collaborate, or learn with their peers (Weiss et al., 1994; NRC, 1999a; NCES, 2000c).
Calls for improvements in professional development have increased dramatically over the last decade (Wilson and Berne, 1999; Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto, 1999) and numerous publications have advanced principles or “beliefs” to guide the design of professional development (e.g., Little, 1993; Ball, 1996; Black and Atkin, 1996; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles, 1998). The literature documents a growing consensus that professional development designs should incorporate teachers’ prior experiences, active engagement, learning over time, close linkages to the school workplace, practicing and applying what is learned, and opportunities for follow-up with colleagues (Wilson and Berne, 1999); and there is an emerging consensus about the kinds of environments that facilitate teachers’ learning (NRC, 1999c).
At the same time, Wilson and Berne (1999) point out that little is known about what teachers actually learn (or do not learn) from either traditional inservice work or more recent forms of professional development. While some studies show connections between professional development and increases in student learning (e.g., Cohen and Hill, 2000; Kennedy, 1998; Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef, 1989; Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, and Carey, 1993), much remains to be understood about the interrelationships among professional development, teacher learning, knowledge of subject matter, pedagogy, and student learning.
If nationally developed standards are influencing the preparation of new teachers, there would be increased alignment of policies and practice with the standards. States, districts, and postsecondary institutions would create systems that enable prospective teachers to gain the knowledge and skills needed to help students meet standards-based learning goals. In particular, analysis of teacher-