Vol. 3, No. 1. - April 1999
Designing Professional Development for Science and Mathematics Teachers: Decision Points and Dilemmas
By Susan Mundry and Susan Loucks-Horsley
Effective
Professional |
Professional developers face a number of key decisions and
dilemmas as they design and carry out learning opportunities for teachers.
Professional development that aims to transform teaching and build substantial
knowledge of science and mathematics content is not a simple task of
“plan and implement.” Rather, it involves staying alert to the
changing context in which you are working, the stages of development teachers
move through as they develop new knowledge and skills and a host of other
dynamics at work.
To learn more about professional development design and
implementation across diverse sites, the NISE professional development project
team conducted a series of case studies. The case studies examine professional
development in different stages of design and implementation, different grade
levels, subject matter, units of change (e.g., district, school), and in
settings with contrasting demographics. The cases focus on how professional
developers think about and apply the different inputs to professional
development design as they conduct their work.
The studies examined four cases of professional
development—two focused on mathematics, one on science and mathematics, and
one on science and technology education. Three of the case studies were in
urban, culturally diverse settings; the fourth was in a large rural region with
42 schools participating in a professional development initiative. Two of the
case studies were retrospective analyses of schools involved in a completed
multiyear reform project. One case study analyzed districtwide professional
development at the planning stage. The fourth case study examined professional
development design in the middle of a five-year reform initiative. The names
used here are pseudonyms. (The characteristics of study sites are displayed in
Table 1.)
The examination of these sites revealed how dynamic
professional development is and what challenges professional developers face as
they design and implement teacher learning programs. We saw great value in
looking at professional developers’ practice in terms of the decisions they
make and dilemmas that they face. (By dilemmas we mean those situations that
arise that caused professional developers to make difficult choices—often
unconsciously and between unattractive alternatives—as they developed their
designs and carried out their work.)
As Hewson (in Loucks-Horsley et al., in press) writes: “Since the essence of design is combining knowledge and expertise of various kinds to produce a unique solution within a specific context, the need to consider the pros and cons of different perspectives of the design provides fertile ground for producing dilemmas.” The case studies underscore the importance for those who plan and implement teacher learning activities to assess their progress at many points along the way, acknowledge the dilemmas and decision points that emerge for them, and communicate decisions and rationale with others to build and maintain commitment.
Table
1:
Characteristics of Cases Included in the Study[1]
Characteristics |
Brantley
|
Cornerstone
|
Franklin
|
Riverside
|
Subject Matter |
Science &
Mathematics |
Science &
Technology |
Mathematics |
Mathematics |
Grade Level |
K-12 |
K-8 |
6-8 |
6-8 |
Location |
Urban |
Rural |
Urban |
Urban |
Site for the
Professional Development |
School District |
Geographic Region w/
42 schools |
Single School |
Single School |
Student
Characteristics (Two Largest Groups) |
Diverse (Hisp. /Cauc.) |
Diverse (Cauc. /Nat. Amer.) |
Diverse (African-Amer./Hisp.) |
Diverse (Caus./African Amer.) |
Stage of PD |
Planning |
Year 2 of 5 Year
Effort |
Completed 5 Year
Effort |
Completed 5 Year
Effort |
There were several decision points or dilemmas encountered
in the cases that are common to many professional development situations. Three
are discussed below.
Focus of the Professional
Development—Philosophical or Pragmatic?
One dilemma is whether to focus professional development on
philosophical issues, such as changing teachers’ views of learning, or to
focus on more pragmatic issues, such as the use of specific instructional
approaches and curriculum materials and how use shifts over time for teachers
and professional developers.
In the Riverside Middle School case (Smith & Silver,
1998), the professional developers and the teachers held different perspectives
of the focus of the professional development at different points in time. The
professional developers started with the intent of focusing on philosophy of
teaching mathematics; their approach later became more pragmatic in response to
the context and the teachers' needs. Two years into the project, Riverside
teachers wanted to focus on pragmatic concerns such as planning lessons,
developing assessments tied to the new curriculum, and communicating with
parents. The professional development providers, on the other hand, wanted to
keep the focus on philosophical issues, such as learning theory and evidence of
children's learning.
The Riverside case suggests a program guided solely by
practical issues lacks a vision for program improvement. A program guided solely
by philosophical issues ignores the realities of teachers' lives. The case
teaches the importance of maintaining a balance between a practical and
philosophical perspective, with the understanding that at different times in the
process you might focus more on one or the other, but that neither is sufficient
alone.
This case points out a common dilemma for professional
developers—how to maintain a focus on changing the philosophy of teaching and
learning, while being responsive to teachers’ needs for help with specific
strategies and implementation issues. As the Riverside case authors note, "
the inability to balance or integrate. . . alternative perspectives at either
time point” may have led to a less successful professional development
program.
