Contributed by:
This paper reviews 35 methodologically rigorous studies that have demonstrated a positive link between teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student outcomes. We identify the features of these approaches and offer rich descriptions of these models to inform those seeking to understand the nature of the initiatives.
1.
Efective Teacher
Professional Development
Linda Darling-Hammond, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner,
with assistance from Danny Espinoza
JUNE 2017
3.
Efective Teacher
Professional Development
Linda Darling-Hammond, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner,
with assistance from Danny Espinoza
4.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their LPI colleagues Jessica Cardichon and Kathryn Bradley for their
contributions to the research and writing of this paper. We also thank Naomi Spinrad and Penelope
Malish for their editing and design contributions to this project, and Lisa Gonzales for overseeing
the editorial process. Without the generosity of time and spirit of all of the aforementioned, this
work would not have been possible.
The S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation and the Sandler Foundation have provided operating support for
the Learning Policy Institute’s work in this area.
External Reviewers
This report benefited from the insights and expertise of two external reviewers: Laura Desimone,
Associate Professor, Education Policy, Penn Graduate School of Education; and Michael Fullan, former
Dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. We thank them for the
care and attention they gave the report. Any remaining shortcomings are our own.
The appropriate citation for this report is: Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017).
Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
This report can be found online at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution—NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ii
5.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. v
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1
Defning Effective Professional Development................................................................................2
This Study ......................................................................................................................................2
Goals and Outline of This Report..................................................................................................3
Design Elements of Effective Professional Development ..................................................................4
Content Focus ..................................................................................................................................5
Active Learning.................................................................................................................................7
Collaboration....................................................................................................................................9
Use of Models and Modeling ....................................................................................................... 11
Coaching and Expert Support ...................................................................................................... 12
Feedback and Refection.............................................................................................................. 14
Sustained Duration....................................................................................................................... 15
Realizing the Promise of Professional Learning Communities ...................................................... 17
The Benefts of Analyzing Student Work and Student Data........................................................ 17
Learning From Professional Communities Beyond the School ................................................... 18
Creating the Conditions for Effective Professional Development:
Opportunities and Challenges ............................................................................................................. 20
School Level ................................................................................................................................ 20
System Level ............................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions and Policy Implications .................................................................................................. 23
Implications for Policy ................................................................................................................. 23
Implications for Implementation and Practice ............................................................................ 24
Appendix A: Methodology .................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: Summary of Studies Reviewed for This Report .......................................................... 27
Appendix C: Elements of Effective Professional Development by Study ...................................... 48
Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................. 53
About the Authors ................................................................................................................................. 64
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT iii
6.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT iv
7.
Executive Summary
Teacher professional learning is of increasing interest as one way to support the increasingly
complex skills students need to learn in preparation for further education and work in the 21st
century. Sophisticated forms of teaching are needed to develop student competencies such
as deep mastery of challenging content, critical thinking, complex problem-solving, effective
communication and collaboration, and self-direction. In turn, effective professional development
(PD) is needed to help teachers learn and refine the pedagogies required to teach these skills.
However, research has shown that many PD initiatives appear ineffective in supporting changes in
teacher practices and student learning. Accordingly, we set out to discover the features of effective
PD. This paper reviews 35 methodologically rigorous studies that have demonstrated a positive link
between teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student outcomes. We identify
the features of these approaches and offer rich descriptions of these models to inform those seeking
to understand the nature of the initiatives.
Defning and Studying Efective Professional Development
We define effective professional development as structured professional learning that results in
changes in teacher practices and improvements in student learning outcomes. To define features
of effective PD, we reviewed studies meeting our methodological criteria (see Appendix A) that
emerged from our extensive search of the literature over the last three decades. We coded each of
the studies to identify the elements of effective PD models.
Using this methodology, we found seven widely shared features of effective professional
development. Such professional development:
Is content focused: PD that focuses on teaching strategies associated with specific curriculum
content supports teacher learning within teachers’ classroom contexts. This element includes an
intentional focus on discipline-specific curriculum development and pedagogies in areas such as
mathematics, science, or literacy.
Incorporates active learning: Active learning engages teachers directly in designing and trying
out teaching strategies, providing them an opportunity to engage in the same style of learning they
are designing for their students. Such PD uses authentic artifacts, interactive activities, and other
strategies to provide deeply embedded, highly contextualized professional learning. This approach
moves away from traditional learning models and environments that are lecture based and have no
direct connection to teachers’ classrooms and students.
Supports collaboration: High-quality PD creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate
in their learning, often in job-embedded contexts. By working collaboratively, teachers can
create communities that positively change the culture and instruction of their entire grade level,
department, school and/or district.
Uses models of effective practice: Curricular models and modeling of instruction provide
teachers with a clear vision of what best practices look like. Teachers may view models that
include lesson plans, unit plans, sample student work, observations of peer teachers, and video or
written cases of teaching.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT v
8.
Provides coaching and expert support: Coaching and expert support involve the sharing of
expertise about content and evidence-based practices, focused directly on teachers’ individual needs.
Offers feedback and reflection: High-quality professional learning frequently provides built-in
time for teachers to think about, receive input on, and make changes to their practice by facilitating
reflection and soliciting feedback. Feedback and reflection both help teachers to thoughtfully move
toward the expert visions of practice.
Is of sustained duration: Effective PD provides teachers with adequate time to learn, practice,
implement, and reflect upon new strategies that facilitate changes in their practice.
Our research shows that effective professional learning incorporates most or all of these elements.
We also examine professional learning communities (PLCs) as an example of a PD model that
incorporates several of these effective elements and supports student learning gains. This
collaborative and job-embedded PD can be a source of efficacy and confidence for teachers, and can
result in widespread improvement within and beyond the school level.
Creating Conditions for Efective Professional Development: Opportunities
and Challenges
Research has established that the educational system within which PD occurs has implications for
its effectiveness. Specifically, conditions for teaching and learning both within schools and at the
broader, system level can inhibit the effectiveness of PD. For example, inadequate resourcing for
PD—including needed curriculum materials—frequently exacerbates inequities and hinders school
improvement efforts. Failure to align policies toward a coherent set of practices is also a major
impediment, as is a dysfunctional school culture. Implementing effective PD well also requires
responsiveness to the needs of educators and learners and to the contexts in which teaching and
learning will take place.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Examples of PD that have been successful in raising student achievement can help policymakers
and practitioners better understand what quality teacher professional learning looks like. Policy can
help support and incentivize the kind of evidence-based PD described here. For instance:
1. Policymakers could adopt standards for professional development to guide the design,
evaluation, and funding of professional learning provided to educators. These standards
might reflect the features of effective professional learning outlined in this report as well as
standards for implementation.
2. Policymakers and administrators could evaluate and redesign the use of time and school
schedules to increase opportunities for professional learning and collaboration, including
participation in professional learning communities, peer coaching and observations across
classrooms, and collaborative planning.
3. States, districts, and schools could regularly conduct needs assessments using data
from staff surveys to identify areas of professional learning most needed and desired
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT vi
9.
by educators. Data from these sources can help ensure that professional learning is not
disconnected from practice and supports the areas of knowledge and skills educators want
to develop.
4. State and district administrators could identify and develop expert teachers as mentors
and coaches to support learning in their particular area(s) of expertise for other educators.
5. States and districts can integrate professional learning into the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) school improvement initiatives, such as efforts to implement
new learning standards, use student data to inform instruction, improve student literacy,
increase student access to advanced coursework, and create a positive and inclusive
learning environment.
6. States and districts can provide technology-facilitated opportunities for professional
learning and coaching, using funding available under Titles II and IV of ESSA to address
the needs of rural communities and provide opportunities for intradistrict and intraschool
collaboration.
7. Policymakers can provide flexible funding and continuing education units for learning
opportunities that include sustained engagement in collaboration, mentoring, and
coaching, as well as institutes, workshops, and seminars.
