Perceptions of Israeli mathematics teachers regarding their professional development needs

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 13:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Professional Development in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Perceptions of Israeli mathematicsteachers regarding their professionaldevelopment needsAtara Shriki a & Ilana Lavy ba Mathematics Education, Oranim Academic College of Education ,Tivon , Israelb Management Information Systems Department , Emek YezreelAcademic College , Yezreel Valley , 19300 , IsraelPublished online: 13 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Atara Shriki & Ilana Lavy (2012) Perceptions of Israeli mathematics teachersregarding their professional development needs, Professional Development in Education, 38:3,411-433, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2011.626062

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.626062

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19415257.2011.626062

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.626062

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Perceptions of Israeli mathematics teachers regarding theirprofessional development needs

Atara Shrikia* and Ilana Lavyb

aMathematics Education, Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel;bManagement Information Systems Department, Emek Yezreel Academic College, YezreelValley 19300, Israel

(Received 3 March 2011; final version received 11 September 2011)

Recent reforms in mathematics education have increased the need for teachersto attend professional development programs. In order to motivate teachers toattend such programs and to maximize their effect on teachers’ development, webelieve it is important to adapt the contents of such programs to teachers’ per-ceived needs. The current study was designed to explore the professional needsof Israeli mathematics teachers, as they perceived them. Our results show thatteachers are mainly concerned with developing their mathematical knowledgeand acquiring knowledge that relates to the way in which students comprehendvarious mathematical concepts. However, these concerns stem from differentpositions that can be attributed to their teaching experience: new teachers appearto be self-centered; therefore their concern with developing their knowledgemight be a result of a need to gain self-confidence. More experienced teachersare able to consider the effect of their teaching on students’ learning, and itappears that their wish to acquire knowledge stems from this perspective.Highly experienced teachers, like new teachers, are also self-centered, believingthey know everything about teaching and learning, and therefore express interestin acquiring knowledge merely for satisfying their own curiosity.

Keywords: professional development; professional development programs;in-service mathematics teachers; teachers’ needs; career cycles

Introduction

Teaching is a highly complex profession (Danielson 2001). According to Shulman(1987), teachers need to possess a wide range of skills and various types of knowl-edge: they should have pedagogical knowledge concerning available teaching mate-rials and methods; they should know how to adapt teaching approaches to specificsubjects and why; they should know how to design a lesson, which questions toask and which problems to pose; and more. Teachers have to possess knowledgeabout students – what difficulties, mistakes and misconceptions they have and whatare their origins; how students construct their knowledge; and how to approach eachstudent according to his or her personality and learning style. Teachers should bereflective (Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education 2006); they should beable to analyze what they did, how and why they did it, and what were the effects

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Professional Development in EducationVol. 38, No. 3, July 2012, 411–433

ISSN 1941-5257 print/ISSN 1941-5265 online� 2012 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.626062http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

of their actions. Teachers should have the ability to communicate and interact withthe younger generation, and to adjust themselves to various educational situationsin diverse circumstances, choosing between being authoritative, friendly, supportive,and more (Reichel and Arnon 2005). This short list, which is certainly not exhaus-tive, clearly portrays a picture according to which being a teacher is very complexand demanding and at the same time extremely challenging.

In recent years, mathematics teacher educators have emphasized the importanceof implementing a reform in mathematics education (National Council of Teachersof Mathematics 2000, Garet et al. 2001). Obviously, the essential link between thevision of any reform and its implementation is the teachers themselves and theirability to change and adapt their teaching methods to new approaches (Borko2004). As current reforms ask teachers to make ambitious and complex changes,achieving the vision necessitates changes in teachers’ conceptions of their practiceand of themselves as learners (Franke et al. 2001). This can be achieved throughtheir understanding of the meaning of engaging in ongoing learning, and attendingprofessional development programs to that end. However, teachers’ professionaldevelopment ‘inevitably relies on the professional skills of teacher trainers’(Courtney 2007, p. 322).

We believe that being a skillful teacher trainer includes, among other things,awareness of teachers’ needs. O’Sullivan (2004) suggests that any model for teacherprofessional development should start with needs assessment. Therefore, the issuewe struggle with, in the context of this study, concerns the nature and contents ofprofessional development programs that have the potential to respond to teachers’needs, as the teachers themselves describe these needs.

The motivation of the study and the Israeli context

During the last 15 years, the number of mathematics teachers in Israel was almostdoubled (from about 2700 to about 5000), the total mathematics teaching hoursincreased by 75% (from 45,000 to 78,000), and the average mathematics classhours increased by more than 40%. Despite this investment, Israeli students haveexhibited low achievements in international tests like the TIMSS (Gonzales et al.2009) and PISA (OECD 2009). Trying to improve students’ understanding of math-ematics, new topics were added to the curriculum, and some were excluded or mod-ified. New programs were published, emphasizing the importance of inquirylearning and mathematical literacy, and the structure of the matriculation tests inmathematics was modified. In addition, in order to enable students to improve theirgrades in the mathematics matriculation test, in the last 10 years they have the pos-sibility to take the test three times a year (once in the winter and twice during thesummer vacation). This step resulted in an increased average grade in the mathe-matics matriculation test, and a higher percentage of students who are entitled for ahigh school diploma.

However, on the other hand, as evident from official government reports, thereis a constant reduction in mathematics teachers’ participation in professional devel-opment programs.

In order to support teachers’ professionalization, a new program, ‘Ofek Hadash’(‘New Horizon’), was initiated in 2008 by the Israel Ministry of Education. In thelast three years this program has been gradually implemented in elementary andmiddle schools. The main goals of this program are: improving teachers’ status and

412 A. Shriki and I. Lavy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

increasing their salary; changing the structure of teaching (by adding mandatoryschool hours for individual teaching to students with special needs, staff meeting,preparation of tests and learning materials, and more); and implementing ongoingprofessional development programs. At the same time, school principals were pro-vided with the autonomy to determine the status of each teacher in his/her school,and teachers’ promotion tracks and rewards. For the present, this new program isstill controversial, and there is an ongoing debate regarding its benefits. Those whooppose the program maintain that teachers’ salary, per hour, is lower than before,and unless there are comprehensive changes in the entire education system the pro-gram is not going to be efficient in terms of students’ achievements.

Recently, as in many countries, the Ministry of Education administration inIsrael has been seeking further ways to promote mathematics education. For thatmatter, the Israeli Minister of Education approached the Israel Academy of Sciencesand Humanities with a request to establish an expert committee to examine ‘TheKnowledge-base for Teaching Mathematics’. In April 2010 an expert committeestarted its work, on a voluntary basis, aiming to provide ‘decision makers with up-to-date, critically-appraised knowledge that may assist them in their efforts toimprove education achievements in Israel’.1 The committee views mathematics edu-cation as ‘a basic practical tool as well as cultural endeavor in its own right’, andconsiders it as a ‘component fundamental to the quality of education a country pro-vides its citizens’.2 Examining recent studies from Israel and around the world,learning from the experience of local mathematics teachers and professionals in thefield, and analyzing the various components of knowledge and the extent to whichthey are necessary, the committee believes that more than other education-relatedfactors (such as school or curriculum), the teacher is the major factor affecting stu-dents’ achievement (a final report is to be published in 2012).

