









































McConnell, T. J., J. M. Parker, & J. Eberhardt. Global Journal of  
Transformative Education (2019) 1:1. pp 18-25. 
DOI  10.14434/gjte.v1i1.25848 

Open Access

Problem-Based Learning for Responsive and Transformative 
Teacher Professional Development

Tom J. McConnell,1 Joyce M. Parker2 and Jan Eberhardt3

Abstract

Educational reform should include teacher professional development (PD) to help educators learn how to 
implement new programs. This article shares a research-tested model of PD that uses the analytic framework 
of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to support professional learning. Evidence suggests that PBL is effective in 
changing content knowledge and pedagogical practice. To teach content, facilitators engage teachers in learning 
activities designed using common PBL structures. Stories about authentic phenomena present problems asso-
ciated with specific concepts. Learners work in groups to analyze problems, seek additional information, and 
construct plausible solutions. This same approach can support Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to 
help teachers examine and revise their own teaching. In this model, teachers collaborate to identify “problems 
of teaching.” The group uses PBL to analyze information and solutions. Teachers research teaching strategies, 
test a proposed strategy, and analyze evidence to build new understandings of teaching.

Keywords: Teacher PD, Problem-Based Learning, Professional Learning Community, Action Research

Published by the Global Insitutute of Transformative Education (http://www.gite.education)
© McConnell, Eberhard, & Parker. 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 
Attribution NonCommercial NonDerivative 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), 
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction without revision in any non-commercial medium, provided you 
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,

Full listing of authors and contacts can be 
found at the end of this article.

As we think about the need to create models for 
transformative education, education leaders need to 
consider how teachers will be educated in whatever 
new programs we develop and implement. If we truly 
value transformative teaching strategies, we should 
also think about how to best provide professional 
development (PD) for teachers that is as transformative 
as we aim to create for students. This paper presents 
NSF-funded research about effective PD that employs 
Problem-Based Learning as a pedagogical strategy. The 
model was developed and tested with K-12 teachers 
over a four-year project.

Professional development is an important element 
of any education system. Any professional, including 
teachers, enters the workplace as a novice, so contin-
ued learning is necessary. Changes in student needs, 
diversity, new technology, revised standards and new 
curriculum, and many other variables also create a 
need for continued learning for even the most experi-
enced teachers. But especially as we explore ways to

identify and adopt new strategies that create a more 
transformative education system, teacher PD needs to 
be an intentional and well-planned component of any 
reform. 

For the PD planner, this presents a challenge very 
similar to those facing the teachers we serve. Teachers 
who participate in any professional development (PD) 
program are sure to be a diverse group of individuals. 
Some enter the program with years of teaching experi-
ence while others are new teachers. Participants may 
come together from different disciplines, grade lev-
els, school cultures, and communities. They also have 
different educational backgrounds and probably very 
different personal experiences in their own lives. One of 
the key challenges in planning effective PD is ensuring 
that all participants benefit.

But in any discussion of “transformative education,” 
we must also think about how to help this diverse array 
of teachers learn to implement educational strategies 
in a way that empowers them to address problems in 
their own particular settings. If we wish to develop a 



McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD 19 

body of students that has the capacity to face new 
problems in a culturally relevant way as they develop 
critical thinking and problem-solving schools that lead 
to innovation and meaningful change, we should also 
apply the same goals to the ways we teach teachers. 
The design of the PD program also needs to be one that 
not only permits but encourages teachers’ leadership 
in identifying, investigating and implementing changes 
in curriculum, in classroom practices, and pedagogical 
strategies (Yaron 2017).

