University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INVESTIGATING THE ENACTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PRACTICES IN A HIGH PERFORMING SECONDARY SCHOOL SETTING: A
CASE STUDY EXAMING THE PURPOSE, PROCESS, AND STRUCTURE OF
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

by

Kristin Dawn Kruizinga

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Kristin Dawn Kruizinga
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation could not have been made possible without the incredible
support from so many amazing individuals. I would like to express my sincere gratitude
to them.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton, who exercised an extraordinary
amount of patience, flexibility, scaffolding, support and encouragement throughout this
entire process. I could not have made it through this journey without your guidance Dr.
Slayton! To my father, Kenneth Kruizinga, who always expressed how proud he was of
me by demonstrating acts of kindness and helping me manage “life’s duties” when
portions of this journey became very stressful and intense. Dad, I realize it was difficult
for you to embrace me beginning a 3-year doctorate program, but by program’s end, I
could tell that you began to see how my drive was fueled by a deep passion for evoking
educational change and you could not have been any prouder. To my beautiful mother,
Donna Kruizinga, who has supported me unconditionally during this journey from the
heavens above. Mom, your tender nurturing, unconditional love, and selfless dedication
provided me with the strong foundation I needed to have the drive and ambition to
accomplish this type of goal. Thank you, Mom, for always teaching me to never stop
reaching and never stop believing.
To my truly wonderful friend and colleague, Elisa Frias, who offered invaluable
personal and professional support as well as encouragement over these past three years.
Thank you, Elisa, for never hesitating to listen and provide the most reflective insight of
anyone I know, watching over my students so I could make it to class on time, and
reminding me that the trying moments will be minor compared to extraordinary sense of
iii
pride and accomplishment I will feel upon completion. To my amazing friend and
colleague, Alma del Llano, who never hesitated to manage more of a workload at several
points during the year to open up a little more time so I could work on my dissertation.
Thank you, Alma, for offering me such tremendous personal and professional support,
watching over my students when I needed to leave early, and reminding me every single
day how proud you are of me. To both Alma and Elisa, I love you ladies for everything
you have done and everything that you mean to me!
To one of the most influential, insightful, and driven individuals I know, my
spiritual soul mate Dr. Hazel Giusto, for always believing in my ability to accomplish
such great feats even when there were moments I doubted myself. Thank you for
encouraging me to be more open to taking risks and venturing outside of my comfort
zone. Words cannot express my gratitude to you for all of the encouraging talks we have
shared and the countless tears you wiped when I was stressed out or frustrated. You have
touched my life in a way that is beautifully permanent and ingrained within every fiber of
my being – thank you and I love you.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge all of my former and current students for
their continual outpouring of support. Thank you for all of the words of encouragement
you left on post-it notes taped to my computer screen or motivational quotes you scribed
across the white board. Your words were extremely meaningful and very much
appreciated. I am so fortunate to be surrounded with such extraordinary young
individuals who embody passion, creativity, and the motivation to make a difference in
this world – thank you.
“A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” ~ Lao-tzu

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii 

LIST OF TABLES vii 

ABSTRACT viii 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 
Background of the Problem 2 
Statement of Problem 3 
Purpose of the Study 5 
Importance of the Study 6 
Limitations 6 
Delimitations 7 
Definition of Terms 8 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11 
The Purposes of Professional Development 11 
Purpose 1: Training teachers to use particular strategies, curricula, and tools 12 
Purpose 2: Supporting teachers to align their practices with school- and
district-wide goals and establish accountability 13 
Purpose 3: Supporting teachers to understand students as learners 15 
Purpose 4. Developing teachers’ content area knowledge and knowledge of
content specific pedagogy 16 
Purpose 5. Supporting teachers to reflect on and address problems of practice 18 
The Processes of Professional Development 19 
Process 1: Engaging in critically reflective practices 19 
Process 2: Engaging in inquiry-based structured dialogue 22 
Process 3: Viewing teacher learning through a knowledge in practice or
knowledge of practice lens 26 
Knowledge for Practice 27 
Knowledge in Practice 27 
Knowledge of Practice 29 
The Structure for Learning 30 
Duration 31 
Location 33 
Conceptual Framework 37 
Purpose 37 
Process 39 
Reflection as a Process 40 
Conceptions of Knowledge as a Process 42 
Structured Dialogue as a Process 44 
Structure 44 
Concluding Discussion 45 

v
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 46 
Introduction 46 
Sample and Population Size 47 
Selection Criteria 48 
Sampling Procedure 49 
Participants 50 
Conceptual Framework 50 
Purpose 51 
Process 51 
Structure 53 
Instrumentation 54 
Semi-Structured Interviews 55 
Observations 56 
Data Analysis 57 
Figure 1: Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA. 58 
Ethical Considerations 58 

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 59 
Background of Crest High School 59 
Background of Interview Participants 59 
RQ #1: Purpose, Process, and Structure of Professional Development 60 
Theme 1 – The enacted purpose of professional development time is to exchange
procedural information versus facilitate adult learning and, thus, prevents
instructional improvement from taking place 61 
Theme 2 –Teachers do not use student work as a means of engaging in the
process of structured dialogue to improve their instruction 66 
Theme #3 – The process of critical reflection is not being purposefully
exercised during professional development 70 
Theme #4 – Structure of professional development is not conducive to
professional learning 75 
Summary of RQ #1 77 
RQ #2 – Knowledge for Practice Conception of Teacher Learning 78 
Theme #1 – The relationship between teacher learning and teacher practice is
believed to be enhanced by sharing best practices or through exchanging materials
rather than teachers’ taking an active role in their learning, thus preventing
instructional change from occurring 79 

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH 85 
Summary of Findings: RQ #1 86 
Summary of Findings: RQ#2 88 
Implications for Practice 88 
A theory of professional learning 95 
Recommendations for Future Research 97 

vi
REFERENCES 102
 
APPENDICES 108 
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 108 
Appendix B: Administrator Protocol 110 
Appendix C: Teacher Protocol 112 
Appendix D: Professional Development Observation Protocol 114 
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Teacher Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix 54 
Table 2: Administrator Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix 55 
viii
ABSTRACT
One of the most influential factors affecting students’ academic performance
consists of the pedagogical practices enacted within the classroom. Efforts to enhance
teachers’ instructional practices are, in turn, addressed by providing teachers with
opportunities to engage in professional development. The purpose of this study was to
identify whether the purpose, process, and structure of professional development
opportunities enacted within a high performing secondary school were consistent with the
elements of professional development that have been deemed conducive to facilitating
professional learning and likely to lead to teacher practice change. This study also sought
to identify how the relationship between knowledge and practice was conceptualized
within the context of professional development.
A qualitative case study was conducted, including seven teacher interviews and
one principal interview. Four professional development observations were also
conducted. There were two significant findings revealed by this study. The first finding
suggested that, while the purpose, process, and structure are discussed within the
literature as separate, yet equally significant components of professional development, it
is the interconnectedness between and the interactions among these elements that define
the quality of professional learning that is likely to ensue. The second finding revealed
that the relationship between knowledge and practice was conceptualized in a manner
that was not conducive to high quality professional learning, and, thus, unlikely to lead to
any long-term practice change.
The most significant implications drawn from this study suggest that the purpose,
process, and structure of professional development must be viewed as conjoined elements
ix
that function together to foster professional learning that is likely to lead to teacher
practice change; teachers must be empowered to take greater agency over their own
professional learning; and the paradigm between knowledge and practice must be treated
in a manner that facilitates professional learning in order to prompt teacher practice
change.
 
 
 
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The need for better teaching in many urban schools is evident in the persistently
lower-than-average academic performance found among urban, low-income, and
minority students (Education Trust, 2003a, 2003b; National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 2003). One response to the challenge of providing higher quality instruction to
low performing students is found in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001,
which mandates that every student, regardless of their background or socio-economic
status, have access to highly qualified teachers (California Department of Education,
2011). As a result of the accountability measures associated with NCLB, the educational
system in the United States has undergone, and continues to undergo, significant
transformations in terms of the qualifications teachers are expected to have as well as the
amount and type of professional development teachers are expected to experience.
Consistent with this increased focus on professional development is a body of research
that has increasingly identified professional development that is highly conducive to
teacher learning as one essential factor to improving the quality of U.S. schools
(Desimone, 2009) as well as to improving student achievement (Desimone, Smith, Hayes
& Frisvold, 2005).
Hollins (2006) contends that changing instructional practice is at the heart of
improving learning outcomes for underserved and underachieving students. Researchers
within the educational community have spent considerable time studying what teachers
are learning through professional development, the way in which teachers learn, the
professional development structures that either enhance or hinder teacher learning, and
how teacher learning may translate into measurable classroom practices over time
2
(Avalos, 2011; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009);
Webster-Right, 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Despite the insights repeatedly
highlighted by these investigations, there remains a gap between professional
development that is found to be highly conducive to teacher learning and the types of
professional development that are most commonly enacted within the practice of schools.
Thus, this study examines whether there is a relationship between a school’s increased
performance and the specific aspects of professional development experienced by
teachers at that school site. This study aimed to look at whether a school that is
succeeding is also a school that is providing effective/high quality opportunities for their
teachers’ learning. Furthermore, this study attempts to capture an image of what
professional development looks like in an environment where students are doing well and
whether it matches what the literature says is effective.
Background of the Problem
Efforts to improve student achievement can succeed only by building the capacity
of teachers to improve their instructional practice and the capacity of school systems to
advance teacher learning (Little, 2003). The larger problem is that the instructional
practices among teachers as a collective group in the United States is, generally speaking,
very poor, especially in schools where there are significant populations of minority
students (Wei et al., 2009). Gorey (2009) contends that an academic achievement gap
was observed as early as the 1960s when there was a noticeable disparity in test
performance scores between Black and White children in elementary, middle, and high
schools. Yet, even 50 years later, the achievement gap among minority students and
students from low socio-economic status is still very prevalent within many school
3
settings. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2008), Black
students are, on average, roughly two to three years behind White students in both their
reading and math levels. Elmore (2007) argues that, indeed, differences in achievement
between the highest-and-lowest performing schools in the same districts are often due to
the quality of professional development opportunities teachers engage in at their school
site.
While many scholars acknowledge that there is low-quality instruction being
enacted in schools across the United States (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Wei et al.,
2009) leading to low student achievement, our approaches to improving teachers’
instructional practices often result in offering professional development that is equally
poor and ineffective. In order to enhance the instructional practices of teachers, efforts
must be taken to examine the specific dimensions of professional development that, when
enacted simultaneously, are meaningful and conducive to authentic professional learning.
For example, schools can analyze whether their purposes for enacting professional
development, the learning processes experienced by their participants during their
engagement in professional development, and the structural elements within which
professional learning takes place are synonymous with what the research deems effective
means of professional development. This is a valuable lens for helping schools begin to
enhance the quality of their teachers’ professional learning.
Statement of Problem
The specific issue is that despite the research clearly identifying specific
dimensions of professional development that must be enacted for high-quality
professional learning to ensue, the majority of schools are still providing ineffective
4
means of professional development. Offering low-quality professional development that
is not conducive to authentic professional learning is likely to perpetuate the presence of
ineffective instructional practices in schools, which, in turn, contributes to low student
achievement. Despite the prevalence of low-quality professional development
experienced by the vast majority of teachers in schools throughout the United States,
there are a small-subset of schools that are succeeding and have shown high student
achievement among large populations of minority students. Avalos (2011) claims that, if
effective elements and structures of professional dimensions are repeatedly found in
schools with high student achievement, then these criteria can be used to guide
approaches towards professional learning across various educational settings.
Marzano (2003) points out that, while such high-performing schools may not have
one reform initiative in particular that have made them successful, they are likely to have
common variables in place that foster high student performance. One such variable
repeatedly identified within the research that has enabled teachers to be more effective in
their classroom practice is that they engage in high quality professional learning
experiences (Galluci, 2008; Geijsel et al., 2009). One case study in particular, set in
Arizona, identifies schools that are “beating the odds” (Waits, Campbell, Gau, Jacobs,
Rex, & Hess, 2006). This study highlights schools that have populations that classified
as 90/90/90 schools meaning that at least 90% of their school population consists of
minority students, 90% of their school population is considered low socio-economic
status, and 90% of their student population is demonstrating high academic achievement
(Waits et al., 2006). The study’s findings corroborate the significant role professional
learning plays on the enhancement of student learning, as each school examined in this
5
study had high quality professional learning opportunities in place for their teachers to
engage in (ibid). Although there are relatively few high-poverty, high-minority schools
that are considered high achieving based on Academic Performance Index (API) scores,
it is worth investigating whether the types of professional learning and the structures in
place to foster such professional development are contributing factors of their school’s
high student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify whether elements deemed conducive to
effective professional learning were enacted in a high performing secondary school.
Specifically, this case study sought to examine the purposes, processes, and structures of
professional learning opportunities and the extent to which these aspects were likely to
foster teacher practice change. This study also aimed to identify how the relationship
between knowledge and practice was conceptualized within the context of professional
development at the one high school selected for this case study. Interview data was
collected from teachers and one principal to (1) identify the purpose, processes, and
structures framing the professional learning experiences offered at CHS and whether they
were likely to lead to teacher practice change; and (2) capture how teachers and the
principal view the relationship between knowledge and practice within the content of
professional development. Observation tools were used to identify the learning processes
enacted by participants during the professional development, pinpoint the purpose or goal
of their learning experiences, and determine the school’s structural parameters that have
been put in place to support the professional learning among its teachers.

6
This qualitative case study was guided by the following research questions:
I. What are the purpose, processes, and structures of professional development
at this school site, and are they likely to lead to teacher practice change?
II. How is the relationship between knowledge and practice conceptualized
within the context of professional development?
Importance of the Study
The accountability measures put in place by the NCLB legislation requiring that
all students are taught by highly qualified teachers (NCLB, 2001) cannot be ignored and
will remain in place for an indefinite amount of time. Given that teacher professional
development is widely viewed as the most promising intervention for improving existing
teacher quality (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010), and that teacher quality is recognized as
one of the most prominent inputs affecting student performance (Goldhaber & Anthony,
2007; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009), it is important to contribute to the body of professional
development literature highlighting approaches that high performing schools with
traditionally low-performing students are enacting in practice. Studying a school that
contradicts historical trends in terms of its student achievement based on demographics
and SES will provide a new perspective for other schools with similar demographics on
how to enact high quality professional learning opportunities for their teachers, and
which learning purposes, processes, and structures will best support effective professional
learning.
Limitations
The following limitations include factors that were beyond the researcher’s
control that may affect the results of the study or how the results are interpreted:
7
1. Generalizability: The findings and conclusions drawn from this case study are only
generalizable to the studied school.
2. Truthfulness: The degree of honesty participants express during interview responses
cannot be controlled for.
3. Low Socio-Economic Status/High Poverty: The honesty of reporting students who
qualify for free-and-reduced lunch or lack thereof may have affected this school’s
classification as a high poverty school.
Delimitations
The following delimitations include factors within the researcher’s control which
may still affect the results of the study or how the results are interpreted:
1. Single school site: Only one school site is represented in this case study. This site was
chosen among a pool of potential sites given its match to criteria described in Chapter 3.
2. Time limitations: The duration of the study was conducted over the course of six
weeks due to availability of the staff at the high school. Interview and observation times
were also determined by the availability of the school staff. During the study, only four
observations of professional development meetings were conducted, two of which were
science specific meetings. This offered a limited scope in terms of gauging whether the
behaviors and actions exercised by teachers during these meeting were indicative of
behavior that is enacted on a consistent basis during professional development
opportunities.
3. Instrumentation: The instrumentation used for the observations and interviews
conducted in this case study may not yield appropriate data to answer the specified
research questions.
8
4. Geographic Region: School was chosen according to where the criteria outlined in
Chapter III could be met.
Definition of Terms
The following are operational definitions as decided by the researcher:
Academic Performance Index (API): According to the 2008-2009 Academic Performance
Index Reports of the California Department of Education, API measures the academic
performance and progress of schools. It was part of the Public Schools Accountability
Act of 1999. API scores range from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The API target for all
schools is 800.

Accountability: The notion that people (e.g., students or teachers) or an organization (e.g.,
a school, school district, or state department of education) should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their success or
lack of success in doing so.

Achievement Gap: Consistent differences in scores on student achievement tests between
various groups of students. The data highlights a strong association between poverty and
students' lack of academic success as measured by achievement tests. While poverty is
not unique to any ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among African
Americans and Hispanics, and among English learners. The reasons behind the
achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some degree stem from factors that
children bring with them to school. However, other factors that contribute to the gap stem
from students' school experiences and the quality of teacher instruction they receive.
9
Authentic Professional Learning – defined as a learning experience that enables
participants to transfer their skills from the professional development opportunities they
engage in to their classroom practices.

Effective and/or High Quality Professional Development: descriptors that are used
interchangeably within the research to characterize a subset of elements that when
simultaneously enacted, foster experiences that are conducive to authentic professional
learning among its participants.

High Minority Schools: are defined as schools where at least 60 percent or greater of the
student population is represented by students who belong to non-dominant or
traditionally under-represented group.

High Performing Schools: are defined as schools with at least 3 years demonstrating
progress on their API score or having at least a 750 API score.

Low Socio-Economic Status Schools: are defined as schools where at least 40 percent or
more of student population qualify for free or reduced priced lunch.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The focus of
NCLB was to increase accountability, focus on research-based practices, provide quality
education and empower parents.
10
Process: defined as the learning processes participants engage in during effective
professional development. Examples of such learning processes include critical relation,
structured dialogue, and well as examining how participants are expected to learn within
professional development settings.

Purpose: defined as the goal orientation or focus of the professional development
participants engage in.

School Accountability Report Card (SARC): An annual report on specified aspects of a
school's operation, demographic information, test performance indicators, etc.

Structure: refers specifically to the structural elements of professional development. This
includes but is not limited to duration of professional development, whether it is
embedded within the school schedule, whether it is structured as a professional learning
community, where professional development takes place, etc.

