personal competence levels. Schoolembedded professional learning opportunities can thus answer to selfdirected desires for instructional change, which can then provide the
motivation to sustain efforts and overcome obstacles.
A key pocket of research, finally, has consistently linked teacher efficacy
and student achievement, indicating the former as a reliable precursor to,
and predictor of, the latter. There seems to be an indirect but powerful
relationship between increasing teacher efficacy and increased student
achievement; research theorizations indicate that teacher efficacy,
mediated by contextual factors, impacts what teacher learn from CPD,
and how they learn, with reciprocal and reverberating effects.
Impact studies regarding teachers’ high quality professional learning and
development have by now reached a research-based (theoretical and
empirical) consensus on the critical features of PD – those which make an
activity effective for increasing teacher learning and changing practice,
and ultimately for improving student learning.
Desimone, 2009;
Desimone et al., 2002;
Garet et al., 2001
There are at least five core features of effective professional learning and
development, on which there is research consensus, stemming from a
great number and diversity of studies (both case studies, large-scale and
experimental research) conducted since 2000, with the proposal of a core
conceptual framework for studying professional learning and
development’s impact on teachers and students.
The five core features of effective teacher learning and development are
the following:
-
content focus;
-
active learning;
-
coherence;
-
duration;
© European Commission
11
-
collective participation.
Such a foundational framework considers both teacher change and
instructional change, and operates with context as an important mediator
and moderator, with several key influences:
-
student characteristics;
-
individual teacher characteristics;
-
contextual factors of classroom, local professional community,
school, district;
-
policy conditions at multiple levels.
Teachers’ powerful learning is thus seen as enhanced:
-
when there is collective participation and effective staff
communication;
-
in teacher networks and study groups;
-
in professional development programmes that are longer, sustained
and intensive, since traditional episodic, fragmented approaches do
not allow rigorous, cumulative learning;
-
when CPD is part of a coherent, integrated professional development
programme of the school – that is, school curriculum, assessment,
standards and CPD should be linked.vi
The kind of CPD most likely to affect teaching positively is therefore of
the ‘hands-on’ kind, and has the following characteristics:
-
a considerable duration;
-
a clear theoretical rationale grounded in research, and a strong
knowledge base;
-
is based on collaborative, active learning and teaching (not on a oneshot lecture or a ‘drive-by’ workshop), as well as on feedback;
-
is delivered to a team of teachers (same age group, subject, school…)
-
is focused on specific content knowledge / strategies (not general),
helping teachers develop the pedagogical skills to teach specific
content, with strong positive effects on practice;
-
is coherent, practical, focused on students’ learning of content and on
the examination of students’ work, in relation to standards for what
students should know and be able to do.
Borko, 2004;
Cochran-Smith, 2001;
Darling-Hammond & Richardson,
2009; Greenleaf, Schoenbach,
Cziko & Mueller, 2001;
Hofman & Dijkstra, 2010;
Knapp, 2003;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000;
Ten Dam & Blom , 2006;
Weiss & Paisley, 2006;
Wilson & Berne, 1999;
Yoon et al., 2007
Birman et al., 2000;
Borko, 2004:
Ingvarson, Meiers & Beavis,
2005; Snow-Renner & Lauer,
2005; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
Active learning should include opportunities for reciprocal observation,
co-planning and co-teaching, as well as presenting, leading or writing
activities.
In this way, teachers can have powerful understandings of the subjects
they teach (i.e., PCK – Pedagogical Subject Knowledge), of students’
thinking, and of effective instructional practices.
© European Commission
12
Collaborative CPD turns out to be more effective than individual CPD:
-
to promote changes in teachers’ practices, attitudes or beliefs;
-
for changes in teachers’ classroom behaviours, as well as in their
attitudes to professional development ;
-
for improvements in pupils’ learning, and changes in their behaviour
and attitudes;
-
collective work provides a basis for inquiry and reflection, to raise
issues, take risks and address dilemmas in teachers’ practice, opening
avenues for ‘de-privatising’ teachers’ practice;
-
collegial learning in trusting environments helps develop communities
of practice to promote school change beyond the individual
classroom;
-
a staff culture involving mutual learning, monitoring and commitment
to collaboration is found to be a key feature of effective schools;
-
fair uniformity of effective teacher behaviours, as linked with good
socialization processes within schools, seems to be a recurring
characteristic of effective schools.
