In recent years, different researchers and research agencies, teacher associations, national education organizations, and the U.S. Department of Education have published lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to guide school leaders in their improvement efforts. This study analyzed 13 of the better known of these lists to determine whether they were derived through similar procedures, based on similar frames of reference, and included the same elements or characteristics. Results show that individual characteristics vary widely in their frequency of inclusion in the lists and that no characteristic is consistently named in all lists. In addition, research evidence supporting most of the identfied characteristics is inconsistent and often contradictory. Implications for leaders interested in improving professional development activities are discussed, as well as ways to enhance efforts to identify the characteristics of effective professional development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
2.
American Federation of Teachers (1996). Principles for professional development (Item No. 176). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
4.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
5.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California. CPRE Policy Briefs (RB-23-May). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.
6.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
7.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (1996). Public policy and school reform: A research summary. (Rep. No. 36). Philadelphia: Author.
8.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995a, June). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. CPRE Policy Briefs. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University.
9.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995b). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
10.
Corcoran, T. B., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
11.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
12.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
13.
Educational Research Service (1998). Professional development for teachers: Challenges and trends. Arlington, VA: Author.
14.
Frechtling,J. A., Sharp, L., Carey, N., & Baden-Kierman, N. (1995). Teacher enhancement programs: A perspective on the last four decades. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
15.
Fuhrman. S. H. (1999). The new accountability. (CPRE Policy Briefs No. RB27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
16.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
17.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., 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.
18.
Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Herman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
Guskey, T. R. (1996). Jointly planning staff training. The School Administrator, 53(11), 33-34.
20.
Guskey, T. R. (1998). The age of our accountability. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 36-44.
21.
Guskey, T. R. (1999). Apply time with wisdom. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 10-15.
22.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
24.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1996, Fall). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. Professional Development Newsletter-ASCD Human Resource Development Program, 1-2.
25.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning professon: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Holloway, J. H. (2000). The promise and pitfalls of site based management. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 81-82.
27.
Jones, L. L., & Hayes, A. E. (1980). How valid are surveys of teacher needs?Educational Leadership, 37(5), 390-392.
28.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teachers education. (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.
29.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. NISE Brief; 3(2), 1-7.
30.
Kent, K., & Lingman, C. (2000). California's course. Journal of Staff Development, 21(3), 31-36.
31.
Kifer, E. (2001). Large scale assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
Killion, J. (2002). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
33.
Latham, A. S. (1998). Site based management: Is it working?Educational Leadership, 55(7), 85-86.
34.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
35.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-16.
36.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief; 1(1), 1-6.
37.
McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). Those who know, teach well: Helping teachers mastery literacy-related subject-matter knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(4), 215-226.
38.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundations in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
39.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America 's future. New York: Author.
40.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching. (2000). Improving professional development. Retrieved February15, 2001, from www.npeat.org/strand2/pdprinpdf
42.
National Staff Development Council. (1994). National Staff Development Council's standards for staff development: Middle level edition. Oxford, OH: Author.
43.
National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards for staff development. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm
44.
Newmann, F., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.
45.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), 107 Cong., 110 (2002) (enacted).
46.
Phelps, L. A., & Bredeson, P. V. (2002, March). Enhancing high school teacher leadership through collaborative action research: An analysis of the Education and Work Leadership Program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
47.
Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.
48.
Sparks, D. (1997). Professional development: Are you getting the results you want?California Professional Development Consortia, Restructuring Brief 14. Retrieved February 15, 2001, from www.cpdc.kl2.ca.us
49.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
50.
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
51.
Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.
52.
Terzian, M. (2000). Design principles for effective professional development: A research synthesis. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
53.
U.S. Department of Education (1996). Building bridges: The mission and principles of professional development (pamphlet). Washington, DC: Author.
54.
U.S. Department of Education (1997). Achieving the goals: Goal 4. Teacher education and professional development. Washington, DC: Author.
55.
U.S. Department of Education (2002). Scientifically based research and the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program. Washington, DC: Author.
56.
Wang, Y. L., Frechtling,J. A., & Sanders, W. L. (1999, April). Exploring linkages between professional development and student learning: A pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
57.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
58.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved May 13, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vlOn12/
