Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Views of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development: A Q Methodological Study
Keywords:
Q methodology, teacher professional development, mathematics/science education, andragogy, adult learningAbstract
Education researchers regularly seek to evaluate and define what encompasses successful professional development (PD) for teachers. Numerous items and lists that are considered the characteristics of effective PD have emerged from this research. However, follow-up with teachers on their perceived views of these characteristics is lacking from the literature. Teachers can help determine which aspects should be considered in the design of high-quality professional learning in the future. For this study, Q methodology was utilized to examine the subjective views of the teachers. Q sorts were correlated and factor analyzed (PCA with cluster rotation) to extract four significant factors on which all 17 participants loaded significantly (McKeown &Thomas, 2013; Newman & Ramlo, 2010; Watts & Stenner, 2012). These factors were examined through the lens of andragogy (adult learning theory) to determine the connections between the characteristics of effective PD and the core adult learning principles. Teachers in this study perceived effective PD as those opportunities that establish cooperative learning amongst participants, focus on improved student learning outcomes, provide opportunities for feedback, and allow for ongoing support. Future research is needed to see if the results obtained apply to other teacher populations.
References
Arbaugh, F., Marra, R., Lannin, J. K., Cheng, Y.-W., Merle-Johnson, D., & Smith, R. (2016). Supporting university content specialists in providing effective professional development: The educative role of evaluation. Teacher Development, 20(4), 538–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1173577
Ball, A. F., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2020). Educating teachers for the 21st century: Culture, reflection, and learning. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 387–403). Routledge.
Blank, R. K. (2010). A better way to measure: New survey tool gives educators a clear picture of professional learning’s impact. Journal of Staff Development, 31(4), 56–60.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Brown, C., & Militello, M. (2016). Principal’s perceptions of effective professional Development in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0109
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity. Yale University.
Bryan, L., & Guzey, S. S. (2020). K-12 STEM Education: An overview of perspectives and considerations. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 5-15.
Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006
Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Culture, Learning, and Policy. In Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning (pp. 404-426). Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Donatello, R., and Roualdes, E. (2020, April 28). Applied Statistics course notes. https://norcalbiostat.github.io/AppliedStatistics_notes/index.html
Drago-Severson, E. E. (2000, April). Helping teachers learn: A four-year ethnography of one principal’s efforts to support teacher development. Paper presented at the 2000 AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445418.
Edgerton, A. K., Flanagan-Cato, L. M., Williams, E., & Yang, H. The impact of teacher professional development programs on academic achievement of US students in Grades 3-12. The Campbell Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/ECG_Edgerton_T itle.pdf
Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101–130. http://dx.doi.org.libezproxy2.syr.edu/10.1023/A:1015113613731
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3
Giannoukos, G., Besas, G., Galiropoulos, C., & Hioctour, V. (2015). The Andragogy,
the social change and the transformative learning educational approaches in adult education. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 46–50.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The qualitative report, 20(11), 1772-1789.
Gore, J., & Rosser, B. (2020). Beyond content-focused professional development: powerful professional learning through genuine learning communities across grades and subjects. Professional Development in Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904
Gravani, M. N. (2012). Adult learning principles in designing learning activities for teacher development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.663804
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.
Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Cian, H. (2019). The challenges of STEAM instruction: Lessons from the field. Action in Teacher Education, 41(2), 172-190.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069
Knowles, M. S. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College Review.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner (8th edition). Routledge.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., Swanson, R. A., & Robinson, P. A. (2020). The adult learner (9th edition). Routledge.
Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20404
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591–96.
Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., Eriksson, K., & Ryve, A. (2021). Impact and Design of a National-scale Professional Development Program for Mathematics Teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–16.
Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K., & Pollard, C. (2019). Strengthening STEM Instruction in Schools: Learning from Research. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 236-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219864385
Main, K., Pendergast, D., & Virtue, D. C. 2. (2015). Core features of effective continuing professional development for the middle years: A tool for reflection. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 38(10), 1–18.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D.B. (2013). Q Methodology (2nd edition). Sage
Publications, Inc.
Murray, A. (2010). Empowering teachers through professional development. English Teaching Forum, 48(1), 2–11.
Newman, I., & Ramlo, S. (2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.) Sage handbook of mixed methods research & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 505-530). Sage Publications, Inc.
New York State Education Department. (2018, May 7). Continuing teacher and leader education (CTLE) requirements. http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/resteachers/ctle.html
O'Toole, S., & Essex, B. (2012). The adult learner may really be a neglected species.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(1), 183-191.
Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: Professional development that makes a difference. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin; Reston, 99(1), 26–42. DOI: 10.1177/0192636515576040
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Saka, Y. (2013). Who are the science teachers that seek professional development in research experiences for teachers (RETs)? Implications for teacher professional development. Journal of Science Education Technology, 22, 934-951. DOI 10.1007/s10956-013-9440-1
Sample McMeeking, L. B., Orsi, R., & Cobb, R. B. (2012). Effects of a teacher
professional development program on the mathematics achievement of middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 159–181.
Soine, K. M., & Lumpe, A. (2014). Measuring characteristics of teacher professional development. Teacher Development, 18(3), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.911775
Spatz, V., Wilhelm, T., Hopf, M., Waltner, C., & Wiesner, H. (2019). Teachers using a novel curriculum on an introduction to Newtonian mechanics: The effects of a short-term professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(2), 159-178.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and interpretation. Sage Publications, Inc.
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479. https://10.3102/0013189X08327154
Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310–313.
https://doi.org/313.10.1126/science.1230725
Zabala, A. (2014). qmethod: An R package to analyse Q method data. University of.
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, URL
http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=qmethod. R package
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Research Issues in Contemporary Education (RICE) is a nationally indexed, double-blind, peer-reviewed online journal that publishes educational research studies, literature reviews, theoretical manuscripts, and practitioner-oriented articles regarding issues in education. Views expressed in all published articles are the views of the author(s), and publication in RICE does not constitute endorsement. Submission of an article implies that it has not been published and is not currently under review for publication elsewhere.
RICE is an online journal available in the public domain, and use of its content is protected by a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This license provides authors with an assurance that LERA values their rights to their scholarly works and has adopted this license to restrict use of RICE content without appropriate permission and attribution.