Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers’ emotional experiences in professional development: Where

they come from and what they can mean
Rachel E. Gaines a, *, David J. Osman b, Danika L.S. Maddocks c, Jayce R. Warner c,
Jen L. Freeman c, Diane L. Schallert c
a
Kennesaw State University, United States
b
Round Rock Independent School District (TX), United States
c
University of Texas at Austin, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

Teachers' emotions differed in professional development (PD) and teaching contexts.

Antecedents of emotions in PD emerged at self, training, and administration levels.

Pleasant emotions in PD promoted engagement, implementation, and reflection.

Unpleasant emotions in PD led teachers to disengage and inhibited implementation.

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 January 2018
Received in revised form
13 September 2018
Accepted 17 September 2018
Teacher professional development (PD) is increasingly viewed
as a promising way to help teachers meet the demands placed on
them by ever-expanding accountability measures (Guskey, 2002).
Efforts to understand how PD can catalyze change, however, have
been fraught with challenges. Scholars have noted a lack of research
on whether PD improves outcomes for teachers or students (Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Moreover, some studies
have identified positive associations between teachers’ participa-
tion in PD and student achievement (Desimone, Smith, & Phillips,
2013; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007) whereas
others have found null (Jacob, Hill, & Corey, 2017) or mixed
(Lindvall, 2017) results.
In response to these inconsistent findings, a growing literature
has highlighted the mediating role of teachers' subjective experi-
ences (e.g., efficacy beliefs, prior knowledge) in their interactions
with PD (Avalos, 2011). This approach may help unravel some of the
mysteries surrounding the impact of PD by uncovering influential
* Corresponding author. Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education,
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, United States
E-mail address: rgaines7@kennesaw.edu (R.E. Gaines).
variables overlooked by previous studies. Unfortunately, most
studies of the effect of teachers' subjective experiences in PD on
their receptivity have been based on retrospective accounts in
cross-sectional studies, resulting in increased calls for research on
teachers’ experiences in PD over time (Kisa & Correnti, 2015).
Often when researchers have focused on teachers' practices and
knowledge (e.g., Borko, 2004), they have overlooked affective un-
derpinnings that influence teachers' understanding of PD. Although
researchers have studied teachers' emotions while teaching
(Frenzel, 2014; Schutz, 2014) and in response to education reform
movements (Cross & Hong, 2009; Darby, 2008; Saunders, 2013),
teachers' emotional experiences during PD are less well under-
stood. Grounded in Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory of
achievement emotions and Lazarus' (1991) cognitive-motivational-
relational theory of emotion, and influenced by burgeoning work
on emotions and learning, we sought to describe the antecedents of
emotions teachers reported experiencing in various PD settings,
and the consequences of these emotions on their instruction and
engagement in future PD.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1. Professional development
Teachers acquire new beliefs, knowledge, and skills through
formal and informal PD experiences (Evans, 2018, pp. 1e14). Re-
searchers and practitioners have conceptualized a patchwork of
activities as PD, including structured in-service training sessions,
co-teaching, observations, book clubs, and even discussions in the
hallway (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Wilson & Berne, 1999).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.008
0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
54 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
Formal PD experiences include trainings, courses, or other
instructional activities conducted to support teachers’ continuing
education and inspire positive change in their teaching (Yoon et al.,
2007). However, PD can be defined more broadly as any activity
designed to “alter the professional practices, beliefs, and under-
standing of school persons toward an articulated end” (Griffin,
1983, p. 2), such as improved student achievement. Therefore, PD
can be considered effective if it meets its articulated goals and
improves teacher practices and student outcomes (Desimone et al.,
2013; Hill, 2009).
Attributes considered characteristic of high-quality PD include a
focus on content, alignment with teachers' instructional goals,
active teacher participation, and use of reform-type structure, such
as study groups (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002;
Garet et al., 2001). However, these characteristics do not necessarily
lead to improved teacher practices (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Hill, 2009;
Kennedy, 1998). Some researchers, looking beyond training-level
features, have found that teachers' implementation of innovative
strategies was mediated by several teacher-specific factors
including attitudes and beliefs about (Cross & Hong, 2009; Emo,
2015; Steinert et al., 2010) and philosophical alignment with the
PD (Briscoe, 1991; de Jesus & Lens, 2005; Emo, 2015), as well as
teachers' perceptions of and actual support from school leadership
(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1997; Mathison, 1992). Yet, despite the crucial
role of emotions in teaching, teachers’ emotional experiences
during PD have received little attention as a mediator of imple-
mentation of what was learned in PD.
1.2. Conceptions of emotions
Competing schools of thought conceive of emotions as the
product of different processes (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981).
Emotions have been described as preconscious, physiological re-
sponses to stimuli (LeDoux, 1995; Panksepp & Watt, 2011); as
disruptive/adaptive forces that catalyze maladaptive/adaptive be-
haviors (Scherer, 1982); and as the result of multiple, complex,
simultaneous processes (Smith & Kirby, 2001). We aligned our-
selves with a cognitive-experiential conception of emotion, whereby
subjective appraisals of antecedents (i.e., “stimuli for the experi-
ence of emotion”; Boucher & Brandt, 1981), informed by one's be-
liefs, attitudes, background, and prior experiences (Lazarus, 1991;
Pekrun, 2006), direct one's emotional responses.
Emotional experiences frequently are categorized by valence
(e.g., pleasant-unpleasant, positive-negative; Russell, 1980). In the
current study, we classified emotional experiences as pleasant and
unpleasant, as this classification allowed for pleasant and un-
pleasant emotional experiences to be associated with both positive
and negative consequences (Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry, 2007).
For instance, uncertainty is an inherently uncomfortable cognitive
state typically accompanied by unpleasant emotions (Hofstede,
1986). However, uncertainty has been associated with positive
consequences for learning (Glanville, 2007; Hmelo-Silver, 2004;
Jordan & McDaniel, 2014). Therefore, referring to emotions that
accompany uncertainty as unpleasant (as opposed to negative)
accurately reflects its affective component without prescribing a
negative valence to the experience overall or its consequences.
Teacher emotions. Although all employees experience emo-
tions during their work (Weiss & Brief, 2001), teaching can be
especially emotional work (Hargreaves, 1998; Saunders, 2013;
Schutz, 2014; for reviews, see; Frenzel, 2014; Schutz & Zembylas,
2009; Uitto, Jokikokko, & Estola, 2015). According to Schutz and
Lanehart (2002), “emotions are intimately involved in virtually
every aspect of the teaching and learning process and, therefore, an
understanding of the nature of emotions within the school context
is essential’’ (p. 199). Teachers' emotional bonds with students are
often at the heart of their work (Day & Leitch, 2001), and teachers
frequently experience enjoyment, anxiety, and anger while they
teach (Frenzel, Becker-Kurz, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2015; Frenzel, Goetz,
Ludtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009a; Taxer & Frenzel, 2015). Moreover,
teachers' emotional experiences during class may directly impact
their behavior (Day & Leitch, 2001; Kunter et al., 2008), students’
emotional experiences (Becker, Goetz, Morger, & Ranellucci, 2014),
and learning outcomes (Frenzel, Goetz, Stephens, & Jacob, 2009b).
It follows that teachers' emotional experiences could be influ-
ential in shaping their interactions with PD and implementation of
what they learn in PD. Emotions are to some degree dispositional,
although they are also highly sensitive to context (Schutz, 2014;
Schutz, Aultman, & Williams-Johnson, 2009), which led us to
consider teacher emotions specifically in the context of PD. There is
some evidence that teachers' emotional experiences during PD may
differ from their emotions while teaching (Choi et al., 2016;
Saunders, 2013; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). In PD, teachers
often are asked explicitly to change their teaching practices, likely
causing teachers to experience complex suites of pleasant and
unpleasant emotions (Darby, 2008; Lasky, 2005). Teachers’
