University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons ScholarlyCommons
CPRE Journal Articles
Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(CPRE)
3-2010
Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-
the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary
School Teachers' Practice School Teachers' Practice
Leigh Mesler Parise
James P. Spillane
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_articles
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research
Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Parise, Leigh Mesler and Spillane, James P., "Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and
On-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers' Practice" (2010).
CPRE
Journal Articles
. 6.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_articles/6
View on the CPRE website.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_articles/6
For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.
Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-the-Job Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-the-Job
Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers' Practice Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers' Practice
Abstract Abstract
Recent education reform has emphasized the importance of teacher learning in improving classroom
instruction and raising student achievement. This article focuses on teachers' learning opportunities,
including formal professional development and on-the-job learning that occurs through interactions with
colleagues. Using data from 30 elementary schools in a mid-sized urban school district, the authors
concurrently explore the relationships between teachers' formal professional development and on-the-job
learning opportunities and instructional change. Results suggest that formal professional development
and on-the-job opportunities to learn are both signi=cantly associated with changes in teachers'
instructional practice in mathematics and English language arts.
Disciplines Disciplines
Curriculum and Instruction | Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Teacher Education and
Professional Development
Comments Comments
View on the CPRE website.
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_articles/6
Teacher Learning and
Instructional Change:
How Formal and
On-the-Job Learning
Opportunities Predict
Change in Elementary
School Teachers’
Practice
Leigh Mesler Parise
James P. Spillane
Northwestern University
Abstract
Recent education reform has emphasized the
importance of teacher learning in improving
classroom instruction and raising student
achievement. This article focuses on teachers’
learning opportunities, including formal profes-
sional development and on-the-job learning that
occurs through interactions with colleagues. Us-
ing data from 30 elementary schools in a mid-
sized urban school district, the authors con-
currently explore the relationships between
teachers’ formal professional development and
on-the-job learning opportunities and instruc-
tional change. Results suggest that formal pro-
fessional development and on-the-job opportu-
nities to learn are both significantly associated
with changes in teachers’ instructional practice
in mathematics and English language arts.
Recent education reform in the United
States has increasingly defined acceptable
levels of mastery for students and centered
on holding schools accountable for student
outcomes. As one strategy for raising stu-
dent achievement, policymakers have fo-
cused on improving the quality of public
school teachers (Borko, 2004; Corcoran,
1995b; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, &
Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Bir-
man, & Yoon, 2001; Lieberman, 1995). Some
policy initiatives focus on improving the
quality of teachers entering the profession
through state certification tests, more strin-
gent degree requirements, and recruitment
efforts. At the same time, increased ac-
countability pressure on schools requires
learning and change for the thousands of
teachers already in service, as they are
pressed to implement new instructional ap-
proaches in order to raise student achieve-
ment (Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Cohen & Hill,
The Elementary School Journal
Volume 110, Number 3
© 2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-5984/2010/11003-0004$10.00
2002; Drake, Spillane, & Hufford-Ackles,
2001; Garet et al., 2001; Wilson & Berne,
1999). There is great faith among school
reformers and education researchers that
augmenting the learning opportunities of
practicing teachers will enhance teacher
performance and lead to improved student
outcomes (Borko, 2004). However, the extent
to which teachers’ learning opportunities fa-
cilitate change in their classroom practice
remains unclear. This study explores the
empirical relationship between teachers’
learning opportunities and changes in their
instructional practice.
Seeking to understand the kinds of
learning opportunities to which teachers
have access, educational researchers have
followed two somewhat distinct lines of
research. The first has focused on teachers’
formal learning opportunities, including
structured professional development activ-
ities and graduate education (Borko, 2004;
Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet
et al., 2001; Guskey, 2002); the second line
of research has centered on teachers’ on-
the-job learning and explored aspects of
schools’ organizational conditions that may
affect teacher learning and change (Bryk,
Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Louis, Marks, &
Kruse, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001;
Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell, & Valentine,
1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999). While much of
this work has been descriptive, researchers
in both areas have begun to determine
which learning opportunities are most ef-
fective at facilitating change. However,
these lines of research remain separate in
the empirical literature, which is problem-
atic for both policy and practice because it
is unclear whether time and money should
be spent on expanding teachers’ formal
professional development, on working to
better enable teachers to learn from their
colleagues on the job, or on some combina-
tion of the two approaches.
