MET:Sustained Blended Professional Development in the 21st Century

From UBC Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page originally authored by Martin Armstrong and Lynnette Earle


As education goes through a paradigm shift with advances of technology for learning, it is imperative that teachers' professional development (PD) change. The 21st century PD model encourages a blended solution between face-to-face discourse and online collaboration that allows teachers to exchange ideas and reflects upon current teaching practices. Teacher communities or collaboration is a way “to counter teacher isolation, improve teacher practice and student learning, build a common vision for schooling, and foster collective action around school reform” (Aghinstein, 2002, p. 421). Furthermore, “a teacher professional community can be defined as a group of people across a school who are engaged in common work; share to a certain degree a set of values, norms, and orientations towards teaching, students, and schooling; and operate collaboratively with structures that foster interdependence” (Aghinstein, 2002, p. 421-422). Blended PD incorporates the concepts Online Teacher Professional Development and face-to-face PD, with the intent of meeting the needs of the 21st century learner.

History of Collaboration


In the 1980s and 1990s, PD focused on Cooperative Professional Development (CPD) that utilized face- to-face discourse at the school and/or district level. This style of PD is still used by most educational districts in British Columbia today. Glatthorn's (1987) analysis of CPD indicated that small teams comprised of two to six teachers would meet for guided discussion that focused on issues important to them educationally. Additionally, in these small groups, teachers would modify district curriculum, develop unit plans, make adjustments for student population and develop optional enrichment guides for classes(Glatthorn, 1987). Furthermore, peer observation and conferences provided teachers the opportunity to learn about learning, provide feedback and receive feedback from peers about the skills being discussed (Glatthorn, 1987). CPD allows teachers to “identify a problem, make decisions about specific research questions and methodology” and “carry out research sufficiently to the complexities of the classroom.” (Glatthorn, 1987). For teachers to benefit from CPD at the district level it must include; a shared language about teaching, access to district resources, school flexibility on the schedules of teachers and the use of school space (Glatthorn, 1987).

The Need for a New Professional Development Model and Teacher Change

The failure of traditional PD can be contributed to how it does not take into account what motivates teachers to engage in PD and/or the process by which change in teachers' practices occur (Guskey, 2002). Central to PD is that teachers define success based on student success, which is essential for growth within the teaching profession (Guskey, 2002). Professional development needs to change because, “many teacher programs offer only fragmented intellectually superficial seminars not of high quality” (Borko, 2004). To gain acceptance, commitment and enthusiasm from teachers and school administrators, PD first needs to focus on changing attitudes and beliefs in relation to its effectiveness in improving student's learning (Guskey, 2002). Furthermore, PD needs to be purposeful and deliberate with a well defined concept of the internal change that is needed to improve teaching practices (Griffen, 1983).

Caption: Figure 1: A four stage approach to professional development and teacher change (Guskey, 2002)

Professional Development (Figure 1) is a four stage approach; that changes teachers' classroom practices, leads to a change in students' learning outcomes and ultimately changes teachers' beliefs and attitudes about PD (Guskey, 2002). For PD to be effective, it requires a “significant change in teachers' attitudes and beliefs" (Guskey, 2002). Guskey (2002) indicated that teachers buy into PD only after it improves student learning. Blended professional development can improve students' learning through "new instructional approaches, the use of new materials or curricula and/or simply a modification in teaching procedures” (Guskey, 2002).

Guskey's model (Figure 1) is based on the following three principles:

  1. Teacher change is a gradual process that “requires a great amount of work at first to increase teachers competence and enhance student learning” (Guskey, 2002). Teachers are "reluctant to adopt new practices or procedures unless they feel sure they can make them work” (Lortie, 1983).Teachers resist buying into PD because they are “reluctant to discard practices refined in their classrooms” (Guskey, 2002).
  2. Teachers need constant feedback on student learning. New practices are retained if they are perceived to increase a teachers' "effectiveness and competence", but abandoned if they have no "positive effects" (Guskey, 2002).
  3. For teachers to continue in the changing their practice requires support and feedback from peers and administrators (Guskey, 2002). This support and feedback will provide the encouragement and motivation for teachers to continue in the challenging task of change (Guskey, 2002).

The blending of face-to-face discourse with technology will make PD effective in the 21st century. Teachers, who are part of a professional learning community, strive to maintain high-quality practices (Friedman and Phillips, 2004). Empirical research indicated that during the past decade Professional Learning (PL) was best situated within a community that supported learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Social and economic changes over time has affected PL (Fullan, 2007), especially the advances in technology, and acceptance of social media by society. Undergraduate professional teacher education programs focus on the preparation of practitioners who are competent to enter the workplace (Webster-Wright, 2009). However, the assumption that,” professionals’ knowledge can be “topped up” by undertaking professional development activities… implicitly conceptualizes professional knowledge as primarily cognitive" that fails to take into account "the socio-cultural context in which the knowledge is used” (Webster-Wright, 2009). Therefore, PD needs to shift from “’development’ to “learning” and from an “atomistic” perspective to a ‘holistic’ approach” (Webster-Wright, 2009). Jarvis and Parker (2005) indicate that learning is dependent on the context of what is learned and the interaction among the learners. Administrators suggest that teachers' role will change form instructors to facilitators in the 21st century (Rodriques, 2005). Furthermore, teachers will have to deal with an increasing number of students' social and health issues (Rodrigues, 2005). Therefore, to enhance PD requires the blending of face-to-face discourse with the affordances of social media, thus expanding the learning community of teachers so they can meet the needs of the 21st century learner.

Professional Development in the 21st Century

Reasoning Why Reform is needed

Historically teacher's PD was focused on expanding an individual's repertoire of well-defined and skillful classroom practices. However, the traditional model of PD is not up to the 21st century vision of reforming teaching practices and school educational policies (Little, 1993). As technology changes how education is delivered, PD in the 21st century needs to focus on:

  • Reforms in Subject Matter (standards, curriculum and pedagogy)
    • Reform needs to concentrate on authentic achievement as part of a fundamental change in the nature of students' intellectual tasks and teacher student relationships (Newman, 1990)
    • Reforms needs to be centered on integrating subject content and organizing student opportunities to learn (Little, 1993)
  • Reforms Centered on Problems of Equity Among a Diverse Student Population
    • Reform needs to address the persistent disparities among students from differing family backgrounds with the aim of altering student achievement and school completion rates
    • Reform needs to engage teachers in studying classroom practices in ways that will lead to more systemic changes at the school level (Little, 1993)
  • Reforms in the Nature, Extent and Users of Student Assessment
    • There is a need for more authentic assessment
    • There is a need to discuss alternate forms of assessment (Little, 1993)
  • Reforms in Social Organization of Schooling
    • The is a need to develop a collaborative environment that creates a discourse on the systematic reform of education at the provincial and national level(Little, 1993)
  • Reform in the Professionalism of teaching
    • There is a need to design a form of collaboration that equips teachers to individually and collectively play an informed and active role in defining the shape, pace and design reform takes in education (Little, 1993).

Central to educationial reform is the changing nature of PD and how it needs to adapt to meet the needs of a paradigm shift in the way students learn. There is a need to introduce teachers to various models of collaborative and cooperative training programs (Little, 1993). Additionally, as teachers learn new ideas, there needs to be consultation and coaching as teachers practice new ideas (Little, 1993). The major obstacle for implementing changes to PD, centers on that teachers are asked to reinvent teaching and schooling while in the midst of the daily teaching cycle (Little, 1993).

Professional Development needs to “offer meaningful intellectual, social and emotional engagement with ideas... and with colleagues in and out of school” (Little, 1993). Also, PD needs to “take explicit account of the contexts of teaching and the experience of teachers” (Little, 1993), while offering “support for informed dissent” (Little, 1993). Furthermore, PD needs to “place classroom practice in the larger contexts of school practices and the educational careers of children” (Little, 1993), while preparing “teachers (as well as students and their parents) to employ the techniques and perspectives of inquiry” (Little, 1993). However, PD must strike a balance between the interests of all stakeholders in education such as, teachers, parents, students, administrators, taxpayers, and the Ministry of Education (Little, 1993). Critics of reforms in PD argue that it “de-skills teaching and legitimizes institutionalizes surveillance and coercion” (Little, 1993).

Reasoning for Online Professional Development that Leads to Teacher Change

The main goals of PD according to Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey (2012), are as follows:

  • desired educational improvement—includes interventions aimed at teacher change, classroom climate change, and improved student learning and outcomes;
  • enablers of improvement—includes interventions designed to improve teacher pedagogical content knowledge, skills, and practices;
  • content and skills—includes programs designed to improve content area knowledge and subject matter expertise;
  • how best to teach-program design includes— programs with face-to-face, hybrid, or online pedagogical approaches; and
  • program evaluation design and theoretical frameworks— includes research methods, methodologies, and developing theoretical frameworks for analysis.

Teacher improvement needs to be linked to quality programs that teach with and about best practices so as to best utilize scarce resources and time (Dede et al., 2012). Online Professional Development for Teachers (OPDT) can provide real-time, ongoing work-embedded support that stimulates the development of programs for teachers. Online Professional Development for Teachers programs may lead to other potential benefits such as, opportunities for reflection offered by asynchronous interaction, the contributions of teachers who tend to be silent in face-to-face settings but “find their voice” in mediated interaction, and the unique affordances for learning of immersive virtual simulations (Dede et al., 2012). Furthermore, OPDT is convenient, as it allows access to experts and archival resources that logistical and fiscal restraint would otherwise limit (Dede et al., 2012). Effective OPDT, in professional learning communities, is dependent on the organizational and leadership practices within the school, as well as the need for teachers to develop collaborative skills and a shared language around practice. (Dede et al., 2012). To make online professional development programs work it needs, “principals’ instructional leadership, the organization of teachers by teams, a focus on content rather than software, and the need for providing multiple spaces for teachers to share their expertise and to develop a shared language” (Dede et al., 2012). Mezierow’s (1978) research postulates that transformational learning theory conceptualizes and describes learning as a process of self examination and critical reflection of one’s worldview in light of new and fundamental reorganization of on one’s perspective (cited in Taylor, 1998). Educators' experiences and perception of teaching can further be changed through the learning of technology (King, 2002). The need for teachers to learn and apply technology in teaching, makes PD essential in the 21st because it connects teachers to a larger community of educators outside of the school district (King, 2002).

Making Professional Development Work in the 21st Century

Professional development plays a key role in addressing the gap between teacher preparation and standards-based reform (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). Professional development in the 21st century needs to be ”more responsive to how teachers learn" and how to implement change in teaching practices (Birman et al., 2000, p. 29). Changes to PD can take place in "traditional workshops, or innovative teacher immersion or network activities" (Birman et al., 2000, p. 29). Professional development needs to be focused on longer cooperative and/or collaborative sessions that provide more active learning for teachers (Birman et al., 2000). Furthermore, the cooperative/collaborative groups should be in the same department, grade area and/or discipline, as it fosters a professionalism through common understanding (Birman et al., 2000). Professional development also, needs to “focuses on teaching techniques without also emphasizing content” (Birman et al., 2000, p. 31). Professional development needs to encourage active participation in professional communities through meaningful discourse on planning and practices (Birman et al., 2000). Blended professional development in the 21st century incorporates technology so teachers can communicate with like minded professional and buy-in to knowledge building communities.

Placing Professional Development in Cyberspace

Social media and the expanded use of technology connects the world globally creating a unique experience of connectedness and community (Xin & Feenberb, 2007). Xin and Feenberg (2007) indicate that “online education discussion plays a vital role" that is "even more significant for learning than in the face-to face classroom discussion” (Xin & Feenberg, 2007). Cyberspace is the new medium for learning where “social communication are entangled with the learning process in ways that are grasped by teachers” (Xin & Feenberg, 2007). According to Xin and Feenberg (2007) there are four contributing factors that make PD an effective e-learning experience:

  • Intelligent engagement centers on the idea that there is background knowledge on the examples, arguments, views and concepts studied thus making it educationally valid (Xin & Feenberb, 2007). Therefore, the discussion must be seen as enriching the knowledge learning community or it will be fruitless. Xin and Feenberb, (2007) state that “the main goal of online dialogue is to promote critical inquiry... where the group arrives at a single point of view on a subject through explicitly articulated agreement.”
  • The need for communications is based on the assumptions of a common ground where learning communities share and build upon each others experiences. Initially common ground is based on the concept of where to start, but enlarges as discussion takes place (Xin & Feenberg, 2007). This does not mean that everyone agrees, but they do recognize there is a problem or an issue to be discussed (Xin & Feenberg, 2007). Central to building a common ground is participation, which leads to individual contributions from all members of the learning community (Xin & Feenberg, 2007).
  • There is a need for dialogue and motivation as “dialogic inquiry generated intrinsic motives for participation” (Xin & Feenberb, 2007). The participants must believe that it is in their best interest to participate so they can engage in meaningful constructive dialogue (Xin & Feenberg, 2007). Constructive dialogue is similar to playing a game, where the individual contributes their expertise in a meaningful way, which is intrinsic to learning because online discussion mimics the attributes of online gaming (Xin & Feenberg, 2007).
  • Professional development in the 21st century requires a leader who assumes a mangers role (Xin & Feenberg, 2007).
  • The dynamics of the group needs to stress that each member in the online community has a shared part in the procedure and a sense of ownership of the product (Xin & Feenberg, 2007).