emotional experiences during PD do not appear to be epiphe-
nomenal and seem to support or limit teacher growth (Hunt, 2016;
Lasky, 2005; Slavit, Sawyer, & Curley, 2003). Teachers experiencing
hope or joy during PD are likely to engage more deeply in the PD,
envisioning new, innovative ways to implement what they have
learned. Conversely, teachers overwhelmed with fear or anxiety
during PD may be unable to make connections to their practice,
instead focusing narrowly on the minimum requirements pre-
sented in the training.
What research exists on teachers' emotional experiences in PD
has taken a grounded approach rather than a theoretical approach
from an emotion perspective (Saunders, 2013; Tsang, 2015;
Twyford, Le Fevre, & Timperley, 2017). By contrast, we relied on
theoretical work on the role of emotion in learning (i.e., Pekrun,
2006; Lazarus, 1991) to advance our understanding of the ante-
cedents and consequences of teachers’ emotional experiences as
learners during PD. The following sections overview these
theories.
Control-value theory of emotion. Pekrun (2006) conceived of
emotions as “coordinated processes of psychological subsystems
including affective, cognitive, motivational, expressive, and pe-
ripheral physiological processes” (p. 316). Control appraisals (ex-
pectations that one can, by one's own volition, successfully achieve
an objective) and value appraisals (the “perceived importance of
success,” Pekrun, 2006, p. 317), along with the temporal context in
which they are considered (i.e., reflecting on a past outcome,
assessing a current activity, or imagining a future outcome), trigger
these processes and elicit emotions, which in turn guide motivation
and learning. For example, in a three-year longitudinal study of the
connection between math teachers' enjoyment of teaching and
students' enjoyment of math class, Frenzel et al. (2009a,b) found
that students, by observing their teachers' enjoyment of a topic,
learned to value the topic and experienced enjoyment in class.
Moreover, emotional experiences can affect interpretations of
and reactions to situations (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Schiefele,
1999), and teachers' emotional experiences in a PD may affect
their outlook on future PD. Thus, teachers' emotions serve as
feedback loops, driving their ongoing perceptions of control and
value and altering their motivation and behavior (Goetz & Bieg,
2016; Pekrun, 2006). For example, Daniels et al. (2009) reported
that certain achievement emotions significantly predicted college
students’ goal adoption (e.g., mastery, performance-approach),
which in turn predicted achievement. Thus, unpleasant emotions
may initiate a feedback loop if teachers come to associate PD with
external control, negative value, and unpleasant emotional
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
experiences, further demotivating them and undermining their
learning during subsequent PD.
Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. A sec-
ond theoretical framework was the cognitive-motivational-
relational theory of emotion of Lazarus (1991), who defined
emotion as “an organized psychophysiological reaction to ongoing
relationships with the environment” (2000a, p. 230). Lazarus’
model posits that individuals make meaning of their “ongoing
relationship with the environment” through three appraisals. When
an environmental stimulus is first encountered, individuals make a
primary appraisal of the event in order to determine if they have any
“stake in the outcome of the encounter” (Lazarus, 2000b, p. 54). If
not, there will be no emotional response. However, if one appraises
the context as beneficial to the achievement of a goal, pleasant
emotions result; if the environment is appraised as harmful to goal
pursuit, unpleasant emotions arise. Individuals then make a sec-
ondary appraisal, evaluating whether to assign responsibility to
oneself or an external source. In the final appraisal, individuals
gauge how they may change their relationship with the environ-
ment in order to alter prior appraisals.
Most importantly, according to Lazarus (2000b), emotions are
not responses to physical properties of an environment, nor are
emotions based on factual data about one's interactions with the
environment. Rather, “emotion is a reaction to meaning, and if the
meaning is changed, the subsequent emotion will also change” (p.
59). Accordingly, empirical studies have found that teachers have
pleasant affect during PD when they interpret the PD as congruent
with their teaching philosophies (Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers,
2004; de Jesus & Lens, 2005; Emo, 2015) or when they perceive a
direct benefit or use for the training (Emo, 2015; Steinert et al.,
2010).
Integrating frameworks. There are similarities between
Pekrun's (2006) and Lazarus' (1991) models, particularly in their
shared focus on subjective appraisals of the environment as the
primary mechanism by which emotions arise (see Table 1 for a
comparison of models). However, each model extends its temporal
scope at opposite ends of a timeline, thereby enriching our con-
ceptualizations of antecedents and consequences. Unlike Lazarus
(1991), Pekrun (2006) explicitly considers temporality in deter-
mining how events are appraised, allowing for antecedents of
emotions to be contextualized in time.
However, Lazarus' (1991) model provides a stronger framework
for understanding that consequences of teachers' emotional ex-
periences are the product of final appraisals that change one's
relationship with the environment to make things better or, in
some cases, worse. Given our interest in teachers' emotional ex-
periences during PD, we integrated Pekrun's (2006) and Lazarus'
(1991) theories to investigate both antecedents and consequences
Table 1
Comparison of Lazarus' (1991) and Pekrun's (2006) models of emotion.
Lazarus (1991)
Model Cognitive-relational motivational
Definition of “… an organized psychophysiological reaction to ongoing relationships
emotion with the environment, most often, but not always, interpersonal or social”
(Lazarus, 2000a, p. 230).
Object focus n/a
Appraisal 1 Initial appraisal: Do I have a stake in the outcome of this encounter? Does it Value appraisal: Is success in this endeavor important?
facilitate or inhibit achievement of a goal?
Appraisal 2 Secondary appraisal: Is responsibility for the outcome of this encounter
attributable to the self or another?
Appraisal 3 Final appraisal: How can I change my relationship to the environment to n/a
alter prior appraisals?
55
of emotional experiences in PD (see Table 2 for our integrated
model).
2. The current study
In this qualitative study, we aimed to investigate the anteced-
ents and consequences of teachers' subjective emotional experi-
ences in various PD programs and sessions. We interviewed
teachers on three occasions, with the first interview asking about
all past PD experiences. By contrast, the second and third in-
terviews focused directly on PD sessions that had just occurred,
increasing the likelihood of greater accuracy in participants' rec-
ollections of their emotional experiences (Walker, Vogl, &
Thompson, 1997). Participants' subjective accounts of their
emotional experiences during multiple PD sessions allowed us to
answer the following research questions: (a) what antecedents give
rise to emotional experiences in PD? and (b) what are the conse-
quences of teachers’ emotional experiences in PD?
3. Method
3.1. Participants and setting
Participants were the members of the English/language arts
department (10 women, 1 man) at a middle school that served
grades six through eight (ages 11e14) in a small city in the U.S.
southwest. Participants included 10 White (non-Hispanic) teachers
and one Hispanic teacher, ranged in age from 22 to 54 (mean ¼ 37),
and had been teaching for an average of 12 years (range ¼ 0.5 to 21).
Participants’ demographic information and descriptions of the
specific student they served (e.g., English language learners, gen-
eral education) can be found in Table 3.
The focal school predominantly served students who were
Hispanics (61%), White (non-Hispanic; 27%), and Black/African-
American (11%). About 10% of students were English language
learners and more than 60% were considered economically disad-
vantaged. In this report, teachers’ names were replaced with
pseudonyms.
The PD program (i.e., a set of related PD sessions addressing a
coherent topic or objective) that teachers attended throughout this
study was a relatively typical experience for these teachers. It
consisted of four required and one optional 45-min PD sessions (i.e.,
singular meetings, classes, or activities that may be part of a PD
program) conducted every four weeks during the school day at the
teachers' home campus. The program (referred to as the differen-
tiation program or the differentiation PD) focused on using student
data to improve differentiated literacy instruction, a topic the
teachers had requested. Differentiation PD sessions were designed
Pekrun (2006)
Control-value theory
“… a multi-component, coordinated processes of psychological subsystems
including affective, cognitive, motivational, expressive, and peripheral
physiological processes” (p. 316).
Is the anteceding event being appraise retrospectively, currently, or
prospectively?
Control appraisal: Can my own volitional actions bring about a successful
outcome in this endeavor?
56 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65

