Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.4A, 11-18
Published Online April 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) DOI:10.4236/ce.2013.44A003
What Should We Consider in Teachers’ Professional
Development Impact Studies? Based on the Conceptual
Framework of Desimone
Ho Soo Kang1, Jungju Cha 1*, Bong-Woon Ha2
1School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA
2Department of T eacher Education, Kyonggi Un i v e rsity, Suwonsi, S outh Korea
Email: jungjucha@gmail.com
Received March 6th, 2013; revised April 8th, 2013; accepted Ap r i l 2 1st, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Ho Soo Kang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Teacher professional development has long been of interest since it affects teachers’ learning, the practice
of teaching, and student learning. In reality, as substantial resources have been spent on professional de-
velopment, policy makers increase their search for evidence-based research about its effects on teachers’
and students’ outcomes. Therefore, it is imperative to use a solid framework evaluating professional de-
velopment. Specifically, Desimone (2009) provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the effect
of professional development. Specifically, she represents that: 1) core features of effective professional
development are content focused, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation; 2) the
way this effective professional development affect teachers’ knowledge, their practice, and finally stu-
dents’ learning; and 3) contextual factors such as student characteristics, teacher characteristics, and sch-
ool characteristics are related to the effectiveness of professional development. Through this study, Desi-
mone’s framework has been supported by both theoretical literature and empirical studies. Furthermore,
some implications were provided for policy makers and school leaders as well as for teachers in Korea.
Keywords: Teacher Professional Development; Teacher Education; Teacher Evaluation
Introduction
Teacher professional development has been regarded as one
of the most important factors for improving the quality of US
schools (Desimone, 2011). Teacher professional development is
particularly critical because, if effective, it can influence teach-
ers’ learning, the method and practice of teaching, and student
learning (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson,
2003). As the investment in professional development has
grown, policy makers have increased their search for evidence
of its effects on teachers’ knowledge, teaching practice, and
student learning (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). Further,
scholars argue that research should use valid methods such as
experimental designs to evaluate professional development to
determine research-based evidence, and then apply this evi-
dence to real teaching contexts (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, &
Garet, 2008). Therefore, in order to evaluate the effect of
teachers’ professional development on either teachers’ or stu-
dents’ outcomes, we need to use a comprehensive framework
which not only literature has suggested but also empirical re-
search has supported. Above all, a comprehensive framework
for evaluating professional development impact should describe
three aspects: First, it should define what the effective profes-
sional development is; second, it should explain the path how
this effective professional development affect teachers’ and
students’ outcomes. Third, it should describe what the contex-
tual factors impacting professional development are. In detail,
lately conducted literature by Desimone (2009) has provided a
comprehensive framework for evaluating professional devel-
opment representing all three aspects mentioned above. By
review of empirical research as well as theoretical literature, we
will examine whether Desimone’s framework could be justified
as a solid theoretical framework for evaluating professional
development.
Although empirical research has been conducted for explor-
ing the relationship between professional development and
teachers’ outcomes in Korea, to the best of my knowledge,
there is no literature which comprehensively describes three
aspects which were shown above as a solid framework for
evaluating professional development. Therefore, if Desimone’s
(2009) framework is justified by both theoretical literature and
empirical research, this framework will help inform further
evaluation studies of professional development and the evi-
dence offered through this review of the research will help pol-
icy makers implement future professional development initia-
tives.
Literature Review
Definition of Professional Development
Professional development is defined as the processes and ac-
*Corresponding author.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 11
H. S. KANG ET AL.
tivities designed to improve teachers’ knowledge, the practice
of instruction, and the learning outcomes of students (Wei,
Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
Traditional professional development has been identified as
discrete activities such as workshops and college courses (Little,
1993). However, this approach is often considered ineffective
because these activities are not directly related to individual
teacher’s classroom teaching (Hawley & Valli, 1999).
Beyond traditional professional development, the situative
perspective provides a new approach to define professional
development. This perspective was originally used for student
learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1998).
Brown et al. (1989) argued that “knowledge is situated, being in
part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is
developed and use.” Similarly, arguing that all learning occurs
in some situation, Greeno et al. (1998) contended that “the dif-
ference between learning in different arrangements is not
whether learning is situated or not, but how it is situated.” Put-
nam and Borko (2000) extended the situative perspective on
teacher learning. Arguing that cognition is solely an outcome of
individuals, they proposed that three concepts that are funda-
mental to the situative perspective: cognition is 1) situated in
specific contexts; 2) social in nature; and 3) distributed across
the individual, other persons, and tools. Based on this explana-
tion, they argued that situating learning experiences for acquir-
ing knowledge for teaching could take place not only in the
classrooms but also outside the classrooms. As a result, they
suggested various activities for teacher learning as part of
teachers’ professional development. Specifically, they sug-
gested a variety of teacher learning experiences for current
teachers and prospective teachers: working with instructional
experts, ongoing workshops focusing on instruction, discourse
communities among teachers, pairing university-based re-
searchers or staff developers with current teachers; taking a
children’s literature course, participating in discourse commu-
nities through mentoring of for prospective teachers; and taking
a case-based teaching course together for both current teacher
and prospective teachers.
