All 35 reviewed studies used models or modeling, and curriculum without PD support yielded worse outcomes than older curriculum with none¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr2·q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? All 35 studies reviewed included curricular models and/or modeling of effective instruction. → Darling-Hammond 2017
q3 i? Students whose teachers used a new science curriculum with PD outperformed those whose teachers used it without PD; students of teachers using the older curriculum without PD also outperformed the new-curriculum-no-PD group. → Darling-Hammond 2017 (2)
Evidence¶
Darling-Hammond 2017¶
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev. doi:10.54300/122.311
q2 · i? · review · r2
Coding result across the report's reviewed studies; modeling kinds listed include video or written cases, demonstration lessons, unit or lesson plans, peer observations, and curriculum materials with sample assessments and student work.
"All 35 studies reviewed here included curricular models and/or modeling of effective instruction in the delivery of content and pedagogical learning for teachers."
Darling-Hammond 2017 (2)¶
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev. doi:10.54300/122.311
q3 · i? · review · r2
Doppelt et al. (2009) study of 8th-grade science teachers using a new electronics curriculum, with content-based collaborative inquiry sessions. The report concludes students were better off if teachers did not attempt new curricular materials without effective PD supporting them.
"Students whose teachers used the new curriculum and participated in PD had statistically greater achievement than those students whose teachers used the new curriculum with no PD. Even more significant, achievement for students of those teachers who continued to use the older standard curriculum was greater than that of those students whose teachers used the new curriculum with no PD."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Effective professional development is content focused, active, collaborative, modeled, coached, feedback-rich, and sustained over time — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Collaboration appeared in 32 of 35 reviewed studies, and collaborative PD models showed student achievement gains — related
- Coaching and expert support appeared in 30 of 35 studies, with coached classrooms showing larger gains in a randomized trial — related
- Content-focused, job-embedded PD linked to student gains: 31 of 35 reviewed studies featured a specific content focus — related
- Active learning was incorporated in 34 of 35 reviewed effective PD studies — related
- Collaboration with experts during design and enactment contributed to the quality of designed artefacts and to teacher learning across all three cases — related
- STeLLA content-plus-pedagogy PD produced greater student science gains than content-only training — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
pd-models-and-curriculum-support |
title |
All 35 reviewed studies used models or modeling, and curriculum without PD support yielded worse outcomes than older curriculum with none |
description |
All 35 reviewed studies used models or modeling, and curriculum without PD support yielded worse outcomes than older curriculum with none |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — darling-hammond-2017, darling-hammond-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.