Assignment 6
post91
PariseSpillane.PUBLISHED.Teacherlearningandinstructionalchange.pdf
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234590714
Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and
On-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in
Elementary School Teachers' Practice
Article in The Elementary School Journal · January 2010
DOI: 10.1086/648981
CITATIONS
248 READS
502
2 authors:
Leigh Mesler Parise
MDRC
4 PUBLICATIONS 635 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
James P. Spillane
Northwestern University
184 PUBLICATIONS 20,543 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by James P. Spillane on 15 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers’ Practice
Leigh Mesler Parise James P. Spillane Northwestern University
Abstract
Recent education reform has emphasized the importance of teacher learning in improving classroom instruction and raising student achievement. This article focuses on teachers’ learning opportunities, including formal profes- sional development and on-the-job learning that occurs through interactions with colleagues. Us- ing data from 30 elementary schools in a mid- sized urban school district, the authors con- currently explore the relationships between teachers’ formal professional development and on-the-job learning opportunities and instruc- tional change. Results suggest that formal pro- fessional development and on-the-job opportu- nities to learn are both significantly associated with changes in teachers’ instructional practice in mathematics and English language arts.
Recent education reform in the United States has increasingly defined acceptable levels of mastery for students and centered on holding schools accountable for student outcomes. As one strategy for raising stu- dent achievement, policymakers have fo- cused on improving the quality of public school teachers (Borko, 2004; Corcoran, 1995b; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Bir- man, & Yoon, 2001; Lieberman, 1995). Some policy initiatives focus on improving the quality of teachers entering the profession through state certification tests, more strin- gent degree requirements, and recruitment efforts. At the same time, increased ac- countability pressure on schools requires learning and change for the thousands of teachers already in service, as they are pressed to implement new instructional ap- proaches in order to raise student achieve- ment (Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Cohen & Hill,
The Elementary School Journal Volume 110, Number 3 © 2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2010/11003-0004$10.00
2002; Drake, Spillane, & Hufford-Ackles, 2001; Garet et al., 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999). There is great faith among school reformers and education researchers that augmenting the learning opportunities of practicing teachers will enhance teacher performance and lead to improved student outcomes (Borko, 2004). However, the extent to which teachers’ learning opportunities fa- cilitate change in their classroom practice remains unclear. This study explores the empirical relationship between teachers’ learning opportunities and changes in their instructional practice.
Seeking to understand the kinds of learning opportunities to which teachers have access, educational researchers have followed two somewhat distinct lines of research. The first has focused on teachers’ formal learning opportunities, including structured professional development activ- ities and graduate education (Borko, 2004; Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2002); the second line of research has centered on teachers’ on- the-job learning and explored aspects of schools’ organizational conditions that may affect teacher learning and change (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell, & Valentine, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999). While much of this work has been descriptive, researchers in both areas have begun to determine which learning opportunities are most ef- fective at facilitating change. However, these lines of research remain separate in the empirical literature, which is problem- atic for both policy and practice because it is unclear whether time and money should be spent on expanding teachers’ formal professional development, on working to better enable teachers to learn from their colleagues on the job, or on some combina- tion of the two approaches.
This study seeks to marry these two lines of research by concurrently exploring the empirical links between both formal and on-the-job learning opportunities and
teacher change. We begin with a review of the literature on teachers’ formal and on- the-job learning opportunities, as well as the organizational conditions that may af- fect teacher learning. In our article, we use the term formal learning opportunities to refer to subject-specific professional develop- ment sessions, out-of-school teacher net- works, and coursework in math and En- glish. On-the-job learning opportunities refer to interactions with colleagues around teaching and learning, including conversa- tions about instruction, peer observation and feedback, and advice seeking about in- struction. After reviewing the literature, we describe the methodology used to analyze the relationship between teacher learning opportunities and teacher change in math- ematics and English language arts (ELA) teaching practice for elementary school teachers in a mid-sized urban school dis- trict. Finally, we report our main findings, which suggest that both formal profes- sional development and teachers’ on-the- job learning opportunities are statistically significant predictors of teacher change in math and ELA instruction. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for policy and practice.
Empirical and Theoretical Anchors Our work is anchored in literature address- ing teachers’ opportunities to learn, includ- ing their formal professional development and the learning opportunities afforded by their interactions with colleagues on the job. A major challenge in the existing liter- ature is that empirical studies of profes- sional development remain separate from studies of teachers’ on-the-job learning, though a number of theoretical pieces have jointly discussed them (e.g., Corcoran, 1995a; Putnam & Borko, 2000). As a result, empirical research on teachers’ opportuni- ties to learn lacks a cohesive and compre- hensive framework for understanding and integrating the various learning opportuni- ties that may affect teacher practice. In ad-
324 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
dition, although some studies have taken subject matter into consideration by nar- rowing their scope to a single curricular domain, work on formal and on-the-job learning opportunities fails to make clear if or how teachers’ opportunities to learn may have differential effects by school subject. In this section, we explore the extant liter- ature, arguing that these two lines of re- search must be bridged in order to further our understanding of teacher learning and change.
Formal Learning Opportunities Over the last 20 years, amid calls for
changes in teaching practice and mounting efforts to increase the professionalization of teaching, reformers and educators have worked to expand professional develop- ment opportunities for teachers (Wilson & Berne, 1999). One example of policymakers’ faith that increasing teacher participation in formal learning opportunities will help produce desirable teacher and student out- comes is the requirement in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that states ensure the availability of high-quality professional development for teachers in order to im- prove classroom instruction (Borko, 2004). In addition, state and district policies re- quire teachers to participate in formal learning opportunities, with the modal state requirement being 120 hours over 5 years (Hill, 2007). States also often require that teachers receive master’s degrees, al- low graduate coursework to count toward recertification, and provide strong financial incentives for acquiring advanced degrees (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1998; Hill, 2007). While it is difficult to get an exact estimate of expenditures on teachers’ formal pro- fessional development (Corcoran, 1995a), schools, districts, states, and the federal government spend at least millions, and likely billions, of dollars on professional development for teachers (Borko, 2004). This is a huge investment for which we know little about returns (Rice, 2001).
Given the increased policy and fiscal emphasis on using formal learning oppor- tunities to facilitate teacher change, this sec- tion addresses the types of formal learning opportunities teachers experience and the relationships between formal learning op- portunities and changes in teacher practice and student achievement. The literature suggests that the majority of teachers’ for- mal learning opportunities are in the form of workshops, special courses, graduate coursework, and in-service days or confer- ences devoted to training teachers in a spe- cific set of ideas, techniques, or materials (Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Hill, 2007; Little, 1993; NCES, 2005). These opportunities traditionally fol- low what Little (1993) termed the “training paradigm,” in that they occur outside of teachers’ classrooms at scheduled times and are led by an expert seeking to train, or communicate new information to, groups of teachers (Corcoran, 1995a; Feiman- Nemser, 2001). However, as discussed be- low, this type of professional development is not likely to facilitate change in teacher practice.
Although most of teachers’ formal learning opportunities follow the training paradigm, teachers are increasingly partic- ipating in other types of formal profes- sional development that offer markedly different opportunities. Referred to as “re- form professional development” by Garet, Desimone, and colleagues (Desimone, Por- ter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Porter, Garet, Desimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000), such opportunities frequently relate more closely to teachers’ classroom con- texts than traditional activities, often in- volve active participation and collaboration between teachers, and may take place dur- ing the regular school day in teachers’ classrooms or schools (Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001). Reform professional development may involve or- ganized teacher study groups or networks, committees, mentoring, internships, and resource centers (Garet et al., 2001). Al-
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 325
though these types of learning opportuni- ties have become more widely available to teachers in recent years, the majority of teachers do not participate in any reform- type formal learning opportunities (Garet et al., 2001; NCES, 2005; Porter et al., 2000).
A significant amount of work has fo- cused on describing the types of formal learning opportunities to which teachers have access, but considerably less research has linked these opportunities to teacher change and student achievement. While this work suggests that most of the profes- sional development that teachers receive, particularly graduate coursework and sin- gle workshops that follow the training par- adigm, is not consistently linked to changes in classroom practice (Cohen & Hill, 2002; Garet et al., 2001), it has also identified cer- tain characteristics of formal learning op- portunities that make them more likely to facilitate learning and change. Specifically, activities are most effective at fostering teacher change when they involve collec- tive participation of teachers from the same school, grade, or subject, are linked to teach- ers’ on-going daily activities, provide active learning opportunities, and are content- specific (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon, 2002; Garet et al., 2001, 2008). In general, reform activities are more likely than traditional activities to include these attributes and they tend to be more success- ful at fostering change in teaching practice (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001).
