What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 921-958

  Penuel, William R ^a   Fishman, Barry J ^b   Yamaguchi, Ryoko ^c   Gallagher, Lawrence P ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum implementation; Professional development; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 37649019859     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831207308221     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Ball, DL, and DK Cohen (1996). Reform by the book: What isor might bethe role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 26, 6 14-8.
2. Blumenfeld, P, BJ Fishman, JS Krajcik, RW Marx, and E Soloway (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35 (3). 149-164.
3. Blumenfeld, P, E Soloway, RW Marx, M Guzdial, and A Palincsar (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3/4). 369-398.
4. Boone, WJ, and KB Kahle (1998). Student perceptions of instruction, peer interest, and adult support for middle school science: Differences by race and gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 333-340.
5. Borko, H (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8). 3-15.
6. Brooks, DR, and FM Mims, III (2001). Development of an inexpensive handheld LED-based Sun photometer for the GLOBE Program. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106 (D5). 4733-4740.
7. Brown, AL, and J Campione (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L Schauble and R Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Brown, JL (2004). Making the most of Understanding by Design. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9. Bryk, AS, and B Schneider (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
10. Bybee, R (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Carlsen, WS (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (5). 417-481.
12. Coburn, CE (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (2). 145-170.
13. Coburn, CE (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77 (3). 211-244.
14. Cohen, DK, and HC Hill (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Cohen, DK, SW Raudenbush, and DL Ball (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (2). 1-24.
16. Coleman, EB, and WR Penuel (2000). Web-based student assessment for program evaluation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9 (4). 327-342.
17. Crawford, B (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9). 916-937.
18. Cronin-Jones, LL (1991). Science teachers beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementations: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (3). 235-250.
19. Cuban, L (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Cuban, L, H Kirkpatrick, and C Peck (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4). 813-834.
21. Darling-Hammond, L, and MW McLaughlin (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8). 597-604.
22. Davis, EA, and JS Krajcik (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3). 2-14.
23. Desimone, L (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72 (1). 433-479.
24. Desimone, L, and KC Le Floch (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (1). 1-22.
25. Desimone, L, AC Porter, MS Garet, KS Yoon, and BF Birman (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2). 81-112.
26. Fishman, BJ, and JS Krajcik (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? Science Education, 87 (4). 564-573.
27. Fishman, BJ, RW Marx, S Best, and R Tal (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 (6). 643-658.
28. Frank, KA, Y Zhao, and K Borman (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77 (2). 148-171.
29. Frechtling, JA, L Sharp, N Carey, and N Vaden-Kiernan (1995). Teacher enhancement programs: A perspective on the last four decades. Retrieved October 23, 2001, from http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/rec/pubs/eval/tep/tep.htm.
30. Garet, MS, AC Porter, L Desimone, BF Birman, and KS Yoon (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4). 915-945.
31. Gess-Newsome, J (1999). Secondary teachers knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J Gess-Newsome and LM Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education (pp. 51-94). Boston: Kluwer.
32. Gess-Newsome, J and NG Lederman (Eds.) (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Boston: Kluwer.
33. The GLOBE Program (2005). The Next Generation GLOBE (NGG): Developing strategic partnerships to improve science education, enhance environmental awareness, and increase understanding of the earth as a system. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from https://globe1.globe.gov/webarchs/all/ NGG_WhitePaper_9_291.pdf.
34. Hawley, WD, and L Valli (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L Darling-Hammond and G Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Hill, HC, B Rowan, and DL Ball (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2). 371-406.
36. Hollon, RE, KJ Roth, and CW Anderson (1991). Science teachers conceptions of teaching and learning. In J Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2 (pp. 145-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
37. Hollweg, KS, and D Hill (2003). What is the influence of the National Science Education Standards? Reviewing the evidence, a workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
38. Kennedy, M (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (NISE Brief No. 3[2]). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Science Education.
39. Kubitskey, B (2006). Extended professional development for systemic reform. In Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
40. Kubitskey, B, and BJ Fishman (2006). A role for professional development in sustainability: Linking the written curriculum to enactment. In SA Barab, KE Hay and DT Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 363-369). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Lieberman, A, and MW McLaughlin (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (9). 673-677.