The PBL Project for Teachers
The Problem-Based Learning Project for Teachers 

was an NSF-funded research project that developed 
a comprehensive PD program for science teachers in 
grades K-12. Participants enrolled in the program were 
asked to identify content standards for which they felt 
they needed to improve their teaching. Planners de-
signed content learning activities to be offered in the 
first part of a summer workshop. The content of the 
activities was based on teachers’ selection of content 
topics or strands. In the second part the summer work-
shop, teachers learned to apply PBL to teaching prac-
tice, and formed Professional Learning Communities 
((PLCs; Hord 1997) that would meet in the next school 
year. The PLC groups then met monthly to facilitate a 
PBL-based inquiry into problems of teaching practice 
each participant had identified. This PBL inquiry pro-
cess resulted in lasting and meaningful changes to the 
way participants presented content, assessed student 
learning, managed classroom behavior, or designed 
entire curricula.

The information shared in this paper reflects the 
research conducted over four years of the project, as 
well as continued refinement of the model through 
continued practice and reflection by the author and 
other principles in the PBL Project for Teachers. While 
the reader will find mention of content learning, most 
of the discussion will focus on using PBL to examine 
pedagogy.

Problem-Based Learning
Problem-Based Learning was first developed in the 

field of medical education as a response to a need to im-
prove students’ ability to diagnose illnesses in a clinical 
setting (Barrows 1980). Instructors had noticed that 
first-year medical students were very good at memoriz-
ing facts, but they were not very successful in translat-
ing that knowledge to the type of clinical practice they 
face in diagnosing the condition of real patients in

authentic situations. This is largely because the patients 
do not often present as cases that neatly fit the textbook 
examples. Patients sometimes presented information 
that was not directly relevant or failed to show symp-
toms that would help in the diagnosis. 

PBL model developed for medical schools has since 
been adopted in other content areas (Hung, Jonassen, 
and Liu 2008) in which students need to learn critical 
thinking skills that resemble clinical practice in a medi-
cal setting. One of these areas is education. 

Teachers may be thought of as clinicians. Like a 
physician, a teacher must apply the critical thinking 
skills of diagnosing a problem and developing an action 
plan to address a need. Each day, teachers assess stu-
dents’ actions and ideas, make judgements about what 
ideas students are developing or have constructed, and 
devise strategies for helping students achieve the objec-
tives not yet mastered. For nearly two decades initia-
tives to improve the quality of teaching have pointed to 
the clinical practice view of teaching as a structure for 
teacher education and professional development. The 
Carnegie Corporation of New York helped shape teach-
er education through a clinical practice model (CCNY, 
2001), and the latest CAEP standards for accreditation 
of teacher preparation programs (Council for Accred-
itation of Education Preparation 2013) call for clinical 
practice as a part of teacher education in the United 
States based on studies from the preceding accredita-
tion organization (Zimpher et al 2010). In both of these 
initiatives, teachers need to learn to think like master 
teachers, just as medical students need to learn to think 
like doctors. Those skills require both content knowl-
edge and an understanding of pedagogical approaches 
that meet the needs of diverse students.

The model included in this paper is described in 
more detail in a book to be published in 2020, Prob-
lem-Based Learning for Responsive and Transformative 
Teacher Professional Development (McConnell, Parker, & 
Eberhardt, in preparation) as part of the Problem-Based 
Learning for the Science Classroom series (McConnell, 
Parker, & Eberhardt, 2016-2018) of books from Nation-
al Science Teachers Association Press.

PBL Problem Structure
Problem-Based Learning features a real-world 

problem presented in the form of a story divided into 
two pages. The problem in the story is authentic in 
that it needs to be either a real event or a fictional one 
that reflects real phenomena. The problem story is also  
ill-defined – readers are not given all the facts needed

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1

http://www.nsta.org/publications/press/pbl.aspx
http://www.nsta.org/publications/press/pbl.aspx


20

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1

to solve the problem and may be given information that 
is not needed to solve the problem. This messy nature 
of the problem helps learners to think about what infor-
mation is relevant and identify information they need 
to find from other sources. This feature of the problem 
more closely resembles the real world than traditional 
textbook story problems in which students need all the 
given information, and nothing more.

Learners in a PBL lesson then use an analytical 
framework to facilitate a collaborative discussion that 
helps learners identify known and unknown informa-
tion, and begin proposing hypotheses, the possible 
solutions they think may help answer the challenge 
presented in the problem. A graphical representation of 
this process can be seen in Figure 1. 

Learners begin by reading Page 1 of the story, then 
generate a list of three main types of information:

• What do we know? 
• What do we need to know? 
• Hypotheses. 

A facilitator (the teacher) helps monitor the dis-
cussion and record ideas on the whiteboard or papers 
posted where the class can see them. When the class 
has exhausted their analysis of Page 1, the facilitator 
gives the learners Page 2, and the process is repeated. 
After analyzing Page 2, the class identifies the “What 
do we need to know?” items they feel are most rele-
vant as “learning issues.” They then search for more 
information from the internet, library, textbooks, and 
other resources provided by the facilitator or through 
investigations. At the end of the discussion, students or 
groups present their findings and propose a solution to 
the problem. Students are expected to use evidence to 
support their proposals. The discussion of alternative 
solutions may lead to selection of a final solution for the 
problem, or students may be asked to write about the 
solution they feel is best.

In the PBL Project for Teachers, this structure was 
used to help participants learn about the science con-
tent standards they had identified when they enrolled 
in the program. The PBL Problems created by project 
planners were the basis of problems included in the 
first three volumes of the PBL in the Science Classroom 
series.

Research on teachers’ learning with these content 
PBL problems revealed that about 83% of teachers 
gained significant amounts of content knowledge 
during the activity, including knowledge that persisted

for at least 8 months (McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt 
2013). The data revealed that teachers with varying 
degrees of prior education and content knowledge 
were all able to gain new ideas about the science topics 
through the PBL lessons.  

Our research also suggested several key elements 
in designing effective PBL-based professional develop-
ment for content learning. In order to be most effective, 
teacher PD programs need to include…

• Teacher participation selection of content topic
• A close link between content taught and stan-

dards (or curriculum)
• A mix of text-based and hands-on activities to 

support learning
• Time for individual teachers to process ideas
• Multiple forms of assessment of teachers’ un-

derstanding, with an emphasis on open- 
response items

McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD



McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1

21

Applying the PBL Structure to  
Pedagogical Learning

Designing PBL professional development activities 
for content learning is very similar to writing lesson 
plans for K-12 students. The structure of the lesson 
and the way it is facilitated are nearly the same. But if 
we apply the structure of PBL to professional learning 
about teaching practice, the structure needs to change 
in several ways. The following section describes the 
design of a “Focus on Practice” component of the PBL 
Project for Teachers.

The structure of a PBL problem for the “Focus on 
Practice” (FoP) is very different from a content prob-
lem. One key difference is that the central focus of the 
problem is identified by the participant, not the facilita-
tor. Each teacher developed a unique problem that was 
very specific to his or her personal teaching situation. 
The problems were also resolved over the course of 
at least two months during the formal presentation of 
the teacher’s research into the “problem of practice.” 
In some cases, teachers spend most of the school year 
examining their question and trying various solutions. 
The extended time frame is very different from most 
content PBL lessons. Figure 2 provides a comparison of 
the two different structures for a PBL problem.

Another change was the source of information 
upon which the group builds a solution to each prob-
lem. When applied to pedagogy, teachers were encour-
aged to use text-based resources, but they were also 

asked to collect evidence from their own classroom. 
This evidence included samples of student work, the 
teachers’ reflective journal, and videotaped records of a 
lesson when possible.

The roles of group members also shifted. Each 
teacher had primary responsibility for collecting infor-
mation (research and evidence from the classroom). 
An initial analysis of that data was done individually 
by the “owner” of the problem before the evidence was 
brought to the group to be shared. Group members then 
helped analyze the evidence, but most of the responsi-
bility for a final solution fell on the problem’s owner.

The “Focus on Practice” (FoP) was the final part of 
the summer workshop and focused on pedagogy. PD 
planners led sessions on how to use PBL as a way to 
structure teacher-led inquiry and reflective practice 
within the context of a Professional Learning Commu-
nity (Hord 1997). The summer session included sample 
PLC meetings to model the process we encouraged 
teachers to employ for the following school year. Teach-
ers also formed their new PLCs and began developing a 
schedule for a meeting each month through the school 
year. Those groups met to discuss potential teaching 
problems that would guide each participants’ inquiry. 
Other workshops included practice in videotaping their 
own classroom and the process of analyzing videos of 
teaching practice. 

