Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustaining and scaling up the impact of professional development programmes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. PFL is a German language acronym for “Pädagogik und Fachdidaktik für Lehrinnen und Lehrer”, which means “Pedagogy and Subject Didactics for Teachers”.

  2. The author of this paper was not involved in the planning, development or implementation of PFL.

  3. For the sake of anonymity, all names are pseudonyms.

  4. For the sake of Paul’s anonymity, this case study does not provide any detailed or identifiable information (e.g. regarding his school).

References

  • Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2007). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht (Teachers researching their practice). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a restructured secondary school. School Organisation, 14(3), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2006). Comments on Michael Fullan’s, “The future of educational change: system thinkers in action”. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 133–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEZA—Direktion für Entwicklungshilfe und Zusammenarbeit. (2002). Glossar deutsch (German glossary). Bern: DEZA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, J., Gerretson, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: the role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Green, D. (2000). Qualität definieren (Defining quality). Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft, 41, 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Maldonado, L. (2002). Effective professional development. Findings from research. http://www.collegeboard.com. Accessed 18 January 2014.

  • Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundry, S. (2005). What experience has taught us about professional development. National Network of Eisenhower Regional Consortia and Clearinghouse.

  • Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheirer, M. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 320–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, S., & Euler, D. (2004). Nachhaltigkeit von eLearning-Innovationen. St. Gallen: Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (2004). Built to last: long-term maintenance of success for all. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, R. (2005). Results evaluation and impact assessment in development co-operation. Evaluation, 11, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung (The sustainability of teacher professional development). Doctoral thesis. Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Zehetmeier, S. (2014b). The others’ voice: availing other disciplines’ knowledge about sustainable impact of professional development programmes. TME—The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1).

  • Zehetmeier, S. (2015). Sustainability matters. In Teaching and Teacher Education (in preparation).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Klagenfurt, Sterneckstraße 15, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Stefan Zehetmeier

Authors
  1. Stefan Zehetmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Zehetmeier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zehetmeier, S. Sustaining and scaling up the impact of professional development programmes. ZDM Mathematics Education 47, 117–128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0671-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0671-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation