Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational Researcher
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Desimone, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures

Laura M. Desimone

LAURA M. DESIMONE is an associate professor of education policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, 3700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; lauramd{at}gse.upenn.edu. Her research focuses on policy effects on teaching and learning, policy implementation, and the improvement of methods for studying policy effects and implementation (e.g., improving the quality of surveys and the appropriate use of multiple methodologies); much of her work is in the areas of standards-based reform/accountability and teacher quality initiatives (e.g., teachers’ professional development, induction).

The author suggests that we apply recent research knowledge to improve our conceptualization, measures, and methodology for studying the effects of teachers’ professional development on teachers and students. She makes the case that there is a research consensus to support the use of a set of core features and a common conceptual framework in professional development impact studies. She urges us to move away from automatic biases either for or against observation, interviews, or surveys in such studies. She argues that the use of a common conceptual framework would elevate the quality of professional development studies and subsequently the general understanding of how best to shape and implement teacher learning opportunities for the maximum benefit of both teachers and students.

Key Words: causal inference • instructional practices • professional development • research methodology • survey research • teacher quality

Educational Researcher, Vol. 38, No. 3, 181-199 (2009)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08331140


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Teacher EducationHome page
R. Elliott, E. Kazemi, K. Lesseig, J. Mumme, C. Carroll, and M. Kelley-Petersen
Conceptualizing the Work of Leading Mathematical Tasks in Professional Development
Journal of Teacher Education, September 1, 2009; 60(4): 364 - 379.
[Abstract] [PDF]



AER home page RER home page EPA home page JEB home page RRE home page