In the end, well-designed and implemented PD should be considered a essential component of a
comprehensive system of teaching and learning that supports students to develop the knowledge,
skills, and competencies they need to thrive in the 21st century. To ensure a coherent system that
supports teachers across the entire professional continuum, professional learning should link to
their experiences in preparation and induction, as well as to teaching standards and evaluation. It
should also bridge to leadership opportunities to ensure a comprehensive system focused on the
growth and development of teachers.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT vii
10.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT viii
11.
Introduction
As demands for deeper and more complex student learning have intensified, practitioners,
researchers, and policymakers have begun to think more systematically about how to improve
teachers’ learning from recruitment, preparation, and support, to mentoring and other leadership
opportunities. Sophisticated forms of teaching are needed to develop 21st century student
competencies, such as deep mastery of challenging content, critical thinking, complex problem-
solving, effective communication and collaboration, and self-direction. In turn, opportunities are
needed for teachers to learn and refine the pedagogies required to teach these skills.
However, major questions remain about how
teachers can learn these skills and how PD can Sophisticated forms of teaching
play a role in improving teacher practice. Recent are needed to develop 21st
research on PD has underscored the importance
of these questions, given the mixed findings century student competencies.
often generated.1 For example, one recent study
of four districts serving a largely low-income
student population found that even with large financial investments in teacher PD, both teacher
practice (according to teacher evaluations) and student learning (according to state assessments)
saw little change. The study found that teacher evaluations stayed the same, or declined in the span
of 2-3 years, while more than $18,000 of PD money per teacher was spent in these districts. In spite
of their findings, the authors of the four-district study did not recommend dropping investment in
teacher PD. Instead, recommendations included redefining what it means to help teachers improve,
reevaluating current professional learning and support programs,and reinventing how we support
effective teaching at scale.2
It is certainly true that PD does not always lead to professional learning, despite its intent.3 Fullan
(2007) argues that external approaches to instructional improvement are rarely “powerful enough,
specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school.”4 Indeed,
research on PD in the United States found that most teachers receive PD of short duration (less than
eight hours on a topic, usually in afterschool workshops) and that, during the No Child Left Behind
Era, there was an increase in this short-term approach and a decline in access to more sustained
professional learning approaches.5 In addition, some school contexts pose equity challenges related
to the potential impact of PD on student learning (e.g., poor leadership, inadequate resources, or
countervailing school or district mandates).6
At the same time, a growing number of rigorous studies establish that well-designed PD can, when
effectively implemented, lead to desirable changes in teacher practice and student outcomes. These
studies build on an expansive body of research that has previously described positive outcomes
from professional learning using teacher and student self-reports or observational designs.7 As
states and districts work to create new structures and strategies for PD, it is useful to evaluate
what this research has to say about the kinds of professional learning that improve instruction and
student achievement.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1
12.
Defning Efective Professional Development
In this review, we define effective professional development as structured professional learning
that results in changes to teacher knowledge and practices, and improvements in student learning
outcomes. We conceptualize professional learning as a product of both externally provided and
job-embedded activities that increase teachers’ knowledge and help them change their instructional
practice in ways that support student learning. Thus, formal PD represents a subset of the range of
experiences that may result in professional learning.
This Study
In this paper, we examine the research on
professional learning that has proven effective This paper offers rich descriptions
in changing teachers’ practices and improving of the combined characteristics
student outcomes to identify elements prevalent
in successful PD models. To define features
of professional development that
of effective professional development, we research has found to positively
reviewed 35 studies that emerged from our relate to student outcomes.
extensive search of the literature over the last
three decades which met our methodological
criteria: They featured a careful experimental or
comparison group design, or they analyzed student outcomes with statistical controls for context
variables and student characteristics. (Appendix A details our methodology and Appendix B details
each reviewed study.) We coded each of the studies to generate the elements of effective PD models.
Appendix C indicates the elements exhibited by each of the PD model(s) featured in each study.
We recognize that this methodology has limitations. Because studies of professional development
typically examine comprehensive models that incorporate many elements, this paper does not seek
to draw conclusions about the efficacy of individual program components. Rather, it offers rich
descriptions of the combined characteristics of PD that research has found to positively relate to
student outcomes.
We are also unable to comment on the studies of PD that do not appear to yield positive results on
student achievement. Although many studies lack the rigorous controls needed to draw inferences
about outcomes, there are a number of well-designed studies of PD that share some of the features
we highlight here but did not find positive effects. We located six studies with strong methodologies
that failed to find impacts on student learning. Several found positive influences on teacher
knowledge and/or practices but not on the measure of student outcomes used.8 These measures of
student outcomes were sometimes designed to evaluate the specific goals of the PD and sometimes
were a more generic commercial instrument or state test.
Authors noted a number of potential reasons for their findings, including lack of implementation
fidelity in the conduct of the PD,9 lack of opportunity for teachers to implement what they learned
in the PD in their classrooms,10 and teacher turnover that reduced many teachers’ access to the
PD.11 In one study, Garet and colleagues (2016) make a critically important point when they note
that the content of PD could be misdirected—that, is not focused on the actual teaching knowledge
and skills that are needed to support student learning.12 It is obviously most important that what
teachers are taught reflects the practices that can actually make a positive difference for student
learning. That is, the content of professional development matters, along with its form.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2
13.
Another crucial element is the knowledge
that teachers bring to the PD experience—and We aim to provide a research-
whether it is sufficient to support their learning based understanding of the kinds
of particular pedagogical strategies. In one
interesting case, where mathematics PD was
of PD that can lead to powerful
conducted in a district that had very large professional learning, instructional
numbers of uncredentialed teachers, researchers improvement, and deeper student
found positive effects on student learning only
for those teachers who began with a higher learning.
level of content knowledge, signaling that the
effectiveness of PD may depend in part on
how solid a content foundation teachers have with which to absorb its lessons.13 These and other
considerations may influence the effectiveness of PD, even when it may share some of the features
we identify here. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to unpack why specific initiatives
have proved less than fully successful, we identify barriers to the implementation of effective PD as
identified by researchers later in this paper.
Goals and Outline of This Report
Our primary goal is to illuminate the features of PD that have been found to be effective, in hopes
that this analysis can help inform policymakers and practitioners responsible for designing,
planning, and implementing potentially productive opportunities for teacher learning.
We aim to provide practitioners, researchers, and policymakers with a research-based understanding
of the kinds of PD that can lead to powerful professional learning, instructional improvement, and
deeper student learning. By examining information about the nature of effective PD, policymakers and
practitioners can begin to evaluate the needs of the systems in which teachers learn and do their work
and consider how teachers’ learning opportunities can be more effectively supported.
In the sections that follow, we first review the elements of effective PD initiatives identified through
our review of recent literature, offering examples from specific studies and PD models. We then
explore how the currently popular phenomenon of professional learning communities—often
superficially implemented—can be effectively organized. Next, we provide an overview of the
broader conditions that support or inhibit effective teacher PD in the United States, drawing on the
broader PD literature. We conclude with considerations for policy and practice.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3
14.
Design Elements of Efective Professional Development
In recent decades, a “new paradigm” for PD has emerged from research that distinguishes
powerful opportunities for teacher learning from the traditional, one-day, “drive by” workshop
model.14 The research on effective PD has begun to create a consensus about key principles in the
design of learning experiences that can impact teachers’ knowledge and practices.15 The ongoing
expansion of this literature provides an opportunity to build upon this consensus with new
insights, particularly given the increased prevalence of rigorous research designs in PD studies
that boost confidence in the validity of findings.
Although research on the effectiveness of PD has been mixed, positive findings have stimulated a
general consensus about typical components of high-quality professional learning for teachers.16
This consensus, articulated by Desimone (2009) and others, holds that effective PD possesses a
robust content focus, features active learning, is collaborative and aligned with relevant curricula
and policies, and provides sufficient learning time for participants. Our review confirms and
expands upon this five-part framework, providing additional specificity about the types of active
and collaborative practices that underlie powerful teacher PD.