With the exception of Garet and col- leagues’ 2008 study of reading professional development, most of the recent empirical work regarding the effects of formal pro- fessional development on teacher change has focused on mathematics. By exploring the effects of subject-specific professional development on teacher change, these studies have taken seriously the work of Stodolsky, Siskin, and others (e.g., Siskin, 1991; Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky & Gross- man, 1995) who have suggested that the
subject matters when it comes to teacher practice. However, it remains unclear whether the aforementioned activities help foster change similarly across all subject areas, or if, for example, certain opportuni- ties better facilitate learning in math than in ELA.
While fewer studies have focused on the relationship between teachers’ formal learning opportunities and student achieve- ment, there is some evidence linking higher student math achievement with teacher participation in sustained formal profes- sional development that is grounded in content-specific pedagogy (Carpenter, Fen- nema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989; Darling-Hammond, 2000; McCutchen et al., 2002; Saxe, Gearhart, & Nasir, 2001) and well aligned with policy changes (Cohen & Hill, 2002; Hill, 2007). While empirical work is beginning to reveal which types of activities may be most effective at influenc- ing teacher and student outcomes, the fact remains that the vast majority of the formal learning opportunities in which teachers participate are the kind of one-shot training sessions that research suggests are not likely to facilitate teacher learning and change (Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Hill, 2007; NCES, 2005).
On-the-Job Learning Opportunities and Organizational Conditions While formal learning opportunities
have taken center stage in the policy arena, some researchers have also focused on how teachers learn from their colleagues on the job, outside of formal professional develop- ment activities. Work addressing on-the- job learning opportunities suggests that learning is fostered when professionals work alongside others (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007) asking questions and gathering infor- mation (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007; Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004), observing colleagues (Er- aut, 2004), and giving and receiving feed- back (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007). In this section we review recent scholarship on teachers’
326 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
on-the-job interactions with coworkers and the organizational conditions that may af- fect teacher learning.
On-the-job learning opportunities. Teach- ers’ on-the-job learning opportunities may occur throughout the school day in a wide variety of activities, including conversa- tions between teachers in the hallway, in- teractions with students, planning sessions with colleagues, and meetings with par- ents. While we acknowledge that all of these instances may be important to indi- vidual teachers’ development, the primary focus of this piece is on those learning op- portunities that involve interaction be- tween colleagues, as studies have indicated that such activities constitute important po- tential learning opportunities (e.g., Little, 2002; Smylie, 1995).
The extant literature on teacher collab- oration indicates that learning is fostered when teachers engage in conversations about new material (Davis, 2003), discuss strategies for effective teaching (Brownell, Yeagar, Rennels, & Riley, 1997; Little, 2003), push one another to experiment around new initiatives (Davis, 2003), work collab- oratively to share expertise (Little, 2003; Smylie, 1995), and interpret policy mes- sages (Coburn, 2001). Recent work by Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-Moran (2007) suggested that “the more teachers collaborate, the more they are able to con- verse knowledgably about theories, meth- ods, and processes of teaching and learn- ing, and thus improve their instruction” (p. 879). Further, this work explored the em- pirical links between teacher collaboration and student achievement and, while the authors’ operationalization of collaboration also included teachers’ participation in school decision making, they found that higher levels of teacher collaboration were associated with higher student achieve- ment on high-stakes tests in both math and reading, after controlling for school and in- dividual factors (Goddard et al., 2007). In addition, Bryk et al. (1999) found that when teachers engaged in peer observation and
feedback, opening their practice up to scru- tiny by a colleague, they learned about their colleagues’ teaching practices and were encouraged to “ask questions about their practice and to view it in a more an- alytic fashion” (p. 754).
Studies have also suggested that the strength of interpersonal relationships may be important when it comes to learning from interactions with colleagues. Social in- teractions, and specifically advice seeking, are associated with the transfer of informa- tion, which is essential for learning and knowledge development (Frank et al., 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Uzzi, 1997). In schools, strong ties support teachers’ joint sense-making about instructional policy and reform, which can enable high-fidelity implementation (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, 1999). Additionally, social interactions that span an organization’s boundaries may also be important for learning because they can provide access to new informa- tion and potentially minimize conformity and group think among organizational members (Hansen, 1999; Leana & Pil, 2006; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Wenger, 1998).
Organizational conditions. While some research has centered on the specific behav- iors or activities involved in teachers’ on-the- job learning opportunities, other work has addressed the conditions under which these opportunities typically take place—those or- ganizational arrangements and norms that may support learning. This work often incor- porates teacher behaviors (e.g., looking at student work and discussing instruction), but it also extends the discussion of on-the-job learning by defining the quality of teacher relationships and characteristics of the school organization that foster teacher learning and change (Bryk et al., 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Coburn, 2001; Lee & Smith, 1996; Little, 1982; Spillane, 1999). When the school is char- acterized by norms of trust among teachers and between teachers and administrators (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2001), beliefs regarding collective responsibil- ity for student learning (Lee & Smith, 1996),
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 327
and shared norms supporting openness and innovation (Louis et al., 1996; Rosen- holtz, 1985; Scribner, Hager, & Warne, 2002; Smylie, 1988), staff engagement in on- the-job learning activities is both more likely to occur and more likely to produce change. Studies have also shown that schools scoring high on these measures are better at raising student achievement (Louis & Marks, 1998), fostering specific instructional changes (Bryk et al., 1999), and implementing new policies (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, 1999).
In addition, school leaders play an im- portant role in establishing a school’s orga- nizational context. In doing so, they too may affect teacher learning in the work- place. School leaders who endorse knowl- edge sharing among teachers and create internal structures that promote collabora- tion are most effective at fostering change within their schools (Bryk et al., 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Fullan, 2002; Youngs & King, 2002). Furthermore, school leaders who communicate clear expectations to teachers and concrete goals for student achievement can encourage teachers to im- prove their practice (Leithwood, 1992). As a whole, this work suggests that teachers’ on- the-job learning opportunities and their schools’ organizational conditions play an important role in fostering teacher learning and change.
While the last 2 decades of research have greatly expanded the knowledge base on teacher learning, the field remains some- what segmented into two broad areas. Al- though some theoretical and descriptive work on teacher learning couples teachers’ formal and on-the-job learning opportu- nities (e.g., Corcoran, 1995a; Putnam & Borko, 2000), empirical studies of teachers’ learning opportunities have yet to do so. While we acknowledge that there may sometimes be overlap between formal and on-the-job learning opportunities, we feel that the data give us traction for looking at differences between the types of learning opportunities in which the teachers in our sample engaged in their schools. Our work
seeks to understand the relative links be- tween elementary school teachers’ formal and on-the-job learning opportunities and their changes in their classroom practice in mathematics and ELA. Specifically, we ex- plore the following questions: When teach- ers’ formal and on-the-job opportunities to learn are taken into account, what are the relative impacts of these different activities on teacher change in instructional practice? Are these relationships mediated by teach- ers’ perceptions of their schools’ organiza- tional conditions? Finally, are the asso- ciations between formal and on-the-job learning opportunities different for teach- ers’ changes in math and ELA instruction?
Method Data: Sample and Data-Collection Procedures The data for this study come from an
evaluation of a leadership professional de- velopment program in a mid-sized urban school district in the southeastern United States. Data were collected from all of the district’s 30 elementary schools. The aver- age school had approximately 600 students, 65% black students, 28% white students, and 64% of students who qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. As part of a mixed- method evaluation, school staff members in the 30 elementary schools were asked to complete an 18-page questionnaire. Ques- tionnaire items were primarily closed- ended and asked about the school staff members’ work in and out of the classroom and their involvement in school improve- ment efforts. The subject sections asked questions about the school as a workplace, school leadership, professional develop- ment and school change, and the respon- dent’s background. In two open-ended questions, respondents were also asked to describe their in-school social networks by listing the names of people from whom they seek advice about mathematics and reading/language arts or English instruc- tion. Surveys were administered to in- and
328 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
out-of-classroom personnel, except the principals, who completed a different in- strument, in each of the district’s 30 ele- mentary schools at two time points: spring of 2005 and spring of 2007. In total, 1,210 elementary school staff members re- sponded to the survey in 2005 and 1,194 responded in 2007; respective response rates were 89% and 83%. The sample for the present study was limited to self- contained kindergarten through fifth-grade classroom teachers responsible for both math and ELA instruction. After selecting these respondents, 714 respondents from 2005 and 704 respondents from 2007 were included in the analyses.