However, for the meantime, informal conversations with regional supervisorsportrayed a picture according to which numerous teachers admit they have difficul-ties in adjusting themselves to the new structure, contents, and approaches of newcurricular programs. Moreover, many teachers do not have satisfactory knowledgein order to teach high-level mathematics and therefore they avoid teaching it to10th-graders to 12th-graders. As a result, there is a shortage in teachers who arewilling to teach high-level mathematics.

As designers of professional development programs for middle-school and high-school mathematics teachers, we perceived this point in time (thinking over how tochange mathematics education, changes made in the curriculum, and requiringteachers to implement innovative approaches to teaching) as an opportunity to turnto teachers and ask them about their difficulties and needs, with the purpose ofdesigning new professional development programs that concern teachers’ voice andrespond to their needs. We realized that it was more effective to support teachers inimproving what they are already doing than to radically change their perceptionsand practice, as an efficient professional development program should focus oncontents and methods that are understandable and applicable to teachers (Dyer et al.2004). In other words, ‘start where teachers are and build from there’ (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003, p. 47), tailoring professional development programs toteachers’ current state (Givvin and Santagata 2011).

Asking teachers for their opinions is in line with Knowles’ (1984, 1990) theoryof ‘Andragogy’, as opposed to ‘Pedagogy’. The most dominant structure ofinstruction in Europe and America relies on pedagogy (or didactics); namely, a

Professional Development in Education 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

teacher-directed approach (Hiemstra and Sisco 1990). An alternative approach toteaching was suggested by Knowles (1984), while relating to the instruction of adultlearners, termed ‘Andragogy’. The pedagogical model of instruction is rooted in themonastic schools of Europe in the Middle Ages, where the young boys were taughtby monks who required them to be obedient and faithfully serve the church. This tra-dition of pedagogy later spread to other schools in Europe as well as in America, andhas remained the dominant approach to teaching to this day. According to the peda-gogical model, teachers have full responsibility for deciding what, how and whentheir students learn, thus relating to students as passive recipients of their education(Knowles 1984). Until recent years the pedagogical model has been applied to theteaching of adults as well. However, this model is not appropriate for teaching adults.According to Knowles (1990), adults are independent, self-directed and expect totake responsibility for their decisions. In addition, adults possess an accumulated res-ervoir of experiences to build on, and their motivation to learn stems from their wishto solve pressing problems in their lives. Similarly to Knowles, we believe that teach-ers need to be involved in the planning and the evaluation of their instruction. Thisentails the necessity of teacher trainers to identify teachers’ concerns and needs, andadapt them to required changes in teachers’ practice (Courtney 2007). Moreover, inorder for professional development programs to be effective, they have to considerteachers’ experiences and use them as a basis for designing the learning activities(Wilson and Berne 1999). Therefore, the aim of our study was to identify the percep-tions of Israeli middle-school and high-school mathematics teachers regarding whatthey perceive as their professional development needs.

In what follows, we present a brief theoretical background on various aspects ofprofessional development and professional development programs and a model thatdiscusses teachers’ cycles of professional development. We then present the study,followed by its results and a discussion. Finally, we point to some suggestions forfurther research.

In analyzing the data we examined connections between teachers’ perceivedneeds and the three following parameters: the grade level in which they teach; themathematics level they teach (starting from eighth-grade, students are assigned toone of three groups – low/middle/high-level mathematics); and the number of yearsof teaching experience (YTE). In the scope of this paper, we refer only to theresults regarding the connections between teachers’ perceived needs and the numberof YTE. In relating to teaching experience we considered Huberman’s (1989, 1995)model of lifecycles of teachers, as will be explained in the next section.

Theoretical background

High-quality education for students undoubtedly depends upon skilled and thought-ful teachers. Teacher educators and school reformers are therefore paying consider-able attention to the influence of effective professional development programs onthe improvement of teaching (Day and Leitch 2007).

In this section, we present a brief literature survey on the professional develop-ment of teachers. We distinguish between professional development and a profes-sional development program. Professional development is as an internal process thatteachers experience throughout their entire professional lives, one that is related toexamination of practice and beliefs about teaching and learning (Guskey 2000), andto teachers’ sense of need for change (Day 1999). Professional development


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

programs are, on the other hand, external frameworks aimed at supporting teachers’professional development. Then we present Huberman’s model of teachers’ cycles ofdevelopment, and its relation to the design of professional development programs.

Professional development and professional development programs

As Smith noted: ‘Much is written about professional development and many wellknown models have been developed’ (2011, p. 56).

Highly professional and skilled teachers are able to provide their students withquality education (Day et al. 2007). In order to enhance students’ learning andachievements, teachers should develop professionally by improving their knowledgeand expertise (Guskey 1995), as well by changing their practices and perceptions(Kagan 1992). According to the American Federation of Teachers:

professional development is an essential element of comprehensive or ‘systematic’reform. The nation can adopt rigorous standards, set forth a visionary scenario, com-pile the best research about how students learn, change textbooks and assessment, pro-mote teaching strategies that have been successful with a wide range of students. . .butwithout professional development, school reform and improved achievement for allstudents will not happen. (American Federation of Teachers [AFT] 2002, p. 2)

The process of professional development enables teachers to review, renew andextend their commitment as change agents, and acquire and develop knowledge,skills and emotional intelligence that are required for good teaching (Day 1999).Personal development is inherently a long-term learning process, and is based onself-reflection on experiences (Brown and McIntyre 1993). Such self-examination,according to the British Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education, enablesteachers to deepen their knowledge about the subject matter, about different pedago-gies and about the ways in which students learn. It also supports them in applyingthese kinds of knowledge in practice, for generating better learning opportunitiesfor their students (Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education 2006).

In order for teachers to be able to offer their students a better education, it isstrongly recommended that they attend professional development programs aimed atsupporting their development – professional development programs have:

always been necessary for those who work in schools because of changes in curricula,teaching approaches, the conditions in which they work and the broader external envi-ronmental, socio-economic and cultural factors which affect them and their students.(Day and Leitch 2007, p. 707)

Therefore, teachers’ professional development has become a major focus of anyreform initiatives (Corcoran et al. 1998). Professional development programs shouldempower teachers to ‘make complex decisions, to identify and solve problems; andto connect theory, practice and student outcomes’ (AFT 2002, p. 4).

Various models that reflect the current trends in professional learning emphasizethe impact of external aspects, such as environment, time, leadership and collegialsupport (Smith 2011). That is to say, ‘one size does not always fit all’; and there-fore teacher educators should develop a wide perception about their role, in order tobe able to motivate the local community of teachers to engage in professional learn-ing (Timperley et al. 2007). However, they maintain, participating in professional


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

development programs is not sufficient by itself. That is to say, the mere attendanceof teachers in professional development programs, lectures, workshops and confer-ences is not sufficient for changing teachers’ beliefs and practice and supportingtheir professional growth (Fullan 1991). Teachers have to examine the impact oftheir changed practice on students’ learning and outcomes, and for that matter pro-fessional development leaders should encourage teachers to try out new practices,and provide them with the appropriate support.

Teachers’ cycles of development

Teachers develop through different career stages and undergo continual change(Lynn 2002), and as a result, ‘teachers have different attitudes, knowledge, skills,and behaviors at various points during their career’ (2002, p. 179). Reviewing theliterature that relates to the career cycle of teachers, Lynn suggests that:

the characteristics of teachers that appear to change are their concerns, instructionalbehaviors, understanding of children, awareness and understanding of the school andteaching environment, and perceptions of themselves, their work, and their profes-sions. (2002, p. 179)

Several models aim to describe the career cycle of teachers. Waites’ (1999) liter-ature review refers to two of what the author perceives as the most prevalent ones:Huberman’s (1989, 1992, 1995) model and Fessler’s (1992, 1995) model. Waitesargues that these models are similar in their approach; both state that the careercycles of teachers are typically not a linear process and that environmental factorsaffect their career paths. Fessler, however, gives the environmental aspect moreemphasis than Huberman does.

