Research

Comings-07.
qxd 2/2/2007 7:20 PM Page 205
7
Research on Professional
Development and Teacher Change:
Implications for Adult Basic
Education
Cristine Smith and Marilyn Gillespie
There is no doubt that the current educational climate is driven by an over-

riding concern with student achievement and what promotes it. This is
true in K–12 education and, increasingly, in adult basic education (ABE)
as well. The role of teachers in student achievement is central to this con-
cern. According to the U.S. Department of Education, “research confirms
that teachers are the single most important factor in raising student
achievement.”39 Higher standards for teachers accompany the push for
higher standards for students and greater accountability for student learn-
ing, and professional development is a critical link among new policies,
school reform, and improved educational practice (Knapp, 2003). In this
chapter we draw on the K–12 and adult literacy education research literature
39
See http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tools/initiative/factsheet.pdf.
205
Comings-07.qxd 2/2/2007 7:20 PM Page 206
206 SMITH AND GILLESPIE
to examine two topics: (a) what is known about what makes teacher pro-
fessional development effective, and (b) how teachers change as a result
of professional development. Before addressing these topics, we briefly
summarize a few of the key research studies that have underscored the
central role of teachers in student achievement.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT
In recent years, there has been growing recognition that teachers are the
most important factor in student achievement (Carey, 2004; Haycock,
1998). Support for this perspective comes from a landmark study on
teacher quality in Tennessee. Sanders and Rivers (1996) used student
achievement data for all teachers across the state of Tennessee to deter-
mine how “effective” teachers were,40 then tested and followed specific
students over several years. They found that students who performed
equally well in second grade, but had different teachers over the next 3
years, performed unequally by Year 5. Fifth graders who had “effective”
teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grades scored in the 83rd percentile in
Grade 5, but those students who studied in the third, fourth, and fifth
grades under the “ineffective” teachers scored much lower (the 29th per-
centile, a 54-point difference) by the end of fifth grade. Similarly, Sanders
and Rivers found that in 1 year, the most effective teachers could boost the
scores of their low-achieving students an average of 39 percentile points
compared to similar low-achieving students who had ineffective teachers.
One body of research in K–12 has investigated just what role preservice
preparation of teachers plays in teacher quality and student achievement. By
matching indicators of teacher preparation and background—such as certi-
fication, level of formal education, level of experience, degree in the subject
in which the teacher is teaching (i.e., a degree in math rather than a degree
in education), pedagogical knowledge, and cognitive and verbal ability—
with student test scores, researchers hope to isolate those characteristics of
40
Rather than defining an “effective” teacher by specific criteria, Sanders and Rivers
(1996) used more than 5 million records from Tennessee students who were tested each
year, Grades 3 through 8, in five subjects. With these data, they determined whether the
students in a given teacher’s class had more or less than a normal year’s academic growth
in a particular subject. Teachers were then classified as below average, average, or above
average in quality or “effectiveness.”
7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 207
teachers linked to higher student achievement. Results are, as yet, contra-

dictory. For example, one analysis (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002)
found that the formal preparation of the teacher (specifically, certification
and subject-matter degree) predicts higher student achievement. Teachers’
cognitive and verbal ability41 and knowledge of subject matter are not as
important to student achievement as teacher completion of a formal degree
in the subject matter and pedagogical knowledge.42 However, another
analysis proposed that teacher cognitive and verbal ability and content
knowledge are more important than certification or a master’s degree (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). Yet other analyses propose that it is not
individual teachers but the alignment of content standards, curriculum tied
to those content standards, teachers trained to use that curriculum, and
accountability that leads to student achievement43 (Whitehurst, 2002).
Other research has supported the notion that specific models of instruction
(e.g., Success for All, see Borman & Hewes, 2002; Direct Instruction, see
Gersten, Keating, & Becker, 1988; Open Court, see American Federation
of Teachers, 1998) can improve student achievement. Regardless of
whether it is the teacher’s background and qualifications, teaching method-
ologies, or alignment of standards with curriculum and accountability that
leads to student success, each of these depends on effective training and
preparation of teachers.
In this chapter we begin to frame our review of how teacher profes-
sional development can promote student learning by first summarizing the
state of professional development in ABE and grounding our discussion
in those realities. This includes an overview of the professional develop-
ment ABE44 teachers currently receive and the conditions that affect their
ability to get and use professional development to improve what they do
in the classroom. We then draw on both K–12 and adult education
research to discuss teacher professional development from the perspective
of two prevalent models of professional development: traditional and
41
As measured by teacher licensing tests and college aptitude tests.
42
As measured by teacher licensing tests.
43
“For standards-based reform to work there is reason to think that two additional com-
ponents are necessary: 1) teachers must be provided with curriculum that is aligned with
the standards and assessments; and 2) teachers must have professional development to
deliver that curriculum” (Whitehurst, 2002).
44
ABE includes adult basic literacy instruction, adult secondary education and general
educational development (GED) preparation, and instruction for adult English-language
learners.
job-embedded. For each of these models, we examine research findings

that indicate what makes the model effective or ineffective, followed by a
brief discussion of the current emphasis on standards-based teaching and
learning and how each of the two models have been used to provide pro-
fessional development in standards-based education. We then look at key
factors at the individual, school or program, and system level that influ-
ence how teachers change through professional development and con-
clude with implications for professional development practice, policy, and
further research.
T H E S TAT E O F P R O F E S S I O N A L
D E V E L O P M E N T I N A D U LT
B A S I C E D U C AT I O N
Although teachers who work in ABE programs are similar in many ways
to K–12 teachers, there are several basic differences:
Adult basic education teachers work mostly part time. In their study
of more than 2,600 local ABE programs, Young, Fleischman, Fitzgerald,
and Morgan (1995) found that 36% of programs do not have any full-time
staff (teaching or administration), 59% do not have even one full-time
instructional staff member, and the ratio of part-time to full-time teachers
is 4 to 1. In addition, teachers who want to work full time in ABE where
no such jobs are available often piece together part-time ABE jobs at more
than one site, or with more than one organization (Smith & Hofer, 2003).
Teachers’ part-time status presents challenges for teacher professional
development, including limitations on the time teachers have available for
professional development, opportunities for integrating what has been
learned into instruction, and time available for collaboration with col-
leagues.
Adult basic education teachers may leave the field more often than do
K–12 teachers. High teacher turnover is a concern in K–12 education;
however, turnover rates within adult education might be even higher.
Currently, no national data related to teacher turnover in ABE have yet
been collected. According to the 1995 National Evaluation of Adult
Education programs (Young et al., 1995), although 80% of full-time
teachers had taught in adult education for more than 3 years, a little more
than half of all part-time instructors had taught for fewer than 3 years.
A survey by Sabatini and colleagues (2000)45 of 423 adult education

teachers—of whom almost 60% were full-time teachers—indicated that
about 40% had taught in the field fewer than 5 years. In their sample, 43% of
part-time teachers (which constitute the bulk of the national population of
adult education teachers) had been in the field fewer than 5 years. Out
of 104 ABE teachers in one study, 21% were no longer teaching in an
adult education program 18 months after the study began (Smith, Hofer,
Gillespie, Solomon, & Rowe, 2003).
Adult basic education teachers are often required to teach in multiple

subject areas. The National Evaluation of Adult Education programs
(Young et al., 1995) also found that more than 55% of teachers teach more
than one instructional component, including a combination of adult basic
education (ABE, pre-GED,46 GED, or English for students of other lan-
guages [ESOL]). These teachers must master multiple content areas. For
example, to effectively teach ABE, a teacher may need to know how to teach
basic reading, writing, and math at the elementary level. If that same teacher
also teaches pre-GED or GED preparation, he or she must also understand
subject matter related to high school equivalency-level language arts, math,
writing, science, and social studies. Depending on their instructional context,
teachers may also be expected to address other topics, such as workplace or
family literacy. Teachers in culturally diverse settings must also be able to
address specific knowledge and attitudes that are relevant to teaching
English-language learners, such as basic issues of bilingualism and second-
language development; the nature of language proficiency; the role of the
first language and culture in learning; and how their own and learner attitudes
and beliefs about language, culture, and race impact teaching and learning
(Clair & Adger, 1999). They may also be required to integrate language and
content-area instruction, such as teaching math to English-language learners.
45
This was a self-response survey study, which specifically attempted to target “profes-
sional” teachers; sampling was done by mailing surveys to state-identified “quality” pro-
grams in large states with greater numbers of full-time teachers, making the self-selected
sample deliberately skewed toward more full-time teachers. The final sample was 59% full
time, 41% part time (Sabatini et al., 2000), a full-time/part-time ratio substantially differ-
ent from the U.S. Department of Education 1998 data on numbers of part-time and full-
time adult education personnel: 13% of state-administered adult education program
personnel (including administrators) are full time, so the percentage of full-time teachers
is probably considerably less than 13%. Thirty-nine percent of personnel were part time
and 48% were volunteers (see www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/98personnel.html).
46
Pre-GED adult students read at approximately the 5–8 grade level, although the exact
definition varies state by state.
Whereas the majority of adult basic education teachers are qualified

to, and have taught in K–12, they have scant formal education related to
teaching adults. The 1995 National Evaluation of Adult Education pro-
grams found that 40% of full-time and 33% of part-time instructors had
master’s degrees or higher (Young et al., 1995). The majority of the adult
education teachers in their sample were at one time K–12 teachers.
However, what is not known is whether these teachers had training in the
specific subject areas they were teaching in adult education (e.g., ESOL,
reading, or math). The same study also found that only 18% of full-time
staff and 8% of part-time staff were specifically certified in adult educa-
tion. A recent study of more than 100 ABE teachers in New England
(Smith et al., 200347) found that more than half of the sample (53%)
reported that they had not completed any formal coursework in adult edu-
cation (undergraduate or graduate courses in adult education, ABE, adult
literacy, or ESOL). Of all the teachers (one quarter of whom identified
themselves as ESOL teachers) in this study, less than 20% had partici-
pated in three or more formal courses in the field of adult education.
Teachers of adults need specific competence in areas such as how to help
adults become self-directed learners, how to enhance adult learning by
relating what is learned to adults’ previous life experiences, and how to
teach adults immediate applications to life outside the classroom
(Sherman, Tibbetts, Woodruff, & Weidler, 1999). Teachers who have
content knowledge but lack an understanding of how to apply their
knowledge and skills to teaching adult learners require different kinds of
training than those who lack both content-related knowledge and an
understanding of methods for teaching adults. Moreover, it is not known
how many ABE teachers have completed formal coursework to prepare
them to work with students with learning disabilities, which is of partic-
ular importance given the increasing recognition that as many as 40% to
50% of adults in adult education programs, social services programs, or
employment-seeking programs may have learning disabilities (National
Institute for Literacy, n.d.).
47
This study, How Teachers Change: A Study of Professional Development in Adult
Education, sponsored by the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy,
is the only recent intervention study related to professional development specifically con-
ducted with ABE and literacy teachers. Therefore, it is cited frequently throughout this
chapter.
In-service preparation is adult basic education teachers’ primary

form of professional development. The K–12 system has a well-developed
method of preparing and certifying future teachers through higher-education-
based teacher education and master’s programs; potential K–12 teachers
who invest time and money in such programs do so in the belief that their
investment will lead to a stable, living-wage career in education. In adult
education, in-service professional development is often the only prepara-
tion that teachers receive, as there are few master’s programs specifically
focused on ABE, and most teachers are not required to be certified specif-
ically in teaching adults or formally trained in teaching adults before they
begin teaching. One survey of states (Tolbert, 2001) found that only nine
states require adult education teachers to get preservice training specifi-
cally related to teaching adults. Therefore, the ABE field depends on
in-service professional development to expose teachers to specific theories,
methodologies, and approaches to helping adults learn.
Adult basic education teachers are not consistently funded to partic-

ipate in in-service professional development. In their survey of all
states’ use of federal monies for ABE professional development, RMC
Research Corporation (1996) conducted interviews with state administra-
tors, trainers, and more than 1,000 adult educators. They found that 80% of
ABE practitioners surveyed attended at least some professional develop-
ment the year prior to the survey (1994); of these, 57% attended a confer-
ence.48 There was no difference in participation between full-time and
part-time practitioners, but those 20% who received no training were more
likely to be younger, have fewer academic degrees, and be less experienced.
In many cases, the amount of in-service professional development is lim-
ited. Smith and colleagues (2003) found that 73% of their sample (N = 104)
received 3 days or fewer of paid professional development release time
annually, and 23% received none.
48
By comparison, 99% of K–12 teachers participated in some staff development over
the past year, according to a national survey (Lewis et al., 1999). They were most likely to
attend training, workshops, or conferences (95% of public school teachers and 87% of pri-
vate school teachers; Choy, Chen, & Bugarin, 2006). In another national survey, 85%
reported having attended some staff development in the past year (National Education
Goals Panel Report, 1999); however, another study reported that 50% of teachers in one
national survey attended fewer than 2 days of staff development per year (Wenglinsky,
2000).
Adult basic education teachers have access mostly to short-term

training and conferences. Professional development attended by adult
education practitioners is typically organized at the state rather than the local
level (Wilson & Corbett, 2001). Although it varies by state, much of the pro-
fessional development attended by adult education practitioners is offered at
centrally organized workshops and conferences rather than in local or pro-
gram settings. The predominant form of professional development in ABE is
short-term training and single-session workshops (Crocker, 1987; Kutner,
Herman, Stephenson, & Webb, 1991; Tibbetts, Kutner, Hemphill, & Jones,
1991; Tolbert, 2001). Even with the advent of alternative forms of profes-
sional development, the reliance on this model persists. In their national study
of professional development, RMC Research Corporation (1996) found that
single-session workshops accounted for 38% of all professional development
activities, followed by institutes or courses (24%), and statewide or regional
conferences (11%). Only 27% of activities were alternative kinds of profes-
sional development, such as study groups, on-site technical assistance, or
independent study. Conferences also accounted for 40% of the money spent,
even though they accounted for only 11% of the activities.
Systemic constraints hinder adult basic education teachers’ ability to

participate in professional development. The difficulty of providing
high-quality professional development in adult education is exacerbated
by the structure of the system itself. Teachers in adult education are hin-
dered by factors that make it hard for them to know what professional
development opportunities are available, and then to participate (Burt &
Keenan, 1998). After interviewing 60 adult education “decision makers”
and practitioners from 10 states, Wilson and Corbett (2001) found the
most important hindering factors included the following:
• Time constraints. Working part time makes it hard for teachers to

participate regularly or for extended periods of time.
• Financial constraints. Often teachers are not paid to participate in
professional development.
• Distance. Professional development is not offered locally through
the program but at state-organized, centrally located venues, which
requires practitioners to travel.
• Information gaps. Teachers often teach in decentralized locations
and have infrequent contact with other practitioners in and out of
the program. They may not hear about professional development
unless their program directors or other supervisors who serve as

“gatekeepers” pass information along.
• Lack of face-to-face interaction. Due to the part-time nature of
staff, in many programs staff meetings are rare, so teachers have
limited opportunities to meet and talk.
• Mismatch of goals. There may be a mismatch between the goals of
the professional development and individual practitioners’ profes-
sional interests. This may result from the diversity of settings and
instructional contexts in which teachers work, or can be due to dif-
fering perspectives on the overall goals of adult education; for
example, between preparing students to pass a test, such as the
GED, or preparing them for civic, work, and family life.
Wilson and Corbett (2001) concluded that:
Currently, the conditions of the ABE occupation are such that those in the
field will never be able to participate systematically in the very activities
they see as necessary to doing their jobs well. Educators claim the desire
for professional development is present; readily accessible opportunities to
fulfill that desire are most notably not. (p. 26)
Taken together, the conditions just described create a challenging context

for ABE teachers to access the professional development they need to pre-
pare to teach adults. Thus, it is even more important that the professional
development teachers are able to attend be as effective as possible.
C O N T RA S T I N G M O D E L S O F P R O F E S S I O N A L
DEVELOPMENT
Although the situational and resource constraints in ABE make it difficult to

implement the type of professional development often tested in K–12 profes-
sional development research, there is so little research on the effectiveness of
ABE professional development that we must learn what we can from K–12
research. In this section, we frame our discussion around the two most
commonly researched K–12 professional development models—traditional
professional development and job-embedded professional development—
and provide an overview of the evidence of their effectiveness.
1. Traditional professional development. This model consists of work-
shops, conference sessions, seminars, lectures, and other short-term
training events. We describe this as traditional professional develop-

ment because it is the standard, most commonly offered type of
professional development in both K–12 (Elmore, 2002) and in ABE
(RMC, 1996).
2. Job-embedded professional development. This approach, which
became popular in the 1990s, locates training within the school,
program, or local context. Activities such as study circles or inquiry
groups allow teachers greater participation in shaping the content
of instruction and also provide them with the opportunity to inves-
tigate problems of student learning more closely tied to their own
contexts. This model emerged in K–12, in part, as a response to the
research identifying the ineffective features of traditional profes-
sional development, and it is not yet common in the ABE context.
Although there is, of course, overlap between these two models of profes-
sional development, they can be distinguished by different goals, formats,
and content, as shown in Table 7.1.
Although there is not much argument that professional develop-
ment can help teachers gain new knowledge and adopt new practices
(Whitehurst, 2002), opinions differ concerning the factors—professional
development model, school or program context, system or policy direc-
tives—that must be in place for teacher learning and change to take place.
By comparing and contrasting these two models, we illustrate that profes-
sional development, like all other educational efforts, is subject to changes
in direction, paradigm, philosophy, and approach, sometimes driven by
policy changes and sometimes driven by advances in the knowledge base
as a result of research.
The Traditional Professional Development Model
Short-term or one-session workshops, trainings, seminars, lectures, and

conference sessions are the mainstay of the traditional professional devel-
opment model. School districts, professional agencies, and teacher-train-
ing colleges (or, in ABE, state professional development systems) offer a
menu of topics such as cooperative learning or classroom management,
and training on topic areas such as math, science, or language. Teachers,
sometimes in conjunction with their school or program leadership, choose
to attend specific activities throughout the year, depending on their
availability, interest, need for continuing education units as part of
recertification efforts, or motivation to learn more about the topic.
TABLE 7.1
Models of Professional Development
Traditional Professional Job-Embedded Professional
Features Development Development
Primary goal Increase individual teacher Improve student learning, help