Current Collaborative Practices

The current state of professional development in general is continually evolving. Marx, Blumenfeld and Krajcik postulate that “professional development is often limited because teachers rarely have the time or money to visit other schools or attend enough-high quality teacher conferences and workshops” (1998, p. 47). Furthermore, Bybee and Loucks-Horsely argue that “there are still many “menu-driven” offerings: catalogues from which teachers can select two- to six-hour workshops, and courses that have no connection to each other nor to the teachers’ curriculum and their students” (2000, p. 34). Ongoing blended collaboration provides the solution to make PD valuable in the 21st century. Garet et al. agrees that in order “to improve professional development, it is more important to focus on the duration, collective participation, and the core features (i.e., content, active learning, and coherence) than type” (2001, p. 936). Not only is long-term, collaborative professional development important, but the learning with and teaching of technology (Bybee & Loucks-Horsley, 2000) as a driving vehicle will aide in the improvement of education.

Collaborative Computer Applications

Marx, Blumenfeld and Krajcik (1998) designed an application called CaPPs (Casebook of Project Practices) that introduces teachers to a Project-based science (PBS) innovation. It “is an approach to curriculum and instruction based on constructivist views of learning” (Marx et al., 1998, p. 35). CaPPs “is a compendium of cases documenting teachers’ experiences in enacting and transitioning to PBS practices” (p. 36). The purpose of having cases, which should include several different cases of how teachers met the same challenges, is to afford concrete examples of real teaching rather than abstract theory for teachers (Marx et al., 1998). The cases within the CaPPs application are presented in short video clips from real classrooms and are not staged nor polished(Marx et al., 1988, p.36) Furthermore, the cases are accompanied with “commentary by teachers about their intents, constraints, rationales, and understandings” (Marx et al., 1988, p.36).

Another type of multimedia case-based software is the Student Learning Environment (SLE). Unlike the CaPPs application, which focuses on science, SLE illustrates new approaches to mathematics. Both applications however display real teaching situations via videos. Another difference between these two applications is that CaPPs uses experienced teachers who are novices with respect to PBS innovation,whereas SLE uses teachers who are a trained university researchers (Marx et al., 1998, p. 41).

A third application outlined by Marx et al. (1998) is a teacher planning tool called PIViT (Project Integration Visualization Tool) that can also be used to create communities of practice. The PIViT focuses on science, but Marx et al. (1998) mentions that “PIViT can be used to plan projects for any grade level and any subject … with minor adjustments” (p. 42). Marx et al. (1998) states that “planning, particularly group planning that involves presentation of plans to other teachers in a professional development program, ... makes learning about innovation real” (p. 42). PIViT’s features incorporate a design window, concept mapping, a calendar, libraries, and graphical representations, as well as a prompt feature to help teachers think about the projects they are designing.

Marx et al. (1998) argue that “databases of classroom relevant and useful ideas, materials, and resources need to be accessible by teachers” (p. 48). In addition, Marx et al. (1998) state that “technology needs to adjust and grow with the teacher as it addresses different levels of proficiency with technology and supports changing levels of content understanding” (p. 35). Furthermore, Marx et al. (1998) suggest that if published lesson plans on the internet are “sketchy or lack the elaborations to scaffold teacher learning,” (p. 48) they are not going to help teachers teach differently or even attempt to improve current teaching practices. The overall goal of the article by Marx et al. (1998) is that the development of communities of practice that involve many teachers – not just a token few, is important; and that the discussions of teacher practice and sharing of materials should be done on a routine basis. The importance of ongoing blended collaborative professional development is evident and displayed clearly in the works of Marx et al. (1998).

Collaborative Models in British Columbia
Blended Professional Development Programs in Ontario

Blended learning is the ultimate goal of this wiki. Owston, Wideman, Murphy,and Lupshenyuk, (2008) argue that:

  • The combination of face-to-face and online learning can result in a transformative learning experience for students. This is because course participants can benefit from being connected to a learning community regardless of whether they are apart or together. When the dynamic of fast-paced, spontaneous verbal communication characteristic of face-to-face learning is combined with the potential for thoughtful discussion and reflection online, the educational possibilities are multiplied (p. 202).

