Journal of Science Teacher Education (2007) 18:125–128DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9018-3 c© Springer 2007

Letter from the Editor

Research-Based Professional Development: Teachers Engagedin Professional Learning Communities

Published online: 26 January 2007

The Workshop Training Model

One shot, workshop-based professional development is passe. It is commonknowledge that teachers seldom apply what they learn during workshops in theirclassrooms. In spite of this fact, school districts and grant agencies pour millions ofdollars into science teacher professional development programs that are primarilyworkshop based. Think of all the Eisenhower (currently Title IIa), National Sci-ence Foundation, and other funded projects that utilized a summer or after-schoolworkshop model for science teachers. Teachers dutifully attended, received theirstipends, and returned to the classroom with little support and scant application.The impact on students was hardly worth the millions of dollars. Many readers ofthis journal have facilitated or participated in such programs (I confess my guilt).Yet, workshop models of professional development remain prevalent because theyare efficient.

In the past few years, science educators have expanded their views of profes-sional development by addressing such factors as school contexts, teacher beliefsystems, support systems, follow-up, classroom application, and leadership (e.g.,Czerniak, Beltyukova, Struble, Haney, & Lumpe, 2006; Loucks-Horsley, Love,Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). The application of these models has demon-strated some impact on student learning. But a strong line of recent research outsideof traditional science education circles is beginning to be used to clarify an ap-proach to professional development that is radically different. It is time for thescience education community to apply these approaches.

Research-Based Professional Development

Marzano and his colleagues’ (Marzano, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,2005) meticulous effective-schools research recently documented factors that pos-itively influence student achievement. Among the factors identified by this group,the following relate to professional development: effective feedback, cooperation,collegiality, practice-oriented staff development, a culture of shared beliefs, andrelationships. At first glance, these factors seem logical from an organizationalstandpoint, but the implementation of them is neither simple nor commonplace inschool systems.

Over the past few years, various educators have begun to use this researchalong with research from the corporate world (e.g., Collins, 2001) to design and

126 LUMPE

facilitate the concept of professional learning communities. Proponents of thisapproach to professional development include such notables as Michael Fullan,Andy Hargreaves, Roland Barth, Rick Stiggins, Larry Lezotte, Dennis Sparks,Shirley Hord, Art Wise, Linda Darling-Hammond, Bruce Joyce, Fred Newmann, andRichard Elmore (see Schmoker, 2005). Large, influential organizations, includingthe Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and theNational Staff Development Council (NSDC) devote conference sessions, positionpapers, publications, and training on the topic. The NSDC hosts a website on thetopic (http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learningcommunities.cfm).

What are professional learning communities? DuFour (2005) identified thefollowing three big ideas that characterize the basis of all professional learningcommunities: ensuring that students learn, building a culture of collaboration, andfocusing on results. The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)under Shirley Hord’s direction identified the following attributes of professionallearning communities: shared and supportive leadership, shared values and vision,collective learning and application, supportive conditions, and shared personal prac-tice (http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/4.html).

Meaningful collaboration is at the center of all professional learning commu-nities. Teachers are traditionally isolated. When teachers do meet together, it istypically in the context of a staff meeting and dealing with logistical matters orin formal, one-shot workshops. Seldom are there systematic structures designedto foster true collaboration focused on student learning. Current school schedules,incentives, and reward systems are not conducive to professional learning commu-nities. Yet, when professional development is embedded at the school-building levelaround meaningful topics in a collaborative format, student learning is impacted.During professional learning communities, a sense of collective efficacy is created,thereby creating a more positive environment (Bandura, 1997).

Many professional learning community protocols exist, including peercoaching–teacher leadership (Danielson, 2006; Reeves, 2006), Collaborative Anal-ysis of Student Work (or CASL; Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003), Critical FriendsGroups (http://www.nsrfharmony.org/faq.html), and Japanese Lesson Study. All ofthese protocols utilize similar strategies, including reflective inquiry, social normsetting among professionals, using student assessments to target learning gaps, andmodifying instruction to address the identified gaps.

While big ideas about professional learning communities describe the processof professional development, the content at times remains unclear. This is whereit is easy to simply facilitate a one-shot workshop on the content of interest (e.g.,science inquiry, state science standards, high-stakes or performance assessment, co-operative learning, etc.) without considering the process. In Fig. 1, I outline a visualmodel that shows a possible connection that avoids this disconnect. The contentof professional development is no different than before: standards, assessment, andeffective instruction. However, the processes of professional development are em-bedded at the building level in a professional learning community where strategiescan be applied and results evaluated. While formal workshops remain part of thisapproach, they serve a peripheral, supporting role. Since standard school structures

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR 127

Figure 1. The content and process of professional development.

are not conducive to fostering effective learning communities, distributed leader-ship, scheduled time, and various incentive structures must be in place to supportthe system.

What are Science Educators to Do?

Stop facilitating one-shot workshops. Work closely with schools to foster pro-fessional learning communities. Get to know school systems and staff members.Become part of a learning community yourself. Work with funding agencies toreconfigure request-for-proposal guidelines. Figure out ways to incorporate preser-vice teacher education into meaningful professional learning communities at thebuilding level. Design inservice projects that use principles of professional learn-ing communities. Science educators can and should engage in basic and appliedresearch in this area. As Schmoker (2005) argued,

There is no good reason to delay this reform. It is time for a concertedeffort to push for its inclusion in state department requirements, in everypre-service and leadership training course, and in every discussion amongprincipals and teacher leaders that purports to improve teaching andlearning. (p. xiv)

128 LUMPE

While this short treatise is not designed as a comprehensive review on thesubject, my hope is that it sparks some interest and investigation into the power ofeffective professional practice. For the sake of students, the science education com-munity should be aware of and apply these research-based strategies for professionaldevelopment.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.Freeman.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . andothers don’t. New York: Harper Business.

Czerniak, C. M., Beltyukova, S, Struble, J., Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (2006).Do you see what I see? The relationship between a professional developmentmodel and student achievement. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary sciencein grades 5–8: Standards-based success stories (pp. 13–43). Arlington, VA:NSTA Press.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community? In R. DuFour, R.Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground (pp. 31–43). Bloomington,IN: Solution Tree.

Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis ofstudent work: Improving teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus on school improvement forbetter results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Schmoker, M. (2005). Here and now: Improving teaching and learning. In R. Du-Four, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground (pp. xi–xvi). Bloom-ington, IN: Solution Tree.

Andrew T. LumpeSchool of EducationSeattle Pacific UniversitySeattle, WA, USA