How To Sustain And Scale Up The Impact Of Professional Development Programmes?
Author(s):
Stefan Zehetmeier (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2015
Network:
01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Format:
Paper

Session Information

01 SES 02 A, Professional Development Programmes

Paper Session

Time:
2015-09-08
15:15-16:45
Room:
203.Oktatóterem [C]
Chair:
Stefan Zehetmeier

Contribution

This contribution deals with a crucial question: which factors influence the sustainability and scale-up of teacher professional development (PD) programmes' impact?

The question of how to promote teachers’ PD is of great interest and has been discussed in various papers (e.g. Krainer and Zehetmeier 2013; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1996; Maldonado 2002; Sowder 2007; Zehetmeier 2010, 2014; Zehetmeier and Krainer 2011). In this context, the question of impact is of particular relevance. Evaluations and impact analyses of PD programmes are mostly conducted during or at the end of a project and exclusively provide results regarding short-term effects. These findings are highly relevant for critical reflection of the terminated project and necessary for the conception of similar projects in the future (Fullan 2006). However, apart from and beyond that, an analysis of sustainable effects is crucial (Loucks-Horsley et al. 1996). Despite its central importance for both teachers and teacher educators, research on sustainable impact is generally lacking within teacher education disciplines (Rogers 2003). This kind of sustainability analysis is often missing because of a lack of material, financial and personal resources (Hargreaves 2002). This contribution addresses the factors which influence the sustainability and scale-up of professional development programmes' impact.

In this contribution, theoretical models and empirical findings from impact research (e.g. Zehetmeier and Krainer 2011) and innovation research (e.g. Cobb and Smith 2008; Rogers 2003) are combined, with the aim to use them as a theoretical framework for the analysis of data. In particular, this framework is used to discuss the questions concerning sustaining and scaling up the impact of teacher PD programmes.

This contribution uses a comprehensive theoretical model covering the issue of impact of professional development programmes: the IPD (Impact of Professional Development) model (Zehetmeier 2008; Zehetmeier and Krainer 2011), which combines and integrates theories and results of previous research activities on this topic. It was developed based on a literature review (Zehetmeier 2008) and offers a structured overview regarding existing knowledge and concepts of the topic. Within this model, core elements constituting PD activities (participating teachers, participating facilitators, the programme itself, and the context) and central levels of possible impact (knowledge, beliefs and practice) are juxtaposed; the impact of PD programmes can be regarded as changes or innovations within the respective levels, which are influenced by fostering factors.

Empirical evidence concerning the question of scaling up the impact of PD programmes points to the finding that “prior large-scale improvement efforts ... have rarely produced lasting changes in either teachers’ instructional practices or the organization of schools” (Cobb and Smith 2008, p. 232). Thus, it seems reasonable to focus on factors which might foster the broad effects and scale-up of PD programmes’ impact. 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.

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.

Method

In this contribution different types of data sources (document analyses and interview series) are combined in order to describe as well as explain a particular PD programme’s various impacts on different levels, according to the theoretical framework. This methodological design was set up with the aim of identifying hypotheses concerning the research question, using a qualitative explorative case study setting. The contribution will present the cases of two former participants (Eve and Paul) of an Austrian PD programme who provided data concerning their ex-post perspectives regarding the sustainability and scale-up of the programme’s impact. The study includes data from various sources and time periods to gain validity by “convergence of evidence” (Yin 2003, p. 100). This research makes use of a case study design (Stake 1995; Yin 2003), which is particularly suited for impact analysis (Rogers 2003). Here, the aim is not to elaborate the number (and variance) of impacts, but to describe and explain what kinds (and variability) of impact occur. In this sense, Hancock and Algozzine (2006) state: “Through case studies, researchers hope to gain in-depth understanding of situations and meaning for those involved” (p. 11). Both inductive and deductive elements of data analysis are used. In a first step, data from teachers’ written documents was coded inductively, according to the research question. In the next step, the interviews were planned and conducted. This data was coded both inductively and deductively in order to be able to combine and contrast the interview results with those of the document analysis. Data was analysed according the theoretical framework to understand both the impacts’ sustainability and scale-up, as well as the respective influencing factors. Data analysis was based on principles of qualitative content analysis: data summary, data explication and data structuring (Mayring 2003, p. 58). In particular, inductive category building was used to identify common topics, to elaborate emerging categories, and to gain deeper insight into the impacts’ development over time.

Expected Outcomes

The case studies highlight that some influencing factors are within the PD programme’s realm, while some other factors lie beyond the programme’s direct influence. It seems reasonable for PD programmes which aim at sustaining and scaling up the impact to focus not only on the “inner” factors, but also on the factors “beyond”. In particular, the case studies’ data points to context factors as being crucial for sustainability and scale-up. However, these context factors may not be under the control of the particular PD programme. In some cases, context factors may serve as a kind of mediator between teachers’ intended and implemented change processes. Thus, it would be reasonable to integrate each programme’s context factors explicitly into its conception, realization and evaluation. If some of these factors are dependent on the PD programme’s existence, then these factors may be substituted or backed up with alternative ones that are less or not at all connected to the programme’s existence. Moreover, for programmes aiming at sustainable and scaled-up impact, it seems indicated that they should foster a supportive and actively involved school leadership; particularly regarding related hindering factors such as staff turnover, this issue becomes highly relevant. In the case of Eve, the sustainability of impact as well as the institutionalization of innovations and the ongoing use within the organizational structures could be continued since the teachers developed a reasonable system for dealing with staff turnover. In the case of Paul, both staff turnover and lacking interest led to the termination of cooperative practices. Upcoming impact analyses appear to be necessary and promising; from the perspective of both scholarship and practice.

References

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: Sense Publishers. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd edition). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122. Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: the role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189–214. Krainer, K., & Zehetmeier, S. (2013). Inquiry-based learning for pupils, teachers, researchers, and representatives of educational administration and policy: reflections on a nation-wide initiative fostering educational innovations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 875–886. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: a synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1(1), 1–6. Maldonado, L. (2002). Effective professional development. Findings from research. Retrieved 18.1.2014 from www.collegeboard.com. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. 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. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung [The sustainability of teacher professional development]. Doctoral thesis. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt. Zehetmeier, S. (2010). The sustainability of professional development. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1951–1960). Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique (INRP). Zehetmeier, S. (2014). The others’ voice: availing other disciplines’ knowledge about sustainable impact of professional development programmes. TME – The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1). Zehetmeier, S., & Krainer, K. (2011). Ways of promoting the sustainability of mathematics teachers’ professional development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(6/7), 875–887.

Author Information

Stefan Zehetmeier (presenting / submitting)
University of Klagenfurt
Klagenfurt

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • 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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.