Measuring the impact of professional development for student-centred pedagogies: a mixed-methods study

References

• Akiba, M. and Liang, G., 2016. Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student achievement growth. The journal of educational research, 109 (1), 99–110.10.1080/00220671.2014.924470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association for Middle Level Education, ed., 2012. This we believe in action: implementing successful middle level schools. Westerville, Ohio: Association for Middle Level Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bubb, S. and Earley, P., 2010. Helping staff develop in schools. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Burch, P. and Heinrich, C.J., 2016. Mixed methods for policy research and program evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, K.M.T., 2010. Advanced sampling designs in mixed research. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 353–377.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelius-White, J., 2007. Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 77 (1), 113–143.10.3102/003465430298563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011. Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L., 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L., et al., 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: a status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, R. and West, R., 2008. Technology integration in schools. In: J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen and M.J. Bishop, eds. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer, 841–853.
   Google Scholar
• Desimone, L.M., 2009. Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181–199.10.3102/0013189X08331140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desimone, L.M. and Garet, M.S., 2016. Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, society, & education, 7 (3), 252–263.
   Google Scholar
• Desimone, L.M., Smith, T., and Phillips, K., 2013. Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: a longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in title I schools. Teachers college record, 115 (5), 1–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doering, A., et al., 2009. Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of educational computing research, 41 (3), 319–346.10.2190/EC.41.3.d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P.A. and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., 2010. Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on technology in education, 42 (3), 255–284.10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
   Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P.A., et al., 2012. Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & education, 59 (2), 423–435.10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feistritzer, C.E., 2011. Profile of teachers in the U.S., 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
   Google Scholar
• Gash, H., 2014. Constructing constructivism. Constructivist foundations, 9 (3), 302–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glesne, C., 2011. Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Guskey, T.R., 2002. Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational leadership, 59 (6), 45–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., 2011. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London; New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., and Stick, S.L., 2006. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field methods, 18 (1), 3–20.10.1177/1525822X05282260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobs for the Future & the Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015. Educator competencies for personalized, learner-centered teaching. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Kanuka, H. and Anderson, T., 1999. Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical pedagogy, 2 (1). Available from: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M.M., 2016. How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 945–980.10.3102/0034654315626800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintz, T., et al., 2015. Professional development at the local level: necessary and sufficient conditions for critical colleagueship. Teaching and teacher education, 51, 121–136.10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knowlton, D.S., 2000. A theoretical framework for the online classroom: a defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. New directions for teaching and learning, 2000 (84), 5–14.10.1002/(ISSN)1536-0768
   Google Scholar
• Koh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., and Tay, L.Y., 2014. TPACK-in-action: unpacking the contextual influences of teachers’ construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & education, 78, 20–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuijpers, J.M., Houtveen, A.A.M. and Wubbels, T., 2010. An integrated professional development model for effective teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 26 (8), 1687–1694.10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawless, K.A. and Pellegrino, J.W., 2007. Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77 (4), 575–614.10.3102/0034654307309921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leech, N.L. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity, 43 (2), 265–275.10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman, S., 1989. Constructivism, mathematics and mathematics education. Educational studies in mathematics, 20 (2), 211–223.10.1007/BF00579463
   Google Scholar
• McEwin, C.K. and Greene, M.W., 2010. Results and recommendations from the 2009 national surveys of randomly selected and highly successful middle level schools. Middle school journal, 42 (1), 49–63.10.1080/00940771.2010.11461750
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S.B., 2009. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, G.E., 2011. Action research: a guide for the teacher researcher. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Moersch, C., 1995. Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): a framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and leading with technology, 23, 40–40.
   Google Scholar
• Moersch, C., 2010. LoTi turns up the heat!. Learning & leading with technology, 37 (5), 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, G., 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in health sciences education, 15 (5), 625–632.10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, 2009. Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Collins, K.M., 2007. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The qualitative report, 12 (2), 281–316.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Combs, J.P., 2010. Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 397–430.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L., 2007. Sampling designs in qualitative research: making the sampling process more public. The qualitative report, 12 (2), 238–254.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Teddlie, C., 2003. A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 351–383.
   Google Scholar
• Palak, D. and Walls, R.T., 2009. Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of research on technology in education, 41 (4), 417–441.10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L., 2002. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In: H.I. Braun, D.N. Jackson and D.E. Wiley, eds. The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 49–69.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, S. and Liu, M., 2003. Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational technology research and development, 51 (2), 57–76.10.1007/BF02504526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W.R., et al., 2007. What makes professional development effective? strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American educational research journal, 44 (4), 921–958.10.3102/0002831207308221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prensky, M., 2010. Teaching digital natives: partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J., 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H., 2012. Qualitative research: the essential guide to theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schiro, M., 2013. Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Schleicher, A., 2011. Lessons from the world on effective teaching and learning environments. Journal of teacher education, 62 (2), 202–221.10.1177/0022487110386966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffe, L.P. and Gale, J.E., eds., 1995. Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Stoltzfus, J., 2006. Determining educational technology and instructional learning skill sets (DETAILS): a new approach to the LoTi framework for the 21st century. Available from: http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Construct_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stoltzfus, J., 2009. Criterion-related validation of the core LoTi levels: an exploratory analysis. Available from: http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Criterion_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• TNTP, 2015. The mirage: confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. Washington, DC: TNTP.
   Google Scholar
• Toshalis, E. and Nakkula, M.J., 2012. Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., and Rasinski, K.A., 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511819322
   Google Scholar
• Trautmann, N.M. and MaKinster, J.G., 2010. Flexibly adaptive professional development in support of teaching science with geospatial technology. Journal of science teacher education, 21 (3), 351–370.10.1007/s10972-009-9181-4
   Google Scholar
• von Glasersfeld, E., 1989. Constructivism in education. In: T. Husen and T.N. Postlethwaite, eds. The international encyclopedia of education. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press, 162–163.
   Google Scholar
• von Glasersfeld, E., 1995. Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis Inc.10.4324/9780203454220
   Google Scholar
• Wayne, A.J., et al., 2008. Experimenting with teacher professional development: motives and methods. Educational researcher, 37 (8), 469–479.10.3102/0013189X08327154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, K.S., et al., 2007. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & answers. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1), No. 33.
   Google Scholar
• Yurdugül, H., 2008. Minimum sample size for Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: a Monte-Carlo study. Hacettepe Üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi dergisi, 35 (35), 397–405.
   Google Scholar