Changing Perspectives In Professional Development

This article explores three major shifts in beliefs about professional development that are suggested by the research on teacher learning and shares examples of programs from the National Eisenhower Consortia that demonstrate the importance of the shifts. Introduction Over the past two decades teacher professional development has undergone profound changes from a focus on mostly "one size fits all" workshops to more ongoing, subject and need-focused programs, often embedded in the school day, where many belong (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry & Hewson, 2003). When my colleagues and I began our work studying professional development in science, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) had not yet emerged on the education scene. Now, it is hard to imagine a time when educators weren't focused on standards-based education. Half-way through this first decade of the 21st century, educators are working diligently to ensure that all students learn and schools demonstrate annual yearly progress. Schools are scrambling to find ways to reach students who are struggling. Once again professional development is being seen as a major tool to support improved practice and to assist teachers in meeting goals for student learning. Recently our perspectives about what works in professional development and where to best focus energy and resources have been shifting based on research and lessons from the field. This article explores three major shifts in beliefs about professional development that are suggested by the research on teacher learning and shares examples of programs from the National Eisenhower Consortia that demonstrate the importance of the shifts. When it Comes to Student Learning, Teaching Matters-a Great Deal There is a growing recognition of the value of a teacher's experience and knowledge with regard to their promoting student learning. Experienced teachers who use effective instructional strategies tend to produce higher student achievement outcomes (Rowan, Correnti & Miller, 2002). Most interesting is research that suggests teachers can make the difference for all students, even those students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds (Wenglinsky, 2002). This research supports the ideas generated in the 1980s that "effective schools" could create conditions for learning for all students and counters research from the 1960s that found that schooling could not overcome the effects of students' backgrounds (Coleman et al., 1966). Schooling can make a difference for all students if they have access to quality teaching and are held to high expectations. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Research by Sanders and Rivers ( 1996) found that children who were taught by several ineffective teachers in a row were highly disadvantaged and performed lower than similar students taught by several more effective teachers in a row. As we make the shift in the field to seeing that teaching makes the difference in student learning, schools and school districts are recognizing the obligation of ensuring that students get access to the best possible teaching. This requires rethinking how schools support teachers to develop and deepen teaching expertise throughout their careers. Effective teaching is complex and involves drawing from a deep knowledge base in the content as well as in instructional strategies for teaching content. Stigler and Hiebert (2004) calls for building a knowledge base for the teaching profession-"teachers need theories, empirical research, and alternative images of what implementation looks like"( p. 16). Understanding the subject matter is essential for effective teaching. Research studies that examined the relationship between teacher qualifications and background and student achievement in mathematics and science found that high school math and science teachers with a standard certification in their field of instruction (usually indicating coursework in both subject matter and education methods) had higher achieving students than teachers teaching without certification in their subject area (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Monk, 1994). …