Aligned with the situative perspective by Putnam and Borko
(2000), scholars also have suggested various ways to engage in
effective teacher learning opportunities such as coaching, men-
toring, study groups, action research, observation of teachers’
in-class practices, involvement in the development or improve-
ment process, and enactment of curriculum in the classroom
(Guskey, 2000; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Professional
Development
About a decade ago, Supovitz (2001) suggested that a logic
behind professional development is that high-quality profes-
sional development will change teaching in classrooms, which
will, in turn, increase student achievement. In addition, some
scholars (Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Loucks-Horsley & Matsu-
moto, 1999) have suggested including teachers’ knowledge as a
new mediating variable between professional development and
student learning in the framework since effective professional
development shapes not only teaching practice but also teach-
ers’ knowledge. Moreover, recent literature has claimed that
teachers’ knowledge gained from professional development
influences teaching practice (Blank & Alas, 2008; Yoon, Dun-
can, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Desimone (2009) in-
cluded teachers’ knowledge as well as attitudes and beliefs as
critical factors affecting teaching practice.
Considering the current literature, the comprehensive theo-
retical framework synthesized by Desimone (2009) is convinc-
ing since it contains that: 1) explanation of effective profes-
sional development; 2) all the path from effective professional
development to student achievement and; 3) contextual factors.
We figure out how both theoretical literature and empirical
studies will support Desimone’s framework. Figure 1 repre-
sents Desimone’s core conceptual framework for studying the
effect of professional development on teachers and students.
Critical Features of Effective Professional
Development
Even though scholars have suggested diverse characteristics
of effective professional development, recently conducted re-
search commonly has described five characteristics as core
features of effective professional development: content focus;
active learning; coherence; duration; and collective participa-
tion (Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007; Corcoran, 2007; De-
simone, 2011; Wayne et al., 2008). These characteristics are
explained in greater detail below along with the empirical re-
search that serves as evidence of the impacts of each of the five
characteristics.
Content Focus
Content refers to what teachers learn through professional
development (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
Specifically, content in professional development is divided
into two main categories: knowledge of the subject matter, and
the knowledge of how students learn that content (Kennedy,
1998). Shulman (1986) calls the second type pedagogical con-
tent knowledge. It is considered the most important feature of
effective professional development (Desimone, 2009).
Empirical research suggests that content-focused profes-
sional development can influence teachers’ knowledge, teach-
ing practice, or student learning (Carpenter et al., 1989; Cohen
& Hill, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Ingvarson et al., 2005; Smith,
Desimone, & Ueno, 2005). Over 20 years ago, Carpenter et al.
(1989) used an experimental design to examine the effect of
teachers’ learning of Cognitive Guided Instruction (CGI) on
teachers’ knowledge, teaching practice, and student learning.
For the experiment, twenty first-grade teachers who were as-
signed to a treatment group participated in a month-long work-
shop to learn about children’s development of problem solving
Figure 1.
Desimone’s (2009) conceptual framework for studying the effect of
professional development on teachers and students.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
12
H. S. KANG ET AL.
skills in addition and subtraction. Teachers in the control group
participated in two 2-hour workshops that did not provide any
discussion about how children think as they solve problems,
nor was any specific framework given for how to understand
children’s cognition. The results revealed that the teachers in
treatment group who learned about pedagogical content knowl-
edge about children’s mathematical thinking not only had a
better understanding of the students’ problem solving processes
but also used better problem solving strategies than the teachers
in the control group. In addition, in terms of the knowledge of
number facts and problem solving, students who learned from
the teachers in the experimental group performed better than
students taught by teachers in the control group.
In another study, Garet et al. (2001) used a national probabil-
ity sample of 1027 mathematics and science teachers partici-
pating in the Eisenhower Professional Development Program
aimed at developing the knowledge and skills of classroom
teachers. The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact
of content-based professional development on teachers’ knowl-
edge. To measure the content focus, teachers were asked to
indicate how much emphasis the activities in which they par-
ticipated put on strengthening content knowledge in mathe-
matics and science. Using path analysis, the study suggested
that a focus on content knowledge is positively related to en-
hanced teachers’ knowledge.
In another study, the Australian Government Quality Teacher
Program (AGQTP) had four projects aimed at improving
teaching skills. Using self-reported data from 3250 teachers
who had participated in those projects, Ingvarson et al. (2005)
studied the effect of content-based professional development on
teachers’ knowledge, practice, and efficacy. To measure the
content focus, the scholars also used teachers’ self-reported
survey responses. The teachers indicated the extent to which
professional development focused on the four aspects: content
or subject knowledge, knowledge of how students learn content,
knowledge of teaching content, and models to illustrate the
methods to teach that content. Using block-wise regression, the
scholars found that the extent to which the program focused on
content was significantly associated with increased teachers’
knowledge.