Table 2
Integrating Pekrun's and lazarus' models as applied to teachers' emotional experiences in PD.

Objective Focus: Activity (Current PD)

Value Appraisal Control Appraisal Emotion Consequence of

Experienced* Final Appraisal

Positive: This PD enhances my ability to meet instructional goals/ High/Self: My success as a learner in this PD is determined by my own Enjoyment Adaptive
This PD is important choices and actions Maladaptive
Low/Other: My success as a learner in this PD is determined by others' Frustration
choices and actions
Negative: This PD inhibits my ability to meet instructional goals/ High/Self: My success as a learner in this PD is determined by my own Anger Maladaptive
This PD is unimportant choices and actions. Maladaptive
Low/Other: My success as a learner in this PD is determined by others' Frustration
choices and actions.

Object Focus: Prospective (Future Implementation)

Value Appraisal Control Appraisal Emotion Consequence of

Final Appraisal

Positive: In the future, successfully implementing the practices
from this PD will help me meet instructional goals
Negative: In the future, successfully implementing the practices
from this PD will inhibit me in meeting instructional goals
High/Self: My ability in the future to implement practices successfully Excitement, Adaptive
will be determined by own choices and actions. enthusiasm Adaptive
Moderate: My choices and actions will play a partial role in determining Hope Stress response
my ability in the future to implement practices successfully.
Low/Others: My ability in the future to implement practices successfully Hopelessness
will be determined by others' choices and actions.
High/Self: My ability in the future to implement practices successfully Anticipatory Maladaptive
will be determined by own choices and actions. relief Stress response
Moderate: My choices and actions will play a partial role in determining Anxiety, fear Stress response
my ability in the future to implement practices successfully.
Low/Others: My ability in the future to implement practices successfully Hopelessness
will be determined by others' choices and actions.

Note: Emotions drawn from Pekrun (2006).

Table 3
Participants’ demographic information.

Pseudonym Age Sex Years Taught Grade(s) Students Served

Grace 31 F 7 6, 7, 8 Special education

Katherine 33 F 8 7 Special education/gifted and talented
Adrian 45 F 21 6, 7, 8 General education
Julia 35 F 13 6, 7, 8 English language learners
Marie 54 F 15 6 General education
Robin 35 M 3 8 General education
Jesse 37 F 12 7 General education
Avery 46 F 19 7 General education
Sarah 38 F 16 6 General education/English language learners
Dana 22 F 0 7 Special education
Lillian 35 F 15 8 Special education

Note. Sixth graders typically are 11e12 years old, seventh graders typically are 12e13 years old, and eighth graders typically are 13e14 years old.

to cater to teachers' strengths and interests as expressed on a
strengths-and-interests assessment the teachers completed prior
to the first session. To support teachers’ learning before the first
session, teachers were provided with optional pre-readings, and
five teachers visited another district to observe effective differen-
tiated instruction.
One of the study authors facilitated the differentiation PD ses-
sions, although he did not conduct any of the interviews and did not
see any interview data until after the program was completed. Each
differentiation PD session involved whole-group explicit instruc-
tion, videos that modeled best practices, small group discussion,
and interactive instructional strategies. The first session focused on
helping teachers understand and analyze their students' testing
data. The second session focused on creating a common definition/
understanding of differentiation. The third and fourth sessions
focused on designing practical ways to differentiate classroom
processes and products. The final session focused on effective
student-grouping practices. After the program was completed,
teachers observed each other's differentiated teaching practices in
organized learning-walks.
3.2. Data sources and data collection
Our data came from transcripts of 33 semi-structured in-
terviews, three interviews with each of the 11 participants over five
months. The first interview, conducted prior to the first differen-
tiation PD session, pertained to participants' overall set of past PD
experiences. The second interview occurred shortly after the sec-
ond differentiation session, and questions exclusively pertained to
the first two differentiation sessions. The third interview focused
on the last three differentiation PD sessions and included questions
about these three sessions and about the differentiation program as
a whole. According to the cognitive-experiential perspective on
emotions that informed our study, emotions originate in in-
dividuals' subjective appraisals of contextualized events or in-
teractions. By interviewing teachers three times, and focusing on
different PD sessions in each interview, we sought to examine
teachers’ appraisals of multiple PD experiences in which they had
experienced pleasant and unpleasant emotions.
Interview protocols were developed collaboratively by our
research team (composed of the study authors) from our research
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65 57

questions and our interest in antecedents and consequences of
emotional experiences in PD. The general structure of the interview
protocol remained consistent across all interviews, although the
focus and phrasing of questions varied (see Table 4 for side-by-side
comparison of questions across the three protocols). For example,
in the first section of each interview, participants were asked if they
could recall any particularly negative and positive PD experiences
throughout their previous PD experiences (first interview), in the
first two differentiation sessions (second interview), and in the final
three differentiation sessions (third interview). Across all in-
terviews, when participants described positive or negative mo-
ments during PD, they were asked to explain what they had been
feeling and thinking at the time. When participants did not name
specific emotions, interviewers directly asked them to describe
what feelings went along with experiences they described (see
Table 4). In this way, participants provided insight into their
emotional experiences, even if they did not use specific emotion
words to describe their experiences.
Participants were also asked if they believed that the focal set of
PD experiences in each interview affected their classroom in-
struction, added to their understanding of the classrooms, or
changed the way they saw their students. They were asked if they
tried to implement strategies they had learned in PD, and what they
thought or felt when they attempted to implement this material.
They were also asked if they thought PD made them better teach-
ers, and if PD was worth their time. Three of the study authors
conducted and recorded one-on-one interviews. On average, in-
terviews lasted 26 min (range: 13e44).
3.3. Data analysis
During the first phases of analysis, we took a consensual,
inductive approach whereby each member of our team indepen-
dently coded a few interviews and identified general categories
related to our research questions. Our research questions had been
informed by the theoretical work of Pekrun (2006) and Lazarus
(1991) insofar as they conceptualized emotion as (a) arising from
individual appraisals of situational antecedents, and (b) impacting
outcomes (i.e., consequences) for individuals in learning environ-
ment. Thus, when the team convened to compare notes and resolve
conflicts, we easily reached consensus on the initial set of cate-
gories: emotional experiences, antecedents of emotion, and con-
sequences of emotion.
Next, research team members independently re-coded all
transcripts using the three main category labels. Two valence labels
(pleasant, unpleasant) were applied to all emotional experiences
identified in the data. Although we did not formally operationalize
the valence codes, reliability, consistency, and uniformity of coding
was established in regular consensus building sessions (Hill,
Thompson, & Williams, 1997). Note that the majority of state-
ments coded as emotional experiences referred to specific emo-
tions (e.g., “it's annoying”; “I'm more excited”). In some cases,
however, teachers described emotional experiences without
naming specific emotions (e.g., “that bad taste in my mouth”; “I was
like ‘ugh’”). Thus, we were not focusing on particular emotions but
using the broader categories of pleasant and unpleasant emotional
experiences in order to determine whether appraisals, antecedents,
and consequences were associated with teachers' emotional ex-
periences in PD.
Specifically, identifying pleasant and unpleasant emotional ex-
periences allowed us to develop four focal sets of comments (an-
tecedents of pleasant emotional experiences, antecedents of
unpleasant emotional experiences, consequences of pleasant
emotional experiences, and consequences of unpleasant emotional
experiences) that pertained directly to our research questions.
Once we reached consensus in applying the four set-labels to all of
the transcripts, one team member formalized a list of tentative
antecedent and consequence codes that had been discussed by the
team. She applied these codes to each of the four focal sets before
presenting the code list and coded data to the other team members,
who performed selective coding, audited the code list, and finalized
all coding (see Table 5 for finalized coding scheme).
We addressed reliability through regular consensus building
sessions (Hill et al., 1997). Methodological rigor was addressed by
the multiple perspectives provided by our research team, system-
atic re-readings of data looking for disconfirming evidence, and the
prolonged engagement and insider perspective provided by the PD
facilitator, who was a member of the research team. Note that only
after all data were collected, anonymized, and transcribed was he
given access to the transcribed interviews.
4. Findings
Throughout the 33 interviews, teachers described their
emotional experiences during PD in detail. Excitement and enjoy-
ment were the most frequently recalled pleasant emotions;

Table 4
Variation across interview protocols.

First Interview Second Interview Third Interview

Focus All prior PD experiences Differentiation PD Differentiation PD

Sample Imagine that your principal tells you that you are
Questions going to be attending a PD session. Based on your
past experiences, what are you expecting that to
be like?
If you think about a training where [restate
participants' response], what types of emotions
do you tend to feel during those experiences?
After a typical PD, when you go back to your
classroom, does it change how you see or do
things in your classroom?
Session 1: Understanding and analyzing students'
testing data
Session 2: Defining and creating a common
understanding of differentiation
Does anything from the first two differentiation PD
sessions stand out as having been particularly
memorable?
And when [restate participants' response], do you
remember what you were thinking about or what
went through your mind?
Is there a feeling or an emotion associated with
those thoughts, or that you felt in that moment?
Is there anything that you have done or learned in
the first two trainings that has lead you to change
how you see your classroom or what you do in your
classroom?
(If yes) Do you remember what you were thinking
or feeling when you [restate participants response]?
Sessions 3e4: Designing practical ways to
differentiate classroom processes and products
Session 5: Effective student-grouping practices
Is there anything from the last three differentiation
training sessions that stands out in your mind as
particularly memorable?
And when [restate participants' response], do you
remember what you were thinking about or what
went through your mind?
Is there a feeling or an emotion associated with those
thoughts, or that you felt in that moment?”
Is there anything that you have done or learned in the
differentiation trainings that has lead you to change
how you see your classroom or what you do in your
classroom?
Do you remember what you were thinking or feeling
when you [restate participants' response]?
58 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65

Table 5
Coding scheme.