Scale Development Relevant to this study, the school staff
questionnaire included questions regard- ing teachers’ formal professional develop- ment, on-the-job learning opportunities, perceptions of school organizational condi- tions, and individual characteristics. The measures included in subsequent analyses are detailed below. In addition, specific items and alphas for each scale are in- cluded in the Appendix. All scales were reliable with alphas above or equal to .70, and most were highly reliable with alphas above .90 (Cronbach, 1951). Scales used in this study were developed using a combi- nation of previous empirical work as well as relevant literature on each dimension of on-the-job learning opportunities and school organizational conditions. Previous scale development using the same teacher survey identified reliable constructs related to teachers’ learning opportunities and the school organization (Goldring, Huff, Stitz- iel Pareja, & Spillane, 2008; Goldring, Spil- lane, Huff, Barnes, & Supovitz, 2006; Supo- vitz, Sirinides, & May, in press). Supovitz et al. (in press) conducted confirmatory factor analysis to validate the use of similar scales from the teacher survey by examining sur- vey items related to teacher change in in- struction, collaborative discussion, peer
observation and feedback, teachers’ per- ceptions of the school environment, and principal leadership. The authors provided initial group membership, permitting items to then migrate iteratively to dimensions that better explain item variance, but no item migrated from its hypothesized di- mension.
Measures This section details the measures used
in subsequent analyses. The dependent variables are Change in Math Teaching Practice and Change in ELA Teaching Prac- tice. The measures of formal learning op- portunities are Math and ELA Professional Development, Math and English Courses, and Outside Network Participation. The measures of on-the-job learning opportuni- ties are Collaborative Discussion, Peer Ob- servation and Feedback, and Math and ELA Advice Seeking. Finally, the measures of organizational conditions are Profes- sional Learning Community and Principal Develops Goals. The analyses also include a number of controls, including teacher ef- ficacy, race, and gender, as described be- low.
Change in math teaching practice and change in ELA teaching practice. On a 7-point scale ranging from not at all to a great deal, participants were asked to indi- cate how much they changed their teaching this year for the following items: student assessment, student grouping, materials used, topics covered, teaching methods used, kinds of work students do, kinds of questions asked, and understanding of the needs of individual students in their class. While the link between changes in teacher practice and student achievement is often implicit in education policies, recent work using these data has found significant links between teachers’ changes in practice and student achievement on state assessments (Supovitz et al., in press). Respondents an- swered separately for math and ELA, and the items for each subject were then aver-
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 329
aged to create the math change and ELA change variables.
Math professional development and ELA professional development. Math pro- fessional development and ELA profes- sional development are two measures of teachers’ formal learning opportunities. On a 4-point scale ranging from none to 8� sessions, participants were asked to indicate the number of professional development sessions they participated in this year in (1) mathematics teaching, and (2) reading/lan- guage arts or English teaching.
Math and English courses. Additional measures of formal learning opportunities included in subsequent analyses are teach- ers’ coursework in math and English. On a 6-point scale ranging from none to 16� classes, participants were asked to indicate the number of undergraduate or graduate level courses they had taken in mathemat- ics and in English or a related language arts field.
Outside network participation. On a 6-point scale ranging from never to 10 or more times, respondents were asked to indi- cate how often they participated in a net- work with other teachers outside of their school this year. Characterized by Garet et al. (2001) as a type of reform professional development, teacher networks outside of the school may provide teachers with op- portunities to learn and may bring new in- formation into teachers’ own schools (Re- agans & McEvily, 2003; Wenger, 1998). We separate this measure from the math and ELA professional development variables because we asked separate questions about their attendance at math and English pro- fessional development and about their par- ticipation in a teacher network outside of the school.
Collaborative discussion. The collabo- rative discussion measure captures teach- ers’ behaviors around conversation with colleagues regarding teaching and learn- ing. On a 5-point scale ranging from never to more than 2 days/week, participants were asked questions regarding their conversa-
tions with colleagues around issues of teaching and learning. On the same 5-point scale, respondents were also asked to indi- cate how often they had in-depth discus- sions about their teaching with another classroom teacher. Finally, on a 7-point scale ranging from never to more than once a week, respondents were asked to indicate how often they had scheduled meetings with other teachers in the school to dis- cuss and plan curriculum or teaching ap- proaches. Standard scores were calculated for each individual item, and items were then averaged to create the collaborative discussion variable.
Peer observation and feedback. On a 5-point scale ranging from never to more than 2 days/week, participants were asked to indicate how often they participated in four different observation and feedback activi- ties around instruction and student work. Researchers have found that when teachers engage in observation and feedback, they may learn from colleagues and they ask more questions to improve their own teach- ing practice (Bryk et al., 1999; Little, 1990). Items were averaged to create the peer ob- servation and feedback variable.
Math advice seeking and ELA advice seeking. The term out degree is a measure used in network analysis designed to capture advice-seeking interactions and opportuni- ties for learning around specific subject mat- ter. Respondents were asked, “To whom do you turn for advice or information about mathematics instruction?” and “To whom do you turn for advice or information about reading/language arts or English instruc- tion?” Respondents could list up to seven different sources of information on each sub- ject. As an indicator of tie strength, respon- dents were also asked to indicate how often they turned to each source for advice, rang- ing from yearly to daily. We call this variable advice seeking here in order to ease interpre- tation for the reader. The math advice seek- ing and ELA advice seeking measures were created by totaling the frequency with which
330 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
subject-specific advice was sought from all sources listed.1
Professional learning community. As a measure of teachers’ perceptions regarding their school’s organizational conditions, re- spondents were asked about the school’s professional learning community. On a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, teachers re- sponded to items about teacher trust, open- ness between teachers, and support for teacher innovation. On a 5-point scale rang- ing from none to nearly all, teachers were also asked questions about how many teachers in the school took collective re- sponsibility for school improvement and student learning. Standardized items were averaged to create the professional learning community variable. We recognize that this measure groups together a number of con- structs that are often described as distinct from one another (e.g., collective responsi- bility and relational trust); these constructs factored together into a reliable single mea- sure in these data.
Principal develops goals. On a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly dis- agree to strongly agree, respondents were also asked about how well the principal com- municates and develops clear instructional goals. Sample items included whether the principal “clearly communicates expected standards for math instruction in this school” and whether the principal “communicates a clear vision for our school.” We note that this variable and the professional learning com- munity variable are measures of teachers’ perceptions of the school organization, as the survey elicited respondents’ feelings about their colleagues and the principal; the above on-the-job learning measures asked directly about their behaviors regarding discussion and interaction with colleagues around in- struction.
Teacher efficacy. On a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, respondents were asked to respond to seven statements regarding their ability to raise student achievement
and help the school improve. Items were averaged to create the teacher efficacy vari- able. By including this measure in our anal- yses, we acknowledge previous work indi- cating that the extent to which teachers implement changes in their classroom prac- tice is significantly affected by their feelings of efficacy (e.g., Guskey, 1988; Tschannen- Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Teacher characteristics. In addition to teacher efficacy, individual teacher charac- teristics included as control variables in subsequent analyses include number of years as a teacher, gender, race, and the teacher’s class size.
Data Analysis Plan In order to test whether the data from
2005 and 2007 were structurally different, we created a set of interactions between a 2007 dummy variable and all of the explan- atory variables included in the full model. We then conducted an F-test to determine whether the interaction terms were jointly significant when added to the full model. The inclusion of the interaction terms did not significantly improve the goodness of fit for either ELA teaching practice (F(14, 1001) � 1.10, p � ns) or math teaching prac- tice (F(14, 995) � 1.11, p � ns). These results suggest that the structure of the data from 2005 and 2007 are not sufficiently different to justify using two separate models, as the relationships between the predictors and dependent variables did not change over time. Therefore, the data were pooled and 1,418 observations were included in the sample.
To explore the relationship between teacher learning opportunities and teacher change in classroom practice, five ordinary- least-squares multiple regression models were computed for changes in math and ELA. For each subject (math and ELA), Mod- els 1 and 3 regressed change in teaching prac- tice on formal and on-the-job learning oppor- tunities, respectively. Models 2 and 4 added school fixed effects and individual teacher
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 331
characteristics, including age, race, years of teaching experience, teacher efficacy, and class size, to examine the effect of these con- trols on the respective relationships between formal and on-the-job learning opportunities and teacher change. Including school fixed effects helped address omitted variable bias at the school level by accounting for any ob- served or unobserved school-level factors that may affect teacher change, as only within-school variation is used to produce model estimates. In addition, robust standard errors were calculated in Models 2 and 4 to adjust for clustering by participant ID to ac- count for the nonindependence caused by teachers who responded in both 2005 and 2007. Finally, the full model (Model 5) in- cluded all previous variables and controls and added organizational conditions to the model.