general knowledge, skills, teachers with specific teaching
and teaching competency; problems they face
introduce new instructional
models or methodologies
Location (“site” is Mostly off-site On-site
school or program)
Intensity Single session or series Long-term, ongoing
Common format of Workshops, seminars, confer- Study circles, practitioner
this professional ences research, inquiry projects
development
Content for this pro- Range of knowledge and Student thinking and learning
fessional development skills teachers should know (examining student work), teach-
and be able to do (competen- ing problems
cies, special issues, new
approaches to teaching)
Research related to Joyce & Showers (1995), Ball & Cohen (1999), Little,
this model Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Gearheart, Curry, & Kafka
Love, & Stiles (1998) (2003)
This model, which has dominated K–12 professional development for

decades, is based on the belief that students will benefit when teachers
acquire competencies and good teaching behavior over their career
(Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985). By being exposed to new information
and approaches emerging from research and developments in the field of
education, teachers will change their thinking and adopt behaviors that
lead to student achievement.
There is a significant amount of research on this model, partially
because it is the most common and enduring. Although this model has
some benefits, such as being more easily planned, overall K–12 research
in this area indicates that short-term workshops and trainings leave much
to be desired. For example, in one study of 31 K–12 teachers attending a
6-day workshop on “effective teaching,” teachers implemented only 3 out
of 18 concepts and strategies, and were more likely to just “bolt on” new
strategies to existing practices (“horizontal” integration of new ideas),
rather than to really change their existing beliefs and practices (“vertical”
integration; Gardner, 1996). In their study of one school, Joyce, Wolf, and
Calhoun (1993) found that K–12 teachers, even with extensive training,
only adopted 10% of practices learned in professional development,
unless the training was followed by coaching or action research. Even in
cases in which what is learned is implemented at first, research by
Stallings and Krasavage (1986) of 11 teachers in two California schools
shows that implementation of new practices declined over the long term if
teacher excitement and momentum was not maintained by the profes-
sional development effort, and that this caused a corresponding downward
turn in student achievement. One longitudinal study of K–12 professional
development (Porter, Garet, Desimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000), using
self-reports of change from 287 teachers, found “little change in overall
teaching practice” after 3 years. The authors found that “teachers changed
little in terms of the content they teach, the pedagogy they use to teach it,
and their emphasis on performance goals for students,” although some
individual teachers did sometimes show moderate change. Porter and his
colleagues felt that their findings “add support to the concept that both
teaching and professional development are typically individual experi-
ences” for teachers (p. ES-10). Elmore (2002), a critic of traditional pro-
fessional development, claims that it is a “gargantuan task” (p. 25) for
teachers to apply what they have learned in an off-site workshop once
back in their classrooms and isolated from other teachers.
Given its prevalence in education, however, recent K–12 reviews and
studies have outlined the design elements and conditions under which
the traditional professional development model can be most successful
at promoting change or affecting student achievement (Knapp, 2003). A
summary of the K–12 research indicates that professional development
within the traditional model can be more effective if it is designed to:
• Be of longer duration. Professional development is more effective in

changing teachers’ practice (at least as self-reported) when it is of
longer duration (Porter et al., 2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
Longer term professional development permits more time for teach-
ers to learn about their own practice, especially if it includes follow-
up (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). In their
study of ABE teacher change, Smith and colleagues (2003) found a
direct and positive correlation between the number of hours teachers
participated in professional development activity and the amount and
type of change related to the topic of the professional development
they demonstrated in the following year. Studies of the professional
development of K–12 educators teaching English-language learners
have also shown that creating change in teachers is a time-consuming

process that requires many meetings and workshops over an extended
period of time (Anderson, 1997; Calderón & Marsh, 1988; Ruiz,
Rueda, Figueroa, & Boothroyd, 1995).
• Make a strong connection between what is learned in the profes-
sional development and the teacher’s own work context. This is
especially relevant if the professional development is organized
outside of the school (as most is). Professional development needs
to help teachers plan for application and to identify and strategize
barriers to application that they will face once back in their pro-
grams: “Devoting no time or little time for synthesis, integration,
and planning beyond the (professional development) program is
inadequate preparation for application. Helping participants antici-
pate and plan for barriers may facilitate practice changes” (Ottoson,
1997, p. 105).
• Focus on subject-matter knowledge. In K–12, a strong correlation
exists between student achievement in K–12 science and mathematics
and the level of knowledge of K–12 teachers in science and math
(Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, 2000).
Teachers themselves report that professional development focused on
content knowledge contributes to changes in instructional practice
(Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
• Include a strong emphasis on analysis and reflection, rather than just
demonstrating techniques. Guskey (1997, 1999) and Sparks (1994,
1995) advocated professional development that focuses on learning
rather than on teaching, on problem-solving and reflectiveness rather
than on acquiring new techniques, and on embedding change within
the program rather than on individual change. Carpenter, Fennema,
Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989), in an experimental study of 40
first-grade teachers, found that when teachers were introduced—
through professional development—to the research on how students
learn math concepts and how children think about math, but were not
given specific teaching techniques, they were able to implement their
own strategies for teaching math, and student achievement improved,
compared to the students of teachers who did not attend this intensive
• Include a variety of activities. These might include theory, demon-
stration, practice, feedback, and classroom application (Joyce &
Showers, 1995; Mazzarella, 1980). If professional development is
short term or single session, it needs to be followed by assistance to
help teachers implement what they learned (Stein & Wang, 1988),
because “teachers are more likely to learn from direct observation
of practice and trial and error in their own classrooms than they are
from abstract descriptions of teaching” (Elmore, 1996, p. 24).
Professional development should also follow principles of adult
learning: establish a supportive environment, acknowledge teach-
ers’ prior experience, help teachers consider how new learning
applies to their specific teaching situation, and encourage teachers
to make their implicit knowledge about teaching (their “craft
knowledge”) explicit (Gardner, 1996). In their multiyear study of
more than 700 K–12 bilingual teachers who participated in multi-
district training focused on literacy development, Calderón and
Marsh (1988) found that to ensure that the training would be used,
it is necessary to present theory, model the instructional strategies,
and give teachers the opportunity to practice with feedback and
extensive support.
• Encourage teachers from the same workplace to participate together.
“Professional development is more effective when teachers partici-
pate with others from their school, grade, or department” (Porter et al.,
2000, p. ES-9). In research on adult basic education professional
development, Smith and colleagues (2003) also found that teachers
from the same adult basic education program participating together
in professional development changed their thinking and acting more
after the professional development, as compared to teachers who
participated without other teachers from their workplace.
• Focus on quality and features of professional development, rather
than on format or type. Research indicates that the model or type of
professional development matters little, as long as it has features of
high-quality training. A survey of 1,027 teachers (Garet et al., 2001)
found that the most important professional development features
for increasing knowledge and self-reported changes in practice
were a focus on content knowledge; opportunities for hands-on,
active learning; and greater coherence (professional development
was aligned with other professional development activities or with
state or district standards). The authors concluded: “To improve pro-
fessional development, it is more important to focus on the duration,
collective participation, and the core features (i.e., content, active
learning, and coherence) than type” (Garet et al., 2001, p. 936).
Smith and colleagues (2003), in their study of 100 ABE teachers
participating in up to 18 hours of professional development that
addressed the issue of adult student persistence (how to help adult

students continue to work toward their educational goals), con-
cluded that type of professional development (multisession work-
shop, mentor teacher group, or practitioner research group) was not
as important as the amount and quality of professional development
teachers attended; high-quality professional development was char-
acterized by strong facilitation, good group dynamics among the
teachers participating, and flexible but clear adherence to the pro-
fessional development design.
The Job-Embedded Professional Development Model
Professional development under the job-embedded model is located

within a school, program, or other local context as part of an effort to cre-
ate ongoing professional communities (Hord, 1997). Schools and pro-
grams develop site-based learning communities where professional
development is woven into the fabric of the school community, balanced
at times with the cross-fertilization of new ideas from outside the school
(Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). Professional develop-
ment activities include study circles, sharing groups, or inquiry groups
made up of teachers from the same school or division. The focus is on
developing teacher knowledge in the content area, analyzing student
thinking, and identifying how that knowledge can be applied to changes
in instructional practices tailored to the local educational context.
Teachers participating in this type of professional development model
often work together over extended periods of time (a year or more), bring-
ing in and examining “artifacts of teaching” (Ball & Cohen, 1999). These
include examples of student work that teachers analyze to discover what
it tells them about student thinking and learning. The difference between
traditional and job-embedded professional development is that “in con-
ventional forms of in-service training and staff development, outside
experts do most of the talking and teachers do the listening.” In “new”
approaches to professional development, “teachers do the talking, thinking
and learning” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1042).
This model, which gained popularity in the 1990s, is rooted in the
belief that students will benefit when teachers are knowledgeable about
their subject matter and about the problems students face in their learning.
When teachers study students’ work together with other teachers and try
new tactics to address teaching and learning problems, students achieve
more. Proponents of this model claim that professional development cannot
be viewed as an event that occurs on certain days in the school year, but
rather must be part of the daily work of teachers, administrators, and oth-
ers in the system. This approach is supported by a growing body of cog-
nitive science research on the conditions that facilitate the building of
expertise. This research is built on the findings of studies of adults who
had moved from being a novice to being an expert in their fields, such as
science, mathematics, and chess. The research stresses the importance of
supporting learners to activate their prior knowledge related to a topic they
want to learn; to explicitly monitor new learning in light of their past
experiences; and to evaluate how the new learning transfers into real-
world practices. Studies show that to develop expertise, individuals need
to develop not only factual knowledge but also procedural knowledge of
when, how, and under what conditions to use their new skills. This kind of
knowledge can only be developed by actually practicing the new skills
and then reflecting on those practices (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,
1999; Greeno, Resnick, & Collins, 1997).
Recent K–12 research demonstrates the effectiveness of the job-embedded
model when it includes:
• A focus on helping teachers to study their students’ thinking, not