Category Set Codes Sub-code

Antecedents Antecedents of pleasant emotional experiences Self ∙ Prior knowledge/proficiencies

Antecedents of unpleasant emotional experiences
Consequences Consequences of pleasant emotional experiences
Consequences of unpleasant emotional experiences
∙ Instructional responsibilities
Training ∙ Quality of instruction/instructor
∙ Provision of easily implemented material
Self ∙ Prior knowledge/proficiencies
∙ Instructional responsibilities
Training ∙ Quality of instruction/instructor
∙ Provision of easily implemented material
Administration ∙ Mismanagement of PD
∙ Restrictions on teacher autonomy
Instructional ∙ Reflected on own teaching practices
∙ Willingly implemented material/practices from PD
Training-based ∙ Increased engagement in PD
Immediate ∙ Disengaged from PD
∙ Behaved disrespectfully during PD
Long-term ∙ Would not implement content from PD

frustration was the unpleasant emotion most commonly reported.
Teachers' self-described emotional experiences varied during
commonly-experienced PD sessions, suggesting that teacher-
specific characteristics interacted with PD-specific characteristics
to shape teachers' emotional experiences during PD. In this section,
we chronicle the reported antecedents that gave rise to teachers'
emotional experiences during PD in general (first interview) and in
the commonly experienced PD before describing the consequences
of teachers’ emotions. Note that teachers more often reported an-
tecedents than consequences of emotional experiences. Thus, the
findings about antecedents required greater explication.
4.1. Antecedents of emotional experiences
Teachers attributed their emotional experiences in PD to factors
appraised in three contexts: the self, PD session, and school
administration levels (see Table 6 for examples at each level). Self-
level antecedents included characteristics of themselves (e.g.,
background knowledge, interests) that informed their appraisals.
Training-level antecedents referred to elements of a given PD ses-
sion (e.g., presentation style) that participants had consciously
appraised. Administration-level antecedents referred to partici-
pants’ appraisals of school administration and its role in influencing
PD. These interrelated codes are discussed in the following sections.
Note that in describing findings, we refer to appraisals as value,
control, or final appraisals, combining the language from Pekrun
(2006) and Lazarus (1991; see Table 1 to trace the language of
these models).
Self-level antecedents. Teachers’ appraisals of the value of PD,
and the emotions associated with said appraisals, were informed by
two self-level antecedents: (a) prior knowledge or proficiencies,
and (b) specialized classroom responsibilities. We illustrate each of
these antecedents with data-based examples, showing how they
informed teacher appraisals and the resulting emotional
experiences.
Knowledge or proficiencies. Emotional experiences in the
commonly-experienced differentiation PD sessions varied accord-
ing to teachers' value appraisals (i.e., Does this PD enhance my ability
to meet instructional goals?; see Table 2), which were informed in
part by teachers’ heterogeneous experiences using differentiated
instruction. Teachers with less experience differentiating instruc-
tion tended to make positive value appraisals, and to experience
more pleasant emotions, whereas more experienced differentiators
made negative value appraisals and experienced unpleasant
emotions.
For example, Robin, a third-year teacher, expressed in the first
interview (prior to the first differentiation session) a belief that he
was unable to differentiate instruction effectively and needed more

Table 6
Antecedents of emotional experiences in PD coding categories and examples.