The Brantley case presents another example of this dilemma,
this time at the school district level. In this case a district professional
development planning team sought to promote teaching consistent with the National
Science Education Standards (National Research Council,1996). To do so, the
team needed to engage teachers in professional development that would build new
views of teaching and learning. However, in the previously professional
development had been more practically focused.
As team members worked to establish this new focus for the
district’s professional development program in science, they realized that
administrators and some teachers in the district expected professional
development to be adoption and training in specific curriculum materials. These
expectations presented a dilemma to the planning team. While they decided to
shift the focus of professional development beyond pragmatic curriculum
implementation issues, they pursued this goal knowing that their decision was
out of alignment with the context.
The infrastructure was not in place to support the kinds of
professional development needed for this broader, more philosophic approach. For
example, the schedule and structure did not provide the flexibility for teachers
to engage in reflection on their practice or in collegial interaction, nor for
them to initiate and direct their own professional learning. Instead, they were
taking part in workshops on how to implement curriculum, with little opportunity
for indepth follow-up learning.
The team determined that the professional development plan
should include strategies, other than workshop sessions, that give teachers
opportunities to engage with research on learning and reflect on practice.
Before the planning team could shift the focus of the professional development
to include new views of teaching and learning as described in the National
Science Education Standards, they needed to initiate changes in the culture
and infrastructure to support their more philosophical goal. Team members would
need to begin to think about professional development not just as workshops, but
also as instances of teachers working together to examine practice and exchange
ideas about teaching. Thus they would come to value collegiality among teachers
and teacher expertise.
These examples suggest that with regard to the focus of
professional development it is important to
· Maintain a balance between philosophic and pragmatic approaches and be responsive to changing teacher needs and the dynamic school context.
· Gain agreement among participants about the focus for the professional development and continually assess that the focus is on track as the professional development initiative proceeds.
·
Build the professional development infrastructure (funding,
schedule, and varied professional development strategies) to support both
philosophically and programmatically focused professional development.
Should staff developers try to design an intervention to reach all teachers, or one that works in more depth with fewer teachers? In recent years professional developers have been challenged to "scale up" their innovations to reach all teachers. The case studies reviewed here suggest that professional development programs need special features to reach all teachers. It is not simply a matter of providing everyone with the same experience. The strong influence of context in all the cases suggests that learning experiences vary greatly from teacher to teacher and setting to setting.
In the Franklin case, the goal was to promote schoolwide
change among all of the mathematics teachers. After just two years of the
project, about half of the teachers initially involved had left the school or
were teaching in another grade or subject. By the midpoint of the project just
20 percent of the original teachers remained. Responding to this common urban
phenomenon of high teacher mobility, the professional developers at Franklin
altered their design. They recruited the "more experienced and able
teachers" to perform curriculum and assessment design work. Less
experienced teachers were invited to meetings and asked to implement what their
colleagues designed. By devoting intensive amounts of time and energy to a few
teachers, the professional developers felt that attaining deep-seated, real
change in practice was possible.
However, this approach to professional development created
problems. Giving responsibility for curriculum development to just a few
teachers limited the opportunities for others to fully participate and build
their knowledge. In the Brantley case the goal was to reach every teacher, yet
Brantley’s thousands of teachers ranged widely in the extent to which they
were using curriculum materials required by the district and how well they were
doing so. The dilemma created by the goal to reach all teachers was how much
emphasis (and therefore how many resources) to place on moving teachers beyond
mechanical use of the instructional materials, and how much to focus on
orientation inservices for teachers who had not yet implemented the
instructional materials. The district was trying to do both, by offering a
potpourri of workshop choices, thus haphazardly
offering professional development opportunities that were neither linked nor
cohesively connected.
To reach all teachers, professional developers need both a
materials infrastructure and a human infrastructure within the context that they
work. The material infrastructure is the "articulated foundation of what
the requested change entails, such as clear direction, a reform curriculum, and
vision. The human infrastructure is the culture for learning and reform that is
established in the school or district that encourages a community of practice to
develop" (Stein & Silver, 1998, p. 38).
The case studies suggest that
·
Working successfully with all teachers requires that the
schools/districts have an articulated culture for change and available
resources, including knowledge/expertise and time for teacher learning.
·
Professional developers need to hold high standards for teacher
learning and be clear about the goals. They must work to build a shared
commitment among teachers to reach the high standards. Watering down standards
or allowing wide variety in approach in order to include all teachers results in
uneven implementation and unclear practices.
·
A process for rolling admission to professional development
initiatives is necessary to involve new or reassigned teachers, especially in
urban settings where turnover is high.
A common goal of reform initiatives in science and
mathematics education is to provide students with opportunities to learn using
quality, standards-based curriculum materials. A critical decision in the design
of professional development is whether to engage teachers in curriculum
development or help them learn to use existing curriculum materials. In the case
of the Cornerstone site (Mundry & Levine, 1998), the strength of local rule
required the project to develop many options for the districts participating in
the project. The project organizers believed that, if they required districts to
adopt a new curriculum, the districts would not participate.