11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to answer the questions presented in Chapter 1, this chapter draws on
relevant literature related to professional development. Drawing from this literature
provides an informed understanding of what “effective” professional development means
and the elements that are used to characterize “effective” professional development. Little
(1987) defines professional development as “any activity that is intended partly or
primarily to prepare paid staff members for improved performance in present or future
roles in the school districts” (p. 491). “Effective” and/or “high quality” professional
development, descriptors used interchangeably within the research, is characterized by a
consistent subset of elements that when combined, foster experiences conducive to
authentic professional learning among participants (Wei et al., 2009, Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999)
1
. These elements must present for authentic professional learning
experiences to enable participants to transfer their skills into the classroom (Webster-
Right, 2009). The literature is organized into three categories that reflect the elements
necessary for authentic professional learning: the purposes of professional development,
the processes of professional development, and the structures of professional
development. The literature review presents these themes in turn and then focuses on the
exemplary studies that speak to those themes.
The Purposes of Professional Development
Scholars identify various purposes for professional development. While
professional development is usually framed as having the overarching goal of improving

1
 As this dissertation examines whether the professional development provided to teachers is aligned 
to the attributes of effective professional development, this literature review will present elements that
have been identified as “effective” aspects of professional development and exclude discussions pertaining
to elements that have been linked with ineffective means of professional development. 
12
student learning, individual opportunities often reflect different intermediate purposes
that are viewed as gateways to instructional improvement and, thereby, student learning.
Looking across the literature base, the following five core purposes emerge: training
teachers to use particular strategies, curricula, and tools; supporting teachers to align their
practices with school-wide and district-wide goals and embed accountability; helping
teachers understand their students as learners; developing teachers’ content area
knowledge and knowledge of content specific pedagogy; and supporting teachers to
reflect on and address problems of practice, including problems of practice related to
planning and assessment, that they routinely encounter in their daily work. The
subsections below discuss what these purposes look like in practice and highlight a few
exemplary studies that show examples of “effective” professional development
opportunities that reflect these purposes.
Purpose 1: Training teachers to use particular strategies, curricula, and tools
A traditional purpose of professional development has been to train teachers on
how to understand and/or implement specific strategies, instructional tools, curricula, or
programs. Multiple scholars argue against this form of professional development and
critique it for reflecting a one-size-fits all approach that treats teachers and their contexts
as uniform and interchangeable (Wei et al., 2009; Little, 1993), tends to be disconnected
from teachers’ classroom experiences (Little, 1993), and usually positions teachers as
passive recipients of content rather than active agents in their learning (Cochran-Smith
and Lytle, 1999). While there is some consensus against professional development that
aims only to train teachers to use strategies, tools, curricula or programs “properly”
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), this method of professional development can be valuable
13
if teachers are afforded the opportunity to engage in critical reflection or critique their
practice in relation to the strategies, tools, curricula or programs curriculum they are
being asked to implement. Hoffman and Pearson (2000) provide one such example of a
professional development approach whose purpose was to train teachers in the
implementation of a reading program.
Hoffman and Pearson (2000) define training as the direct actions used in order to
enhance a learner’s or participant’s ability to do something fluently and efficiently.
Hoffman and Pearson (2000) provide a detailed overview of a training approach used to
prepare teachers to implement a reading intervention program for struggling readers in 1
st

grade. Reading Recovery requires teachers to enroll in a year of intensive training in the
strategies and routines required to successfully implement the reading tutorial. Trainees
in the Reading Recovery program engage in reflection with fellow participants and their
instructors in addition to critiquing their own practice. Hoffman and Pearson (2000)
found that the reflection teachers engaged in influenced their teaching practice,
specifically in how teachers worked with groups of students in their classroom because
they possessed new knowledge about learning to read. Thus, even if much of the
literature critiques professional development reflecting this first purpose, Hoffman and
Pearson’s (2000) review of this study suggests the potential for effective professional
development.
Purpose 2: Supporting teachers to align their practices with school- and district-
wide goals and establish accountability
Some professional development opportunities are designed with the purpose of
aligning district goals with the goals of teachers’ professional learning activities to ensure
14
teacher accountability for student learning (Atkinson, 2012; Harris, 2011; Eaker &
Keating, 2008). This subsection addresses one noteworthy example of a study that
analyzed a school district that opted for this very purpose when offering professional
development experiences.
Eaker and Keating (2008) studied the White River School District (WRSD), a
district that committed itself to aligning the professional development of its teachers with
the district’s goals of ensuring that both students and teachers experienced high quality
learning. WRSD specifically ensured that all professional development objectives were
aligned with expected student learning goals. The decision to determine what
professional learning should focus on was based primarily on the work of collaborative
teacher teams and was selected with the intention of effectively affecting student
learning. It is important to note that teacher teams were given some level of personal
autonomy to choose what areas of student learning they wanted to spend time focusing on
(Eaker & Keating, 2008). The year after WRSD redirected its purpose of professional
development to align student and adult learning goals, WRSD experienced increased test
scores in all 140 elementary grade levels and an increased number of students enrolled in
AP courses at the high school level. Eaker and Keating (2008) contend that WRSD
realized that these improvements resulted from aligning teacher and student learning
goals as a cornerstone of their professional development approach.
In an effort to develop a collective responsibility towards accountability and
examine the results of professional learning, WRSD chose to confront the disconnect that
often exists in districts between what is expected and the quality of work that is accepted
(Eaker & Keating, 2008). In order to hold teachers accountable for focusing on student
15
learning, WRSD analyzed data to evaluate effectiveness of professional learning as it
related to student achievement. Reviewing student performance served as a way to hold
teachers accountable for enhancing student learning but also provided an objective way
of determining which areas of student achievement may need to be more heavily focused
upon. Lastly, WRSD worked to embed professional learning communities within all
schools in the district to provide a forum for teachers to come together, discuss, examine
student work, curriculum plan, and evaluate their students’ learning throughout the year.
Purpose 3: Supporting teachers to understand students as learners
At times, professional development is approached with the purpose of helping
teachers understand student thinking about content and how to teach in relation to their
students’ understanding (Capps, Crawford, & Constas, 2012; Rushton, Lotter, & Singer,
2011; Brand & Moore, 2011). This subsection highlights one excellent example of
teachers engaging in professional development for the purposes of helping teachers use
inquiry as a basis for reflecting on their own teaching practices in relation to their
students learning.
Hammer and Schifter (2001) argue that teachers are similar to educational
researchers in that teachers are continuously inquiring about their students’ knowledge
and reasoning. Hammer and Schifter (2001) analyze an inquiry project they worked on as
a means of providing a professional development with the purpose of helping teachers
analyze their students’ understandings of physics content, address misunderstandings,
and modify curriculum accordingly. Over the course of the 3-year project, Hammer and
Schifter (2000) met with teachers for 2 hours every other week in order to study how
teachers responded to their students’ intellectual strengths and needs, the intellectual
16
resources they have available for meeting those demands, and how perspectives from
research on learning may contribute to those resources. During these inquiry meetings,
teachers reflected on a variety of informational sources they referred to as “snippets”
pertaining to their students’ understanding and misconceptions of content (Hammer and
Schifter, 2000, p. 446). These snippets included student work, video recordings of their
lessons, and transcripts of interactions with students. Through their engagement in the
inquiry project, teachers reported acquiring new ideas for activities, increased awareness
of their students’ learning, and how they interpreted their students’ knowledge and
reasoning (Hammer & Schifter, 2000). Thus, Hammer and Schifter (2000) offer one
example of how engaging in professional development that consists of an inquiry-based
approach can help teachers to examine their students’ understanding of content and better
support their learning.
4. Developing teachers’ content area knowledge and knowledge of content specific
pedagogy
One purpose of professional development is to enhance or develop teachers’
content area knowledge and knowledge of content specific pedagogy (Wilson & Berne,
1999; Van Driel & Berry, 2012; Wei et. al, 2009). This section spotlights two
outstanding examples of professional development centered upon the purpose of
improving teachers content knowledge and/or content specific pedagogy.
Carpenter, Feneman, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) found that engaging
teachers in learning about mathematics content and pedagogy in the Cognitively Guided
Instruction (CGI) program produced changes in practice for teachers and outcomes for
students. CGI operates on the theory that, if teachers understand how students think and
17
learn, they can better predict what their students need and match instruction accordingly.
In comparison with control-group teachers, Carpenter et al. (1989) found that CGI
teachers more often emphasized problem-solving skills, expected students to use multiple
strategies and had greater knowledge of students’ thinking. In comparison to control-
group students, students in CGI classrooms demonstrated higher-level problem solving
abilities and greater recall of number facts, while performing comparably on basic skills
tests. On one hand, this study lends support for the argument that positive outcomes in
both teacher and student learning can be achieved if the professional development
enhances both content knowledge and content specific pedagogical practices. However,
it does not account for additional factors which may have contributed to the differences in
performance observed between CGI students and their control-group peers.
Saxe, Gearhart and Nasir (2001) investigate the impact of engaging participants in
professional learning that is focused on content knowledge and content-specific
pedagogy. They compared three types of support for teacher learning including
traditional professional development workshops and a professional community-based
activity which offered support to teachers using new curriculum units including the
Integrated Mathematics Assessment (IMA) approach (Saxe et al., 2001). Not
surprisingly, Saxe et al. (2001) found that student achievement improved most when
teachers were engaged in sustained, collaborative professional development that
specifically focused on deepening teachers’ content knowledge and instructional
practices. The IMA approach directly engaged teachers in learning the mathematics in the
new curriculum as well as facilitating discussion around pedagogical content knowledge
necessary to teach the units. Saxe et al. (2001) found that students whose teachers
18
participated in the IMA program showed the greatest gains in conceptual understanding.
While a weakness of this study is that it only focuses on student achievement at the
elementary level, the findings still lend support for teachers’ learning opportunities to
focus on specific content knowledge and content pedagogy.
5. Supporting teachers to reflect on and address problems of practice
One purpose of professional development can be to allow teachers the opportunity
to critique their own practice and revise their instruction accordingly. For example, some
formats teachers may use to engage in critiquing their practice include action research,
lesson study, or inquiry groups (Babkie & Provost, 2004; Baumann & Duffy, 2001;
Goodnough, 2001). Goodnough (2001) offers one exemplary example of how engaging
in action research can provide a medium for teachers to reflect upon their pedagogical
skills.
Goodnough (2001) provides evidence from a case study focusing an elementary
teacher named Ingrid who was able to critically examine her instructional and assessment
practices and make changes to those practices as a result of her engagement in an action
research group. Goodnough (2001) argues that action research helps practitioners close
the gap between theory and practice, by fostering critical self-reflection and through
enhancement of teachers’ knowledge and understanding of their own practice.
Goodnough (2001) highlights that it was the deliberate actions of the research team that
allowed Ingrid to critique her own practice and make necessary adjustments. Working in
collaboration with her colleagues, Ingrid was able to interpret the curriculum expectations
of her students, devise appropriate assessment and learning activities to support those
19
expectations, and was able to evaluate her students’ learning in relation to those
activities.
The Processes of Professional Development
There is a consensus among the research community regarding specific learning
processes that educators engage in during professional development that are deemed
highly conducive to their professional learning. While participation in professional
development does not automatically guarantee that participants will engage in these
learning processes, those who do so have a higher likelihood of critically examining their
own practice, expanding their professional knowledge base, approaching their teaching
with an inquiry-based stance, reflecting more deeply on their students’ learning, and
modifying their instructional practice in response to these insights. Looking across the
literature base, the following three core learning processes emerge: engaging in critically
reflective practices; engaging in inquiry-based structured dialogue; and viewing teacher
learning through a knowledge in practice or knowledge of practice lens. The subsections
below discuss what these learning processes look like in practice, highlight empirical
studies and provide theoretical approaches that show examples of “effective” professional
development opportunities that reflect these learning processes.
Process 1: Engaging in critically reflective practices
A process that is highly conducive to professional learning and fundamental for
stimulating change is engaging in critical reflection. Scholars argue that, by critically
reflecting on instructional practices in relation to students’ learning, educators are more
likely to adjust, modify, and improve their instructional practices in response to the
knowledge gained from such reflective thought (Wei et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond,
20
2009, Little, 1996). The majority of reflective practices take place within a group setting,
but teachers can engage in critical reflection on their own. While much of the literature
base describes reflection as a necessary process of effective professional development, it
clearly articulates that reflecting at a critical level is necessary for any long-standing
transformation in teaching practices to occur (Mezirow, 1994). Webster-Right (2009)
and Rodgers (2002) provide a theoretical perspective for examining what critical
reflection looks like in the practice of effective professional development.
Webster-Right (2009) points out that reflection is integral to teachers’ learning
process. Within the literature, reflection is used to describe a range of activities from
individual contemplation to vigorous critical dialogue between people (Webster-Right,
2009). Reflection can include “planning and analytical problem solving whereas for
reflection to be considered critical in nature, questioning, and challenging of personally
held assumptions about self, others, and ethical issues must occur” (Webster-Right, 2009,
p. 277). The value of engaging in critical reflection as a component of professional
learning, Webster-Right (2009) maintains, is the “possibility of transformative change for
the learners and those with whom they are engaged, through questioning of assumptions
that underlie the habitual patterns of their thoughts and actions” (p. 722). Hence, through
this “transformative change,” learners gain a wider scope to view their world where they
then can “reinterpret their experiences from a different perspective and act to change
situations” such as their classroom practice (Webster-Right, 2009, p. 722).
Rodgers (2002) provides an extensive overview of a structured four-phase
reflective cycle, which grew from Dewey’s concept of reflection (1933), that she uses in
professional development work with teachers to help them more clearly see student
21
learning. Specifically, Rodgers (2002) argues that teachers must progress through the
four stages in order to think critically about students’ learning so they begin to understand
what this tells them about their teaching, the subject matter, and the contexts in which all
of these elements interact. The primary content Rodgers (2002) uses in her professional
development work with teachers consists of their own classroom experiences because she
insists that teachers’ experiences are central to their learning process (ibid). Closer
examination of Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle provides insight on how critical
reflection looks in practice.
The first phase of Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle focuses on the teachers’
ability to be cognitively “present” (p. 234). Rodgers (2002) contends that when teachers
have not internalized their subject matter their attention is not focused on listening to
their students’ thinking. Therefore this prevents them from recognizing where students
actually are in the learning process. The second phase of the reflective cycle is the
“description” phase where teachers are called upon gather descriptive data from their
classroom between themselves, their students, the subject matter and the context in which
these interactions are taking place (p. 238). Analyzing this data helps teachers focus their
attention on examining how their students are making sense of material and empowering
them taking an active role in evaluating to what extent their students have understood the
content. The third phase of the reflective cycle is described as the “analysis” phase where
“meaning-making” happens (Rodgers, 2002, p. 244). Within this reflective phase,
teachers and facilitators are called upon to generate a common language about teaching
and learning. By “unveiling the nuances of words and concepts commonly used when
discussing teaching and learning such as ‘engagement’, teachers are able to more intently
22
focus on critically examining their teaching practice and their students’ learning”
(Rodgers, 2002, p. 246). Thus, the ambiguity of language used to analyze teachers’ work
must be clearly articulated. Within the “analysis” phase, teachers are also called upon to
reveal personal assumptions about student learning that may influence their teaching.
The final phase of the reflective cycle is referred to as “experimentation” where teachers
work collaboratively to devise different strategies for dealing with classroom problem or
questions at hand (Rodgers, 2002, p. 249). While Rodgers’s (2002) approach presents a
framework for reflective inquiry in practice that offers teachers a way of recognizing how
to see and be present to their students’ learning, she posits that only through the structure
of a supportive and disciplined community of reflection can teacher practice change for
the better.
Process 2: Engaging in inquiry-based structured dialogue
A process that is frequently cited within the literature as conducive to highly
effective professional development is the engagement in structured dialogue. Structured
dialogue refers to conversations exchanged among educational professionals that take
place in hopes of achieving a specified goal (Hollins, 2006; Little, 2006; Wei et. al,
2009). The goal of these conversations can range from critically reflecting upon one’s
instructional practice for improvement purposes, deeply elevating student work to access
their levels of understanding, accepting a greater responsibility for enhancing student
achievement, or co-designing curricular units. The literature presents a broad consensus
regarding how structured dialogue that is grounded in inquiry is a powerful learning
process capable of changing teacher practice. This section highlights a few of the voices
to speak to importance of engaging in structured dialogue as well as present a few
23
exemplary studies that demonstrate how incorporating structured dialogue within
professional learning opportunities can enhance teacher practice.
Mezirow (1994) points out that, in order for adults to undergo transformative
learning, they must be afforded opportunities to confront their own and others’
assumptions through the process of reflection coupled with engagement in effective
dialogue. Through dialogue and critical reflection, Mezirow (1994, 1998) argues, are
most conducive to teachers’ embracing changes in their instructional practices. Mezirow
(1994) defines dialogue as central to human communication and learning, specifically
citing that dialogue occurs when individuals “justify beliefs by giving and defending
reasons and by examining the evidence for and against competing viewpoints” (p. 5). By
engaging in critical reflection through the process of dialogue, teachers are likely to
transform their learning to a level that allows them to change their instructional practices.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) attempt to capture an image of what knowledge-
of-practice may look like within teacher inquiry communities by studying the ways
teachers engage in oral inquiry. They contend that teachers’ exploration of their own
practice through oral inquiry should be based on “rich conversations about students’
work, teachers’ classroom observations and reflections, curriculum materials and
practices, as well as classroom and school-related documents and artifacts” (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 279). It is through these rich conversations, Cochran-Smith and
Lytle (1999) argue, that teachers will be able to thoroughly analyze and interpret this data
in a way that informs their knowledge regarding their own practices and their students’
learning. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) assert that teachers’ engagement in meaningful
24
dialogue within a teacher group or learning community regarding their instructional
practices is likely to lead to improved student learning outcomes.
Hollins (2006) describes The Urban Literacy Institute, which began in 2001, as an
example of how teacher collaboration helped urban teachers in Ohio begin to transform
their practice. The project aimed to provide opportunities for teachers to address their
own professional development through a structured dialogue process and to improve
literacy instruction for low-income, urban students. Over time teachers began to perceive
a relationship between instruction and outcomes, to assume more responsibility for
student learning, and to show more willingness to contribute to their colleagues’
professional growth (Hollins, 2006). The findings identified structured dialogue as a
powerful instrument for empowering teachers in these urban schools to plan, implement,
and monitor their own professional development. Thus, the Urban Literacy Project
reinforces the notion that structured dialogue within a teacher community has the
potential to transform teachers’ values and instructional practices.
In the Community of Learners project (Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre, &
Woolworth, 1998), high-school teachers of English and history gathered with university-
based educators to read books, discuss teaching and learning, and design an
interdisciplinary humanities curriculum together. Central to this work was the idea that
each participant brings unique knowledge and beliefs that can be exchanged through
dialogue among colleagues. Specifically, Thomas et al. (1998) found that, when the
teachers’ drew upon one another’s expertise whether in subject matter or specialized
knowledge of working with specific populations of students (i.e. language minority),
collective understandings among the entire group is advanced. Preliminary findings of
25
this study indicated that an intellectual community for teachers developed within the high
school, collegiality among faculty within and across departments was enhanced, and the
curriculum of the school was affected. Thomas et al. (1998) found that integrating the
process of structured dialogue into professional learning opportunities afforded
participants the chance to deeply reflect upon their own instructional practices at a more
critical level.
Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991) discuss their work with a group of teachers to
elaborate the concept of instructional conversation – a mode of instruction that
emphasizes active student involvement in goal and meaning-oriented discussions.
Together, participants developed principles of instructional conversations for elementary
classrooms as they engaged in instructional conversations themselves. Goldenberg and
Gallimore (1991) played a critical role in guiding instructional conversations with
teachers, while the teachers brought intimate knowledge of their own classrooms and
teaching practices to the conversations. The project illustrates the strengths of bringing
together teachers and university-based researchers or staff developers in discourse
communities that are focused on teaching and learning (Goldenberg & Gallimore (1991).
University participants brought to these groups the critical and reflective stance and
modes of discourse that are important norms within the academic community. Teachers,
in turn, brought knowledge of their pedagogical practices, their students and the cultural
and instructional contexts of their classrooms. Together, these two groups demonstrated
new ways of thinking about their practices and simultaneously created new forms of
discourse about teaching.
26
While professional dialogue within teacher groups can serve as a potentially
powerful structure for improving pedagogical practice, it may also introduce tensions into
the professional development experience. For example, the university teams in both the
Goldenberg project and Community of Learners project struggled with the question of
how much guidance and structure to bring to the conversations seeking an appropriate
balance between presenting information and facilitating teachers’ construction of new
practices. In considering these issues of balance, we are reminded of what Richardson
(1992) termed the agenda-setting dilemma:
The staff developer wants to see teachers’ practice change in particular
directions while empowering the teachers themselves to be meaningfully
involved in determining the changes. This dilemma is analogous to one
faced by the classroom teacher who wants to empower children to build
upon their own thinking while simultaneously ensuring that they learn the
expected subject-matter content (p. 9)