Reform of mathematics instruction in California also led to
the implementation of content-focused professional develop-
ment. Cohen and Hill (2000) examined the effect of this im-
plementation on teachers’ practice and student achievement.
For this purpose, they used teachers’ survey data from Califor-
nia’s elementary schools and student math scores from the
California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). The scholars
then measured the content focus asking teachers the extent to
which they participated in workshops to understand the math
curriculum. Using regression analysis, they found that the
number of teachers participating in workshops to learn about
the math curriculum was positively related to both teachers’
reform-oriented practice and students’ math scores.
Smith et al. (2005) also investigated the relationship between
content-focused professional development and the use of re-
form-oriented instruction in mathematics using 2000 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, which was a
stratified national probability sample of eighth-grade students
and their mathematics teachers. Although the NAEP sample
was not designed to estimate the attributes of the US teacher
population, they examined it by aggregating the student data to
the teacher level. Specifically, they defined the content of pro-
fessional development as the number of hours teachers had
spent in workshops for mathematics or mathematics education
during the prior year. By using a Hierarchical Linear Model
(HLM), they found that teachers who participated more in
workshops for mathematics or mathematics education were
more likely to emphasize conceptual learning goals and use
conceptual teaching strategies.
Researchers have also documented the impact of content-
focused professional development on student achievement
through systematic literature reviews (Kennedy, 1998; Yoon et
al., 2007). Kennedy (1998) reviewed studies of in-service pro-
grams meant to enhance the teaching of mathematics and sci-
ence. The review revealed that the programs that focused on
teachers’ subject knowledge, on the curriculum, or on how
students learn the subject were more likely to have positive
effects on student learning than the programs that focused pri-
marily on teachers’ behavior. More recently, Yoon and col-
leagues (2007) conducted a review of the evidence of the ef-
fects of professional development on student achievement in
reading, mathematics, and science. Through a comprehensive
review, they found that only nine studies out of more than 1300
studies met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence
standards. Moreover, all the interventions that were analyzed in
these nine studies focused on enhancing teachers’ subject
knowledge and their pedagogical content knowledge. Four of
the nine studies focused on student achievement in reading and
English/language arts, two studies focused on mathematics, two
on mathematics and reading and English/language arts, one on
science, and one on mathematics, science, and reading and
English/language arts. The results of the nine studies indicate
show that providing professional development to teachers had a
moderate effect on student achievement across the nine studies.
In summary, a substantial number of studies using various
research methods, including correlational studies (Cohen & Hill,
2000; Garet et al., 2001; Ingvarson et al., 2005; Smith et al.,
2005), meta-analyses (Kennedy, 1998; Yoon et al., 2007), and
experimental studies (Carpenter et al., 1989) have commonly
shown that content-focused professional development enhances
teachers’ knowledge, reforms teaching practice, or improves
student learning.
Active Learning
Active learning refers to the extent to which professional de-
velopment provides opportunities for teachers to be engaged in
the analysis of teaching and learning (Garet et al., 2001). Re-
searchers have suggested a variety of ways to promote active
learning, such as observing expert teachers or being observed,
reviewing students’ work or thinking, scoring assessments,
leading discussions, developing and presenting lessons, coach-
ing and mentoring, or interacting with teachers to discuss steps
for improving teaching practice (Blank et al., 2008; Corcoran,
2007; Desimone, 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). Three
correlational studies show a positive relationship between ac-
tive learning through professional development and teachers’
knowledge or teaching practice (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon,
& Birman, 2002; Ingvarson et al., 2005). Two studies measured
the specific activities performed by the teachers as active
learning (Desimone et al., 2002; G a r e t e t al., 2001).
In their evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Develop-
ment Program, Garet et al. (2001) measured four dimensions of
active learning: observing and being observed during teaching;
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 13
H. S. KANG ET AL.
planning for classroom implementation; reviewing student
work; and presenting, leading, and writing. The results of a path
analysis showed that the extent of active learning opportunities
for teachers was positively related to enhanced knowledge and
skills. In addition, using a purposefully selected sample of 207
teachers in 30 schools located in 10 districts across five states,
Desimone et al. (2002) examined the relationships between the
features of professional development and changes in teaching
practice in mathematics and science. They adapted the items
that Garet et al. (2001) had used to measure active learning. By
using a hierarchical linear model (HLM), they found that active
learning opportunities for teachers were positively associated
with teachers’ technology use and higher order instruction.