This decision was problematic for several reasons. First,
by trying to provide enough flexibility of curriculum choices for everyone, the
vision of teaching and learning for the project became diluted. At one end of
the spectrum were participating teachers who chose to try out one unit or one
activity. At the other end were teachers who tried to develop a year-long
curriculum from the many activities or units they experienced during workshops
and summer institutes. They cobbled together a set of instructional materials
and strategies, without careful thought about how the pieces joined to provide
coherent learning experiences for students.
The assumption of the professional developers was that once
teachers experienced pieces of curriculum, they would make good choices about
what to use in their own classrooms. Their approach relied on teachers’
ability to set meaningful learning goals and put together the right combination
of units. Unfortunately, most of the teachers did not have the time, resources,
or skills to carry this out.
In the Franklin case, the professional developers also
viewed teachers as curriculum developers. They believed that teachers would
translate general ideas, principles, and research findings to create their own
classroom materials. Case authors wrote: "Those who argue that teachers
should develop their own curriculum claim that it makes teachers more attuned to
students' needs, that it promotes ownership over the academic program by
teachers, and that the process of curriculum development can be an incredibly
powerful professional development experience for teachers." However, in
this case, as in the Cornerstone case, teachers lacked the time and content
knowledge needed to translate reform ideas into practice and build a
"meaningful and coherent" curriculum.
The Riverside school, in contrast, chose to adopt an
existing curriculum. The teachers in this school focused their attention on
learning and applying the mathematics curriculum and content within it rather
than developing curriculum. They had opportunities to learn mathematics in ways
that students learn it, to try out different units and discuss their results.
They had regular on-site help to assist them as they used the new curriculum
materials. Their students achieved significant increases in learning.
Professional developers must weigh carefully the costs and
benefits of curriculum development over curriculum adoption or adaptation. When
the Franklin Middle School started its mathematics reform, there were few middle
school curriculum materials that reflected the standards established by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Today, there are more choices of
mathematics and science curriculum materials that prepare students to meet high
standards. Professional developers can provide a service by helping educators
choose quality curriculum and by planning how to direct the available resources
to effective curriculum implementation rather than curriculum development.
The case studies suggest
· When curriculum implementation is a goal, professional developers should help teachers review and select curriculum materials that are a good fit for their context, instead of engaging teachers in curriculum development.
·
If full-scale curriculum adoption is not possible but revised
curriculum is desired, create opportunities for teachers to engage in their own
learning of science and mathematics through specific supplementary activities[2]
and/or curriculum replacement units. Provide help to teachers as they decide how
to use the new materials in the classroom, Make sure there is an opportunity for
teachers to reflect on the experience with other teachers and staff developers.
·
If you engage in curriculum development or adaptation, make sure
that teachers have the content knowledge needed to translate reform ideas into
specific and coherent curriculum, and that they have ample time to develop,
test, and refine the curriculum materials.
The case studies also support other findings from the NISE.
In their study of effective professional development for science and mathematics
teachers, Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998)[3]
learned that outstanding professional development is complex, combines different
elements and strategies at different times, and is continuously evolving and
changing. There are no exact models that can be taken and applied from place to
place. Instead, there are design elements that must be considered as one plans
and provides professional development for different contexts.
For example, the Franklin and Riverside cases were
participating in the same national project, QUASAR,[4]
yet the designs in each site played out very differently. Such context-dependent
professional development requires professional developers to have different
skills and abilities than they have needed in the past. These include being able
to
· Assess the context within which they are working.
· Draw upon the knowledge base on standards-based learning and teaching of science and mathematics, professional development, and educational change.
· Work with local clients to design and/or tailor the professional development program.
· Gather data, reflect on results, and make program improvements.
The Professional Development Design Framework (Loucks-Horsley
et al., 1998) displayed in Figure 1 captures this dynamic process of
professional development design. The framework suggests that planning and
implementing effective professional development for science and mathematics
teachers requires ongoing reflection, decision making, and adjustments.
Effective professional development programs are ones that are designed
specifically to address a number of elements, including goals and purposes,
knowledge bases, and the context within which professional development will take
place. Successful professional developers consider these elements as important
"inputs" to the professional development design. Further, they plan
for the design to change over time to keep pace with changes in the environment
and teachers’ learning goals.
Figure1.
The Professional Development Design Framework
Professional development is not, therefore, a simple
process of “plan and implement.” Rather, it is a complex process of
continual reflection and adjustment. The framework in Figure 1 helped to tease
out the often dichotomous positions in the cases. It can be used to surface key
decision points and dilemmas that emerge in the course of teacher learning and
enhance our understanding of the tensions with which professional development
designers struggle as they create learning opportunities for teachers (Smith
& Silver, 1998.)