To improve classroom practice, CPD should therefore be:
-
collaborative and extended over time;
-
include time for practice, coaching, and follow-up;
-
be grounded in students’ curriculum, and aligned with local policies;
-
be job-embedded and connected to several elements of instruction
(e.g., assessments, curriculum).
To sum up, among the key factors that seem to inspire teachers to
change their classroom practices, there are the following:
-
collaboration and joint work with other teachers on concrete tasks
and problem-solving, supporting teachers’ mutual aid, responsibility,
initiative and leadership;
-
observation and assessment/ feedback processes;
-
inquiry and reflection on own and others’ beliefs and behaviours;
-
teacher educators and mentors modelling the new teaching practices,
encouraging teachers to implement them, and constructing
opportunities for teachers to share their learning and reflections;
-
practical courses connected to the reality of classroom activities.
An approach meeting all these criteria is the professional learning
community (PLC) paradigm, increasingly featured in the literature, and
mentioned in previous paragraphs. In this model, teachers are engaged in
ongoing work and dialogue together, to examine their practice and
student performance, develop and implement more effective
© European Commission
Darling-Hammond & Richardson,
2009;
General Teaching Council UK,
2005;
Ingvarson, Meiers & Beavis,
2005;
Perez et al., 2007;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000
Cohen and Hill, 2000; DarlingHammond & Richardson, 2009
Darling-Hammond & Richardson,
2009;
Eaton & Carbone, 2008; Garet et
al., 2001
Darling-Hammond & Richardson,
2009;
Seago, 2004
13
instructional practices in their specific context, producing and sharing
new knowledge and expertise.
The efforts to develop collaborative learning and working are often
limited by individualistic and bureaucratic norms or structures in many
contexts. Developing collaborative CPD – i.e. building a professional
learning community - appears a slow, demanding process characterized
by conflicts and misunderstandings, where participants form a group
identity with norms of interaction and shared responsibility for growth,
learning to use difference and conflict productively. Since the focus is on
improving instructional practice, the identification of problems implies
making one’s teaching practice public and adopting an inquiry stance.
The context conditions that seem to support joint, collaborative CPD have
been found to be the following:
-
smaller school size and common planning time;
-
lower staffing complexity;
-
the empowerment of teachers as decision makers;
-
supportive leadership;
-
mutual respect steeped in strong professional knowledge;
-
a collectively held standard of teaching quality for teachers to
describe, discuss and adjust their practices accordingly;
-
a climate supporting risk taking and innovation.
Finally, the overall impact of CPD programmes on teachers’ practice,
student learning and teacher efficacy ought to be evaluated within a
conceptual framework, considering its relationships with structural
features (contact hours, time span, collective participation), opportunity
to learn features (content focus, active learning, follow-up support,
collaborative examination of students’ work, feedback on practice), and
mediating or moderating key factors spanning all the levels of the ‘onionrings’ model (see Appendix).
Little, 2003
Desimone, 2009; Ingvarson,
Meiers & Beavis, 2005
The opportunity to learn features, according to the Australian study by
Ingvarson et al., appear to have the largest effect on CPD outcomes – in
particular, active learning seems to have a pervasive and generative
influence on teachers’ practice.
Also the role of follow-up and ‘at the elbow’ coaching appears to be
noteworthy, together with the importance of school context. A vital
ingredient for effective CPD is a substantial level of professional
community where teachers have time to think, analyse and talk about
what students are learning and doing, and where principals and
administrators expect evidence of professional development and value
teacher learning.
© European Commission
14
Notes
i
Throughout the literature review, the acronyms CPD (for Continuing Professional Development) and PD (Professional Development) are
used.
ii
SER (School Effectiveness Research), originally rooted in US contexts and then developed in other countries such as the UK, the
Netherlands and Australia, has sometimes had uneasy relationships with school improvement studies and programmes all over the world
- although SER is suitable for providing the knowledge base for educational policy - because of different conceptualizations, beliefs and
proposed strategies. However, the merging of the two paradigms has been gaining intellectual and practical ground since 2000, with a
focus on managing change.
iii
In the USA, the ‘Rand’ study disclaimed a one-to-one relationship between policy and practice across levels of government,
demonstrating that the nature, amount and pace of change at the local level is a product of local factors, largely beyond policy makers’
control (McLaughlin, 1990).