The PLC groups were first created by facilitators to 
generate groups with similar grade bands (Grades 6-8 
or 3-6 for example), geographic location to help facili-
tate meetings, or common subject areas (Earth science, 
physical science). The ideal group had some similari-
ties, but we also found some value for including a more 
heterogeneous group. Teachers sometimes negotiated 
different groupings, usually based on geographic loca-
tion when a teacher lived closer to one group but taught 
closer to a different group.

To help teachers focus on a problem of practice 
they could use as their PBL problem, teachers were 
asked to write a “Day in the Life” journal entry. This 
writing asks the teacher to write about a typical day in 
their classroom that reflects a problem they wish to  
resolve or improve. The problems could focus on a 
science concept they struggled to explain accurately, 
a classroom management issue, or a particular lesson 
that does not seem to be effective in achieving the 
learning goals. In a sense, the “Day in the Life” writing 
served as Page 1 of that teachers’ problem. 

Just as in a content problem, the next step was group 
analysis. Teachers shared their “Day in the Life” writings



McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1

22

with members of their PLC and discussed what they knew 
or needed to know about the problem. Groups used the 
same three-topic lists as in the earlier example: 

“What do we know?” 
“What do we need to know?” 
“Hypotheses.” 

A “hypothesis” in this case was a possible strategy 
to test out in the classroom. In some cases, group mem-
bers would send the problem’s owner a book or jour-
nal article that might support or explain the proposed 
solution. Figure 3 lists some samples of the problems of 
practice generated by participating teachers, along with 
the hypotheses they developed to be tested during the 
academic year.

This “Page 1” analysis took place during the sum-
mer workshop. Each member shared the ideas they 
generated for a problem and talked about possible 
solutions. Teachers then planned when in the school 
year they would test their solutions and schedule 
meetings to be led by each member of the group. Each 
teacher was expected to teach the at least one lesson in 
which they would test their proposed solution before 
the assigned meeting. Some participants extended their 
research to span an entire unit or most of the school 
year. Teachers selected a one-month period that would 
be the focus of the problems they presented to the 
FoP group. Teachers shared entries from a reflective 
journal written before and after the lesson, collected at 
least three samples of student work showing a range of 
achievement, and recorded a videotape of the lesson.
That teacher was also expected to view the video and 
select a segment of about 10 minutes that represents 
the problem being examined. Each meeting was mon-

itored and led by a facilitator, usually one of the PD 
program planners.

When each teacher’s assigned month to present 
arrived, the group would listen to a summary of the 
problem and a review of the lesson taught. They also 
viewed the videotape and samples of student work. 

During this discussion, the group commented only 
on observations they made during the video. Teachers 
were reminded not to make inferences or judgements 
or to propose solutions as they watched. This is similar 
to helping learners in a content problem to focus on 
“What do we know.” Their observations were recorded 
on the “What do we know?” list in accordance with the
PBL process. This process parallels the Page 2 analysis 
shown in Figure 1. There are also elements of the re-
search phase of the PBL structure in that teachers were 
“investigating” and collecting evidence from the lesson 
they observed. 

After viewing the video, the group shared questions 
they had about the video and student samples. The 
questions generated are part of the “What do we need 
to know?” list during the analysis process. Some of the 
questions may be answered by the teacher presenting 
the video and might focus on questions about the con-
text of the lesson such as previous lessons, plans for the 
next day, or the teacher’s directions for the students. 
When the questioning step is done, the group can begin 
generating a list of solutions. This may focus more on 
drawing conclusions about the strategy tested by the 
teacher presenting the problem, or it may lead to new 
suggested strategies. The conclusion of this presenta-
tion comes when the teacher has feedback from the 

group that can be useful in shaping ped-
agogical choices for future classes. If the 
meeting led to a list of topics the teacher 
wanted to by the teacher presenting the 
problem, or it may lead to new suggested 
strategies. 