Using the methodology detailed in Appendix A, we identify seven characteristics of effective
PD. Specifically, we find that it:
1. Is content focused
2. Incorporates active learning utilizing adult learning theory
3. Supports collaboration, typically in job-embedded contexts
4. Uses models and modeling of effective practice
5. Provides coaching and expert support
6. Offers opportunities for feedback and reflection
7. Is of sustained duration
Successful PD models generally feature a number of these components simultaneously. The Reading
Recovery program, described in detail in the box that follows, is an example of one program that
possesses all seven elements and has been found to generate positive student gains. Other effective
programs may possess most but not all of the seven features.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4
15.
Efective Professional Development in Practice: Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery is an example of a professional development model that has demonstrated effectiveness in
supporting student learning gains in dozens of studies over several decades on multiple continents.17 Reading
Recovery was originally designed to provide individualized interventions for struggling readers in New Zealand,
and has since been widely implemented in the U.K., Canada, and Australia. It was frst implemented in the U.S.
in 1984, and grew to serve a peak number of 152,000 students nationwide in the 2000–01 school year.18 In
2010, the Ohio State University—the U.S. seat of Reading Recovery—received a $45 million federal i3 grant
to fund the expansion of Reading Recovery. The university partnered with 19 universities across the U.S. to
recruit and train teachers and schools to participate in the Reading Recovery program. The i3 grant supported
teacher PD for 3,747 teachers, who served 387,450 students in one-to-one lessons, classroom teaching, or
small-group instruction.19
The Reading Recovery theory of change asserts the critical role of the teacher in identifying students’ strengths
and needs, and facilitating their learning by providing appropriate opportunities to acquire and use new reading
skills.20 The teacher’s practice is highly diagnostic and grounded in a substantial knowledge base about the
learning-to-read process for diverse learners, as well as a sophisticated set of teaching skills applied in an
individualized fashion for each learner. The basis of the Reading Recovery PD model is similarly informed by a
very deliberate approach to acquiring and applying knowledge that is individualized to the needs of the teacher.
To prepare teachers to play this critical role, Reading Recovery provides intensive PD that incorporates all
seven of the elements of effective PD. In groups of 8 to 12, teachers complete a yearlong graduate-level
training course taught by a literacy coach. This sustained training involves model lesson observation, teacher
demonstration of effective teaching techniques, and frequent collaborative discussion between participants.
After the training course, faculty from the partnering university support teachers in their classrooms and
facilitate program implementation within their area.21 Additional, ongoing PD for these teachers includes
a minimum of six sessions with a Reading Recovery teacher leader and colleagues; opportunities for
interaction and collaboration with school leaders and colleagues; and ongoing access to conferences and
training institutes.22
A 2016 evaluation of the i3 funded initiative found that students who participated in the U.S. expansion of
Reading Recovery signifcantly outperformed students in the control groups on measures of overall reading,
reading comprehension, and decoding.23 Moreover, these gains were nearly three times as large as average
gains for similar broad instructional interventions. This effect translates to Reading Recovery students in the
study gaining an additional 1.55 months of learning compared to the national growth average for 1st graders.
Of particular interest during the i3 scale-up study was the performance of English language learners (ELLs) and
rural students. Results indicated that there was a similarly large positive impact on their performance.24 These
fndings suggest that the Reading Recovery PD program is capable of positively impacting student achievement
on a large scale and can help drive equitable learning outcomes for ELL and rural students.
The section continues with a description of each characteristic with supporting literature and examples.
Additional information about each study described in this section is available in Appendix B.
Content Focus
Professional learning that has shown an impact on student achievement is focused on the content
that teachers teach. Content-focused PD generally treats discipline-specific curricula such as
mathematics, science, or literacy. It is most often job embedded, meaning the PD is situated in
teachers’ classrooms with their students, as opposed to generic PD delivered externally or divorced
from teachers’ school or district contexts. This type of PD can provide teachers the opportunity to
study their students’ work,25 test out new curriculum with their students,26 or study a particular
element of pedagogy or student learning in the content area.27 Ideally, the PD is aligned with school
and district priorities, providing a coherence for teachers, as opposed to having PD compete with
differing school and district priorities.28
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5
16.
Thirty-one of the 35 studies we reviewed
featured a specific content focus as part of the Ideally, the PD is aligned with
PD model. Among the PD models without a school and district priorities,
specific content focus, two focused on specific
pedagogies that were not discipline specific,29
providing a coherence for
and one study focused on supporting teachers in teachers, as opposed to having PD
promoting inquiry-based learning and leveraging compete with differing school and
technology in support of standards-based
instruction.30 A final study provided insufficient district priorities.
description of the PD to determine whether or
not the PD was content specific.31
One study of PD for upper elementary teachers, which focused on helping teachers analyze science
teaching and improve pedagogy, illustrates job-embedded and content-focused PD. Roth et al.
(2011) studied teachers participating in The Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis
(STeLLA) program.32 The project focused on both science content and pedagogy using a video-based
analysis-of-teaching PD model. The PD began with a three-week summer institute focused on
science content taught by faculty at a local university. Teachers in the STeLLA program also engaged
in video analysis of teaching during the summer institute. In follow-up sessions throughout the
school year, teachers utilized Student Thinking and Science Content Storyline Lenses, creating
PD that was both content specific and classroom based. The Student Thinking portion of the PD
focused on understanding students’ ideas for use in planning, teaching, and analysis of teaching—
particularly in anticipating student thinking to assist teachers in responding to students’ ideas and
misunderstandings in productive ways. The Science Content Storyline portion of the PD focused
on the sequencing of science ideas and how they are linked to help students construct a coherent
“story” that makes sense to them. STeLLA teachers met in small groups facilitated by a program
leader and discussed video cases of teaching that could include video(s) of one classroom, student
and teacher interviews, teacher materials, and student work samples.33
STeLLA teachers also taught a set of four to six model lessons themselves and analyzed their teaching
using a structured protocol. Half of a study group would teach the lessons to their students, and the
entire group would collaboratively analyze the teaching and student work, and revise the lessons for
the other half to use. The roles would then switch and the second half of the group would teach the
lessons in their classrooms, followed by collaborative analysis and subsequent revision. The analysis
was highly scaffolded by the PD facilitators. STeLLA groups met for 58 hours of analysis throughout
the school year, in addition to 44 hours during the three-week summer session for a total of 102
hours. Roth et al. (2011) studied this group of teachers in comparison to a group of teachers who only
attended the science content portion of the PD program.34 The content-only teachers received just the
44 hours of PD, and it was not explicitly connected to their classroom contexts.
Results of the study showed that teachers who participated in the STeLLA program had students who
achieved greater learning gains than comparison students whose teachers received content training
only, as determined by pre- and post-test science content exams. Statistical analyses linked these
gains in student learning with teachers’ science content knowledge, teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge about student thinking, and teachers’ ability to create a cohesive science content storyline.
STeLLA teachers outperformed the content-only teachers and, moreover, were able to retain their
content learning whereas content-only teachers were not.35 A second randomized study of the STeLLA
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 6
17.
program similarly found positive effects for students of participating teachers.36 This study, similar to
other studies in this review, suggests that PD that treats only content learning is not as effective as PD
that links content learning to pedagogies supporting teachers’ students and practice.37
Teacher professional learning that is context specific, job embedded, and content based is
particularly important for addressing the diverse needs of students (and thus teachers) in differing
settings. For example, in one study of PD for elementary science teachers in an urban school
district, teachers of Latinx students learned science content as well as conversational Spanish
and strategies for using culturally relevant pedagogies.38 In another program targeting teachers of
Latinx dual-language learners, monolingual teachers were provided with a range of instructional
strategies to support children’s primary language
development in Spanish.39 The key features Adults come to learning with
of focusing on students’ culture and language
in these content- and context-specific PD
experiences that should be
models illustrate teacher professional learning utilized as resources for new
opportunities designed for teaching content learning.
to specific student populations with targeted
strategies to support their achievement.