Staff developers, like teachers, must negotiate their way between the learners’
current thinking and the subject matter or content to be learned. In the case of
professional development, the learners are teachers and the content may be new teaching
practices or forms of pedagogical thinking. Hence, an equitable balance might be to view
discourse communities as joint ventures, where all parties involved are responsible for
providing new insights about teaching and learning as well as contributing to the overall
understanding of the group as a whole.
Process 3: Viewing teacher learning through a knowledge in practice or knowledge
of practice lens
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) argue that how teacher knowledge is viewed and
treated during professional development indicates whether authentic professional learning
is taking place. Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999) suggest how to re-conceptualize the
27
notion of professional knowledge by unpacking three prominent conceptions of teacher
learning: knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice.
Because these conceptions or processes of teacher learning are extremely different,
including their varying images of knowledge and how these images relate to professional
practice, they lead to very different ideas about how to improve professional development
to ensure that teacher learning is a result, not merely an expectation.
Knowledge for Practice
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) argue that knowledge for practice is based on the
conception that teaching has a “distinctive knowledge base” that, “when mastered, will
provide teachers with a unique fund of knowledge” which can then be translated and put
into practice (p. 255). Thus, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999) contend that “pedagogical
content knowledge, or how teachers understand subject matter and how they transform it
into classroom instruction has become a central construct” of knowledge for practice (p.
256). The notion of knowledge for practice views teacher learning as a process where
teachers merely acquire knowledge from experts in a particular field or on a specific
topic, and can then readily apply it to their instructional situation regardless of the content
or context. Implicit in the knowledge for practice concept is that teachers are seen as
passive recipients who must receive information in order to enhance their pedagogical
practices.
Knowledge in Practice
The concept of knowledge in practice hinges on the assumption that teachers learn
when they have opportunities to probe practical knowledge that is “embedded in the work
of expert teachers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 262). Hence, this expert
28
“knowledge” that seasoned teachers possess is gained through the various choices they
make in response to classroom conditions and circumstances. Knowledge in practice also
suggests that teachers learn by “acquiring knowledge through experience and through
deliberate reflection about or inquiry into experience” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p.
262). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) suggest that the progressing of teacher learning to
the knowledge in practice stage requires “enhancing teachers’ understanding of their own
actions – that is their own assumptions, their own reasoning and decisions, and their own
inventions of new knowledge to fit unique and shifting classroom situations” (p. 267).
From this perspective, teachers benefit from having opportunities to meet with veteran or
expert teachers to discuss, dissect, and analyze the instructional choices they make.
Through these experiences, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) contend that teachers are
able to acquire new and valuable knowledge that will help enhance and inform their
teaching practices. Arrangements that are conducive to facilitating the knowledge in
practice form of teacher learning include “facilitated teacher groups, dyads composed of
more and less experienced teachers, teacher communities, and other kinds of
collaborative arrangements that support teachers’ working together to reflect in and on
practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p.263). Unlike knowledge for practice,
knowledge in practice rejects the notion that the teacher is a recipient of knowledge and
instead sees the “teacher as one who mediates ideas, constructs meaning and knowledge
and acts upon them” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 267). A notably beneficial aspect
of approaching professional learning through a knowledge in practice lens is that teachers
are agents of their own learning. Teachers, in this sense, are actively contributing to their
own knowledge base because they are cognitively processing and reflecting upon the
29
reasons behind the instructional decisions they choose to make in response to various
types of classroom environments.
Given that knowledge in practice operates in an action-based setting where
teachers are asked to consciously reflect on their classroom practices and engage in
conversations with expert teachers to identify the underlying reasons why they exercise
certain instructional decisions on a daily basis, suggests that professional development
tied to this conception must take these learning processes into consideration.
Professional development initiatives based on knowledge in practice should “focus on
helping practitioners develop their craft by exploring problems of practice that cannot be
solved by the straightforward application of established theories, and, instead, calls upon
the reconsideration of their own assumptions and reasoning processes” (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999, p. 270). Knowledge in practice is contingent upon allowing teachers the
opportunity to collaborate, discuss classroom practices and utilize reflective processes
that will challenge their own assumptions in order to help enhance their teaching
practices.
Knowledge of Practice
While the conception of knowledge in practice refers primarily to what teachers
do within the boundaries of their roles as classroom managers and planners, knowledge of
practice emphasizes that teachers have a “transformed and expanded view of what
practice means” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 276). Specifically, Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1999) contend that the primary foundation underlying knowledge of practice is
that “teachers across their professional life span play a central and critical role in
generating knowledge of practice by making their classrooms and schools sites for
30
inquiry, connecting their work in schools to larger issues, and taking a critical perspective
on the theory and research of others” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 273). This
expanded view of practice does not add to teachers’ involvement outside of the
classroom. As a result, what occurs inside the classroom is profoundly altered and
ultimately transformed when teachers root their practices “in the intellectual, social, and
cultural contexts of teaching” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 276). Perhaps the most
significant distinction between knowledge of practice and the other two paradigms of
knowledge and practice is that knowledge of practice views teachers as agents of their
own learning, and see them as catalysts of change within their classrooms and the larger
educational issues at hand (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Through the lens of
knowledge of practice, new visions of professional development arise suggesting more
opportunities for teachers to learn by “challenging their own assumptions; posing
problems; studying their own students, classrooms and schools; constructing and
reconstructing curriculum; and taking on roles of leadership and activism in efforts to
transform classrooms, schools and societies” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 278). By
embodying a knowledge of practice approach towards teacher learning within the context
of professional development, teachers are more likely to engage in a process that is
conducive to practice change over time.
The Structure for Learning
The literature identifies various structures for learning within which professional
development can take place. While professional development can be structured in
multiple ways including on-campus or off-campus workshops or training (Little, 1987;
Little, 1996), departmental team meetings, teacher inquiry groups, or embedded
31
collaboration time, these opportunities are always going to be developed in the service of
a particular purpose or goal (Avalos, 2011). The purposes behind professional
development can affect how the structural elements discussed below are arranged to
support professional learning. While there are various professional development
structures across the literature base, there are several structural elements of these
professional development structures frequently emerge as having the most impact on
professional learning: duration of professional development, and location of professional
development. The subsections below highlight a few examples of how each of these
structural elements (duration and location) influences the quality of professional
development and what these structural elements look like in practice.
Duration
There have been significant citations within the research that assert the
effectiveness of professional development when sustained over a period of time (Wei et.
al., 2009; Little, 2006; Darling-Hammond et. al., 2009). Intellectual and pedagogical
change requires professional development activities to be of sufficient duration, including
both span of time over which the activity is spread (i.e., one day or one semester) and the
number of hours spent in the activity.
Guskey (2000) highlights, for example, that professional development must be an
ongoing activity that is woven within the fabric of every educator’s professional life
versus an event that is separate from day-to-day responsibilities. In essence, professional
development must be viewed as a natural and recurring process integral to all learning
environments. Guskey (2000) contends that effective professional development
opportunities that are embedded within the structures and practices of schools are likely
32
to hold promise for enhancing teacher learning. However, he points out that this change is
likely to be slow and must be recognized as a continuous endeavor.
Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson and Orphans (2009) conducted a
multi-year comprehensive study of professional learning across the United States and
abroad to establish benchmarks for assessing progress in professional development over
time. In their meta-analysis of 1,300 research studies and evaluation reports, they found
that a set of programs that offered substantial contact hours of professional development
(ranging from 30-100 hours in total) spread over six to 12 months showed a positive and
significant effect on student achievement gains. According to their review of the
research, intensive professional development that offered an average of 49 hours in a year
boosted student achievement by approximately 21% whereas other efforts that offered a
limited amount of professional development (ranging from five to 14 hours total) showed
no statistically significant effect on student learning. Darling-Hammond et al. (2009)
assert that these findings support the conclusion that intensive and sustained professional
development activities have a greater chance of influencing teaching practices.
Similarly, Desimone (2009) claims that, while research has not identified a “magic
number” in terms of duration span, activities that are spread over a semester (or intense
summer institutes with follow-up during the semester) and include at least 20 hours or
more of contact time are more conducive to authentic professional learning. Desimone
(2009) further asserts that professional development that is sustained and intense has a
greater chance of transforming teaching practices and student learning.
Supovitz and Turner (2000) conducted a survey study of 3464 science teachers
across the nation and found that those who had experienced 80 or more hours of science-
33
related professional development during the previous year were significantly more likely
to use reform-based teacher instruction than teachers who experienced fewer than 80
hours. The study found that increasing amounts of professional development were
statistically associated with greater use of inquiry-based teaching practices and higher
levels of investigative classroom culture. Furthermore, Supovitz and Turner (2000)
found an increase in student achievement among teachers who had participated more
intensely in professional development and encountered more exposure to reform-based
teacher instruction methodologies.
Location
Wei et al. (2009) assert that “both externally-provided and job-embedded
activities that will increase teachers’ knowledge and change their instructional practice in
ways that support student learning” (p. 9). The literature presents examples of
professional development opportunities that take place on-campus or off-campus and can
function to support formal or informal professional learning. Jurasaite-Harbison and Rex
(2010), Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, and Cumbo (1997), and Putnam and Borko
(2000) provide examples of how location of professional development can serve as a
structural element that can impact professional learning.
Avalos (2011) argues that some settings, particular educational environments and
some school cultures have attributes that are conducive to teacher learning. Avalos
(2011) argues that professional learning can occur within multiple settings, both formally
and informally. It is often those settings that determine how professional development is
both structured and facilitated and whether those contexts are conducive to authentic
professional learning.
34
Jurasaite-Harbison and Rex (2010) completed a two-year ethnographic study set
in Lithuania and the United States to compare how the organizational structure of three
different elementary schools created and supported opportunities for teachers to engage
in both formal and informal workplace learning. Data was provided by observations of
the schools and interviews with eleven teachers, as well as by videos and photographs.
Jurasaite-Harbison and Rex (2010) found that both the newer Lithuanian school and
Russian-influenced Lithuanian school created physical spaces within their school’s
structures to encourage and allow teachers’ to engage in informal exchanges with one
another during the school day while this was not the case in the American school based
upon interview data. In terms of arranging formal professional development, the
American school principal provided support for teachers to attend conferences and
workshops, but there were no in-school formal professional development activities. In
contrast, vice-principals organized and led professional development activities for
teachers in the Lithuanian schools. Informal learning among teachers was not supported
in the Russian school where the emphasis was a top-down monitoring of quality. On the
basis of their findings, Jurasaite-Harbison and Rex (2010) concluded that the most
productive location for informal workplace learning were conditions within a
professional development structure that encouraged collaborative learning versus
operating in isolation.
Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, and Cumbo, (1997) highlight a study that
involved staff developers working directly inside the classrooms of participating teachers.
Borko et al. (1997) found that extending work that was being done in a workshop setting
into teachers’ own classrooms was an effective approach to fostering authentic
35
professional learning. In this study, members of the staff development/research team
introduced materials and activities in a workshop session, the teachers attempted to enact
these ideas in their classrooms, and the group discussed their experiences in a subsequent
workshop session (Borko et al., 1997). They found that the conversations between staff
development team members and participating teachers pertaining directly to classroom
practices helped the teachers understand what to look for when observing their students’
understanding as well as how to incorporate classroom-based observations of student
performances into their assessment practices. Borko et al. (1997) concluded that building
a connection between the workshop setting and classroom implementation was important
because the teachers’ learning was directly intertwined with their ongoing practice,
making it likely that what they learn will indeed influence and support their teaching
practice in meaningful ways.
Putnam and Borko (2000) argue that there are, however, some weaknesses with
situating teachers’ learning in the classroom. The first is that it places teachers on the
receiving end of knowledge offered to them by others rather than allowing teachers to
engage in co-constructing knowledge with their colleagues and staff developers. The
second problem is that grounding much of teachers’ learning in their own classroom
practices may not allow for teachers to break free from their automatic actions and
thought patterns. This may cause teachers to become resistant to reflection or change.
Putnam and Borko (2000) find that the location of professional development can
have significant impact on the degree of professional learning that is experienced by the
learner. They assert that providing teachers with opportunities to learn in their own
classrooms and grounded in their own practice is an essential for authentic learning to
36
take place. They conclude that, when teacher learning is intertwined with their ongoing
practice, it makes it more likely that what they learn will influence and support their
teaching practice in meaningful ways. Further, Putnam and Borko (2000) contend that, if
the goal is to help teachers think in new ways, it may be important to have them
experience learning in various settings. They argue that, while the classroom is a
powerful environment for shaping how practicing teachers think and act, it can also act to
constrain it. Therefore, engaging in learning experiences composed of multiple contexts
such as at summer conferences and workshops may be necessary to help teachers
encounter new ways of thinking because it allows them to experience new content
outside of their traditional classroom context.
Putnam and Borko (2000) examined an intensive 2-week summer math institute
that combined opportunities for teachers to participate in mathematics learning activities
similar to those instructional sequences planned for use with their students the following
school year. The summer institute was followed up during the school year with
opportunities for staff members to provide one another with feedback, participate in
demonstration teaching, and share in reflective practices during weekly visits to the
teachers’ classrooms. Putnam and Borko (2000) found this combination of experiences
helped the teachers to develop different conceptions of mathematics and deeper
understandings of mathematical learning and teaching. Yet Putnam and Borko (2000)
assert that the most appropriate staff development site depends on the specific goal for
teachers’ learning. They found summer workshops to be particularly powerful settings
for teachers to develop new relationships to subject matter and new insights about
individual students’ learning. They offer that experiences situated in the teachers’ own
37
classrooms may be better suited to facilitating teachers’ enactment of specific
instructional practices.
Conceptual Framework
A thorough and comprehensive literature review was presented above concerning
the purposes of professional development, the processes of professional development,
and the structures of professional development. Specifically, the overview of literature
sought to illustrate how these three areas correlate to and foster effective professional
learning. These three dimensions of professional development were discussed
independently in an attempt to pull out and identify key factors that are most likely to
engender and perpetuate authentic professional learning. Based upon this review, a
specific subset of ideas from each section stands out as the most important in terms of
being able to address the research questions guiding this study. The most pertinent
elements from each of the three sections (purpose, process and structure) are discussed,
as they are able to inform the research questions. The compilation of these ideas will
serve as the theoretical underpinnings for the conceptual framework and is addressed in
subsequent order below.
Purpose
While there are several purposes behind why professional development is
enacted, there are two most pertinent ideas related to purpose drawn from the literature:
(1) improving teachers’ content area knowledge and knowledge of content specific
pedagogy and (2) supporting teachers to reflect upon and address problems of practice.
Enhancing teachers’ content knowledge and engaging teachers in dialogue
pertaining to content specific instructional practices are factors likely to contribute to an
38
authentic professional learning experience (Wei et al., 2009). Participating in
professional development highly conducive to authentic professional learning is
important because it is this type of learning that is most likely to lead to teacher practice
change (Mezirow, 1994, 1998). Professional learning that focuses on enriching teachers’
content knowledge in relation to their pedagogical skills has shown strong effects on
student achievement (Wei et al., 2009). Within this framework, the purpose of enhancing
content knowledge through effective professional development is defined as consisting of
engagement in learning experiences that are rooted in opportunities to increase subject
specific knowledge and the corresponding pedagogical practices related to that subject.
Observations will specifically look at whether professional development opportunities
enable participants to engage in learning experiences that purposely intend to enhance
their subject knowledge or strengthen their content specific pedagogical practices. For
example, observations may find science teachers engaging in professional development
that is anchored in designing lessons for a new biology curriculum coupled with
discussion around the pedagogical content knowledge necessary to teach those units.
Using this lens to define content knowledge allows for identifying whether elements of
effective professional development are enacted in the practice of a secondary school
setting; will provide a picture of what this quality of effective professional development
looks like; and will pinpoint whether this quality of effective professional development is
likely to lead to teacher practice change.
The second theme related to the purposes behind professional development drawn
from the literature is the element of supporting teachers to reflect upon and address
problems of practice. This study defines addressing problems of practice as teachers
39
engaging in either a form of action research, lesson study or collaborative inquiry groups.
More specifically, the study closely examines whether the professional development
offered at the research site affords teachers opportunities to closely examine their
instructional practices, use work samples as evidence to assess student understanding and
learning, and work collaboratively to devise plans of action in response to a specific
problem. This element of professional development is significant because it reinforces
teachers engaging in reflective practices as it pertains to their instructional pedagogy and
their students’ learning. By participating in forums that allow teachers to address
problems of practice, it is likely they are utilizing critical reflection as well as engaging in
authentic dialogue exchanges with colleagues that will enhance their level of professional
learning. The focus is on the element of addressing problems of practice because it is
applicable to several of the research questions. Examining the methods teachers use to
engage in tackling instructional difficulties will yield insight on whether it is likely to
lead to teacher practice change and if teachers perceive their participation in this type of
professional development to be impacting their practice.
Process
In relation to the second dimension related to professional development, this study
defines process as an intentional action or mindset on the part of the participants that,
when enacted with fidelity, is highly conducive to authentic professional learning. The
three aspects of professional development processes used in assessing the quality of
professional learning occurring at the research site are (1) the extent to which teachers
engage in critical reflective practices (2) the conception of knowledge demonstrated by
teachers participating in professional development, and (3) the substance of the structured
40
dialogue exchanged among teachers engaging in the professional development. The
importance of each criterion, its relation to fostering effective professional learning, and
its connection to the research questions framing this study are discussed in turn below.
Reflection as a Process
The act of reflecting or, more specifically, engaging in critical reflection, is
argued by Webster-Right (2009) and Mezirow (1994, 1998) as an essential element in
teachers’ learning process. More importantly, Webster-Right (2009) maintains that
critical reflection in professional learning experiences provides the premise for
transformative change in teaching practice. To evaluate the extent to which teachers at
the research site engage in critical reflection of their teaching practice and on their
students’ learning during professional development experience, this research uses the
four-phase reflective cycle framework developed by Rodgers (2002). Within each phase
of the reflective cycle, specific elements were extracted to use as indicators to pinpoint
the depth of critical reflection teachers are engaging in during my observations of
professional development. The aspects of each phase this study seeks to identify are
detailed below.
Phase I focuses on the ability of the teacher to remain conscientious of student
learning while still being able to respond with the most appropriate instructional move.
Teacher interviews will reveal whether teachers believe they are able to focus on their
students’ thinking and recognizing where their students actually are in the learning
process versus simply listening for students to offer the right answer.
Phase II is characterized by teachers learning how to gather descriptive data from
their own classrooms by incorporating structured student feedback. Structured feedback
41
lets a teacher consciously step away from the ongoing feedback by posing specific
questions to students about their learning or lack thereof. Examples of questions posed
through structured feedback can take the following forms: “What do you think you’ve
really learned?” “How do you know that you’ve learned it?” “Can you describe how you
learned it?” Information gathered from structured feedback is data that allows teachers to
more fully describe the situations occurring in their classrooms (Rodgers, 2002, p. 242).
Rodgers (2002) points out that, in seeking feedback from students, teachers are not
asking for advice or critique. Instead, teachers are asking students about the details of an
experience that teachers themselves may otherwise be unaware of (ibid). It becomes clear
that at this phase of the reflective cycle, teachers are focusing more of their attention on
examining how their students are making sense of material and taking an active role in
evaluating to what extent their students have understood the content.
Phase III of the reflective cycle is described as the stage where teachers begin to
analyze their own instructional practices in an effort to gain a more holistic understanding
of their students’ learning. The first critical point Rodgers (2002) points out about the
analysis stage is the need for teachers to generate a common language about teaching and
learning. She provides the example of how a simple word such as “engagement” may
hold multiple meanings for different teachers (p. 239). For one teacher, the word
“engagement” may be used when describing a lesson as fun, whereas to another teacher
the word “engagement” may only be applicable when describing a situation conducive to
student learning. Rodgers (2002) adds that this is especially important when teachers are
working within groups. Both teachers and facilitators need to assume the responsibility
of asking each other to define what they mean by the words or terms they assume are
42
commonly understood (ibid). By unveiling the nuances of words and concepts
commonly used when discussing teaching and learning, teachers are able to more intently
focus on examining their teaching practice and their students’ learning. This holds
significant implications for the structure of reflection among teachers. Thus, this study
will be specifically looking at whether teachers have generated a common language that
is clearly articulated, or protocols that they adhere to when having discussions pertaining
to student learning.
Phase IV of the reflective cycle involves the collective effort among a group of
teachers to mutually construct ideas in response to dealing with specific classroom
problems or questions at hand. Rodgers (2002) is quick to identify that ideas for action
differ from advice. Advice can sound like, “You should do…,” whereas ideas for action
are couched in language like, “What would happen if you…?” or “Once I tried…”
(Rodgers, 2002, p. 249). In order for these ideas to truly take shape however, teachers
must be willing to test them in action. While description, analysis and ideas for action
are necessary (Rodgers, 2002), the reflective cycle is incomplete without consciously
enacting them in practice. Determining whether a teacher enacts a plan of action that was
mutually constructed with colleagues into their classroom practice will determine
whether they are engaging in the highest level of critical reflection according to the
reflection cycle presented by Rodgers (2002).
Conceptions of Knowledge as a Process
The conception of knowledge demonstrated by teachers engaging in professional
development is drawn from Cochran-Smith & Lytle’s (1999) three conceptions of teacher
learning: knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice.
43
Given that these conceptions of teacher learning are different from one another, including
their varying images of knowledge and how these images relate to professional practice,
they lead to very different notions regarding how likely teachers are to engage in practice
change. Examining the degree to which teachers engage in professional development
experiences that emphasize the knowledge in practice concept, and/or the knowledge of
practice concept will indicate the extent to which their professional learning experiences
are likely to influence their pedagogical practices. Drawing closely on the knowledge
and practice paradigm presented by Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999), this study defines
knowledge in practice as a concept dependent on teacher collaboration focused on
reflective processes pertaining to personal assumptions and/or classroom practices; and
knowledge of practice as a concept related to viewing one’s teaching through social,
cultural and contextual lenses. Specifically, the knowledge of practice concept is defined
in accordance with Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) – that which involves “teachers
having opportunities to learn by challenging their own assumptions; posing problems;
studying their own students, classrooms and schools; constructing and reconstructing
curriculum; and taking on roles of leadership and activism in efforts to transform their
classrooms, schools and societies” (p. 278).
Recognizing which conception of knowledge is most prevalent in the professional
learning exchanges among teachers at the research site will allow for better understanding
of how likely teachers are to perceive the professional development they are engaging to
impact their practice. Furthermore, the conception of knowledge most commonly
employed by teachers or facilitators of professional development can influence whether
44
teachers consider the professional learning experiences they are participating in to be
effective.
Structured Dialogue as a Process
Drawing primarily on the work of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), Hollins
(2006) and Putnam and Borko (2000), this study defines structured dialogue as teachers
engaging in oral inquiry or exchanging verbal communication with an intentional focus
on students’ work, teachers’ classroom observations and reflections, curriculum materials
or pedagogical practices, as well as classroom and school-related documents and
artifacts. It is through the action of engaging in dialogue with an intentional purpose or
focus, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) contend, that teachers are able to thoroughly
analyze their own practices as it relates to their students’ learning. By pinpointing the
substantive makeup of the dialogue exchanged among teachers while they are engaging
in professional learning opportunities may indicate how likely their conversations are to
influence their practice change over time.
Structure
From the literature reviewed pertaining to the structural elements of professional
development, previous sections highlighted duration of professional learning
opportunities as an important factor that can help determine whether professional
development is likely to lead to improved teacher practice (Guskey, 2000). This study
defines duration of professional development as both the number of hours teachers
engage in professional development pertaining to a particular focus as well as the span of
time (months or the entire school year) over which they engage in these professional
learning opportunities. Drawing from the research, it is clear that sustained and ongoing
45
professional development can lead to teacher practice change (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009). Identifying the duration of professional development opportunities offered at the
research site will help address whether the professional development it is likely to lead to
teacher practice change and whether teachers perceive the professional development to be
impacting their practice given the duration of their participation.
Concluding Discussion
As the research illustrates, there are three dimensions of professional development
(purpose, process, and structure) that must be considered when enacting high quality or
effective professional development in practice. Within each of these dimensions there
are specific elements that when enacted simultaneously lead to authentic forms of
professional learning which can impact teacher practice change. Aspects from each of
the three domains of professional development will provide the conceptual framework for
answering the research questions guiding this study.
46
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, research framework,
instrumentation and data collection methodologies utilized in this study. The purpose of
this study was to investigate whether elements of “effective” professional development
were actually enacted in a high-performing secondary school with a large population of
minority students who were deemed low socio-economic status (SES). Specifically, this
study aimed to examine the content and context of the professional development
opportunities offered at this school site as well as analyze the structures in which these
opportunities ensued. The rationale behind examining a high performing school with a
high minority, low SES population was to shed light on whether enacting effective
elements of professional development were more likely to impact teacher practice thus
increasing the likelihood of enhanced student achievement. This qualitative case study
was guided by the following research questions:
I. Given the purposes, processes, and structures of professional development,
are they likely to lead to teacher practice change?
II. How is the relationship between knowledge and practice conceptualized
within the context of professional development?