As professional developers work with teachers of science
and mathematics, they encounter changing circumstances that demand decisions and
often pose dilemmas. The case studies examined here suggest that effective
professional development requires ongoing, context-related decisions and
attention to the process of setting goals, planning, doing, and reflecting as
depicted in Figure 1
Summary
Professional developers must strike a balance between
philosophic and pragmatic approaches, with an emphasis on one or the other at
different points in the process as circumstances dictate. Teachers need to
understand what the current focus is, and why. Professional developers must also
make sure that the infrastructure (funding, professional development strategies,
training cycle) is in place to support that focus.
Professional developers who aim to reach all teachers need
to consider whether there is a strong and clear culture for change and available
resources, expertise, and time for all teachers to learn. They must work to make
the goals of professional development shared by all teachers and must expect
everyone to meet the goals, avoiding watered-down versions of practice as a
means to reach all. Professional development programs for all teachers also need
to have a process for rolling admission to continuously reach new teachers.
While curriculum development can be a valuable professional
development strategy, teachers rarely have the time and resources available to
them to engage productively in this activity. In settings where the considerable
resources, knowledge, and time needed for development are not available,
professional developers should consider curriculum adoption or adaptation of
existing materials instead.
Based on the cases and the Professional Development Design Framework presented here, we suggest that professional developers become more conscious of all the decisions they make and the impact those decisions have on the implementation of professional development. It is productive for professional developers to actively identify and reflect on the decision points and dilemmas they encounter and to devise contingency plans for changing their approach when their initial assumptions prove wrong.
The case studies―and the decision points and dilemmas
they posed―suggest that effective professional developers assess their
changing circumstances and contexts―and make adjustments in plans based on
the best available information, staying alert to new changes that are
ever-present in education reform.
Related Resources
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California (Research Report No. RR-39). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Levine, N., Mundry, S., Silver, E., Smith, M., Stein, M. K., & Stiles, K. (in press). Case studies of professional development design for teachers of science and mathematics. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N. & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Mundry, S., & Levine, N. (1998). A rural regional teacher enhancement project for excellence in science and technology education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A.(1998). Dilemmas in designing professional development for science and mathematics teachers: The case of professional development at Riverside Middle School. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Sykes, G. (Ed.), (in press). The heart of the matter: Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stein, M. K., & Silver, E. A.(1998). The development of mathematics professional developers: The dilemmas of learning to work in school settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
-----
Susan Mundry is a Senior Research Associate at WestEd. She serves on the National Institute for Science Education’s professional development team and also conducts a national academy for science education leaders.
Susan Loucks-Horsley is the Director of the Science-Mathematics Program at WestEd and serves as the Team Leader for the National Institute for Science Education’s professional development team. She is also Director of Professional Development and Outreach for the Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education at the National Research Council.
Very thoughtful reviews of earlier versions of this brief were provided by Andrew Porter, NISE Director; Angelo Collins, Vanderbilt University; Cary Sneider, Museum of Science, Boston; Barbara Scott Nelson, Education Development Center, Newton, MA.
[1] Case sites were chosen on the basis of the characteristics in Table 1 and also that sites had detailed information available (e.g., research and evaluation reports) and could provide ready access to people involved in planning and participating in professional development.
[2] For examples see Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998.
[3] National Institute for Science Education Fellows Hubert Dyasi, Susan Friel, Judy Mumme, Cary Sneider, and Karen Worth also contributed significantly to this study.
[4] Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement and Reasoning, funded by the Ford Foundation and directed by Edward A. Silver at the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh.
NISE Brief Staff
Co-Directors |
Andrew Porter | |
Terrence Millar | ||
Project Manager | Paula White | |
Editor | Leon Lynn | |
Editorial Consultant | Deborah Stewart | |
Graphic Designer | Rhonda Dix |
This Brief was supported by a cooperative agreement between the
National Science Foundation and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Cooperative
Agreement No. RED-9452971). At UW-Madison, the National Institute for Science
Education is housed in the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and is a
collaborative effort of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the
School of Education, the College of Engineering, and the College of Letters and
Science. The collaborative effort also is joined by the National Center for
Improving Science Education in Washington, DC. Any opinions, findings or
conclusions herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the supporting agencies.
No copyright is claimed on the contents of the NISE Brief. In
reproducing articles, please use the following credit: "Reprinted with
permission from the NISE
Brief, published by the National Institute for Science Education, UW–Madison."
If you reprint, please send a copy of the reprint to the NISE.
This publication is free on request.
National Institute for Science Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 263-9250
(608) 263-1028
FAX: (608) 262-7428
National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Copyright (c) 1999. The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. All Rights
Reserved.
Please send comments to: uw-wcer@education.wisc.edu
Last
Updated: May 05, 2003