Active Learning
The design of PD experiences must address how teachers learn, as well as what teachers learn.
Trotter (2006) outlines several theories of learning and adult development and identifies themes
that are relevant for designing teacher PD.
• Adults come to learning with experiences that should be utilized as resources for new
learning.
• Adults should choose their learning opportunities based on interest and their own
classroom experiences/needs.
• Reflection and inquiry should be central to learning and development.40
These themes provide a general framing that helps to explain why teacher PD that incorporates
active learning experiences is effective in supporting student learning and growth. “Active learning”
suggests moving away from traditional learning models that are generic and lecture based toward
models that engage teachers directly in the practices they are learning and, preferably, are
connected to teachers’ classrooms and students. Active learning, in sharp contrast to sit-and-listen
lectures, engages educators using authentic artifacts, interactive activities, and other strategies to
provide deeply embedded, highly contextualized professional learning. Active learning is also an
“umbrella” element that often incorporates the elements of collaboration, coaching, feedback, and
reflection and the use of models and modeling.
Opportunities for “sense-making” activities are important.41 Such activities often involve modeling
the sought-after practices and constructing opportunities for teachers to analyze, try out, and
reflect on the new strategies.42 Active learning opportunities allow teachers to transform their
teaching and not simply layer new strategies on top of the old, a hallmark of adult learning theory.43
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7
18.
Greenleaf et al. (2011) describe an active teacher professional learning model that improved
student science learning.44 California high school biology teachers participated in PD integrating
academic literacy and biology instruction through a program called Reading Apprenticeship. The
PD was inquiry based, subject focused, collaborative, and designed to address teachers’ conceptual
understandings as well as pedagogical content knowledge. Each session was designed to immerse
the teachers in the types of learning activities and environments they would then create for their
students. Teachers engaged in activities to simulate their own discipline expertise in relation
to literacy, and they also engaged in analysis of texts to identify potential literacy challenges to
In addition, teachers analyzed student work, videotaped classroom lessons, and studied cases of
student literacy learning designed to foster high expectations of student learning. Metacognitive
routines such as think-alouds and reading logs for science investigations were used in PD sessions.
Teachers also practiced classroom routines to build student engagement and student collaboration
(e.g., “think-pair-share,” jigsaws, text-based student discussion, and problem solving). An important
part of the PD was a metacognitive reflection after each session that focused on the session’s impact
on teachers’ learning and potential impact on their students’ development.46
The program employed 10 sessions over the course of a year. An initial five-day institute took place
the first summer of the study, followed by two follow-up days of PD during year 1 and a final three-
day PD follow-up the summer after the academic year. During the study year, participants engaged
in collaboration on a listserv that fostered the exchange of resources and ideas and was moderated
by PD coaches. This multimodal, active learning PD model resulted in student achievement
equivalent to a year’s reading growth compared with students of teachers assigned to a control
group. Students of treatment teachers also performed better than their counterparts in control
classrooms on state assessments in English language arts and biology.47
The opportunity for teachers to engage in the
same learning activities they are designing for The opportunity for teachers to
their students is often utilized as a form of active engage in the same learning
learning. Several studies in this review highlighted
PD programs that had teachers engage as learners
activities they are designing for
through the use of curriculum and materials that their students is often utilized as a
they would then employ with their students. For form of active learning.
instance, Buczynski and Hansen (2010) describe
how 4th through 6th grade teachers had the
opportunity to participate in “constructivist,
hands-on experiences” through the use of science kits.48 These were the same science kits that
teachers would then go on to use in their classrooms with their students. Similarly, teachers in a study
by Heller et al. (2012) completed the same scientific investigations they analyzed in written teaching
cases.49 In other studies, pedagogical and content experts would “teach” model lessons with teachers
engaging as learners.50 Additionally, two studies incorporated role-playing as a part of teachers
“practicing” lessons with their peers to better understand students and their learning.51
Overall, 34 of the 35 studies incorporated some element of active learning in the design of the PD,
while one study did not provide enough description of the PD model to ascertain whether active
learning was present.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8
19.
As schools have increasingly structured teaching
As schools have increasingly
as a collaborative community endeavor, it makes structured teaching as a
sense that teacher collaboration is an important
collaborative community endeavor,
feature of well-designed PD.52 “Collaboration”
can span a host of configurations—from it makes sense that teacher
one-on-one or small-group interactions to collaboration is an important
schoolwide collaboration to exchanges with
feature of well-designed PD.
other professionals beyond the school.
In a program studied by Allen et al. (2011),
teachers collaborated with a one-on-one coach.53 In this study, Virginia high school teachers
enrolled in My Teaching Partner-Secondary, a web-mediated coaching program designed to improve
teacher-student interactions. Teachers participated in an initial training workshop followed by
twice-monthly coaching from a remote mentor. For each coaching session, teachers were asked to
submit short videos of their practice, reflect on their teaching, and respond to questions from their
coach regarding the relationship between teacher practice and student engagement. Each reflection
was followed by a 20- to 30-minute phone conference with the coach. Teachers also attended
monthly booster workshops and were given access to an annotated video library for the duration of
the program.54
Overall, the program offered 20 hours of in-service training over 13 months, in addition to the
focused work teachers were doing in their classrooms to design and reflect on their practice.
Students whose teachers had participated in the program the previous school year demonstrated
gains in student achievement relative to the control group, with student learning gains equivalent
to an average increase from the 50th to 59th percentile.55 A replication study featuring an extended,
two-year version of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary model found similar promising results.56
This model of PD is especially promising for teachers who may be in remote or rural schools and
may not have access to professional learning opportunities more readily available in suburban or
urban areas.
Other studies have looked at collaboration at the school level.57 One New Zealand study focused
on schoolwide PD efforts in 195 schools spread across four cohorts of teachers.58 Teachers in
these schools participated in a flexible whole-school professional development model designed to
improve student literacy, particularly for low-performing students. Each of the participating schools
selected a focus on reading or writing for the duration of the two-year project and was assigned an
expert literacy facilitator to provide PD for teachers and school leaders.
Facilitators visited each school biweekly to conduct classroom observations, model literacy
instruction, provide coaching and feedback, and engage in discussion and other activities with
school staff. Facilitators also trained a literacy leader at each school who provided additional
support for colleagues. The project provided resources such as classroom observation and
facilitation tools, as well as training and feedback for the expert facilitators throughout the
two years. Students attending schools participating in the project outperformed achievement
expectations relative to a nationally normed sample, especially in writing. Students in schools with
a focus on improving writing improved at 2.9 to 3.5 times the expected rate. Students in schools
with a focus on improving reading improved at 1.4 to 1.6 times the expected rate.59
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 9
20.
Such collaborative approaches have been found
to be effective in promoting school change that Such collaborative approaches
extends beyond individual classrooms.60 When have been found to be effective
whole grade levels, departments, or schools
are involved, they provide a broader base of
in promoting school change
understanding and support at the school level. that extends beyond individual
Teachers create a collective force for improved classrooms.
instruction and serve as support groups for each
other’s work on their practice. Collective work
in trusting environments provides a basis for
inquiry and reflection into teachers’ own practices, allowing teachers to take risks, solve problems,
and attend to dilemmas in their practice.61
Other studies focused on districtwide collaborative PD in efforts to bring larger-scale improvements
to teaching and learning.62 For example, in one Texas district, teachers engaged in on-site,
small-group PD to promote inquiry-based, literacy-integrated instruction to improve English
learners’ science and reading achievement.63 Through the program, teachers and paraprofessionals
participated in workshops where they reviewed upcoming lessons, discussed science concepts with
peers, engaged in reflections on student learning, participated in inquiry activities as learners,
and received instruction in strategies for teaching English learners. Researchers also provided
teachers with lesson plans that incorporated strategies for effective instruction of English learners.