The conclusion of this presentation 
comes when the teacher has feedback from 
the group that can be useful in shaping 
pedagogical choices for future classes. 
If the group created a list of topics for 
further research or classroom trials, the 
presenter would use then the next month 
as an opportunity for further research. In 
some cases, more questions arise, or the 
teacher may wish to test another solution, 
either alone or with help from the group.



23

The process is flexible enough to permit multiple 
iterations of the cycle of reflective practice represented 
in the PLC’s process. This would be followed by anoth-
er discussion in the next PLC meeting to share what 
the teacher found. This presentation was usually more 
informal and briefer but gives a chance for the group to 
extend their learning beyond the initial month.

Teachers who participated in the PLC groups to 
analyze their own problem of practice were invited 
to attend a year-end meeting to share their work and 
celebrate each other’s successes. Before the year-end 
meeting was convened, participants were asked to com-
municate their inquiry in a formal written summary. 
The document included the original problem statement 
and hypothesis, a description of the lesson or unit in 
which the hypothesis was tested, and a review of the 
evidence shared with the teacher’s PLC. The summary 
also included a final “solution” statement and a reflec-
tion on what the teacher learned in the process. Some 
of the teachers chose to also write about a “next prob-
lem” they would investigate. 

The process led to changes not only in the way 
participants taught the lesson they identified, but the 
changes transferred into many other aspects of the 
teachers’ practice. Many of the teachers reported shar-
ing the process with other teachers in their buildings 
and adopting the model for their school’s improvement 
plan. Teachers’ lesson plans developed during the 
workshops also reflected changing ideas that suggest 
meaningful learning. The researchers also reviewed 
evidence of effective PBL implementation in PLC groups 
and developed recommendations for PD planners:

• PLCs function best when teachers feel a sense 
of belonging and ownership of the group.

• PLCs are most effective when teachers lead by 
identifying problems of importance to them.

• Analysis and discussion must focus on teaching 
practice, not the teacher.

• Shared leadership leads to a sense of account-
ability to peers – a strong motivator.

Discussion
The recommendations above are based on research 

on variations in the design of the PLC groups and the 
structure of the PBL problems. This section includes-
discussion of some of the key lessons learned and the 
variations that may make PBL an effective design for 
teacher PD in a variety of contexts.

One of the most important findings is that the PLC 
groups can be very effective in influencing teacher

practice, but the changes are more likely if the mem-
bers have a sense of belonging in the group. Salinas 
(2005) refers to this as a sense of “presence,” the feeling 
that the group is sharing not a physical place but a com-
mon goal. To promote the sense of presence, planners 
worked with each group in the summer workshop to 
discuss goals and guidelines for discussion. Making 
the guidelines explicit helps members focus on teach-
ing practice rather than talking about the teacher as 
the cause of a problem. For groups in which members 
felt like equal members, they quickly internalized the 
guidelines and became nearly self-facilitating. An ex-
periment with one group suggested that teachers with 
experience in the PLC format and with the PBL frame-
work are capable of functioning as a group without an 
external facilitator. 

Other experiments found that PLCs that met in a 
virtual environment could be just as effective as those 
who met face-to-face. The virtual PLC groups (McCo-
nnell, Parker, Eberhardt, Koehler, & Lundeberg 2013) 
met via webcams using a videoconference application 
that permits screen sharing, video, audio, and confer-
ence recording. The virtual groups were created to ad-
dress the challenge of convening a group when teachers 
cannot easily meet face-to-face because of distance or 
difficulties in traveling to a meeting. Teachers who had 
a natural connection because of subjects and grades 
taught were located at distances that made a face-
to-face meeting each month impractical. The groups, 
consisting mostly of teachers with prior experience in a 
face-to-face PLC, reported the same “sense of presence” 
as the in-person groups.