Although using hierarchical linear mod- eling was considered, as teachers are nested within schools, nearly all of the vari- ation in the dependent variables was within schools. Specifically, 96% of the vari- ation in change in both math and ELA teaching practice was within schools.
Therefore, we concluded that using school fixed-effects models would be sufficient for addressing our research questions and more parsimonious than computing hierarchical linear models.
Results Descriptive Results Descriptive statistics for the measures
included in this study are presented in Ta- ble 1. Sample means and standard devia- tions are listed for the pooled sample— used in subsequent analyses—and separately for 2005 and 2007. Although there are sta- tistically significant differences in the mean levels of change in ELA instruction, collab- orative discussion, and ELA professional development in 2005 and 2007, the previ- ously discussed F-tests indicated that the relationships between these variables and the dependent variables did not change over time. The key variables of interest in this study—change in math and ELA teaching—indicate that, on average, teach- ers implemented moderate changes in their classroom practice and that there was sub-
TABLE 1. Pooled Sample Descriptive Statistics
Variable Pooled Sample
Mean (SD) Range 2005
Mean (SD) 2007
Mean (SD) p
Change in math instructiona 3.73 (1.51) 1.00–7.00 3.72 (1.55) 3.73 (1.47) ns Change in ELA instruction 3.97 (1.42) 1.00–7.00 4.06 (1.44) 3.87 (1.39) p � .05 Math professional development 2.24 (2.27) .00–8.00 2.18 (2.33) 2.31 (2.21) ns ELA professional development 2.89 (2.59) .00–8.00 3.11 (2.81) 2.67 (2.32) p � .01 Math undergrad/grad courses 4.21 (3.34) .00–16.00 4.11 (3.37) 4.30 (3.34) ns English undergrad/grad courses 5.54 (4.08) .00–16.00 5.60 (4.17) 5.48 (3.99) ns Outside network participation 2.93 (1.69) 1.00–6.00 2.93 (1.71) 2.91 (1.66) ns Collaborative discussion 3.23 (.82) 1.10–5.33 3.16 (.84) 3.29 (.80) p � .01 Peer observation and feedback 2.10 (.98) 1.00–5.00 2.10 (1.02) 2.09 (.93) ns Math advice seeking 4.53 (5.14) .00–34.00 4.60 (5.39) 4.47 (4.88) ns ELA advice seeking 4.66 (5.08) .00–34.00 4.59 (5.17) 4.73 (4.98) ns Professional learning community 3.21 (.56) 1.23–4.23 3.21 (.55) 3.20 (.57) ns Principal develops goals 3.36 (.60) 1.00–4.00 2.88 (.66) 2.91 (.66) ns Teacher efficacy 2.95 (.42) 1.14–4.00 2.96 (.42) 2.94 (.41) ns Years experience 13.42 (9.65) 1.00–47.00 13.62 (9.32) 13.21 (10.01) ns Class size 18.42 (4.34) 1.00–45.00 18.39 (4.50) 18.44 (4.18) ns Gender 94.1% female 94.6% female 93.6% female ns Race 71.4% white,
25.7% black 69.8% white, 26.4% black
73.0% white, 23.2% black
ns
NOTE.—N � 1,418 (2005: 714; 2007: 704). aFor all variables, standard scores were used in all analyses.
332 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
stantial teacher-level variation in the amount of change implemented. General trends in these data also indicate that teach- ers had positive attitudes toward their schools’ organizational conditions, partici- pated in collaborative discussions with col- leagues more than a few times per month, engaged in peer observation and feedback a few times per year, participated in a net- work with teachers outside of their school two times per year, and attended more than two professional development sessions per year in both math and ELA. Additionally, teachers in this sample were relatively well experienced, with a mean of approximately 13 years of experience and a median (not listed in Table 1) of 12 years of experience.
Table 2 presents the zero-order correla- tions of the primary variables included in subsequent analyses. The correlations be- tween the dependent variables—changes in math and ELA teaching practice—and teachers’ formal and on-the-job learning opportunities were low to moderate, rang- ing from .08 to .25. Collaborative discussion had the strongest positive association with changes in both ELA and math, at .23 and .25, respectively. Finally, nearly all of the correlations between variables were signif- icant at the p � .01 level.
Regression Results Formal learning opportunities. Table 3
presents five multiple-regression models predicting teacher change in math and ELA teaching practice. The first four models were run in order to test the impact of adding controls for individual characteris- tics and school effects on the relationships between teacher change and formal and on- the-job learning opportunities. The final model was designed to test the relative im- pacts of all of these learning opportunities on teacher change in practice. For each sub- ject, Models 1 and 3 are essentially uncon- ditional models, including only the inde- pendent variables of interest—formal and on-the-job learning opportunities, respec-
tively. Model 1 suggests that formal profes- sional development has a fairly small but highly significant association with change in both math and ELA practice. This asso- ciation held up well in Model 2, which added individual teacher characteristics and school fixed effects, indicating that this relationship is not strongly mediated by these controls. Specifically, a single stan- dard deviation (SD) increase in profes- sional development is associated with ap- proximately a .18 SD and .15 SD increase in the change in math and ELA teaching prac- tice (respectively). In addition, a single SD increase in outside network participation is associated with approximately a .06 SD in- crease in the change in both math and ELA practice. The number of math courses a teacher has taken is not predictive of their change in practice for either math or ELA. Model 2 also indicates that teacher efficacy is also a statistically significant predictor of teacher change in both math and ELA teaching practice. For both subjects, Model 2 explained 12% of the variation in teacher change in practice.
On-the-job learning opportunities. Mod- els 3 and 4 in Table 3 explore the relationship between teachers’ on-the-job learning op- portunities and teacher change in math and ELA classroom practice. Model 3 indicates that for both subjects, on-the-job learning opportunities are significantly associated with teachers’ changes in practice. Control- ling for school effects and teacher character- istics in Model 4, the relationships between change in teaching practice and collabora- tive discussion are statistically significant for both math and ELA, indicating that this as- sociation is not dependent upon teachers’ school or individual characteristics. Collabo- rative discussion is the strongest predictor of teacher change, as a single SD increase in collaborative discussion is associated with a .19 SD change in math and .17 SD change in ELA teaching practice. In addition, advice seeking is significantly, though relatively weakly, associated with change in practice, with a single SD increase in advice seeking
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 333
T A
B L
E 2.
C or
re la
ti on
T ab
le (P
oo le
d Sa
m pl
e)
V ar
ia bl
e M
at h
C ha
ng e
E L
A C
ha ng
e M
at h
PD E
L A
PD M
at h
C ou
rs es
E ng
lis h
C ou
rs es
O ut
si d
e N
et C
ol la
b D
is c
O bs
/ Fd
bc k
M at
h O
ut D
g E
L A
O ut
D g
PL C
Pr in
ci pa
l D
ev G
oa ls
E ffi
ca cy
E xp
C ha
ng e
in E
L A
in st
ru ct
io n
.7 34
** M
at h
pr of
es si
on al
d ev
el op
m en
t .2
07 **
.1 28
** E
L A
pr of
es si
on al
d ev
el op
m en
t .0
72 *
.1 93
** .3
47 **
U nd
er gr
ad /
gr ad
m at
h co
ur se
s .0
74 **
.0 27
.1 37
** .0
55 *
U nd
er gr
ad /
gr ad
E ng
lis h
co ur
se s
.0 49
.0 18
.1 08
* .1
35 *
.6 50
** O
ut si
d e
ne tw
or k
pa rt
ic ip
at io
n .1
22 **
.1 26
** .1
48 **
.1 36
** .0
34 .0
44 C
ol la
bo ra
ti ve
d is
cu ss
io n
.2 53
** .2
33 **
.2 12
** .1
64 **
.1 20
** .0
78 **
.1 92
** Pe
er ob
se rv
at io
n an
d fe
ed ba
ck .1
34 **
.1 14
** .1
43 **
.1 06
** .0
72 .0
71 *
.1 73
** .3
02 **
M at
h ad
vi ce
se ek
in g
.1 32
** .1
24 **
.0 76
** .0
16 .0
86 *
.0 38
.1 00
** .2
26 **
.0 88
** E
L A
ad vi
ce se
ek in
g .0
76 **
.1 16
** .0
48 .0
86 **
.0 56
.0 27
.0 78
** .1
97 **
.0 65
* .8
30 **
Pr of
es si
on al
le ar
ni ng
co m
m un
it y
.0 88
** .0
83 **
.1 63
** .0
20 .0
83 *
.0 16
.1 38
** .2
74 **
.1 42
** .1
73 **
.1 47
** Pr
in ci
pa l
d ev
el op
s go
al s
.1 20
** .1
18 **
.1 84
** .1
31 **
.0 55
* .0
48 .1
36 **
.2 72
** .1
17 **
.1 42
** .1
22 **
.5 62
** T
ea ch
er ef
fic ac
y .1
73 **
.1 89
** .1
48 **
.0 68
** .0
89 *
.0 63
.1 56
** .2
12 **
.1 09
** .1
16 **
.0 89
** .4
41 **
.4 28
** Y
ea rs
ex pe
ri en
ce �
.0 06
� .0
08 .0
64 *
.0 50
.1 13
** .1
05 **
� .0
36 .0
53 *
.1 09
** �
.0 52
* �
.0 79
** .1
59 **
.1 61
** .1
29 **
C la
ss si
ze .0
52 .0
09 .1
15 **
� .0
30 .1
17 *
.0 74
.0 10
.0 01
.0 09
.0 53
.0 10
.0 00
� .0
03 �
.0 27
� .0
20
*C or
re la
ti on
is si
gn ifi
ca nt
at th
e .0
5 le
ve l
(t w
o- ta
ile d
). **
C or
re la
ti on
is si
gn ifi
ca nt
at th
e .0
1 le
ve l
(t w
o- ta
ile d
).