Teachers met biweekly for collaborative, three-hour sessions, receiving six hours of PD per month;
paraprofessionals met monthly for three hours. The program also included a focus on new and
enhanced instructional activities for English learners.
Students who received enhanced instructional activities and whose teachers received PD
demonstrated significantly higher science and reading achievement than students who were
engaged in business-as-usual instruction. Treatment students also earned passing and commended
scores on district science benchmarks at higher rates than control group students.64 By focusing
on improving the practice of teachers of English language learners, this kind of collaborative,
districtwide PD can have important implications for improving the equity of whole systems.
Technology-facilitated PD such as the web-mediated coaching program studied by Allen et
al. (2011) can also foster cyber collaboration,65 which can be effective in improving student
achievement.66 Landry et al. (2009), for example, describe a well-designed online PD program that
improved early literacy outcomes for young children.67 In that study, described in additional detail
later in the Feedback and Reflection section, early childhood educators participated in a facilitated
online course on language and literacy instruction. The interactive course included videos models,
message boards, and opportunities to practice skills in small groups. In this case, technology
facilitated the incorporation of collaboration and other effective PD elements, such as active
learning and modeling, in the professional learning design.
Overall, 32 of 35 studies we reviewed incorporated some element of collaboration to support
teacher professional learning, while three studies did not provide sufficient description to
determine whether or not collaboration was a part of the model design. When PD utilizes effective
collaborative structures for teachers to problem-solve and learn together, it can positively
contribute to student achievement.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10
21.
Use of Models and Modeling
PD that utilizes models of effective practice has proven successful at promoting teacher learning
and supporting student achievement. Curricular and instructional models and modeling of
instruction help teachers to have a vision of practice on which to anchor their own learning and
growth. The various kinds of modeling can include
• video or written cases of teaching,
• demonstration lessons,
• unit or lesson plans,
• observations of peers, and
• curriculum materials including sample assessments and student work samples.
All 35 studies reviewed here included curricular models and/or modeling of effective instruction
in the delivery of content and pedagogical learning for teachers. For example, Heller et al. (2012)
conducted a randomized experimental design of three intervention groups and one control
group to study the effects of PD on elementary students’ learning in science.68 The PD focused
on pedagogical science content knowledge for elementary teachers, utilizing three different
interventions, all of which proved successful in improving student achievement.
One group of teachers analyzed written
teaching cases, drawn from actual classrooms Curricular and instructional models
and written by teachers. Thus, the PD was and modeling of instruction
an “analysis of practice” approach that
incorporated models for student work analysis, help teachers to have a vision of
student teacher dialogue analysis, and teacher practice on which to anchor their
thinking and behaviors. A second group
own learning and growth.
analyzed their own students’ work in relation
to their teaching. Teachers in this intervention
experienced carefully structured, collaborative
analysis of their own students’ work, which required that they teach a unit. Discussion protocols
for the analysis of student work were employed that focused teachers’ analysis on student
understanding of content. These teachers took turns bringing in student work samples and
formative assessment tasks that they analyzed collaboratively. Teachers also had access to a
“task bank” of formative assessment model items they could use with their students. A third
group utilized metacognitive analysis of their own learning experience in the form of reflective
discussions about their own learning processes as they engaged in science content activities.
The course was designed to help teachers identify concepts they found challenging to learn,
examine the logic behind their own common misunderstandings of the content, and analyze the
roles of hands-on investigations, discourse, and inquiry in science learning. Expert staff developers
delivered a series of three courses (the PD was delivered in 8 three-hour sessions, for a total of 24
contact hours with a facilitator).69
Findings of this study showed that students of teachers who participated in any of the PD
opportunities had significantly greater learning gains on science tests than students whose teachers
did not participate (with average gains of 19-22 percentage points compared to 13 points for control
students). These effects were maintained a year later. Student justification of correct answers in
year 1 of the study showed significant improvement from pre- to post-test for those students whose
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11
22.
teachers analyzed student work samples (which incorporated the use of model assessments, as
noted above). In the follow-up year, teachers who utilized cases of teaching also had significantly
higher answer justification scores. Those teachers who focused on metacognitive analysis of their
own learning experience showed no student gains in written justification of correct answers. The
findings of this study are notable because the strongest effects on written justifications of answers,
a task more complex than identifying correct answers on a content exam, are connected to the PD
that focused on models of effective practice, including curricula and instruction, in combination
with student work analysis and classroom pedagogical practice.70
The importance of providing professional
learning in conjunction with model curriculum The importance of providing
and classroom materials should not be professional learning in
underestimated. Several studies in this review
compared groups of teachers who had access to conjunction with model curriculum
curriculum with no support to those teachers and classroom materials should
who received curriculum with additional
not be underestimated.
support. For example, Kleickmann et al. (2016)
found that teachers who utilized educational
curriculum materials alone had lower student
achievement than those teachers who had access to those materials and expert support combined
with collaborative active learning opportunities that focused heavily on sequencing and presenting
science concepts to facilitate student learning.71
Doppelt et al. (2009) reported similar findings.72 Teachers in this study participated in content-
based collaborative inquiry sessions as support for a new 8th-grade science curriculum focused on
electronics. Teachers participated in active learning based on the new curriculum—they engaged
in the model lessons just as their students would. In addition, they spent much time in the
workshops reflecting on instructional activities in their classrooms. They shared student work and
instructional materials, actively discussing and reflecting on instruction. Students whose teachers
used the new curriculum and participated in PD had statistically greater achievement than those
students whose teachers used the new curriculum with no PD. Even more significant, achievement
for students of those teachers who continued to use the older standard curriculum was greater than
that of those students whose teachers used the new curriculum with no PD.73 That suggests that
students were better off if their teachers did not attempt to utilize new curricular materials without
effective PD supporting them.
Coaching and Expert Support
The previous sections foreshadowed the role experts can have in helping to guide and facilitate
teachers’ learning in the context of their practice. In their work with educators, experts—typically
educators themselves—often play this critical role by employing the types of professional learning
strategies outlined above, such as modeling strong instructional practices or supporting group
discussion and collaborative analysis of student work. Such coaches may also share expertise about
content and evidence-based practices, as well.
The practice of providing coaching or other expert support for educators was identified in 30 of the
35 studies reviewed. Four of the studies did not specify who delivered the PD or whether expert
support was offered. In one case, coaching and expert support were not offered as part of the PD:
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 12
23.
Shaha and Ellsworth (2013) describe a web-based PD platform with opportunities for teachers
to engage with PD content through objective-setting, videos, forums, and communities, without
specified expert support.74
One common structure for providing expert support is one-on-one coaching in the context of a
teacher’s own classroom.75 Experts also shared their knowledge as facilitators of group workshops76
or as remote mentors utilizing technology to communicate with educators.77 Individuals with
a variety of backgrounds can fill the role of expert; in the reviewed studies, coaches and other
experts ranged from specially trained master teachers78 and instructional leaders79 to researchers
and university faculty.81 For example, Roth et al. (2011) relied on both program leaders to facilitate
small-group learning and university-based scientists to teach science content to educators.81
The coaching model studied by Powell and colleagues (2010) offers an example of expert support
that contributed to student learning gains.82 The PD was designed to provide early childhood
educators with individualized feedback to improve early literacy instruction. Educators attended
an initial two-day orientation that introduced program content and fostered relationship building
between coaches and educators. Educators then participated in biweekly coaching sessions with a
university-based literacy coach, in person or remotely.