The research also suggests that giving teachers the 
task of selecting the focus of the PLC’s inquiry is ex-
tremely important. This is a feature not of PBL, but of 
collaborative teacher inquiry into practice. PLCs are a 
very popular format for in-school PD right now in the 
United States. But administrators have chosen their 
own definition of a PLC to mean any group of teach-
ers who meet for “PD.” In many cases, the focus of the 
group’s research and discussion is assigned by teach-
ers who meet for “PD.” In many cases, the focus of the 
group’s research and discussion is assigned by a build-
ing or district administrator. A popular use of so-called 
“PLCs” is to create groups to identify trends and prob-
lems in standardized test scores or to review a problem 
identified by administrators as an area of need. While 
groups like these are necessary in some cases, they do 
not give teachers a sense of autonomy or professional 
respect (Talbert 2010). We found that groups who are

McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1



24

assigned a task devote less effort to their tasks between 
meetings. More importantly, the changes in their prac-
tice are far more superficial and short-lived when the 
topics are assigned by others. 

In order to make lasting changes in practice, PD 
planners need to honor the professionalism of partici-
pants by structuring the groups in ways that let teach-
ers turn their attention to issues, problems and topics 
they find important and relevant. This recommenda-
tion can inform the make-up of groups to ensure that 
members of a group share a common goal. This finding 
aligns well with the goal of democratizing education – 
and in this case, teacher education – that is so prevalent 
in the research about transformative education.

Another important finding is the role of peer-to-
peer accountability in motivating teachers to persist in 
their PD efforts. Data supporting this finding came from 
surveys and interviews with participants after the year-
long program. One of the themes that emerged in these 
sources of data is that teachers felt it was important 
to complete the tasks they were assigned by the group 
because of the shared leadership within the PLC group. 
The shared leadership was created by avoiding having a 
“group leader” who ran meetings. The facilitator served 
as a resource person and an aide in recording ideas. 
While the facilitator helped monitor time and redirect 
the group if discussion veered off topic, the leadership 
of the meetings was given to whichever teacher was 
sharing his or her own problem and evidence – the one 
referred to above as the problem’s “owner.” 

A recurring comment from teachers each year was 
they felt “accountable to the group” each month. This 
was identified as a factor that helped encourage com-
pletion of tasks even when they considered avoiding 
the work they were doing for the PLC. Most teachers 
said this was true in a month when they presented their 
work, but that they also felt a sense of purpose when 
helping their colleague analyze their videos and re-
view student work. One teacher wrote that she felt she 
“would be letting my group down” if she didn’t bring 
resources to help others with their PBL problems.

Conclusions
 Problem-Based Learning has been shown to be 
an effective structure for teacher professional devel-
opment. When teachers use a systematic analytical ap-
proach to problems of pedagogy, they can more easily 
base their clinical decisions on evidence. PBL offers a 
structure that draws evidence both from research lit-
erature and from teacher-led inquiry in the classroom. 
Both of these are powerful sources of ideas that lead to

long-term learning and changes in practice.
PBL, when used as described above, is adaptable to 

nearly any context. Teachers from different countries 
can use the PBL framework as a structure for PLCs to 
conduct their work. The culture of the PLC, because it is 
led by its members, will naturally fit the school commu-
nity in which it is formed, and can focus on the specific 
needs of that group of teachers. The PLCs can address 
whatever problems are prevalent in their own commu-
nity or school, whether it be related to effective educa-
tion, meeting the social needs of a diverse and chang-
ing group of students, or create a school that is more 
responsive to the needs of the students and community 
it serves.

But for the purposes of our current discussion, PBL 
also represents a tool that is well adapted for creating a 
transformative learning environment. If we want teach-
ers to make the kind of deep changes in consciousness, 
they need to be empowered to make the changes where 
and how they find them to be most appropriate. De-
mocratizing schools often means allowing learners to 
take leadership roles and make important choices. 

Teacher professional development should be 
viewed through the same lens – teachers are the learn-
ers. If we hope to democratize their professional learn-
ing, we must move away from the one-size-fits-all PD 
programs selected and designed by administrators. PBL 
serves as a process for turning over the control of much 
of the professional learning to the professionals and 
focus on change that will be sustainable while meeting 
the real needs of the community.

