Just a quick note from Shandy in response to Derek's email. There is a
plethora of research out there on professional development of
in-service K-14 teachers. I'm going to quote from a paper I recently
wrote with Jeff Farmer and Andrew Neumann [with a few additional
comments in square brackets]:
What is still being clarified is what constitutes “effective”
professional development and just how prevalent “effective”
professional development program offerings are. In their study of the
professional development offered to K-12 teacher-participants through
the federally-funded Eisenhower Program, Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon,
and Birman (2002) found that four out of five professional development
experiences were traditional, transmission-based workshops (without
active learning) of 15 or fewer contact hours, and that most spanned
less than a week.
Among the key features of effective professional development
programs identified in the research literature are several structures
and strategies in conflict with this reported common practice
(Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). Three organizational components
have been identified as particularly effective:
(a) using reform methods (e.g., a mathematics program that is based on
the PSSM [see NCTM entry in references below]),
(b) distributing activities across an extended period of weeks or
months and
(c) including groups of teachers participating collectively from a
department or local area. Moreover, three significant methodological
aspects of an effective professional development experience have been
identified:
(d) a focus on improving the pedagogical content knowledge of teachers
[this is more than whether or not they can "do the math," it's about
whether or not they can anticipate student needs and communicate
mathematical ideas in ways accessible to students (e.g., applying Stein
and Smith's (1998) Math Tasks Framework to collegiate mathematics
teaching)],
(e) regular and meaningful analysis of teaching and learning and
(f) fostering connectedness and inclusiveness among participants
(Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet, 2000).
References
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., and Garet, M. S. (May,
2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational
Leadership, 28-33.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S.,Yoon, K., and Birman, B. F.
(2002) Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction:
Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 24(2), 81-112.
Farmer, J., Hauk, S., and Neumann, A. M. (2005). Negotiating reform:
Implementing Process Standards in culturally responsive professional
development. To appear in the High School Journal, See
http://hopper.unco.edu/faculty/personal/hauk/research.html for a link
to the manuscript.
Loucks-Horsley, S. and Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional
development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the
scene. School Science & Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271.
NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics (PSSM). Reston, VA: Author.
Stein, M. S. and Smith M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating
mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in
the Middle School 3, 344-350.