just try new techniques. Carpenter and Franke (1998), studying 22
math and science teachers, found that change was sustained over
longer periods of time when math teachers were trained and sup-
ported to really understand what their students were thinking, and
teachers had a base from which to generalize practices to other sit-
uations and continue learning. Ancess (2000), interviewing 66
teachers in three high schools, identified teacher inquiry about stu-
dent learning and student work as a powerful tool for changing
teacher practice and ultimately changing school structure.
• Collaborative learning activities among teachers. Langer (2000), in
a qualitative study of 25 schools (44 teachers in 14 high-performing
schools and 11 average-performing schools) over 5 years concluded
that professional development contributes to high performance when
it focuses not on individual teachers but on groups of teachers within
schools, especially where school culture supports the “professional
lives” of the teachers. Professional development schools constitute
another collaborative approach to teacher professional development
that is becoming popular in many teacher-education programs. In
this model, teacher-education students, cooperating teachers, and
university supervisors discuss and analyze classroom experiences
with the aim of combining forces to improve instruction (Neubert &

Binko, 1998).
• Activities in which teachers make use of student performance data.
In a longitudinal study of the impact of professional development in
13 schools, 92 teachers, and 733 students in Grades 2 through 5 in
high-poverty areas, Taylor and colleagues (2005) investigated the
effectiveness of job-embedded professional development on read-
ing scores, where teachers working together were introduced to the
research on reading instruction and analyzed their school’s reading
achievement data as part of a larger reform effort to improve read-
ing scores. Increased comprehension and fluency scores (after 2
years) were found in schools where teachers collaborated in reflec-
tive professional development and used data to improve their teach-
ing practice, aided by changes at the school level—effective school
leadership, commitment to the reform effort—that supported such
change.
• Help from facilitators to organize job-embedded professional
development. Because job-embedded professional development is a
new experience for many teachers, they need assistance to over-
come their natural reluctance to sharing their concerns and their
own and students’ work with other teachers in the sharing or inquiry
group. In addition, facilitators need training and support to guide
the group’s development over time. In their work with a small
group of math teachers in one school, Kazemi and Franke (2003)
found that teachers needed to learn how to examine student work
together, with a facilitator structuring teacher meetings to help them
focus specifically on the details of student work. Richardson and
Placier (2001), in their study of middle school teachers in six schools
participating together in inquiry groups to implement changes in
reading instruction, found that such groups go through stages of
development (introductory, breakthrough, empowerment), and that
a trained facilitator can help to guide such groups through initial
stages. McDonald (2001) described a variety of “protocols” or
methods for studying student work (some of which he used with
Connecticut K–12 teachers in a working group) to help teachers
learn how to speak with each other; one such protocol, called a
setaside, brings teachers together for 45 minutes “set aside” after
school to say what interests them in a child’s drawing, page of
math, or any other work collected from students that day, followed
by a general discussion among the teachers about students’ work.
The author claims that the “disciplined conversations” that follow

from using these structured discussion protocols help teachers learn
how to analyze student work without judging, and promote teachers’
beliefs about students’ potential for learning. Sharing or inquiry
groups also can benefit from the help of university experts or even
Web sites that can provide an infusion of information about research
or relevant instructional strategies when teachers feel the need to
look outside the group for solutions to challenging instructional
problems (Taylor et al., 2005).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN A
S TA N DA R D S - B A S E D E N V I R O N M E N T
Standards-based teaching and learning has gained momentum in K–12

education in the past decade as states have been required to comply with
mandated standards-based reform efforts associated with No Child Left
Behind legislation. The need to develop content standards (what students
should know and be able to do), curriculum matched to the standards, and
teaching approaches that will help students prepare for assessments based
on the standards has had a significant impact on the nature and delivery of
teacher professional development in many K–12 settings.
Understanding what effective standards-based professional development
looks like at the K–12 level is important for adult educators. Although they
are not yet mandated at the federal level, standards-based reform efforts
are increasingly being initiated by state adult education organizations (see
www.adultcontentstandards.org). Over the past 2 years, the Office of
Adult and Vocational Education at the U.S. Department of Education has
sponsored the Adult Education Content Standards Warehouse project to
assist states to build capacity in the development, alignment, and imple-
mentation of state adult education content standards in reading, mathe-
matics, and English-language acquisition. The U.S. Department of
Education also sponsors a Web site containing information about state ini-
tiatives and about Equipped for the Future, a national standards-based sys-
tem reform initiative sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy, to
share information among states and help them to either adopt or adapt
existing standards, or to develop their own (often with links to their state
K–12 standards in given content areas).
Professional development to help K–12 teachers implement standards-
based education often has features of both traditional and job-embedded
models. Reform, by its nature, takes intensive resources, and researchers
(Knapp, 2003; Stein & D’Amico, 2002) seem to agree that intensive profes-
sional development is key to changing not just policy but the “educational
core”: the way in which teachers and students interact in classrooms
around subject matter (Elmore, 1996). Combining features of both tradi-
tional and job-embedded professional development is part of what—in
comparison to the professional development that ABE teachers typically
receive—appears to be much more intensive training efforts to truly
change practice. For example, Stein and D’Amico (2002) described a
multiyear effort in New York City’s District 2 to improve literacy scores
through the adoption of a balanced literacy approach: Teachers attend a
multitude of professional development activities, including workshops,
observing expert teachers, a professional development lab (3 solid weeks
observing a mentor teacher), study groups, and grade-level, school-based
meetings with other teachers and the principal. Dutro, Fisk, Koch, Roop,
and Wixson (2002) described the professional development for imple-
menting English-language-arts curriculum frameworks in four school dis-
tricts in Michigan: 48 teachers participated in 2 week-long institutes, 4
days of training, 24 monthly meetings, workshops, and a conference. In a
San Francisco Unified School District reform project (Bye, 2004) to
upgrade services for limited-English-proficient students in Grades 6
through 12, 200 middle school and high school teachers participated in
various combinations of in-service workshops, week-long summer insti-
tutes, training and support to use new curricula, site-based inquiry semi-
nars, and certification training (although the report does not provide
information about the total number of professional development hours in
which teachers participated).
Despite serious investment in professional development as part of stan-
dards-based reform efforts, there is as yet little data on the effectiveness
of different “packages” of professional development supporting stan-
dards-based education, and recent research indicates that other contextual
features, such as school culture, leadership, and district policies, also have
an impact on how and whether such professional development is related
to improved student achievement. The existing research, however slim,
suggests that standards-based professional development contributes to
teacher change when it includes:
• Professional development linked to curriculum based on the stan-

dards. There is some research that indicates that professional devel-
opment linked to a standards-based initiative improves the possibility
that teachers will implement what they have learned in the classroom.
A study by Cohen and Hill (2000) investigated self-reports of teacher

changes in the practice of 1,000 teachers from 250 California schools
who attended either “special topics” workshops on topics of their
own choosing or attended “curriculum-related” professional develop-
ment that focused on the California Framework (a math curriculum)
and related assessments for fourth-grade math. They found that more
teachers who attended the curriculum-related professional develop-
ment reported the kind of classroom practice in mathematics that the
California Framework advocated, and that their students performed
better on the assessment.
• Leadership focused on reform of instruction, not just greater account-
ability. Although standards-based professional development programs
are making an effort to use the latest research on what makes training
effective, these programs face the same challenges as professional
development not connected to standards-based reform: the need for a
supportive school culture and leadership within the school. A recent
study of the impact of high-stakes accountability on teachers’ profes-
sional development in 24 southern schools (Berry, Turchi, & Johnson,
2003) revealed that although the accountability system did help teach-
ers to focus on the content to be taught, the professional development
experiences did not always build on what is known about best practices
within the content areas. Teacher collaboration did exist but it was often
incomplete and sporadic, rather than sustained with systematic follow-
up. School systems often did not have the organizational capacity to
help teachers direct their teaching toward better student outcomes. The
advances in system reform were tempered with concerns on the part of
teachers and administrators about the extent to which instruction under
the standards-based system had become too test driven, limiting teach-
ers’ opportunities for innovation and individual choice, as well as
requiring that teachers spend increasing amounts of time on assess-
ment-related activities. Successful professional development experi-
ences were most frequently driven by strong superintendents and
principals who were able to build organizational capacity to respond to
integrated system reform, rather than simply focusing professional
development on responding to high-stakes accountability assessments.
Taylor and colleagues (2005) also found that school leadership was an
important factor in improved student achievement among teachers in
13 different schools trying to implement research-based reading
instruction strategies.
• Multiple, district-wide efforts supportive of reform, in addition to

professional development for teachers. Professional development is
more likely to be effective when there is recognition that “profes-
sional learning is not the only condition supporting the improvement
of student learning” (Knapp, 2003). In a review of standards-based
efforts in Connecticut, New York City, and Kentucky, Knapp con-
cluded that standards-based professional development can serve as
an effective “pathway” to policy-instigated reform, under certain
conditions, including when:
• Administrators, as well as teachers, see themselves as learners.
• States and districts implement multiple successful strategies for
professional learning (strengthening professional community,
increasing instructional leadership capacity, bringing in external
partners such as researchers and professional associations).
• There is a recognition that it is not only what teachers learn and
do that supports the improvement of student learning, but also
when the standards, curriculum assessments, and accountability
system are linked and aligned.
It is also important to ensure that the needs of special populations, such as

language-minority learners and special education students are taken into
account.49
FA C T O R S A F F E C T I N G H O W T E A C H E R S
CHANGE
Teachers do not exist in a void; they are individuals with different back-
grounds and ambitions who work in varied school and system contexts. In
the same way that student achievement is affected by factors other than the
instruction they receive (including socioeconomic status, race, and class
size), teacher change is also affected by individual and school
factors that influence how they provide instruction. Although the teacher is
always the link between professional development and student achievement,
49
The publication Implementing the ESL Standards for PreK-12 Students Through
Teacher Education (available at http://www.cal.org/eslstandards/), for example, contains
guidance for assuring that the needs of language-minority children are taken into account.
The Center for Applied Linguistics (www.cal.org) maintains a searchable database of
information on how states, districts, and schools are working on standards-based educa-
tional reforms that include English-language learners.
teacher practice is only one of many factors affecting student learning.