According to Huberman (1989, 1995), teachers progress in their careers throughfive distinct phases or cycles by solving various crises and confronting problemsthat stem from their daily lives, as follows:

� Phase 1 (one to three years of teaching). In this phase, teachers face a reality-shock; especially those with no prior teaching experience wonder whetherthey are ‘up to this challenge’ (Huberman 1989, p. 33). At the same time,they enjoy the initial enthusiasm of having their own classroom and students.In their initial steps as teachers, the theoretical knowledge acquired duringteacher education, as well as more informal knowledge gained during theirobservation apprenticeship (Lortie 1975), is confronted with the reality of theclassroom. Teachers in this phase are typically focused on correct teaching,occasionally neglecting the student learning aspect.

� Phase 2 (four to six years of teaching). This phase is associated with a grow-ing sense of mastery and professional autonomy, and with making a commit-ment to teaching. Teachers in this phase start to focus on improving students’learning. Nonetheless, they still struggle with the question of how to providequality teaching that will result in quality learning.

Usually there is a clear path going from Phase 1 to Phase 2. However, thetrajectories from the middle phases of the career cycles are more diverse than earlierones:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

� Phase 3 (seven to 18 years of teaching). During this phase, some of the tea-chers exhibit readiness for new challenges, and try to consolidate theirinstructional repertoire, through examining different learning material, variousclass settings, and more. Others might experience ‘a gnawing sense of routineto a full-blown existential crisis over staying in or leaving the profession’(Huberman 1989, p. 35).

Although Huberman’s model defines Phase 3 as ranging from the seventh to the18th year of teaching, nonetheless he distinguishes between years seven to 11 andyears 12–18, where teachers with 12–18 YTE are more likely to be disappointed orexhausted by teaching than those with seven to 11 YTE.

� Phase 4 (19–30 years of teaching). The fourth phase may take one of twoforms: if teachers are satisfied with their career choice, they will find renewedenergy to keep developing. Others might feel that they failed to fulfill theirdream. Such teachers might go on teaching, but will not strive to improvetheir teaching. After many years of teaching, teachers in this phase feel thatthey have seen every type of student, experienced all possible teacher–studentinteractions, and can anticipate all students’ responses. They express a greaterresistance to innovations, do not believe that any changes or reforms result inan improvement of the school system, and they show a greater nostalgia forthe past. They also tend to complain and:

bemoan the new cohorts of pupils (less disciplined, less motivated, ‘decadent’), thenegative public attitude toward education, the confused or spineless policies of admin-istrators, the laxity or arrogance of young colleagues. (Huberman 1995, p. 201)

� Phase 5 (31–40 years of teaching). Towards retirement, some teachersbecome conservative in their teaching, perpetuating a model of teaching thatis comfortable for them but not necessarily effective for student learning.Other teachers regret having to retire, since they still experience the pleasureof teaching.

Nevertheless, as Huberman himself notes, this model is actually a simplification oftrends, as real life is much more dynamic. People experience various trajectories inlife that are not necessarily connected to their professional lives, but no doubt affectthem.

However, in spite of the fact that developmental models of the teaching careerare essentially stereotypical, they imply that ‘there are different concerns at differentmoments in the professional life cycles’ (Huberman 1995, p. 206). That is to saythat professional development programs should suggest appropriate contents torespond to teachers’ needs in each phase of their career (Huberman 1995), and sup-port the improvement of teachers’ skills according to their developmental phase(Fessler 1995).

The study

Based on the view that teachers’ needs should be considered when designingprofessional development programs (Wilson and Berne 1999, O’Sullivan 2004), theaim of the study was to listen to the voice of Israeli mathematics teachers and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

identify what they perceive as essential for their professional development. Theunderlying assumption was that implementing the results of the research – namely,designing professional development programs that address the teachers’ perceivedneeds – might increase the efficiency of these professional development programs,and motivate teachers to take an active part in them (Knowles et al. 1998).

The study was exploratory in nature and used qualitative as well as quantitativemethods. In what follows, we describe the phases of the study, the main researchtools, the study participants, and the data analysis methods implemented.

Phases of the study and research tools

The study consisted of the following three phases.

First phase

Official data from the Israeli Ministry of Education indicate that there are currentlyabout 7000 middle-school and high-school mathematics teachers. By the time thestudy was conducted, about 10% of these teachers were registered in the IsraelNational Mathematics Center, and therefore we had access to their email addresses.

Out of the about 700 registered teachers, we randomly selected 100 teachers.We appealed to the first 20 teachers in the list, sent them an email and asked themto write as many statements as possible describing their perceptions regarding themeaning of: professional development; good mathematics teaching; and meaningfullearning of mathematics. Seventeen teachers, with two to 22 YTE, responded. Sincethe communication with the teachers was through email, the responses were notanonymous. In order to identify what these teachers perceive as the most meaning-ful characteristics of teaching, learning and professional development, we followedthe process of analytic induction (Taylor and Bogdan 1998). In this process, wereviewed the entire corpus of data obtained from the teachers’ statements in orderto identify themes and patterns, and generate initial assertions about their percep-tions regarding these issues. The teachers’ statements were categorized according toShulman’s (1987) categories of knowledge; namely, pedagogical knowledge,knowledge about students and content knowledge. In addition, we found that someof the teachers’ statements related to interpersonal communication skills and self-development. Prior to generating the categories, the teachers were asked to validatethem. Upon completing the validation process, we generated a two-part, five-pointLikert-type questionnaire. The statements included in the questionnaire were themost frequently repeated statements in each category (referred to by 12 or more outof the 17 teachers). The first part of the questionnaire included 16 statementsregarding teaching and learning, and the second part included 15 statements regard-ing professional development (see the section ‘The questionnaire’). Due to spacelimitations, the full results of the first phase are not included in this paper.

Second phase

In the second phase, we appealed to the remaining 80 teachers, out of which 64responded to the questionnaire. Analyzing the responses, we decided to appeal toan additional 100 teachers, who were also selected randomly, out of which 74teachers responded (see Table 1). Due to a limited research budget, we did not


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

appeal to additional teachers. For the first part of the questionnaire (statements con-cerning teaching and learning), the teachers were asked to rank each of the 16 state-ments according to their agreement with the statements. For the second part of thequestionnaire (statements concerning professional development, see the section ‘Thequestionnaire’), the teachers were asked to rank each of the 15 statements accordingto their essentiality for their professional development needs. The teachers were alsoasked to provide explanations for their ranking. In addition, the questionnaireincluded two open-ended questions, in which the teachers were invited to proposepractical suggestions.

Third phase

In the third phase, 10 of the teachers who participated in the second phase wereinterviewed, representing all five groups, according to their years of experience(two from each group). We had two main purposes in conducting the interviews:

� to gain a deeper understanding of the teachers’ perceptions regarding teach-ing, learning and their professional development needs; and

� to identify a possible explanation for the differences between teachers’ needsaccording to: the grade level in which they teach; the level of mathematicsthey teach; and the number of years of their teaching experience.