Self-Level Antecedents

Prior knowledge/proficiencies
Instructional responsibilities
Training-Level Antecedents
Quality of instruction/instructor
Provision of easily implemented
material
Administration-Level Antecedents
Mismanagement of professional
development
Restrictions on teacher autonomy Unpleasant: “As I was going through school … I kept hearing, ‘You are the expert in your class! Nobody knows those kids better than
Pleasant: “Data is not always fun, but it is fun to get new resources of how to use it” (Dana).
Unpleasant: “After 15 years of teaching you know some of the stuff so it's like, OK, here we are again. I've heard this. I know this”
(Sarah).
Pleasant: “AIMSweb is huge in my classroom. I think more so than the other two teachers because … it helps me see where [my
students] are … and I can adjust lessons and activities to meet their needs” (Jesse).
Unpleasant: “Most of it doesn't apply to my [special ed.] kids” (Grace).
Pleasant: “He did a really good job at presenting the information … Sometimes teachers aren't the friendliest people … But he always
managed to hold our attention and he did a good job” (Adrian).
Unpleasant: “So in that one there was a lot of, ‘How prepared is the presenter?’” (Julia).
Pleasant: “Sometimes they're really great and you know we can actually take things into the classroom and implement those things”
(Robin).
Unpleasant: “I just would have preferred for it to be more practical, I guess is the word I'm looking for. For use in the classroom”
(Marie).
Unpleasant: “I was like … Who hired her? Who said this was going to be a good idea? Did you know how she was going to facilitate
this? I mean had somebody seen her and they did this all day? And they thought this was going to be great?” (Avery).
you.’ … Then you go to certain professional developments or certain trainings and it's completely the opposite. Someone is telling you
that that is not the way it works, and that's not the best practice or whatever else” (Katherine).
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
training on the topic. In his second interview, having recently
completed the first two differentiation sessions, he stated that
differentiation “feels attainable now where it was incredibly frus-
trating before. It's less frustrating … So, this has helped.” Originally,
Robin's external control appraisal (i.e., could not differentiate in-
struction effectively without external support) induced feelings of
frustration. When the first two differentiation sessions provided
Robin the resources he believed he needed, he made efficacious
prospective appraisals (i.e., positive value appraisal; moderate
control in implementation), resulting in feelings of hope that dif-
ferentiation may be “attainable” in his classroom.
In contrast, Marie, one of the most experienced teachers in the
study, believed an assessment tool introduced in the first differ-
entiation session had the potential to help teachers. However, she
made negative retrospective value and control appraisals of expe-
riences in which similar tools had been introduced. She explained,
“[it] drives teachers crazy: [this assessment tool] may go away like
[current tool] is going away … We had [current tool] for all of a
blink of an eye.” Although Marie recognized potential value in the
differentiation PD, she was “indifferent” to it because of past un-
pleasant emotional experiences with similar PD programs.
Instructional responsibilities. Based on the specific populations
of students that teachers served, they made different evaluations of
their instructional needs, which altered their value appraisals of the
differentiation PD in particular. For instance, in her first interview,
Grace appraised PD in general as having low value for her as a
teacher of special education students. She expressed frustration,
stating, “Most of what comes out is for general ed kids. How do I
apply it to kids that are in 8th grade, reading on a 1st grade level?”
Contrastingly, in her second interview, she described experiencing
pleasant emotions during the first two differentiation sessions due
to their relevance to her classroom: “I'm more excited about going
to it [than other sessions]. I'm not dreading [the next session]
because I'm like, OK, this is going to apply to me. This is what I do on
a daily basis. I have to differentiate.” Grace's positive value appraisal
of the first two differentiation sessions informed her prospective
appraisals of upcoming sessions, which she predicted would be
useful to her in working with special educational students (i.e.,
positive value appraisal).
Conversely, Dana, a reading interventionist, appraised the same
two differentiation sessions as personally irrelevant, stating, “…
When it comes to [reading interventionists] it's kind of not appli-
cable because … we've been [differentiating] for so long that it is
not as needed as other things we could be being trained on.” When
asked to describe her emotions in anticipation of an upcoming
differentiation session, Dana said, “I love learning, but if it doesn't
apply to me it's frustrating.” Dana's negative value and external
control appraisals associated with mandatory sessions fed her
prospective feelings of frustration in anticipation of the remaining
differentiation PD.
For each of these teachers, self-level characteristics, namely
classroom demands and existing skills, influenced their control and
value appraisals for the commonly experienced differentiation
program. These appraisals, in turn, colored their emotional expe-
riences, yielding relief and excitement for some, and frustration for
others.
Training-level antecedents. According to cognitive-
experiential perspectives, emotions are based on cognitive ap-
praisals of environmental stimuli. Accordingly, when describing
their emotional experiences, teachers often referred to traits of
instruction/instructors and the ease of use of materials and
strategies.
Quality of instruction/instructor. These teachers' appraisals of
particular instructional practices preceded both unpleasant and
pleasant emotional experiences in PD. Frequently, teachers
59
described unpleasant emotional experiences when PD presenter
did not actively engage them. For example, in the first interview,
the interviewer asked Avery what she anticipated when preparing
to attend a typical PD session. Avery responded, “I'm going to be
talked at or read to from PowerPoint or something about how to not
teach that way.” She elaborated: “‘Think outside the box! Do
something different!’ … But then the delivery of their message [is]
the non-example.” Avery described the presenter's instructional
approach (“I'm going to be talked at or read to”) as withholding
control from the teachers over their own learning. Although Avery
did not name a specific emotion even when asked to describe the
feelings associated with these sessions, she did share that she was
“more accepting” of “teacher-focused” sessions (i.e., afforded
greater control to teachers).
By contrast, in Lillian's second interview, she reported experi-
encing pleasant emotions in the second differentiation session
because of the presenter's interactive, responsive instructional
style: “I particularly liked [this session] more because we were able
to … have conversations about specific things that we had ques-
tions on. Because he's there for us … He is actually interested in
what we have to say.” The differentiation PD presenter, by engaging
the teachers on their particular needs and interests, increased the
likelihood that they would make positive value appraisals and feel a
sense of internal control during the session.
Provision of easily implementable materials. One of the most
commonly mentioned antecedents of emotional experiences was
the provision (or absence) of easily implementable material.
Emotions originating from this antecedent were prospective,
because teachers made appraisals based on how successfully they
believed they could implement certain strategies in the future.
Teachers described pleasant emotional experiences in PD when
such material was provided, likely because these materials sup-
ported teachers' efficacy beliefs and appraisals of internal control
regarding implementation. For instance, Julia reported, “I love it
when [PD presenters] give you the resources. Not, ‘Well this is what
you could do and this is what it could look like.’ No, they give you
this all fresh and ready, [and] I can just plug in.” Marie expressed
similar pleasant emotions regarding easily implemented material,
stating, “It's always great when … you can walk out with something
in your hands, something you could actually use the next day in
your room.” When asked to describe the emotions she would feel if
given such easily implementable materials, Marie stated, “I would
be over the moon. I'd be thrilled.”
Conversely, the absence of easily implementable materials was a
commonly cited antecedent of unpleasant emotions in PD. In his
first interview on PD in general, Robin explained:
… [A] lot of [my frustration] has come from the entire meeting
being something we're being asked to do, but there's not always
implementation guidelines on how to do it … Just kind of, “Hey.
Got to do this. Figure it out.”
Similarly, when asked about her emotional reaction to PD that
lacked clear instructions for implementation, Jesse replied, “I think
it's frustration because you want to do the right thing, and you want
to always be innovative and have really cool things going on in your
classroom.” Although Jesse wanted to implement “innovative”
techniques in her classroom and valued PD as a source for learning
such techniques, she believed she lacked control over her own
learning during PD unless examples were provided to help her
understand what implementation should look like in practice.
External control appraisals, regardless of value appraisals, result in
feelings of frustration (Pekrun, 2006).
When prospective control appraisals are high (internal) and
value appraisals are positive, individuals experience pleasant
60 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
feelings including excitement and hope (Pekrun, 2006). This was
true for Grace, who expressed excitement about the ready-to-
implement tools provided in the first two differentiation sessions.
She contrasted this with more “typical” PD experiences: “Every-
thing that [the differentiation PD presenter] brings is something I
can go back and use that day. It's not something I have to wait a year
for. Sometimes that's frustrating because you're like, ‘OK, so next
year.’” Conversely, when prospective control appraisals are low
(external) and value appraisals are negative, fear and anxiety can
arise (Pekrun, 2006). Expanding on her emotional experiences in
PD when material was not easy to implement, Jesse said, “I think it's
fear of, I don't even know where to start. I don't even know what to
do.” In the absence of clear guidelines, Jesse felt a lack of control
over implementation; and in the absence of easily implemented
materials, she negatively appraised the outcome of her future at-
tempts at implementation, leading to feelings of fear. Similarly,
when Grace believed that she could not implement the information
presented in typical PD sessions, she reported feeling, “anxious,
because … this isn't going to apply, but I'm having to sit here
instead of finding something that does apply.” Although Grace felt
personally responsible for identifying and implementing effective
instructional strategies (i.e., moderate control), she believed that
the tools and practices presented in the PD would not be effective in
her classroom (i.e., negative value appraisal). This combination of
control and value led her to experience anxiety during PD.
The object focus of teachers' appraisals also shifted throughout
the course of a given PD session as teachers' attention vacillated
between the PD itself (i.e., activity focus) and its relevance to their
classrooms (i.e. prospective). The introduction of easy-to-
implement material was often a central antecedent of such
changes. For example, at the beginning of the first differentiation
session, Sarah recalled, “I'm sitting there frustrated, because … I
want this to be something I can use.’” Up until that point, she had
not received any information she appraised as valuable. However,
when a ready-to-use book recommendation tool was presented,
Sarah became focused on prospective outcomes, namely how she
would use the tool once she returned to her classroom. The
acquisition of a valuable tool led Sarah to alter her control appraisal
from external to internal, leading her to feel:
… full of excitement of wanting to run back [to the classroom]
and share with the kids … “I had training during 3rd period
today, and this is what we talked about, and I want to get you all
started and figure out how we can do this.”
Sarah's initial frustration resulted from external control ap-
praisals of a PD session that, based on her previous PD experiences,
she assumed would lack value. However, once she was provided a
useful instructional tool, her value appraisal changed from negative
to positive, changing the valence of her emotional experience from
unpleasant to pleasant and shifting her focus from “having to sit
here” in the present activity to “how we can do this” in her class-
room in the future.
Examining PD training-level antecedents through the lens of
control-value theory highlighted how various PD practices and
conditions altered teachers' sense of control and value, their pro-
jections of success or failure, and therefore, their emotional expe-
riences. Teachers saw little value in PD that lacked implementable
tools or materials and felt little control during such PD sessions,
leading to feelings of frustration. Moreover, when PD lacked
implementable materials, teachers often imagined themselves
failing to implement new programs successfully, activating feelings
of fear or anxiety. However, when PD provided useful, applicable
classroom tools, teachers began to focus on how they would use
such tools in the future, and they regained a sense of control over
their own and their students’ success, leading to feelings of
excitement.
Administration-level antecedents. According to our theoret-
ical framework (Lazarus, 1991; Pekrun, 2006), external control
appraisals result in unpleasant emotional experiences regardless of
the valence of corresponding value appraisals. This may explain
why, at the administration level, no antecedents of pleasant emo-
tions emerged. However, we identified several antecedents of un-
pleasant emotions reflecting two categories of school
administrator's unilateral control over PD programming: misman-
agement of PD programming and restricting teachers' autonomy in
PD (see Table 6).
Mismanagement of professional development. One of the most
prevalent antecedents of unpleasant emotions was redundancy in
PD programming, which teachers often attributed to administrative
mismanagement. Teachers used a range of emotion words to
describe their experiences during PD they perceived as redundant
and, therefore, as a poor use of their time. For example, in Adrian's
first interview (about PD in general), she reported, “… We have so
much to do … I could be grading papers, and instead I'm listening
to, ‘Use a graphic organizer to teach vocabulary.’ And I know that!
So that gets a little frustrating.” Katherine used sarcasm in her first
interview to illustrate how her frustration was exacerbated by the
administration's ignorance of the redundancy in their PD pro-
gramming in general:
I'm very blunt and undiplomatic, and so sometimes it tends to …
be uncomfortable for myself and the [PD] presenter because it's
like, “Really, the Frayer Model? That's a great idea! Why didn't I
think of that? I should use the Frayer Modeldagain this year for
the eighth time …” And then the next thing you know it's like,
“We [the administration] just feel like you don't want to be
there.” Well, I really didn't want to be there because I already
know these things.
Katherine was frustrated that the administration required (i.e.,
external control) teachers to attend PD that she appraised as having
low value because the sessions covered instructional strategies that
had been discussed previously in PD. Moreover, by revoicing the
administrator's comment, Katherine emphasized how little control
she felt over her learning in PD: she was required to attend a ses-
sion that she appraised as having low value, yet she could not ex-
press unpleasant emotions without drawing negative attention
from her administration.
Restrictions on teacher autonomy. Other administration-level
antecedents were related to teachers' sense of autonomy. Teach-
ers voiced that they were not permitted to choose or request PD
topics, that they could not attend PD outside of their school district,
and that they believed certain sessions threatened their classroom
autonomy when they were expected to adopt new practices in
place of their own. In these cases, teachers expressed emotions
including frustration, annoyance, and dread. In Avery's first inter-
view about PD in general, she explained, “… [Our] time is so micro-
managed because … we have to get so many hours in, and we don't
get choices.” When the interviewer probed whether Avery had
similar experiences across a variety of PD sessions, she replied, “The
mandated ones, the ones I don't have any control or pick, yes I felt
that way most of the time about that” (emphasis added). When
prompted to specify the feeling to which she had referred, Avery
stated, “pretty much dreading it.”
In her first interview, Julia said that mandated sessions at the
beginning of the school year were particularly unpleasant experi-
ences because they took away from critical time teachers needed in
order to prepare to begin the school year. During those sessions, she
reported feeling:
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65 61