Researchers call this the “dilution” effect of professional development: The
actual impact of the professional development is diluted by all of the other
factors that support or hinder teachers from making change. The dilution
effect is the primary criticism behind arguments against judging profes-
sional development according to process–product research (i.e., the process
of professional development does not always result in the product of student
achievement; Adey, 1995).
Several researchers have categorized factors that mediate the influence
of professional development. Guskey and Sparks (1996), for example, dis-
cussed three categories of factors:50
1. Content characteristics. “What” the professional development covers;

the credibility and scope of the practice or concept being conveyed.
2. Process variables. The “how” of professional development, the
models and type of follow-up.
3. Context characteristics. The who, when, where, and why of the
professional development; the organizational or system culture;
and expectations and incentives for using new practices.
Ottoson (1997) named five factors that affect “application” of what is

learned in training:
1. Educational factors. The characteristics of the professional develop-

ment, including quality of facilitation, organization, and methods.
2. Innovation. The ideas, practices, and strategies taught or suggested
to teachers during the professional development.
3. Predisposing factors. The characteristics of the teacher, including
their motivation for attending, background knowledge, and preex-
isting attitudes.
4. Enabling factors. The teacher’s skill in applying the new strategy;
factors in the context of the teacher’s program, including resources,
authority, and opportunity to apply what has been learned.
5. Reinforcing factors. The factors in the context of the teacher’s pro-
gram that support the teacher in applying knowledge, such as help
from colleagues, the director, and students.
50
Guskey and Sparks (1996) also considered administrator knowledge and practices,
plus parent knowledge and practices, to be important factors mediating teacher change and
student learning because parents and administrators affect curriculum policies that dictate
the types of changes teachers can make.
In this section, we choose a simpler framework for understanding the

factors that mediate professional development. We first review the
research on individual factors—who teachers are as they come to the pro-
fessional development—and we then review the research on school fac-
tors that support change after professional development. Understanding
these factors can help professional developers and policymakers take action
to provide the conditions supportive of teacher change and, ultimately,
student achievement.
Individual (Teacher) Factors
A significant body of research exists on the social psychology of teachers,

some of which is relevant to the question of whether teachers’ experience,
dispositions, and motivations support or prevent them from learning and
changing.
Teacher Motivation for Professional Development. Teachers’ moti-

vation to attend professional development appears to be a key factor in
change. Stout (1996), for example, proposed four motivations teachers
have for participating in professional development: salary enhancement,
certificate maintenance, career mobility (building their resume to move up
the ladder into administration or pursue other careers), and gaining new
skills or knowledge. Livneh and Livneh (1999) surveyed 256 K–12 edu-
cators in Oregon to gauge their motivation to learn, background character-
istics, and the amount of professional continuing education they had
attended in the previous year. Two motivational factors predicted partici-
pation: high internal motivation to learn and high external motivation to
learn (wanted career advancement or to network with others).
Joyce (1983) studied K–12 teachers’ motivation to participate in pro-
fessional development and categorized teachers as learners and consumers
of professional development. Based on teachers’ participation in three
domains—(a) formal systems (courses, workshops, coaching or supervision),
(b) informal systems (exchanges with other teachers and professionals), and
(c) personal activities (reading, leisure activities)—Joyce proposed five cate-
gories to describe teachers’ states as learners:
1. Omnivores are teachers who “actively use every available aspect of

the formal and informal systems available to them” (p. 163).
2. Active consumers are teachers who keep busy in one or more of the
domains or systems.
3. Passive consumers are teachers who go along with professional

development opportunities that arise but do not seek them out.
4. Entrenched teachers are suspicious of change and take courses only
in areas where they already feel successful; they may actively or
surreptitiously oppose new ideas.
5. Withdrawn teachers are actively opposed to engaging in one or all
three domains.
Joyce (1983) claimed that omnivores generate energy for the system in
which they are engaged, whereas entrenched and withdrawn teachers con-
sume energy from the system. An entrenched or withdrawn teacher with
influence within the school—even informal power—can act as a “gate-
keeper,” preventing any type of collective action, change, or improvement
from occurring. Even the best professional development will not have an
impact if there is a poor culture in the school, one in which there is a poor
fit between teachers’ states of growth and the culture that could support
growth and new ideas from professional development.
In their ABE research, Smith and colleagues (2003) found that stronger
motivation to attend the professional development was related to teacher
change: Those ABE teachers with a strong need to learn, either on the
topic or about good teaching and student success, demonstrated more
change in knowledge and action after participating in professional
development.
Teacher Concerns. Another thread in the literature relates to what

Fuller and Bown (1975) called teachers’ “concerns.” They proposed that
teachers have three types of concerns: (a) self-survival—controlling
classes, having adequate knowledge, finding one’s place in the school, sat-
isfying others’ expectations of them; (b) task—planning instruction and
handling the administrative work, and (c) impact—meeting students’ indi-
vidual needs and increasing students’ motivation. Ghaith and Shaaban
(1999) argued that these kinds of concerns change over time; new teach-
ers are more concerned about classroom tasks and experienced teachers
are more concerned about impact. Kagan (1992) supported the idea that
beginning teachers are more concerned about self-survival.
Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall (1987) expanded on this
theory to explain that as teachers change by adopting new attitudes and
practices, they have different types of concerns: personal concerns about
how change will affect them, task concerns about how to manage new prac-
tices, and impact concerns about how new practice will affect students.
Differing concerns may dictate what types and subjects of professional

development teachers select. A 1999 National Center on Educational
Statistics survey on K–12 teacher participation in professional development
found that experienced teachers are less likely to participate in profes-
sional development on topics of classroom management and new teaching
methods; newer teachers are more likely to participate in mentoring than
more experienced teachers (Lewis et al., 1999). Other researchers chal-
lenge the notion that new teachers are only interested in classroom
management and techniques, claiming that new teachers are concerned
with content and teaching ethics as well as with classroom management
(Grossman, 1992).
Teacher Self-Efficacy. Another individual factor well studied in rela-

tion to teacher change is teachers’ level of self-efficacy, a concept first
outlined by Bandura (1995). Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in
one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Stronger self-efficacy among teach-
ers has been related to student achievement (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000;
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Professional development
researchers have tested hypotheses about whether teachers’ level of self-
efficacy was related to how much they changed. Overall, they found that:
• Self-efficacy is related to individual factors. Ross (1994) found that

new teachers had high levels of general self-efficacy51 but low lev-
els of personal self-efficacy (i.e., a strong belief in the power of
education but a weak belief about whether they personally could be
successful as teachers), whereas experienced teachers felt just the
opposite (i.e., they held a strong belief in their own competence as
teachers but a weak belief in education’s power to reach all
students; and believed that success is “limited by factors beyond
school control,” p. 382). Ross felt that this research confirms that
teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is more stable among more experi-
enced teachers and that “to change it in a material way (would)
51
General self-efficacy is the belief that education itself can be successful with all
students, regardless of background and abilities. Personal self-efficacy is the belief that
teachers themselves are “instrumental to the learning of their students” (Smylie, 1988,
p. 23). Collective self-efficacy is the common belief held by groups of teachers that
together they are successful.
likely take something more substantial (e.g., a dramatic shift in

teaching assignment that often comes with a change of school or
an involuntary alteration of curriculum) than a routine in-service
program” (p. 391).
• Stronger self-efficacy going into professional development affected
teacher change. Smylie (1988) found that teachers were more likely
to change as a result of professional development if they had high
personal self-efficacy. Guskey (1988) found that teachers with high
levels of self-efficacy were more likely to adopt new practices, but
that high self-efficacy was also associated with effectiveness
(although how “effectiveness” was measured is not defined), and so
teachers with high self-efficacy least needed to adopt new practices.
Tschannen-Moran and colleagues (1998) concluded that teachers
with strong self-efficacy may be less motivated to learn and try new
strategies.
• Professional development in turn affected self-efficacy. Stein and
Wang (1988) found that those who implemented a new practice
showed an increase in self-efficacy. Ross (1998) found that teachers
who did try new strategies initially showed a drop in self-efficacy but
that self-efficacy increased again when they saw that the new strategy
worked. Roberts, Henson, Tharp, and Moreno (2000) found that
teachers who entered professional development with high levels of
self-efficacy did not change their feelings of self-efficacy much, no
matter how long the professional development was, but that teachers
who entered professional development with low levels of self-
efficacy increased their sense of self-efficacy, proportional to the
length of the professional development.
Teacher Cognitive Styles or “Ways of Knowing.” Other characteristics

of teachers as individuals that researchers believe relate to teacher change
include cognitive style. Joughin (1992) proposed that some teachers have an
analytic ability to understand a strategy and how to use it, whereas other
teachers lack this ability and need more structure to grasp and then apply a
new strategy. Similarly, developmental theory (Kegan, 1994) holds that all
adults have “ways of knowing” that they bring to a learning task; specifi-
cally, a learner with an instrumental way of knowing would tend to see the
trainer as an expert and look for the right answer; a learner with a socializ-
ing way of knowing would learn from others and see the trainer as a men-
tor; and a learner with a self-authoring way of knowing would want to bring
his or her own knowledge to the learning process and understand that there
may be no one right answer. Theories of cognitive style or development

have implications for the fit between individual teachers’ ways of knowing
and the style of the professional development in which they participate; for
example, teachers with an instrumental way of knowing may feel more
comfortable in workshops led by experts, whereas teachers with a self-
authoring way of knowing may feel more comfortable in professional
development activities (e.g., practitioner research) that allow or ask them to
generate knowledge on their own.
Teacher Reflectiveness. In the professional development and teacher

education literature, there is a strong concern for teachers’ reflectiveness.
Schon (1983) began the discussion of how to help teachers develop a
“stance” of looking at their own practice by analyzing, adapting, and
always challenging their assumptions, in a self-sustaining cycle of reflect-
ing on their own theory and practice, learning from one problem to inform
the next problem. In a qualitative study of 18 extension educators, Ferry
and Ross-Gordon (1998) found that a reflective stance was not automati-
cally related to years of teaching experience. Some new teachers had
already adopted a reflective stance and demonstrated a cyclical approach
to problem solving, whereas some very experienced teachers used a
sequential (noncyclical) approach to problem solving: When faced with a
problem, they summoned their existing knowledge and chose the best fit
solution from what they already knew.
Teacher Formal Education and Years of Experience. Research in

both K–12 and adult education points to the impact of teachers’ level of
formal education on participation in professional development and in
change. Livneh and Livneh (1999), in their study of 256 K–12 teachers,
found that those with lower levels of formal education participated in
more professional development. The researchers argued that this finding:
lends support to the notion that people with comparatively lower educa-
tional levels in professional fields often recognize the need to upgrade their
educational skills and abilities. They may also be beginning their profes-
sional career, a time when they recognize the need for additional informa-
tion and skill building. (Livneh & Livneh, 1999, p. 100)
Amount of formal education and teaching experience may also be related to

teacher change. In their study of 100 ABE teachers and the change they
demonstrated after participating in different types of professional development,
Smith and colleagues (2003) identified the following individual character-

istics as influencing how much, and in what ways, teachers changed after
participating in professional development:
• Years of experience in adult education. Those teachers with fewer

years of experience changed more.
• Venue of first teaching experience. Those teachers who began their
teaching career in adult education (not K–12) changed more.
• Level of education. Teachers with a bachelor’s degree or less
changed more.
School, Program, and System Factors
In addition to individual factors, school, program, and system factors also

mediate teacher change by either hindering or supporting it. In this section,
we provide an overview of a few of the most prominent system factors that
research has shown to influence teacher change and their relevance to adult
education professional development.
Leadership. Research in K–12 indicates that school leadership plays a

role in readying teachers for change by creating a positive culture that lets
teachers’ attitudes change naturally when they see how and whether a new
practice helps students’ learning (Sparks, 1995). Principals that were too con-
trolling and principal turnover negatively affected teacher education pro-
grams (Bollough, Kauchak, Crow, Hobbs, & Stoke, 1997). Such findings are
relevant to adult educators because adult education programs are structured
like schools, with program administrators that influence the program’s cul-
ture. However, in the adult education context, part-time teachers working in
diverse and sometimes isolated settings often have less access than K–12
teachers to the leadership in their program. Research in ABE indicates that
those teachers with greater access to decision making within the program
demonstrated more knowledge and action change after participating in
professional development (Smith et al., 2003).
Coherence Between Professional Development Topic and School

Reform. Coherence is defined as the match between school adoption of
particular reforms and individual professional development of teachers in
that school; that is, whether the school is trying to improve the same prob-
lem or issue addressed by the professional development. The match can
either be required (by the district) or voluntary (the school or teachers

sought professional development related to the school improvement issue).
Recent research by Garet and colleagues (2001) indicates that K–12 teachers
gained more knowledge and changed practices more often when there was
a match between school or district standards and goals. When change is
voluntary (i.e., there is no concurrent reform effort at the school level), then
leadership or supportive school factors (e.g., teachers’ access to decision
making) were not as important in promoting change as the teachers’ own
beliefs (Smylie, 1988). Such findings will become more relevant to the field
of adult education as the effort to institute content standards gains momen-
tum, and professional development systems will respond with training for
teachers in how to implement these standards.
Collegiality Within the School. The movement for teacher professional

communities within schools grew from the belief that one cannot take indi-
vidual teachers out of their environment, train and change them, then put
them back into the same environment and expect them to change that envi-
ronment. Rather, teachers need a community of teachers within the school,
so they can learn together about their work as they apply that learning
(Calderón, 1999; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000). The issue of
collegiality as an organizational support that increases the efficiency of pro-
fessional development is especially relevant to adult education, because so
many part-time teachers work in satellite locations apart from other teachers
(Smith & Hofer, 2003). In a review of previous research about the relation-
ship between K–12 school culture and the effectiveness of professional
development, Olson, Butler, and Olson (1991) found that collegiality
emerged as a key indicator. Interactions with colleagues seemed to help
teachers develop a “body of technical knowledge about what teaching prac-
tices are likely to be effective” (Olson et al., 1991, p. 23) and a sense of their
own competence (Smylie, 1988). Other research suggests that more collab-
oration within a school increases teachers’ commitment to teaching
(Rosenholtz, 1986), which may in turn support openness to new knowledge
and practices. When teachers, both K–12 and adult education, do not have
the opportunity to talk to colleagues about strategies learned during profes-
sional development, they are less likely to implement them (Gardner, 1996;
Huberman & Miles, 1984; Smith et al., 2003); the greater the communica-
tion, the more likely teachers were to adopt the new practice (Adey, 1995).
By contrast, Joyce (1983) found that professional development was less
effective when there was an entrenched teacher who acted as gatekeeper to
spoil or prevent other teachers from adopting new strategies. In short:
Teaching practice is unlikely to change as a result of exposure to training,

unless that training also brings with it some kind of external normative
structure, a network of social relationships that personalize that structure,
and supports interaction around problems of practice. (Elmore, 1996, p. 21)
Teachers’ Working Conditions. Although we found no K–12 studies

that investigate teachers’ working conditions (full time vs. part time,
salary and benefit level, etc.) on the effectiveness of professional develop-
ment, we did find studies indicating that working conditions have an effect
on teacher turnover (Ingersoll, 2001). K–12 “dissatisfied” teachers who
had low salaries, lack of support from administration, problems with stu-
dent discipline, or lack of input in decision making were more likely to
migrate to other schools, or to leave teaching entirely.
Only one study in ABE (Smith et al., 2003) has investigated the rela-
tionship between teacher change and teachers’ working conditions, which
the researchers defined as access to (a) resources, (b) professional devel-
opment and information, (c) colleagues and directors, (d) decision mak-
ing, and (e) well-supported jobs.52 They found that the following factors
influenced the amount and type of change that ABE teachers (n = 100)
demonstrated after participating in professional development:
• Access to prep time. Those who received prep time were more likely
to change.53
• Access to benefits. Those teachers who received one or more bene-
fits from their adult education job (health or dental insurance, vaca-
tion, etc.) were more likely to change.54
• Program situation. Teachers who worked in programs that were not
already taking action to address learner persistence and where teach-
ers had a voice in decision making were more likely to change.
These findings indicate that the ABE field has structural constraints that
influence how much teachers change after participating in even high-quality
52
Well-supported jobs are defined as “full-time, relatively well-paid, and stable jobs that
include benefits (medical coverage, paid vacation and sick time, pension plans, etc.), paid
preparation time, and paid professional development release time” (p. 2, Summary Report).
53
Only 42 out of 78 teachers in this study (54%) received any amount of paid prepara-
tion time.
54
Less than half (48%, n = 78) of the teachers in the study received benefits as part of
their ABE jobs.
I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R P O L I C Y, P RA C T I C E ,
AND RESEARCH
The obstacles to professional learning and teacher change in ABE are

many. Thus, professional developers and policymakers need to make what
little professional development teachers do receive as optimally effective
as possible. The following sections suggest some ideas for further research
and some key implications and recommendations that can promote the
implementation of more effective research-based professional development
policies and practices.
Implications for Policy
The message for policymakers is that ABE teachers need considerably