We chose to interview the teachers who provided the most extensive explanationsfor their ranking, and the broadest answers to the open-ended questions, referring toa wide range of issues. We assumed that they, more than the others, have a greaterability to reflect upon their needs and experience, and therefore might help us gainan insight regarding the concerned issues. All 10 teachers agreed to be interviewed.Each interview was in a face-to-face format, and lasted for about two hours.Similarly to the first phase, the interviews were analyzed following the process ofanalytic induction (Taylor and Bogdan 1998).

In this paper, we present findings from the second and third phases of the study,and focus only on those that are relevant to the issue of professional development,explaining the differences between teachers’ needs according to the number ofYTE.

The subjects

Table 1 presents the distribution of the 138 subjects who participated in the secondphase of the study according to their teaching experience. The subjects weregrouped according to Huberman’s (1989, 1995) model. Teachers in Phase 3 (sevento 18 YTE) were divided into two groups (seven to 11 and 12–18 YTE), in linewith Huberman’s observation regarding the differences between these two groups ofteachers. Our random sample did not include Phase 5 teachers.

Table 1. Informative data regarding groups of teachers according to their years of teachingexperience.

Years of teaching experience 1–3 4–6 7–11 12–18 19–30 TotalNumber of teachers 25 20 29 36 28 138


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised two sections and some informative details on theteachers’ teaching experience. The first section included 16 statements about teach-ing and learning, and the second section included 15 statements about professionaldevelopment. The statements in each section were assigned randomly. Asmentioned, within the scope of this paper, we address only the results that refer tothe second section of the questionnaire, which used a five-point Likert-type scale.This part of the questionnaire appears in Appendix 1.

The statements that appear in the second part of the questionnaire can be classi-fied into five main categories: the categories ‘pedagogical knowledge’ (S6, S7, S8),‘knowledge about students’ (S10, S11), and ‘content knowledge’ (S13) referto Shulman’s (1987) observation; and the categories ‘self-development’ (S1, S2,S4, S5, S9, S14, S15), and ‘inter-personal communication’ (S3, S12) followHuberman’s (1989) framework.

Results and discussion

In this section, we present and discuss some of the issues found by the participantsto be most relevant for their professional development. Due to the small samplesize, no statistical analysis was conducted, except for calculating the percentage ofteachers who ranked each statement as ‘Most Relevant’ (MR) for their professionaldevelopment (see Table 2). In analyzing the data we examined relations betweenthe ranking of a statement as MR and three of the following variables: grades inwhich the teacher teaches, level of teaching (low/medium/high), and number ofyears of teaching experience, as described by Huberman’s (1989, 1995) model. Inwhat follows we present only the connection between teachers’ perceptions and thenumber of years of their teaching experience.

It should be noted that we do not assume, however, that statements that werenot ranked as MR are regarded by the teachers as unimportant.

General findings

Table 2 summarizes the results as follows: the first column (1) refers to the numberof the statement, as described in the section ‘The questionnaire’; the second column(2) indicates the percentage of teachers (out of 138) who ranked the specific state-ment as MR for their professional development. For example, 46 teachers, 33.33%of the 138 teachers, referred to S1 as MR. Columns (3)–(7) present the distributionof the percentage of teachers who ranked each statement as MR, according to theirYTE. For example, in Column (6), 10 teachers from the group of 36 teachers(YTE = 12–18) designated S3 as MR (27.78%). In addition, in each of thesecolumns (2)–(7), the values in italics designate statements to which more than 70%of the teachers referred as MR, according to the attributed group.

Table 2 shows that enriching mathematical knowledge (S13) and expandingknowledge regarding the way students perceive various concepts and construct theirmathematical knowledge (S10 and S11, respectively) are perceived as MR by allthe subjects, beyond YTE, much more than other statements.

Looking along the rows, it is evident that there is no clear pattern of constantincreased or decreased need that can be ascribed to teaching experience. However,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table

2.Frequencies

ofrankingstatem

entsas

‘MostRelevant’(M

R)accordingto

yearsof

teaching

experience

(YTE).

Colum

n(1)

Colum

n(2)

Colum

n(3)

Colum

n(4)

Colum

n(5)

Colum

n(6)

Colum

n(7)

Statement

MR(%

)1–

3YTE(n

=25)

4–6YTE(n

=20)

7–11

YTE(n

=29)

12–18YTE(n

=36)

19–30YTE(n

=28)

S1

46(33.33)

1(4.00)

6(30.00)

13(44.83)

13(36.11)

13(46.43)

S2

36(26.09)

5(20.00)

11(55.00)

2(6.90)

3(8.33)

15(53.57)

S3

51(36.96)

6(24.00)

7(35.00)

7(24.14)

10(27.78)

21(75.00)

S4

74(53.62)

19(76.00)

12(60.00)

10(34.48)

23(63.89)

10(35.71)

S5

59(42.75)

20(80.00)

7(35.00)

7(24.14)

17(47.22)

8(28.57)

S6

24(17.39)

7(28.00)

3(15.00)

5(17.24)

2(5.56)

7(25.00)

S7

66(47.82)

15(60.00)

11(55.00)

16(55.17)

17(47.22)

7(25.00)

S8

31(22.46)

7(28.00)

3(15.00)

9(31.03)

10(27.78)

2(7.14)

S9

10(7.24)

1(4.00)

1(5.00)

4(13.79)

4(11.11)

0(0.00)

S10

101(73.18)

22(88.00)

12(60.00)

20(68.97)

27(75.00)

20(71.43)

S11

99(71.73)

21(84.00)

15(75.00)

17(58.62)

27(75.00)

19(67.86)

S12

43(31.15)

7(28.00)

8(40.00)

4(13.79)

9(25.00)

15(53.57)

S13

104(75.36)

15(60.00)

18(90.00)

24(82.76)

22(61.11)

25(89.29)

S14

45(32.60)

10(40.00)

7(35.00)

11(37.93)

5(13.89)

12(42.86)

S15

19(13.76)

6(24.00)

1(5.00)

1(3.45)

10(27.78)

1(3.57)

Note:

Italicsindicate

statem

entsto

which

morethan

70%

oftheteachers

referred

asMR.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

teachers with one to three YTE consider the development of openness for changingtheir ways of instruction (S4) and the development of their reflective skills (S5) ashighly relevant for their professional development, more than other groups of teach-ers. Teachers with 19–30 YTE consider the development of their ability to deal withconflicts that concern their interaction with students (S3) as MR to their profes-sional development.

Given space limitations, within the scope of this paper we chose to elaboratemainly on the issues that most of the teachers designated as MR for their profes-sional development (S13, S10, and S11). In addition, we refer to the issue of inter-action with students (S3).

Issues perceived by most study participants as ‘Most Relevant’ for theirprofessional development

In this section, we present some of the teachers’ excerpts taken from the interviews,relating to S13, S10, and S11. In analyzing the excerpts, we distinguished betweenthe teachers according to their teaching experience.

Content knowledge (S13)

Research shows that successful professional development programs focus, first andforemost, on deepening teachers’ content knowledge rather than on emphasizingtheir practices. Furthermore, professional development programs that deeply engageteachers with the strengthening of their content knowledge have a meaningful influ-ence on the teachers’ classroom practices, which results in an improvement of stu-dents’ learning, and conceptual understanding (Garet et al. 2001, Ingvarson 2002).According to the AFT (2002), teachers who are not sufficiently familiar with thesubject matter cannot teach it properly. Therefore, one of the major purposes of anyprofessional development program should be the enhancement of the contentknowledge of teachers.