In order to bring about a shift toward this more 
teacher-centered approach to teacher professional 
development, we suggest a need to train teachers, ad-
ministrators and PD leaders in the PBL process and the 
structure of effective Professional Learning Communi-
ties. With adequate training, those stakeholders will be 
more likely to plan time for the PLCs to meet, and more 
capable of creating and supporting effective and reflec-
tive teacher PLCs.

It is our hope that Problem-Based Learning for 
Responsive and Transformative Teacher Professional 
Development will serve as a resource that PD planners 
around the world can use to help them design, facili-
tate and implement such teacher centered professional 
learning experiences.

McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2019) 1:1



25

References

Barrows, H. S. 1980. Problem-based learning: An 
approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). (2001). 
Teachers for a New Era: A national initiative to 
improve the quality of teaching. New York: Carnegie 
Corporation of New York.  

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. 
(2013). CAEP accreditation standards.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: 
Communities of continuous inquiry and 
improvement. Washington, D.C. Office of Education 
Research and Improvement.

Hung, W., D. H. Jonassen, and R. Liu. (2008). Problem-
based learning. In Handbook of research on 
educational communications and technology, 3rd ed., 
eds. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, 
and M. P. Driscoll, 485–506. New York: Routledge.

McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2013). 
Problem-based learning as an effective strategy 
for science teacher professional development. The 
Clearing House 86(6), 216-223.

McConnell, T. J., J. M. Parker, J. Eberhardt, M. J. Koehler, 
and M. A. Lundeberg. (2013). Virtual professional 
learning communities: Teachers’ perceptions 
of virtual versus face-to-face professional 
development. Journal of Science Education and 
Technology, 22 (3), 267-277.

McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2016). 
Problem-Based Learning in the Life Science 
Classroom, K-12. Alexandria, VA: NSTA Press. 

McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2017). 
Problem-Based Learning in the Earth-Space Science 
Classroom, K-12. Alexandria, VA: NSTA Press. 

McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2018). 
Problem-Based Learning in the Physical Science 
Classroom, K-12. Alexandria, VA: NSTA Press.   

McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (In 
Preparation). Problem-Based Learning for 
Responsive and Transformative Teacher Professional 
Development. Alexandria, VA: NSTA Press. 

Salinas E. 2005. Effects of communication mode on 
social presence, and performance in collaborative 
virtual environments. Presence 14(4):434–449.

Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities 
at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender 
change. In Second international handbook of 
educational change (pp. 555-571). Springer, 
Dordrecht.

Yaron, L. (2017). The five Ws of quality professional 
development. Education Week Teacher, May 9, 
2017. 

Zimpher, N. L. et al. (2010). Transforming teacher 
education through clinical practice: A national 
strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, 
D.C: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 
Education. 

McConnell, Parker & Eberhardt.  PBL for Transformative Teacher PD

1 Tom J. McConnell (tjmcconnell@bsu.edu) is an 
Associate Professor in the Dept. of Biology at Ball State 
University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.

2 Joyce M. Parker (parker@cns.msu.edu) is an Assistant 
Professor in the Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences 
at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 
USA.
3 Jan Eberhardt (eberhar3@cns.msu.edu) is an Assistant 
Director (emerita) of the Division of Mathematics and 
Science Education at Michigan State University, East 
Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Authors

https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/ff/26/ff263cd8-5a90-4cb5-9b53-881f1a68e03a/ccny_other_2001_tneprospectus.pdf
https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/ff/26/ff263cd8-5a90-4cb5-9b53-881f1a68e03a/ccny_other_2001_tneprospectus.pdf
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2017/05/09/the-five-ws-of-quality-professional-development.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2017/05/09/the-five-ws-of-quality-professional-development.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr
http://caepnet.org/knowledge-center
http://caepnet.org/knowledge-center
http://caepnet.org/knowledge-center

