American Educational Research Association

Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain

Author(s): Hilda Borko
Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 8 (Nov., 2004), pp. 3-15
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699979
Accessed: 01/02/2010 05:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org
 I I
Professional Development and Teacher Learning:
Mapping the Terrain
by HildaBorko, Universityof Colorado, Boulder
Teacher professionaldevelopment is essentialto efforts to improve
our schools. This article maps the terrain of research on this im-
portant topic. It first providesan overview of what we have learned
as a field, about effective professional development programsand
their impacton teacher learning.Itthen suggests some importantdi-
rections and strategiesfor extendingour knowledge into new terri-
tory of questions not yet explored.
ducational reform movements in the United States and
around the world are setting ambitious goals for student
learning. Many factors contribute to achieving these
goals. However, the changes in classroom practices demanded by
the reform visions ultimately rely on teachers (Fullan & Miles,
1992; Spillane, 1999). Changes of this magnitude will require a
great deal of learning on the part of teachers and will be difficult
to make without support and guidance (Ball & Cohen, 1999;
Putnam & Borko, 1997; Wilson & Berne, 1999).
This realization has led educational scholars and policy mak-
ers to demand professional development opportunities for teach-
ers-opportunities that will help them enhance their knowledge
and develop new instructional practices. As one example, the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that states en-
sure the availability of "high-quality" professional development
for all teachers. NCLB does not, however, addressquestions such
as what constitutes high-quality professional development or
how professional development should be made available to
teachers. Similarly, "Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action," the re-
port released recently by The Teaching Commission (2004), re-
minds us that teaching is "our nation's most valuable profession"
(p. 12), arguing forcefully that "helping our teachers to succeed
and enabling our children to learn is an investment in human
potential, one that is essential to guaranteeing America's future
freedom and prosperity" (p. 11). The Commission proposed
a multifaceted approach to helping teachers succeed, one that
includes high standards for teacher classroom performance and
student achievement, and "ongoing and targeted professional de-
velopment" to help teachers meet the demanding new standards.
Again, little is said about the content and character of that pro-
fessional development.
Despite recognition of its importance, the professional devel-
opment currently available to teachers is woefully inadequate.
Each year, schools, districts, and the federal government spend
millions, if not billions, of dollars on in-service seminars and
Educational Vol.33, No. 8, pp.3-15
Researcher,
other forms of professional development that are fragmented, in-
tellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we
know about how teachers learn (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Putnam
& Borko, 1997). Sykes (1996) characterized the inadequacy of
conventional professional development as "the most serious un-
solved problem for policy and practice in American education
today" (p. 465). The premise of this article is that it is a "serious
unsolved problem" for educational researchas well.
Indeed, while the field of research on teacher learning is rela-
tively young, we have made a great deal of progress in the last 20
or so years. For example, we have evidence that professional de-
velopment can lead to improvements in instructional practices
and student learning. We are only beginning to learn, however,
about exactly what and how teachers learn from professional de-
velopment, or about the impact of teacher change on student
outcomes (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002;
Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001). We have a full research agenda ahead
of us to gather the information necessary to guide professional
development policy and practice.
This article and the AERA presidential address on which it is
based are intended to move us along that path by mapping the
terrain of research on teachers' professional development. Two
major questions guide my analysis. The first focuses on the
known terrain: What do we know about professional develop-
ment programs and their impact on teacher learning?The second
proposes a route into unexplored territory:What are important
directions and strategiesfor extending our knowledge? My analy-
sis presumes a situative perspective on knowing and learning. I
begin by briefly describing that perspective. I then move on to
consider the two guiding questions.
A Situative Perspective on Teacher Learning
and Professional Development
Several years ago, Ralph Putnam and I used a situative perspec-
tive to interpret existing researchon teacher learning and identify
An earlierversionof this articlewaspresentedas the presidentialaddress
at the 2004 annualmeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAs-
sociationin SanDiego, CA. I thankthe manyfacultyandgraduatestu-
dent colleaguesat the Universityof Colorado,Boulder,who provided
commentson the presidentialaddress.I am especiallygratefulto Karin
Kuffnerfor her assistanceand supportin preparingthe presentation.
Specialthanksgo to DeborahBall,MargaretEisenhart,JeffFrykholm,
RalphPutnam,and SuzanneWilson. Conversationsaboutteacherpro-
fessionaldevelopmentwith these colleaguesand theircriticalfeedback
on severaldraftshelpedto clarifymy thinkingand enrichthe ideasin
the article.
2004 |
NOVEMBER
severalissues for future investigation (Putnam & Borko, 2000). In
some sense, this article is an extension of that work. Again draw-
ing on a situative perspective, I consider what researchershave
learned about professional development programs and their im-
pact on teacher learning, identifying areasin which additional re-
searchis needed and suggesting strategiesfor exploring those areas.
The term situative refersto a set of theoretical perspectivesand
lines of research with roots in various disciplines including an-
thropology, sociology, and psychology. Situative theoristsconcep-
tualize learning as changes in participation in socially organized
activities, and individuals' use of knowledge as an aspect of their
participation in social practices (e.g., Greeno, 2003; Lave &
Wenger, 1991). Several scholars have argued that learning has
both individual and sociocultural features,and have characterized
the learning process as one of enculturation and construction
(e.g., Cobb, 1994; Driver et al., 1994). As Cobb explained,
"learningshould be viewed as both a process of active individual
construction and a process of enculturation into the ... practices
of wider society" (p. 13).
Research in a situative tradition allows for multiple concep-
tual perspectives and multiple units of analysis. These multiple
perspectives provide powerful tools for understanding student
learning in classroom settings. Using psychological conceptual
frameworks and the individual as the unit of analysis, researchers
can study students' activities as individuals and their evolving
knowledge and understanding. They can use sociocultural con-
ceptual frameworksand the group as the unit of analysisto exam-
ine the social context of the cassroom and patternsof participation
in learning activities. Both perspectives are essential to under-
standing how students learn through participation in classroom
practices. The appropriate unit of analysis in any particularsitu-
ation depends on one's researchpurposes and questions (Bowers,
Cobb, & McClain, 1999; Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno, 2003).
From a situative perspective, teacher learning "is usefully un-
derstood as a process of increasing participation in the practice
of teaching, and through this participation, a process of becom-
ing knowledgeable in and about teaching" (Adler, 2000, p. 37).
For teachers, learning occurs in many different aspects of prac-
tice, including their classrooms, their school communities, and
professional development courses or workshops. It can occur in
a brief hallway conversation with a colleague, or after school
when counseling a troubled child. To understand teacher learn-
ing, we must study it within these multiple contexts, taking into
account both the individual teacher-learnersand the social sys-
tems in which they are participants. As in the case of student
learning, situative perspectives provide a powerful researchtool,
enabling researchersto focus attention on individual teachers as
learnersand on their participation in professional learning com-
munities (Putnam & Borko, 2000).
Mapping the Phases of Research on Teacher
Professional Development
Using the multiple conceptual perspectives and multiple units of
analysis of a situative perspective, I now turn to the questions
that are the foci of this article: What do we know about profes-
sional development programs and their impact on teacher learn-
ing?What areimportantdirectionsand strategiesfor extending
our knowledge?
4| EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
Facilitators
PD
< > Teachers
Progr; CLI I I
Context
FIGURE 1. Elements of a professionaldevelopmentsystem.
In thinking about these questions, it is helpful to identify the
key elements that make up any professional development system
(see Figure 1):1
* The professional development program;
* The teachers, who are the learners in the system;
* The facilitator, who guides teachers as they construct new
knowledge and practices; and
* The context in which the professional development
occurs.
Educational scholars have studied these elements and the re-
lationships among them in a variety of ways. I have organized
programs of researchinto three phases, each building on the pre-
vious one. These phases represent one way in which researchac-
tivities can progress toward the goal of providing high-quality
professional development for all teachers.
Phase 1 researchactivities focus on an individual professional
development program at a single site. Researcherstypically study
the professional development program, teachers as learners, and
the relationships between these two elements of the system. The
facilitator and context remain unstudied. In Phase 2, researchers
study a single professional development program enacted by more
than one facilitator at more than one site, exploring the rela-
tionships among facilitators, the professional development pro-
gram, and teachers as learners. In Phase 3, the research focus
broadens to comparing multiple professional development pro-
grams, each enacted at multiple sites. Researchersstudy wie rela-
tionships among all four elements of a professional development
system: facilitator, professional development program, teachers
as learners, and context.