Although Owston et al. refer to students, online blended learning is not limited to the k-12 education system because teachers, throughout their career, are continually learning and therefore, are also students.

Northrup and Rasmussen (1999) also indicate that "an added advantage of blended learning appears to be that teachers are able to immediately tryout ideas in their classrooms that are proffered in the online community rather than waiting, thus providing the opportunity for “just-in-time” professional development" (as cited in Owston et al., 2008, p. 203). While teachers are participating in blended learning, they are not only augmenting their expertise in their content, but are also improving upon their technological skills. In accordance with this concept of simultaneously improving multiple skill sets, Vogt, Almekinders, van den Akke and Monen (2005) "examined blended learning as a means of helping teachers integrate technology into their classroom practice. Their study suggested that blended programs can help teachers better understand and implement technology into their classrooms and, to a lesser extent, adapt exemplary materials for their own settings" (as cited in Owston et al., 2008,p. 203).

Below is a description of three PD programs that "took place at different times, had different teachers involved, and were situated largely in the Greater Toronto Area, one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse urban centers in North America" (Owston et al., 2008, p. 204).

  1. Advanced Broadband Enabled Learning (ABEL) Program
    • "ABEL used a blended learning model that combined online activity throughout the school year with face-to-face summer institutes. Teachers voluntarily joined ABEL because their school districts decided to join the project and the teachers thought that the project would be of value to them. There was no structured program organized for teachers. The underlying philosophy of ABEL was to give teachers access to powerful digital tools and the means to collaborate electronically and then help teachers develop collaborative projects. To this end, ABEL provided teachers with a web portal, a set of online tools and resources, and videoconferencing equipment. Additionally, the project leaders organized periodic events for participating schools that brought in via videoconference external experts who presented and interacted with students and teachers. The summer institutes brought participants together for five days where they shared their successes with colleagues and listened to keynote speakers. Some institutes also involved students who shared their experiences from participating in collaborative projects the previous school year" (Owston et al., 2008,p. 204).
  2. Learning Connections (LC) project
    • "LC was modeled after ABEL in its design and implementation, but it had a very specific focus on improving the skills of literacy and numeracy lead teachers in Ontario elementary schools. Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education, LC was a pilot project that was part of a strategy to help the province achieve its student literacy and numeracy goals. Schools were chosen by school district administrators and lead teachers in the schools were asked by their principals to participate. The project employed similar tools to ABEL's, however it had a more formal structure. Specialist teachers employed by the project organized and facilitated activities to be tried out by teachers in their classrooms and reported on later online. They also facilitated online discussions and assisted the project leaders in organizing online guest speakers. LC summer institutes were similar to ABEL and, in fact, were combined after our evaluation concluded" (Owston et al., 2008, p. 204).
  3. Teacher e-Learning (TeL) Project
    • "TeL, the most structured of the three programs, used a different blended model. In the first school year the project began with a daylong face-to-face session followed by an eight week session where teachers were in their classrooms carrying out their normal teaching responsibilities but interacting online with other participants. This cycle was repeated three times during the first school year, but only twice during the second year. The shortening of the project in the second year was because TeL leaders believed that the three cycles imposed too heavy a burden on teachers. Year one focused on teaching mathematics and year two, which involved different teachers, focused on science teaching. During the face-to-face sessions teachers typically spent the morning listening to a resource teacher introduce practical ideas for improving subject teaching, and during the afternoon they shared their classroom experiences in small discussion groups. The online sessions provided teachers with weekly readings and activities to try out in their classrooms. Teachers were also expected to participate in facilitated online discussions and to maintain an online reflective journal" (Owston et al., 2008, p. 204).

Implementation and Evaluation of Blended Collaborative Professional Development

Blended PD clearly has its benefits. In addition, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birmam and Yoo state that their results “indicate that sustained and intensive professional development is more likely to have an impact, as reported by teachers, than is shorter professional development. Our results also indicate that professional development that focuses on academic subject matter (content), gives teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work (active learning), and is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence), is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills” (2001, p. 935). Therefore, blended PD coupled with sustained and intensive PD creates an optimum learning experience for teachers of the 21st century. A professional development program that is continuous will have much more of an impact on teaching practice than disconnected PD workshops. According to Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet and Yoon, “the term continuous improvement implies a feedback loop, in which data about progress are part of continuous communication and where data become part of a discussion about strengths and weaknesses and future strategies and decisions” (2002, p. 1272). Furthermore, Bybee and Loucks-Horsley believe that “effective professional development… must pay attention to four needs. First, teachers need to learn about and develop skills related to technology… Second, teachers need opportunities to learn about how to teach technology… Third, teachers need tools to help them continue their own learning… In a field that is changing as rapidly as technology, teachers need to expect their knowledge and skills to become outdated quickly and they must know where and how to continue to learn. Finally, fragmentation plagues current learning opportunities for teachers: courses, workshops, and institutes are rarely coordinated or sustained over time so that teachers get both depth and breadth in what they need to know and be able to do. Long-term professional development programs, not just events, are required to support the kinds of changes required for the technological literacy standards to touch all students” (2000, p. 32).

Guskey (2002) outlines five levels of how to evaluate professional development:

  1. Participants’ Reactions
  2. Participants’ Learning
  3. Organization Support & Change
  4. Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills
  5. Student Learning Outcomes

These five levels can also help in the planning of professional development. Guskey (2002) states that “in planning professional development to improve student learning… you must plan “backward,” (Guskey, 2001), starting where you want to end and then working back” (p. 50). Considering that PD should be planned backwards, Guskey states that you should “first consider the student learning outcomes that you want to achieve (Level 5)” (2002, p. 50). “Then you determine what instructional practices and policies will most effectively produce those outcomes (Level 4)” (Guskey, 2002, p. 50). “Next, consider what aspects of organization support need to be in place for those practices and policies to me implemented (Level 3)” (Guskey, 2002, p. 51). “Then, decide what knowledge and skills the participating professionals must have to implement the prescribed practices and policies (Level 2)” (Guskey, 2002, p. 51). “Finally, consider what set of experiences will enable participants to acquire the needed knowledge and skills (Level 1)” (Guskey, 2002, p. 51).

Further Reading and Resources


  • Aghinstein, B. (2002). Conflict Amid Community: The Micropolitics of Teacher Collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
  • Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
  • Bybee, R.W. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Advancing Technology Education: The Role of Professional Development. The Technology Teacher, 60(2), 31-34. Retrieved from
  • Cohen, D. K. and Hill, H. C. (2000) Instructional policy and classroom performance: the mathematics reform in California, Teachers College Record, 102(2), pp. 294- 343.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545.
  • Dede, C., Jass Ketelhut, D., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A Research Agenda for Online Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.
  • Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B.F., Garet, M.S., & Yoon, K.S. (2002). How Do District Management and Implementation Strategies Relate to the Quality of the Professional Development That Districts Provide to Teachers? Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Friedman, A., and Phillips, M. (2004). Continuing professional development: Developing a vision. Journal of Education and Work, 17(3), 361–376.
  • Fullam, M., (1993). Change Forces: probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
  • Fullan, M., (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press
  • 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(4), 915-945.
  • Glatthorn, A. (1984). Cooperative Professional Development: Peer-Centered Options for Teacher Growth. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 31-35.
  • Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8, 381–391
  • Guskey, T.R. (2002). Does It Make a Difference? Evaluating Professional Development. Educational Leadership, March, 45-51.
  • King, K.P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3), 283-297
  • Little, Judith, W. (1993). Professional Development in a Climate of Education Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 15(2), 129-155
  • Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
  • Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Krajcik, J.S. (1998). New Technologies for Teacher Professional Development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 33-52.
  • Newmann, F.M. (1990). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Paper presented at the Indiana University Conference. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Schools and National Center for Educational Research.
  • Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupshenyuk, D. (2008). Blended teacher professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 201–210. Retreived from
  • Rodrigues, S. (Ed.). (2005). International perspectives on teacher professional development: Changes influenced by politics, pedagogy and innovation. New York: Nova Science.
  • Taylor, E.W. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning:A critical review. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
  • Vavasseur, C.B. and MacGregor, S.K. (2008). Extending content focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Reseacrh on Technology in Education, 40(4), 517-536.
  • Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning, Review of Educational Research Online First. Retrieved from
  • Xin, M.C. and Feenberg, A. (2002). Designing for Pedagogical Effectiveness: Text Weaver. IEEE System Sciences. Proceeding of the Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences, 1009-1099.
  • Xin, M.C. and Feenberg, A. (2007). “Pedagogy in Cyberspace: The Dynamics of Online Discussion,” Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1-25. Reprinted as “Pedagogy in Cyberspace: The Dynamics of Online Discourse.” E-Learning, 4(4), 415-432.