This case study was guided by a qualitative research methodology. Having an
interest in knowing more about one’s practice and indeed in improving one’s practice led
to asking researchable questions, some of which were best answered through a qualitative
research design (Merriam, 2009). Interviews with teachers and administrators coupled
with observations of professional development were conducted in order to specifically
address each research question. A case-study approach was used to highlight whether the
enactment of effective professional development purposes, processes, and structures were
47
likely to lead to teacher practice within the context of a high-minority, low SES school
setting. As Stake (1981), cited in Merriam (2009), highlights, the knowledge generated
from a case study is more contextual versus traditional research proving valuable for
uncovering knowledge that is concrete. As a descriptive case-study, the end product was
a rich description of the phenomenon under investigation (Merriam, 2009). This
particular case study attempted to capture what the qualities of professional development
purposes, processes, and structures present in a high performing secondary school were
and whether they were likely to lead to teacher practice change.
This chapter is divided into five subsequent sections. First, the sample and
population for this case-study are described, including the criteria that were used for
selection of the research site. Second, the instrumentation and its relation to each
research question are outlined. Third, the data collection procedures used for this
research design are described. Fourth, the data analysis procedures including issues
pertaining to reliability, validity and triangulation are discussed. Lastly, ethical
considerations related to the research process are mentioned.
Sample and Population Size
The focus of this study was to gather a sense of whether “effective” professional
development was enacted in a high-performing secondary school, what it looked like, and
whether the identifiable elements of that professional development were consistent with
what the literature deems as conducive to professional learning in terms of being likely to
lead to teacher practice change. The decision to investigate one school was based on the
desire to gain a deep and rich understanding of how a high-performing school with a
significant population of minority students who were classified as low SES facilitated
48
professional development to foster professional learning among their teachers. A specific
set of selection criteria were utilized to identify one high school within the state of
California from districts and schools that varied in performance levels and poverty levels.
This section outlines the proposed selection criteria, the sampling procedures, and
participants.
Selection Criteria
Within the state of California, there are a number of high performing schools in
high poverty areas that have been utilized for purposeful sampling. This study involved
purposeful sampling because of the selection of an extreme or deviant case (Patton,
2002), in this case, a high performing school that had a significant population of minority
students who were also classified as low SES. Patton (2002) points out that purposeful
sampling indicates to an audience that one is learning from an unusual manifestation of
the phenomenon of interest. Challenging the traditional achievement trends, some high
poverty schools with large populations of minority students have had success in attaining
high academic achievement (Waits, Campbell, Gau, Jacobs, Rex, & Hess, 2006). Such
schools have had no one reform initiative in particular that have made them successful,
but, instead, have shared common variables in place that foster high student achievement
(Marzano, 2003). Thus, in order to focus on whether effective professional development
was a contributing factor towards this success, Merriam (2009) suggests that a criterion-
based selection be utilized to reinforce purposeful sampling, thus leading to an
information-rich case study. The following selection criteria were utilized:
49
• The high school had a 2008-2009 API of 750 or above, and/or consistent growth
in API scores for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 academic school
years.
• The high school had at least 40% or more students qualifying for free and reduced
lunch.
• The high school had a current Similar Schools Ranking of 8 or above, and a
consistent Similar Schools Ranking of 8 or above for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008,
and 2008-2009 academic school years.
• The high school had a minority student population of 60% or larger.
• The high school had a student population of 500 or more.
Sampling Procedure
Several different resources were utilized to identify potential research sites that fit
the criteria outlined above, including the California Department of Education (CDE)
website, Similar School Rankings, School Accountability Report Cards (SARC), growth
of API scores over the past three years and demographic information. The selection
process began with searching the CDE website in order to compile a rough list of schools
that served as appropriate research sites. The SARC reports were thoroughly reviewed to
narrow down the search and ensure that any “potential” school sites matched all
previously mentioned criteria. The percentage of students classified as economically
disadvantaged, API growth or decline over the past three years, Similar School Ranking,
and demographic information were identified and charted for each potential school site.
Potential research sites were selected on the basis of meeting or exceeding the proposed
criteria factors described above. An email was sent to the school principal asking for
50
permission to study the school site (Appendix A). Upon consent of the school’s
administration to participate in this case-study, observations and interviews were
scheduled through e-mail communication and phone calls.
Participants
The study involved participation from a high school principal and teachers
through semi-structured interviews and observations of their engagement in professional
development. The interview consisted of specific questions related directly to the
research questions guiding this study and explored in no pre-determined order. The
rationale behind this decision was to allow for flexibility pertaining to what order the
research questions were addressed, in consideration of possible time constraints. The
goal was to interview teachers who represented a broad range of teaching experiences
such as how many years they taught, their subject area of expertise and whether they
served in a leadership role on their campus, to account for interview reliability (Patton,
2002).
Conceptual Framework
As Merriam (2009) describes, the conceptual framework of a study is the
underlying structure or frame that draws upon the “concepts, terms, definitions, models,
and theories of a particular literature base and disciplinary orientation” (p. 67).
Furthermore, Merriam (2009) and Patton (2002) explain that the framework helps
generate research questions, emphasize different questions, guide data collection, direct
analysis, and interpret findings. The conceptual framework guiding the content of the
instrumentation were the concepts and ideas extracted from the three dimensions of
professional development (purpose, process, and structure) that are the most relevant to
51
enacting effective means of professional development and authentic professional
learning. The sections below clearly identify the specific actions or indicators used to
determine the degree to which these elements were enacted in the professional
development practices at the research site.
Purpose
The elements related to the purpose of professional development examined at the
research site’s professional development were whether there was an intentional effort to
enhance teachers’ content knowledge and/or the corresponding pedagogical practices.
Observations specifically examined whether professional development opportunities
enabled participants to engage in learning experiences that purposely enhanced their
subject knowledge or strengthened their content specific pedagogical practices. The
second idea drawn from the purpose dimension of professional development was
providing ample opportunities for teachers to address problems of practice characterized
by teachers engaging in either a form of action research, lesson study or collaborative
inquiry groups. More specifically, this study examined whether the professional
development offered at the research site afforded teachers opportunities to closely
examine their instructional practices, use work samples as evidence to assess student
understanding and learning, and work collaboratively to devise plans of action in
response to a specific problem.
Process
There were three significant ideas, drawn from the literature pertaining to the
processes of professional development, used to construct the instrumentation content.
The first was the process of critical reflection, the second was the conception of
52
knowledge enacted during professional development, and the third was the substantive
make-up of structured dialogue. The specific aspects of each element are discussed
below in terms of what was specifically looked for during observations and interviews.
To gauge the level of critical reflection teachers were engaging in, the elements
found within Rodgers’ (2002) four-phase reflective cycle were used. Since no classroom
observations were conducted, the researcher relied on teacher interviews to determine
what specific level of critical reflection teachers were engaging in. Indicators of phase I
consist of teachers demonstrating their ability to focus on their students’ thinking and
recognizing where their students actually are in the learning process versus simply
listening for students to offer the right answer. Indicators of phase II include teachers
gathering descriptive data from their own classrooms by incorporating structured student
feedback. Specifically, reflective behavior in this phase is indicative of teachers asking
students to comment on the details of their learning experiences to inform their
instructional practices. Phase III calls upon teachers to generate a common language
when discussing issues pertaining teaching and student learning. Thus, this study
specifically looked at whether teachers generated a common language that was clearly
articulated, or protocols that they adhered to when having discussions pertaining to
student learning. The final phase of the reflective cycle is indicative of teachers
implementing ideas and plans of action that they have mutually constructed with their
colleagues in response to a specific classroom problem.
The second element of the professional development process that was very
pertinent to the research questions guiding this study was the conception of knowledge
teachers engage in during their professional learning: knowledge in practice or
53
knowledge of practice. By examining the degree to which teachers engaged in
professional development experiences that emphasized the knowledge in practice
concept, and/or the knowledge of practice concept indicated the extent to which their
professional learning experiences were likely to influence their pedagogical practices.
Knowledge in practice is characterized by teachers engaging in collaborative activities
that involve reflective processes in which they examine personal assumptions and/or
classroom practices. Knowledge of practice specifically involves teachers having
opportunities to learn by challenging their own assumptions, posing problems, studying
their own students, classrooms and schools, constructing or reconstructing curriculum,
and taking on roles of leadership and activism in efforts to transform their classrooms,
schools and/or society.
The third element was the action of teachers engaging in structured dialogue.
Within the context of this research, structured dialogue was defined as teachers engaging
in oral inquiry or exchanging verbal communication with an intentional focus on
students’ work, teachers’ classroom observations and reflections, curriculum materials or
pedagogical practices, and/or classroom and school-related documents and artifacts.
Structured dialogue differed significantly from general conversation in that it had an
intentional focus or goal. Pinpointing the substantive makeup of the dialogue exchanged
among teachers while they were engaging in professional learning opportunities indicated
how likely their conversations were to influence their practice change over time.
Structure
The primary element drawn from the literature on professional development
structure was the duration of professional development opportunities. Duration of
54
professional development is defined as both the number of hours teachers engaged in
professional development pertaining to a particular focus as well as the span of time
(months or the entire school year) over which they engaged in these professional learning
opportunities. Identifying the duration of professional development opportunities offered
at my research site helped address whether the professional development was likely to
lead to teacher practice change and whether teachers perceived the professional
development to be impacting their practice given the duration of their participation.
Instrumentation
The instruments used for this research study were semi-structured interview
protocols for the principal and teachers (Appendices B & C). The interview protocols
were constructed to ensure accurate correlation to the research questions guiding this
study. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the correlations between the research questions and data
collection for the teacher interview protocol and administrator interview protocol,
respectively.
Table 1: Teacher Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix

Interview Question RQ I. RQ II.
1 X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X
6 X
7 X
8 X
9 X
10 X
11 X
12 X
13 X X
14 X
15 X
16 X X
55
Table 2: Administrator Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix

Data Collection Procedures
The data collection process consisted of semi-structured interviews and
observations. The researcher first met with each participant to discuss the study,
interview and observation processes in order to ensure overall confidentiality. Each
participant voluntarily agreed to participate in this research study. This section outlines
the specific procedures that were used for data collection. The first section discusses the
semi-structured interviews. The second section discusses observations.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The purpose of utilizing qualitative interviews in this study was to allow the
researcher to take part in another person’s perspective, which Patton (2002) contends can
be assumed to be meaningful and able to be made explicit. Developing an interview
guide or protocol ensured that the same lines of inquiry were pursued with each person
interviewed while providing me the freedom to ask probing, exploratory questions. This
Interview Question RQ I. RQ II.
1 X
2 X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X
8 X
9 X
10 X
11 X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X
18 X
19 X
56
study included two distinct interview protocols for administrators and for teachers to
account for the authenticity in their experience and perspectives as they were related to
the research questions. Merriam (2009) further adds that the interview guide of a semi-
structured interview includes a mix of more or less structured questions. Thus, the
interview protocols (Appendices B & C) designed for this study reflected this approach.
The first interview protocol included in this study was designed specifically for
administration. The primary focus of the administrative interviews was to determine
whether they believed the professional development opportunities teachers engaged in
were likely to lead to teacher practice change. The secondary purpose was to capture
how administrators, namely the principal in this case, conceptualized the relationship
between knowledge and practice within the context of professional development.
Administrator responses were used to determine whether their perceptions of professional
development quality mirrored the elements described in the literature as conducive to
facilitating authentic professional learning experiences. The teacher interview protocol
also addressed how teachers perceived their own professional learning within the context
of professional development. Every effort was made to build a rapport with the
participants, assuring them of complete anonymity in the reporting of the study’s results
in keeping with the ethical guidelines prescribed by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Each interview lasted between 30
minutes and 75 minutes.
Observations
In addition to gaining perspective from semi-structured interviews, observations
of professional development in action were conducted to triangulate the data as well as to
57
capture the actual elements of professional development that were enacted in practice.
Patton (2002) contends that there are several benefits to conducting observations
including allowing the researcher to better capture the context within which the
participants interact. Additionally, first-hand experience allows the researcher to be
open, discovery-oriented, and inductive (ibid). Such experiences can allow the researcher
opportunity to observe behaviors and actions that may routinely escape awareness of the
participants.
The professional development observation protocol (see Appendix D) was
developed to observe specific areas of effective professional learning relevant to the
research questions guiding this study. The observation protocol examined the important
elements drawn out from each of the three dimensions (purpose, process, and structure)
of professional development as outlined in the conceptual framework above.
Data Analysis
Data from this study were analyzed using the six step method identified by
Creswell (2003) as follows: 1) organize and prepare data, 2) read data thoroughly to get
a general sense, 3) chunk or code the data, 4) design a detailed description of the data, 5)
convey the findings, and 6) interpret and assign meaning to the data (Figure 1). Careful
attention to was given to tape-recording all interviews and observations as well as to
transcribing notes on elements that the tape-recorder may not have captured (i.e. gestures,
facial expressions, or body language). Data were transcribed after collection. The
transcribed data were coded according to the two research questions guiding this study.
Common themes were extracted from the coded data, analyzed and utilized to formulate a
conclusion specifically addressing the research questions that guided this study.
58
Figure 1: Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ethical Considerations
This case-study followed the principles outlined in the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines ensuring that all participants
were treated in an ethical manner designed to maximize the benefits to those involved in
the research. This investigation was conducted so that no individual was placed at risk of
harm, each individual was fully informed of the purpose and intent of the study,
participation was completely voluntary, and confidentiality of participant responses was
assured to maintain the anonymity of all participants. All data collection instruments and
research methodologies utilized in this study received full University of Southern
California IRB approval before the research began. Finally, use of all existing public
records, test data, written observations, and interviews were handled with the utmost
ethical care. Pseudonyms were used to maintain anonymity for all who were involved in
this study.
59
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to identify whether elements deemed conducive to
effective professional learning were enacted in a high performing secondary school. This
study also aimed to identify how knowledge and practice was conceptualized within the
context of professional development at the one high school selected for this case study.
The findings in this chapter are drawn from interviews and observations. A total of eight
semi-structured interviews were conducted, seven of which were of teachers and one of a
school administrator. The data from these interviews were triangulated with observations
of three different types of professional development opportunities. In order to
contextualize the findings, a brief description of the research site is provided first.
Second, the findings in relation to each research question will be presented and discussed.
Background of Crest High School
Crest High School (CHS) is a comprehensive high school located in the
Rosewood Unified School District (RUSD) in Southern California. CHS houses a
student population of just over 1800 students enrolled in grades 9 through 12. The
student demographics of CHS are: 60% Hispanic, 37% White, and 2% Asian with 40% of
students classified as low income based on their eligibility for free or reduced lunch.
CHSs had a base API score of 795 in 2010 which increased by 7 points to an API base
score of 802 in 2011. CHS held a Similar School ranking of 10 during the 2009-2010
and 2010-2011 school years.
Background of Interview Participants
The group of interview participants consisted of seven teachers, two males and
five females, and the school principal. All seven teachers are members of CHS’s science
60
department and teach in one of following subject areas: biology, chemistry, earth science,
or physics. The total number of teachers in CHS’s science department is 13, making the
sample of teachers interviewed slightly above 50%. Thus, the findings represent the
perspectives of slightly more than 50% of the science teachers at the school. The number
of years in the teaching profession varied greatly among of the interviewees, ranging
from 5 to 14 years. The number of years each science teacher has worked at CHS also
varied, ranging from 5 to 10 years.
RQ #1: Purpose, Process, and Structure of Professional Development
The aim of research question #1 was to determine whether the purposes, the
processes and the structures of professional development opportunities present at Crest
High School (CHS) were likely to lead to teacher learning. Based upon the interview and
observation data collected, there is significant evidence to suggest that the purposes,
processes, and structures of the professional development opportunities in which teachers
took part in at CHS did not lend themselves to facilitating effective professional learning.
This finding suggests that the professional development opportunities at CHS were not
likely to enhance teachers’ learning. This section discusses the following four themes that
emerged from the data pertaining directly to research question #1: (1) The enacted
purpose of professional development time is to exchange procedural information versus
facilitate adult learning and thus prevents instructional improvement from taking place;
(2) Teachers do not use student work as a means of engaging in the process of structured
dialogue to improve their instruction; (3) The process of critical reflection was not being
purposefully exercised during professional development; and (4) The structure of
professional development was not conducive to professional learning. This section
61
concludes with a discussion of how the purpose, process, and structure of professional
development opportunities are intertwined with each other rather than easily separable
aspects of professional development that operate in isolation. This discussion is
significant because, while these elements are discussed as separate aspects of professional
development in the literature, the quality of professional learning experiences are
determined by the degree to which these elements work as a collective whole.
Theme 1 – The enacted purpose of professional development time is to exchange
procedural information versus facilitate adult learning and, thus, prevents
instructional improvement from taking place
While professional development opportunities have an array of purposes, the
main intention of high quality professional development is to provide teachers with
opportunities to deepen their knowledge and skills and enhance their practice (Wei et al.,
2009). Yet, when asked, five out of seven teachers stated that the enacted purpose of
professional development at this school was to discuss operational and logistical matters.
For example, when asked to discuss her experiences with professional
development at CHS, biology lead teacher Ms. Q referred to the inter-school science
collaboration pull-out days in which she has participated as an example of the “typical”
purpose of professional development at the school. According to Ms. Q., the intended
purpose of inter-school collaboration days was for content specific teachers from every
school site in the district to gather and identify students’ areas of strength and their areas
of need based on common assessment data. Teachers were then supposed to use this data
as a platform for exchanging best practices. However, the actual “exchange of best
practices rarely occurs.” Instead, Ms. Q stated that the more common use of inter-school
62
biology professional development time “involves mostly reviewing the language of test
questions, reviewing pacing guides, and deciding on testing windows for each school in
the district.” While “reviewing the language” difficulty of test questions and “establishing
test windows” for each school site are important, neither action in isolation constitutes
professional learning. The focus of the activities remains disconnected from enhancing
teachers’ practice. These tasks are completely procedural in nature, not instructional. A
similar emphasis on operations and logistics is revealed in the observation data.
Attending to procedural duties, rather than examining instructional practices was a
regular occurrence. None of the observed professional development focused on
instruction. For example, during one biology subject-alike meeting, teachers gathered to
select and modify questions to add to an upcoming assessment test on genetics. The
purpose of the subject alike meeting was to choose 7 multiple choice questions from a
test bank that were representative of the state standards in relation to which students were
required to demonstrate proficiency. Teachers gathered solely for the purpose of
reaching a consensus on operational details. Although the teachers completed their task
before the designated end, they did not stay to reflect upon and discuss teaching practices
that could be employed to enhance their students’ mastery of the content standards.
Similarly, the sole purpose of a science department meeting was to discuss
logistical details. The four items on the agenda were procedural, not instructional, in
nature. The main topic discussed during the meeting was the logistics of the bell
schedule for finals week. One female chemistry teacher asked the group, “Do we have a
10 minute break this year in between finals since last year we did not get one?” Another
female earth science teacher responded, “if we do not get a break, and you really have to
63
go to the restroom just call me and I will relieve you.” This comment was made in
response to the collective concern expressed by several teachers at the beginning of the
meeting over the possibility of not receiving a restroom break in between finals. The
teachers’ conversations were entirely focused on the operational details of the finals
schedule and did not include any discussion that related to their teaching methodologies
or student learning even though final exams were to be administered the following week.
As noted above, a valuable purpose of professional learning is engaging in conversations
with colleagues about one’s pedagogical practices with the attempt to identify where
students may lack solid understandings (Hammer & Schifter, 2000). Given that the
conversations exchanged during this meeting were logistical in nature, teachers were not
engaged in any practices that could have enhanced their professional learning.
In the professional development meetings that were observed, the purpose was to
accomplish procedural tasks that were not related to adult learning. Choosing vocabulary
terms to add or remove from an assessment or discussing testing timelines are purely
operational duties and are not elements consistent with facilitating professional learning.
In contrast, teachers working together to develop lessons designed to enhance their
students’ understanding of the biology terms they are likely to encounter on the common
assessment, for example, is considered professional learning because they could have
discussed and reflected upon the pedagogical practices they would be utilizing to
implement the lessons they devised. Professional development time that is primarily
utilized to accomplish procedural/operational tasks does not foster high quality
professional learning and will not lead to teacher practice change over time.
64
At least half of the teachers expressed that they were not participating in
professional development that would enable them to improve their practice. For
example, Mr. W, a biology teacher who is highly praised by the science department chair
as one of CHS’s highest performing science teachers, noted his disappointment with how
professional development time at CHS is utilized. He stated of CHS’s professional
development, “I don’t really feel like we’re learning to be better teachers. I don’t think
I’m developing as a professional. I think it’s more administrative and more logistical
than it is professional development.” Mr. W stated:
We have this best practices idea too, in our district, and the idea is that we have
common assessments in our biology department and across our district. We all
give the same common assessments, and then we’re supposed to compare data
and then from that figure out who’s doing well in what areas and they’re supposed
to share their common or the best practices. Um, that’s theoretical. I’ve never
seen it really go all the way to the end where somebody actually shares their idea.
It’s been to the point where we compare data, but that’s it. But I think the next
step would be, for us as a district, would be cool to see people actually share why
they’re getting high test scores in one particular area.

Here, Mr. W points out that while the intended purpose of these meetings are for teachers
to share “best practices,” all that really gets accomplished is “comparing data.” He goes
on to say that what he would like is to “see people actually share…”, a behavior he
believes has the potential to improve practice. When Mr. W states the idea of sharing
best practices is “theoretical” and that he has never participated in a professional
development where teachers have actually discussed their teaching practices along with
sharing certain strategies, he offers strong evidence that the professional development
opportunities he has participated in is not intended to enhance his professional skills or
knowledge base.
65
Likewise, Mr. T, the department chair, expressed that while the purpose of
professional development should be about improving teacher practice, the PD at his
school was about logistics. He stated:
A purpose of professional development hands down, should be to help teachers
improve their practice by enabling them to observe one another actually teach or
model certain strategies they use. Unfortunately most of our professional
development time is tied up in dealing with logistical matters.

Despite, Mr. T’s view that professional development should be about “improving
practice,” the professional development opportunities he has experienced ended up being
about sorting through operational details and not about adult learning.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the principal’s view of professional development at his
school is consistent with the teachers’ experiences and the observation data. Dr. A
viewed professional development as an opportunity for teachers to sort through the
procedural aspects of teaching. Dr. A explained that the purposes of professional
development “are mostly about common pacing and common assessments. It’s about
asking whether we’re aligned? Are the kids getting the same opportunities? That for me
is the most important thing.” Dr. A’s perspective seems to indicate that ensuring teachers
are “aligned” in terms of the content they are teaching and whether they are following
pacing guides, both logistical aspects, are the main purposes framing the professional
development opportunities. Thus, there appears to be alignment between the principal’s
expectations and the teachers’ experiences. Furthermore, professional development is not
intended to serve as catalyst for practice change because teachers are not engaged in
activities that will facilitate their learning such as collaborative work centered on building
lessons, reviewing student work and critically examining their teaching practices. Given
that the purposes of professional development opportunities at CHS are mostly
66
procedural in nature and do not align with the literature’s take on purposes of highly
effective professional development, it is unlikely that teachers will enhance their teaching
practices as a result of their participation.
Theme 2 –Teachers do not use student work as a means of engaging in the process
of structured dialogue to improve their instruction
It is important to recall that structured dialogue refers to conversations exchanged
in hopes of achieving a specified goal which can include deeply evaluating student work
to access student understanding and examining ones instructional practices (Mezirow,
1994; Wei et al., 2009). By engaging in the process of structured dialogue, teachers are
likely to transform their learning to a level that allows them to change their instructional
practices (Mezirow, 1998). Using student work as a means of engaging in meaningful
dialogue about teachers practice was absent from the professional development at CHS.
All seven teachers stated that student work was almost never examined during
professional development as a means of reflecting on their own pedagogical practices.
Instead, the only student-generated product that was ever analyzed was common
assessment test data.
For example, a biology teacher, Ms. D stated, “We do look at biology labs unit by
unit to reformat and modify them as needed, but we never actually come together to
review student work samples to access their learning.” Similarly, an earth science
teacher Ms. Y stated “Our department does look at the exam [common assessment] to
determine if the questions are too easy or too hard or if re-teaching a concept is
necessary, but does not place an emphasis on reviewing actual student generated work.”
Ms. Y went on to say that, once questions have been identified as appropriate questions
67
for the common assessment tests, teachers whose students scored high on certain
questions are “asked to share the materials they use whether it is a lab or a worksheet.”
Here, Ms. Y’s statement confirms that teachers are not using student work as a platform
for discussing their own teaching practices in relation to their students learning and that
they do not engage in analyzing their students work. The fact that teachers were expected
to “share materials” if their students scored well suggests that this department sees the
exchange of tangible materials, not dialogue about pedagogical practices based upon
student produced work, as the way their students understandings will be enhanced. Based
upon the statements of Ms. D and Ms. Y, professional learning is not taking place during
professional development meetings for two reasons. The first is that teachers are not
utilizing any means of assessing student learning other than by analyzing standardized
test scores. Secondly, teachers are not engaging in conversational exchanges where they
critically examine their own teaching practices in relation to their students’ performance.
In order for authentic professional learning to occur, teachers would need discuss how the
materials they exchange could be implemented as well as reflect on their instructional
practices based upon their students’ learning outcomes.
Interestingly, the teacher interviews revealed very different perspectives on how
often and in what ways student work is utilized during professional development
meetings compared to what surfaced during the principal’s interview. Dr. A. stated that
student work is analyzed “all of the time” during professional development meetings.
The teachers, however, asserted that student work is “rarely if ever examined” during
their meeting times. Another difference that surfaced was how the principal and the
teachers defined the actual term “student work” differently. Whereas five of the seven
68
science teachers referred to student work as “projects, lab reports, write-ups or
homework,” Dr. A. defined student work as consisting of “assignments or student work
can mean test data [from common assessments]” which might explain why teachers and
Dr. A has a different understanding of how frequently student work was used during
professional development. This is consistent with what Dr. A mentioned before about the
purposes of professional development being about “common assessments and
determining whether [teachers] are aligned.” However, analysis without the meaningful
exchange of dialogue about enhancing one’s pedagogical practice as it relates to student
learning is neither conducive to professional learning nor does it provide a holistic picture
of student understanding when only test results are being examined. Interestingly, this
conundrum is two-folded. While the type of professional development teachers were
engaging in limited the type of reflective discussion that could be had because they were
just focusing on assessment data, neither the principal nor the teachers expected to
engage in such critical dialogue about different forms of student work either. As a result,
meaningful discussion was not occurring during professional development. The lack of
incorporating student generated work and reviewing only standardized test scores as a
means of assessing their students’ learning without ever progressing to the point where
teachers discuss, share and reflect upon specific pedagogical practice is not likely to lead
to any significant change in practice over time.
The observation data substantiated the interview data. There were no instances of
teachers examining student work or discussing it in relation to their own teaching
practices during any of the four observations conducted. During one subject-alike
meeting, biology teachers gathered to decide which multiple choice questions should be
69
added or deleted from the upcoming assessment test on Mendelian genetics. Teachers
selected questions based upon which California biology standard they were connected
with as well as selecting questions linked with particular biology standards they knew
had a higher likelihood of appearing on the California State Test (CST). During the
meeting, Ms. D asked the group if they should consider “spiraling questions students did
poorly on” back into the upcoming test. A fellow female biology teacher, Ms. X,
responded that she did not see the need to re-spiral questions when “we [the department]
just keep placing spiraled questions on the test but we’re not actually re-teaching the
material, so how can students show improvement?” This response could have spurred the
beginning of teachers engaging in professional learning that could enhance their practice.
When Ms. X expressed her concern that teachers were “not re-teaching material” making
it difficult to assess student improvement, her comment could have lead teachers to begin
questioning their teaching practices in relation to the areas students demonstrate
misunderstandings. Despite Ms. X attempting to voice her frustration over the fact that
these questions were being selected or dismissed without regard to looking at student
work to indicate gaps in understanding or how these gaps could relate to specific teaching
practices being enacted, the opportunity for teachers to engage in a meaningful discussion
was quickly passed over. After Ms. X voiced her concern, another female biology
teacher who teaches earth science quickly interjected and suggested that “the five genetic
engineering questions students struggled the most with could be given on a separate piece
of paper which we can just have our teacher’s aide grade if we can’t agree on whether or
not to add it to the actual assessment.” This teacher’s comment inadvertently steered the
department’s conversation away from how student work could be used to help determine
70
which concepts students were struggling to grasp and back to teachers selecting questions
without exchanging ideas and practices relating to how the content could be re-taught.
Throughout the duration of the meeting, the biology teachers never once
discussed how to teach specific material associated with the questions they were choosing
nor did they use actual student work to gather a better understanding of which concepts
students are having a difficult time mastering. Based upon the interview and observation
data, this pattern is a persistent and common occurrence across all of the observed
professional development. Teachers at CHS are not using student work as a way to
discuss their teaching practices as it relates to their students learning. Apart from using
student work as a basis for conversations, it does not appear that teachers are engaging in
any type of conversations specifically about their practice and the pedagogical decisions
they make in the classroom. Without meaningful discussions about teaching practices, it
is unlikely that professional learning is taking place during the professional development
meetings at CHS.
Theme #3 – The process of critical reflection is not being purposefully exercised
during professional development
Multiple scholars (Mezirow, 1998; Wei et al., 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2009) have cited critical reflection as a valuable element in professional learning because
it prompts transformative change among learners who are able to question and challenge
their habitual thoughts and actions (Webster-Right, 2009). Engaging in critical reflection
is also a necessary aspect for any long standing transformation in teaching practices to
occur (Mezirow, 1994). Six of the seven teachers defined reflection as a catalyst for
facilitating professional learning and enhancing their practice, a definition that is
71
consistent with what appears across the literature base. Yet, despite recognizing its
impact on their practice, teachers are not using any part of their professional development
time to intentionally engage in critical reflection of their practice. If purposeful critical
reflection opportunities are not deliberately embedded within professional development
experiences, authentic professional learning is not likely to take place. While the
interview data highlighted that teachers overwhelmingly felt they are not afforded
adequate time to engage in purposeful reflective processes during professional
development opportunities, the observation data revealed that time is not an impeding
factor. Even when time is available for teachers to critically reflect, they chose not to use
the time for that purpose and what they view as most valuable is not engaging in
reflection.
For example, when asked to describe the ways in which reflection is embedded
within the professional development offered at CHS, Mr. R the science department chair
stated:
Ideally [reflection] it’s probably the most important part of professional
development, but unfortunately it seems like a lot of our time is spent
implementing [the common assessments] rather than reflecting. Hopefully [as we
come out of the assessment implementation phase], we will be moving into a
stage where we come together to reflect on how our students are doing, and we
have more tangible evidence to point to as to what’s effective and what’s not.

