Standards for Reporting Mathematics Professional Development in Research Studies

Abstract

This Research Commentary addresses the need for standards for describing mathematics professional development in mathematics education research reports. Considering that mathematics professional development is an emerging research field, it is timely to set expectations for what constitutes high-quality reporting in this field. Through an examination of the research reports on the topic published in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education during the past decade, I offer a framework and a set of features to be used in initiating discussions about pros and cons of having reporting standards. I contend that when researchers have standards for describing the mathematics professional development they are studying, better quality will be attained in the new research field.

A Highly Structured Collaborative STEAM Program: Enacting a Professional Development Framework

“…In summary, PD that is content-specific, aligned to clear program goals, extended over time, connected to classrooms, situated in teachers' context, and includes teachers as collaborators, co-developers and codecision-makers of the PD has the potential to be the most effective (as described in Desimone, 2009;Loucks-Horsley et al, 2010;McAleer, 2008;and Sztajn, 2011). The PrimeD framework (Rakes et al, 2017;Saderholm et al, 2017) was designed to provide a structure to PD programs in a way that fosters these characteristics of effectiveness.…”

“…Phase II focuses on the implementation of the PD program and is divided into two components, whole group engagement and classroom implementation, with teachers intentionally engaged as partners rather than only recipients. The whole group engagement component of Phase II synthesizes key elements of effective PD (e.g., Borko, 2004;Desimone, 2009;Greeno et al, 1996;Lave & Wenger, 1991;Loucks-Horsley et al, 2010;McAleer, 2008;Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007;Putnam & Borko, 2000;Sztajn, 2011;Timperley, 2011). Providing a specific example, Desimone (2009), Loucks-Horsley et al (2010), McAleer (2008, and Sztajn 2011all defined elements of effective PD as (a) directly and explicitly connected with identified student learning needs; (b) intensive, sustained, and directly connected to practice; (c) specific content focused; (d) aligned to current school initiatives; (e) providing opportunities for teachers to collaborate with one another and build productive working relationships; and (f) continuously evaluated.…”

“…Second, because PrimeD synthesizes literature into a comprehensive framework and has been refined through a series of validation efforts, it can serve as a one-stop shop for all phases of a PD program . For example, the elements of effective PD in Phase II compile recommendations from a wide array of literature such as Desimone (2009), Garet et al (2001), Guskey (2000), Loucks-Horsely et al 2010, Sztajn (2011), and Timperley (2011). PrimeD arms PD providers with a user-friendly way to justify and back their PD program decisions, needs, and requests to leadership in their school and district -which are unique to each individual context.…”

“…These elements are categorized in PrimeD (Rakes et al, 2017;Saderholm et al, 2017) as "elements of effective PD", that is, having an actual impact on classroom practice. Long-term PD iteratively connected to classroom practice can be challenging and complex but essential to creating real change in classrooms (Desimone, 2009;Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson 2010;McAleer, 2008;Sztajn, 2011). PD that has a well-planned classroom implementation component can alter teachers' practice by impacting teachers' knowledge and skills through the actual practice of teaching (e.g., Borko, 2004;Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996;Lave & Wenger, 1991).…”

Mathematics Education Technology Professional Development

“…

The effective use of digital technologies in school settings calls for appropriate professional development opportunities that will transform inservice teachers' knowledge for integrating technologies as effective mathematics learning tools. To inform such opportunities, this study examined the contents of published mathematics education technology professional development papers over several decades using Sztajn's (2011) standards for high quality reporting in mathematics professional development research studies, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, and the Comprehensive Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Both the Professional Development Implementation and Evaluation Model and Education Professional Development Research Framework are recommended for further guidance on reporting key features of mathematics education technology professional development.

…”