What Are Key Similarities and Differences
in Successful
Professional Development Programs?
We selected the projects described in the
previous chapter based on their documented success in promoting
school mathematics reform through professional development. Yet
they are very diverse, not only in terms of the grade levels
they address or the aspects of school mathematics reform they
privilege but also in the methods and strategies they use to
teach teachers.
In this chapter, we begin to examine
similarities and differences among these, as well as other
successful professional development projects documented in the
literature. The goal of this analysis is the identification of
some common principles that characterize high quality
professional development, as well as some viable options within
these parameters.
Characteristics of high quality
professional development
Several scholars in teacher education
(e.g., Clarke, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1997, 1998; Friel &
Bright, 1997; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Ball & Cohen, 1996)
have recently tried to identify the characteristics of high
quality professional development. Although not all
characteristics proposed overlap, there is consensus that high
quality professional development in support of school
mathematics should contain the following elements:
• Be sustained and intensive. The changes in beliefs and practices called for by
school mathematics reform require considerable time and
multiple learning opportunities. The changes cannot be achieved
with just a few workshops or readings. Rather, changes are
likely to take several years, and teachers need to be supported
appropriately throughout this undertaking.
• Be informed by how people learn best. The constructivist theories of learning that
underlie school mathematics reform should be applied to
structuring teachers’ learning as well. Simon’s
(1994) model of “learning cycles” further
explicates this principle. Simon suggests that teachers, just
like other learners, learn in cycles by doing the following:
(1) engaging actively in situations that provoke cognitive
dissonance, thus initiating new constructions of meaning; (2)
sharing and discussing these constructions with a group to
arrive at consensus and generalizations; and (3) applying these
generalizations to new situations to begin the learning cycle
again at a higher level. Simon further notes that the focus of
each learning cycle may be different at different points in
time as teachers develop in the six following areas:
1. Knowledge of mathematics
2. Knowledge about mathematics
3. Useful and personally meaningful
theories of mathematics learning
4. Knowledge of students’
development of particular mathematical ideas
5. Ability to plan instruction of this
nature
6. Ability to interact effectively with
students (i.e., listening,
questioning, monitoring and
facilitating classroom discourse).
(Simon, 1994, p.72)
• Focus on the critical activities of teaching and
learning rather than abstractions and generalities. In the programs described in the previous
chapters, teachers participated in activities close to their
own practice. For example, they examined student work, analyzed
videotaped classroom interactions, engaged as learners in
innovative mathematical experiences and planned instruction to
try out in their own classes. Theory and research have a role
in professional development, but to be meaningful, they should
be grounded in the practice of teaching and learning.
• Foster collaboration. A critical outcome of professional development
should be a “community of learners” in which
participants sustain each other as they undertake the challenge
of school mathematics reform.
• Offer a rich set of diverse experiences. To meet the many teacher learning needs we
identified in Chapter 1, professional development programs need
to offer a variety of experiences. It is worth noting that,
despite the different choices made by the two projects
described in Chapter 2, they both offered multiple professional
development experiences throughout the program.
The last points suggest the value of
comparing not so much entire professional development programs,
but rather the many specific professional development
experiences that take place within high-quality programs.
Main differences within specific
professional development experiences
As we look at the specific professional
development experiences within the two projects described in
Chapter 2, we see first of all that they are trying to achieve
different goals. The process of reform is too complex to
undertake at one time. Thus, it is important that teachers be
helped to focus on different aspects of that process at
different times. However, to ensure appropriate support for
teachers, a project should eventually take into account all of
the needs identified in Chapter 1.
It is worth noting that goals may differ
not only between projects but also among the experiences that
comprise one project. For example, the overall goal of the
Cognitive Guided Instruction (CGI) project was to enable
elementary teachers to understand children’s thinking
about basic arithmetic, operations concepts. The primary goal
of the Making Mathematics Reform a Reality (MMRR) project, on
the other hand, could be stated as to introduce mathematics
teachers to an inquiry approach to teaching. Within the MMRR
project itself, however, the goals for the first and second
summer institute differed. The first institute focused mostly
on changes in pedagogy while the second institute emphasized the need
for a radical change in mathematical
content and goals.
Thus, we suggest making a distinction
between the content of specific professional development
experiences (such as assessment, middle school algebra, early
development of operations or teaching mathematics through
inquiry) and the roles that such experiences will play within the
broader agenda of promoting school mathematics reform (such as
developing a need for school mathematics reform or learning to
implement an exemplary curriculum). Professional development
providers or consumers evaluating professional development
experiences need to consider both.
What a program is trying to accomplish,
combined with the constraints it has to deal with, influences
choices about the overall format for the
program, the kind of background and expertise needed by the
professional development providers, and the types of activities teachers will engage in.
We can identify the following options for
program formats by looking even just at the examples
described in Chapter 2:
• Summer Institutes that
engage teachers full time during the summer, for periods
usually ranging from 1 to 3 weeks.
• A series of workshops taking place over the school year, during or
after school hours.
• Study groups comprised
of teachers who meet on a regular basis over the school year to
work on their practice and/or discuss readings.
• One-to-one interactions between a teacher (or pair of teachers) and a
mathematics teacher educator acting as consultant and/or
mentor.
• Independent work done
by a teacher, such as reading, planning and implementing
innovative instruction, examining students’ thinking or
doing research.
The staff conducting professional
development initiatives may also differ, even within the same
project. For example, we find examples in the literature of
sessions facilitated by the following personnel:
• Mathematics educators who are experts in mathematics education and
mathematics teacher education. These professional are often,
but not always, affiliated with a school of education within a
higher education institution.
• Mathematicians who
are experts in mathematics and are usually affiliated with a
mathematics department in a college or university and who
conduct mathematical research or teach advanced mathematics
courses.
• Experts in related areas, such as facilitators in leadership skills.
• Administrators who
have responsibilities for staff development and supervision.
• Experienced teachers who have been implementing school mathematics
reform for some time.
• Some
of the participating teachers themselves.
Staffing professional development
experiences appropriately is central to their success. The
expertise that leaders need depends on the goals and content of
a session. In the remaining chapters, we will examine what kind
of expertise is needed and what it takes to effectively
facilitate different kinds of professional development
experiences.
The kind of activities that teachers
engage in further distinguishes specific professional
development experiences. Even just the two examples reported in
Chapter 2 include a wide variety of activities: Teachers
interpreted students’ responses to a mathematical task,
examined videotaped interviews or lessons, participated in
mathematical inquiries, and conducted interviews with their
students, among other things. Rather than trying to develop a
comprehensive list of all possible activities, we have
identified five main types
of professional development experiences in which most professional development
activities described in the literature fall:
• Mathematical
experiences where teachers engage as genuine learners;
• In-depth
analyses of student thinking based on their written work and or
contributions to classroom discussions;
• The
use of “cases,” that is, examples of practice
related to school mathematics reform that are presented as
videotaped excerpts or written narratives to stimulate
reflection and discussion on important issues;
• Supported
field experiences in which teachers attempt instructional
innovation; and
• Information
gathering and interpretation through both traditional
activities, such as reading articles and attending
presentations, and conducting research on one’s own
practice.
In Chapters 4 to 8, we will examine in
depth each of these five types of professional development
experiences. We hope this analysis will help readers evaluate
the quality and appropriateness of professional development
initiatives they are considering.
Note that, although both projects
described in Chapter 2 ask teachers to reflect on activities
and discuss them, we decided not to consider these practices as
a distinct type of professional development experience. Rather,
consistent with constructivist theories of learning, we
consider reflection and discussion as integral to any professional
development experience.
