A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Designing Effective Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program - December 1999

Chapter 6

Differences in SAHE-Grantee Projects by Institution Type and Departmental Affiliation

Throughout this chapter, we have examined whether the features and management of Eisenhower-assisted professional development differ by type of institution and departmental affiliation. With respect to type of institution, we find that, compared to nonresearch/doctoral-granting institutions, research/doctoral-granting institutions:

• have significantly more collective participation in their primary activity;

• are less aligned with state and district standards and assessments; and

• use fewer continuous-improvement methods.

With respect to departmental affiliation, our data indicate that, compared to projects in mathematics/science departments, projects in education departments:¹⁶

• are more likely to be reform rather than traditional;

• sponsor professional development activities that span a longer time period;

• engage in more types of coordination with the district; and

• use more continuous improvement efforts ("other" departments also use significantly more continuous improvement efforts than mathematics or science departments).

Thus, our data suggest that project directors who are affiliated with education departments design and implement Eisenhower professional development projects that are superior to those designed by directors associated with mathematics or science departments, on a number of dimensions.

Further, we find some evidence of interactions between institution type and departmental affiliation.

• Projects in mathematics/science departments have high content focus regardless of the type of IHE they are in, while projects in education and other departments have a high content focus only if they are in research/doctoral universities.

• Projects in education departments have many opportunities for active learning when housed in research universities, but only a moderate number when housed in nonresearch universities. The opposite is true for mathematics/science department projects—they have more active learning opportunities in nonresearch than research universities.

• Projects in "other" departments have a high number of active learning opportunities regardless of the type of institution they are in.

Opportunities for active learning and number of contact hours are greater in education departments, but only in education departments at research/doctoral-granting institutions. This may indicate that education professors in research institutions, compared to other institutions, are more likely to be familiar with recent professional development literature that emphasizes the importance of active learning opportunities and extended contact hours. Further, education professors in research universities are the primary source of research in professional development, and are the primary promoters of reforms in the quality of activities; therefore it is not surprising that these professors are the ones most likely to direct projects with high-quality structural and core features. This also suggests a potentially important distinction. In general, perhaps due to the goals that a department that trains teachers has in common with the school district that it serves, professors associated with education departments may have a closer relationship with districts than mathematics or science professors. This closer relationship creates a natural communication that permits closer collaboration, which in turn may foster more targeting, coordination, and continuous-improvement efforts. This reasoning may also help to explain why research universities score lower in continuous improvement and alignment than other types of institutions. IHEs that have larger teacher education programs, which are more likely to be institutions that grant only bachelor?s and master?s degrees, are likely to have closer ties to local school districts. These ties facilitate the sharing of information and collaboration that is necessary for continuous-improvement and alignment efforts. If research/doctoral-granting universities are less likely to have these links to the district, projects in these universities would be less likely to implement continuous-improvement and alignment strategies. Also, project directors in research universities are more likely to have their own research agendas that help shape the activities that they design, whereas their colleagues at nonresearch universities may be more free to be responsive to the district?s needs.

The high degree of content focus of projects in mathematics/science departments in either type of institution is not a surprise, given that mathematics/science departments usually do not include pedagogy and processes in their curriculum, as education departments do. The higher content focus of projects in education and other departments in research universities, compared to projects in nonresearch universities, may indicate that project directors in nonresearch institutions need more knowledge about the importance of content focus in professional development activities.

[Implementing the Vision: IHE/NPO Procedures for the Continuous Improvement of Professional Development Activities]

[The Relationship of SAHE-Grantee Management to Features of Professional Development ]