more access to professional development if they are to contribute to sig-
nificant improvements in student achievement, especially because they
come into the field without much formal education in teaching adults. The
research is unequivocal that professional development is more effective in
changing teachers’ practice when it is of longer duration, allows for the
collective participation of teachers, and includes opportunities for follow-
up activities that make a strong connection between what is learned and
how to apply it in the teacher’s own context.
This means that the ABE field needs well-resourced professional devel-
opment systems in states and programs to provide professional develop-
ment opportunities with these features, and that teachers should be paid to
attend professional development for longer periods of time. The scope of
knowledge and skills that adult educators need—from GED teachers
needing to know enough about science, history, math, reading, and writ-
ing to help students both increase skills and pass the test, to ESOL teach-
ers who need to know about second-language acquisition, strategies for
improving oral communication skills, and ways of working with students
from different cultures—means that a wide range of professional develop-
ment offerings must be available in a state and program, and must be
accessible to teachers throughout their lives as practitioners.
Increases in funding for professional development would help to put such
professional development systems into place in states that do not currently
have a comprehensive system; however, other supports also need to be in
place. Because the research also indicates that working conditions such as
access to benefits and paid preparation time for ABE teachers are not
simply perquisites to the job but may actually influence the effectiveness of
the professional development in bringing about teacher change, state and

federal policymakers should consider whether any increased funding for
adult education could be channeled into expenditures such as benefits and
paid preparation time that support teachers to better use what they learn
in professional development, even if fewer students are served as a result.
Finally, because research in the K–12 system indicates that intensive
professional development is desirable to implement standards-based
reform efforts, policymakers at the state and federal level should be pre-
pared to fund comprehensive “packages” of professional development for
programs and practitioners that are required to adopt standards-based cur-
riculum and assessment. Professional development should play a role, as
it often does in K–12 reform efforts, not just in preparing teachers to adopt
standards but to adapt them: By working with other teachers in job-
embedded professional development, ABE teachers can develop and try
out lessons and assessments, aligned to the standards, that are relevant to
a wide range of adult students’ needs.
Implications for Practice
Obviously, with more funding for teacher preparation and support, the
design of professional development could also be more easily changed to
offer longer term, more job-embedded models of professional develop-
ment. However, even without a significant infusion of new funds, profes-
sional development systems and ABE programs could change the current
configuration of professional development activities to promote more
effective professional development in their states and programs. Although
we know of no research project that directly tests the efficacy of tradi-
tional versus job-embedded models of professional development, the lat-
ter, by design, has more of the features of professional development
demonstrated to be effective: It is of longer term, focused on student learning,
and built around teacher collegiality and reflection.
For example, states should make single-session workshops the excep-
tion, rather than the norm, and increase the incidence of mentoring, study
circles, inquiry projects, or teacher sharing circles. This may mean that
practitioners, especially part-time teachers, go to fewer sessions each year,
but the ones they do attend are longer term and more embedded in their
actual teaching. States might consider reducing funds for statewide con-
ferences (by, perhaps, holding them every 2 or 3 years rather than annually)
and diverting these funds to longer term and more targeted professional
development offered at the program or regional level. If reducing the
scope or frequency of state conferences is not an option, states might con-
sider alternatives such as summer institutes, adding extended training
activities (e.g., full day within the conferences, with follow-up at sites),
team teaching activities, and inclusion of planning time for curriculum
and assessment task forces inside programs.
States and ABE programs should experiment, even modestly, with job-
embedded professional development. Programs that are already providing
some time each month for teacher sharing could, without too much diffi-
culty (but with some training and preparation), provide a structure for
ongoing professional development sessions focused on challenges in adult
student reading, for example. Professional development staff at the state
level could help by offering facilitation and technical assistance within
programs to initiate job-embedded professional development activities.
There are some states (e.g., Rhode Island and Maryland) where profes-
sional development monies and activities are managed at the program
level; experimenting with job-embedded models using achievement data
and focusing on student learning could be done within the current struc-
ture. To do so, program administrators would need a model for such pro-
fessional development and help from professional developers at the state
level to implement it. This would require the professional development
system to reallocate some of its funding from stand-alone workshops to
programs in which facilitators would help start job-embedded profes-
sional development. Such changes might also mean using subject-matter
experts in new ways; rather than bringing the teachers to the experts, for
example, professional developers could explore ways to send the experts
into programs to work with staff as a team.
Finally, states should continue to develop distance education technolo-
gies as methods to bring teachers from different programs together for
professional development, reducing teacher travel and allowing teachers
to participate in learning online. Such online learning opportunities may
be the only type of professional development activities readily accessible
to teachers from small, geographically isolated programs across larger
states. However, professional development planners need to ensure that
teacher collegiality can still be an essential feature of such distance pro-
fessional development, so hybrid or “blended” distance professional
development models (in which one part is face-to-face or conference call
and the rest is online) hold promise for reaching ABE teachers while still
giving teachers a network of other practitioners with whom to problem

solve and share ideas.55
Implications for Research
First, we need research about the effectiveness of professional develop-

ment in supporting student achievement in an adult education context.
Research about the relationship between teacher preparation and teacher
quality would be particularly important in standards-based reform situa-
tions, as K–12 research indicates that major investments of time and train-
ing—both of which are in short supply in ABE—are warranted to bring
about real reform. Because teacher preparation requires investment of
scarce adult education dollars, state and federal policymakers need infor-
mation about the minimum per-pupil cost that will support the retention
and preparation of adult education teachers.
Second, because research indicates that teachers’ working conditions
influence the effectiveness of professional development, we need more
research on the optimal configuration of teacher working conditions—
program structure, paid preparation time, job benefits, working hours, and
paid release time for training—and their relation to teacher quality, stu-
dent achievement, and teacher retention. As there is no research in K–12
on many of these conditions because K–12 teachers typically have full-
time jobs with paid preparation time and benefits, this is one area of special
importance, particularly in a climate in which overall resources for adult
education are limited. Findings would provide states with guidance about
how to allocate scarce funds for teacher support and preparation.
We also need research comparing the outcomes of participating in job-
embedded, traditional, and standards-based reform professional development
“packages” in ABE, so that state policymakers and professional developers
have good information on which to base decisions about what types of
professional development to offer and under what conditions such models are
most effective in promoting teacher change and student achievement.
Finally, we need systems to collect more data at the state and national
level about the background, needs, and formal education of practitioners
55
For models of ABE distance professional development, see Project IDEAL
(http://projectideal.org), the Student Achievement in Reading (STAR) project
(http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/starnewsDec05.doc), or AE PRO
Online Professional Development (http://www.aeprofessional.org/).
to plan effective professional development initiatives. After all, adult basic

educators include, for example, teachers of adult ESOL students, tutors who
work with youth preparing to take the GED test, administrators who super-
vise programs for low-literate adults with learning disabilities, and coun-
selors who provide transition assistance to adult education students aspiring
to attend college. Each of these practitioners will also have different back-
grounds, perceived professional development needs, and years of experience
in the field, factors that, among others, affect the type and amount of change
practitioners demonstrate after participating in professional development.
C O N C LU S I O N
We can help adult education students achieve higher standards only if we

also enhance the effectiveness of our adult education teachers. The research
in both K–12 and adult education demonstrates that professional develop-
ment can, under the right conditions, help teachers be more effective.
However, questions remain: Over the long term, we need more research that
helps us understand the relationship among student achievement, profes-
sional development, and such factors as adult education program structure,
teachers’ backgrounds, and working conditions. Such information can guide
decisions about the design and funding of teacher preparation and support.
However, there is much we can do in the short term to promote more effec-
tive research-based approaches to teacher professional development in ABE.
REFERENCES
Adey, P. (1995). The effectiveness of a staff development program: The relationship

between the level of use of innovative science curriculum activities and student achieve-
ment. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 383567)
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Building on the best, learning from what works:
Seven promising reading and language arts programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/
seven.pdf
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school
restructuring and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102, 590–619.
Anderson, P. J. (1997). Professional development schools: A balanced wheel makes it bet-
ter for everyone. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 19–24.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward
a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice
(pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In

A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Berry, B., Turchi, L., & Johnson, D. (2003). The impact of high-stakes accountability on
teachers’ professional development: Evidence from the south. Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast
Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.teachingquality.
org/pdfs/Spencer_FinalReport.pdf
Bollough, R. V., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., Hobbs, S., & Stoke, D. (1997). Professional
development schools: Catalysts for teacher and school change. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13, 153–169.
Borman, G., & Hewes, G. (2002). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of Success
for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 243–266.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Burt, M., & Keenan, F. (1998). Q & A: Trends in staff development for adult ESL instruc-
tors. National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE). Retrieved November
18, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/DIGESTS/TrendQA.htm
Bye, T. (2004). Project ALACASA: Academic Literacy Across the Curriculum for
Achieving Standards Biennial Evaluation Report 2002–2004. San Francisco: San
Francisco Unified School District.
Calderón, M. (1999). Teachers learning communities for cooperation in diverse settings.
Theory Into Practice, 38, 94–99.
Calderón, M., & Marsh, D. (1988, Winter). Applying research on effective bilingual
instruction in a multi-district inservice teacher training program. NABE Journal,
pp. 133–152.
Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher effec-
tiveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K–16, 8(1), 3–42.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using
knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental
study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.
Carpenter, T. P., & Franke, M. L. (1998). Teachers as learners. Principled Practice in
Mathematics and Science Education, 2(2), 1–3.
Choy, S. P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher professional development in
1999–2000: What teachers, principals, and district staff report (NCES Rep. No. 2006-
305). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Clair, N., & Adger, C. T. (1999). Professional development for teachers in culturally
diverse schools (CAL Digest EDO-FL-99-08). Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/profd-
vpt.html
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. (2000). Educating teachers
of science, mathematics and technology: New practices for the new millenium.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Crocker, J. (1987, October). ABE statewide staff development programs: Analysis of pro-
gram dimensions, characteristics, and contextual factors. Paper presented at the
American Adult and Continuing Education Conference, Washington, DC.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “high-qualified teachers”: What does
“scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.
Dutro, E., Fisk, K., Koch, R., Roop, L. J., & Wixson, K. (2002). When state policies meet
local district contexts: Standards-based professional development as a means to individ-
ual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104, 787–811.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard

Educational Review, 66(1), 1–28.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.
ashankerinst.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Berliner, D. C. (1985). Determining the value of staff develop-
ment. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 281–314.
Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schon’s epistemology of prac-
tice: Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education
Quarterly, 48, 98–112.
Fuller, F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher educa-
tion: The seventy-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part 2 (pp. 25–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gardner, J. (1996). Professional development which provides an icing on the pedagogical
cake. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 400589)
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W. (1988). The continued impact of the direct instruc-
tion model: Longitudinal studies of follow through students. Education and Treatment
of Children, 11, 318–327.
Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching con-
cerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15, 487–496.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its mean-
ing, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 479–507.
Greeno, J. G., Resnick, L. B., & Collins, A. M. (1997). Cognition and learning. In D.
Berlinger & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New
York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.
Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An approach view on professional growth in
teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62, 171–179.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community
different from a gathering of teachers? (Occasional paper). Washington, DC: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy and Center on English Learning & Achievement.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementa-
tion of instructional innovation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.
Guskey, T. R. (1997). Research needs to link professional development and student learning.
Journal of Staff Development, 18(2), 36–40.
Guskey, T. R. (1999). Moving from means to ends. Journal of Staff Development,
20(1), 48.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development
and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34–38.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters . . . a lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3–14.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry
and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/
Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools (Rep. No. R-01-1). Seattle: University of Washington Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Joughin, G. (1992). Cognitive style and adult learning principles. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 11(1), 3–14.
Joyce, B. (1983). The structure of school improvement. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:
Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.
Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2003). Using student work to support professional development
in elementary mathematics (Document No. W-03-1). Seattle: University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Knapp, M. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in
Education, 27, 109–157.
Kutner, M., Herman, R., Stephenson, E., & Webb, L. (1991). Study of ABE/ESL instructor
training approaches: State profiles report. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.
Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in English in middle and high school: How teachers’ pro-
fessional lives support student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37, 397–439.
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher
quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES
1999-080). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 184–192.
Livneh, C., & Livneh, H. (1999). Continuing professional education among educators:
Predictions of participation in learning activities. Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 91–106.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing profes-
sional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Mazzarella, J. A. (1980). Synthesis of research on staff development. Educational
Leadership, 38, 182–185.
McDonald, J. (2001). Students’ work and teachers’ learning. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller
(Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp.
209–235). New York: Teachers College Press.
National Education Goals Panel Report. (1999). Teacher education and professional devel-
opment. Retrieved November 18, 2003, from http://www.negp.gov/reports/ 99rpt.pdf
National Institute for Literacy. (n.d.). Bridges to Practice: The project. Retrieved February
20, 2006, from http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/ld/bridges/about/project.html
Neubert, G. A., & Binko, J. B. (1998). Professional development schools: The proof is in
the performance. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 44–46.
Olson, T. A., Butler, J. A., & Olson, N. L. (1991). Designing meaningful professional
development: A planning tool (Field test version). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334671)
Ottoson, J. M. (1997). After the applause: Exploring multiple influences on application
following an adult education program. Adult Education Quarterly, 47, 92–107.
Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L. D., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does
professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study:
Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the
Undersecretary.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
RMC Research Corporation. (1996). National evaluation of the Section 353 set-aside for
teacher training and innovation in adult education (Contract No. EA 93064991).
Portsmouth, NH: Author.
Roberts, J. K., Henson, R. K., Tharp, B. Z., & Moreno, N. (2000, January). An examina-
tion of change in teacher self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on the dura-
tion of in-service activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 438259)
Rosenholtz, S. (1986). Educational reform strategies: Will they increase teacher commit-
ment? American Journal of Education, 95, 543–562.
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the sta-
bility of teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 381–394.
Ross, J. A. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.),
Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Ruiz, N. T., Rueda, R., Figueroa, R. A., & Boothroyd, M. (1995). Bilingual special educa-
tion teachers’ shifting paradigms: Complex responses to educational reform. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 28, 622–635.
Sabatini, J. P., Daniels, M., Ginsburg, L., Limeul, K., Russell, M., & Stites, R. (2000). Teacher
perspectives on the adult education profession: National survey findings about an emerging
profession (Tech. Rep. No. 00-02). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Sherman, R., Tibbetts, J., Woodruff, D., & Weidler, D. (1999). Instructor competencies
and performance indicators for the improvement of adult education programs.
Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.
Smith, C., & Hofer, J. (2003). The characteristics and concerns of adult basic education
teachers (NCSALL Rep. No. 26). Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy.
Smith, C., Hofer, J., Gillespie, M., Solomon, M., & Rowe, K. (2003). How teachers
change: A study of professional development in adult education (NCSALL Rep. No.
25). Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and
psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational
Research Journal, 25, 1–30.
Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development,
15(4), 26–29.
Sparks, D. (1995). Focusing staff development on improving student learning. In G.
Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 163–169).
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Stallings, J., & Krasavage, E. (1986). Program implementation and student achievement in a
four-year Madeline Hunter follow-through project. Elementary School Journal, 87, 117–138.
Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A
study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104, 1313–1344.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. (1999). The development of professional develop-
ers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational
Review, 69, 237–269.
Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The
process of teacher change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
Stout, R. T. (1996). Staff development policy: Fuzzy choices in an imperfect market.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4(2). Retrieved March 31, 2006, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n2.html
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on sci-
ence teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37, 963–980.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA
School Change Framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development
and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 40–68.
Tibbetts, J., Kutner, M., Hemphill, D., & Jones, E. (1991). Study of ABE/ESL instructor
training approaches: The delivery and content of training for adult education teachers
and volunteers. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.
Tolbert, M. (2001). Professional development for adult education instructors: State policy
update. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge:
The Secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning and
Innovation.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discus-
sions of teacher quality (a Policy Information Center Report). Retrieved November 18,
2003, from http://www.ets.org/research/pic
Whitehurst, G. (2002, March 5). Research on teacher preparation and professional devel-
opment. Speech given at the White House Conference on Preparing Quality Teachers.
Retrieved December 29, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/prepar-
ingteachersconference/whitehurst.html
Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (2001). Adult basic education and professional development:
Strangers for too long. Focus on Basics, 4(D), 25–26.
Young, M. B., Fleischman, H., Fitzgerald, N., & Morgan, M. A. (1995). National evalua-
tion of adult education programs (Executive summary, Contract No. LC 90065001).
Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comings-07.

qxd 2/2/2007 7:20 PM Page 205

Cristine Smith and Marilyn Gillespie

There is no doubt that the current educational climate is driven by an over-

206 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN STUDENT

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 207

teachers linked to higher student achievement. Results are, as yet, contra-

208 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

job-embedded. For each of these models, we examine research findings

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 209

A survey by Sabatini and colleagues (2000)45 of 423 adult education

Adult basic education teachers are often required to teach in multiple

210 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

Whereas the majority of adult basic education teachers are qualified

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 211

In-service preparation is adult basic education teachers’ primary

Adult basic education teachers are not consistently funded to partic-

212 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

Adult basic education teachers have access mostly to short-term

Systemic constraints hinder adult basic education teachers’ ability to

• Time constraints. Working part time makes it hard for teachers to

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 213

unless their program directors or other supervisors who serve as

Wilson and Corbett (2001) concluded that:

Taken together, the conditions just described create a challenging context

Although the situational and resource constraints in ABE make it difficult to

214 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

training events. We describe this as traditional professional develop-

The Traditional Professional Development Model

Short-term or one-session workshops, trainings, seminars, lectures, and

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 215

Primary goal Increase individual teacher Improve student learning, help

This model, which has dominated K–12 professional development for

216 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

• Be of longer duration. Professional development is more effective in

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 217

have also shown that creating change in teachers is a time-consuming

218 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 219

addressed the issue of adult student persistence (how to help adult

The Job-Embedded Professional Development Model

Professional development under the job-embedded model is located

220 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

• A focus on helping teachers to study their students’ thinking, not

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 221

with the aim of combining forces to improve instruction (Neubert &

222 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

The author claims that the “disciplined conversations” that follow

Standards-based teaching and learning has gained momentum in K–12

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 223

• Professional development linked to curriculum based on the stan-

224 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

A study by Cohen and Hill (2000) investigated self-reports of teacher

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER CHANGE 225

• Multiple, district-wide efforts supportive of reform, in addition to

It is also important to ensure that the needs of special populations, such as

226 SMITH AND GILLESPIE

teacher practice is only one of many factors affecting student learning.