How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching?
Abstract
Professional development programs are based on different theories of how students learn and different theories of how teachers learn. Reviewers often sort programs according to design features such as program duration, intensity, or the use of specific techniques such as coaches or online lessons, but these categories do not illuminate the programs’ underlying purpose or premises about teaching and teacher learning. This review sorts programs according to their underlying theories of action, which include (a) a main idea that teachers should learn and (b) a strategy for helping teachers enact that idea within their own ongoing systems of practice. Using rigorous research design standards, the review identifies 28 studies. Because studies differ in multiple ways, the review presents program effects graphically rather than statistically. Visual patterns suggest that many popular design features are not associated with program effectiveness. Furthermore, different main ideas are not differentially effective. However, the pedagogies used to facilitate enactment differ in their effectiveness. Finally, the review addresses the question of research design for studies of professional development and suggests that some widely favored research designs might adversely affect study outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If being motivated to participate is important for how well schools and teachers implement the intervention, then smaller effects should be expected in large-scale studies regardless of publication bias.
“If being motivated to participate is important for how well schools and teachers implement the intervention, which seems reasonable (e.g., Kennedy, 2016), then, regardless of publication bias, we should expect smaller effects in large‐scale studies.”
From Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in Grades K‐6: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Kennedy, 2016
Cites
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787 · see citing works
Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312042002371 · Cited by 2,812 · see citing works
The Impact of Elementary Mathematics Coaches on Student Achievement
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/657654 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209361208 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654318759268 · Cited by 1,202 · see citing works
The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654317751919 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021) · School Effectiveness and School Improvement · doi:10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2024) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Multicultural education professional development: A review of the literature
Parkhouse, H., Lu, C. Y., & Massaro, V. R. (2019) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654319840359 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Strengthening the research base that informs STEM instructional improvement efforts: A meta-analysis
Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2019) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373719849044 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Jacob, R., Hill, H., & Corey, D. (2017) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1273411 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., Mok, S. Y., & Petko, D. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Inquiring tweets want to know: #Edchat supports for #RemoteTeaching during COVID‐19
Greenhow, C., Staudt Willet, K. B., & Galvin, S. (2021) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13097 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Dietrichson, J., Filges, T., Seerup, J. K., Klokker, R. H., Viinholt, B. C. A., Bøg, M., & Eiberg, M. (2021) · Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World · doi:10.1002/cl2.1152 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Copur-Gencturk, Y., Li, J., & Atabas, S. (2024) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312241248514 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Powell, S. R., Lembke, E. S., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Petscher, Y., Hwang, J., Bos, S. E., Cox, T., Hirt, S., Mason, E. N., Pruitt-Britton, T., et al. (2021) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100897 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Yang, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768320 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
A close look at teacher learning: Why are teachers’ journeys so different?
Molle, D. (2021) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103280 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Butters, D., & Gann, C. (2022) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v26i3.2801 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Park, S., Lee, Y. R., Nelson, G., Cook, M. A., & Doabler, C. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15091177 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kennedy, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kennedy, Mary M.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2016-07-09
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 945-980
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2326799272
- Cited by
- 1,305
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 164 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 151 · 2023: 158 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 340.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Keywords
- teacher professional development, philosophy of action, teacher learning, program effectiveness, design features, coaching, online lessons
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
