Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 129–141 | Cite as

National-scale professional development in Sweden: theory, policy, practice

  • J. Boesen
  • O. Helenius
  • B. Johansson
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

From 2012 to 2016 all teachers of mathematics, in primary through to upper secondary and adult education, in Sweden are to be given the opportunity of receiving state-coordinated professional development (PD), generally involving around one meeting per week for a year. We examine the ways in which this programme and its content are research-based by analysing the design principles of the PD and its content via a review of the underlying documents. We find that the research base for the design of the PD decisions is formulated only partly explicitly in the documentation, as is the case for the content. Nevertheless, the principles still largely conform to internationally recognised research-based models for PD and teacher change. In the discussion we propose that a relatively open design process, involving many stakeholders with knowledge of both theory and practice rather than an analytical examination of previous research, has contributed to the adoption of this format for the PD programme.

Keywords

Professional Development Professional Development Programme National Agency Teacher Change Effective Professional Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: quality and equity of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G., & Döhrmann, M. (2012). Family background, entry selectivity and opportunities to learn: what matters in primary teacher education? An international comparison of fifteen countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchberger, F., Campos, B.P., Kallos, D., Stephenson, J. (2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe: High quality teacher education for high quality education and training. Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe. http://www.iperbole.bologna.it/iperbole/adi/XoopsAdi/uploads/PDdownloads/tntee_green_paper_on_teacher_education_in_europe.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  6. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.Google Scholar
  8. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., Firth, A. (2005a). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. Review: What do teacher impact data tell us about collaborative CPD? EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Ei84eDADfNg%3d&tabid=139&mid=960. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  9. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., Firth, A. (2005b). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and learning? EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UZNBbT1YiII%3d&tabid=136&mid=959. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  11. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19. doi: 10.1177/0022487108327554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gellert, U., Espinoza, L., & Barbé, J. (2013). Being a mathematics teacher in times of reform. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: a cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.Google Scholar
  16. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(495), 495–502. doi: 10.1177/003172170909000709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustavsson, L. (2008). Att bli bättre lärare. Hur undervisningsinnehållet behandling blir samtalsämne lärare emellan. Kristianstad: Högskolan Kristianstad.Google Scholar
  21. Hattie, J. A. C. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Helenius, O., Lange, T., Meaney, T., Riesbeck, E., Wernberg, A. (2014). Theorising the design of professional development web modules. Paper presented at the Madif9: Nionde forskningsseminariet med Svensk Förening för Matematikdidaktisk Forskning, Umeå.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, H.C., Blunk, M.L., Charalambous, C.Y., Lewis, J.M., Phelps, G.C., Sleep, L., Ball, D.L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: an exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4). doi: 10.1080/07370000802177235.
  24. Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., Appelgate, M. (2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to support teachers’ learning on a large scale. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(1) (this issue).Google Scholar
  25. Kaur, B. (2015). What matters? From a small scale to a school-wide intervention. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(1) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0645-4.
  26. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teaching learning in mathematics: using student work to promote inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kazemi, E., Franke, M.L., Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  28. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kock, H. (2010). Arbetsplatslärande – att leda och organisera arbetsplatslärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  30. Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm: dimensionality and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 289–301. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipowsky, F. (2004). Was macht Fortbildung fuer Lehrkraefte erfolgreich? Befunde der Forschung und moegliche Konsequenzen fuer die Praxis. Die Deutsche Schule, 96, 462–479.Google Scholar
  32. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  33. Mollberg Hedqvist, G. (2006). Hur utvecklas yrkeskunnande genom samtal?. Stockholm: Lärarhögskolan.Google Scholar
  34. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Education_Intro_Standalone_Nov%2026.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  35. Mouwitz, L. (2001). Hur kan lärare lära? Internationella erfarenheter med fokus på matematikutbildning. Göteborg: Nationellt Centrum för Matematikutbildning, Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar
  36. Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction: the sinus project as an example for reform as teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Regeringen (2011). Uppdrag till Statens skolverk att stärka undervisningen I matematik, naturvetenskap och teknik. U 2011/2229G. Stockholm: Regeringen. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/17/65/48/079bae6c.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  38. Regeringen (2012). Uppdrag att svara för utbildning. U2011/4343S, U2011/7370/GV, U2012/2113/GV. Stockholm: Regeringen. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/33/30/4865d8ae.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  39. Roesken, B. (2011). Hidden dimensions in the professional development of mathematics teachers. In-service education for and with teachers. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43, 457–469. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skolinspektionen (2009). Undervisningen i matematik – utbildningens innehåll och ändamålsenlighet. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.Google Scholar
  42. Skolinspektionen (2010). Undervisningen i matematik på gymnasieskolan. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.Google Scholar
  43. Skolinspektionen (2011). Rektors ledarskap en granskning av hur rektor leder skolans arbete mot ökad måluppfyllelse. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.Google Scholar
  44. Skolinspektionen (2012). Rektors ledarskap med ansvar för den pedagogiska verksamheten. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.Google Scholar
  45. Skolverket (2008). Timss 2007 svenska grundskoleelevers kunskaper i matematik och naturvetenskap i ett internationellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  46. Skolverket (2009). Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk grundskola? Kunskapsöversikt om betydelsen av olika faktorer sammanfattande analys. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  47. Skolverket (2011). Dnr 2011:643. Delredovisning av uppdrag om att stärka undervisningen i matematik, naturvetenskap och teknik. Fortbildning av matematiklärare. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  48. Skolverket (2012). Matematiklyftet [The Boost for Mathematics]. Stockholm: Skolverket. http://matematiklyftet.skolverket.se. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  49. Sowder, J. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. doi: 10.1080/10986060802229675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., et al. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries: findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  52. Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. Auckland: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vinterek, M. (2006). Individualisering i ett skolsammanhang. Stockholm: Myndigheten för Skolutveckling.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Educational Sciences and Teacher ResearchUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.National Centre for Mathematics EducationUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options