In the sections that follow, I examine the three phases in more
depth. Rather than exhaustively reviewing the literature relevant
to each phase, I draw upon researchconducted on a small number
of high-quality professional development programs to illustrate
major themes and patterns of findings. (For more comprehensive
discussions of the researchliterature on teacher learning and pro-
fessional development, see Borko & Putnam, 1996; Putnam &
Borko, 1997; and Wilson & Berne, 1999).
Phase I: Existence Proofs of Effective
Professional Development
The goal of Phase 1 activities is to create an existence proof; that
is, to provide evidence that a professional development program
can have a positive impact on teacher learning (see Figure 2). Re-
searchers study a single professional development program at a
single site, as symbolized by "pd = 1." They explore the nature of
the professional development program, teachers as learners, and
the relationship between teachers' participation in professional
development and their learning. Most of the professional devel-
opment community's work to date has been in Phase 1. Thus, to
map the terrain of research on professional development and
teacher learning, much of my discussion focuses on this phase.
Phase 1 research provides evidence that high-quality profes-
sional development programs can help teachers deepen their
knowledge and transform their teaching. Typically, the profes-
sional development programs studied in Phase 1 are relatively
small, and the research on them is labor intensive. In most in-
stances, the designers of the professional development programs
are also the researchers.Moreover, the participants are typically
"motivatedvolunteers"-teachers who volunteered to participate
and were motivated to try out new ideas (Fishman et al., 2003).
The resulting existence proofs unquestionably are an important
contribution to the field. As Shulman (1983) reminded us, they
"evoke images of the possible ... not only documenting that it can
be done, but also laying out at least one detailed example of how
it was organized, developed, and pursued" (p. 495).
I use a situative lens to bring these images of the possible into
focus, organizing my discussion around four themes. First, using
the individual as the unit of analysis, I consider what Phase 1 re-
search reveals about teachers and their learning. I next explore
Phase 1 pd=
Research
Activities
Existence
FIGURE2. Phase1 research:
Existence professional
proofsof effective development.
the processesand activitiesof professionaldevelopment,using
the groupasthe unit of analysis.Finally,I considerwhatwe have
learnedaboutteacherlearningand aboutresearchmethodology
by usingconceptualframeworksand researchtools thatkeepthe
individualand the groupin focus simultaneously.
Individual Focus: TeacherKnowledgeand Practices
Can Change ThroughIntensiveProfessional
DevelopmentPrograms
Phase1 researchprovidesevidencethatintensiveprofessionalde-
velopmentprogramscan help teachersto increasetheir knowl-
edge and changetheir instructionalpractices.To explorewhat
this researchrevealsaboutindividualteacherchange,I focus on
threecharacteristics:
subjectmatterknowledgefor teaching,un-
derstandingof studentthinking,andinstructionalpractices-se-
lected because of the emphasis they have received in recent
professionaldevelopmentprogramsand research.
To fosterstudents'conceptualunderstanding,teachersmust
haverichandflexibleknowledgeof the subjectstheyteach.They
must understandthe centralfactsand conceptsof the discipline,
how theseideasareconnected,andthe processesusedto establish
new knowledgeand determinethe validityof claims(Anderson,
1989; Ball, 1990; Borko& Putnam,1996; McDiarmid,Ball, &
Anderson, 1989). Professionaldevelopmentprogramsthat in-
clude an explicitfocus on subjectmattercan help teachersde-
velop these powerfulunderstandings.Experiencesthat engage
teachersas learnersin activitiessuch as solving mathematical
problemsand conductingscientificexperimentsareparticularly
effective.The conceptualchangescienceteachingproject(Neale,
Smith & Johnson, 1990; Smith & Neale, 1991) and Summer
Math for Teachers(Schifter& Simon, 1992; Simon & Schifter,
1991) provideexamples.Bothprojectsfeaturedintensivesummer
1
* Single site
* Multifocallens
Proof
NOVEMBER
2004 I
workshopsin which subjectmatterlearningwas a centralcom-
ponent, followed by ongoing supportduring the school year.
The teacherswho participatedin theseprojectsdevelopeddeeper
understandingsof the mathematicaland scientificcontent they
explored.
To guide student thinking, teachersmust also understand
how children'sideasabout a subjectdevelop, and the connec-
tions betweentheir ideasand importantideasin the discipline
(Schifter& Fosnot, 1993). Researchon the conceptualchange
scienceteachingprojectand the CognitivelyGuidedInstruction
(CGI) projectshows that professionaldevelopmentcan help
teachersconstructthese understandings.In additionto content
knowledge,the scienceteachingproject'ssummerinstitutefo-
cusedon children'sthinking.Throughactivitiessuch as clinical
interviewswith students,teacherslearnedaboutchildren'scon-
ceptions and typicalmisconceptionsabout key scientificcon-
cepts and the role that these ideasplayin learning.The 4-week
CGI summerworkshopalso includeda varietyof opportunities
forteachersto explorestudentthinkingandplanwaysto buildon
students'knowledgein theirmathematicsinstruction.Teachers
who participatedin the CGI workshopknewmorethancontrol-
group teachersabout the strategiesthat children use to solve
problems,the kinds of problemsthey find difficult,and differ-
ent waysto poseproblemsto students.Teachersin both projects
reportedan increasedawarenessof the rolethatchildren'sthink-
ing playsin the learningprocess,and the importanceof listening
carefullyto studentsin orderto build on their understandings
and misconceptions(Carpenter,Fennema,Peterson,Chiang,&
Loef, 1989; Smith & Neale, 1991).
A key reasonfor deepeningteachers'knowledgeof subject
matterand studentthinkingis to improveclassroomteaching.
Researchon CGI incorporateda more extensivefocus on in-
structional practices than did most Phase 1 studies, conducting
observationsin CGI andcontrolclassesduringthe yearfollowing
the summerworkshopand longitudinalfollow-upstudieswith
severalsubsetsof teachers.CGI teachersattemptedto incorpo-
rate ideas from the professionaldevelopmentworkshopsinto
theirteaching.For example,they taughtproblemsolvingmore
frequentlythan did non-CGI teachers.They also attemptedto
fosterdiscussionsof problem-solving strategies,listento students
talk about their thinking,and use students'responsesto assess
their understandingand match subsequentproblemsto their
abilities.Studentsin CGI classroomssolved a widervarietyof
mathematicsproblems,usedmoreproblem-solving and
strategies,
weremoreconfidentin theirmathematical than were stu-
ability
dents in controlclassrooms(Carpenter& Fennema,1992; Fen-
nema,Franke,Carpenter,& Carey,1993; Fennema,Carpenter,
Franke,Levi,Jacobs,& Empson,1996;Franke,Carpenter,Levi,
& Fennema,2001).
Researchusing the individualteacheras the unit of analysis
also indicatesthat meaningfullearningis a slow and uncertain
process for teachers,just as it is for students. Some teachers
changemore than othersthroughparticipationin professional
developmentprograms(Fennemaet al., 1996; Frankeet al.,
2001; Knapp & Peterson, 1995). Further,some elements of
teachers' knowledge and practice are more easily changed than
others.Forexample,it appearsto be easierfor teachersto incor-
poratestrategiesforelicitingstudents'thinkinginto theirteaching
1|EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
de-
thanto usewhattheyhearfromstudentsto makeinstructional
cisions(Frankeet al., 2001; Franke& Kazemi,2001).
GroupFocus:StrongProfessionalCommunitiesCan Foster
TeacherLearning
Phase 1 researchalso providesevidencethat strongprofessional
learningcommunitiescanfosterteacherlearningandinstructional
improvement.Researchers have extendedour understandingof
teacherlearningby using socioculturalconceptualframeworks
and the groupas the unit of analysisto examineparticipationin
the processesand activitiesof professionaldevelopment.Within
thisbroadarena,I focuson teacherlearningcommunitiesbecause
of theircentralityin recentprogramsof professionaldevelopment
and research(Ball,1994; Little,2002; Wilson & Berne,1999).
Researchon teacherlearningcommunitiestypicallyexplores
featuresof professionaldevelopmentprogramssuch as the es-
tablishmentandmaintenanceof communicationnormsandtrust,
aswell as the collaborativeinteractionsthatoccurwhengroupsof
teacherswork togetherto examineand improvetheirpractice.
This researchprovidesevidencethat"strongprofessional develop-
ment communitiesare importantcontributorsto instructional
improvementand schoolreform"(Little,2002, p. 936). Studies
of the Communityof TeacherLearnersand QUASAR(Quanti-
tativeUnderstanding: AmplifyingStudentAchievementandRea-
soning)projects areillustrative.