Across both formats, coaches and teachers worked together to choose a specific instructional
practice on which to focus each session. Coaches then observed the teachers’ practice and provided
both supportive and constructive feedback. On-site coaches observed educators for approximately
90 minutes, then the two met for 30 minutes to debrief the observation and provide oral and written
feedback, including recommendations to improve practice. For remote coaching, educators shared
15-minute video clips and coaches provided detailed written feedback, supported by links to video
exemplars and other materials available through the program. The semester-long program included
16 hours of workshops and seven coaching sessions.83
A two-year randomized control trial found that
classrooms led by educators who participated Coaching or other expert
in this coaching model demonstrated larger scaffolding can support the
gains and higher performance on a valid and
widely used early childhood classroom quality
effective implementation of new
assessment than did control group classrooms. curricula, tools, and approaches
Children whose teachers participated in the early by educators.
literacy coaching program showed significantly
larger gains and better performance on a number
of early language and literacy skills than did
those whose teachers had not participated.84
Recent literature also suggests that coaching or other expert scaffolding can support the effective
implementation of new curricula, tools, and approaches by educators.85 This is consistent with
earlier research providing evidence that teachers who receive coaching are more likely to enact
desired teaching practices and apply them more appropriately than those receiving more traditional
PD.86 Taken together, the literature demonstrates that expert supporters can play a critical role in
creating effective PD.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 13
24.
Feedback and Refection
Feedback and reflection are two other powerful tools found in effective PD; they are often employed
during mentoring and coaching but are not limited to these spaces. As noted earlier, feedback
and reflection are critical components of adult learning theory. Professional development models
associated with gains in student learning frequently provide built-in time for teachers to think
about, receive input on, and make changes to their practice by providing intentional time for
feedback and/or reflection. While feedback and reflection are two distinct practices, they work
together to help teachers move thoughtfully toward the expert visions of practice that they may
have learned about or seen modeled during PD.
Thirty-four of the 35 reviewed studies specified
that PD included efforts to support educators Professional development models
in reflecting on their practice; one study associated with gains in student
offered no data about reflections on practice.
Greenleaf and colleagues (2011) documented
learning frequently provide built-in
one approach to incorporating reflection into time for teachers to think about,
PD models. After high school biology teachers
87
receive input on, and make
participated in literacy activities as learners,
they participated in a debrief, describing the
changes to their practice.
elements of the activity that extended their
literacy learning and considering implications
and adaptations of the pedagogy for their classrooms. This reflection process was designed to
bolster teachers’ own learning and to support their teaching literacy in science.
In addition, 24 studies outlined processes for providing educators with feedback on their practice.
(The remaining 11 did not specify whether feedback was provided to participants). Landry
and colleagues (2009) describe multiple opportunities for educators to receive feedback in a
program targeting early childhood educators’ ability to promote children’s language and literacy
development.88 In the program, which was implemented across four states, educators enrolled
in a facilitated online course focused on language and literacy instruction, eCIRCLE. The course
included videos of model lessons, online coursework and knowledge assessments, and opportunities
to plan lessons and practice skills in small groups and in teachers’ own classrooms. The course also
offered interactive message boards that were moderated by expert facilitators. Teachers participated
in four hours of this coursework per month throughout the school year. Participating educators also
received a supplemental curriculum on preschool language and literacy skills and were encouraged
to monitor children’s language and literacy progress using a standardized tool. In addition, some
educators participated in biweekly onsite mentoring sessions with the expert facilitators. For those
educators receiving mentoring, mentors first observed teacher practice, then facilitated reflective
follow-up and provided both positive and constructive feedback to educators using a structured
format. Whether through online forums or in-person coaching, teachers participating in the
program were offered opportunities to receive feedback from specially trained experts.89
The researchers’ randomized controlled study of the program found that students of teachers
who received PD through the program demonstrated greater gains in phonological awareness, an
important emergent literacy skill, than students of those who did not.90 Researchers also found
that students of teachers who received both expert mentoring and feedback on children’s progress
experienced the greatest gains on a variety of language and literacy outcomes.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 14
25.
In effective PD programs, the practices of generating feedback and supporting reflection often
include opportunities to share both positive and constructive reactions to authentic instances of
teacher practice, such as lesson plans, demonstration lessons, or videos of instruction.91 These
activities are frequently undertaken in the context of a coaching session92 or a group workshop
facilitated by an expert.93 In a few cases, feedback was shared among teachers.94 In each of these
settings, effective PD programs leveraged feedback and opportunities for reflection to create richer
environments for teacher learning.
Sustained Duration
Providing PD that exhibits the aforementioned
characteristics and results in meaningful The traditional episodic and
professional learning requires time and quality fragmented approach to PD does
implementation. Though research has not yet
identified a clear threshold for the duration
not afford the time necessary
of effective PD models, it does indicate that for learning that is rigorous and
meaningful professional learning that translates cumulative.
to changes in practice cannot be accomplished
in short, one-off workshops.95 The traditional
episodic and fragmented approach to PD does
not afford the time necessary for learning that is “rigorous” and “cumulative.”96 Professional
development that is sustained, offering multiple opportunities for teachers to engage in learning
around a single set of concepts or practices, has a greater chance of transforming teaching practices
and student learning.
None of the PD initiatives described in this review occurred in the context of a single, isolated
encounter.97 The programs instead typically spanned weeks, months, or even academic years, with
ongoing engagement in learning by teachers. These findings are consistent with previous literature
on the duration of effective PD, which suggests that professional learning must be sustained to
have an impact.98 Beyond the findings of many studies of individual PD programs, Wenglinsky
(2000) found in an analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data that
spanned many different teacher experiences across the country that stronger instructional practices
in mathematics and science were associated with professional development that was extended
and sustained.99 In a review of literature, Yoon et al. (2007) identified nine studies of PD using
experimental or quasi-experimental designs and found that the effective PD models examined in
these studies offered an average of 49 hours of development per year, with an associated average
boost in student achievement of 21 percentile points.100
Thirty-one of the 35 studies we reviewed explicitly described PD that was sustained over time
through recurring workshops, coaching sessions, or engagement with online platforms; the
remaining four studies did not specify a particular format or duration. The most common model for
PD among these studies was participation in an initial, intensive workshop, followed by applications
in the classroom and additional development days or coaching sessions to extend and reinforce
educator learning.101 For example, teachers participating in the middle school science PD program
described by Penuel et al. (2011) attended a two-week summer workshop, followed by ongoing work
in their classrooms supported by four development days throughout the school year.102 Several other
studies engaged teachers in formal coursework that followed a traditional academic schedule.103
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 15
26.
Another common strategy is to engage teachers in multiple sessions of a similar structure, often
over a semester or school year, to promote meaningful professional learning.104 The program
described by Heller et al. (2012) included 8 three-hour sessions in which certain ideas about science
instruction were taught and discussed, while teachers also engaged in related activities in their
classrooms between the sessions. The model studied by Doppelt et al. (2009) was delivered in
five workshops, each lasting four hours.105 Between workshop classes, the teachers implemented
related activities, which were grist for their reflections and discussion in the workshops. Although
these models varied in the overall duration of the PD and the distribution of hours across the
program, all provided opportunities for learning across multiple engagements, along with the
ongoing connected learning that occurred for teachers within their classrooms as they applied the
curriculum ideas and teaching strategies they were working on in the course or workshop series.
One benefit of sustained PD may be the opportunity for teachers to continue their learning
outside the formal meetings of the program, whether in their own classroom, in collaboration with
colleagues, or by less formal means. As Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) argue: “The duration of
professional development appears to be associated with stronger impact on teachers and student
learning—in part, perhaps, because such sustained efforts typically include applications to practice,
often supported by study groups and/or coaching.”106 By returning to PD settings over time, teachers
have an opportunity to refine and apply their understanding of material in their classrooms.
For example, the two-year PD model studied by
Johnson and Fargo (2014) engaged teachers in By promoting learning over time,
intensive summer workshops as well as ongoing both within and between sessions,
learning during the school year to enhance
science instruction for Spanish-speaking PD that is sustained may lead to
elementary school students.107 The program many more hours of learning than
began with a two-week summer workshop that
is indicated by seat time alone.
included graduate-level coursework on teaching
elementary science, as well as an orientation
to a new, inquiry-based science curriculum and
strategies for culturally relevant pedagogy. Teachers’ learning from this intensive workshop was
reinforced through occasional release days and monthly grade-level workshops with professional
learning communities. These additional sessions supported teachers in deepening their learning
and provided space for ongoing support in implementing the new curriculum. This cycle was
repeated in the second year, with an additional summer workshop and continued release days.108
This model not only offered teachers the opportunity to return repeatedly to the PD material over
the course of a semester, but also to apply their learning within the context of their classroom
between workshops. By promoting learning over time, both within and between sessions, PD that is
sustained may lead to many more hours of learning than is indicated by seat time alone.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 16
27.