By stating that reflection is “probably the most important part of professional
development” demonstrates that Mr. R recognizes the impact reflection has on helping
teachers enhance their practice. However, Mr. R also expressed that the majority of
professional time at CHS is spent contending with “implementation” details of common
assessments instead of being spent reflecting on student learning. If little time is allotted
for engaging in critical reflection, it is unlikely that teachers are partaking in high quality
72
professional learning. However, the observation data reveals that lack of time did not
seem to be a factor preventing teachers from engaging in critical reflection.
For example, the subject-alike biology meeting lasted a total of 41 minutes,
ending 25 minutes short of when the first morning class was scheduled to begin. Near the
end of the meeting, a biology teacher stated, “So glad this meeting was fast! Yeah us!”
expressing her delight that the meeting was concluded early. Although teachers were left
with 25 minutes to engage in reflective discussion after all other items on the agenda had
been dealt with, no teachers opted to do so. While Mr. R perceived lack of time as a
reason why teachers are not engaging in critical reflection, the observation data from the
subject-alike meeting revealed that instead teachers are choosing not to take advantage of
the time they are afforded to purposefully reflect on their practice.
An interview with biology teacher Mr. W is another example of how one teacher
perceives time as the main reason why teachers do not engage in purposeful reflection
during professional development meetings. Here Mr. W describes what takes place
during a standard professional development day:
Let’s talk about a typical biology [professional development] day. We get
together, we look at test scores, we compare test scores, we see what areas we
were strong in, what areas we were weak in and then that’s about all the time we
get. There’s never enough time to go okay, why did you do so well? Show us
how you’re teaching it. Why are you doing so poor? Or if I’m doing poor and
someone else is doing well, can I go watch them teach that unit? Personally I
don’t feel like there’s enough time to do something like that. I don’t think the
why question is ever answered. It’s always like okay, we did good here, we did
bad here, but we don’t go beyond that.
In Mr. W’s response, he points out that, during collaborative biology meetings, “there’s
never enough time to go okay, why did you do so well? Show us how you’re teaching
it.” From Mr. W’s standpoint, he feels that teachers are spending all of their time
reviewing assessment data leaving little to no time for discussing teaching strategies
73
associated with the content their students’ are struggling to understand, an element
characteristic of critical reflection. In order for these teachers to engage in high quality
professional learning, they would need to progress beyond just looking at test scores
where they reflect upon and question their choices for choosing a particular teaching
strategy or role-play how they would introduce new material. Despite Mr. W stating that
there is never enough time during collaboration meetings to have other teachers
demonstrate “how they’re teaching a particular unit or lesson” or reflect on their
pedagogical choices, the observation data from the subject-alike meeting highlights that
even when teachers do have ample time to engage in critical reflection they are not taking
advantage of it.
The principal interview revealed some interesting discrepancies between the type
of reflection Dr. A believes his teachers are partaking in and the depth of reflection
teachers actually engage in during professional development opportunities. The
characteristics Dr. A uses to describe what he believes constitutes the act of reflection
cited below have been recognized throughout the research as elements of critical
reflection. According to Mezirow (1994), when participants engage in critical reflection,
their teaching practices are more likely to become transformed over time. Here is how
Dr. A defines reflection and how it is enacted during professional development:
My definition of reflection is, looking at what you expected to happen, comparing
that to what really did happen, and then coming up with a plan to address it. It
means to be engaged, they're [teachers] sharing data and ideas and perspective.
And I would say, they most commonly do that in their own meetings.

Here Dr. A highlights several important points about reflection. On the surface,
Dr. A recognizes that the reflective process entails multiple stages including “[reviewing]
what you expected to happen, comparing that to what really did happen, and then coming
74
up with a plan to address it.” Yet when digging a little deeper, it is clear that the type of
reflection Dr. A is alluding to is very superficial because he is referring to reflecting upon
test data and not reflecting upon pedagogical practices. On the outside, Dr. A describes a
reflective process that when enacted seems highly conducive to professional learning
because as Rodgers (2002) points out, a defining aspect of critical reflection is when
teachers work collaboratively to devise different strategies for dealing with classroom
practice or questions at hand. Given however that the teachers only reflect upon
assessment data instead of reflecting on their teaching practices as is corroborated by the
observation and interview data, the reflective process teachers are engaging in is aligned
with how Dr. A defines reflection. If teachers were to progress to the stage where they
work collaboratively to devise next steps after reviewing assessment data whether it be in
the form of writing a lesson plan or demonstrating how they would teach a lab, they
would be engaging in critical reflection that is conducive to professional learning because
they would be purposefully acting to enhance their teaching practice. While engaging in
critical reflection can improve teachers practice over time, it is not an aspect of
professional development these science teachers take part in during their meetings.
While Dr. A initially described reflection as a process which must be fostered in
order for professional learning to occur, his thoughts on reflection changed as the
interview progressed. When asked to describe what the act of reflection would look like
when enacted during professional development meetings, he stated:
You know, when teachers engage in this practice [reflection], they look at a result.
So, they could look at a common assessment, and go, well gosh! Ninety percent
of the kids in the entire school got number eight right on photosynthesis or
whatever in Biology. They’re like that's really good but question whether the
results were because one of the questions was too easy. The other end of the
spectrum is only 10 percent of students got question 15 correct. Is that because
75
we didn't teach it? Is that because the question was worded funny, or is that
because the kids just don't understand it? I see those conversations going on.

When Dr. A refers to teachers utilizing assessment data to discuss whether students did
not perform well because the teachers “didn’t teach” the concepts well enough or if it was
because “the question was worded funny,” he is describing the process of reflection being
enacted at a very superficial and non-critical level. While investigating these questions
during a professional development meeting can be useful, it is not indicative of teachers’
engaging in critical reflection unless they work collaboratively to devise a plan of action
for how they will address the gap in their students’ understanding of a particular concept.
The interview data and observation data suggest that, while the act of reflecting is
commonly acknowledged to be meaningful and essential for enhancing teachers practice,
how the process of critical reflection is enacted during professional development
meetings is either performed on a very superficial level or is non-existent. Given that
engagement in critical reflection is fundamental for stimulating highly effective means of
professional learning (Darling-Hammond, 2009), it is not likely that the teachers in this
study have experienced high quality learning as a result of their participation in the
professional development meetings offered at CHS.
Theme #4 – Structure of professional development is not conducive to professional
learning
The structure of professional development in an element of professional learning
that is interdependent upon the other themes, specifically purpose and process, discussed
above. A professional development structure refers to opportunities such as departmental
team meetings, teacher inquiry groups, or embedded collaboration time that are
developed in the service of a particular purpose or goal (Avalos, 2011), while a structural
76
element, such as duration, refers specifically to an aspect of professional development
structures that can significantly affect professional learning. It is important to recall that
intellectual and pedagogical change requires professional activities to be of sufficient
duration including span of time over which the activity is spread and the number of hours
spent in the activity (Wei et al., 2009). Given that structural elements of professional
development are intertwined with the purposes and processes of professional
development, the effectiveness of structure is heavily dependent on the ability of the
other two aspects of professional development to function smoothly. At CHS, the
professional development structures themselves do not appear to be extremely conducive
to allowing the other aspects of professional development to foster effective means of
professional learning. For example, the purposes of professional development meetings
tend to focus on conveying procedural information versus focusing on enhancing
teachers’ pedagogical practices. Thus, because discussion of procedural information is
prioritized above conversation pertaining to teaching practices, the structure in and of
itself is enabling the superficiality of professional development. Even though there were
no specific guidelines or protocols informing teachers that procedural matters should be
contended with first during meeting times, this appeared to be the case at every
professional development meeting observed. According to agendas provided during the
meetings, all logistical matters were placed up front with no specific amount of time
being set aside during meetings for enhancing teachers instructional or pedagogical
practices. If teachers spend the majority of their meeting times reviewing procedural
matters, professional learning is not taking place. On the other hand, if the current
structure has been designed with the intention of affording teachers time to engage in
77
critical discussions about their teaching practices, and teachers still chose not to utilize
the time for those purposes as the observation data substantiates, it no longer becomes an
issue of just structural ineffectiveness or just an issue of purpose; it becomes an issue of
how teachers understand the interconnectedness of those two elements together.
Another aspect contributing to structural ineffectiveness is the lack of guided
expectations on the part of administration and a solid understanding on the part of
teachers of how professional development time should be utilized in order to facilitate
professional learning and enhance pedagogical practice. And as mentioned above, a gap
in the structural effectiveness of professional development in turn affects the quality of
processes teachers engage in during professional development (Guskey, 2000; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009) and influences the purposes of professional development.
Although these elements are discussed in the research separately, they are interconnected
links that can only function effectively when all other aspects of highly quality
professional learning are aligned with one another (Wei et al., 2009; Little, 1987).
Summary of RQ #1
The themes that emerged from RQ #1 are as follows: (1) The enacted purpose of
professional development time is to exchange procedural information and not to facilitate
adult learning and ,thus, prevents instructional improvement from taking place; (2)
Teachers do not use student work as a means of engaging in the process of structured
dialogue to improve their instruction; (3) The process of critical reflection was not being
purposefully exercised during professional development; and (4) The structure of
professional development was not conducive to professional learning. All of these
themes demonstrate gaps between what the research clearly defines as characteristics of
78
high quality professional development and the elements of professional development that
were being enacted at this school site. The lack of these elements within professional
development opportunities suggests that these teachers are not experiencing effective
professional learning that will lead to any significant transformations in their teaching
practices. It is important to note that, while these themes were presented and discussed
individually, these aspects of professional development are interconnected. Essentially,
each characteristic of professional development is hinged on another piece and a
weakness within one element of professional development affects the other links. For
example, if the purposes of professional development are primarily dedicated to
contending with procedural versus instructional issues, then it makes sense that teachers
would be more inclined to exchange materials instead of engaging in the process of
exchanging thoughtful dialogue about best practices. Thus, one of the most important
insights that was revealed is that while each piece of professional development does stand
on its own, is that how these parts interact together that determine whether or not
effective means of professional learning are likely to ensue. In order to improve the
overall quality of professional learning opportunities that teachers experience, elements
of professional development must be improved as a whole instead of separately.
RQ #2 – Knowledge for Practice Conception of Teacher Learning
The aim of research question #2 was to discover how teachers and the principal at
CHS conceptualize the process of teacher learning within the context of professional
development. The interview and observation data revealed that a knowledge for practice
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) concept of teacher learning was shared by teachers and
the principal. This finding suggests that teacher practice change is unlikely to occur over
79
time because a knowledge for practice stance on teacher learning assumes that teachers
simply need to adopt someone else’s knowledge to improve their practice. According to
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), a knowledge for practice position on learning suggests
that, in order to improve teaching practices, teachers need only understand how to
implement and translate knowledge presented to them from an outside expert. Hence,
treating teachers like an empty vessel to be filled is an approach that is not conducive to
professional learning likely to lead to teacher practice change. This section discusses the
following theme that emerged from research question #2: (1) The relationship between
teacher learning and teacher practice is believed to be enhanced by sharing best practices
or through exchanging materials versus teachers taking an active role in their learning,
thus, preventing instructional change from occurring. The section conclude swith a
summary of research question #2 and the finding that emerged.
Theme #1 – The relationship between teacher learning and teacher practice is
believed to be enhanced by sharing best practices or through exchanging materials
rather than teachers’ taking an active role in their learning, thus preventing
instructional change from occurring
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) contend that sharing rich conversations
about students’ work, curriculum materials, and strategies help inform teachers about
their own practice as well contribute significantly to teachers learning. Similarly, Hollins
(2006) points out that, when teachers engage in meaningful dialogue exchanges with one
another, teachers gain the potential to transform their instructional practices. More
frequently, however, professional learning is facilitated in a manner that does not afford
teachers opportunities to engage in meaningful discussion about their practice. For
80
example, in some professional development opportunities, teachers are exposed to a
particular knowledge base of content specific concepts or instructional strategies that they
are then expected to layer on top of their existing practices because it is assumed that
their pedagogical practice will improve as a result of this newly acquired knowledge. In
practice, this often manifests itself in the form of teachers exchanging “best” practices
and sharing materials with one another. These exchanges are frequently presented among
colleagues as suggestions for how to approach a particular instructional unit or sharing
tangible resources. These ideas are then viewed as elements one can layer over existing
instructional schema because it is assumed that adopting these strategies will improve
practice. This particular approach to teacher learning, identified by Cochran-Smith and
Lytle (1999) as knowledge for practice, is grounded in the idea that helping teachers
acquire certain knowledge they need to “know” to be an effective teacher is more
important than helping teachers enhance their own understanding of effective
pedagogical practices they need to know how to “do” in their classroom. When
professional development only focuses on presenting or exposing teachers with
knowledge and is not coupled with opportunities for teachers to specifically discuss their
practice, it is unlikely that high quality professional learning will take place (Wei et al.,
2009). Interview data consistently revealed that the teachers at CHS believed that
“sharing best practices” was an aspect of professional development that was necessary to
enhance their own practice. Six teachers indicated that the type of professional
development they would most benefit from would be professional development time
during which they shared best practices. Moreover, their conceptualization of sharing
best practices did not include the act of engaging in thoughtful or reflective dialogue
81
about their pedagogy. Thus, their notion of how to enhance their own professional
learning was closely aligned with a knowledge for practice approach. A knowledge for
practice view of teacher learning was further substantiated when the interview data
revealed that teachers valued professional development the most when they were able to
exchange and/or receive tangible materials that were immediately applicable and did not
require any modifications.
One example of how teachers at CHS view their learning through a knowledge for
practice lens can be seen in Ms. S’s interview responses. Ms. S shared what aspect of
professional development she appreciates most. She responded:
Being able to share best practices from my colleagues so that I can gather ideas for
my own practice not to mention when I receive resources that I can easily
implement in my classroom the very next day without needing any further training
or additional preparation time.

Not contending with “additional preparation time” indicates that Ms. S valued
professional development most when she received a tangible piece of curriculum that
could be integrated into her class without requiring any additional time to modify or
adjust it according to her students’ needs. This quotation also suggests that Ms. S values
the mere exchange of materials, instead of valuing the exchange of dialogue among
colleagues that can be used to deepen her practice to a higher degree. Ms. S’s
appreciation for receiving tangible materials that did not require additional preparation
time is very much in line with a knowledge for practice view of teacher learning. Ms. S is
expecting professional development to serve as a forum where she is given materials she
can readily apply, and a not a forum where she can engage in discussing her practice. In
this sense, Ms. S is placing value on being a knowledge user and not a knowledge
generator. Offering a similar response, Ms. Q explained that her “favorite part of
82
professional development is receiving materials and being able to share them with her
department.” When Ms. Q states that the most enjoyable aspect of professional
development is “receiving materials” implies that she is viewing professional
development as forum for exchanging physical resources and not as a forum for engaging
in conversations with colleagues about pedagogical practices.
The belief that sharing best practices is synonymous with highly effective means
of professional learning also surfaced during the principal’s interview. When Dr. A was
asked to identify elements of “good” professional development he responded:
People could walk out, and say okay, here’s this quick handout or these three
bullets that I could implement tomorrow, or that I could give a shot, without
having to do a lot of extra work outside of both the professional development, and
when they come back.