iv
School effectiveness studies have mostly shown ethnocentric tendencies so far, with the absence of cross-national perspectives or
relationships between researchers internationally. However, there is increasing pressure for the development of internationally based
perspectives on school effectiveness. In an era when educational policy prescriptions travel internationally with increasing frequency, with
sometimes simplistic transplants or translations of findings from one culture to another, there is a growing need of understanding why
some variables ‘travel’ – i.e. can explain effectiveness across countries - while others do not, as well as why there can be similar
outcomes in the presence of different factors in different contexts.
v
The examples of projects embodying this approach, as mentioned by Teddlie & Reynolds (2000), are the Halton project in Canada, the
Barclay-Calvert project in the US, the IQEA (Improving the Quality of Education for All) project in the UK, and the Dutch National School
Improvement project.
vi
Darling-Hammond & Richardson (2009) give the example of Ohio’s project for CPD concerning scientific subjects.
© European Commission
15
References
Anderson, J.R., Greeno, J.G., Reder, L.M. & Simon, H.A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and
activity. Educational Researcher, 29, 11-13.
Angrist, J.D. & Lavy, V. (2001). Does Teacher Training Affect Pupil Learning? Evidence from Matched
Comparisons in Jerusalem Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 19(2), pp. 343-369.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Birman, B.F., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C. & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing Professional Development that
works. Educational Leadership, May 2000 (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M.,
Atkinson, A. & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities.
Research Report 637. London: DfES and University of Bristol.
Borko, L. (2004). Professional Development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher,
33(8)<http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher
/Volume_33_No_8/02_ERv33n8_Borko.pdf>
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes
professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and
School Improvements, 16, 1-27.
Hofman, R.H. & Dijkstra, B.J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1031-1040.
Bruce, C.D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L. & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained classroomembedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student achievement. Teaching
and Teacher Education (in press), doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.011.
Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reform implementation and teacher efficacy:
teacher peer coaching in grade 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(2), 346-370.
Clarke, D.J. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.
Coburn, C.E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional
environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics
reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.
Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States,
meeting within the Council of 15 November 2007, on improving the quality of teacher education. 2007/C
300/07.
Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States,
meeting within the Council of 21 November 2008 on preparing young people for the 21st century:
an agenda for European cooperation on schools. 2008/C 319/08.
Dam, G. ten & Blom, S. (2006). Learning through participation. The potential of school-based teacher
education for developing a professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 647-660.
Darling Hammond, L., Holtzman, D.J., et al. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about
© European Commission
16
teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
13(42) 16-17, 20.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Research Review. Teacher Learning: What Matters? How
teachers learn, February 2009, 66 (5), 46-53.
Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development: Toward Better
Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational Researcher; Apr 2009; 38(3); ProQuest Psychology
Journals, 181-199.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M., Yoon, K.S. & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development
change teachers’ instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 24 (2), 81-112.
Earl, L. & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a datarich world. Harnessing data for school improvement.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eaton, P. & Carbone, R.E. (2008). Asking those who know: a collaborative approach to continuing
professional development. Teacher Development, 12, 3, pp.261-270.
European Commission (2007). Communication from the European Commission to the European
Parliament: Improving the Quality of Teacher Education. Brussels, August 2007.
European Commission (2010). Teachers’ Professional Development: Europe in international comparison,
a secondary analysis based on the TALIS dataset. Ed.: Jaap Scheerens. Luxembourg 2010.
Eurydice (2009). Key data on Education in Europe 2009. Brussels: Eurydice publications.
Franke, M.L. & Kazemi, E. (2001). Teaching as learning within a community of practice: Characterizing
generative growth. In T. Wood, B. Nelson , & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy in elementary
mathematics: The nature of facilitative change(pp. 47-74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fuchs, T. & Wößmann, L. (2004). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A
re-examination using PISA data. CESifo Working Paper No. 1235. University of Munich, Munich.
Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(30), 35-36.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Garet, M., Porter, M., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? American Educational Research Journal, 38(4) , 915-946.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Stoel, R. & Krüger, M. (2009). The Effect of Teacher Psychological, School
Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers’ Professional Learning in Dutch Schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406-427.
General Teaching Council UK (2005). Teachers’ Professional Learning. Research meta-summary. <www.
gtce.org.uk >
Greenleaf, C.L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C. & Mueller, F.L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to
academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79-129.