The third study is different from the previous studies. In an
evaluation study of AGQTP, Ingvarson et al. (2005) measured
active learning by asking teachers directly whether a program
in which they participated actively engaged them in reflecting
on their teaching practice, in identifying specific areas of their
practice that they needed to develop, and whether it gave them
opportunities to test new teaching practices. Using block-wise
regression, they found that active learning for teachers was
positively associated with both their knowledge and teaching
practice.
Coherence
Coherence refers to the extent to which professional devel-
opment is consistent with other teacher learning opportunities,
with teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, and with school, district,
and state reforms and policies (Desimone, 2011). Two empiri-
cal studies have evaluated how coherence is related to teachers’
knowledge or teaching practice (Garet et al., 2001; Penuel,
Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). First, Garet et al.
(2001) measured coherence by asking about three dimensions
of teachers: the extent to which professional development were
consistent with the teachers’ goals, the degree to which these
activities were aligned with state and district standards and
assessments, and the extent to which the professional develop-
ment promoted communication among teachers about their
work. They found coherence was substantially positively re-
lated to changes in teaching practice. In addition, using a sam-
ple of 454 teachers and 28 professional development providers
engaged in the GLOBE Program, which is an earth science
education program, Penuel et al. (2007) examined the relation-
ships between different characteristics of professional devel-
opment and teachers’ knowledge and their ability to implement
the science program. They measured coherence by asking
teachers the following question: How well did professional
development match with both the teachers’ goals for profes-
sional development and the existing reform ideas within the
school? They also asked whether professional development was
followed up with activities that built on what had already been
learned. By using a HLM, they found that perceived coherence
was positively associated with two aspects of curriculum im-
plementation: protocol use and preparation for student inquiry.
Duration
Duration is defined as “both the number of contact hours of
professional development, and the length of time over which
engagement in the activity spans” (Hochberg & Desimone,
2010). Three empirical studies determined that the total number
of contact hours of professional development had a positive
association with teachers’ outcomes, such as attitude, prepar-
edness, and teaching practice (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007;
Heck, Banilower, Weiss, & Rosenberg, 2008; Supovitz &
Turner, 2000). These three studies analyzed the Local Systemic
Change (LSC) initiative, which National Science Foundation
(NSF) supported teacher enhancement effort to improve in-
struction in science, mathematics, and technology (Banilower et
al., 2007). Supovitz and Turner (2000) analyzed cross sectional
data from 24 LSC science projects. They divided the total par-
ticipation hours of a professional development into five time
periods: 1 - 19 hours, 20 - 39 hours, 40 - 79 hours, 80 - 159
hours, and more than 160 hours. By using a HLM, they found
that teachers’ total participation hours in professional develop-
ment was strongly linked with both inquiry-based teaching
practices and an investigative classroom culture.
Unlike Supovitz and Turner (2000), the other two studies
analyzed longitudinal data from 42 LSC science projects
(Banilower et al., 2007) and 48 LSC math projects (Heck et al.,
2008), which were implemented over a span of seven years.
These studies used total participation hours in professional
development. By using a HLM, both studies found that the total
participation number of hours in LSC projects was positively
related to teachers’ attitudes, both content and pedagogical
preparedness, and their classroom practices.
By analyzing the nine rigorous studies identified from the
systematic review of professional development impact studies,
Yoon and colleagues (2007) found that there was also a dura-
tion effect of professional development on student learning: Out
of the six studies that provided sufficient contact hours of pro-
fessional development, the range of 30 to 100 hours depicted a
statistically significant and positive effect on student achieve-
ment gains. In contrast, the remaining three studies that pro-
vided a more limited period of time for professional develop-
ment, ranging from 5 to 14 hours, showed no statistically sig-
nificant effect on student learning.
Collective Participation
Collective participation refers to the extent to which multiple
teachers from the same school participate in the same learning
opportunities (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). Two correlational
studies found a positive association between collective partici-
pation and teaching practice (Desimone et al., 2002; Penuel et
al., 2007). Desimone et al. (2002) found that professional de-
velopment was more effective in changing teachers’ classroom
practices when it involved collective participation of teachers
from the same school, department, or grade. Penuel et al. (2007)
also found that teachers reported more change when partici-
pants in the professional activities engaged all teachers in the
department or grade groupings, or all teachers in the school or
set of schools.
Another recent review (Blank et al., 2008) analyzing the
findings from 41 evaluation studies conducted on 25 profes-
sional development initiatives undertaken between 2004 and
2007 across 14 states, also found that these five features of
professional development are positively associated with teach-
ing practice and student achievement: 1) focus of content and
pedagogical content knowledge on math and science; 2) active
learning opportunities by coaching and mentoring through
master teachers, and the use of the lesson study method for
learning among teachers; 3) alignment with the school cur-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
14
H. S. KANG ET AL.
riculum; 4) long durations of 45 to 300 hours; and 5) activities
with grade-level teacher teams. The results revealed that the
five characteristics of effective professional development that
were commonly found in all eight interventions had a measur-
able relationship with teaching practice and student achieve-
ment.