Powerless. You're asking me to do a lot [of preparation for the
first day of school] in very little time … I was very, very frus-
trated this year, because they really did take all that week … and
they couldn't give us work time. It was very frustrating … What
we're sitting there thinking the whole time is, “We're not going
to have time today … I need to do what's important.”
According to Lazarus (2000b), emotions are manifestations of
the personal meaning associated with an experience, and power-
lessness is related to the “potential loss of personal meaning”
(Lazarus, 2000a, p. 57). The PD required by the administration
prevented Julia from engaging in personally meaningful work (“I
need to do what's important”) to prepare for her incoming
students.
4.2. Consequences of emotional experiences
Having described antecedents to teachers' emotional experi-
ences in PD, we now turn to their consequences (see Table 7),
beginning with those of unpleasant emotional experiences, fol-
lowed by those of pleasant experiences. The following sections
elucidate the consequences of teachers' emotional experiences
during PD in terms of Lazarus' (1991) final appraisal, in which in-
dividuals decide whether and how they can change their rela-
tionship with their environment in order to alter their prior
appraisals and change their emotional state. Our findings reveal
that emotional experiences during PD often have meaningful con-
sequences and are rarely epiphenomenal.
Unpleasant emotional experiences. The consequences of un-
pleasant emotional experiences included immediate behavioral
consequences (e.g., disengagement from PD, rude behavior during
PD), and long-term consequences (i.e., disinclination to implement
practices presented during PD).
Immediate behavioral consequences. Nine of the eleven
teachers described disengaging from PD as an immediate behav-
ioral consequence of unpleasant emotions they experienced during
PD. Disengagement allowed some teachers to shape their rela-
tionship with the PD context simply by altering their level of con-
centration. This was especially prevalent when teachers
experienced boredom, a common achievement emotion (Pekrun,
2006). For instance, Adrian explained, “When they read the Pow-
erPoint … Honestly, sometimes my mind will be someplace else.
You know, my grocery list.” Similarly, Marie recounted attending a
PD that “wasn't anything super new,” and she described her feel-
ings of boredom in that PD as, “just sort of mind wandering a little
bit, and then tuning in here and there … Pretty much thinking
about what I need to do when I get back to the room.” These
teachers' disengagement from PD may have been a strategic effort
to mitigate the boredom they were experiencing.
Some teachers changed their relationship with PD contexts that
had aroused unpleasant emotions by engaging in overtly opposi-
tional or rude behavior in order to assert control. Avery explained
that in order to alleviate boredom during PD, she would, “start
doing things like messing with my phone, pulling out my book, and
I know that that's rude and I shouldn't do that, but it's horrible.”
Similarly, Grace described a PD session in which, “the [presenter]
was sitting there just explaining how to do the [online] gradebook
but wouldn't let us log in [to the computers].” To quell the boredom
and frustration experienced during this session, one of Grace's
colleagues “drove across the street to get lunch or get something
from the Dollar Tree and came back and ate it in front of [the
presenter].” In both accounts, teachers made final appraisals in
which they determined that engaging in overtly rude behavior
altered their relationship to the PD context by assuming control
over how they would spend their time, and using that time to
accomplish other tasks, thereby mitigating the unpleasant emo-
tions they saw as originating in PD.
Long-term consequences. The long-term consequences of
teachers' unpleasant emotional experiences in PD affected teachers'
classroom practices and their attitudes toward future PD. Most
often, long-term impacts on classroom practices manifested in
teachers' disinclination to implement strategies/materials from PD
in which they had experienced unpleasant emotions. For example,
Grace said, “I specifically don't [implement] things that annoy me in
a [session] … If I got the ‘ugh’ feeling from doing it, then you know
my sixth, seventh, and eighth graders are going to be like, [in a
resigned tone] ‘Okay, Mrs. [Grace].’” Based on her negative pro-
spective value appraisal (presuming implementation would be
ineffective for her students), Grace made a final appraisal, altering
her relationship to the environment by refusing to implement the
material in order to mitigate her unpleasant emotions.
Katherine expressed unpleasant emotions related to particular
instructional styles in PD. She explained, “[What] bothers me about
being talked at [in PD is] that they're trying to teach us [a strategy
and] it's really cool, but then we don't do it or we don't have time.”
She described the consequences of her unpleasant emotional ex-
periences in terms of her teaching: “Then you've walked out of the
meeting, and it wasn't engaging, and so you don't implement it.”
Katherine altered her relationship with the environment by
refusing to implement the strategy presented in PD, thereby
assuming control over her own instruction and mitigating the

Table 7
Consequences of emotional experiences in PD coding categories and examples.

