Why Transformational PD Hasn’t Worked at Scale

Part 1: Mathematics Teacher PD: A Paradox and a Contradiction Walk into the Classroom
Part 3: Why Incremental PD is Worth Trying
Podcast Episode Discussing These Ideas

---

We are certainly not alone in grappling with the fact that instructional PD efforts have had difficulty sustaining past a project’s funded period and difficulty spreading widely (e.g., Coburn, 2003; Heck et al., 2019; Koichu et al., 2021; Wilkie, 2019). But it seems to us that scholars have faced this challenge by striving for new insights on how to make transformational PD successful. We, instead, have been trying to diagnose why transformational PD is unsuccessful, which has led us to try a different approach with incremental PD.¹

Here are 4 main reasons we believe transformational PD—that is, PD which centers notions of reform-oriented instruction that are significant departures from the current instruction of the teachers involved in the PD—has not led to widespread change in mathematics instruction. The first reason was already alluded to in our Paradox and Contradiction Post, but it’s worth mentioning again in more detail.

1. Transformational PD’s new visions for instruction create separation between developers and teachers

We’ve observed, in our own past PD work and in looking at others’ efforts, that PD is often designed around the developers’ goals and vision for mathematics instruction. Various books and reports that are used as a basis for PD frequently start with illustrations of a more student-centered, inquiry-oriented, conceptually-based form of mathematics instruction that is a departure from the decades-long conventions in the U.S. and other procedurally-oriented countries. These reform-oriented ideas are promising and powerful, but they are also challenging to enact and are not the current reality for teachers we’ve worked with across multiple regions where teaching remains quite conventional (Otten et al., 2023; Otten et al., 2024). Although developers strive to make connections and build bridges from current practice to the goals and vision of the PD, the fact remains that the PD is based on something noticeably different from many teachers’ baselines.

In short, transformational PD often begins by pointing out profound differences between current practices and the promoted practices. This separation runs the risk of devaluing teachers’ current practices and positioning the developer as idealistic or coming from the “ivory tower.” There can be a loss of trust in the developer (feelings that they don’t know what it’s “really like” teaching day to day) or, even if the teacher really likes the ideas being shared in the PD, there can be questions of practicality.

If scholars and universities are believed to be out of touch or asking for changes that are beyond reach, or if they are viewed as possibly well-intentioned but a bit naive about teachers’ realities in schools, then we diminish our chances of being a key resource for future instructional support.

We think that this separation is essentially inevitable when taking a transformational PD approach. Transformations to instruction are, by definition, substantial changes away from convention. Yes, we agree that transformations are needed and that “reform-oriented” instruction is a worthwhile goal, but what strategies can we use in PD to increase our likelihood of actually making some changes? PD that is driven by the developers’ vision rather than the teachers’ reality seems not to have worked.

At least, it has not worked on a broad scale. There are specific success stories, which leads us to our second reason transformational PD hasn’t worked in a widespread sense.

2. Transformational PD only reaches select few teachers

Transformational PD efforts do not reach everyone, and they do not reach a random or representative set of teachers. It certainly doesn’t get to the hardest-to-reach teachers. We suspect that transformational PD, whether it be in the form of books, articles, conference workshops, university-based degree programs, or long-term collaborative projects, is reaching a decidedly non-random set of teachers, namely, those who are active in professional associations, eager to read books on mathematics pedagogy, able to attend conferences, willing to sign on for an ambitious project, etc.

Even for the teachers who are exposed to transformational PD opportunities, the promoted changes may not actually take hold unless some additional criteria are met. The teacher probably needs to buy-in to the goals and vision that are the basis of the PD (see #1 above). They also need the energy, time, and willingness to persevere through all that the transformational PD entails. More than that, there may be some prerequisite knowledge and skills that are key to succeeding with the transformations. PD focused on facilitating rich mathematical discussions, for example, will rely on teacher content knowledge and knowledge of students’ thinking in order to pull it off effectively. Or PD focused on culturally-responsive mathematics pedagogy will require some knowledge and appreciation for diverse student cultures and some skill in being able to navigate cultural diversity in productive ways.

If all of these stars align, then transformational PD can produce some amazing results, and we support and root for this. But overall, we’ve noticed that transformational PD seems best suited to reach teachers who are already fairly plugged in with the professional community and already have quite strong foundations of knowledge and pedagogical skill. This does not seem strategically effective for reaching the full array of teachers.

Just as transformational PD may reach only select teachers, it seems as though the limited reach of transformational PD applies to school contexts as well.

3. Transformational PD only reaches select few contexts

The literature on effective PD (e.g., Desimone, 2011; Guskey & Yoon, 2009) has helped us understand several factors that contribute to the success (or failure) of PD efforts. Several of those factors are related to the school context and are not under the direct control of the developers or the teachers. Here are just a few:

• Curriculum aligned with the goals of the transformational PD
• Assessments aligned with the goals of the transformational PD
• Sufficient time for teacher reflection on what they’re learning or trying from the transformational PD
  Supportive or collaborative colleagues (e.g., Professional Learning Community) who can join together in the transformative efforts
• Administrators or other leaders who understand the goals of the PD and can lend support (or who will at least not undermine the instructional transformations)
• Financial support or other resources for those transformative efforts that require investment

Because transformational PD is seeking big changes there are many things that have to go right (and this is not even a complete list!). Thus it does not spread easily and finds its success only in certain places. And it is concerning that transformational PD seems most likely to work in contexts that already have pretty good curriculum and assessments, time and collaborative opportunities for teachers, as well as financial and leadership support. What about all those other school contexts that are missing one or all of these advantages (which we suspect is a majority of school contexts)?