Dr. A followed up this response by stating that parts of professional development that
distinguish it as effective professional learning versus ineffective is that it “must be
tangible, must be realistic, and participants must be able to picture right on the spot how
they would utilize it in their own setting.” Similar to Ms. S’s perception, Dr. A’s view of
professional development serving as an environment to exchange what teachers already
know in the form of handouts and worksheets instead of being viewed as an opportunity
to critically examine one’s teaching practice by discussing how these handouts might be
integrated into classroom instruction to enhance student understanding is aligned with a
knowledge for practice view of teacher learning. According to the knowledge for
practice notion of teacher learning, teachers need only implement, translate and put into
practice the knowledge they acquire (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) from other experts
in order to improve their practice. Ms. S and Dr. A’s view on professional learning
83
further substantiates that adult learning is not likely to ensue during the professional
development opportunities offered at CHS.
While the exchange of curricular materials can help facilitate effective
professional learning when it is done in conjunction with meaning discussion of teaching
practices or examining student work, there was no evidence of this occurrence during any
of the four professional development meetings. It is important to recall that engaging in
dialogue that focuses on pedagogy is strongly conducive to teachers’ embracing changes
in their instructional practices (Mezirow, 1994; 1998). Thus, merely exchanging
materials or sharing successful pedagogical practices during professional development
time is not likely to foster any type of sustained professional learning. Given that
teachers at CHS overwhelmingly associated the act of exchanging best practices and the
act of handing off instructional materials absent meaningful conversations about their
pedagogy as elements they believed are necessary to change their practice, it is unlikely
that any transformation in their teaching practices are likely to take place.
Summary of RQ #2

The theme that emerged from RQ#2 was that the relationship between teacher
learning and teacher practice is believed to be enhanced by sharing best practices or
through exchanging materials versus teachers’ taking an active role in their learning, thus
preventing instructional change from occurring. This theme demonstrates that how
knowledge and practice are conceptualized within the context of professional
development is strongly indicative of the quality of professional learning that is likely to
take place. At CHS for example, the way in which teachers and the principal viewed the
process of teacher learning was strongly aligned with the knowledge for practice
84
approach; an approach that is not synonymous with facilitating effective means of
professional learning that is likely to lead to sustained practice change over time. It is
important to recall that Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) describe knowledge for practice
as the process by which teachers receive prescribed information or pedagogical
knowledge from an external source and then, theoretically, they are able to apply these
particular methods to their classroom practice. This approach towards teacher learning
was evident throughout the data when teachers and the principal repeatedly characterized
professional development as effective when they received materials or were able to walk
away with an instructional strategy that could be immediately applicable to their
instructional setting. More often than not during professional development opportunities,
teachers at CHS acted as recipients of knowledge instead of participating as active agents
in their own learning process. Thus, the most significant insight that was revealed is that
the way in which teachers and administrators understand the relationship between
knowledge and practice significantly impacts the quality of professional learning that is
likely to take place during professional development opportunities. This finding is
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.
85
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This study analyzed the purposes, the processes, and the structures of professional
development at a high performing secondary school to examine how those aspects of
professional development were enacted in practice and whether those elements were
consistent with aspects of professional development the research has identified as key for
effective professional learning. Given that high quality professional learning is likely to
lead to teacher practice change over time, this study also examined how teachers and the
principal conceptualized the relationship between knowledge and practice within the
frame of professional development. The way in which the relationship between
knowledge and practice is conceptualized is related to the type of professional learning
that is likely to ensue. Effective professional learning that leads to teacher practice
change is more likely to take place when teachers are viewed and treated as knowledge
contributors and knowledge generators. A qualitative case study methodology was
employed in order to answer the following two research questions: (1) What are the
purposes, processes, and structures of professional development at this school site and are
they likely lead to teacher practice change?; and (2) Does the way teachers and the
principal conceptualize the relationship between knowledge and practice enhance teacher
learning? To answer these two questions, interview and observation data were collected
at one high school. Pseudonyms for the school’s site and principal and teacher
participants were created to ensure anonymity. All interview data were transcribed and
all data were analyzed using an inductive approach. Once themes were drawn from the
data, they were compared to the aspects of professional development that were outlined
86
and discussed in the conceptual framework. This final chapter is a culmination of the
insights gained as a result of this case study. The chapter is organized to include a
summary and discussion of the study’s findings, what implications these findings have
for teachers and the enactment of professional learning opportunities, as well as offers
recommendations to the research community for further study.
Summary of Findings: RQ #1
The findings from RQ #1 revealed that CHS has managed to be “successful” with
non-dominant students based on their standardized test scores, yet does not have
professional development opportunities that are geared towards improving teachers
practice. The reason for this conclusion is that the purposes of professional development
were not about building teachers instructional capacity, the cognitive processes teachers
engaged in did not support professional learning, and the structures in place were not
conducive to fostering professional growth. More specifically, the purposes of
professional development focused on contending with issues that were procedural, not
instructional in nature; and the teachers did not engage in any processes that have been
identified within the literature as highly conducive to high quality professional learning
such as critical reflection and structured dialogue. An outgrowth of this finding is
recognition that each of these essential pieces of professional development is
interconnected. In other words, it was clear that the lack of process, the lack of structure,
and the lack of purpose were all interactive. The absence of one was reflected in the
absence of the others. Lacking an explicit purpose for professional learning meant that
the way teachers used the professional development time, or the processes they engaged
in were not going to promote learning. Consequently, the conclusion is that having only
87
one of these elements in place would not be sufficient to foster learning that is likely to
lead to teacher practice change. Instead, the findings reveal that all three aspects of
professional development are needed to facilitate high quality professional learning.
Thus, the findings from RQ #1 highlight that, while the purpose, the process, and
the structure of professional development are discussed as equally significant but separate
components within the literature base, it is the interactions between and the
interconnectedness among these three essential pieces of professional development that
determines the extent to which high quality professional learning is likely to ensue. As
the data suggests, determining whether teachers are likely to experience truly effective
means of professional learning is heavily dependent upon whether the purposes, the
processes, and the structures of professional development lend themselves to enabling
and fostering such high quality professional learning. It would be accurate to describe
these three essential pieces (purpose, process, and structure) as foundational pillars that
together along with other aspects of professional development hold the means of enabling
an effective professional learning-like edifice to take shape. Thus, the strength of the
entire structure and in this case the likelihood that professional development can foster
the type of professional learning that can transform teaching practices, relies upon the
ability for each essential pillar of professional development to be highly effective and
intact. For example, if the purpose of a professional development meeting is intended to
enhance teachers pedagogical skills and the professional development structure supports
that purpose, the only way that effective means of professional learning is likely to occur
is if teachers engage in processes such as critical reflection or structured dialogue that
when enacted, are conducive to practice change. In the case of CHS, the interview and
88
observation data reveal inherent weaknesses within the purposes, the processes, and the
structures of professional development suggesting that these essential pieces are not
functioning as a cohesive whole to foster highly effective means of professional learning.
Summary of Findings: RQ#2
The main finding revealed from RQ #2 was the way in which teacher learning is
viewed within the context of professional development in large part determines the
quality of professional learning . Both the principal and teachers at CHS tended to align
their notion of teacher learning with a knowledge for practice approach. Specifically,
teacher learning was categorized as something that could be enhanced and improved over
time by virtue of receiving knowledge and/or resources from external sources:
worksheets, labs, or teaching strategies. This was reflected in frequent exchanges of
tangible instructional materials during meetings absent any accompanying conversation
pertaining to the pedagogical practices one would use to implement the resources. The
concept of knowledge for practice is based on the assumption that teachers do not need to
take ownership of their own learning because their learning is about being exposed to
funds of knowledge outside of themselves (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Given that
the teachers and the principal perceived the relationship between knowledge and practice
in this manner indicates that high quality professional learning is not likely to occur.
Under a knowledge for practice umbrella, teacher learning is stifled because teachers are
seen as knowledge receivers versus knowledge generators.
Implications for Practice
The first implication for practice that emerged from these findings is that the three
essential pillars of professional development (purpose, process, and structure) must be
89
viewed and treated as a connective unit, with each piece heavily dependent upon the
functionality and effectiveness of the others. Although purpose, process, and structure
are discussed as separate yet equally significant aspects of professional development, it is
clear that high quality professional learning experiences are most likely to occur when all
three components are working in conjunction with one another. Thus, it is imperative
that educators and administrators understand the balance these three main pillars must
maintain in order for professional development opportunities to foster professional
learning that is likely to lead to teacher practice change. For example, even if the purpose
of professional development is aimed at affording teachers the opportunity to reflect upon
their pedagogical practices and the professional development structure that is in place
supports that purpose, teacher practice change will only occur if teachers engage in
cognitive processes that are conducive to professional learning. Theoretically, it seems
logical that purpose, process, and structure should work in balance together; however, in
practice, attention is often paid to one or two of the essential aspects rather than to all
three as a whole. When these three pillars of professional development are treated as
separate and disjointed pieces, the quality of professional learning that is likely to result
is inherently reduced. Therefore, when enacting professional development opportunities
in practice, mindful planning must be executed to ensure that all three facets are working
in conjunction with one another.
In terms of how an alignment between purpose, process, and structure would look
like in practice to support professional learning, several suggestions are offered here. The
purpose of professional development must grounded in facilitating professional learning,
and not focused on having teachers contend with operational or logistical details. This
90
purpose would have to be made explicitly clear and would need to be understood by all
teachers and administrators. Having a clear and definitive purpose in place will set the
expectation that professional development is a forum where teachers can gather to reflect
upon and improve their pedagogical practices. With a clear purpose in place that focuses
on enhancing instructional practice, the corresponding structure would have to afford
ample time for teachers to engage in cognitive behaviors that facilitate high quality
professional learning. While there is no magic number to quantify the “appropriate”
amount of time needed for professional learning to ensue, researchers agree that
consistent and expanded periods of time afford teachers essential opportunities to
critically reflect upon and enhance their practice (Guskey, 2000; Darling-Hammond et
al., 2009; Desimone, 2009). The structure of opportunities for professional learning
should be embedded throughout the school year to ensure that professional learning is an
on-going process versus a series of scattered and disjointed gatherings. The cognitive
processes teachers exercise to enhance their professional learning would entail engaging
in purposeful critical reflection of their pedagogy that is guided by constructive and
honest dialogue. In effective professional development, teachers pose questions to one
another in order to probe the thoughts behind the teaching decisions they make. Teachers
would openly discuss the areas in their practice they wish to improve upon while seeking
guidance and insightful feedback from their colleagues. It may be unrealistic, however,
to expect teachers to engage in a practice they have never had experience engaging in
before. Hence, teachers may require the support of an outside facilitator initially to help
them learn how to engage in conversations where they exercise critical thinking in
productive and thoughtful ways. As Wagner (1997) points out, unlike other professions,
91
teachers have not been trained to analyze and solve problems of everyday practice using
language that elicits deep understanding of the issues at hand. Furthermore, creating a
safe environment is essential in helping foster professional learning because it allows
teachers to move beyond offering one another “warm” feedback or “clarifying” questions
and supports them in sharing what they are really thinking (Wagner, 1997, p. 2). In
professional development that is likely to lead to practice change, teachers would also
consistently use student-produced work, not just assessment data, as a basis for their
critical dialogue to better reflect on their own pedagogy and assessing their students
understanding. The key for implementing alignment of these three essential pieces of
professional development in practice is that they have to be viewed as one unit instead of
“separate but equal” components.
The second implication to emerge relates to how the relationship between
knowledge and practice is conceptualized within the context of professional development
opportunities. Specifically, teachers need to exert greater control over facilitating and
enhancing their own professional learning. In regards to taking ownership over one’s
professional learning, the teachers within the science department at Crest High School
did not hold a strong sense of responsibility towards their own learning. This belief, in
turn, affected the level of agency they demonstrated towards enhancing their own
pedagogical practice during professional development opportunities. This has important
implications for practice in that when teachers do not recognize their role in helping
enhance their own professional learning, as was seen in the case of teachers from CHS, it
becomes easier for them to identify external factors such as time or the purposes for
professional development as reasons that prevent them from reflecting upon and
92
improving their teaching practices. When professional development is viewed as
something to be received or acquired through passive participation versus something to
be actively generated, critically examined and collaboratively discussed, the quality of
professional learning likely to ensue is severely diminished. In addition, given that active
participation in high quality means of professional learning is likely to lead to teacher
practice change over time, it is essential that teachers internalize how influential their role
is in helping facilitate this process. Thus, their role in this learning process must be
explicitly discerned so that the quality of professional learning is upheld given all other
aspects of professional development are functioning effectively as a unit.
In practice, teachers’ demonstrating a strong sense of agency over their learning
would be reflected in two related manners. The first is that teachers would show
initiative during professional development meetings to use the time provided efficiently
to engage in practices that could enhance their professional learning. Secondly, teachers
would take an active role in helping to facilitate their own learning instead of seeing
professional development as a process they have no power or control over. Taking more
initiative over ones learning in practice would mean that if a professional development
meeting concluded with time to spare, teachers would utilize that time to engage in either
meaningful discussions about their practice or work on some aspect related to improving
their practice. Maximizing the amount of time provided to engage in tasks associated
with high quality professional learning is essential for teachers to undergo practice
change over time. Taking ownership over ones learning would sound like teachers
offering suggestions for instructional strategies and then modeling with one another how
those strategies can be implemented in the classroom. Furthermore, embodying
93
ownership over ones professional learning would look like teachers not waiting to be told
what topics to cover in their professional development meetings; instead teachers would
take it upon themselves to pose questions, engage in critical reflection, seek instructional
guidance, and review student work as a means of assessing their own instructional
practice. Perhaps most importantly, teachers who demonstrated agency would internalize
professional learning as a long-term gain versus a short-term solution to satisfy
educational reform efforts. Known as presentism, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) argue
that the overwhelming pressures of schools keep teachers locked into short-term
perspectives, leaving them unable or unwilling to envision or plan collaboratively for
long-term, systemic change. Ultimately, these pressures Hargreaves and Shirley (2009)
contend, lead teachers to become dependent upon “strategies that are simple to employ,
widespread, available for immediate use, yet do not challenge teachers to question and
revise their existing approaches to teaching and learning” (p. 7). Thus, for teachers to
become full agents in their learning, they must be willing to commit themselves to an on-
going process of collaborating, critically reflecting, and placing the enhancement of their
instructional practice at the forefront of their conversations and actions.
The third implication drawn from the findings is a bit of a conundrum. On one
hand, teachers do need to recognize their role in helping to facilitate and take charge of
their own professional learning as discussed above. On the other hand, however, it may
be difficult for teachers to feel empowered over their own learning when the school
leadership, namely the principal, does not recognize the role teachers should play in their
own professional learning. The question then becomes to what extent teachers should be
held accountable for taking charge over their own learning if the relationship between
94
knowledge and practice is not structured to afford teachers opportunities to play such an
active role in their own learning process. In the case of CHS, it was evident that a
knowledge for practice notion of teacher learning was embodied by both the teachers and
the principal. When a knowledge for practice approach towards teacher learning is
enacted in practice, the responsibility of taking control over one’s learning is taken out of
the hands of teachers and placed in the hands of outside experts. This can lead teachers to
expect that their learning is dependent only upon what new knowledge they are presented
with or what new strategies they are told will enhance their pedagogical practice. As a
result, teachers’ level of ownership over their learning experiences becomes less and less
involved when they are not viewed, treated, or valued as a knowledge generator.
Consequently, an accountability dilemma is enviable given that teachers are
acting as passive participants in their own learning which is ineffective, yet the principal
himself believes that teacher learning should be approached in this manner. Wagner
(1997) offers some insight as to how accountability for engaging in effective professional
learning can be balanced among teachers and the leadership team:
Accountability for the implementation of change strategies is often ill-defined or
nonexistent. To be effective, accountability has to two-way and horizontal as well
as vertical. The question is not merely, “What am I holding you accountable
for?” It is also, “What do we need to do to help ensure your success? What is our
reciprocal and relational accountability to one another? How do we each own
parts of this problem? (p. 3)