Consequences of Unpleasant Emotional Experiences

Immediate Behavioral Consequences

Disengage from PD “Sometimes you tune out when you're just being read to, because you can read it yourself.” (Adrian)
Behave Disrespectfully During “I start doing things like messing with my phone, pulling out my book, and I know that that's rude and I shouldn't do that, but it's horrible.”
PD (Avery)
Long-term effects
Do not Implement Content “… I specifically don't do things that annoy me in a conference … because if I'm like, Okay, if I got the ugh feeling from doing it, then, you
from PD know, my sixth, seventh, and eighth graders are going to be like, ‘Okay, Mrs. [Grace].’” (Grace).
Consequences of Pleasant Emotional Experiences
Consequences for Instructional Practice
Carry Excitement into “I want to come back in the classroom, I can't wait to try it” (Adrian).
Implementation
Reflect on own Teaching “And then at the same time, you might say, “Yeah, you know what? I should do that more” (Lillian).
Practice
For Future PD
Increase Excitement/ “So, you know, your ideas are just flowing and you're writing notes, or you're drawing stuff out, it's a constant flow of ideas” (Sarah).
Engagement
62 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
unpleasant emotion (“bothers me”) associated with “being talked
at” in PD. Unfortunately, she resolved her unpleasant emotional
experience at the expense of implementing what she had judged as
a “really cool” strategy presented in the PD.
Pleasant emotional experiences. Teachers revealed that
pleasant emotions they experienced during PD often resulted in
long-term, adaptive consequences. For some teachers, pleasant
emotions transferred into their teaching practices, leading to more
engaged implementation. Teachers also acknowledged that
pleasant emotional experiences shaped their engagement in future
PD sessions. Overall, teachers’ pleasant experiences in PD led them
to alter their relationships with other contexts.
Consequences for instructional practice. Teachers who recalled
feeling excited or inspired during PD often reported that these
emotions carried over into implementing what they had learned.
When Katherine was asked in her first interview to recall a
particularly positive PD experience from her past, she described a
training in which she had felt “really excited about what [the
instructor] was presenting.” When describing the experience of
implementing material from this PD, she said, “My voice changes. I
get louder … the kids tell me all the time, ‘Miss, you don't have to
yell.’ And I'm like, ‘I'm sorry … I'm just really excited!’” By imple-
menting material from a PD in which Katherine felt excited, she
altered her relationship to her classroom in a way that illustrated to
her students that the material had value for them as well.
Jesse recalled a similar experience after attending a summer PD
program in which she and a colleague felt “inspired,” such that they
immediately “… called the office and we're like, ‘You've got to add a
spiral [notebook] to our school supply lists.’ And we just were like,
‘We're doing this.’” In her excitement, Jesse changed her supply list
and committed to the implementation of a new program in her
classroom.
Pleasant emotional experiences in PD also inspired some
teachers to reflect on their own teaching and alter their instruc-
tional and philosophical approaches. Jesse, who had been teaching
for 12 years, reported that she had struggled to find time to teach
vocabulary until a PD presenter offered her practical suggestions to
improve her vocabulary instruction. Jesse stated that she felt the PD
had “relieved some pressure,” and shifted her perspective. As a
result of this relief, she explained: “I've done a better job at like, ‘Ok,
I'm going to be intentional.’ I'm not trying to pressure myself into
making these huge lessons, and so that's been really beneficial.”
Similarly, Lillian, who had been teaching for 15 years, said of the
differentiation PD sessions, “I found them very much empowering.”
When asked to expand on her feelings of empowerment, she
added, “One of the things is probably just a refresher … I mean, I
know how to group. I've taught a long time. But sometimes you sort
of forget that [grouping] doesn't always have to be [by] ability.”
These veteran teachers experienced pleasant emotions during PD
that addressed what they saw as weaknesses in their own in-
struction. Jesse had been aware that vocabulary was difficult for
her, and feelings of relief in PD helped her think about vocabulary in
a new way that afforded her a greater sense of control. Lillian, by
contrast, was unaware that she had fallen into ineffective grouping
routines until she attended the final differentiation session, which
made her aware of her own practice and empowered her through
the provision of strategies for improvement. In both instances,
highly valued strategies that addressed specific weaknesses in their
instruction were antecedents of Jesse's and Lillian's pleasant
emotional experiences and resulted in positive changes to their
instructional approaches.
Consequences for future PD. Pleasant emotional experiences in
PD also led many teachers to become more engaged in future PD
experiences, particularly when they attended multiple sessions
with the same trainer. For instance, Grace expressed excitement
associated with a strategy introduced in the second differentiation
session. When asked whether her feelings of excitement had
affected her in any continuous way, she said, “It made me want to
go back [to the next PD session] … Because I was like, ‘Okay, I've
gotten something out of his [sessions] before, so if I keep going,
then I'll probably keep learning.’” Similarly, when Sarah, who had
“felt pretty good” in the first two differentiation sessions, was asked
to share her thoughts going into the third session, she said,
Probably going in with some … specific questions that I can ask,
and picking his brain a little bit about, “What do you think?” Or
maybe a case study with a student. “I've got this kid and I've
tried this and I've tried this.”
Prior research has found that individuals who experience
pleasant emotions tend to engage in more problem-focused coping
(Schmidt, Tinti, Levine, & Testa, 2010), and Sarah's plan to ask the
PD presenter for support in working with specific students offers a
clear example of how a teacher's pleasant emotional experiences in
PD encouraged her to use PD as a source of support in coping with
classroom demands.
5. Discussion
The purpose of our study was to bring a new perspective to the
literature on professional development, focusing specifically on
teachers' emotional experiences in PD. Given that theoretical per-
spectives on emotions emphasize the role of an individual's inter-
pretation or appraisal of a situation in giving rise to particular
emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Pekrun, 2006), we examined teachers'
appraisals across a number of PD sessions to develop an under-
standing of the antecedents and consequences of their emotional
experiences in PD. By uncovering antecedents of teachers'
emotional experiences in a variety of PD contexts, the study elu-
cidates how teachers' reactions to PD are influenced by various
factors at the level of the self, the training, and the school admin-
istration. Through our inductive investigation of the consequences
of emotional experiences in PD, we identified immediate and long-
term consequences of pleasant and unpleasant emotional experi-
ences that may mediate the relation between characteristics of PD
and teacher outcomes. In the following section, we begin by dis-
cussing how our findings relied on an integration of Pekrun's
(2006) and Lazarus' (1991) models of emotion, before discussing
how teachers' value and control appraisals evidenced a practice-
based orientation to PD. We then move to limitations of the
study as well as theoretical and practical implications.
5.1. Benefits of combining complementary models of emotions
In our study, we used aspects of Pekrun's (2006) and Lazarus'
(1991) theories of emotions, models that largely agree on the
processes by which emotions arise but that each offer specific
affordances that informed our findings in consequential ways. We
found that the two models complemented one another and could
be used together to model the full trajectory of emotional experi-
ences (see Table 2). Pekrun's model was important as it accom-
modated teachers' descriptions of emotional experiences that were
based on prospective envisionments of attempts to implement
practices as well as accounts of emotions elicited in the moment by
characteristics of the PD itself. By contrast, the model developed by
Lazarus (1991) was helpful in recognizing consequences of
emotional experiences as the outcomes of final appraisals (i.e., How
can I change my relationship to the environment to alter prior ap-
praisals?). Thus, in describing these teachers' experiences in PD, we
found the integration of these two models of emotions particularly
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
useful in capturing both how appraisals depend on evaluations of
the future utility of one's learning as well as how appraisals connect
to what one does in response to the PD itself. This integration is one
theoretical contribution of our study.
5.2. The centrality of practice-based orientations in teachers’
appraisals
The teachers in our study reported numerous pleasant and
unpleasant emotional experiences in PD, and we saw that the
teachers' value and control appraisals often evidenced a pervasive
practice-based orientation toward PD (Ball & Cohen, 1999). At the
self, training, and administration levels, antecedents of teachers'
emotional experiences in PD were associated, either directly or
indirectly, with whether PD provided concrete, applicable
instructional practices. Unpleasant emotions arose when adminis-
trators mandated PD about practices that teachers believed they
had already “mastered” (e.g., Katherine, sarcastically: “I should use
the Frayer Modeldagain this year for the eighth time”). At the
training level, the majority of teachers described pleasant
emotional experiences when they were provided easy-to-
implement tools or strategies, whereas the absence of such mate-
rial led teachers to experience unpleasant emotions. At the self
level, teachers’ instructional responsibilities and experience in the
classroom mediated their appraisals of the value and applicability
of practices presented in PD.
Previous studies have found that inservice and preservice
teachers attributed greater value to PD that provided easily
implemented tools and strategies (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Clark, 1995;
Zeichner, 2005), and “the lack of practical focus in teacher educa-
tion courses negatively affected [preservice teachers'] feelings of
self-efficacy” (Volante, 2006, p. 173). Thus, it appears that teachers’
value appraisals of PD and their emotional experiences in PD often
are based on evaluations of whether they will find it easy and
immediately useful to implement what they are learning.
However, there may be problematic consequences of practice-
based orientations toward PD. According to Korthagen (2004),
such trends toward competencies- and practice-based un-
derstandings of teacher education have historically,
… resulted in a kind of fragmentation of the teacher's role [and]
took insufficient account of the fact that a good teacher cannot
simply be described in terms of certain isolated competencies,
which can be learned in a number of training sessions (p. 79).
Similarly, Zeichner (2012) argued, “[There] is danger that
[practice-based PD] will give insufficient attention to other aspects
of teaching that are fundamentally important to improving the
quality of teaching” (p. 376). Moreover, over-emphasizing practical,
ready-to-use tools in PD deemphasizes teachers’ roles as profes-
sional learners and withholds opportunities for teachers to grow
through their own experimentation with instruction (Butin, 2005).
5.3. Limitations
Our study is not without limitations. Most notably, we did not
explicitly account for sociocultural factors that may have impacted
teachers' emotional experiences. However, we conceptualized
teachers' emotions as resulting from appraisals, which are them-
selves informed by sociocultural histories. Nonetheless, in-
teractions between sociocultural histories and teachers’ emotions
may have been more salient had we explicitly explored these topics
during interviews.
63
6. Implications
Findings indicated that emotions in PD are consequential, and
that pleasant emotional experiences in PD had positive conse-
quences for these teachers, whereas unpleasant emotional expe-
riences had negative consequences. Contrastingly, existing
literature has illustrated that unpleasant emotions, including
discomfort (Frykholm, 2004) and even shame and guilt ( Turner &
Schallert, 2001; Pitt & Britzman, 2003), can have positive conse-
quences for conceptual growth and learning. However, the benefits
of unpleasant emotions may not apply in practice- and
competency-based PD contexts that focus on superficial skills.
When PD addresses complex concepts like teachers’ mission, be-
liefs, and identity, unpleasant emotions can have positive conse-
quences, as these subjective, conceptual topics are challenged,
debated, and refined through reflection and discussion. Thus, we
believe it important for those associated with PD to consider that
two different kinds of PD exigencies exist. Our findings suggest that
department- or faculty-wide PD should address more complex,
holistic aspects of teaching such as mission, identity, and beliefs. By
contrast, specific competencies- and practice-based PD should
show the very sort of differentiation often recommended to
teachers so that only those teachers who “need” a particular PD are
enrolled, and teacher control over the PD can be exercised. We offer
that greater use of self-study, professional learning communities,
and teacher-led sessions would accomplish this goal.