To really drive home this reason for concern, imagine a school that does have all the criteria met, giving a high likelihood of success for transformational PD. How confident can we be that the school will still meet all of the criteria a few years later? What if a school board decides to change the curriculum? What if a key leader departs? What if some teachers move to a different school or leave teaching? Any of these changes could be a threat to the sustenance of the instructional transformations, and the gravitational pull of conventional instruction is always there to bring things back to how things were before.

Of additional concern is the fact that transformational PD itself might contribute to the deterioration of those contextual factors. Teacher burnout, school board dynamics, leadership changes, and more can sometimes come from transformational efforts, and that leads to the final reason that we share here.

4. Transformational PD can trigger backlash

Transformational PD, because it pushes for large changes in instruction, tends to be quite visible. The changes can spur defenders of the status quo to rise up, whether they be parents, community members, or even students, who often resist the transformations that place larger burdens on them (e.g., they have to talk more or think more, or manage collaborative relationships with peers). Resistance can also come from outside the community (social media debates spurred by national news stories) or from just down the hall, with other teachers possibly upholding the status quo, sometimes contentiously and sometimes collegially. Even when it’s friendly, transformations can create noticeable discrepancies between teachers, adding extra tensions that the transforming teacher must navigate (Valoyes-Chávez, 2019).

In this way, transformational PD can cause a great deal of stress on already overburdened teachers. It can even lead to the burnout of precisely the teachers who are trying to carry the mantle of reform-oriented teaching. One of the most important things that developers and teacher educators can do right now to help teachers everywhere is to try to keep teachers in the profession. If a side effect of our PD is that it contributes to people leaving the profession, either because of frustration with the backlash or because of feelings of not living up to ideal standards for education (again, see the separation above in #1), then we may want to consider another approach.²

In the next post, we share some reasons to try incremental PD as a complementary approach that avoids these pitfalls of transformational PD.

–Samuel Otten, Zandra de Araujo, Amber G. Candela, & F. Paul Wonsavage

Suggested citation:
Otten, S., de Araujo, Z., Candela, A. G., & Wonsavage, F. P. (2024, June 2). Why transformational PD hasn’t worked at scale. Practice-Driven PD. https://practicedrivenpd.com/2024/06/13/why-transformational-pd-hasnt-worked/

Selection of References Informing Our Views
Cortina, J. L., & Višňovská, J. (2023). Designing instructional resources to support teaching. In T. Lamberg & D. Moss (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 15-26). Reno, NV: University of Nevada. http://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2045%202023%20Proceedings%20Vol%201.pdf 
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/003172171109200616 
Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 5-36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10857-013-9245-4 
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 495-500. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172170909000709 
Heck, D. J., Plumley, C. L., Stylianou, D. A., Smith, A. A., & Moffett, G. (2019). Scaling up innovative learning in mathematics: Exploring the effect of different professional development approaches on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 319-342. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10649-019-09895-6 
Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 92-102. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022487111428328 
Kieran, C., Krainer, K., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (2012). Linking research to practice: Teachers as key stakeholders in mathematics education research. In M. A. (Ken) Clements et al. (Eds.) Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 361-392). Springer New York. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2  
Koichu, B., Sánchez Aguilar, M., & Misfeldt, M. (2021). Implementation and implementability of mathematics education research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(5). https://link.springer.com/journal/11858/volumes-and-issues/53-5 
Litke, E. G. (2020). Instructional practice in algebra: Building from existing practices to inform an incremental improvement approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103030 
Otten, S., de Araujo, Z., Candela, A. G., Vahle, C., Stewart, M. E. N., Wonsavage, F. P., & Baah, F. (2022). Incremental change as an alternative to ambitious professional development. In A. Lischka & J. F. Strayer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Nashville, TN: PME-NA. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u75KDk47pH5IqLguQMBvbkI9ej0oLsjC/view 
Otten, S., de Araujo, Z., Wang, Z., & Ellis, R. L. (2023). When whole-class discourse predicts poor learning outcomes: An examination of 47 secondary algebra classes. In T. Lamberg & D. Moss (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1007-1011). Reno, NV: University of Nevada. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R4eWG8S73_qmS9Lh_QrUU7VqGkEQwOTG/view?usp=sharing 
Star, J. R. (2016). Improve math teaching with incremental improvements. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 58-62. https://kappanonline.org/star-improve-math-teaching-incremental-improvements/ 
Valoyes-Chávez, L. (2019). On the making of a new mathematics teacher: Professional development, subjectivation, and resistance to change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100, 177-191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45184687 
Wilkie, K. J. (2019). The challenge of changing teaching: Investigating the interplay of external and internal influences during professional learning with secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,22(1), 95-124. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10857-017-9376-0

---

1. In these blog posts we are primarily focused on PD aimed at changes to instruction. There are certainly other types of PD for teachers, such as those addressing knowledge, beliefs, cultural awareness, etc. Although Goldsmith et al. (2014) noted that teachers’ identity knowledge and beliefs also develop via incremental changes, we have been working specifically on incremental changes in the actual instructional practices teachers enact. And like Hiebert and Morris (2012), we do find it valuable to focus on teaching rather than the teachers in and of themselves. ↩︎
2. It may come as a surprise after reading this far, but we are not opposed to transformational PD. In fact, we have been involved in it, we have rooted for it in the past, and we are still cheering for it, hoping that it finds more and more success. We are supportive, but we are also skeptical, for the reasons written above as well as others not listed here, that it will be able to achieve widespread instructional change. We also feel, as described in the post about trying incremental PD, that there are situations where transformational PD is not likely to work, or may not even be allowed to be attempted, and in those situations we think it is worthwhile to try incremental PD as a complementary approach. ↩︎