The Communityof TeacherLearnersproject(Wineburg&
Grossman, 1998; Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman,Myhre, &
Woolworth,1998, Grossman,Wineburg,& Woolworth,2001)
broughttogetherEnglishand historyteachersat one urbanhigh
school and university-basededucatorsto read books, discuss
teachingand learning,and designan interdisciplinary humani-
tiescurriculum.Initialanalysesof the first18 monthsof the proj-
ect focusedon the group'sdevelopmenttowardcommunityand
the challengesinvolvedin communityformation.On thebasisof
theseanalyses,Grossman, Wineburg,andWoolworth(2001)iden-
tifiedseveralkey componentsof communityformation:develop-
ment of a groupidentityand normsfor interaction,formulation
of a senseof communalresponsibility for the regulationof norms
and behavior,andwillingnessof communitymembersto assume
responsibilityfor colleagues'growth and development.While
theseanalysesdid not link changesin teachers'interactionswith
the qualityof theirteachingor theirstudents'achievement,the
researchersreportedsome anecdotalevidencethat the teacher
communityhadan effecton students.
The QUASAR projectsought to improve mathematicsin-
structionfor studentsattendingmiddleschoolsin economically
disadvantagedneighborhoodsby fundingand studyingsix site-
based professionaldevelopmentprograms.At each QUASAR
school,the mathematicsteachersworkedwith resourcepartners
(usuallymathematicseducatorsfroma localuniversity)to develop
and implementinnovativecurriculaand instructionalpractices.
The QUASAR projectstaff who studied these programscon-
cluded that professionallearningcommunitieswere centralto
fosteringteacherchangeand studentlearning.For example,at
schoolswhere strongcommunitiesevolved, teachersincreased
their use of cognitivelychallengingtasksand students'mathe-
maticalexplanations.Studentsin these QUASARschoolsgrew
in theirabilityto solveproblemsand communicatemathemati-
cally(Lane& Silver,1994; Smith, 1997; Stein,Silver,& Smith,
1998; Stein, Smith, & Silver,1999). Grossmanand colleagues'
(2001) insightsabout teachercommunitysuggesta conceptual
explanationfor these findings.They arguedthat we cannot ex-
pect teachersto createa communityof learnersamongstudents
if they do not have a parallelcommunityto nourishtheir own
growth.The logic of this claim makessense, but as a research
communitywe haveyet to buildan empiricalbaseto supportthe
claim or to shed light on the mechanismsby which this rela-
tionshipworks.
Researchon these two projectsalso revealsthat the develop-
ment of teachercommunitiesis difficult and time-consuming
work (Grossmanet al., 2001; Stein et al., 1999). Norms that
promotesupportiveyet challengingconversationsabout teach-
ing areone of somemostimportantfeaturesof successfullearning
communities.Teachersgenerallywelcome the opportunityto
discussideasand materialsrelatedto theirwork, and conversa-
tions in professionaldevelopmentsettingsareeasilyfostered.Yet,
discussionsthatsupportcriticalexaminationof teachingarerela-
tivelyrare(Ball, 1994; Putnam& Borko, 1997; McLaughlin&
Talbert,2001;Wilson& Berne,1999). Suchconversationsmust
occur,however,if teachersareto collectivelyexplorewaysof im-
provingtheirteachingand supportone anotheras theywork to
transformtheirpractice.To fostersuch discussions,professional
developmentleadersmusthelpteachersto establishtrust,develop
communicationnormsthatenablecriticaldialogue,andmaintain
a balancebetweenrespectingindividualcommunitymembers
and criticallyanalyzingissuesin theirteaching(Frykholm,1998;
Seago,2004).
Dual Focus:Recordsof PracticesAre Powerful
Contextsfor TeacherLearning
Phase 1 researchthat exploreshow teacherslearnthroughpar-
ticipationin professionaldevelopmentcommunitiesrevealsthat
recordsof classroompracticearepowerfultools for facilitating
teacherchange.This researchuses group-leveland individual-
level conceptualperspectives,consideringboth the learningac-
tivities of the professionaldevelopmentcommunity and the
knowledgeand instructionalpracticesof individualteachers.
A centraltenetofsituativeperspectivesis thatthe contextsand
activitiesin which people learnbecome a fundamentalpart of
what they learn(Greeno,Collins, & Resnick,1996). This tenet
suggeststhatteachers'own classroomsarepowerfulcontextsfor
theirlearning(Ball& Cohen, 1999; Putnam& Borko,2000). It
does not imply, however,that professionaldevelopmentactivi-
ties shouldoccuronly in K-12 classrooms.Indeed,a numberof
programshave successfullyused artifactssuch as instructional
plansandassignments,videotapesof lessons,andsamplesof stu-
dent workto bringteachers'classroomsinto the professionalde-
velopmentsetting. Such recordsof practiceenableteachersto
examineone another'sinstructionalstrategiesandstudentlearn-
ing, and to discussideasfor improvement(Ball& Cohen, 1999;
Little,Gearhart,Curry,& Kafka,2003). I drawupon two proj-
ects to illustratethe powerof theseapproaches.
The firstexampleis an extensionof the CGI project,in which
Frankeand Kazemiworkedwith the facultyat an elementary
school for two years, facilitatingand studying severalteacher
workgroups.Like CGI, theirapproachto professionaldevelop-
ment focused on the developmentof children'smathematical
thinking.However,drawingupon ideasfrom socioculturalthe-
ory,theycreatedcommunitiesof practicein whichteacherscame
togetherto share,challenge,and createideasabout the mathe-
maticalthinkingrepresentedin theirstudents'work.Teachersin
these work-groupcommunities posed the same mathematics
problemto theirclasses,broughtsamplesof studentworkon the
problem to monthly work-groupmeetings, and exploredthe
samplestogetherin order to make sense of students'solution
strategiesand discusswaysto move theirmathematicalthinking
forward.
One setof researchquestionsfocusedon thedevelopmentof the
work-groupcommunities.Over the courseof the firstyear,the
teacherscameto see themselvesasa communityof learnerswith a
sharedgoalof improvingthe learningand teachingof mathemat-
ics. They becamebetter at elaboratingthe detailsof students'
mathematical reasoningandunderstanding theirproblem-solving
and to
strategies, theybegan develop instructional for
trajectories
helping studentsadvance theirmathematical thinking.Analyses
focused on individualparticipantsrevealedthat the teachers'
classroompracticesalso changed.They came to see their class-
roomsas placesfor theirown learningas well as students'learn-
ing. Throughexperimentation, theydevelopednewwaysto elicit
and listen to their students'mathematicalthinking, and they
used the workgroupsas a place to reflecton theirexperimenta-
tion (Franke& Kazemi,2001; Franke,Kazemi,Shih, Biagetti,
& Battey,in press;Kazemi& Franke,2004).
The second exampleis one of my own researchprojects,a
multiyear,multifacetedprojectthat we call STAAR-Support-
ing the TransitionfromArithmeticto AlgebraicReasoning.One
component of STAARis a professionaldevelopmentprogram
for middle school mathematicsteachers,comprisingan inten-
sive 2-weeksummerinstituteand monthlyworkshopsthrough-
out the school year. Central goals for the summer institute
included creatinga professionallearningcommunity and in-
creasingteachers'understandingof keyalgebraconcepts.The in-
structorsstructuredactivitiesto establishtrust and create an
environmentin which teacherswould feel safe to exploreun-
known mathematicalterrainand sharetheirsolutionstrategies.
Pedagogicalstrategiesfor fosteringalgebraicreasoningreceived
greateremphasisin workshopsconductedduringthe schoolyear.
In one series of activities,the teachersworked together on a
mathematicsproblemand discussedhow to use the problemin
their own classrooms.They were then videotapedteachingthe
problemin one of their classes.In subsequentworkshops,they
viewedanddiscussedsegmentsof the videotapesand collectively
examinedsamplesof studentwork (Borko,Frykholmet al., in
press;Clark& Borko,2004).