334
T A
B L
E 3.
C ha
ng e
in T
ea ch
in g
Pr ac
ti ce
R eg
re ss
io n
M od
el s
In d
ep en
d en
t V
ar ia
bl e
C ha
ng e
in M
at h
T ea
ch in
g Pr
ac ti
ce C
ha ng
e in
E L
A T
ea ch
in g
Pr ac
ti ce
(1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(4 )
(5 )
(1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(4 )
(5 )
Fo rm
al PD
Fo rm
al PD
w /
C on
tr ol
s
O n-
th e-
Jo b
O pp
or tu
ni ti
es O
nl y
O n-
th e-
Jo b
O pp
or tu
ni ti
es w
/ C
on tr
ol s
Fu ll
M od
el Fo
rm al
PD Fo
rm al
PD w
/ C
on tr
ol s
O n-
th e-
Jo b
O pp
or tu
ni ti
es O
nl y
O n-
th e-
Jo b
O pp
or tu
ni ti
es w
/ C
on tr
ol s
Fu ll
M od
el
Fo rm
al le
ar ni
ng op
po rt
un it
ie s:
M at
h pr
of es
si on
al d
ev el
op m
en t
.1 91
** .1
75 **
.. .
.. .
.1 39
** ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. (.0
28 )
(.0 30
) (.0
31 )
M at
h co
ur se
s .0
42 .0
24 ..
. ..
. .0
05 ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. (.0
27 )
(.0 29
) (.0
28 )
E L
A pr
of es
si on
al d
ev el
op m
en t
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.1 80
** .1
40 **
.. .
.. .
.1 06
** (.0
27 )
(.0 29
) (.0
29 )
E ng
lis h
co ur
se s
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
� .0
12 �
.0 21
.. .
.. .
� .0
33 (.0
27 )
(.0 27
) (.0
27 )
O ut
si d
e ne
tw or
k pa
rt ic
ip at
io n
.0 96
* .0
64 *
.. .
.. .
.0 30
.1 06
** .0
69 *
.. .
.. .
.0 35
(.0 27
) (.0
28 )
(.0 28
) (.0
26 )
(.0 28
) (.0
27 )
O n-
th e-
jo b
le ar
ni ng
op po
rt un
it ie
s: C
ol la
bo ra
ti ve
d is
cu ss
io n
.. .
.. .
.2 17
** .1
89 **
.1 80
** ..
. ..
. .2
04 **
.1 75
** .1
62 **
(.0 27
) (.0
31 )
(.0 33
) (.0
28 )
(.0 30
) (.0
31 )
Pe er
ob se
rv at
io n
an d
fe ed
ba ck
.. .
.. .
.0 62
* .0
56 .0
46 ..
. ..
. .0
47 .0
48 .0
42 (.0
27 )
(.0 29
) (.0
30 )
(.0 27
) (.0
30 )
(.0 30
) M
at h
ad vi
ce se
ek in
g ..
. ..
. .0
78 **
.0 67
* .0
63 *
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
(.0 26
) (.0
28 )
(.0 29
) E
L A
ad vi
ce se
ek in
g ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. .0
72 **
.0 62
* .0
59 *
(.0 26
) (.0
28 )
(.0 29
) O
rg an
iz at
io na
l co
nd it
io ns
: Pr
of es
si on
al le
ar ni
ng co
m m
un it
y ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. �
.0 62
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.0 02
(.0 41
) (.0
32 )
Pr in
ci pa
l d
ev el
op s
go al
s ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. .0
52 ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. .0
49 (.0
36 )
(.0 36
) T
ea ch
er ef
fic ac
y ..
. .1
60 **
.. .
.1 44
** .1
25 **
.. .
.1 94
** ..
. .1
73 **
.1 43
** (.0
31 )
(.0 30
) (.0
33 )
(.0 30
) (.0
29 )
(.0 32
) Sc
ho ol
fix ed
ef fe
ct s
N o
Y es
N o
Y es
Y es
N o
Y es
N o
Y es
Y es
T ea
ch er
co nt
ro ls
N o
Y es
N o
Y es
Y es
N o
Y es
N o
Y es
Y es
R 2
.0 54
.1 28
.0 74
.1 45
.1 69
.0 49
.1 30
.0 61
.1 48
.1 68
O bs
er va
ti on
s 1,
32 8
1, 30
9 1,
41 8
1, 37
7 1,
30 9
1, 33
1 1,
31 2
1, 41
8 1,
37 7
1, 31
2
N O
T E .—
M od
el s
1 an
d 3,
st an
d ar
d er
ro rs
in pa
re nt
he se
s. M
od el
s 2,
4, an
d 5,
ro bu
st st
an d
ar d
er ro
rs in
pa re
nt he
se s.
T ea
ch er
co nt
ro ls
(n ot
sh ow
n) in
cl ud
e ra
ce ,
ge nd
er ,y
ea rs
ex pe
ri en
ce ,a
nd cl
as s
si ze
. *p
� .0
5. **
p �
.0 1.
335
corresponding to a .06 SD increase in change for both subjects. Finally, as in Model 2 for formal learning opportunities, Model 4 sug- gests that teachers who feel more efficacious about their work implement greater changes in their math and ELA teaching practice.
Full model. The full model included teachers’ formal professional development, on-the-job learning opportunities, organi- zational conditions for learning, teacher controls, and school fixed effects. Simulta- neously examining the relationships be- tween teacher change, opportunities for learning, and organizational conditions, Model 5 shows that formal professional de- velopment, collaborative discussion, and advice seeking remain statistically signifi- cant predictors of teacher change in math and ELA teaching practice. Results are comparable across subject areas, as a single SD increase in professional development is associated with a .14 SD change in math and .11 SD change in ELA teaching prac- tice, a single SD increase in advice seeking is associated with a .06 SD increase in change for both subjects, and a single SD increase in collaborative discussion is asso- ciated with respective increases in change in teaching practice of .18 SD and .16 SD for math and ELA. Furthermore, the relation- ship between teacher efficacy and change persists after all variables and controls were added to the full model. Post hoc sig- nificance tests indicated that there were neither significant differences by curricular domain nor between the collaborative dis- cussion, formal professional development, and efficacy coefficients. In sum, after controlling for individual teacher charac- teristics and school fixed effects, both for- mal and on-the-job learning opportunities were statistically significant predictors of changes in teachers’ math and ELA class- room practice, though we acknowledge that the coefficients are fairly small.
Robustness checks. In order to test the findings from the full school fixed-effects models, a series of robustness checks were conducted. Table 4 presents the results
from the first robustness check, which aimed to verify the relationships between formal learning opportunities and teacher change. To do this, ELA formal profes- sional development was added to the model predicting changes in math teaching practice and math professional develop- ment was added to the ELA change model. The math and ELA professional develop- ment measures were moderately correlated (.35, Table 2), but the results presented in
TABLE 4. Robustness Checks for Pooled Sample
Independent Variable Math
Change ELA
Change
Formal learning opportunities:
Math professional development .158** .028
(.032) (.032) Math courses .005 . . .