42. Lieberman, A, and LC Miller (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
43. Little, JW (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2). 129-151.
44. Loucks-Horsley, S, PW Hewson, N Love, and KE Stiles (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
45. Loucks-Horsley, S, and C Matsumoto (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99 (5). 258-271.
46. Loucks-Horsley, S, and KE Stiles (2001). Professional development designed to change teaching and learning. In J Rhoton and P Bowers (Eds.), Professional development planning and design (pp. 13-24). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
47. Lumpe, A, J Haney, and C Czerniak (2000). Assessing teachers beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275-292.
48. Marek, EA, and SB Methven (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (1). 41-53.
49. Mayer, D (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1). 29-45.
50. Means, B, E Coleman, K Baisden, GD Haertel, C Korbak, and A Lewis (1999). GLOBE Year 4 evaluation: Evolving implementation practices. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
51. Means, B, E Coleman, and A Lewis (1998). GLOBE Year 3 evaluation: Implementation and progress. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
52. Means, B, and WR Penuel (2005). Research to support scaling up technology-based educational innovations. In C Dede, JP Honan and LC Peters (Eds.), Scaling Up Success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 176-197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. Means, B, WR Penuel, VM Crawford, C Korbak, A Lewis, and RF Murphy (2001). GLOBE Year 6 evaluation: Explaining variation in implementation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
54. Means, B, WR Penuel, and C Padilla (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Mims, FM, III (1999). An international haze-monitoring network for students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80 (7). 1421-1431.
56. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
57. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58. National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59. Penuel, WR, KA Frank, and A Krause (2006). The distribution of resources and expertise and the implementation of schoolwide reform initiatives. In SA Barab, KE Hay and DT Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 522-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60. Penuel, WR, C Korbak, A Lewis, L Shear, Y Toyama, and L Yarnall (2002). GLOBE Year 7 evaluation: Exploring student research and inquiry in GLOBE. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
61. Penuel, WR, and B Means (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: An analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (3). 294-315.
62. Penuel, WR, M Riel, KA Frank, and A Krause Analyzing teachers professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record. in press.
63. Penuel, WR, L Shear, C Korbak, and E Sparrow (2005). The roles of regional partners in supporting an international earth science education program. Science Education, 89 (6). 956-979.
64. Porter, AC, MS Garet, LM Desimone, and BF Birman (2003). Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Science Educator, 12 (1). 23-40.
65. Porter, AC, MW Kirst, EJ Osthoff, JL Smithson, and SA Schneider (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classroom. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
66. Putnam, RT, and H Borko (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1). 4-15.
67. Raudenbush, SW, and AS Bryk (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68. Raudenbush, SW, AS Bryk, Y Cheong, and RT Congdon (2000). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
69. Richardson, V, and P Placier (2001). Teacher change. In V Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4 (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
70. Rivet, A (2006). Using transformative research to explore congruencies between science reform and urban schools. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 578-584). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71. Roseman, JE, G Kulm, and S Shuttleworth (2001). Putting textbooks to the test. ENC Focus, 8 (3). 56-59.
72. Shulman, LS (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2). 4-14.
73. Singer, JE, JS Krajcik, RW Marx, and J Clay-Chambers (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35 (3). 165-179.
74. Slotta, J (April, 2000). A WISE model for teacher professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
75. Smith, MJ, JB Southard, and C Mably (2001). Investigating earth systems: An inquiry earth science program (water). Armonk, NY: Its About Time.
76. Smylie, MA (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25 (9). 9-11.
77. Spillane, JP (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143-175.
78. Spillane, JP (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79. Spillane, JP, and NE Jennings (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481.
80. Spillane, JP, and CL Thompson (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agencys capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 (2). 185-203.
81. Stein, MK, and G Kim (April, 2006). The role of mathematics curriculum in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
82. Supovitz, JA, and HM Turner (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (2). 963-980.
83. Tyack, D, and L Cuban (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
84. Veenman, S, and E Denessen (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (4). 385-417.
85. Wiggins, G, and J McTighe (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.