Indeed, Table 2 shows that in general the study participants are mainly con-cerned with enriching their mathematical knowledge. Three-quarters of themexpressed a need to strengthen their mathematical knowledge. However, this needis more prominent in groups of teachers having four to six, seven to 11, and 19–30YTE. Below are some of the teachers’ utterances.

It should be noted that all the excerpts in this paper were originally said inHebrew. In translating them into English we strove to preserve the essence of thequotations.

I do not feel an urgent need to strengthen my mathematical knowledge, because I stillremember most of the things I learnt at university . . . Since I began working at school,I had to teach only classes of low achievers, in which maths is not very complicated.This enables me to focus on practicing teaching methods without being concernedabout my knowledge. (Gail, two YTE)

From the above excerpt it can be concluded that Gail does not sense an urgent needto strengthen her content knowledge for two main reasons. First, during her firsttwo years of teaching she was assigned to teach mathematics mainly in low-levelmathematics classes. Therefore, she feels that her mathematical knowledge is suffi-cient in the meantime. Second, only a short period of time had passed since she


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

graduated from university, thus she feels confident with her mathematical knowl-edge, which is still fresh in her memory.

After teachers gain some teaching experience, many of them are promoted andstart to teach more advanced mathematics classes. Indeed, the group of teacherswith four to six YTE expressed the highest need for strengthening their mathemati-cal knowledge:

The principal asked me to teach 11th grade for the next year. For the last 6 years Ionly taught middle-school classes, and I am afraid I don’t remember all the topicsneeded for 11th grade, especially calculus. So I need to attend some program thatwould help me to refresh my memory, in order to be able to provide good teachingfor the students. (Dina, six YTE)

After several years of teaching low-level mathematics, teachers like Dina start tofeel they have forgotten advanced mathematics, and are uncertain about their abilityto teach more advanced mathematics. As a result, they want to attend professionaldevelopment programs that will help them to refresh their memory. The same argu-ment was heard from teachers who belong to the group of seven to 11 YTE:

After years of teaching low achievers in 10th–12th grades, I was promoted and got med-ium-level mathematics classes . . . so last year I participated in professional developmentprograms that focused on vectors and calculus . . . However, I still feel a need to learnmore if I want to be able to teach high-level mathematics as well. (Yael, 10 YTE)

However, it appears that teachers who belong to the group of 12–18 YTE hadalready acquired the knowledge they need:

Six years ago, I started to teach high-level 10th grade students, and then 11th and 12th

graders . . . I gradually built my knowledge, mainly through on-line courses . . . It isnot that I don’t have to study anymore, but I feel quite comfortable with myknowledge. (Eran, 14 YTE)

Highly experienced teachers also express a great need to enrich their mathematicalknowledge:

I have been teaching for many years now. Since I first started to teach, changes havebeen made in the curriculum every few years, and there are also many changes in thenew curriculum . . . I must admit that for this reason, I refuse to teach high-level math-ematics classes. I haven’t had the chance to practice some of the new topics since Igraduated from university. I must attend some refresher courses in order to gainconfidence for teaching them, which I actually haven’t done, and I regret to say that Iprobably never will . . . [a smile of embarrassment]. (Eva, 27 YTE)

I love mathematics, and I enjoy learning new mathematical ideas from time to time. Itsharpens my brain . . . It is not that I really need this for my teaching. (Rebecca, 23YTE)

Eva and Rebecca are both in Phase 4. Eva is aware of her insufficient mathematicalknowledge, and shows no aspiration to enrich her knowledge, expressingself-acceptance, and a lack of energy. Rebecca exhibits energy to keep developing,mainly for her own curiosity, through renewing and gaining new mathematicalknowledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The different motivation of each teacher to acquire content knowledge is evi-dent: being in Phase 1, Gail is content with merely teaching low-achievers. Thisenables her ‘to focus on practicing teaching methods without being concerned aboutmy knowledge’; namely, to focus on correct teaching, as many Phase 1 teachers do.Dina and Yael are in Phases 2 and 3, respectively. Both have already committedthemselves (at least in the meantime) to teaching and they are willing to accept newchallenges, but they need assistance. As opposed to Dina and Yael, who need thisknowledge for the purpose of teaching, Rebecca wants to acquire this knowledgejust for herself.

To conclude, the interviewees in Phase 1 did not express a need for professionaldevelopment programs that emphasize mathematical knowledge, neither for them-selves nor for teaching purposes. Those in Phase 2 and the first half of Phase 3express a need to refresh their content knowledge and a request for supporting themin gaining the confidence to teach advanced mathematics. Namely, while starting todevelop a sense of commitment towards their profession, their needs stem fromtheir wish to progress within the school system, upgrade their position in school,and increase their instructional effectiveness, as discussed in Huberman’s model.Teachers who teach high-level mathematics in the second half of Phase 3 were usu-ally promoted in previous phases, and therefore had already acquired the necessaryknowledge. Our interviewees in Phase 4 represent two perspectives. While Eva isself-accepting, and shows no interest in enriching her mathematical knowledge,Rebecca is excited about the possibility of elaborating her mathematical knowledge,but for her own sake and her own interest, and not for teaching. It might be thatunless teachers exhibit readiness for new challenges during Phases 2 or 3, they willnot strive to change while they are in Phase 4.

Knowledge about students’ learning (S10, S11)

According to the AFT’s principles (2002), teachers should know how studentsunderstand mathematics. As is evident from Table 2, the study participants, and par-ticularly teachers in Phase 1, are highly concerned with knowledge about the waystudents perceive various concepts and construct their mathematical knowledge:

When I was a prospective teacher, my Method course instructor talked about the needto adapt the materials to the level of the students. But what does that really mean? . . .What actually distinguishes between students? I don’t deeply understand. What is‘going on in the head’ of one student that is not in the other? Do they thinkdifferently? In what way? Do they have different images? Why? . . . When I talk, forexample, about a parallelogram, how does each student perceive it? I am very curiousabout that. (Sara, three YTE)

Sara, as typically expected from teachers in Phase 1, is trying to bridge between thetheoretical knowledge she acquired during her qualification period and the class-room reality. It appears that teachers in Phase 1 need support in connecting theoreti-cal to practical knowledge in order to help overcome this initial phase of teaching,and save them the embarrassment that stems from their inability to decide ‘whichof the theories I know can be applied to some specific situation’ (Gail, two YTE).

Huberman’s model refers to the fact that teachers in Phase 1 focus on teaching,and do not always pay attention to students’ learning. Indeed, Sara’s statementsrelate mainly to her own knowledge, without considering its connection to the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

impact on students’ learning. Teachers in Phases 2 and 3, however, relate to theissue of linking theory to practice from the students’ learning perspective as well,which is consistent with the model:

I could have been a better teacher if during my training period I had the opportunityto take one or two courses that specifically address the difficulties students mightencounter while learning various mathematical topics. I’m sure they could benefit fromlearning some of the difficult topics differently, if I only knew how they comprehendthem. (Orna, five YTE)

When I started to teach, 30 pairs of eyes were staring at me . . . and I realized that Idon’t have a clue as to what was going on in their minds. It was frustrating . . . I man-aged to cope with some of their difficulties through trial and error, but I’m sure manyof them are still struggling just because I am not aware of all their troubles. (Judith,12 YTE)

Our interviewees from Phase 3 are well aware of the effect of their teaching on stu-dents’ learning. After several years of examining various teaching approaches, theyrealize that there is a ‘cause and effect’ in teaching and learning, and their willing-ness to gain more knowledge about students’ learning stems from their intent tohelp their students.

