Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 117–128 | Cite as

Sustaining and scaling up the impact of professional development programmes

  • Stefan Zehetmeier
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper deals with a crucial topic: which factors influence the sustainability and scale-up of a professional development programme’s impact? Theoretical models and empirical findings from impact research (e.g. Zehetmeier and Krainer, ZDM Int J Math 43(6/7):875–887, 2011) and innovation research (e.g. Cobb and Smith, International handbook of mathematics teacher education, vol 3, pp 231–254, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2008; Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, Free Press, New York, 2003) are combined in order to be used as a theoretical framework for a qualitative impact analysis of a mathematics teacher professional development programme in Austria. The paper provides data from document analyses and interview series to describe as well as explain this programme’s various impacts on different levels within a case study setting. In particular, this study focuses on factors (e.g. networks, shared vision or mutual accountability) which are influencing the scale-up and sustainability of a professional development programme’s impact (e.g. on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs or practice). Finally, implications for upcoming professional development programmes are discussed.

Keywords

Professional development Impact Sustainability Scale up Influencing factors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2007). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht (Teachers researching their practice). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a restructured secondary school. School Organisation, 14(3), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). The challenge of scale: designing schools and districts as learning organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 231–254). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Datnow, A. (2006). Comments on Michael Fullan’s, “The future of educational change: system thinkers in action”. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DEZA—Direktion für Entwicklungshilfe und Zusammenarbeit. (2002). Glossar deutsch (German glossary). Bern: DEZA.Google Scholar
  9. Farmer, J., Gerretson, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: the role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (2000). Qualität definieren (Defining quality). Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft, 41, 17–37.Google Scholar
  17. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  19. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  20. Krainer, K. (2006). How can schools put mathematics in their centre? Improvement = content + community + context. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlková (Eds.), Proceedings of 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 84–89). Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
  21. Krainer, K., & Zehetmeier, S. (2013). Inquiry-based learning for pupils, teachers, researchers, and representatives of educational administration and policy: reflections on a nation-wide initiative fostering educational innovations. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics, 45(6), 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lam, T. C., & Bengo, P. (2003). A comparison of three retrospective self-reporting methods of measuring change in instructional practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lerman, S., & Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Face-to-face communities and networks of practising mathematics teachers. In K. Krainer (Ed.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education, vol. 3. Participants in mathematics teacher education: individuals, teams, communities, and networks (pp. 133–154). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Maldonado, L. (2002). Effective professional development. Findings from research. http://www.collegeboard.com. Accessed 18 January 2014.
  26. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  27. McLaughlin, M., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Mundry, S. (2005). What experience has taught us about professional development. National Network of Eisenhower Regional Consortia and Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  30. Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peter, A. (1996). Aktion und Reflexion—Lehrerfortbildung aus international vergleichender Perspektive (Action and reflection—teacher education from an international comparative perspective). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Rauch, F., Zehetmeier, S., & Erlacher, W. (2014). 30 years of educational reform through action research: traces in the Austrian school system. In T. Stern, et al. (Eds.), Bringing a different world into existence: action research as a trigger for innovations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Scheirer, M. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 320–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seufert, S., & Euler, D. (2004). Nachhaltigkeit von eLearning-Innovationen. St. Gallen: Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning.Google Scholar
  36. Slavin, R. (2004). Built to last: long-term maintenance of success for all. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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). Greenwich: NCTM.Google Scholar
  38. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Van den Berg, R. (2005). Results evaluation and impact assessment in development co-operation. Evaluation, 11, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung (The sustainability of teacher professional development). Doctoral thesis. Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  43. Zehetmeier, S. (2010). The sustainability of professional development. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1951–1960). Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique (INRP).Google Scholar
  44. Zehetmeier, S. (2014a). Action research as a stimulus for teachers to reflect on their professional development. In K. Kikis-Papadakis, F. Chaimala, & R. Papanastasiou (Eds.), Enhancing innovation and creativity in science teaching. STENCIL (Science Teaching European Network for Creativity and Innovation in Learning) Report #3 (pp. 58–63). Heraklion: Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics.Google Scholar
  45. Zehetmeier, S. (2014b). The others’ voice: availing other disciplines’ knowledge about sustainable impact of professional development programmes. TME—The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1).Google Scholar
  46. Zehetmeier, S. (2015). Sustainability matters. In Teaching and Teacher Education (in preparation).Google Scholar
  47. Zehetmeier, S., & Krainer, K. (2011). Ways of promoting the sustainability of mathematics teachers’ professional development. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics, 43(6/7), 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options