(.028) ELA professional
development �.051 .096** (.029) (.031)
English courses . . . �.035 (.027)
Outside network participation .031 .032
(.028) (.027) On-the-job learning
opportunities: Collaborative discussion .183** .159**
(.033) (.032) Peer observation and
feedback .046 .041 (.029) (.030)
ELA advice seeking . . . .060* (.029)
Math advice seeking .062* . . . (.029)
Organizational conditions for learning:
Professional learning community �.063 �.001
(.042) (.039) Principal develops goals .057 .048
(.036) (.036) Teacher efficacy .126** .143**
(.033) (.032) R2 .171 .168 Observations 1,309 1,312
NOTE.—Robust standard errors in parentheses. Teacher controls (not shown) include race, gender, years experience, and class size.
*p � .05. **p � .01.
336 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
Table 4 suggest that they measure different constructs, as ELA professional develop- ment failed to predict changes in math teaching and vice-versa. Rather than being some general construct captured by both types of formal development, this robust- ness check suggests that teachers received specific content knowledge from these opportunities because the subject-specific training remains predictive of change in the teaching practice even when training in the other subject is entered into the model.
Table 5 presents robustness checks
aimed at addressing possible simultaneity problems in the above analyses resulting from the independent and dependent vari- ables being collected at the same time point. For example, it is possible that changes in the independent variables re- flect changes in the dependent variables (e.g., Did teachers collaborate more because they had to or planned to implement changes in their practice?). In order to ad- dress this issue, the sample for the robust- ness checks in Table 5 was restricted to approximately 400 teachers who completed
TABLE 5. Robustness Checks for Teachers in Both Years
Independent Variable
(1) (2) (1) (2) 2007 Math
Change 2005 Math
Change 2007 ELA Change
2005 ELA Change
2005 Measures: Formal learning opportunities:
Math professional development .048 (.056) .172** (.062) . . . . . . Math courses .029 (.067) .076 (.054) . . . . . . ELA professional development . . . . . . �.052 (.076) .053 (.060) English courses . . . . . . .056 (.062) .025 (.058) Outside network participation �.004 (.046) �.062 (.073) .010 (.041) �.040 (.056)
On-the-job learning opportunities: Collaborative discussion .138* (.058) .115� (.065) .183* (.067) .103 (.075) Peer observation and feedback �.032 (.049) .044 (.063) �.038 (.052) .018 (.061) ELA advice seeking . . . . . . .046 (.031) .054 (.057) Math advice seeking .049 (.036) .079 (.054) . . . . . .
Organizational conditions for learning: Professional learning community .089 (.073) .009 (.103) .142* (.055) .000 (.092) Principal develops goals .027 (.074) .052 (.087) .044 (.068) .024 (.083)
Teacher efficacy .077 (.070) .147* (.062) .026 (.070) .214** (.066) 2007 Measures:
Formal learning opportunities: Math professional development .095� (.054) . . . Math courses �.088 (.066) . . . ELA professional development . . . �.003 (.072) English courses . . . �.075 (.055) Outside network participation �.005 (.072) �.049 (.075)
On-the-job learning opportunities: Collaborative discussion .055 (.056) .078 (.069) Peer observation and feedback .079 (.055) .022 (.074) ELA advice seeking . . . �.031 (.061) Math advice seeking .008 (.036) . . .
Organizational conditions: Professional learning community �.004 (.072) .022 (.073) Principal develops goals .116 (.064) .093 (.070)
Teacher efficacy �.028 (.048) .032 (.075) R2 .199 .304 .202 .313 Observations 412 385 416 394
NOTE.—Robust standard errors in parentheses. Teacher controls (not shown) include race, gender, years experience, and class size.
�p � .10. *p � .05. **p � .01.
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 337
the school staff questionnaire in both 2005 and 2007.
In Table 5, Model 1 for both math and ELA change, lagged predictors from 2005 were used to predict 2007 change in teach- ing practice. The relationship between col- laborative discussion and change in prac- tice held up well in both the math and ELA models. This suggests that in the cross- sectional model, the collaborative discus- sion variable was not reflecting changes in the dependent variable—change in class- room practice. While the relationship be- tween formal professional development and change in practice did not hold up well in Model 1, this may not indicate simulta- neity problems, but rather that teachers’ professional development is not designed to have lagged effects on change in instruc- tion over time. For example, if a teacher was trained in 2005, she would likely be expected to implement changes in her teaching practice in 2005 and not necessar- ily continue to make changes in 2007 based on training received 2 years earlier.
Model 2 in Table 5 regressed 2005 changes in math and ELA teaching practice on full sets of predictors from both 2005 and 2007. Including the 2007 measures of predictor variables helps control for omit- ted variables that might influence both the 2007 measures and the 2005 predictors and outcomes. In addition, if the 2007 variables significantly predicted changes in 2005 teaching practice, this would signal a prob- lem with the data. This model suggests that the relationships between formal profes- sional development, collaborative discus- sion, advice seeking, and teacher efficacy identified in the full model for the pooled sample (Table 3, Model 5 math) are robust for changes in math teaching practice, as the 2005 versions of these variables re- mained predictive over and above the fu- ture measures of these variables. However, this robustness check indicates that the re- lationship between organizational condi- tions for learning and teacher change in math may be questionable, as the 2007 ver-
sion of the principal develops goals vari- able was more predictive of 2005 changes in teaching practice than the 2005 version of that variable for both math and ELA. For changes in ELA teaching practice, the rela- tionships identified in the full model for the pooled sample (Table 3, Model 5 ELA) also held up, as the 2005 coefficients on profes- sional development, collaborative discus- sion, and teacher efficacy were larger than the 2007 coefficients. In addition to these robustness checks, change models, which were designed to assess whether changes in learning variables predicted changes in teaching change (e.g., If a teacher attended more professional development in 2007 than in 2005, did her teaching practice change more in 2007?) were also analyzed. The results from these analyses, however, are not included here, as they neither strongly supported nor negated the find- ings from the pooled school fixed-effects models.
Discussion Using a sample of elementary school teachers responsible for both math and ELA instruc- tion, this study examined the empirical links between teachers’ formal professional devel- opment and on-the-job learning opportuni- ties and teacher change. For a large sample of elementary school teachers, school fixed- effects models provide empirical confirma- tion that self-reports of both formal and on- the-job learning opportunities are statistically significant predictors of teachers’ reported changes in math and ELA classroom practice. We believe this study adds an important and practical contribution to the literature, as our results suggest that concurrently exploring different types of teacher learning opportuni- ties is worthwhile.
First, our results show that considering both formal professional development and on-the-job learning opportunities and their relations with teacher change is meaning- ful. This finding has implications for con- ceptions about what constitutes a produc-
338 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
tive opportunity for teacher learning and challenges policymakers’ reliance on for- mal professional development as the pri- mary mechanism for improving the quality of in-service teachers. In addition, Hill (2004) suggested that a major gap in the literature on teacher professional develop- ment is that few studies examine the devel- opment opportunities of typical teachers, and we feel that we have helped address that gap by exploring the learning oppor- tunities of a sample of self-contained ele- mentary school teachers in one district.
Extant literature has jointly discussed teachers’ formal professional development and on-the-job learning opportunities in reviews and theoretical pieces. For exam- ple, Putnam and Borko (2000) posited that a combination of approaches to teacher learning and change involving formal pro- fessional development and engagement in instructional discourse with colleagues may best foster changes in teachers’ practices. The major contribution of this study is that it sub- stantiates the notion that both types of oppor- tunities support teacher learning and help facilitate teachers’ changes in practice. Al- though this study did not include a follow-up assessing the quality of teachers’ changes in practice, we believe these changes to be ben- eficial, as other work with these data has found teachers’ reported changes in practice to be linked to improvements in student achievement (Supovitz et al., in press).
Among the on-the-job learning opportu- nities explored in this study, collaborative discussion between teachers was the stron- gest predictor of teacher change in math and ELA classroom practice. While other studies have not examined the relative effects of the different on-the-job learning opportunities explored here, the notion that collaborative discussion between teachers plays an impor- tant role in their development is well sup- ported by previous work suggesting that col- laboration improves teachers’ knowledge base for teaching (Brownell et al., 1997; God- dard et al., 2007). One additional conceivable explanation for the link between collabora-
tive discussion and teacher change in practice is that when teachers choose to engage with colleagues, they do so around subject matter that is directly relevant to their current teach- ing practice. As previously discussed, work on formal professional development has sug- gested that activities closely tied to teachers’ daily work and focused on specific content are more likely to facilitate learning and change (Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Porter et al., 2000; Smylie, 1995), so although the present data did not include this information, it is plausible that the same is true for teachers’ on-the-job col- laborative discussion.