Analysesof data collected in the professionaldevelopment
workshopsandteachers'classroomsarecurrentlyunderway.Our
initialanalysesrevealchangesin patternsof participationin the
workshopsovertime, and suggestconnectionsbetweenteachers'
experiencesin the workshopsand changesin theirmathematical
understandingand instructionalpractices.Forexample,teachers
demonstratedgreaterknowledgeof algebraconceptsandskillson
an assessment of mathematical knowledge at the end of the sum-
mer institute than on a parallel assessment administered prior to
the institute. In daily written reflections and interviews at the end
2004 |
NOVEMBER
of the institute,severalteacherscommentedthatpeercollabora-
tion andmathematicalconversations playeda crucialrolein their
evolvingunderstanding algebraconcepts.Moreover,they in-
of
dicatedthattheyplannedto fostersimilarcollaborations andcon-
versationsamongstudentsin theirown classrooms.Videotaped
lessons during the school year following the summerinstitute
documentnumerousattemptsby these teachersto incorporate
groupworkand sharingof mathematicalexplanationsandjusti-
ficationsinto theirinstruction(Borko,Frykholmet al., in press;
Clark& Borko,2004).
SimultaneousFocus: The Value of a Multifocal
ResearchLens
Studiesthat focus on either the individualor the group as the
unit of analysiscanprovidevaluableinsightsaboutteacherlearn-
ing. However,theseinsightsarelimitedin scope.To explorethe
connections among professionaldevelopment activities and
processeson theone hand,andindividualteachers'knowledgeand
instructionalpracticeson the other,researchers
mustusethe mul-
tiple conceptual frameworks and units of analysisthat situative
perspectivesprovide, and must "coordinate themin a mannerthat
leads to a fuller, deeperexplanationof teacherdevelopment"
(Stein,Silver,& Smith, 1998, p. 49).
Multifocal contactlenses:A metaphor
As I havearguedfor the valueof situativeperspectivesand used
them to framemy research,I havebeenstruckby how challeng-
ing it can be to explainthese perspectivesto others. On more
thanone occasion,I havestruggledto articulatehow researchers
cankeepboth the individualandthe communityin focus.I con-
fronteda similarproblemseveralmonthsago, when attempting
to explainto a friendhow my multifocalcontact lenseswork.
Turningto the WorldWide Web for assistance,I found the fol-
lowing explanation:
Multifocalor simultaneousvisioncontactlensesallowboth distant
and nearobjectsto be in focusat the sametime.The designplaces
bothdistanceandnearprescriptions in the centralvisualarea,on or
closeto the pupil.Yourvisualsystemlearnsto interpretthe correct
powerchoice,dependingon how closeor faryou arelooking.Thus,
whethergazingat objectsthat arefarawayor close at hand, your
eyes selectthe desiredimages.(Adaptedfromhttp://www.allabout
vision.comandhttp://www.contactlenscouncil.org/aging.htm.)
Multifocalcontactlensesprovidea usefulmetaphorfor con-
sidering situative perspectives on knowing and learning. Re-
searchers use the "near-vision prescription" of a psychological
conceptual framework to focus on the individual teacher. With
this prescription, they collect and analyze data on questions such
as how a teacher constructs new knowledge and instructional
practices. They use the "distance-vision prescription" of a socio-
cultural conceptual framework to focus on the professional de-
velopment community-to collect and analyze data on norms of
communication and patterns of participation in professional de-
velopment activities. The ability to use multiple frameworks at
the same time is a key strength of situative researchperspectives.
We can extend the metaphor by considering other character-
istics of the human visual system. For example, therere e several
ways to arraythe distanceand nearprescriptionson multifocal
lenses.The bestdesignfor an individualdependson characteris-
8| EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
tics of the personsuch as pupil size, eyelidposition, and visual
needs relatedto lifestyleand activities.Similarly,a researcher's
choiceof specificdatacollectionand analysistools, and relative
emphasisto place on each, will depend on factorssuch as re-
searchquestionsandavailableresources(Cobb& Bowers,1999).
A researchexample
In my AERA presidentialaddress,I presentedand discussed
threeshortvideoclipsto illustratehow the STAARresearchteam
is usingmultifocallensesto traceteacherlearningthroughpar-
ticipation in the professionaldevelopmentprogram.Here, I
focuson one briefepisodefromeachvideo clip. The specificin-
structionalfeaturesI considerarequestionsand explanations.In
one set of analyses,our researchteam is examiningthe kindsof
questionsteachersaskedand the explanationsthey gavewhen
theyworkedon mathematicaltasks,examinedstudentwork,and
critiquedone another'steaching.The firstexample,froma pro-
fessionaldevelopmentsession in January2004, is illustrative.
The teacherswereworkingin pairsor smallgroupsto solvethe
followingproblem:
A cubewith edgesof length2 centimetersis built fromcentimeter
cubes. If you paint the facesof this cube and then breakit into
centimetercubes,how manycubeswill have3 facespainted?How
many will have 2 faces painted?One face?How many will be
unpainted?What if the edge length of the originalcube is 3 cm?
50 cm?n cm?
One exchange that stood out for us occurred as Ken and Pam2
were examining the cube they had built with edges of length
3 centimeters. After they agreed that it contained 8 cubes with
3 faces painted, Ken began to work on the next question, count-
ing to himself as he pointed to each cube with 2 faces painted.
After a short time, he said to Pam, "There are 12 with 2 sides
(painted)." Not keeping up with his thinking, Pam asked Ken to
"prove it," and added, "Would you care to elaborate on that?"
Ken pointed to the top, middle, and then bottom layers of the
cube as he explained, "Eachlevel has 4, so ...." Pam counted the
cubes in the top and middle layersthat had 2 faces painted before
agreeing with his answer. Our analyses indicate that questions
that pushed the teachers to share their mathematical think-
ing-such as "Prove it" and "Would you care to elaborate on
that?"-were much more common in January than in profes-
sional development sessions earlier in the school year.
Our research team observed and videotaped two or three
lessons in each teacher's classroom approximately once a month,
in order to analyze changes in their instructional practices. The
second example is from a lesson on addition of fractions that we
observed Ken teach in his 6th-grade mathematics class in Octo-
ber 2003. The lesson was typical of Ken's teaching early in the
year. Desks were arrangedin rows facing toward the chalkboard
at the front of the room. The class spent about 15 to 20 minutes
going over the previous day's homework. Ken then introduced
the next assignment, and students worked on it independently
for the remainder of the class session. Soon after class began, one
student put his solution to a homework problem on the chalk-
board as Ken and the rest of the students watched in silence.
Once the studentcompletedhis work,Ken brokethe silenceby
asking,"Thumbsup if you agree;thumbsdown if you disagree."
He looked aroundthe room, observedthat most studentshad
theirthumbsup, and commented,"Allright.Prettygood."Ken
then thankedthe classand continuedthe activity.
When we returnedto Ken'sclassin February2004, he was
teachinga lesson using the PaintedCube Problem.The class-
room was arrangeddifferently.Desks were pushedtogetherin
clustersof four;threeor four studentswere seatedat each clus-
ter. Duringthe lesson,Ken workedwith groupsof students.In
the exampletakenfromthis lesson,Kenwasseatedat one of the
clusters,observinga groupof threestudentsas they workedto-
getheron the cube problem.He pointedto the cubewith edges
of length 4 centimetersthat they had constructedand asked,
"Howmany(cubeswith one facepainted)would thatbe?"After
a briefexchangein which one studentexplainedthat she calcu-
lated24 cubes(thecorrectanswer)by multiplying6 times4, Ken
pushedthe groupto thinkabouta largercube,"Do you suppose
if you have 5 by 5 by 5 ... Imaginea biggercube;areyou still
going to multiplyby 6? Is thatgoing to changethe way that the
paintfallson the cubein anyway?"The samestudentresponded,
"Probably." Ken followedwith anotherquestion,"How?"The
studentexplained,"Becauseyou'remakingthe cube bigger,so
the centercubesaregoing to increase."Kencontinuedto probe,
"Increasehow? How is it going to increase?"She answered,
"Morecubesaregoing to add to the center."Not satisfiedthat
he understoodthe student'sthinking,Ken decidedon a differ-
ent approach,suggesting,"Whydon't you go aheadand build
that 5 by 5. You can add on to thatone (the cubethe grouphad
beenworkingwith)."
