THE PRACTICE: Professional development should be continuous and on-going, involving follow-up and support for further learning, including support from sources external to the school that can provide necessary resources and new perspectives.
Content Presented By:
National Partnership for Excellence & Accountability in Teaching
NEIRTEC, Northeast & Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium

Research summary

Professional development should be continuous and on-going, involving follow-up and support for further learning--including support from sources external to the school that can provide necessary resources and an outside perspective (CPRE, 1995; Fullan, 1993; Guskey, 1995; Hodges, 1996; Miller, Lord, & Dorney, 1994; NCRTE, 1991; NEA, 1995; NFIE, 1996; NGA; NSDC, 1995; Pink & Hyde, 1992). As what is learned from professional development is implemented, learners often discover what they need to be effective. If that need for learning, resources, and support is not met, increased professional competence and student achievement are unlikely to be experienced and the motivation to engage in additional professional development will be affected.

While most professional development should be school based, educators also need to enrich this learning with new ideas and knowledge gained from sources beyond the school (Lieberman, 1995). Innovations are constrained if informed only by those who share similar ideas and experiences (Smylie, 1995).

In a provocative example of the need for continuous learning, researchers found that a group of teachers who initially focused on learning pedagogical skills consistent with the new NCTM standards realized that a deeper problem was their understanding of mathematics (Prichard Committee, 1995). This type of change takes time, including time to establish trust and shared meanings with those inside and outside the school organization. In a study of student grouping, Barr, Anderson, and Slaybaugh (1992) found that district and school-level educators took four years to deliberate and make changes.

Describing a large-scale training program developed by Bruce Joyce and colleagues, Hodges (1996) concludes that significant change in educational practice does not occur quickly, but is the result of staff development programs designed with a 3- to 5-year time frame (pp. 239-40). On-going support is especially critical in the first two years of implementation. Unfortunately, the public expects to see quick changes in schools and concrete evidence of improvements in student achievement (Farkas & Friedman, 1995).

References

Barr, R., Anderson, C. S., & Slaybaugh, J.E. (1992). Deliberations about grouping in Crete-Monee. In W. T. Pink & A. A. Hyde (Eds.), Effective staff development for school change (pp. 65-93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1995, June). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Farkas, S., & Friedman, W. (1995). Professional development for teachers: The publics view. A Focus Group Report from Public Agenda for the National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 114-132). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hodges, H.L.B., (1996). Using research to inform practice in urban school: 10 key strategies for success. Educational Policy, 10 (2), 223-252.

Lieberman, A. (1995). The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, B., Lord, B., & Dorney, J. (1994). Summary report. Staff development for teachers. A study of configurations and costs in four districts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1991). Final report: National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Michigan State University: East Lansing: MI.

National Education Association. (1995). KEYS. Keys to excellence for your schools: An interactive startup guide. Washington, DC: The National Center for Innovation, The National Education Association.

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC.

National Governors Association. Professional development for educators: A priority for reaching high standards. Washington, DC: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (1995). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author.

Pink, W. T. & Hyde, A. A. (1992). Doing effective staff development. In W.T. Pink & A. A. Hyde (Eds.), Effective staff development for school change (pp. 259-292). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence & Partnership for Kentucky School Reform (1995). Professional development in the service of systemic reform: Policy action research and dissemination project. A proposal submitted to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 92-113). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

[top]

This resource is developed and maintained by The Education Alliance at Brown University. Seed funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Send comments to: loom@alliance.brown.edu