In addition to informing our under- standing of the potential value of on-the- job learning opportunities for teacher learn- ing and change, this study has implications regarding spending on teachers’ formal professional development. Across the United States, district estimates of spending on teachers’ formal professional development range from 2% to 5% of the yearly budget being spent on the activities alone, and this amount nearly doubles when salary in- creases awarded for educational attainments are also considered (CPRE, 1996). Financial support varies widely at the state level, but even conservative estimates suggest that most states contribute millions of dollars to teacher professional development (CPRE, 1996; Ward, St. John, & Laine, 1999). One fundamental problem is that very little is known about the tangible returns to this in- vestment. The evidence we do have suggests that the majority of these funds are spent on formal learning opportunities for teachers that have little impact on their classroom practice (Corcoran, 1995a; Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001). The re- sults from this study provide evidence that teachers do engage in valuable formal learn- ing opportunities, as content-specific profes- sional development is linked to teachers’ changes in classroom practice.
The results of this study also suggest, however, that there may be additional strategies for augmenting teacher learning
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 339
and improving the quality of public school teachers than are currently promoted by education policy. If the learning opportuni- ties in which teachers engage in their schools are at least as effective at fostering change as costly formal learning opportu- nities, then it may be worthwhile to incor- porate more on-the-job learning opportuni- ties into teachers’ work lives. The notion that teachers should be provided with more opportunities to learn from and with their colleagues through collabora- tion is not a new concept within the field of education. In fact, researchers and some reformers have been advocating set- ting aside time for teacher collaboration for many years (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1996; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Hiebert & Stigler, 2000; Little, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989b; Smylie, 1994), and some local school systems have already in- stituted this practice (Rosenholtz, 1989a; Spillane, Mesler, Croegaert, & Sherer Zolt- ners, 2009). These strategies for teacher learning and change rarely find their way into education policy, especially at the state and federal levels. There are, however, a handful of states that have recognized the potential value of on-the-job learning op- portunities by including them in teacher policies. For instance, rather than requiring that teachers accumulate professional de- velopment hours for recertification solely through formal learning opportunities, Vir- ginia, Vermont, and a few other states also allow peer observation and participation in collaborative curriculum development to count toward recertification (CPRE, 1996).
A key issue here, however, concerns how policymakers at the federal, state, and district levels might work to influence on-the-job learning opportunities for teachers, and which level of the educational system might be best positioned to do so. We acknowledge that it may be easier for policymakers to mandate that teachers spend a specified number of hours in formal learning activities than to require them to engage in on-the-job learning opportunities. The results of this
work may therefore be especially relevant to the work of school leaders, who may inten- tionally structure teachers’ work in order to allow them opportunities to engage in dis- cussion and joint work with colleagues (Spil- lane et al., 2009). This is not to say that school leaders can easily compel teachers to engage in productive collaboration, as some collabo- ration may increase conflict (Achinstein, 2002), but they may use different strategies to shape teachers’ schedules and promote activ- ities that have been shown to cultivate pro- ductive teacher collaboration, such as team- ing and appointing teacher leaders (Drago- Severson, 2007). In addition, while they were not a substantial factor in teachers’ learning opportunities in the district we studied,2 coaches may play an important role in facil- itating teachers’ on-the-job learning opportu- nities (Showers & Joyce, 1996).
In addition to providing empirical evi- dence that both formal and on-the-job learn- ing opportunities are significantly associated with teachers’ changes in instructional prac- tice, we found two relatively unexpected re- sults. First, the results suggest teachers’ per- ceptions of their schools’ organizational conditions have markedly different relation- ships to change than their on-the-job behav- iors. In addition, while we expected that the relationships between teacher learning op- portunities might differ between math and ELA, we did not find significant differences between the two subjects.
Previous work on professional commu- nity has often combined measures of teach- ers’ perceptions about their school’s organi- zational climate, including teachers’ feelings about trust between teachers and staff mem- bers’ collective responsibility for student learning, and measures of teachers’ collegial behaviors, including the frequency with which teachers engage in collaboration and peer observation (e.g., Bryk et al., 1999; Louis & Marks, 1998; Louis et al., 1996). While prior studies have found that a meaningful scale is formed when these types of items are com- bined, the related items in this data set did not form a reliable scale. In separating teach-
340 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
ers’ perceptions about the organizational cli- mate from their collegial interactions, this study found that, in a sense, actions speak louder than words. One contribution of this study is the finding that teacher perceptions and actions may operate in distinct ways with respect to their relationships to teachers’ changes in instructional practice. Specifically, teachers’ on-the-job behavior was consis- tently related to their changes in practice, and this relationship was not affected by the in- troduction of teachers’ perceptions of organi- zational conditions into the model.
With regard to curricular domain, this study suggests that associations between learning opportunities and changes in prac- tice are comparable in math and ELA, which is in itself a notable finding given the litera- ture outlining variation in teacher practice by subject (e.g., Drake et al., 2001; Siskin, 1991; Stodolsky, 1988; Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Prior work indicated that advice seek- ing may be more influential in teachers’ math practice than in other subject areas, as Stodol- sky and Grossman (1995) found that second- ary teachers’ lessons were more coordinated with their colleagues in math than in other subjects. Stodolsky and Grossman’s work, however, focused specifically on high school teachers who were specialized in their teach- ing assignments. Our findings suggest that this may not be true for self-contained ele- mentary school teachers who are responsible for teaching both subjects, but further work with a larger sample might better detect dif- ferences by curricular domain. It is also plau- sible that the current policy environment, which places a dual emphasis on math and ELA, has led to teachers treating the two sub- jects more similarly than they once did.
Limitations The data for this study include detailed measures of many aspects of teachers’ work practice. This study does, however, have limitations. First, the data set includes rich information regarding teachers’ on- the-job learning opportunities, but its mea-
sures of formal learning opportunities are less detailed. While one of the question- naire’s strengths is that it asks about formal development sessions addressing specific subject matter, one limitation is that it does not differentiate between varying formal professional development formats (e.g., re- form vs. traditional) or include detailed information on the timing of graduate coursework. Another potential limitation is that the data are self-reports of teacher change and participation in learning oppor- tunities. Mayer (1999) reported that while teacher self-reports of classroom practice may be quite reliable, survey instruments are unable to precisely measure the quality of teachers’ practice. Nonetheless, as men- tioned previously, other work with these data has found statistically significant rela- tionships between teacher change and stu- dent achievement (Supovitz et al., in press). Finally, the relationships discussed herein are correlational, and although a number of robustness checks have been conducted to assess the strength of the relationships in the school fixed-effects models, causal ar- guments are beyond the scope of the data.
Conclusion and Future Research By concurrently analyzing the empirical re- lationships between elementary school teachers’ formal professional development and on-the-job learning opportunities and change in math and ELA instruction, this article extends the existing research on teacher learning and change. Its findings indicate that the opportunities in which teachers engage within their school build- ings are at least as predictive of teacher change as are the subject-specific formal professional development sessions they at- tend. Furthermore, this study suggests that it may be worthwhile for both school lead- ers and policymakers to pay more attention than they traditionally have to on-the-job learning opportunities by allocating time for teachers to collaborate or adjusting pol- icy levers regarding teacher recertification.
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 341
Future research in this area should ex- plore the relative relationships between dif- ferent types of formal learning opportunities (e.g., workshops vs. ongoing mentoring, con- ferences vs. teacher networks, etc.), on-the- job opportunities, and teacher change. Con- ducting such an analysis may determine that the relationship between formal professional development and teacher change identified by this study underestimated the effects of certain activities, but overestimated the ef- fects of others. Additional next steps include exploring the links between teacher learning opportunities, teacher change, and student achievement. Gaining a better understanding of the relative impacts of these opportuni- ties on raising student achievement—the primary goal of many education policies— will provide useful information to teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. Finally, because this study focused only on elemen- tary school teachers, middle and high school teachers should be included in sub- sequent analyses, as the relationships be- tween the primary variables of interest may differ significantly by school level. In addi- tion to the knowledge contributed to the field by the present study, this future re- search will help answer important ques- tions regarding the most effective strategies for improving the knowledge and skills of in-service teachers so that they are better equipped to improve student outcomes.
