RESEARCH QUESTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In most papers that put an emphasis on the impact of teachers’ professional development programmes, teachers’ learning is the main focus (see e.g., Guskey, 2000; Lipowsky, 2010; Sowder, 2007; Zehetmeier, 2008). The major indicators for describing teachers’ learning are their knowledge, beliefs, and practice. However, the situation is rather complex since each of these notions can be defined in different ways:
Teachers’ knowledge, for example, can be differentiated into content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987); it can also be regarded as knowledge about learning and teaching processes, assessment, evaluation methods, and classroom management (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005).
Similarly, teachers’ beliefs can include different aspects of beliefs about a subject, and its teaching and learning (e.g., Leder, Pehkonen, & Törner, 2002). It includes also the participating teachers’ perceived professional growth and their satisfaction (Lipowsky, 2004, 2010), their perceived efficacy (Ingvarson et al., 2005), and the teachers’ opinions and values (Bromme, 1997).
At the teachers’ practice level, the focus is on various kinds of classroom activities and structures, teaching and learning strategies, methods, or contents (see e.g., Ingvarson et al., 2005).
Zehetmeier (2008) points out that the complexity of possible impact is not fully covered by this taxonomy. For example, results of an impact analysis (Zehetmeier, 2010) in the context of the Austrian professional development project IMST (see e.g., Krainer, 2008) show that the project made impact also on students’ beliefs or other – non participating – teachers’ practice. So the taxonomy of levels of impact needs to be extended. Other aspects that also could be considered are the learning of teacher educators and of other relevant environments of professional development programmes, like participating teachers’ colleagues, their principals, their school, etc.
A model that comprises this rather wide range of possible levels of impact is the IPD-model (Impact of Professional Development model; Zehetmeier, 2008, 2009, 2010). This model uses the categories knowledge, beliefs, and practice to analyse the impact not only on the teachers’ level but also on other in-school levels like pupils, colleagues, principals, or parents. Moreover, this model considers beyond-school levels to analyse the impact of professional development projects: e.g., other schools, media, policy, or scholarship (see Zehetmeier, 2010). Besides this extended taxonomy of possible levels of impact, the IPD-model also includes an overview concerning factors fostering the impact of professional development projects (see e.g., Zehetmeier & Krainer, 2011). Moreover, the IPD-model opens the scope for various types of impact (e.g., short-term or long-term; planned or unintended) on different levels (e.g., new knowledge, changed beliefs, or new teaching practices).

Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln des Lehrers [Expertise, tasks and instructional practice of teachers]. In F. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Band 3. Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule (pp. 177-212). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1-28. Krainer, K. (2008). Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology Teaching. In J. Vincent, J. Dowsey & R. Pierce (Eds.), Connected Maths. MAV Annual Conference 2008 (pp. 199-212). Brunswick, Vic: The Mathematical Association of Victoria (MAV). Leder, G., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung. [Empirical results regarding the impact of teacher professional development]. In F.H. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen. Konzepte und Befunde der Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 51-72). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung [The sustainability of teacher professional development]. Doctoral thesis. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt. Zehetmeier, S. (2009). Analysing the impact of teachers’ research in their classrooms. In F. Spagnolo (Ed.), Proceedings CIEAEM 61 – Montréal, Quebéc, Canada, July 26-31, 2009 (pp. 455-458). Palermo, Italy: Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo. Zehetmeier, S. (2010). Aktionsforschung in der Lehrerfortbildung: Was bleibt? [Action research in teacher education. What remains?] In F.H. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen. Konzepte und Befunde der Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 197-211). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. 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.