Teachers in Phase 4 expressed a different perspective on the need to expandtheir knowledge about students’ learning:

During the years I have developed my own theories about the way in which studentsthink and process knowledge, and about the sources of their difficulties. . .I am curiousto know whether my theories resemble those that are based on research, but we havenever discussed it formally in any of the professional development programs I haveattended. (Rebecca, 23 YTE)

Like many teachers in Phase 4, Rebecca believes she has already seen all types ofstudents, and can anticipate all difficulties and responses. Rebecca’s motivation toacquire knowledge about the way students perceive various concepts and constructtheir mathematical knowledge derives purely from her curiosity. Rebecca does notmaintain that acquiring such knowledge would help her to become a better teacheror improve her students’ achievements. Similar to teachers in Phase 4, Rebecca tendsto stick to what she knows, and express no intention to change her instruction.

To conclude, the interviewees in Phase 1 express a need for professional devel-opment programs that would help them to bridge between theoretical and practicalknowledge, in order to become better teachers. Those in Phases 2 and 3 wish toacquire this knowledge not just for improving their teaching, but also for improvingtheir students’ understanding. Teachers in Phase 4 are curious to know whether thetheories they developed over the years are research-grounded; however, they mightnot feel that this knowledge would help them in any practical manner.

In this section, we discussed issues that the study participants regarded as theMost Relevant for their professional development. However, Table 2 shows that inaddition to these issues, teachers in Phase 1 express a great need, beyond othergroups, to develop openness for changing their ways of instruction (S4) and theirreflective skills (S5). Teachers in Phase 4 expressed a high need, higher than othergroups, to develop their ability to deal with conflicts that concern their interactionwith students (S3). Analyzing the interviewees’ responses to these issues, we


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

thought it might be interesting to present the differences between groups of teachersregarding the latter issue.

Interacting with students (S3)

Developing the ability to deal with conflicts that concern the interaction with studentswas found to be one of the issues that Phase 4 teachers are most concerned with,much more than the other groups of teachers. Three-quarters of the teachers in thisphase deemed it to be MR for their professional development, compared with about24–35% of each of the other groups. Teacher–student relationships are at the heart ofeffective teaching (Sava 2002), and are a key feature of school life (Pomeroy 1999).Nonetheless, educational reforms tend to focus mainly on curricular aspects,neglecting the importance of effective teacher–student interaction (Sava 2002):

The most enjoyable part of my work is my interaction with the students. I think thatbecause I am young, they feel like they can tell me about things that are going on intheir private lives. I am not just their mathematics teacher, but also a kind of friend.(Sara, three YTE)

As can be seen, Sara, as a young woman, enjoys the company of her students andloves the idea that they consider her as their friend. Lia, however, examines herinteraction with students from a different perspective:

I think a lot about my relations with students. They are teenagers like my eldestdaughter . . . I have to think about them as I think about my own children . . . On theone hand, I have to educate them, to teach them values, and on the other hand, I haveto teach them mathematics. It doesn’t always go hand-in-hand, and confrontations areunavoidable . . . But I have learnt that if you show them that you have your principlesand that you are determined to stick to these principles, life is much easier with thesekids. Believe me, it is for their own benefit. (Lia, 17 YTE)

Unlike Sara, who sees only herself in the array of teacher–student relationships, Liaalso thinks about the impact of her actions on the students. Lia, who is in Phase 3,seems to question her role as teacher, as expressed in Huberman’s model. Being amother of a teenager, she simultaneously takes a motherly and educational stance,thinking what might be best for her students, unafraid of confrontations.

Eva’s words might explain the reason for the fact that Phase 4 teachers exhibitthe highest need to be helped with their interaction with students:

When I started to teach, 27 years ago, students were different. They respected teach-ers. I didn’t have to spend so much time and effort dealing with discipline. This is anew generation of students. They are not disciplined and they show us no respect,either as their teachers or as human beings. These endless fights are exhausting. (Eva,27 YTE)

Like many teachers in Phase 4, Eva mourns for the new generation of students,with whom she is unable to communicate. Moreover, she blames the schooladministration for being ‘too soft with these kids, trying too hard to please themand their parents’. It appears as if Eva is about to enter Phase 5 as a bitter teachermainly because of her relations with students, and therefore she needs help in reha-bilitating these relations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

To conclude, the interviewees in Phase 1 think of their relationships with theirstudents in terms of ‘friendship’, enjoying the situation. As a novice teacher, Sara isintimately familiar with the social codes and behaviors of today’s students, as itwas not so long ago that she herself was a student. Teachers in Phases 2 and 3 con-sider their relations with students from a different perspective, thinking about theirstudents’ favor. In Phase 4 teachers may lose their patience, thinking about them-selves and their wounded dignity. Eva remembers students who used to behave dif-ferently. They had more respect and appreciation towards teachers. Being familiarwith more respectful behavior of students, she finds it hard to accept or accommo-date herself to the manners of today’s young generation. As pointed out by Huber-man’s model, Eva is nostalgic and clings to her past memories. She does not referin these memories of her interaction with students, however, to ‘friendship’, as Saradescribes her interaction with her students, or to ‘caring’, as in Lia’s expression, butto ‘mutual respect’.

Summary

In recent years, various extensive professional development programs were initiated,all driven by the shared vision of the ‘new teacher’. Unfortunately, many of theseprograms have not yielded the expected results and real changes are not as exten-sive as was expected (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). ‘Despite the general acceptance ofprofessional development as essential to improvement in education, reviews of pro-fessional development research consistently point out the ineffectiveness of mostprograms’ (Guskey 2002, pp. 381–382). The main reason for this ineffectiveness,according to Guskey, is the fact that the majority of programs do not consider whatmotivates teachers to engage in professional development, or fail to apply teachers’needs. The author argues that research shows that most teachers attend professionaldevelopment programs because they want to become better teachers, and to increasetheir professional satisfaction. Teacher educators, however, cannot merely tell teach-ers how to teach differently, because the teachers will, ultimately, be required toimplement the desired changes themselves (Borko and Putnam 1995). Professionaldevelopment programs should, therefore, start with needs assessment (O’Sullivan2004), help teachers to develop for themselves new ways of thinking about learn-ing, learners and the subject matter (Borko and Putnam 1995), and help them bridgebetween theory and practice (Kagan 1992).

Considering the above, the aim of our study was to identify the perceptions ofIsraeli mathematics teachers regarding what they perceive as their needs.

The underlying assumption was that considering the teachers’ voice, which isbased on their experience and reflection, might assist us in designing professionaldevelopment programs that respond to teachers’ needs in an optimal way. In thedesign process of professional development programs, one has to consider the factthat teachers evolve in cycles throughout their careers. This entails the need to imple-ment differentiated approaches to professional development programs and to discussdifferent issues at each stage of development (Huberman 1989, Fessler 1992, Furlongand Maynard 1995), believing that professional development programs should ‘startwhere teachers are and build from there’ (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003, p. 47).

Therefore, in analyzing the results, we were concerned with identifying possibleconnections between teachers’ needs and the number of years of their teachingexperience. The separation of teachers into groups was based on Huberman’s


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(1989, 1995) model of teachers’ cycles of development. It should be noted thatalthough we did not intend to validate Huberman’s model, our results indicate thatthis model can serve as a useful framework for analyzing the needs of the teacherswho participated in our study.