Ken'squestionsin the firstexampleaddressedonly the cor-
rectnessof answers.Studentswere not asked to explain their
thinkingor to showhow they solvedproblems.In contrast,sev-
Phase 2
Research
Well-SpecifiedProfessional
DevelopmentProgram
FIGURE 3. Phase 2 research:Well-specifiedprofessionaldevelopmentprograms.
eralquestionsin the second examplewere intendedto help the
studentexplainher problem-solvingstrategies,and to help Ken
understandher thinking. These are but two days during the
schoolyear,andwe areall too awareof how capriciousone day's
observationcanbe. It mightbe thatby the Februaryobservation,
Ken had simplylearnedhow to teach the way we want him to
when we visited,or that he taughtdifferentlyon that one occa-
sion becauseof the specificinstructionaltask.Our researchteam
is currentlyanalyzingall the datawe haveon the teacherpartici-
pants, tracingpotentialchangesin individualteachers'instruc-
tional practices,and looking for confirmingand disconfirming
evidencethat those changesareassociatedwith the professional
developmentexperience.Such analysesrequirea multifocalre-
searchlens.
Phase 2: Well-Specified Professional
Development Programs
Phase 2 researchactivities follow directly from Phase 1. The
centralgoal of Phase2 researchis to determinewhethera pro-
fessionaldevelopmentprogramcan be enacted with integrity
(LeFevre,2004) in differentsettingsandby differentprofessional
developmentproviders.Figure3 providesa visualrepresentation;
"pd>1" representsthe focus on multiplesitesand facilitators.3
A professionaldevelopmentprogrammustbe well definedand
clearlyspecifiedbeforeresearchers
caninvestigatehow it is enacted
by multiple in
facilitators multiplesettings,andwhatresourcesare
neededto ensureits effectiveness.Cohen, Raudenbush,and Ball
(2003) made a similar argumentfor the importanceof well-
definedand clearlyspecifiedinstructionalsystems.They identi-
fied severalcriticalfeaturesof well-definedsystems,including
academictasksandinstructionalmaterials,descriptionsof teach-
ing, and student outcome measures.Featuresof a well-defined
pd> 1
Activities
*Single programat
multiplesites
*Multiplefacilitators
*Multifocallens
NOVEMBER
2004 |
professionaldevelopmentsystemaresimilar;they includeactiv-
ities and materialsfor teachers,descriptionsof facilitatorroles,
and teacheroutcomemeasures.
Cohen and colleagues(2003) suggestedthat to designwell-
defined instructionalsystems,we need "excellentprogramsof
development,fieldtesting,and revision"(p. 136). Again,the sit-
uationfor professionaldevelopmentis analogous.Majordesign
activitiesin Phase2 includerefininga professionaldevelopment
program'stasksand materialsfor teachers(includingthe devel-
opmentof materialsthataretransportable acrosscontexts),spec-
ifying the role of the and
facilitator, developingresourcesand
training for A
facilitators. central purposeof Phase2 researchis
to informthe developmentand refinementof programcompo-
nents. Thus, in a typicalresearchprogram,researcherswould
study the enactmentof a professionaldevelopmentprogramat
multiplesites,with multiplefacilitators,using multifocallenses
to explore similarities and differences in both the develop-
ment of professionalcommunityand the learningof individual
teachers.
My searchthroughthe literaturedid not yieldanyprofessional
developmentprogramsforwhich thereis adequateevidencethat
they can be enactedwith integrityby multiplefacilitatorsor in
multiplesettings.I did, however,identifya smallnumberof proj-
ects that areworkingtoward,or haveachieved,widespreaden-
actment.Threesuch projectsarediscussedhere.
Curriculum-BasedProfessionalDevelopment
Developing MathematicalIdeas (DMI; Schifter, Bastable,&
Russell, 1999 a,b,c) and VideoCasesfor MathematicsProfes-
sionalDevelopment(VCMPD;Seago,Mumme,& Branca,2004)
aresimilarin theirapproachto professionaldevelopment.Both
programsconsist primarilyof curricularmaterialsdesignedfor
use in professionaldevelopmentseminarsfor teachers,and fea-
turingmultimediacasesas centralcomponents.The majorgoals
of eachprogramareto help teachersdeepentheirunderstanding
of mathematicscontent, students'mathematicalthinking,and
instructionalstrategies;and develop norms and practicesfor
learningaboutteaching.In DMI andVCMPD seminars,groups
of teachersled by facilitatorsworktogetherintensivelyovertime,
immersedin both subjectmatterand teachingpractices.
From the outset, designersof DMI and VCMPD intended
theirprogramsto be publishedand disseminatedforwidespread
use. To this end, both programsprovidesubstantialpreparation
and supportfor facilitators,includingresourcematerialssuchas
a facilitator'sguidewith detailedsuggestionsfor activities,read-
ings, and agendasfor seminarmeetings;and a fictitiousfacilita-
tor'sreflectivejournal.
Researchon bothprojectsis limited,focusingalmostexclusively
on professionaldevelopmentconductedby the originaldesign
teams,with small numbersof teachers.Most studiesaddressed
Phase 1 researchquestionsand yieldedinsightssimilarto those
reportedin the previoussectionof this article.Forexample,de-
tailedcasestudiesconductedduringdevelopmentand pilot test-
ing of the programsindicatethatteacherswho participatedin the
professionaldevelopmentseminarsdevelopednew norms for
professionaldiscourse,and deeperunderstandingsof the math-
ematicscontent they studiedand the developmentof children's
mathematicalideas(Cohen,2004; Seago,2004). For DMI par-
ticipants,teachingpracticeschangedmoreslowlythandid knowl-
I11EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
edge.Althoughall teachersfairlyquicklyadoptedinstructional
strategiesto supportchildren'sarticulationof theirmathemati-
cal ideas, their ability to use children'sreasoningto guide in-
structionaldecisions developed more slowly (Cohen, 2004).
Researchon the effectsof VCMPD on teachingpracticesis cur-
rentlyunderway(Seago,2004).
A smallnumberof studiesinvestigatedthe roleof the facilita-
tor duringthe design and pilot testing of DMI and VCMPD.
These studiessuggestthat the facilitatoris crucialto the success
of the professionaldevelopmentprogram.Facilitatorsmust be
ableto establisha communityof learnersin whichinquiryis val-
ued, and they must structurethe learningexperiencesfor that
community.To do this, they must understandthe goalsof the
programand how the resourcematerialscan be usedto achieve
thesegoals(Remillard& Geist,2002; Seago,2004). Facilitators
must be ableto use the curriculumflexibly-reading the partic-
ipantsandthe discourse,consideringresponsesandpossiblecon-
sequences,and takingresponsiveaction in orderto balancethe
sometimesincompatiblegoalsof the professionaldevelopment
programand the participants(Remillard& Geist,2002).
LeFevre's(2004) longitudinalcase study of VCMPD high-
lightsthe challengesinvolvedin maintainingintegritywhenscal-
ing up a curriculum-basedprofessionaldevelopmentprogram.
It is difficultenough to createa professionaldevelopmentcur-
riculumfor one's own use.As LeFevrewarns,"Itis challenging
by anothermagnitudeto designa curriculumfor use by others"
(p. 252). One centralquestionaddressesresourcematerials(e.g.,
VCMPD's video-basedresources):How can thesematerialsbe
designedto maximizethe likelihoodthat teachersand facilita-
tors, in a rangeof contexts,will use them in the waysintended
by the originaldesign team?LeFevre'sresearchindicatesthat
communication is key. To maintain integrity, a program must
effectivelycommunicatethe intendedgoalsandusesof resources
to prospectivefacilitatorsandprovidesupportmaterialsthatwill
enablethem to use the resourcesin the intendedways.LeFevre
also notes the importanceof extensivepilot testing,so that pro-
gramdesignerscan envisagethe challengesand pitfallsthat po-
tentialusersmight faceand taketheseissuesinto accountwhen
revisingboth the professionaldevelopmentcurriculumand sup-
portmaterialsfor facilitators.
TeachersTeaching Teachers
The NationalWritingProject(NWP) has takena verydifferent
approachto reachinglargenumbersof teachers.NWP's mission
is to improvethe teachingof writingandimprovelearningin the
nation'sschools. It follows a teachers-teaching-teachers model.
NWP focuseson situatingteachers'learningin theirown writing
and classroompracticesratherthan developingextensivecurric-
ularmaterialsfor eitherteachersor facilitators.Initiatedin 1973
as the BayAreaWritingProject,NWP now includes175 writing
projectsitesand over 12,000 activeteacherleaders.At eachsite,
a universitycampushostsa summerinstitutefor teacherleaders,
in whichparticipantsspendtime demonstratingtheirclassroom
practices,studyingtheoryandresearchaboutwritinginstruction,
and immersingthemselvesin writing.Duringthe followingaca-
demic year, the teacher leaders give workshops for their col-
leagues, also hosted on the university campus. In 2002-2003,
NWP leaders offered 6,482 programs for nearly 100,000 educa-
tors. The project also has an interactive online network in which
teachers, writing project site directors, and staff can share tools,
resources, and strategies.