From this approach, Wagner (1997) suggests that both teachers and administrators need
to be held equally responsible, “each owning parts” of the issues in question to help one
another maintain “relational accountability.” When both parties embody responsibility
for teacher learning, the level of professional learning can be potentially elevated beyond
just a knowledge for practice conception.
95
In practice, elevating teacher learning beyond a knowledge for practice scope
entails reconceptualizing the relationship between knowledge and practice, as well as
how that relationship is enacted within a professional development context. Specifically,
this requires a system in place that would support teachers to question their own
pedagogical decisions, challenge their assumptions, and devise solutions to approach
impending instructional issues. The notion of professional learning would need to be
treated as organic rather than a process controlled by a top-down approach. Frankly
speaking, this system would require the support of administration in that teacher learning
would have to viewed as a process that can only evolve when teachers are given the
opportunity to construct new knowledge while enhancing their current knowledge. As
mentioned earlier, it is difficult to expect teachers to automatically adjust their view of
teacher learning once they receive administrative support. Thus, initially placing a
facilitator in professional development meetings would help teachers begin to let go of
previous notions of their role in the learning process, and allow them to see themselves as
active agents who are responsible for facilitating and enhancing their professional
learning.
A theory of professional learning
There are two key conclusions that unexpectedly emerged out of this work. The
first conclusion is that a modified conceptual framework that accounts for the linkage
between the purpose, process, and structure of professional development is a more
powerful model than the one initially put forward in this dissertation. This modified
framework can provide insight into the potential impact of professional learning
opportunities on practice. The second point highlights the nature of the knowledge and
96
practice paradigm that is enacted in practice, and the corresponding professional learning
“house” that gets built as a result. Each of these two conclusions is discussed in turn
below.
The initial conceptual framework is drawn from the research that presents the
purpose, process, and structure of professional development as separate and discrete
aspects of professional learning. Thus, this study proposed that the purpose, process, and
structure of professional development should be considered separately when examining
professional learning opportunities. As described above, one outgrowth of this
dissertation is my realization that these three elements are inextricably interrelated.
Instead of standing separately, they stand next to each other, bound together by the type
of professional learning opportunity being designed and implemented. Thus, they form
the foundation of a professional learning-like edifice that either will or will not foster
teacher practice change based on the separate parts and their interaction with each other.
Essentially, the quality of professional learning that is likely to ensue during such
opportunities is significantly dependent upon the strength and effectiveness of each of the
three pillars. When one pillar is not functioning in an effective manner, the remaining
two pillars become strained, creating conditions that make professional learning less
likely to occur. Thus, it is important to consider using a conceptual framework that treats
these three pillars as interrelated components that function together as one unit rather
than disjointed pieces. Adjusting the perception of professional learning to see it as an
edifice that is the sturdiest when all three pillars are effectively working to enable one
another will better guide plans to create professional learning opportunities likely to lead
to teacher practice change.
97
The second key revelation to have surfaced pertains to the relationship between
which knowledge and practice paradigm is enacted and the type of corresponding
professional learning edifice that gets created. Given that the three paradigms
(knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice) lead to very
different notions about how teacher learning is treated and approached, it is conceivable
that the quality of a professional learning edifice is significantly dependent on the
paradigm executed in practice. For example, if a knowledge for practice paradigm is
enacted, the corresponding professional learning house that gets built will not be as
strong as if teacher learning were approached using a knowledge in practice or a
knowledge of practice lens. As the perceptions of teacher learning along the paradigm
continuum become elevated, so does the quality level of the professional learning. Thus,
it is not just about having the three essential pillars in place for professional learning to
occur. Rather, it is about having those three pillars in place as well as accounting for the
quality of the compositional pieces that makes up each pillar. The higher the quality of
cognitive processes, specifically the relationship between knowledge and practice, that
teachers enact during their professional development opportunities, the more likely that
the resulting edifice will facilitate and support pedagogical change. Thus, a fully
developed conceptual framework would have a connection explicitly between the
knowledge and practice relationship, the three essential pillars and the type of
professional learning experience that is designed and implemented.  
Recommendations for Future Research
To provide additional insight into the area of facilitating professional learning that
is conducive to teacher practice change, several recommendations for future research are
98
presented. Given that this case study involved a considerably limited number of
observations, it would be interesting to see whether conducting observations for a longer
period of time would reveal a different image of the professional development
opportunities offered at CHS compared to what these findings highlighted. To further
ensure that the snapshot of professional development observed is an accurate depiction of
all professional learning opportunities offered at this school site, additional observations,
perhaps even across various content areas, would paint a more holistic picture that would
substantiate how professional development is enacted. Additional future research could
investigate what teacher practice actually looks like at CHS. CHS was aelected under the
premise that their professional development should consist of high quality professional
learning opportunities given their “successful” achievement on standardized test scores
with non-dominant students. Yet, because the data revealed that their professional
development was not conducive to fostering effective professional learning, it would be
interesting to see what their classroom practice looks like. Are their instructional
practices consistent with what the literature deems as strategies likely to enhance student
learning? Logically, one would assume that if the professional development at CHS is
not structured to support teacher learning and enhance pedagogical practices, then the
methodologies teachers enact in the classroom would be equally ineffective. Thus, it
would be highly beneficial to identify the factors, teaching practices or other aspects,
responsible for the persistent academic success of a high school that is serving
traditionally under-performing students.
Finally, through the scope of this case study, leadership was an area that was not
examined. It would be interesting to take a closer look at determining the relationship
99
between leadership and practice at CHS. Interesting questions future research may be
able to help answer include, to what degree is the leadership involved in helping to
facilitate and support teacher practice change and to what extent does leadership
influence the effectiveness of professional learning opportunities that are enacted at this
school site? Furthermore, how do you promote the capacity of a leader to facilitate such
professional growth of others? In this particular case study, since the principal did not
appear to be overly involved in the design and implementation of professional learning
opportunities, it would interesting to determine whether a school can accomplish a high
quality professional development agenda absent the principal. Further investigations
could also explore what it looks like in practice when teachers embody a greater sense of
responsibility over their own learning versus having the principal determine the layout
and structures that define professional development. This begs the question of how an
organization moves teachers who are passive or who are unaware of how to actualize
their own role in the learning process to a place where teachers take agency over their
professional learning? And how does one promote teacher agency in an organization that
is hierarchical? If teachers are not valued within an organization as individuals who can
contribute significantly to their own professional learning and must be “informed” or
“given” information to discuss during their professional development opportunities, how
can those teachers be moved to feel a sense of empowerment? Additionally, it would be
interesting to investigate how a school like CHS would move their teachers in that
direction since they are already considered a high-performing school. What incentives
would schools like CHS need to adjust their view on teacher learning since on paper their
test scores say that they are doing something “right.”
100
Essentially, this case study prompted several unanswered questions that would be
worth researching in future studies. Ultimately, CHS was selected because it was a high
performing school that was serving an underrepresented student population. The initial
premise was that, because their API scores were well above comparative neighboring
schools in terms of their demographic composition and SES, CHS must be leading high
quality professional learning opportunities conducive to fostering teacher practice
change. Though the investigative scope was limited, data lead to the conclusion that their
professional learning opportunities are not the primary catalyst sparking high-
standardized test performance. Although this school is considered “high-performing”
according to their API scores, what does this really mean? If their test scores show "high
achievement" yet their professional development shows no teacher learning, this does
pose the question of how “success” is being defined. While this study did not investigate
the teaching practices that were being enacted within the classrooms, it begs the question
of whether CHS is concerned about the quality of teaching and the quality of professional
learning opportunities if students are deemed "successful" in terms of their test scores.
This also causes one to wonder what the catalyst or combination of factors is driving the
academic performance at CHS? Finally, what is the relationship between adult learning
and student performance? Hopefully future investigations will be able to address these
questions.
Contributing to the literature base about specific aspects of professional
development and the relationships among those elements that must be in place to foster
high quality professional learning can significantly redefine how the educational
community approaches reform initiatives that are geared at enhancing instructional
101
practice. While the literature base is laden with a plethora of resources that have
identified key essentials that must be in place to facilitate truly effective professional
learning, there remains a significant gap within the research outlining how to design
professional development opportunities that integrate all of these key essentials. Future
research in this area would offer valuable insight regarding how schools can establish and
maintain purposes, processes, and structures that work conjointly with knowledge and
practice paradigms to foster professional learning that is likely to transform instructional
practices.

102
REFERENCES
Achinstein, B. (2002). Community, diversity and conflict among school teachers: The
ties that blind. New York: Teachers College Press.

Atkinson, B.M. (2012). Target practice: Reader response theory and teachers’
interpretations of students’ SAT 10 scores in data-based professional
development. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 201-213.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher
Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20.

Babkie, A.M., & Provost, M.C. (2004). Teachers as researchers. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 39(5), 260-268.

Ball, D. L. (1994, November). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know
about teacher learning’s-but would make good learning hypotheses? Paper
presented at Conference on Teacher Enhancement in Mathematics K-6, Arlington,
VA.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (1999). Multiples of evidence, time and perspective. In E. C.
Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and
policies (pp. 371-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumann, J.F., & Duffy, A.M. (2001). Teacher-researcher methodology: Themes,
variations, and possibilities. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 608-615.

Borko, H., Mayfeild, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’
developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment:
Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 259-278.

Brand, B.R., & Moore, S.J. (2011). Enhancing teachers’ application of inquiry-based
strategies using a constructivist sociocultural professional development model.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(7), 889-913.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.

California Department of Education. (2011). Retrieved on June 3, 2011 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/.

Capps, D.K., Crawford, B.A., & Constas, M.A. (2012) A review of empirical literature
on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique
of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318.
103
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice:
Teacher Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-
305.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Corcoran, T., McVay, S., & Riordan, K. (2003). Getting it right: The MISE approach to
professional development. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
State of the Profession: Study Measures Status of Professional Development.
Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42-50.

Desimone, L.M. (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Education Researcher, 38(3),
181-199.

Desimone, L.M., Smith, T.M., Hayes, S., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Beyond accountability
and average math scores: Relating multiple state education policy attributes to
changes in student achievement in procedural knowledge, conceptual
understanding and problem solving in mathematics. Education Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5-18.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: Health.

Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends: Teachers helping to improve
student learning. Phi Delta Kappa International Research Bulletin (CEDR) 28, 9-
12. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/edres/resbul28.htm.

Education Trust. (2003a). African American achievement in America. Washington, D.C:
Author.

Education Trust. (2003b). Latino achievement in America. Washington, D.C: Author.

Elmore, R.F. (2007). Let’s act like professionals. National Staff Development Council,
28(3), 31-32.
104
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Schoolwide reform models: What works? Phi
Delta Kappan, 79, 370-379.

Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link
professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education.
114(4), 541-581.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P.J.C., et al. (2009). The Effect of Teacher Psychological and
School Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers' Professional Learning
in Dutch Schools. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406-427.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot
workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69-72.

Goldhaber, D.D., & Anthony, E.A. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed?
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134-150.

Goldschmidt, P., & Phelps, G. (2010). Does teacher professional development affect
content and pedagogical knowledge: how much and for how long? Economics of
Education Review, 29, 432-439.

Goodnough, K. (2001). Teacher development through action research: A case study of
an elementary teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 23(1), 37-46.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth,S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.

Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of Inquiry in Teaching and Research.
Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 441-478.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, Changing times: Teachers’ work and culture
in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College
Record, 111(11), 1-14.

Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49 (6), 624-636.

Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development:
A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook for policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

105
Hollins, E.R. (2006). Transforming Practice: Structured dialogue spurred educators at
two underachieving schools to fuel their own professional growth. Educational
Leadership, 63(6), 48-52.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry
and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Do teacher characteristics matter? New results on the effects
of teacher preparation on student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
28(1), 49-57.

Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the
gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Lieberman, A. (1992). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community.
Educational researcher, 21(6), 5-12.

Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2002). From network learning to classroom teaching.
Journal of Educational Change, 3, 315-337.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teacher College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129.

Little, J.W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up
problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18, p. 917-947.

Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice.
Teacher College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Little, J.W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the
learning-centered school. National Education Association, 1-26.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research – A Guide to Design and Implementation
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mezirow, J. (ED.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). Understanding history for teaching: A plan of study.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

106
National Assessment of Education Progress. (2003). Reading assessment. Washington,
D.C: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for Staff Development (Revised).
Oxford, OH: NSDC

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new view of knowledge and thinking have to
say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Richardson, V. (1992). The agenda-setting dilemma in a constructivist staff development
process. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 287-300.

Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-252.

Rushton, G.T., Lotter, C., & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in
inquiry teaching: The effect of a professional development model on beliefs and
practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 23-52.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg. C., & Hamann, J., (1992). Instructional conversations beget
instructional conversations. Teaching and teacher education, 8, 199-218.

Saxe, G., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of
Mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55-79.

Shepard, L. A., Flexer, R. J., Hiebert, E. H. Marion, S. F., Mayfeild, V., & Weston, T. J.
(1996. Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student
learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(3), 7-18.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Researcher, 5, 4-14.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.

Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Frossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In the
company of colleagues: An intern report on the development of a community of
teacher learner. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 21-32.

107
U.S. Department of Education (2008). Retrieved on June 5, 2011 from
http://www.ed.gov/.

Van Driel, J.H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on
pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28.

Wagner, T. (2007). Five habits of mind that count. Education Week, 26(45), 29-32.

Waits, M. J., Campbell, H.E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., Hess, R. K. (2006). Beat the
odds: Why some schools with Latino children beat the odds and others don't.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, 1-56.

Webster-Right, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the U.S. and abroad. National Staff Development Council, 1-62.

Wilson, S.M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, v. 24, 173-209.

Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high
school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 350-353.

108
APPENDIX A
Recruitment Letter

September, 2011
Principal Name
Random High School

Dear Principal Name,

Your school has been selected for a doctorate dissertation study! In a search for
high schools in southern California that are academically high-performing, house of
significant population of minority students who are also classified as low SES– your
school was one of a very few that met this study’s criteria.

My name is Kristin Kruizinga. I am currently a doctoral candidate from the
University of Southern California. I am conducting a qualitative study focused on
finding out what elements of professional development high poverty, high minority, high
performing secondary schools are enacting in practice. I will be examining the purposes,
processes and structures in place to support professional development at your school site
and how these dimensions work together to foster authentic professional learning
opportunities.

The specific research questions guiding my study are:
I. Given the purposes, processes, and structures of professional development, are
they likely to lead to teacher practice change?
II. How is the relationship between knowledge and practice conceptualized
within the context of professional development?

Your school is currently challenging the academic trend among similar schools
that have comparable demographics. Thus, I believe your counterparts can learn a great
deal from your hard work and success. By gaining a clear view of how professional
development practices are enacted at your school site, I will be able to provide
suggestions for future research areas as well as practical implications for practitioners at
the ground level.

My criterion for selecting your school was quite rigorous. I searched southern
California for public high schools that have at least 750API, a population of over 500
students, 40% or more of whom receive free and reduced lunch and a minority
student population of 60% or greater. In my query, I came up with very few schools
that met these criteria. My study will, therefore, provide credibility and validation of the
hard work you and your staff are putting forth for your students.
If you agree, I will need to visit your school site approximately 4-6 times during
the 2011-12 school year. Ideally, I would like to come in the fall – October through
November. While I am at your school, I would like to conduct interviews with
administrators and staff (with as much or as little input from you, depending on your
109
comfort level) and observe staff development sessions, or departmental team meetings, if
possible. As a responsible investigator, appropriate protocol and ethical research
practices will be exercised. I will not interact with students.

If you decide that you and your staff are willing participants, I will coordinate
dates, times, and personnel with you. Please feel free to contact me, via e-mail or cell
phone, at any time with questions or concerns.

Thank you in advance for your interest in this important study. I truly believe it
will benefit administrators, teachers, and students in California, as we must strive to
continually adapt to the changing face of education. Together, we can work to ensure
that one day all students have access to a quality education. I truly look forward to
hearing from you concerning this request.

Sincerely,

Kristin Kruizinga
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Biology & AVID Teacher
Lancaster High School

Contact Information:
(e) kruizing@usc.edu
(c) 661-466-7941

110
APPENDIX B
Administrator Protocol

Administrator Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________
Position: ________________________________________________________________
Researcher: ______________________________________________________________
Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ___________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying the
enactment of effective professional development in high-achieving urban schools.
Through a selective research process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to gain perspective regarding the types of
professional development experiences you engage in at your school site.
The information gathered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge regarding the content, context and structures of effective professional
development experiences that are highly conducive to professional learning.
This interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. How long have you been an administrator at this school site?
2. Based upon your experience, describe how you define the role professional
development plays in teachers’ professional learning.
3. What type of interactions or exchanges among teachers do you think constitutes
“professional development”?
4. Please describe in as much detail as possible what professional development looks
like within your school.
5. How often is professional development offered at your school site?
6. To what capacity are you involved in coordinating or facilitating professional
development at your school site?
7. Describe the structure of professional development opportunities that are most
common at your school site (i.e. information dissemination, professional learning
communities).
8. Please elaborate on the specific content that has been focused upon during these
professional development opportunities.
9. If the content of the PD had focused on specific subject matter (math or science),
please describe in detail how that content was presented or discussed.
10. Please describe your familiarity with content-specific pedagogy
11. Elaborate on how the professional development opportunities experienced by
your teachers has/have included a focus on content-specific pedagogy.
12. Please describe whether the professional development opportunities offered at
your school site place an intentional focus on examining students’ work.
111
12a. Please elaborate on how student work is examined.
13. How would you describe the role reflection plays in the professional development
experiences your teachers participate in at your school site?
14. Explain to what extent the act of reflection is embedded within teachers’ practice
at your school
15. Please elaborate on whether you perceive the professional development your
teachers are participating in to be impacting or not impacting their teaching
practice.
16. What do you believe is effective or ineffective about the professional
development offered at your school site?
17. How does the professional development offered at your school site align with
meeting the needs of your students?
18. Can you elaborate on whether the professional development offered to your
teachers is designed specifically for your student population? Please explain.

112
APPENDIX C
Teacher Protocol

Teacher Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________
Position: ________________________________________________________________
Researcher: ______________________________________________________________
Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ___________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying the
enactment of effective professional development in high-achieving urban schools.
Through a selective research process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to gain perspective regarding the types of
professional development experiences you engage in at your school site.
The information gathered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge regarding the content, context and structures of effective professional
development experiences that are highly conducive to professional learning.
This interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. How long have you been a teacher at this school site?
2. Based upon your experience, describe how you define the role professional
development plays in teachers’ professional learning.
3. What type of interactions or exchanges among teachers do you think constitutes
“professional development”?
4. Please describe in as much detail as possible what professional development looks
like within your school.
5. How often is professional development offered at your school site?
6. Describe the structure of professional development opportunities that are most
common at your school site (i.e. information dissemination, professional learning
communities).
7. Please elaborate on the specific content that has been focused upon during these
professional development opportunities.
8. If the content of the PD had focused on specific subject matter (math or science),
please describe in detail how that content was presented or discussed.
9. Please describe your familiarity with content-specific pedagogy
10. Elaborate on how your professional development experience(s) has/have included
a focus on content-specific pedagogy.
11. Please describe whether the professional development opportunities offered at
your school site place an intentional focus on examining students’ work.
12a. Please elaborate on how student work is examined.
113
12. How would you describe the role reflection plays in the professional development
experiences you participate in at your school site?
13. Explain to what extent the act of reflection is embedded within teachers’ practice
at your school
14. Please elaborate on whether you perceive the professional development you have
participated in to be impacting or not impacting your teaching practice.
14a. Can you describe how the professional development you participate
in impacts your practice?
15. What do you believe is effective or ineffective about the professional
development you participate in at your school site?
16. How does the professional development you experience align with meeting the
needs of your students?
17. Is the professional development you are receiving specific to your student
population? Please explain.
114
APPENDIX D
Professional Development Observation Protocol

School Name: ____________________________
Date: ____________________
Type of PD Observed: ___________________________________________
Participants:
________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Researcher: ______________________________________
Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time:
____________

 
 

Purposes of Professional
Development
What are you
looking for?
Notes &
Clarifying
Questions

Content/Focus of
PD Subject
Specific

Focus on Content
Specific Pedagogy

Investigating
Problems of
Practice

Designing
Lessons/Planning
Curriculum

Processes of PD
What are you
looking for?
Notes
Engagement in
Reflective Action
(presence,
description,
analysis & action)

Knowledge in & of
Practice
(mediates ideas,
constructs
meaning, reflect on
CR practice,
action; challenging
assumptions,
posing problems)

Substance of
Structured
Dialogue
(centered around a
specific goal)

115

 
Structure of Professional Development
What are you
looking for?
Notes & Clarifying
Questions

Duration
(Time & Span

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

Cognitively guided instruction: A case study in two elementary schools

PDF

Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development

PDF

Cognitively guided instruction: an mplementation case study of a high performing school district

PDF

Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

PDF

The role of leadership in using data to inform instruction: a case study

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

PDF

Professional development and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Kruizinga, Kristin Dawn (author)

Core Title Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/13/2012

Defense Date 06/14/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,professional learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie M. (committee chair), Anderson, Lauren (committee member), Ephraim, Ronnie (committee member)

Creator Email kruizing@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-57228

Unique identifier UC11290117

Identifier usctheses-c3-57228 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KruizingaK-950.pdf

Dmrecord 57228

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kruizinga, Kristin Dawn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA