When it comes to improved student outcomes, professional development (PD) can be guilty of over-promising and under-delivering. Given the limits of teachers' time and district resources, there is inherent value in understanding not just if PD is effective but why. Authors Kathleen Lynch, Kathryn E. Gonzalez, Heather C. Hill, and Ramsey Merritt sought to address both the impact and the reason behind the impact in a meta-analysis synthesizing 46 studies focused on math and science PD programs. Their Annenberg working paper makes clear that math- and science-focused PD can have a positive effect on student achievement and does the additional work of identifying PD characteristics that are (and are not) associated with improved outcomes.
The authors investigated whether two types of PD, either deployed together or separately, have a positive impact on teachers. Specifically, they looked at math and science PD focusing on teacher knowledge (content and pedagogical content knowledge) and classroom instruction (practices within the classroom, including how teachers engage students, manage class time, and apply content-specific instructional strategies). The unambiguous finding is that teachers who participate in PD centered around these concepts scored higher on measures of knowledge and classroom instruction than control group teachers.
To the more important question of whether these gains translate into improved student outcomes, the researchers find that PD-driven gains in classroom instruction practices are positively associated with greater student achievement. Specifically, each 1 standard deviation (SD) improvement in classroom instruction is associated with a 0.24 SD gain in student achievement scores, which the authors note is the equivalent of a student improving from the 50th to the 59th percentile. However, gains in teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge alone were not correlated with improved student achievement. In other words, while math and science PD can boost teacher knowledge and classroom instruction, only classroom instruction is found to positively impact student growth.
Based on such findings, it would seem that professional development time should primarily focus on classroom instruction practices given the direct connection to student achievement, but that's not what the study uncovered. What the researchers found instead is that interventions that emphasized both teacher content knowledge and instructional practice in concert had the largest positive effects on classroom instruction. The findings suggest that while gains in teacher content knowledge alone don't directly boost student achievement, PD focused on boosting teachers' math and science content knowledge and improving classroom instruction has the greatest effect on students' math and science achievement. The researchers also found that PD focused on content-specific formative assessments, in which teachers learn how to use the information gained from assessments to adjust instruction, had significant positive impacts on classroom instruction.
On the flip side (and notably), the duration of the PD program did not predict better outcomes, nor did the inclusion of general (not specific to math and science) instructional strategies. It is worth noting that the authors themselves call for more research in this area, particularly to isolate which PD elements lead to the strongest outcomes for students.
The authors investigated whether two types of PD, either deployed together or separately, have a positive impact on teachers. Specifically, they looked at math and science PD focusing on teacher knowledge (content and pedagogical content knowledge) and classroom instruction (practices within the classroom, including how teachers engage students, manage class time, and apply content-specific instructional strategies). The unambiguous finding is that teachers who participate in PD centered around these concepts scored higher on measures of knowledge and classroom instruction than control group teachers.
To the more important question of whether these gains translate into improved student outcomes, the researchers find that PD-driven gains in classroom instruction practices are positively associated with greater student achievement. Specifically, each 1 standard deviation (SD) improvement in classroom instruction is associated with a 0.24 SD gain in student achievement scores, which the authors note is the equivalent of a student improving from the 50th to the 59th percentile. However, gains in teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge alone were not correlated with improved student achievement. In other words, while math and science PD can boost teacher knowledge and classroom instruction, only classroom instruction is found to positively impact student growth.
Based on such findings, it would seem that professional development time should primarily focus on classroom instruction practices given the direct connection to student achievement, but that's not what the study uncovered. What the researchers found instead is that interventions that emphasized both teacher content knowledge and instructional practice in concert had the largest positive effects on classroom instruction. The findings suggest that while gains in teacher content knowledge alone don't directly boost student achievement, PD focused on boosting teachers' math and science content knowledge and improving classroom instruction has the greatest effect on students' math and science achievement. The researchers also found that PD focused on content-specific formative assessments, in which teachers learn how to use the information gained from assessments to adjust instruction, had significant positive impacts on classroom instruction.
On the flip side (and notably), the duration of the PD program did not predict better outcomes, nor did the inclusion of general (not specific to math and science) instructional strategies. It is worth noting that the authors themselves call for more research in this area, particularly to isolate which PD elements lead to the strongest outcomes for students.