Enriching mathematical knowledge (S13) and expanding knowledge regardingthe way students perceive various concepts and construct their mathematical knowl-edge (S10 and S11, respectively) are perceived as MR by most of the subjects,beyond YTE. However, there was a meaningful difference between groups of teach-ers as to the reasons they attributed to the importance of these issues and their con-nection to professional development. It appears that Phase 1 teachers wish toacquire knowledge mainly to strengthen their self-confidence, and to develop theability to connect their theoretical knowledge with their practice in class, or ‘tomake sense of what is going on in class’ (Sara, three YTE).

According to Huberman’s model, teachers in this phase are mainly concernedwith ‘survival’, focusing on correct teaching, tending to neglect students’ learning.Indeed, our interviewees in this phase were primarily focused on themselves, with-out considering possible connections between their teaching and their students’learning. Teachers in Phases 2 and 3 appear to be aware of the influence of theirteaching on students’ learning, understanding and achievements. Therefore, they areinterested in acquiring knowledge for increasing their instructional effectiveness.This is in line with Huberman’s model, according to which Phase 2 teachers start tofocus on improving students’ learning, thinking over how to provide quality teach-ing that will result in quality learning, and teachers in Phase 3 try to consolidatetheir instructional world-view. Our Phase 4 interviewees exhibit a perspective of‘putting themselves in the centre’, like Phase 1 teachers. Rebecca and Eva representtwo characters that are typical of this phase. While Rebecca is serene, Eva is a littlebit bitter. A need to acquire knowledge, if it exists, stems from self-interest or curi-osity, while believing that their existing available teaching resources are sufficient.

The same is revealed from analyzing the interviewees’ expressions regardingtheir interaction with students. Phase 1 teachers view only themselves in the weaveof teacher–student interaction, enjoying being a friend of their students. Teachers inPhases 2 and 3 also consider their students’ ‘place’ in this interaction: how to edu-cate them, and what approach might be best for them. Phase 4 teachers, like Phase1 teachers, concentrate on themselves, possibly because of fatigue.

To conclude, our findings indicate that teachers’ needs, as related to their devel-opmental phase, can be described as shown in Figure 1.

Obviously, it is difficult to determine what makes a professional developmentprogram effective in terms of changing teacher behavior and increasing studentlearning, and to identify what works for whom and why (Givvin and Santagata2011). Nonetheless, the results of the study can serve as a starting point for design-ing differentiated professional development programs, aimed at responding to theneeds of diverse cohorts of teachers, according to their current phase of develop-ment. Further research is needed for examining relations between the implementa-tion of adapted professional development programs and teachers’ growth.

Finally, we wish to note that, due to space limitations, we did not refer to whatthe teachers perceived as less relevant for their professional development. Forexample, only 43 (31.15%) of the teachers in our study referred to S12 (developingmy ability to cooperate with my colleagues) as MR, and only 19 (13.76%) of theteachers referred to S15 (developing my ability to conduct educational research) as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

MR – both are acknowledged as highly important for teachers’ professional devel-opment (for example, Burbank and Kauchak 2002, Perrett 2003). Assuming thatteachers might tend to be pragmatic, perhaps failing to see ‘one step ahead’, it istherefore essential that, above and beyond responding to teachers’ perceived needs,teacher trainers will identify ways to bring teachers to realize that other thingsmight also support their professional development (Givvin and Santagata 2011).

Concluding remark

The organizational environment of school systems, the image of teachers and theatmosphere of public trust, as well as the expectations a community places on itseducational system, are all major influences on teachers’ career cycles and needs(Fessler 1995). In their review of professional development programs acrossEurope, Day and Leitch (2007) note that although there is a wide agreementconcerning the need to improve the quality of education, and the central role andcontribution of professional development programs for that matter, still there is adisagreement with regard to the purposes and requirements of professional develop-ment programs. These purposes reflect social and cultural dimensions and needs ofteachers and students. Therefore, designing professional development programsbased on research literature has limitations because of the various problems thatmight emerge from transferring knowledge and models for teaching from one set-ting to another. Consequently, the needs of teachers, as members of the society,should be evaluated considering cultural and social aspects of the community inwhich they are functioning.

With regard to this issue, it is worthwhile to check for the results described inthe McKinsey Report, 2010.3 The McKinsey Report, entitled ‘How the World’sMost Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better’, examined 20 systems fromaround the world that achieved significant gains in student outcomes, as measuredby international and national assessments. These school systems implemented threetypes of approaches to achieve this goal – they changed their structure (establishednew school types, decentralized system responsibilities); they changed theirresources (added staff or increased funding); and they changed their processes(modified curriculum and improved the way that teachers instruct and principalslead). According to the report, the vast majority of interventions made by theimproving systems were ‘process’ in nature. Specifically, these systems generallyspent more of their activity on improving how instruction is delivered than on

Phase 1 Phases 2,3 Phase 4

Developing professionally for oneself:

Acquiring self-confidence;Connecting theory to

practice

Developing professionally for teaching:

Ability to influence students’ learning and

achievements


Acquiring new knowledge out of interest


Helping to overcome bitterness

Figure 1. Attribution of teachers’ needs, according to their phase of development.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

changing the content of what is delivered. The report observed three consistent clus-ters of interventions: one that moves systems from poor performance to fair; a sec-ond cluster that does the same from fair performance to good; and a third clusterfrom good performance to great, and from great performance to excellent.

For example, systems moving from fair performance to good focused on establish-ing the foundations of data gathering, organization, finances and pedagogy. Systemsmoving from good performance to great focused on shaping the teaching professionsuch that its requirements, practices and career paths are clearly defined.

Drawing on the McKinsey Report, it appears that the Israeli proposed plans thatare taken simultaneously – establishing an expert committee to inquire the knowl-edge-base for teaching mathematics, professionalization of teaching, and changingthe curriculum – have the potential to bring the expected changes in mathematicseducation, and hopefully enhance students’ knowledge and increase their achieve-ments. However, as improving the way that teachers instruct is crucially important,Israeli professional development program designers still have to consider the con-tents of these programs, and how to respond to teachers’ needs in their variousphases of career cycles.

We believe that listening to teachers’ voice for evaluating their real needs andunderstanding what they perceive as essential for their professional development isonly the first milestone in this long journey. There is still a need to answer ques-tions such as: How to construct an approach to professional learning, one that takesa comprehensive perspective on the relations between professional development andthe improvement of teaching and learning (Ball and Cohen 1999)? How do teachersapply their acquired knowledge and develop it over the years? What support doteachers need in order to become life-long learners? And so forth.

Finally, we wish to note that the issues discussed in this paper appear to be gen-eral in their essence (teachers’ content knowledge and knowledge about students’construction of knowledge), and not necessarily specific to the teaching of mathe-matics. We believe it would be interesting to compare mathematics teachers’ needsaround the world, as well as comparing between the needs of teachers from otherdisciplines, attributing them to social and policy aspects.

Notes1. Available from: http://education.academy.ac.il/english/homepage.aspx.2. Available from http://education.academy.ac.il/English/ActionArea. aspx?AreaID=14.3. Available from: http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/schools/How-the-Worlds-Most-

Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final.pdf.

References

Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education, 2006. Ensuring effective continuing profes-sional development for teachers of mathematics in primary schools [online]. The RoyalSociety. Available from: www.acme-uk.org [Accessed 12 April 2008].