Relationships among Four Steps in a
Synthesized Theoretical Framework
Desimone’s (2009) comprehensive theoretical framework
focused on four steps: 1) teachers need to experience high-
quality professional development; 2) professional development
increases teachers’ knowledge and changes their attitudes or
beliefs; 3) teachers’ new knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs can
change teaching practice; and 4) instructional changes increase
student learning. The relationships are explained in greater
detail below along with the empirical research that serves as
evidence of each of the relationships.
Professional Development and Teachers’ Knowledge,
Attitudes, or Efficacy
Research shows a positive relationship between professional
development and teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, or efficacy
(Banilower et al., 2007; Borman & Rachuba, 1999; Heck et al.,
2008; Penuel et al., 2007). To elaborate on the argument, two
studies using LSC projects (Banilower et al., 2007; Heck et al.,
2008) investigated the relationships between professional de-
velopment and teachers’ attitudes and teachers’ knowledge.
They used teachers’ self-reported survey data to measure the
relations. By using a HLM, the scholars found that the total
number of hours the teachers spent participating in LSC pro-
jects directly related to their attitudes towards both stan-
dards-based teaching and their perceptions of pedagogical and
content preparedness. In addition, Penuel et al. (2007) exam-
ined the relationship between professional development and
teachers’ knowledge. They defined teachers’ knowledge as
teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy, which includes both content
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. They also used
teachers’ self-reported survey data to measure this knowledge.
By using a HLM, the results indicated that teachers’ perceived
coherence of earth science education programs had a positive
relationship with teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy. Moreover,
by analyzing the Prospects data, Borman and Rachuba (1999)
considered teacher efficacy as teachers’ outcomes of profes-
sional development. From an ANalysis of COVAriance (AN-
COVA), they found teachers with more professional growth
opportunities had better efficacy than those with fewer profes-
sional growth opportunities.
Professional Development and Teaching Practice
Considerable research has also found a positive relationship
between professional development and teaching practice
(Banilower et al., 2007; Borman & Rachuba, 1999; Desimone
et al., 2002; Heck et al., 2008; Penuel et al., 2007; Smith et al.,
2005; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Using LSC projects, three
studies have found that the quantity of the projects in which
teachers participate is positively linked with both inquiry-based
teaching practice and investigative classroom culture in math
and science (Banilower et al., 2007; Heck et al., 2008; Supovitz
& Turner, 2000). In addition, using data from the 2000 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Smith et al.
(2005) found that participation in workshops, seminars, and
college classes in mathematics or mathematics education were
positively related to the use of reform-oriented instruction
among middle school mathematics teachers. Furthermore, using
a purposefully selected sample of 207 teachers in 30 schools,
Desimone et al. (2002) found that some features of teachers’
professional development had an influence on teaching practice
in mathematics and science. Specifically, collective participa-
tion was positively related to the use of technology; active
learning was positively related to the use of both technology
and higher order instructional methods, and coherence had a
positive influence on the use of alternative assessments. Using
the GLOBE Program data, Penuel et al. (2007) also found that
two other aspects of professional development, coherence and
collective participation, had a positive association with changes
in teachers’ instruction. Moreover, using teacher data from the
congressionally mandated Prospects study of educational
growth and opportunity, Borman and Rachuba (1999) found
that teachers with more professional growth opportunities were
more likely to implement reformed instruction. Methodologi-
cally, the empirical studies reviewed in their study also revealed
a relationship between professional development and teaching
practice by using a HLM (Banilower et al., 2007; Desimone et
al., 2002; Heck et al., 2008; Penuel et al., 2007; Smith et al.,
2005; Supovitz & Turner, 2000) or an ANCOVA (Borman &
Rachuba, 1999).
Three empirical studies investigated the paths that connect
professional development, teachers’ knowledge or attitudes,
and teaching practice (Banilower et al., 2007; Garet et al., 2001;
Heck et al., 2008). Using path analysis, Garet et al. (2001)
found that core features of the Eisenhower Professional Devel-
opment Program including content focus, active learning, and
coherence had a positive relationship with teachers’ knowledge
and skills. In addition, teachers’ knowledge and skills showed a
significant association with changes in teaching practice. Using
a Structural Equation Model (SEM), Banilower et al. (2007)
and Heck et al. (2008) also found teacher knowledge, which
was measured by perceptions of pedagogical and content pre-
paredness, was a significant mediating variable between the
extent of participation in LSC projects and reform-oriented
teaching practice. Finally, these two studies found that teachers’
attitudes toward standards-based teaching were important for
mediating the relationship between professional development
and investigative teaching practice.