This study seeks to marry these two
lines of research by concurrently exploring
the empirical links between both formal
and on-the-job learning opportunities and
teacher change. We begin with a review of
the literature on teachers’ formal and on-
the-job learning opportunities, as well as
the organizational conditions that may af-
fect teacher learning. In our article, we use
the term formal learning opportunities to refer
to subject-specific professional develop-
ment sessions, out-of-school teacher net-
works, and coursework in math and En-
glish. On-the-job learning opportunities refer
to interactions with colleagues around
teaching and learning, including conversa-
tions about instruction, peer observation
and feedback, and advice seeking about in-
struction. After reviewing the literature, we
describe the methodology used to analyze
the relationship between teacher learning
opportunities and teacher change in math-
ematics and English language arts (ELA)
teaching practice for elementary school
teachers in a mid-sized urban school dis-
trict. Finally, we report our main findings,
which suggest that both formal profes-
sional development and teachers’ on-the-
job learning opportunities are statistically
significant predictors of teacher change in
math and ELA instruction. We conclude
with a discussion of the implications of our
findings for policy and practice.
Empirical and Theoretical Anchors
Our work is anchored in literature address-
ing teachers’ opportunities to learn, includ-
ing their formal professional development
and the learning opportunities afforded by
their interactions with colleagues on the
job. A major challenge in the existing liter-
ature is that empirical studies of profes-
sional development remain separate from
studies of teachers’ on-the-job learning,
though a number of theoretical pieces have
jointly discussed them (e.g., Corcoran,
1995a; Putnam & Borko, 2000). As a result,
empirical research on teachers’ opportuni-
ties to learn lacks a cohesive and compre-
hensive framework for understanding and
integrating the various learning opportuni-
ties that may affect teacher practice. In ad-
324 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
MARCH 2010
dition, although some studies have taken
subject matter into consideration by nar-
rowing their scope to a single curricular
domain, work on formal and on-the-job
learning opportunities fails to make clear if
or how teachers’ opportunities to learn may
have differential effects by school subject.
In this section, we explore the extant liter-
ature, arguing that these two lines of re-
search must be bridged in order to further
our understanding of teacher learning and
change.
Formal Learning Opportunities
Over the last 20 years, amid calls for
changes in teaching practice and mounting
efforts to increase the professionalization of
teaching, reformers and educators have
worked to expand professional develop-
ment opportunities for teachers (Wilson &
Berne, 1999). One example of policymakers’
faith that increasing teacher participation in
formal learning opportunities will help
produce desirable teacher and student out-
comes is the requirement in the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 that states ensure
the availability of high-quality professional
development for teachers in order to im-
prove classroom instruction (Borko, 2004).
In addition, state and district policies re-
quire teachers to participate in formal
learning opportunities, with the modal
state requirement being 120 hours over 5
years (Hill, 2007). States also often require
that teachers receive master’s degrees, al-
low graduate coursework to count toward
recertification, and provide strong financial
incentives for acquiring advanced degrees
(Goldhaber & Brewer, 1998; Hill, 2007).
While it is difficult to get an exact estimate
of expenditures on teachers’ formal pro-
fessional development (Corcoran, 1995a),
schools, districts, states, and the federal
government spend at least millions, and
likely billions, of dollars on professional
development for teachers (Borko, 2004).
This is a huge investment for which we
know little about returns (Rice, 2001).
Given the increased policy and fiscal
emphasis on using formal learning oppor-
tunities to facilitate teacher change, this sec-
tion addresses the types of formal learning
opportunities teachers experience and the
relationships between formal learning op-
portunities and changes in teacher practice
and student achievement. The literature
suggests that the majority of teachers’ for-
mal learning opportunities are in the form
of workshops, special courses, graduate
coursework, and in-service days or confer-
ences devoted to training teachers in a spe-
cific set of ideas, techniques, or materials
(Desimone, Porter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet
et al., 2001; Hill, 2007; Little, 1993; NCES,
2005). These opportunities traditionally fol-
low what Little (1993) termed the “training
paradigm,” in that they occur outside of
teachers’ classrooms at scheduled times
and are led by an expert seeking to train, or
communicate new information to, groups
of teachers (Corcoran, 1995a; Feiman-
Nemser, 2001). However, as discussed be-
low, this type of professional development
is not likely to facilitate change in teacher
practice.
Although most of teachers’ formal
learning opportunities follow the training
paradigm, teachers are increasingly partic-
ipating in other types of formal profes-
sional development that offer markedly
different opportunities. Referred to as “re-
form professional development” by Garet,
Desimone, and colleagues (Desimone, Por-
ter, Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001;
Porter, Garet, Desimone, Yoon, & Birman,
2000), such opportunities frequently relate
more closely to teachers’ classroom con-
texts than traditional activities, often in-
volve active participation and collaboration
between teachers, and may take place dur-
ing the regular school day in teachers’
classrooms or schools (Desimone, Porter,
Garet et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001). Reform
professional development may involve or-
ganized teacher study groups or networks,
committees, mentoring, internships, and
resource centers (Garet et al., 2001). Al-
TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGE 325