To help teachers reflect on PD experiences in more holistic terms
(Korthagen, 2004) related to their teacher identities and growth as
educators, school leaders and PD presenters should incorporate
teachers’ value appraisals of PD into PD itself. We see it as impor-
tant to support and encourage teachers to voice their appraisals
about how PD may help them achieve broader goals as opposed to
focusing on their ability to implement particular “best practices”
successfully. A presenter could ask teachers to identify and share
how their experience in the current PD session could support the
achievement of a professional goal. School leaders could identify
purposefully and publicly their goals for PD in general and explain
the role that each PD program or session plays in achieving the
broader goals of the school and community. In doing so, adminis-
trators, PD presenters, and teachers may be more likely to experi-
ence pleasant emotions based on their appraisal of PD as highly
valuable in the achievement of shared aims.
Emotions play an important role in teachers' learning and
motivation during PD. Although emotional experiences remain an
understudied dimension of teachers’ professional development,
this study contributes to a growing body of research exploring how
emotional experiences intermingle with learning. Researchers and
practitioners should continue to explore this topic and expand on
existing research by examining the complex sets of competing,
ambivalent, and coexisting emotions teachers may experience
during PD.
References
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement
an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of
cooperative learning. Educational Psychology: International Journal of Energy
Economics and Policy, 24(2), 201e216.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10e20.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners:
Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Ham-
mond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice (pp. 3e22). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers'
emotions and instructional behavior for their students' emotions: An experi-
ence sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15e26.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
64 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.
Boucher, J. D., & Brandt, M. E. (1981). Judgment of emotion: American and Malay
antecedents. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 12(3), 272e283.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and
teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education, 75(2),
185e199.
Butin, D. W. (2005). How social foundations of education matters to teacher
preparation: A policy brief. Educational Studies, 38(3), 214e229.
Choi, E., Gaines, R. E., Jeong-bin, H. P., Williams, K. M., Schallert, D. L., Yu, L. T., &
Lee, J. (2016). Small stories in online classroom discussion as resources for
preservice teachers’ making sense of becoming a bilingual educator. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 58, 1e16.
Clark, C. (1995). Thoughtful teaching. London: Cassell.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance:
The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294e343.
Cross, D. I., & Hong, J. Y. (2009). Beliefs and professional identity: Critical constructs
in examining the impact of reform on the emotional experiences of teachers. In
P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The
impact on teachers' lives (pp. 273e296). New York, NY: Springer.
Daniels, L. M., Stupinsky, R., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Newall, N. E. (2009).
A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to
emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(4), 948e963.
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers' emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-
understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160e1172.
Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers' and teacher educators' lives: The role of
emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 403e415.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional devel-
opment: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
Researcher, 38(3), 181e199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects
of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81e112.
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. J. R. (2013). Linking student achievement
growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A
longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in title I schools.
Teachers College Record, 115, 1e46.
Emo, W. (2015). Teachers' motivations for initiating innovations. Journal of Educa-
tional Change, 16, 171e195.
Evans, L. (2018). Implicit and informal professional development: What it ‘looks like’,
how it occurs, and why we need to research it. Professional Development in
Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1441172.
Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),
International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 494e519). New York:
Routledge.
Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teaching this class
drives me nuts! Examining the person and context specificity of teacher
emotions. PLoS One, 10(6), 1e15.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional
transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and
student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 705e716.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of
teachers' emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test.
In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The
impact on teachers' lives (pp. 129e152). New York, NY: Springer.
Frykholm, J. (2004). Teachers' tolerance for discomfort: Implications for curricular
reform in mathematics. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 19(2), 125e149.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1997). Tis the season. Learning, 26(1), 27e29.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915e945.
Glanville, R. (2007). Designing complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
20(2), 75e96.
Goetz, T., & Bieg, M. (2016). Academic emotions and their regulation via emotional
intelligence. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial
skills and school systems in the 21st century (pp. 279e299). Basel, Switzerland:
Springer International.
Griffin, G. A. (Ed.). (1983). Staff development: Eighty-second yearbook of the national
society for the study of education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 381e391.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14, 835e854.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111e127.
Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7),
470e476.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting
consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517e572.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235e266.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301e320.
Hunt, C. S. (2016). Getting to the heart of the matter: Discursive negotiations of
emotions within literacy coaching interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education,
60, 331e343.
Jacob, R. T., Hill, H. C., & Corey, D. (2017). The impact of professional development on
teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching, instruction, and student
achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10, 379e407.
de Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher
motivation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 119e134.
Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collabo-
rative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence
in robotics engineering activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4),
490e536.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research
Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America's
choice schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development
associated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37, 437e457.
Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion defini-
tions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion,
5(4), 345e379.
Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more
holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1),
77e97.
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008).
Students' and mathematics teachers' perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and
instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18, 468e482.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency
and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899e916.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of
emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819e834.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000a). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports.
The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229e252.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000b). Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. In
Y. L. Hanon (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 39e63). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology,
46(1), 209e235.
Lindvall, J. (2017). Two large-scale professional development programs for mathe-
matics teachers and their impact on student achievement. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1281e1301.
Mathison, S. (1992). An evaluation model for inservice teacher education. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 15(3), 255e261.
Panksepp, J., & Watt, D. (2011). What is basic about basic emotions? Lasting lessons
from affective neuroscience. Emotion Review, 3(4), 387e396.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assump-
tions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice.
Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315e341.
Pitt, A., & Britzman, D. (2003). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in
teaching and learning: An experiment in psychoanalytic research. Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(6), 755e776.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161e1178.
Saunders, R. (2013). The role of teacher emotions in change: Experiences, patterns
and implications for professional development. Journal of Educational Change,
14, 303e333.
Scherer, K. R. (1982). Emotion as a process: Function, origin and regulation. Social
Science Information, 21(4e5), 555e570.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3,
257e279.
Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Levine, L. J., & Testa, S. (2010). Appraisals, emotions and
emotion regulation: An integrative approach. Motivation and Emotion, 34(1),
63e72.
Schutz, P. A. (2014). Inquiry on teachers' emotion. Educational Psychologist, 49(1),
1e12.
Schutz, P. A., Aultman, L. P., & Williams-Johnson, M. R. (2009). Educational psy-
chology perspectives on teachers' emotions. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas
(Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers' lives (pp.
195e215). New York, NY: Springer.
Schutz, P. A., & Lanehart, S. L. (2002). Introduction: Emotions in education. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 37(2), 67e68.
Schutz, P. A., & Zembylas, M. (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research. The
impact on teachers' lives. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Slavit, D., Sawyer, R., & Curley, J. (2003). Filling your plate: A professional devel-
opment model for teaching with technology. TechTrends, 47, 35e38.
Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Consequences require antecedents. In J. P. Forgas
(Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 83e106).
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72, 387e431.
Steinert, Y., Macdonald, M. E., Boillat, M., Elizov, M., Sarkis, M., Saleem, R., &
McLeod, P. J. (2010). Faculty development: If you build it, they will come.
Medical Education, 44(9), 900e907.
Taxer, J. L., & Frenzel, A. C. (2015). Facets of teachers' emotional lives: A quantitative
investigation of teachers' genuine, faked, and hidden emotions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 49, 78e88.
 R.E. Gaines et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 53e65
Tsang, K. K. (2015). The purpose of teaching and teaching experience: A preliminary
analysis of a qualitative research in progress. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 61(1), 103e105.
Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancyevalue relationships of shame
reactions and shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 320.
Twyford, K., Le Fevre, D., & Timperley, H. (2017). The influence of risk and uncer-
tainty on teachers' responses to professional learning and development. Journal
of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 86e100.
Uitto, M., Jokikokko, K., & Estola, E. (2015). Virtual special issue on teachers and
emotions in Teaching and Teacher Education (TATE) in 1985e2014. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 50, 124e135.
Volante, L. (2006). Essential elements in teacher education: Preservice student
perspectives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 167e180.
Walker, W. R., Vogl, R. J., & Thompson, C. P. (1997). Autobiographical memory:
Unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied Cognitive
65
Psychology, 11(5), 399e413.
Weiss, H. M., & Brief, A. P. (2001). Affect at work: A historical perspective. In
R. Payne, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications
for management (pp. 133e171). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional devel-
opment. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173e209.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achieve-
ment. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21(2), 117e124.
Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376e382.