Professional Development and Student Achievement
Two correlational studies (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Ingvarson et
al., 2005) examined the association between professional de-
velopment and student learning. Using cross sectional data
from a California elementary school teachers’ survey and Cali-
fornia Learning Assessment System (CLAS) student math
scores, Cohen and Hill (2000) investigated the association be-
tween teachers’ participation in student curriculum workshops
and changes in teachers’ practice and student achievement.
Using regression analysis, they found that the teachers partici-
pating in student curriculum workshops had a positive rela-
tionship with both using reform-oriented practice in class and
their students’ math scores. In addition, using cross sectional
teachers’ self-reported data from AGQTP, Ingvarson et al.
(2005) examined the relationship among process aspects of
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 15
H. S. KANG ET AL.
professional development, teachers’ knowledge, teachers’ prac-
tice, and student learning. Using a block-wise regression analy-
sis, they found that all of the paths among the comprehensive
theoretical framework were statistically significant: profes-
sional development, teachers’ knowledge, teaching practice,
and student achievement. However, their study was limited in
measuring student achievement since student learning was only
indirectly measured by teachers’ self-reported survey data.
Furthermore, one experimental study (Carpenter et al., 1989)
also found that participation in a month-long workshop of Cog-
nitive Guided Instruction (CGI) had positive influences on
teachers’ knowledge, teaching practice, and student learning. In
brief, results of the empirical research have consistently sup-
ported the theoretical framework linking professional develop-
ment, teachers’ knowledge and attitudes, teaching practice, and
student achievement either partially or comprehensively.
Contextu al Fa ctor s Im pact ing Pr ofess iona l
Development
Diverse contexts such as schools, districts, and communities
that teachers work in can affect the result of implementation of
professional development. Therefore these should also be con-
sidered when evaluating the effects of professional develop-
ment (Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). In this regard, this study
next seeks to document how the literature describes the context
variables affecting the effectiveness of professional develop-
ment and how empirical research has investigated the effects of
contextual factors. A body of literature has described the di-
verse critical context factors affecting the effectiveness of pro-
fessional development: 1) student characteristics (Desimone,
2009; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010); 2) teacher characteristics
(Desimone, 2009; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010); 3) principal
leadership (Corcoran, 2007; Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Hochberg
& Desimone, 2010; Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999); 4)
school culture (Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999; Supovitz,
2001); 5) policy related to curriculum and assessment system
(Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto,
1999; Yoon et al., 2007).
Student Characteristics
Student characteristics include achievement level, ethnicity,
whether a student is eligible for free reduced-price lunch, and
whether the student is classified as limited English proficient
(Desimone, Smith, & Ueno, 2006; Heck et al., 2008). Two
empirical studies found that the percentage of students on free
or reduced-price lunch was negatively related to both teachers’
professional growth opportunities (Borman & Rachuba, 1999)
and inquiry-based teaching practice (Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
First of all, using data from the congressionally mandated
Prospects study of educational growth and opportunity, Borman
and Rachuba (1999) divided the percent of students eligible for
free or reduced-price lunches in a school into three groups: low
poverty (0% - 33%), medium poverty (34% - 66%), and high
poverty (67% - 100%). Using Multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVAs), they found that the teachers from high poverty
elementary schools had fewer professional growth opportunities
such as participation in professional development than the
teachers from low poverty elementary schools. In addition,
using data from the 24 LSC initiative projects Supovitz and
Turner (2000) also defined percentage of students on free or
reduced lunch as one of the context variables. By using a HLM,
the researchers found schools having higher percentage of stu-
dents on free or reduced lunch had a negative influence on in-
quiry-based teaching practice.
Teacher Characteristics
Teacher characteristics include prior experience, content
knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (Desimone, 2009). Using
teachers’ survey data from the 2000 NAEP, Desimone, Smith,
and Ueno (2006) found the extent of teachers’ content knowl-
edge in mathematics had an influence on content-focused and
sustained professional development participation. They defined
the extent of teachers’ content knowledge by type of degree in
mathematics and mathematics education. Using multinomial
logit analysis, they found that teachers who majored in mathe-
matics or mathematics education were more likely to participate
in sustained content-focused professional development than
teachers who did not major in either mathematics or mathemat-
ics education.
Principal Leadership
Even though principals typically do not influence students’
learning directly, their knowledge and practices indirectly affect
students in their interactions with the teachers through profes-
sional support, which then help teachers use new knowledge
and practice (Corcoran, 2007; Guskey & Sparks, 2002). Three
empirical studies using LSC projects investigated the effect of
principals’ support on reform-based practice in math (Heck et
al., 2008) and science (Banilower et al., 2007; Supovitz &
Turner, 2000). All three studies measured teachers’ perceptions
of principals’ support through teachers’ self-reported survey
responses. By using a HLM, they found that the teachers’ per-
ception of principals’ support is an important predictor of re-
form-based teaching practice. In addition, two studies (Bani-
lower et al., 2007; Heck et al., 2008) found that teachers’ per-
ception of principals’ support had a positive influence on
teachers’ attitude toward standards-based teaching, perceptions
of preparedness of content, and perceptions of pedagogy.
School Culture
School culture can also affect teachers’ learning (Loucks-
Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). For example, in an evaluation
study of AGQTP, Ingvarson et al. (2005) defined professional
learning community as one of the school cultures and examined
the role of it. By using a regression analysis, researchers deter-
mined that professional learning community was a critical me-
diating variable between professional developments and teach-
ers’ enhanced knowledge.
Curriculum or Assessment System
Curriculum is also one of the factors affecting the effective-
ness of professional development (Hochberg & Desimone,
2010). Two empirical studies using LSC projects support it
(Banilower et al., 2007; Heck et al., 2008). By using a SEM,
both studies showed that the frequency with which the profes-
sional development program employed instructional materials
that were coherent with the local curriculum was positively
related to teachers’ investigative p rac tice.
Literature also suggests the case of an assessment system as a
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
16
H. S. KANG ET AL.
context variable influencing the effect of professional devel-
opment (Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999; Yoon et al.,
2007). In examining the potential influence of content-based
professional development on students’ achievement, Cohen and
Hill (2000) included the California Learning Assessment Sys-
tem (CLAS) as a context variable. By regression analysis, the
result indicated that the assessment system which was aligned
with a state reform policy positively affected both teachers’
reform-based practice and students’ performance.
Conclusion and Implication
Based on the review of literature, the implications for re-
searchers, policy makers and school leaders in Korea are five-
fold.
First, we need to consider three ways for evaluating profes-
sional development. There were three ways for studying the
potential effect of professional development. Considerable em-
pirical research looked into the correlation between features of
professional development and teachers’ or students’ outcomes
for evaluating the effectiveness of specific programs for teacher
learning (Banilower et al., 2007; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Garet et
al., 2001; Heck et al., 2008; Ingvarson et al., 2005; Penuel et al.,
2007; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Carpenter et al. (1989) used
experimental designs for evaluating the effectiveness of spe-
cific interventions. Some studies looked into the relationship
between the features of effective professional development and
teachers’ outcomes using teachers’ survey data from national
probability samples that were designed primarily for student-
level analysis (Borman & Rachuba, 1999; Smith et al., 2005) or
using purposefully selected samples of teachers (Desimone et
al., 2002).
Second, we need more empirical studies that investigate the
relationships among professional development, teachers’ knowl-
edge, attitudes or beliefs, and teaching practice. A comprehen-
sive theoretical framework by Desimone (2009) describes that
increased teachers’ knowledge or changes in their attitudes and
beliefs by professional development can cause change in
teaching practice. As mentioned above, considerable research
has shown a relationship between professional development
and teaching practice. In addition, some empirical research
suggested a relationship between professional development and
teachers’ knowledge (Penuel et al., 2007) or efficacy (Borman
& Rachuba, 1999). However, only a few empirical research
studies looked into the overall path across professional devel-
opment, teachers’ knowledge or attitudes, and teaching practice
(Banilower et al., 2007; Garet et al., 2001; Heck et al., 2008).
Therefore, future research should figure out how mediating
variables such as teachers’ knowledge, attitude, belief, satisfac-
tion, or efficacy work between professional development and
teaching practice as mediators.
Third, context variables should be considered for profes-
sional development impact studies. Most empirical studies only
included teachers’ characteristics such as gender, race, teaching
experience and school characteristics (such as percentage of
free reduced lunch, location and size as context variables). Only
a few empirical studies included additional context variables
such as principals’ support and curriculum materials (Bani-
lower et al., 2007; Heck et al., 2008), the assessment system
(Cohen & Hill, 2000), professional learning community (Ing-
varson et al., 2005) and found their associations with outcomes.
As a result, future research should include context variables
suggested by the literature and look into their impact on effec-
tiveness of professional development. In addition, we need to
study whether these core features and frameworks were effec-
tive or not in various nations that have different contexts. For
example, Ingvarson et al. (2005) found core features and
frameworks for evaluating professional development were also
effective in Australia.
Fourth, we need to use more rigorous methodology such as
randomized experimental design in professional development
impact studies. For about a decade, most empirical studies for
studying the effect of professional development were correla-
tional studies (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Desimone et al., 2002; Ga-
ret et al., 2001; Ingvarson et al., 2005; Penuel et al., 2007;
Smith et al., 2005; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Correlational
studies are meaningful because they explain the relationship
between professional development and teachers’ or students’
outcomes. However, they have limitations since they do not
determine a true causal effect. In this regard, experimental
studies that can demonstrate causal effects are considered rig-
orous methodologies (Wayne et al., 2008).