American Federation of Teachers, 2002. Principles for professional development, AFT’sguidelines for creating professional development programs that make a difference[online]. American Federation of Teachers. Available from: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/PRINCIPLES.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2008].

Ball, D.L. and Cohen, D.K., 1999. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward apractice-based theory of professional education. In: L. Darling-Hammond andG. Sykes, eds. Teaching as the learning profession: handbook of policy and practice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 3–32.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Borko, H., 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain.Educational researcher, 33 (8), 3–15.

Borko, H. and Putnam, R., 1995. Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: a cognitive psycho-logical perspective on professional development. In: T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman,eds. Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices. New York:Teachers College Press, 35–65.

Brown, S. and McIntyre, D., 1993. Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Burbank, M.D. and Kauchak, D., 2002. An alternative model for professional development:investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and teacher education, 19 (5),499–514.

Corcoran, T.B., Shields, P.M., and Zucker, A.A., 1998. Evaluation of NSF’s Statewide SystemicInitiatives (SSI) program: the SSIs and professional development for teachers. MenloPark, CA: SRI International.

Courtney, J., 2007. What are effective components of in-service teacher training? A studyexamining teacher trainers’ perceptions of the components of a training programme inmathematics education in Cambodia. Journal of in-service education, 33 (3), 321–339.

Danielson, C., 2001. New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational leadership, 58 (5), 12–15.Day, C., 1999. Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer

Press.Day, C. and Leitch, R., 2007. The continuing professional development of teachers: issues

of coherence, cohesion and effectiveness. In: T. Townsend, ed. International handbookof school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 707–726.

Day, C., et al., 2007. Teachers matter: connecting work, lives and effectiveness. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Dyer, C., et al., 2004. Knowledge for teacher development in India: the importance of localknowledge for in-service education. International journal for educational development,24 (1), 39–52.

Fessler, R., 1992. The teacher career cycle. In: R. Fessler and J.C. Christensen, eds. Theteacher career cycle. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 21–44.

Fessler, R., 1995. Dynamics of teacher career stages. In: T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman, eds.Professional development in education. New York: Teachers College Press, 171–192.

Franke, M.L., et al., 2001. Capturing teachers’ generative change: a follow-up study ofprofessional development in mathematics. American educational research journal, 38(3), 653–689.

Fullan, M.G., 1991. The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.Furlong, J. and Maynard, T., 1995. Mentoring student teachers: the growth of professional

knowledge. London: Routledge.Garet, M.S., et al., 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a

national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38 (4), 915–945.Givvin, K.B. and Santagata, R., 2011. Towards a common language for discussing the

features of effective professional development: the case of a US mathematics program.Professional development in education, 37 (3), 439–451.

Gonzales, P., et al., 2009. Highlights from TIMSS 2007: mathematics and science achieve-ment of U.S. fourth and eighth-grade students in an international context [online]. IES,National Center for Education Statistics. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf [Accessed October 2010].

Guskey, T.R., 1995. Professional development in education: in search of the optimal mix. In:T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman, eds. Professional development in education: new par-adigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press, 114–131.

Guskey, T.R., 2000. Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Guskey, T.R., 2002. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching:

theory and practice, 8 (3/4), 381–390.Hiemstra, R. and Sisco, B., 1990. Individualizing instruction. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.Huberman, M., 1989. The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers college record, 91

(1), 31–57.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Huberman, M., 1992. Teacher development and instructional mastery. In: A. Hargreaves andM. Fullan, eds. Rethinking teacher development. Toronto: OISE Press, 122–142.

Huberman, M., 1995. Professional careers and professional development: some intersections.In: T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman, eds. Professional development in education: newparadigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press, 193–224.

Ingvarson, L., 2002. Building a learning profession. Canberra, Australia: Australian Collegeof Educators.

Kagan, D.M., 1992. Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Reviewof educational research, 62 (2), 129–169.

Knowles, M.S., 1984. The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston, TX: GulfPublishing.

Knowles, M.S., 1990. The adult learner: a neglected species. 4th ed. Houston, TX: GulfPublishing.

Knowles, M., Holton, S., and Swanson, R., 1998. The adult learner. Houston, TX: GulfPublishing.

Lortie, D.C., 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Loucks-Horsley, S., et al., 2003. Designing professional development for teachers of science

and mathematics. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Lynn, S.K., 2002. The winding path: understanding the career cycle of teachers. The clear-

ing house, 75 (4), 179–182.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000. Principles and standards for school

mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.O’Sullivan, M., 2004. The reconceptualisation of learner-centered approaches: a Namibian

case study. International journal of educational development, 24 (6), 585–602.OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009. PISA 2009

results [online]. OECD Directorate for Education. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/edu/pisa/2009 [Accessed July 2010].

Perrett, G., 2003. Teacher development through action research. Australian journal ofteacher education, 27 (2), 1–10.

Pomeroy, E., 1999. The teacher–student relationship in secondary school: insights fromexcluded students. British journal of sociology of education, 20 (4), 465–482.

Reichel, N. and Arnon, S., 2005. Three portraits of teachers in the eyes of the teachingstudent: the ideal teacher, the teacher educator and the student’s image of himself as alearner. Dapim, 40, 23–58 (in Hebrew).

Sava, F.A., 2002. Causes and effects of teacher conflict-inducing attitudes towards students:a path analysis model. Teaching and teacher education, 18 (8), 1008–1021.

Shulman, L.S., 1987. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvardeducational review, 57 (1), 1–22.

Smith, K., 2011. Professional development of teachers – a prerequisite for AfL to besuccessfully implemented in the classroom. Studies in educational evaluation, 37 (1),55–61.

Stigler, J. and Hiebert, J., 1999. The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R., 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.Timperley, H., et al., 2007. Teacher professional learning and development. Wellington:

New Zealand: Ministry of Education.Waites, C.K., 1999. The professional life-cycles and professional development of adult teach-

ers of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) [online]. DPhil Dissertation.University of New South Wales. Available from: http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/unsworks:463 [Accessed August 2010].

Wilson, M.J. and Berne, J., 1999. Teacher learning and the acquisition of professionalknowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development.Review of research in education, 24, 173–209.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix 1. The questionaire

Part BThe following are 15 statements regarding professional development.For each statement, please indicate the degree to which the statement is relevant foryour professional development.You can choose between: 1. Most Relevant; 2. Relevant; 3. Fairly Relevant; 4. LessRelevant; 5. Not Relevant.We would appreciate your comments.

No. Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

S1 Strengthening my confidence in viewing myself as aproficient mathematics teacher

S2 Developing my ability to cope with my limitationsS3 Developing my ability to deal with conflicts that concern

my interaction with studentsS4 Developing openness for changing my ways of

instructionS5 Developing my reflective skillsS6 Changing my perceptions regarding teaching and

learningS7 Enriching my knowledge regarding theories that relate to

teaching and learningS8 Changing my teaching methodsS9 Developing my ability to write papers that describe my

teaching experiencesS10 Expanding my knowledge regarding the way students

perceive various conceptsS11 Expanding my knowledge regarding the way students

construct their mathematical knowledgeS12 Developing my ability to cooperate with my colleaguesS13 Enriching my mathematical knowledgeS14 Developing my ability to implement mathematical

inquiry activitiesS15 Developing my ability to conduct educational research


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

08 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Perceptions of Israeli mathematics teachers regarding their professional development needs