Greeno, J.G.. (2003), Situatiave research relevant to standards for school mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick,
W.G. Martin, & D. Schifter (eds), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics (pp. 304-332). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
© European Commission
17
Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., Mott, E. A., & Aguilar, C. M. (2007). More than just a group: teacher
collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 349376.
Hopkins, D. & Ainscow, M. (1993). Making sense of school improvement: An interim account of the IQEA
project. Paper presented to the ESRC Seminar Series on School effectiveness and School Improvement,
Sheffield.
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell.
Imants, J., Sleegers, P. & Witziers, B. (2001). The tension between organisational sub-structures in
secondary schools and educational reform. School Leadership and Management, 21, 289-308.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M. & Beavis, A. (2005, January 29). Factors affecting the impact of professional
development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 13(10). <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n10/>.
Janssen, O, & Yperen, N.W. van (2004). Employees’ Goal Orientations, the Quality of Leader-Member
Exchange, and the Outcomes of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,
47, 368-384.
Jaquith, A., Mindich, D. & Chung Wei, R. (2010). Pockets of Excellence. JSD, 31 (5), October 2010.
<www.learningforward.org>
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as policy pathway. Review of Research in Education,
27(1), 109–157.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149-170.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College
Record, 105(6), 913–945.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives, Micro Realities.
Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
Maslowski, R., Scheerens, J. & Luyten, H. (2007). The effect of school autonomy and school internal
decentralization on students’ reading literacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 303334.
Mitchell, C. & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement. Building capacity for a learning community.
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Mons, N. (2007). Les Nouvelles politiques éducatives, Paris: PUF.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on
teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in
primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145-177.
OECD (2005). Teachers matter. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. First Results from TALIS. Paris:
OECD Publications <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf>
© European Commission
18
Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: the importance of
background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
Perez, M., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Parrish, T., Esra, P., Socias, M., & Gubbins, P. (2007). Successful
California schools in the context of educational adequacy. Washington, DC: American Institutes for
Research.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Puchner, L. D., & Taylor, A. R. (2006). Lesson student, collaboration and teacher efficacy: stories from
two school-based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 922-934.
Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about
research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching, 905-947. Washington D.C: American Educational Research Association.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.
Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 417–458
http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/ teachers.econometrica.pdf.
Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data. AEA Papers and Proceedings, May 2004.
Runhaar, P. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development. Dissertation, Universiteit Twente.
Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R., & Swepson, P. (Eds.). (2001). Effective change management using
action learning and action research: Concepts, frameworks, processes, applications. Lismore, Australia:
Southern Cross University Press.
Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers' assessment practices through
professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(3), 669–700.
Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy
(Ed.) Using video in teacher education: Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 10 (pp. 259-286).
Orlando, FL: Elsevier, LTD.
Shulman, L.S. & Shulman, J.H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: Shifting perspective. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 36 (2), 256-271.
Sleegers, P., Bolhuis, S. & Geijsel, F. (2005). School improvement within a knowledge economy:
Fostering professional learning from a multidimensional perspective. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A.
Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (eds.), International Handbook of Educational Policy, 527-543.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sleegers, P.J.C., Geijsel, F.P. & van den Berg, R.M. (2002). Conditions fostering educational change. In K.
Leithwood, & P. Hallinger (eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration, 75-102. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Snow-Renner, R. & Lauer, P.A. (2005). Professional Development Analysis. Denver: McRel (MidContinent Research for Education and Learning).
© European Commission
19
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities:
A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221-258.
Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1994). School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Voices from the field. School
effectiveness and School Improvement, 5 (2), 149-77.
Stringfield, s., Winfield, L., Millsap, M., Puma, M., Gamse, B. & Randall, B. (1994). Special Strategies for
for Educating Disadvantaged Children: First Year Report. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
Supovitz, J.A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record,104, 2,
127-146.
Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London:
Falmer.
Toole, J. & Louis, K.S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In
K. Leithwood & Ph. Hallinger (eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration, 245-281. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Vescio, V., Ross, D. & Adams. A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80-91.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic
professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional
development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs.
Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An
examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson
(Eds.). Review of Research and Education, 1999. Washington D.C.: American Educational Research
Association.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how
teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007
No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Zambo, R., & Zambo, D. (2008). The impact of professional development in mathematics on teachers’
individual and collective efficacy: the stigma of underperforming. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1),
159-169.
Zwart, R. (2007). Individual teacher learning in a context of collaboration in teams. Dissertation, ICLON,
Universiteit van Leiden.
© European Commission
20