Research on the National Writing Project also differs from
the research conducted on Developing Mathematical Ideas and
VideoCases for Mathematics Professional Development. Most
studies have been program evaluations. Rather than conducting
case studies of NWP summer institutes or workshops, evaluation
teams relied primarily on surveys and interviews to gather self-
report data from teachers. Teachers have reported that NWP
helped them to develop a valuable professional network, change
their philosophies about teaching writing, and increase both the
time spent on writing instruction and use of exemplary teaching
practices. Some analyses of student writing samples have also
been conducted, with a majority of students' work showing im-
provements in organization, coherence, and use of writing con-
ventions. Limited information is available about the content and
activities in the institutes and workshops, or the instructional
practices of participating teachers (Academy for Educational De-
velopment, 2002; Dickey et al., 2003; St. John, Hirabayashi, &
Stokes, 2004).
NWP, DMI, and VCMPD have made impressive progress to-
ward providing high-quality professional development for large
numbers of teachers. At the same time, none has produced a
well-specified professional development program with evidence
that it can be enacted with integrity at multiple sites. Additional
researchis needed to inform this development work. The nature
of integrity differs across the programs, focusing on intended use
of curricularmaterials in the case of DMI and VCMPD, and on
a conception of writing instruction for NWP. Thus, specific re-
search questions will also differ. Recommendations for such re-
Phase 3 PD>
Facilitators
Facilitators
/
Al
PD
Program Teachers
PD
rograr
m Teachers
Context
Context
Facilitators
ProgramA
PD -
r Teachers
Program /
,/
Context
ProgramC
FIGURE 4. Phase 3 research:Multiple effectiveprofessionaldevelopmentprograms.
search,aswell as otherPhase2 designand researchactivities,are
providedin the finalsection.
Phase 3: Multiple Effective Professional
Development Programs
Phase3 researchactivitiesbuild upon Phase2. The centralgoal
of Phase3 researchis to providecomparativeinformationabout
the implementation,effects,and resourcerequirementsof well-
definedprofessionaldevelopmentprograms.Thus, researchtasks
includegatheringand analyzingdatafrommultipleprofessional
developmentprograms,as they areenactedby multiplefacilita-
torsat multiplesites.Figure4 presentsa visualrepresentationof
thesetasks.The upper-casePD in "PD > 1"symbolizesthe focus
on multipleprograms,each enactedat multiplesites.The term
"multi-multifocal lens"is meantto capturethe ideathat Phase3
researchers
considermultipleprofessionaldevelopmentprograms,
usingnear-visionand distance-visionprescriptionsto studyeach
program.
The informationprovidedby Phase3 researchis essentialto
policydecisionsaboutresourceallocation.Yet,to my knowledge,
no Phase3 researchprogramshave been conducted,and none
are currentlyunderway.Thus, my task here is quite different
than it was for Phases1 and 2. Ratherthan discussingwhat we
havelearnedfromexistingprogramsof professionaldevelopment
and research,I offersuggestionsfor a Phase3 researchagenda.
A Phase 3 ResearchAgenda
Cohen and colleagues(2003) arguedpersuasively for the impor-
tanceof experimentalor quasi-experimental studieswhen well-
definedinstructionalsystemsexist.Froma statisticalperspective,
fieldstudiesin whichschoolsor classroomsareassignedrandomly
to treatmentsarethe bestwayto producecausalconclusionsabout
1
^\
\ \ Research
Activities
* Comparative
"
field studies
* Multi-multifocal
Program B lens
I
MultiplePrograms:
Effectsand Resources
NOVEMBER
2004 |
the relationshipsamongeducationalresources,instructionalprac-
tices,andstudentlearning.Quasi-experimental designsarea pre-
ferredchoice when random assignmentis not feasibleor not
desirable.For example,a well-controlledquasi-experiment that
schoolswith of different educa-
compares good implementation
tional interventionsmay havegreaterexternalvalidityand pro-
ducemoreusefulresultsthana randomizedexperimentin which
assignmentto interventionsis externallymandated.In-depth
casestudiesconductedin conjunctionwith large-scalefieldstud-
ies canprovideimportantinsightsaboutthe processesandmech-
anismsby which the causesproducetheir effects(Shavelson&
Towne, 2002).
The Studyof InstructionalImprovement(SII)is an example
of this type of multimethod quasi-experimentalfield study.
Conductedby a researchteamled by Cohen, Ball,and Rowan,
this longitudinalstudy is investigatingthe design,implementa-
tion, and effects on student achievementof three of the most
widely adopted,comprehensiveschool reformprogramsin the
United States:AcceleratedSchools,America'sChoice, and Suc-
cess for All. The researchprogramhas three components:case
studies of the three interventions,a longitudinalsurvey-based
study of 120 schools (30 schools implementingeach interven-
tion, plus 30 matchedcontrolschools),and detailedcasestudies
of 12 schools(3 schoolsimplementingeachintervention,plus 3
matchedcontrolschools).The mainpurposesof the researchare
to gain a deeperunderstandingof the processesof school im-
provement;to investigatethe conditions under which school
improvementeffortsimproveinstructionalcapacity,classroom
teaching, and student learning; and to examine how state
and localpoliciesassistor detractfromschoolimprovementini-
tiatives.With its multiplepurposes,multiplesites,and multiple
researchmethods,thisprojectfitsmy characterization of research
that uses a multi-multifocallens (Cohen, Raudenbush& Ball,
2003; Camburn,Rowan,& Taylor,2003).
Shouldwe be conductingsimilarstudiesin the areaof profes-
sionaldevelopment?My answerto thisquestionis a qualifiedyes.
A longitudinalfield studyof multipleprofessionaldevelopment
programscouldaddressimportantissuessuchas:how eachinter-
ventionoperatesin diversesettings,programfidelityacrosssites,
impacton teacherandstudentlearning,resourcesrequiredforen-
actment,andpoliciesthatsupportenactment.Likeanylarge-scale
field study (whetherexperimentalor quasi-experimental), it will
require tremendous resources.Thus, although such studies have
the potentialto provideinformationof greatvalueto the educa-
tionalcommunity,they areappropriateonly when well-defined
interventionswith demonstratedeffectivenessalready exist.
In the area of professionaldevelopment,a small number of
programs-such as DevelopingMathematicalIdeas,VideoCases
for MathematicsProfessionalDevelopment,and the National
WritingProject-may be farenoughalongin theirdevelopment
to warrantinclusionin this type of investigation.
The complexityof the researchdesignfor a large-scalelongi-
tudinal field study of multiple professionaldevelopmentpro-
gramswill undoubtedlyrequiredatacollectionandanalysistools
thatdo not yet exist.Thus, in contrastto Phases1 and2, Phase3
researchprojects will include substantial design work on research
tools ratherthan professionaldevelopmentresources.Further,
because of their scope and resource requirementsit will be
|1 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
necessarythatstateandlocalpolicymakersworkwith researchers
and teachersto makethe researchpossible.
Next Steps for Professional Development
Design and Research
I concludewith severalsuggestionsabout futuredirectionsfor
professionaldevelopmentdesignand research.Just as the three
phasesandthe pathsbetweenthemarenot the onlywayto char-
acterizethe field,theseideasarenot meantto providea compre-
hensiveaction agenda.Further,althougheach phasebuilds on
the previousone, this doesnot implythatdesignandresearchef-
forts can, or should, proceedin a linearfashionfrom Phase 1
throughPhase3. On the contrary,thereis importantworkto be
done in all threephases,and insightsgainedfromdesignand re-
searcheffortsin one phasewill undoubtedlyleadto ideasfor new
projectsin the othertwo phases.
Turningfirstto Phase 1, the professionaldevelopmentpro-
gramsI discussedfocuson a limitednumberof subjectareasand
gradelevels.My selectionswerebasedon availability. Manymore
professionaldevelopmentresourcesexist for some subjectareas
andgradelevelsthanothers-most notablyelementaryandmid-
dle school mathematics,science,and literacy.This situationis
due, in part,to an historicalunevennessin fundingfor educa-
tional researchand development.It is a situation that must
change. No Child Left Behind (2001) appropriatelycalls for
highlyqualifiedteachersand high-qualityprofessionaldevelop-
ment in all academicsubjectsand at all gradelevels.Thereis an
urgentneedfor Phase1 workin areasthathavereceivedlittle at-
tention to date. As one example,researchersmight investigate
whetherprofessionaldevelopmentprogramswith demonstrated
effectivenessforelementarymathematicsteacherscanbe adapted
to differentsubjectareasand gradelevels.
