01 SES 03 A, Impact of Professional Development
This presentation deals with two crucial questions: (How) Can the impact of teacher professional development programmes be sustained? (How) Can the impact of teacher professional development programmes be scaled up? Theoretical models and empirical findings from impact research (e.g., Zehetmeier & Krainer, 2011) and innovation research (e.g., Cobb & Smith, 2008; Rogers, 2003) are combined to use them as a theoretical framework for the impact analysis of a professional development programme in Austria.
The impact of professional development programmes is analysed by various studies (e.g., Sowder, 2007; Zehetmeier, 2014a). In this presentation, a comprehensive theoretical model covering the issue of impact of professional development programmes is used: The IPD-model (Impact of Professional Development model; Zehetmeier, 2008; Zehetmeier & Krainer, 2011) combines and integrates theories and results of previous research activities on this topic. Within this model, core elements constituting professional development activities and central levels of possible impact are juxtaposed; the impact of professional development programmes can be regarded as changes or innovations within the respective levels, which are influenced by fostering factors.
In this model, the following elements are used to describe teacher professional development programmes: participating teachers, participating facilitators, the programme itself, and the context that embeds the former three elements.
Zehetmeier (2008) introduces three major levels for describing teacher professional development programmes’ impact to be used in the IPD-model: the participating teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practice. Each of these levels can be defined in different ways. Details information will be provided during conference presentation.
Cobb and Smith (2008) highlight networks, shared vision, and mutual accountability as key factors for the scale-up of changes and impact in teacher education.
Teacher networks are described, for example, as groups of colleagues who provide social support in developing demanding instructional practices; this affords time built into the school schedule for collaboration among mathematics teachers and access to colleagues who have already developed relatively accomplished instructional practices.
Moreover, a shared vision of high quality instruction fosters the scale-up of impact: this includes a shared vision concerning the question of instructional goals (what students should know and be able to do) and the question how students' development of these forms of knowing can be supported.
Another key factor which fosters the scale-up of changes and impact in teacher education is mutual accountability: This means, for example: if school leaders hold teachers accountable for developing high-quality instructional practices, then – in turn – school leaders are mutually accountable to teachers for supporting teachers’ learning.
Rogers (2003) highlights that the diffusion and scale-up of innovations and impact depend on several characteristics: Relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Fullan (2001) describes similar characteristics (need, clarity, complexity, quality, and practicality) that influence the acceptance and impact of innovations. During conference presentation, these characteristics will be provided in detail.
The professional development programme PFL
PFL (a German language acronym which means “Pedagogy and Subject Didactics for Teachers”) is an Austrian professional development programme (for more detail, see Rauch, Zehetmeier, & Erlacher, 2014), which is designed for teachers from all types of school, including all age groups of pupils. The overall focus of PFL is on the professional development of teachers in the fields of content, didactics and pedagogy. School development plays a central role without losing sight of classroom instruction. The focus is on the individual teachers’ own reflective practice using action research methods (Altrichter, Feldman, Posch, & Somekh, 2008). Participants are part of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), since their work is embedded in a structure of mutual assistance and external support.
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions (2nd Edition). London, UK: Routledge. Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). The challenge of scale: Designing schools and districts as learning organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics. In K. Krainer, & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 231-254). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd edition). New York: Teachers College Press. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Sowder, J. (2007). The Mathematical Education and Development of Teachers. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 157-223). Greenwich, CT: NCTM. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Rauch, F., Zehetmeier, S., & Erlacher, W. (2014). 30 Years of Educational Reform Through Action Research: Traces in the Austrian School System. In T. Stern et al. (Eds.), Bringing a different world into existence: Action research as a trigger for innovations. London: Routledge. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Zehetmeier, S. & Krainer, K. (2011). Ways of promoting the sustainability of mathematics teachers’ professional development. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6/7), 875-887. Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung [The sustainability of teacher professional development]. Doctoral thesis. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt. Zehetmeier, S. (2014). The others’ voice: Availing other disciplines’ knowledge about sustainable impact of professional development programmes. TME – The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1).
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.