Fifth, we should be careful when measuring the variables of
interest. First of all, a considerable number of studies used
teacher self-reported survey data for measuring teachers’
knowledge (Banilower et al., 2007; Garet et al., 2001; Heck et
al., 2008; Ingvarson et al., 2005; Penuel et al., 2007; Supovitz
& Turner, 2000). However, it has limitations for measuring
teachers’ knowledge accurately because it mainly relies on
teachers’ perceptions. Therefore, we need to develop test in-
struments for measuring teachers’ knowledge for future studies.
Furthermore, Cohen and Hill (2000) have used standardized
test scores for measuring students’ achievement. However,
Ingvarson et al. (2005) used teachers’ reported survey re-
sponses as a proxy measure of student learning or achievement.
They asked teachers whether, as a result of the professional
development program, their students experienced enhanced
learning. Even though the results indicated that the professional
development program had a positive influence on student
learning, it is less convincing because student learning was
measured by teachers’ perceptions. More sensitive and appro-
priate forms of assessment capable of capturing the types of
learning the professional development program seek to promote
are needed to improve research in the field.
In summary, as a practical point, policy makers and school
leaders need to consider these five characteristics whether pro-
fessional development reflects all these five features before
implementing it. In addition, some contextual factors that have
been suggested by the literature also have been supported by
empirical studies as indirect factors impacting professional
development. As a result, school leaders and policy makers
need to regard these contextual factors for successful imple-
mentation of professional development. Moreover, policy mak-
ers and school leaders should allocate funds for teacher profes-
sional development impact studies using this comprehensive
framework. Then, based on the evidence of empirical research,
policy makers need to determine the implementation of profes-
sional development initiatives.
REFERENCES
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional
development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact
of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 17
H. S. KANG ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
18
teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Tea-
ching, 44, 375-395. doi:10.1002/tea.20145
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & & Smith, C. (2007). Analysis of the
quality of professional development programs for mathematics and
science teachers: Findings from across-state study. Washington DC:
Council of Chief State S c h oo l O f f i c e rs.
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher profes-
sional development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis
of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science
teachers in 14 states. Washington DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (1999). Qualifications and profes-
sional growth opportunities of teachers in high- and low-poverty
elementary schools. The Journal of Neg ro Education, 68, 366-381.
doi:10.2307/2668108
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and
the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef,
M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in
classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational
Research Journal, 26, 499-531. doi:10.3102/00028312026004499
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom
performance: The mathematics reform in California. The Teachers
College Record, 102, 294-343. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00057
Corcoran, T. B. (2007). Teaching matters: How state and local policy
makers can improve the quality of teachers and teaching. CPRE Re-
search Brief No. RB-48. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ profes-
sional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures.
Educational Researcher, 38 , 181-200.
doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional develop-
ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 68-71.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B.
F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruc-
tion: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Eva-
luation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.
doi:10.3102/01623737024002081
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who
need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it?
An administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42, 179-216. doi:10.1177/0013161X04273848
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S.
(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results
from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.
American Psychologist, 53, 5-26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development
to improvements in student learning. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.
Hawley, W., & 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 of pol-
icy and practice (pp. 1 27 -150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heck, D. J., Banilower, E. R., Weiss, I. R., & Rosenberg, S. L. (2008).
Studying the effects of professional development. Journal for Re-
search in Mathematics Education, 39, 113-152.
Hochberg, E. D., & Desimone, L. M. (2010). Professional development
in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards.
Educational Psychologist, 45, 89-106.
doi:10.1080/00461521003703052
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the
impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowl-
edge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 13.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher edu-
cation. Research Monograph No. 13. Arlington, VA: National Sci-
ence Foundation.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of
educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15,
129-151.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional
development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of
the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258-271.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17484.x
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson,
P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of sci-
ence and mathematics (2nd ed .). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P.
(2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies
that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 44, 921-958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221
Phillips, K. J. R. (2010). What does “Highly qualified” mean for stu-
dent achievement? Evaluating the relationships between teacher
quality indicators and at-risk students’ mathematics and reading
achievement gains in first grade. The Elementary School Journal,
110, 464-493. doi:10.1086/651192
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge
and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educa-
tional Researcher, 29, 4-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). “Highly qualified”
to do what? The relationship between NCLB teacher quality man-
dates and the use of reform-oriented instruction in middle school
mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 75-
109. doi:10.3102/01623737027001075
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of
professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in
new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 237-270.
Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved
student performance. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the
classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 81-98). Chi-
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional
development on science teaching practices and classroom culture.
Journal of Research in Science Teachi n g, 37, 963-980.
doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008).
Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and
methods. Educational R esearcher, 37, 469-479.
doi:10.3102/0013189X08327154
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., &
Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional lea rn ing in th e l ea rning profession:
A status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.
(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional devel-
opment affects student achievement. Issues and Answers Report,
REL2007-No.033. Washington, DC: US Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Labora-
tory Southwest.