Design experiments,with theirrepeatedcyclesof design,en-
actment,analysis,andredesign,canbe particularly usefulforsuch
investigations (Cobb,Confrey, Lehrer,
diSessa, & Schauble, 2003;
Design-Based Research Collective,
2003). Forexample, a Phase1
designexperimentmightbring researchersand professionaldevel-
operstogetherto adaptan existingprofessionaldevelopmentpro-
gramto a new subjectarea,engagingin multipledesign/research
cyclesto refinethe programand study its impacton the devel-
opment of professionalcommunityand the learningof individ-
ual teachers.
With respectto Phase 2, one key question for Developing
MathematicalIdeas,VideoCasesfor MathematicsProfessional
Development,and the NationalWritingProjectis whetherthe
materialsand resourcesprovidedby the programsaresufficient
to ensurethatmultipleusersin diversesettingscan maintainin-
tegritywith the designers'intentions.In consideringthis ques-
tion, it is importantto clarifythat maintainingintegritydoes
not implyrigidlyimplementinga specificset of activitiesandpro-
cedures."Mutualadaptation"-the term used by Bermanand
McLaughlin(1978) to account for the ways in which educa-
tional innovationsand their userschangein the processof im-
plementation-is equallyapplicableto professionaldevelopment
programs.As they attempt to scaleup, designersof these pro-
grams will inevitably face the dilemma that policymakers face:
On the one hand,mutualadaptationto the needsandconditions
of localsitesis essentialif a programis to be implementedeffec-
tively; on the other hand, too much adaptation can mean that the
overall intent of the program is lost. Thus, Phase 2 studies must
investigate the balancesand tradeoffsbetween fidelity and adapta-
tion, and consider which elements of a programmust be preserved
to ensure the integrity of its underlying goals and principles.
The nature of elements needed to preserve integrity will vary
across programs. For curriculum-based professional develop-
ment programs such as DMI and VCMPD, successful imple-
mentation requires a dynamic, interactive relationship between
the written and enacted curriculum, one that takes into account
unique features of participants and contexts as well as the pro-
gram materialsand resources (Remillard & Geist, 2002; LeFevre,
2004). For NWP, in contrast, appropriate use of curricularma-
terials is not the central issue. Instead, content and activities of
the summer institutes and workshops must maintain integrity
with the Project's conception of the writing process and writing
instruction.
There are also numerous other small-scale professional devel-
opment projects in existence today-many more than I am able
to discuss here. For these projects, additional development and
testing, with the goal of producing well-specified and clearly ar-
ticulated professional development systems with resources to
support widespread use, is an appropriate and important next
step. My recommendation is that professional development de-
signers collaborate with researchers, drawing upon the experi-
ences and findings of programs such as DMI, VCMPD, and
NWP as they engage in this work.
Central research issues to be investigated in Phase 3 include
resource requirements for successful enactment of professional
development programs and impact on teacher and student learn-
ing. In addition, research should continue to explore the trade-
offs between fidelity and adaptation that are necessary to ensure
program effectiveness across multiple settings. To conduct the
large-scale, multimethod field studies needed to address these
questions will require new data collection and analysis tools-for
example, instruments to measure change over time in teachers'
subject matter knowledge for teaching and instructional prac-
tices, and analytic tools that can separate out the influences of
various program, school, and individual factors on teacher and
student learning. Some development work is currently under-
way. In January 2004, for example, the Consortium for Policy
Researchin Education sponsored a small working conference en-
titled The Measurementof Instruction: Technical Challengesand
Implicationsfor Research,Policy, and Practice. Researchers rep-
resenting diverse substantive and methodological perspectives
shared lessons learned and challenges in our work. More impor-
tant, the conference provided an opportunity for participants to
think collaboratively about the state of knowledge on measure-
ment of instruction, and to consider directions for future research.
This article began by calling upon the educational research
community to play a leadership role in providing high-quality
professional development for all teachers. The multiphase re-
search agenda I outlined will help us to achieve this goal. I close
with one additional challenge.
At its January 2003 meeting AERA Council unanimously
passed a resolution promoting the essential elements of sound,
scientifically based research. In this resolution, which is posted
on the AERA website (http://www.aera.net), the Association
Council reassertedthat there are multiple sound methodologies
available to the educational research community and reminded
us that for any given investigation, research questions should
guide the selection of inquiry methods (see also Shavelson &
Towne, 2002). Our impetus for passing the resolution was, in
part, to urge the U.S. Department of Education to expand its
current conception of scientifically based research and its fund-
ing opportunities. My challenge to the educational researchcom-
munity is this: We have much work to do and many questions to
answer in order to provide high-quality professional development
to all teachers. It will take many different types of inquiries and a
vast arrayof researchtools to generate the rich source of knowl-
edge needed to achieve this goal. As we engage in all three phases
of professional development design and research,we must make
thoughtful, informed decisions about the designs and methods
most appropriateto the specific questions we are asking.
NOTES
1I am certainlynot the firstpersonto use this type of figureto de-
pict an educationalsystem.I firstencountereda similarrepresentation
in the work of JosephSchwab(1978), who identifiedstudents,teach-
ers, curriculum,and context as the four commonplacesof schooling.
More recently,David Cohen, DeborahBall, and colleagueshave used
a similarrepresentationto depictinstructionas an interactionalsystem
thatincludesteachers,students,content,andenvironments(e.g.,Cohen,
Raudenbush,& Ball,2003). In a professionaldevelopmentsystem,the
"students"areteachers,the "teachers" arefacilitators,and the "curricu-
lum"is the professionaldevelopmentprogram.
2 All teachers'and students'names are
pseudonyms.I use teachers'
firstnamesto representhow the teachersin the STARprojectaddressed
eachotherand us.
3 Phase2, as I haveconceptualizedit, is not the only routeto Phase3.
Forexample,anotherpathmightbe to comparea singleprofessionalde-
velopmentprogramat a singlesitewith anothersingleprogramat a sim-
ilarsite,identifyingrelativestrengthsandlimitationsto informdecisions
aboutthe allocationof resourcesto continueddevelopmentefforts.
REFERENCES
AcademyforEducationalDevelopment.(2002). NationalWritingProj-
ect:Finalevaluationreport.New York:AcademyforEducationalDe-
velopment.
Adler,J. (2000). Socialpracticetheoryand mathematicsteachereduca-
tion: A conversationbetween theory and practice.NordicMathe-
maticsEducationJournal,8(3), 31-53.
Anderson,C. W. (1989). The role of educationin the academicdisci-
plines in teachereducation.In A. Woolfolk (Ed.), Research perspec-
tiveson thegraduatepreparation of teachers(pp. 88-107). Englewood
Cliffs,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematicalunderstandingsthat prospective
teachersbringto teachereducation. TheElementarySchoolJournal,
90, 449-466.
Ball, D. L. (1994, November).Developingmathematicsreform:What
don'twe knowaboutteacherlearning-but wouldmakegoodworking
hypotheses? Paperpresentedat Conferenceon TeacherEnhancement
in MathematicsK-6, Arlington,VA.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developingpractice,developing
practitioners:Towarda practice-basedtheoryof professionaleduca-
tion. In L. Darling-Hammondand G. Sykes(Eds.), Teachingas the
(pp. 3-31). San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
learningprofession
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federalprograms support-
ing educational change, Volume VII: Implementing and sustaining in-
novations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
NOVEMBER
2004 |[
Borko, H., Frykholm, J., Pittman, M., Eiteljorg, E., Nelson, M., Jacobs,
J., Clark, K. K., & Schneider, C. (in press). Preparing teachers to fos-
ter algebraic thinking. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik:
International Reviews on Mathematical Education.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner &
R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofeducationalpsychology(673-708). New
York: Macmillan.
Bowers, J. S., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of math-
ematical practices:A case study. CognitionandInstruction, 17, 25-64.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leader-
ship in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting compre-
hensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25, 347-373.
Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruc-
tion: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. In
W. Secada (Ed.), Researchingeducational reform: The case of school
mathematics in the United States (pp. 457-470). Special Issue of
InternationalJournal ofEducational Research.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M.
(1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematical thinking in
classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational
ResearchJournal, 26, 499-532.
Clark, K., & Borko, H. (2004). Establishing a professional learning
community among middle school mathematics teachers. In M. J.
Hoines and A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 28th Conferenceof
the International Groupfor the Psychologyof Mathematics Education
(Vol. 2, pp. 223-230). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural
perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher,
23(7), 13-20.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning per-
spectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher,28(2), 4-15.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003).
Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher,
32(1), 9-13.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity,and improve-
ment. CPRE Research Report Series RR-43. Philadelphia, PA: Con-
sortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, in-
struction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
25, 119-142.
Cohen, S. (2004). Teachers'professionaldevelopmentand the elementary
mathematics classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research:
An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Re-
searcher,32(1), 5-8.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman,
B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' in-
struction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational
Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 24, 81-112.
Dickey, K., Hirabayashi, J., St. John, M., Stokes, L., Murray, A., &
Senauke, L. (2003). The National Writing Project: Client satisfaction
and program impact - Resultsfrom a satisfactionsurveyandfollow-up
survey ofparticipants at 2002 invitational institutes. Inverness, CA:
Inverness Research Associates.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Con-
structing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Re-
searcher,23(7), 5-12.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., &
Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's
thinking in mathematics instruction. Journalfor Researchin Mathe-
matics Education, 27, 403-434.
EI EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993).
Using children's mathematical knowledge in instruction. American
Educational ResearchJournal, 30, 555-583.
Fishman, J. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking
teacher and student learning to improve professional development in
systemic reform. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 19, 643-658.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Cap-
turing teachers' generative change: A follow-up study of professional
development in mathematics. American Educational ResearchJournal,
38, 653-689.
Franke, M. L. & Kazemi, E. (2001). Teaching as learning within a com-
munity of practice: Characterizing generative growth. In T. Wood,
B. Nelson, and J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classicalpedagogy in ele-
mentary mathematics: The nature offacilitative change (pp. 47-74).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Franke, M. L,. Kazemi, E., Shih, J., Biagetti, S., & Battey, D. (In press).
Changing teachers' professional work in mathematics: One school's
journey. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, and F. Demrock (Eds.),
Understandingmathematicsand sciencematters.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frykholm, J. A. (1998). Beyond supervision: Learning to teach mathe-
matics in community. Teachingand TeacherEducation,14, 305-322.
Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What
works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 745-752.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001).
What makes professional development effective?Analysis of a national
sample of teachers.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal, 38, 915-945.
Greeno, J. G. (2003). Situative researchrelevant to standards for school
mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick,W. G. Martin, and D. Schifter (Eds.), A
researchcompaniontoprinciplesand standardsforschoolmathematics(pp.
304-332). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and
learning. In D. Berliner, and R. Calfee (eds.), Handbook of educa-
tionalpsychology(pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a the-
ory of teacher community. TeachersCollegeRecord, 103, 942-1012.
Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics:
Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal ofMathe-
matics TeacherEducation, 7, 203-235.
Knapp, N. F., & Peterson, P. L. (1995). Teachers' interpretations of
"CGI" after four years: Meanings and practices. Journalfor Research
in Mathematics Education, 26, 40-65.
Lane, S., & Silver, E. (1994, April). Examining students'capacitiesfor
mathematical thinking and reasoning in the QUASAR project. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimateperipheral
participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
LeFevre, D. M. (2004). Designing for teacher learning: Video-based
curriculum design. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teachereduca-
tion: Advances in researchon teaching (Vol. 10, 235-258). London,
UK: Elsevier, Ltd.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of prac-
tice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everydaypractice.
Teachingand TeacherEducation, 18, 917-946.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at
student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school re-
form. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 185-192.
McDiarmid, W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. (1989). Why staying ahead
one chapter just won't work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C.
Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledgebaseforthe beginningteacher(pp. 193-205).
New York: Pergamon Press.
McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professionalcommunities
and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Neale, D. C., Smith, D., &Johnson, W. G. (1990). Implementing con-
ceptual change teaching in primary science. Elementary SchoolJour-
nal, 91, 109-131.
Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new
views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.),
The international handbookof teachersand teaching (pp. 1223-1296).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and
thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational
Researcher,29(1), 4-15.
Remillard, J. T., & Geist, P. (2002). Supporting teachers' professional
learning through navigating openings in the curriculum. Journal of
Mathematics TeacherEducation, 5, 7-34.
Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999a). Building a systemof
tens, casebook.Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour.
Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999b). Making meaningfor
operations,casebook.Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour.
Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999c). Measuring space in
one, two, and threedimensions,casebook.Parsippany,NJ: Dale Seymour.
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructingmathematics edu-
cation: Stories of teachersmeeting the challengesof reform.New York:
Teachers College Press.
Schifter, D., & Simon, M. A. (1992). Assessing teachers' development
of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 8, 187-197.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: Translation into curriculum. In I.
Westbury and N. J. Wilkoff(Eds.), Sciencecurriculumand liberal ed-
ucation: SelectedessaysofJosephJ. Schwab (chapter 12, pp. 365-383).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics
teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teachered-
ucation:Advances in researchon teaching, Volume 10 (pp. 259-286).
Orlando, FL: Elsevier, LTD.
Seago, N., Mumme, J., & Branca, N. (2004). Learningand teachinglin-
ear functions: Video casesfor mathematics professional development,
6-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific researchin edu-
cation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1983) Autonomy and obligation: The remote control
of teaching, in L. S. Shulman and G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook ofteach-
ing andpolicy (pp. 484-504). New York: Longman.
Simon, M. A., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist per-
spective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter
knowledge in primaryscience teaching. InJ. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in
research on teaching:Vol.2. Teachers'knowledge ofsubjectmatteras it
relatesto theirteachingpractice(pp. 187-243). Greenwich,CT: JAI
Press.
Smith, M. S. (1997, April).Riverside MiddleSchool:Schoolreformsup-
portedbyan innovativecurriculum. Paperpresentedatthe annualmeet-
ing of theAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,IL.
Spillane,J. P. (1999). Externalreforminitiativesandteachers'effortsto
reconstructpractice:The mediatingrole of teachers'zones of enact-
ment.Journalof CurriculumStudies,31, 143-175.
Stein,M. K., Silver,E. A., & Smith,M. S. (1998). Mathematicsreform
and teacherdevelopment:A communityof practiceperspective.In
J. Greenoand S. Goldman(Eds.), Thinkingpractices in mathematics
andsciencelearning(pp. 17-52). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Stein,M. K., Smith,M. S., & Silver,E. A. (1999). The developmentof
professionaldevelopers:Learningto assistteachersin new settingsin
new ways.HarvardEducationalReview,69, 237-269.
St.-John,M., Hirabayashi,J., & Stokes,L. (2004). TheNationalWrit-
ingProject: An evaluatorsperspectiveon thecaseforfederal investment.
Inverness,CA:InvernessResearchAssociates.
Sykes,G. (1996). Reformof andasprofessionaldevelopment.PhiDelta
Kappan,77, 465-467.
The TeachingCommission(2004). Teaching at risk:A calltoaction.New
York:The TeachingCommission,The CUNY GraduateCenter.
Thomas,G., Wineburg,S., Grossman,P., Myhre,O., & Woolworth,
S. (1998). In the companyof colleagues:An interimreporton the de-
velopmentof a communityof teacherlearners.TeachingandTeacher
Education,14, 21-32.
U.S. Congress.(2001). No ChildLeftBehindAct of 2001. PublicLaw
107-110. 107th Congress.Washington,DC: GovernmentPrinting
Office.
Wilson,S. M., & Berne,J. (1999). Teacherlearningandthe acquisition
of professionalknowledge:An examinationof researchon contem-
poraryprofessionaldevelopment.In A. Iran-Nejadand P. D. Pearson
(Eds.),ReviewofResearchin Education,24, 173-209.
Wineburg,S., & Grossman,P. (1998). Creatinga communityof learn-
ersamonghigh school teachers.Phi DeltaKappan,79(5), 350-353.
AUTHOR
HILDABORKO is Professorof Education,Universityof Colorado,
Schoolof Education,EducationBuilding124-249 UCB, Boulder,CO
80309, hilda.borko@colorado.edu. Her research interests include
teachercognitionand the processof learningto teach,with an emphasis
on changesin novice and experiencedteachers'knowledgeand beliefs
aboutteaching,learning,and assessment;classroompractices;and pro-
fessional development. She is the Immediate Past President of the
AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.
NOVEMBER
2004 ifS