Appendix
School Staff Questionnaire Items Math Change (� � .95) Please indicate how much you changed the fol- lowing aspects of your math teaching this year:
Student assessment Student grouping Materials used The topics covered The teaching methods you use The kinds of work you have students do The kinds of questions you ask students Your understanding of the needs of in-
dividual students in your class
ELA Change (� � .93) Please indicate how much you changed the fol- lowing aspects of your reading/language arts or English teaching this year:
Student assessment Student grouping Materials used The topics covered The teaching methods you use The kinds of work you have students do The kinds of questions you ask students Your understanding of the needs of in-
dividual students in your class
Collaborative Discussion (� � .90) This school year, how often have you had con- versations with colleagues about the following topics:
What helps students learn the best Development of new curriculum The goals of this school Managing classroom behavior Your reading/language arts of English
instruction Your math instruction Content or performance standards in
reading/language arts or English Content or performance standards in
math
This school year, how often did you have sched- uled meetings with other teachers in this school to discuss and plan curriculum or teaching ap- proaches?
This school year, how often did you have in- depth discussions about your teaching with the following people:
Another classroom teacher
Peer Observation and Feedback (� � .84) This school year, how often did you observe any of the following people teach?
Another classroom teacher
This school year, how often did the following people observe you teach?
Another classroom teacher
This school year, how often did the following people give you feedback after observing you teach?
342 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
Another classroom teacher
This school year, how often did the following people review your students’ work?
Another classroom teacher
Professional Learning Community (� � .94) Indicate the extent to which you agree or dis- agree with each of the following statements about the school in which you work:
Teachers in this school respect colleagues who are expert in their craft
Teachers in this school trust each other Teachers in this school really care about
each other Teachers respect other teachers who take
the lead in school improvement ef- forts
Many teachers openly express their pro- fessional views at faculty meetings
Teachers in this school are willing to question one another’s views on is- sues of teaching and learning
We do a good job of talking through views, opinions, and values
Teachers are expected to continually learn and seek out new ideas in this school
Teachers are encouraged to experiment in their classrooms in this school
Teachers are encouraged to take risks in order to improve their teaching
How many teachers in this school do the follow- ing:
Take responsibility for helping one an- other do well
Help maintain positive student behavior in the entire school
Take responsibility for improving the overall quality of teaching in the school
Principal Develops Goals (� � .93) Mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each following statements about the prin- cipal in this school:
Clearly communicates expected stan- dards for reading/language arts or English instruction in this school
Clearly communicates expected stan- dards for math instruction in this school
Encourages teachers to raise test scores
Makes clear to the staff his or her expec- tations for meeting instructional goals
Communicates a clear vision for our school
Communicates clear standards for stu- dent learning
Teacher Efficacy (� � .70)
I am capable of making the kinds of changes expected in this school
The kinds of changes expected in this school are helping my students reach higher levels of achievement
I strongly value the kinds of changes expected in this school
If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult and unmoti- vated students
I am uncertain how to teach some of my students [Scale reversed]
My students’ peers influence their moti- vation more than I do [Scale reversed]
Most of a student’s performance de- pends on the home environment, so I have limited influence [Scale re- versed]
Notes
Work on this article was supported by the Distributed Leadership Studies with funding from the Institute for Education Sciences (grant R305E040085) and the National Science Founda- tion (grant 0412510). We are grateful to our col- leagues on the study for their help with data collection and data analysis: Carol Barnes, Eric M. Camburn, Lisa Dorner, Ellen Goldring, Jona- thon Supovitz, Jason Huff, Henry May, Beth Sanders, James Sebastian, James Pustejovsky, and Amber Stitziel Pareja. We are grateful to Greg Duncan for his comments on an earlier draft of this article. All opinions and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily re- flect the views of any of the funding agencies. Address all correspondence to Leigh Mesler Parise at [email protected].
1. For example, if a respondent sought math teaching advice from two colleagues daily (weight of 5), one colleague monthly (weight of 3), and one colleague yearly (weight of 1), the respondent’s weighted math advice seeking measure would be 14 (5 � 5 � 3 � 1).
2. Half of the teachers in the sample did not interact with a coach during the school year, and those teachers who did work with a coach did so
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 343
infrequently (only 20% interacted with a coach more than a few times per year).
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leader- ship, 57(8), 28–33.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Edu- cational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Brownell, M. T., Yeagar, E., Rennels, M. S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together: What learning educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 340–359.
Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elemen- tary schools: Facilitating factors and organi- zational consequences. Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics think- ing in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate read- ing policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaugh- lin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for under- standing: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2002). Learning pol- icy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Corcoran, T. C. (1995a). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Corcoran, T. C. (1995b). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state poli- cymakers. Washington, DC: National Gover- nors’ Association.
CPRE (1996). Policies and programs for professional development of teachers: Profiles of the states.
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Re- search in Education.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolu- tion: Rethinking teacher development. Edu- cational Leadership, 53(6), 4–10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Ar- chives, 8(1), 1–49.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional de- velopment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What sci- ence teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Sci- ence Education, 87(1), 3–30.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional de- velopment that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265–1312.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of pro- fessional development on teachers’ instruc- tion: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Anal- ysis, 24(2), 81–112.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principal leadership for adult growth and development. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70–125.
Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., & Hufford-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: Teacher learning and subject-matter context. Journal of Curric- ulum Studies, 33(1), 1–23.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the work- place. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups, and organisations. Oxford: University of Oxford, SKOPE.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.
344 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., et al. (2008). The im- pact of two professional development interven- tions on early reading instruction and achieve- ment. Washington, DC: NCEE.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes pro- fessional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical inves- tigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1998). When should we reward degrees for teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 134–138.
Goldring, E., Huff, J., Stitziel Pareja, A., & Spil- lane, J. P. (2008, March). Measuring principals’ content knowledge of learning-centered leader- ship. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, New York.
Goldring, E., Spillane, J. P., Huff, J., Barnes, C. A., & Supovitz, J. (2006, April). Measuring the instructional leadership competence of school principals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Associ- ation, San Francisco.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self- concept, and attitudes toward the imple- mentation of instructional innovation. Teach- ing and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer prob- lem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowl- edge across organization subunits. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–85.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS video study. Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 3–20.
Hill, H. C. (2004). Professional development standards and practices in elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Jour- nal, 104(3), 215–231.
Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching work- force. The Future of Children, 17, 111–127.
Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Sci- ence, 17(3), 353–366.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective re- sponsibility for learning and its effects on
gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Educa- tion, 104(2), 103–147.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward trans- formational leadership. Educational Leader- ship, 49(5), 8–12.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591–596.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ profes- sional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional devel- opment in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up prob- lems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Rep- resentations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does pro- fessional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Ed- ucation, 106(4), 532–575.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in re- structuring schools. American Educational Re- search Journal, 33(4), 757–798.
Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional prac- tice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R., Green, L., Beretvas, S., Cox, S., Potter, N., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Pro- fessional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.
NCES (2005). Characteristics of public school teach- ers’ professional development activities: 1999– 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 345
from a three-year study. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and De- partment of Education.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Ed- ucational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The ef- fects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
Rice, J. K. (2001). Cost framework for teacher prep- aration and professional development. Washing- ton, DC: Finance Project.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Inter- preting the evidence. American Journal of Ed- ucation, 93(3), 352–388.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989a). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989b). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421–439.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathe- matics: A study of three contrasting ap- proaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79.
Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine, J. W. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organiza- tional learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly, 35(1), 130–160.
Scribner, J. P., Hager, D. R., & Warne, T. R. (2002). The paradox of professional commu- nity: Tales from two high schools. Educa- tional Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 45–76.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12– 16.
Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 134–169.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Re- search Journal, 25(1), 1–30.
Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections to the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 20(2), 129–177.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform.
In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Pro- fessional development in education: New para- digms and practices. New York: Teachers Col- lege Press.
Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.
Spillane, J. P., Mesler, L., Croegaert, C., & Sherer Zoltners, J. (2009). Organizational routines and school-level efforts to establish tigh coulping: Changing policy, changing work practice? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Class- room activity in math and social studies. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.
Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activ- ity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227–249.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (in press). How principals and peers influence teach- ing and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Ad- ministration, 39(4), 308–331.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of em- beddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
Ward, J. G., St. John, E. P., & Laine, S. W. M. (1999). State programs for funding teacher pro- fessional development. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Lab.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learn- ing as a social system. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from www.infed.org/biblio/com- munities_of_practice.htm
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal lead- ership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643–670.
346 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
View publication stats
