Advertisement

Effective Professional Development in Science and Mathematics Education: Teachers' and Facilitators' Views

  • Meredith Park RogersEmail author
  • Sandra Abell
  • John Lannin
  • Chia-Yu Wang
  • Kusalin Musikul
  • David Barker
  • Shannon Dingman
Article

Abstract

This study compares the views of teachers and professional development facilitators about effective professional development (PD). We analyzed interviews with 72 teacher participants and 23 PD facilitators involved in nine science and mathematics PD projects. The teachers' themes for characterizing effective PD included classroom application, teacher as learner, and teacher networking. Similarly, the PD facilitators discussed effective PD as having classroom application and experiences for teachers as learners. In addition, PD facilitators shared the need to develop collegial relationships with teachers and improve teacher knowledge. These views correspond to some of the standards and recommendations described in policy and research documents on effective PD. Criteria of effective PD in these documents that the participants did not mention included: (1) challenging teachers' content and pedagogical content knowledge with transformative learning experiences, (2) encouraging teacher leadership for sustained support, and (3) focusing on student learning by instructing teachers on how to use student data to inform their teaching practice. Our findings have implications for designing PD that reflects the criteria of standards-based reform.

Key words

effective professional development mathematics education professional development science education standards 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbaugh, F. (2003). Study groups as a form of professional development for secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning, and teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 135–159.Google Scholar
  3. Borasi, R. & Fonzi, J. (2002). Professional development that supports school mathematics reform. Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education, 3. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Borasi, R., Fonzi, J., Smith, C.F. & Rose, B.J. (1999). Beginning the process of rethinking mathematics instruction: A professional development program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D.B. Aichele & A.F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: NCTM 1994 yearbook (pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A. (1997). National Science Education Standards: Looking backward and forward. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S. & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.Google Scholar
  8. 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. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.Google Scholar
  9. Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al. (2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005–005). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Guskey, T.R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 750–784.Google Scholar
  11. Hasselgren, B. & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography—a “good-for-nothing brother” of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 191–202.Google Scholar
  12. Jauhiainen, J., Lavonen, J., Koponen, I. & Suonio, K.K. (2002). Experiments from long-term in-service training for physics teachers in Finland. Physics Education, 37, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 751–756.Google Scholar
  14. LaChance, A. & Confrey, J. (2003). Interconnecting content and community: A qualitative study of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 107–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., et al. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective (NCES 2005–003). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Limberg, L. (1999). Experiencing information seeking and learning: A study of the interaction between two phenomena. Information Research, 5(1). http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper68.html. Cited 8 January 2005.
  17. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S. & Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education, vol. 8, 2nd edn. (pp. 4424–4429). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F. (1996). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49.Google Scholar
  20. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Marton, F. & Fai, P.M. (1999). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at 8th European conference for learning and instruction, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards for staff development (revised). http://nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm. Cited 8 January 2005
  26. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sevensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 159–171.Google Scholar
  29. Thompson, C.L. & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Trigwell, K. (2001). Phenomenography: Discernment and variation. Paper presented at the phenomenography research seminar of the institute for the advancement of university learning, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Uljens, M. (1996). On the philosophical foundation of phenomenography. In G. Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography-Toward a methodology? (pp. 105–130). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  32. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith Park Rogers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandra Abell
    • 2
  • John Lannin
    • 2
  • Chia-Yu Wang
    • 2
  • Kusalin Musikul
    • 2
  • David Barker
    • 2
  • Shannon Dingman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionIndiana University – BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations