Theme: Content Component#163: Teacher participates in a program of sustained professional development and support that concentrates on domain knowledge Strength: Strong Feasibility: High This review includes professional development programs that target content knowledge and/or knowledge of how students think about and understand the content (i.e. pedagogical content knowledge; Schulman, 1986). In math, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) includes being able to “explain why [a] procedure works and what it means”, “appraise student methods for solving computational problems”, and “determine whether [student generated] methods would be generalizable to other problems” (Hill & Ball, 2004). All of the mathematics studies below suggest that targeting content knowledge and/or PCK is an effective professional development approach, but they differ in their design (e.g. survey of national programs vs. program evaluation), in their methods (e.g. self-report vs. classroom observations), and in the outcomes they assess (e.g. teacher vs. student outcomes). Effect on Teacher Knowledge Using data collected from a national evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon, (2001) found that math and science programs that focused on increasing content knowledge, that provided active learning opportunities such as receiving teaching feedback, and that are connected to teachers’ goals, state standards and assessments were more likely to lead to self-reported improvement in teachers’ knowledge in curriculum, instructional methods, and assessment. The authors also found that longer professional development (measured by the total number of hours and the time span of the activity) tended to produce better teacher outcomes. When both aspects of time were controlled for, reform activities (e.g. coaching), which generally took more time than traditional activities (e.g. workshops), did not lead to better outcomes. One of the limitations of state and national studies is that teacher outcomes are often self-reported through surveys. In this study, the independent variables were also self-reported (e.g. teachers rated the focus of their programs on content using a three-point scale). Unlike the previous study, which relied on self-report, Hill and Ball (2004) designed and used an assessment that required teachers to evaluate student methods as well as to solve mathematics problems. They used this assessment to evaluate California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes (MPDIs), which were summer institutes led by teams of mathematicians and mathematics educators that lasted between one to three weeks (40-120 hours). Teachers also took part in up to 80 hours of follow-up over the course of the year. Results indicated that MPDI participants showed significant pre-posttest gains. Hill and Ball (2004) also found that longer institutes tended to predict higher gains, although there were exceptions to this pattern. Effect on Teacher Practices Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) examined the teaching practices of teachers who received Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI). Teachers attended a four-week workshop (80 hours) where they learned to “to classify [addition and subtraction] problems, to

identify the processes that children use to solve different problems, and to relate processes to the levels and problems in which they are commonly used” (Carpenter et al., 1989). Teachers were not taught specific practices; rather, they designed instruction on their own based on researchbased principles that they had learned. Classroom observations indicated that CGI teachers spent more time on word problems while control teachers spent more time on number facts. CGI teachers were also more likely to focus on the process of student thinking rather the product and to give students the opportunity to solve problems with different approaches. Similarly, Cohen and Hill (1998) found that teachers who attended workshops on specific math topics were more likely to assign higher cognitive level tasks. They reported higher instances of students engaging in reform practices such as “making conjectures and exploring possible methods to solve a mathematical problem, discussing different ways that they solve particular problems, working in small groups on mathematics problems, working on individual projects that take several days, working on group investigations that extend for several days, writing about how to solve a problem in an assignment or test, and doing problems that have more than one correct solution” than teachers who attended workshops on non-mathematical content (i.e. inequalities in the classroom, involving parents in learning, and cooperative learning). Teachers who attended content-based workshops also reported fewer conventional student practices such as “practicing or taking tests on computational skills and working individually on mathematics problems with the text/workbook” (Cohen & Hill, 1998). One of the limitations of this study is selection bias, although the authors control for it by including teachers’ views towards reforms and teachers’ knowledge of the themes of reform in their analyses. In a third study, Garet et al. (2001) found that teachers who participated in programs that emphasized content knowledge, incorporated active learning, and were better connected were also more likely to report making changes to the curriculum content, the cognitive challenge of tasks, the instructional methods, and the types of assessments. Effect on Student Achievement Carpenter et al. (1989) found that CGI students recalled more number facts and problem solving strategies and reported feeling more confident with mathematics problems and having a greater of understanding of them. Similarly, in a review study, Kennedy (1998) found that the professional development program that targeted PCK, without providing specific practices for teachers to implement showed larger effects on student learning (i.e. procedural and conceptual tasks) than programs that provided general teaching practices or general guidance on curriculum math specific practices with little emphasis on teacher knowledge. Kennedy (1998) also suggested that the content of the program was more important than the total number of hours and the duration of the program. Saxe, Gearhard, and Nasir (2001) conducted the strongest of these studies, by using students’ pre-posttest gains on procedural and conceptual knowledge to determine the effect of three different professional development approaches. The first approach, Integrated Mathematics Assessment (IMA), was a researcher- designed program that targeted content knowledge, PCK, and knowledge of children’s achievement motivations in mathematics (e.g. locus of control, selfefficacy, and goals), while providing the opportunity for teachers to collaborate. Teachers assigned to this group took part in a 5-day summer institute and met 13 times over the course of the year. Commonly used by the teachers in the area at the time of the study, the second approach, Collegial Support (SUPP), gave space for teachers working on the same curriculum units to reflect on their practices with one another. The program did not offer specific help with

content and teachers met nine times (two full day sessions and several monthly meetings). Teachers in the third group did not receive any support at all and use textbooks in their classes. While there were no between-group differences on student gains in procedural knowledge, the IMA group scored significantly higher on conceptual knowledge. The SUPP group however, did not score higher than the control group. Other Content Areas A study examining the effect of professional development activities for early literacy teachers suggest however, that increasing teacher knowledge of core competences such as oral language comprehension, phonological awareness, and print convention did not improve teaching quality (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). Surprisingly, teachers who enrolled in a threecredit course (45 hours) that consisted of lectures, simulations, videotaped examples, and assignments did not receive higher ratings on a post-test observation than teachers in the control group. On the other hand, teachers who received weekly coaching in addition to the course, scored significantly higher on the post-test. Thus, the researchers suggest that coaching may provide additional support in help teachers apply theory to practice. I rated the strength of this component as strong because professional development programs targeting teacher knowledge seemed to change teaching practices and improve student achievement in math and science. I rated the feasibility as high because of the number of effective programs that have already been implemented. References Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531. Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. The Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343. Garet, M., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California's mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 330-351. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education. (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532-566.

Saxe, G.B., Gearhard, M. & Nasir, N.S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 55-79. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Good Literature Review (Adequate Research) Number of sources ⌧3

❑ ≤2 Different types of sources (i.e. journal, publication, peer-reviewed) ❑ ≤2

❑3 All sources were peer-reviewed articles. Word Count

❑ ≤ 499 words

⌧ 500+ words

Adequate level of evidence indicating effectiveness of component (Relevancy) Feasibility of Implementation ❑No evidence

❑Minimal evidence

⌧Strong evidence

❑Overwhelming evidence

Applied to a Variety of Subject Areas ❑No specific subject areas

❑1 subject area

❑2 subject areas

⌧3+ subject areas

Math, science, English ❑No evidence

Increases student achievement ⌧Strong evidence ❑Minimal evidence

❑Overwhelming evidence

Helps teacher to understand students’ needs ❑No evidence

❑Minimal evidence

❑Strong evidence

⌧Overwhelming evidence