Realizing the Promise of Professional Learning Communities
This review has so far offered rich descriptions of professional development models that have
incorporated various elements of effective PD. One currently popular model is the use of
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). While many professional learning community efforts
have been poorly implemented and superficial in their design and impact, there is evidence that
PLCs can, when implemented with a high degree of quality, support improvements in practice, along
with student learning gains. Well-implemented PLCs provide ongoing, job-embedded learning that
is active, collaborative, and reflective.
This section moves beyond our review of effective PD models to explore the growing body of
research about the conditions under which PLCs can be an effective strategy for supporting ongoing
teacher learning within and across schools.
The Benefts of Analyzing Student Work and Student Data
The examination of student work is often a focus of productive professional learning communities.
Analyzing student work collaboratively gives teachers opportunities to develop a common
understanding of what good work is, what common misunderstandings students have, and
what instructional strategies may or may not be working and for whom.109 For example, a study
investigating three high-achieving schools that have continuously beaten the odds on standardized
tests found that teachers’ use of multiple student data sources to collectively reflect upon and improve
instructional practices in team meetings contributed to increases in student achievement.110
While qualitative studies have sought to examine
how professional communities are formed and Analyzing student work
how they operate, several large-scale studies collaboratively gives teachers
have illustrated how collaborative, job-
embedded, professional learning that is focused opportunities to develop a
on student performance has resulted in changed common understanding of what
practices and improved student achievement. 111
instructional strategies may or
In a comprehensive five-year study of 1,500
restructuring schools, Newman and Wehlage may not be working and for whom.
(1997) analyzed three sets of data (School
Restructuring Study, National Educational
Longitudinal Study, and Study of Chicago School Reform) to understand how various reforms
influence improved educational experiences for students.112 In their findings, the authors linked
successful professional learning communities to reduced dropout rates among students; lower
absenteeism rates; and academic achievement gains in mathematics, science, history, and reading.
Another finding had important implications for school equity: The particular characteristics
of strong professional communities—shared intellectual purpose and a sense of collective
responsibility for student learning—reduced the “traditionally strong relationship between
socioeconomic status and achievement gains in mathematics and science.”113
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 17
28.
Learning From Professional Communities Beyond the School
Positive effects of professional communities that operate beyond the school level have also been
documented by a number of researchers.114 These are often organized via networks that connect
teachers around subject matter or other shared educational concerns. Lieberman and Wood (2002)
reported on the work of the National Writing Project (NWP), one of the most successful teacher
networks, to understand how teacher learning in a community can be a source of efficacy and
confidence in the process of adopting new practices.115 The NWP, initially called the Bay Area
Writing Project, began in 1973 as a partnership in California between the University of California,
Berkeley, and local school districts. It has grown to more than 185 sites in all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.116 The heart of the model is the local school-
university partnerships, which operate as autonomous sites to support context-specific strengths
and meet context-specific challenges. “These sites are designed to be robust professional and social
communities that occupy an intermediary or ‘third space,’ neither wholly of the university nor
wholly of the school districts.”117
Despite the autonomy of the local sites, there
are common design features and core principles Teacher learning in a community
that guide each site and are aligned with all the can be a source of effcacy and
elements outlined above. The national network
focuses on supporting the success of each local
confdence in the process of
site. NWP local sites first focus on creating adopting new practices.
community among a small group of teachers
during a five-week summer institute in which
teachers engage in writing, share their work,
and critique their peers. In the process of making their work public and critiquing others, teachers
learn how to make implicit rules and expectations explicit, and how to give and receive constructive
feedback for students. These summer institutes are held at each site and run by “teacher
consultants” who are trained and supported by the national network.118
The summer institutes, which were designed to promote risk-taking and collaboration, provide
a foundation for ongoing learning for teachers once they have left. These ongoing professional
learning programs are collaboratively designed by schools and universities and led by teacher
consultants, NWP veteran teachers. In addition, NWP provides many ways to promote active,
collaborative learning within and across sites; newsletters, annual conferences, and opportunities to
lead workshops are catalysts for the continuous engagement of teachers, creating the intersection
of professional learning communities within the school and across the profession.119
An important aspect of the NWP’s success is the inclusion of program research starting from the
very first summer institute. NWP collects internal, site-based, practitioner-directed research, as well
as external, national, and independent research that directs the evolution of its work. The following
box offers study results from the NWP College Ready Writers Program.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18
29.
Efective Professional Development in Practice:
National Writing Project’s College-Ready Writers Program
The College-Ready Writers Program (CRWP) is a National Writing Project program that focuses
specifcally on the argument writing of students in grades 7 through 10 by introducing teachers
to new instructional practices based on higher standards for college- and career-ready writing. A
two-year random assignment study of the program’s implementation in 12 local Writing Project
sites has demonstrated its promise for supporting student learning.120
SRI conducted the study of CRWP in 22 high-poverty rural districts across 10 states—Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Tennessee. Despite such geographical and contextual diversity, the CRWP was implemented with a
high degree of fdelity. The study design randomly assigned 44 high-poverty rural districts to either
the CRWP program or a control group. The CRWP components included: PD of at least 90 hours
over two years with supports that included demonstration lessons, coaching, co-designing learning
tasks, co-planning, curricular resources including lesson units for argument writing, and formative
assessment tools to help teachers focus on student learning. In contrast, the control group
engaged in “business as usual” PD.121
The program succeeded in supporting both teacher and student learning despite the challenges
that high-poverty rural districts often face for implementing effective PD. CRWP was found to
have a positive, statistically signifcant impact on three of four attributes of student writing:
content, structure, and stance. The remaining attribute, writing conventions, was marginally
signifcant. Authors of the study note, “… this study of teacher professional development is one
of the largest and most rigorous to fnd evidence of an impact on student academic outcomes,”
indicating the power of high-quality PD to affect student achievement improvements at scale.122
There are several characteristics of the CRWP that distinguish it from many other programs and
which align with research on quality PD. Three key elements are:
1. A sustained focus on learning over time with explicit modeling, engagement in, and feedback
about pedagogical writing strategies.
2. A teacher-driven system that is enacted with collaboration at the center of the professional
learning work.
3. Active learning focused on classroom practices with student work at the center.
Additionally, this PD is focused on a particularly complex task—using nonfction text as the evidence
for writing a well-reasoned argument.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 19
30.
Creating the Conditions for Efective Professional
Development: Opportunities and Challenges
This review of research on professional
development models that have positively Examples of PD that have raised
impacted student learning has aimed to identify student achievement can help
and illustrate professional learning elements
in order to help shine light on powerful
policymakers and practitioners
teacher learning experiences. Examples of better understand what goes
PD that have raised student achievement can into quality teacher professional
help policymakers and practitioners better
understand what goes into quality teacher learning.
professional learning. This review does not
explain, however, why some well-designed PD
does not improve student achievement.123 In this section, we consider studies both within and
beyond the scope of our review to explore factors that support or complicate the implementation
of effective PD. We find that conditions for teaching and learning both within schools and at the
broader systems level can inhibit the effectiveness of teacher PD.
School Level
Several researchers have sought to understand why some PD has proven insufficient to affect
teaching practice and raise student achievement in schools.124 In their study of 4th to 6th grade
teachers, Bucznyski and Hansen (2010) discussed several barriers to the implementation of PD.125
They challenge the notion that PD is only as effective as a teacher’s will to employ the knowledge
and skills gained. They note, “… teachers that are willing to implement professional development
practices in the classroom often face hurdles that are beyond their control.”126 Teachers may also
face hurdles that are within their control, but which are difficult, if not impossible, to attend to,
given the challenging nature of their specific school environments.
Among these barriers are a lack of time allotted to teaching curriculum that uses the newly acquired
knowledge and skills; the need to teach mandated curriculum on a pacing guide; challenges
of teaching English learners without specific PD to address students’ learning needs; a lack of
resources (such as curriculum materials, technology, or science equipment); and classroom
management issues. Of these barriers, the study’s authors noted that lack of resources was the
largest barrier to PD implementation, commenting that teachers often have to pay for their own
materials for their classrooms. As a result,
[w]hen funds are out of pocket for teachers, a financial divide is in place for students
of more affluent teachers and students of teachers whose own financial resources are
limited. Other resources provided by schools, such as technology, are also limited.127
One teacher in the study noted on a survey, “Having to locate, borrow, or purchase items for an
experiment is time consuming and not always possible.”128
These barriers affect students and teachers in a wide range of contexts; they are of particular
concern for schools and districts located in high-poverty neighborhoods where financial constraints
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 20
31.
are often particularly acute. The researchers recommend that teachers be given strategies during PD
to proactively address possible obstacles as they arise.129
Johnson and Fargo (2010) echoed these equity challenges, discussing the specific obstacles to
applying the lessons of PD in urban schools.130 They note, “Teachers in urban schools often get
caught up in the many distractions occurring on a daily basis and struggle to engage learners who
are often distracted by complicated lives outside of school.”131 Crises such as school closings and the
uncertainty of employment were cited as examples of the type of “turbulence” that urban science
teachers faced in the course of acquiring and implementing new learning from PD opportunities.132
These examples also demonstrate how the obstacles faced by teachers in schools may actually be
manifestations of broader issues that stem from systemic problems. In the case of limited funding,
for example, the learning experiences of teachers as well as students are influenced by broader
policy about resource allocation.
System Level
Challenges to implementing effective PD extend beyond the school and classroom. A New
America report from Tooley and Connally (2016) identified system-level obstacles to effective PD
and concluded that there are four overarching areas where improvement is needed to facilitate
increased effectiveness of PD.
1. Identifying PD needs: Teacher PD is often determined without understanding what
teachers need. This shortfall is frequently exacerbated by a lack of shared vision around
what excellent teaching entails. In addition, preparation and training for principals and
instructional leaders often fail to address how leaders can identify and organize needs-
based PD. Without systems in place to ensure teachers’ needs are being identified and met,
PD will not be as effective as it should be.
2. Choosing approaches most likely to be effective: As noted in this review, there is a
reasonably strong consensus about the kind of professional learning opportunities likely
to yield student achievement. Still, a great deal of PD is implemented that does not meet
these standards. “One-off” workshops are easy to schedule and require less time and
human capital to implement than evidence-based approaches. Teacher contracts and state
recertification requirements also tend to encourage these models by emphasizing seat time
as the metric for gauging engagement with PD.
3. Implementing approaches with quality and fidelity: Even when educators have
knowledge of effective PD models, implementation presents its own obstacles. For example,
a school or district may create a program that includes coaching for teachers. However, it
is not sufficient to simply designate coaches and have them available for teachers; many
other variables affect coaches’ effectiveness. The authors note, “The coach’s expertise in
the teachers’ grade span, subject, and/or school context; the depth of observation, feedback,
and suggestions for things to try differently; the authority of a coach to recommend next
steps; time and accountability for teachers to follow through with recommended next steps”
have implications for the success of the program.133 Other implementation barriers include
the lack of an integrated, coherent approach to instruction and insufficient capacity.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 21
32.
4. Assessing PD outcomes: Few schools, districts, or state education agencies have created
good systems of tracking PD, let alone systems for analyzing the quality and impact of PD.
Without a sense of what is working and why, it is hard to adopt and implement professional
learning for teachers that is evidence based and designed to address potential obstacles.134
Even in the case of well-designed PD, these obstacles can impede the effectiveness of professional
learning and hinder its impact on student learning and achievement. The challenges with
implementing and scaling evidence-based practices underscore that translating promising PD
research into practice remains one area ripe for improvement.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22
33.
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Professional development is an important strategy for ensuring that educators are equipped to
support deep and complex student learning in their classrooms. However, research shows great
variation in the extent to which PD programs accomplish this goal. This paper has examined recent
studies of successful PD models that report student learning gains. We identify seven common
design elements of these effective PD approaches.
1. They are content focused.
2. They incorporate active learning strategies.
3. They engage teachers in collaboration.
4. They use models and/or modeling.
5. They provide coaching and expert support.
6. They include time for feedback and reflection.
7. They are of sustained duration.
Across the reviewed studies, these elements have been combined in a variety of ways to support
teachers’ professional learning. Indeed, none of the successful programs featured attributes in
isolation: As Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) note, the combination of these elements creates a
collaborative culture that results in a form of collective professional capital that leverages much
more productive, widespread improvement in an organization than would be possible if teachers
worked alone in egg-crate classrooms.135 Regardless of the specific model employed, PD should
be well designed, incorporating elements of effective PD, as we have described. It should also be
linked to identified teacher needs, should ensure that teachers have a say in the type of learning
they require to best support their students, and should be regularly evaluated so that quality can be
continually improved.
Implications for Policy
Supporting and incentivizing the kind of evidence-based PD we have reviewed here could be
facilitated by changes in policy. For example:
• Policymakers could adopt standards for professional development to guide the design,
evaluation, and funding of professional learning provided to educators. These standards
might reflect the features of effective professional learning outlined in this report as well as
standards for implementation.136
• Policymakers and administrators could evaluate and redesign the use of time and school
schedules to increase opportunities for professional learning and collaboration, including
participation in professional learning communities, peer coaching and observations across
classrooms, and collaborative planning.
• States, districts, and schools could regularly conduct needs assessments using data
from staff surveys to identify areas of professional learning most needed and desired
by educators. Data from these sources can help ensure that professional learning is not
disconnected from practice and supports the areas of knowledge and skills educators want
to develop.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 23
34.
• State and district administrators could identify and develop expert teachers as mentors
and coaches to support learning in their particular area(s) of expertise for other educators.
• States and districts can integrate professional learning into ESSA school improvement
initiatives, such as efforts to implement new learning standards, use student data to inform
instruction, improve student literacy, increase student access to advanced coursework, and
create a positive and inclusive learning environment.
• States and districts can provide technology-facilitated opportunities for professional
learning and coaching, using funding available under Titles II and IV of ESSA to address
the needs of rural communities and provide opportunities for intradistrict and intraschool
collaboration.
• Policymakers can provide flexible funding and continuing education units for learning
opportunities that include sustained engagement in collaboration, mentoring, and
coaching, as well as institutes, workshops, and seminars.
Implications for Implementation and Practice
At the same time, well-designed programs must also be implemented well to be effective. Even the
best designed PD may fail to produce desired outcomes if it is poorly implemented due to barriers
such as
• inadequate resources, including needed curriculum materials;
• lack of shared vision about what high-quality instruction entails;
• lack of time for planning and implementing new instructional approaches;
• conflicting requirements, such as scripted curriculum or pacing guides; and
• lack of adequate foundational knowledge on the part of teachers.
Common obstacles to PD should be anticipated and planned for during both the design and
implementation phases of PD. Implementing PD well also requires responsiveness to the needs of
educators and learners and to the contexts in which teaching and learning will take place.
In the end, well-designed and implemented PD should be considered an essential component of a
comprehensive system of teaching and learning that supports students to develop the knowledge,
skills, and competencies they need to thrive in the 21st century. To ensure a coherent system that
supports teachers across the entire professional continuum, professional learning should link to
their experiences in preparation and induction, as well as to teaching standards and evaluation. It
should also bridge to leadership opportunities to ensure a comprehensive system focused on the
growth and development of teachers.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | EFFECTIVE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 24
+1-315-636-4485
+91 98151-74050 
