Upload
simon-quattlebaum
View
108
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
On outline of a proposed qualitative study on Evaluating Professional Development Within the Field of Education. by Simon F. Quattlebaum, ABD Teacher Leadership Walden University
Citation preview
Professional development, as in most areas of education, has room for growth
and improvement. Many related programs assume a “one size fits all” approach without
acknowledging that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if the
programs are to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teacher learning
styles is vital toward this end (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Consequently, the
study of learning styles and the professional development preferences of educators will
likely prove valuable for the planning of in-service needs and alignment between
required standards and new teachers (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Fleischman (2006) suggested that, due to limited resources, professional
development programs are rarely evaluated, if at all. If this is accurate, inservice
specialists will have no way of determining whether their teacher training is impacting
educator knowledge or student achievement. Professional development appears to
target solely teacher participants, rather than practice, through evaluative methods and
the establishment of new goals. However, as Guskey (2000) indicated, most
components of such programs do not include sufficiently detailed descriptions of
evaluations to offer practical guidance in determining whether goals have been
achieved. The data collected tend to be focused on the type or amount of professional
development, as well as the number of participants, rather than on the subsequent
impact made by the teachers as a result of the program. Insufficient evaluations can
result in higher rates of program initiation without following through the goal-oriented
stages.
To determine the productiveness of professional development within the field
of education, and to strengthen related programs, continuous evaluation is essential.
1
Yet, the standard operating procedure for collecting data is to distribute an End of
Activity Form, which does not address follow-up evaluations nor support on the job
training or assessment (Oliva & Pawlas, 2004, p. 354). Oliva and Pawlis (2004)
advanced that the primary concept a school system must learn is whether an activity
improved teacher performance. Therefore, a plan must be developed to evaluate the
attainment of professional development objectives over a period of time, in addition to
the type or amount of teacher development actually being demonstrated.
If programs start and stop repeatedly without the support needed to sustain
them, the participating educators become frustrated with the process and eschew
future professional development. By not evaluating program impact, the school
system will never know if related resources were appropriately allocated, nor is there
accountability for the professional development delivered. In many instances,
evaluating professional development is viewed as a costly, time-consuming process
initiated upon completion of professional development activities and requiring
competence beyond those possessions of many instructors and administrators
(Guskey, 2000). He argued that the list is endless with procedures that challenge the
effectiveness of professional development evaluation. The types of challenges
include the questions asked of participants, the lack of follow-up to gain knowledge
surrounding the skills used in program implementation, school systems not
structured in a manner conducive to the provision of support, and a lack of
understanding surrounding the support needed to properly evaluate a program.
There is a problem with professional development programs without structured
support and proper follow-up evaluations. The ability to fully implement professional
2
development programs with guided practice, resources, and support from
administration is tantamount to teacher success in the classroom. The gap in the
literature supports that if evaluations of these programs are not fully analyzed, the
specific needs and goals of educators are not met. In a longitudinal study of K–12
teachers participating in professional development, Porter, Garet, Desimone, and Yoon
(2000) used self-reports of program impact from 297 teachers and found “little change
in overall teaching practice after 3 years . . . Teachers changed little in terms of the
content they teach, the pedagogy used to teach it, and their emphasis on performing
goals for students” (p. 70). Some of the teachers did demonstrate a moderate positive
change following professional development.
Professional development evaluation is not a new topic within the realm of
education. Interest has grown tremendously for three important reasons. The first is that
educators have gained a better understanding of the dynamic nature of professional
development (Lieberman & Miller, 2001) and now view it as an ongoing and continuous
process rather than an event (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; Stigler, 2002; Weinbaum,
Allen, Blythe, Simon, & Rubin, 2004). The traditional perspective of professional
development as a 3 to 4 day event during the school year has been replaced by a series of
extended, job-embedded learning experiences (Iacoboni, 2008; Levin, Belfield,
Meunnig, & Rouse, 2007; Marzano, 2007). An important factor is the ability to measure
progress in better and more meaningful ways, hence the focus on evaluation.
A second reason for the growing interest in professional development evaluation
is its increasing recognition as an internal process (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Sparks,
1994). Regardless of the form it takes, professional development within the field of
3
education is a systematic effort to bring about change, but not solely for the sake of
change.
A third and very important reason for the emphasis on professional development
evaluation is the need for better information to guide education reform with greater
effectiveness (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Existing evidence has indicated that false
or exaggerated claims of success have grounded many school reform strategies. This is
primarily due to the lack of better and timelier evaluations of new practice and programs,
as well as their implementation (Ingersoll, 2003). Potential users require more detailed
information on the effects, conditions of success, cost, and unanticipated effects.
The existing system of evaluation, as it relates to the professional development
of educators, creates limited effective change in teacher knowledge, skills, school
organizations, and increased teaching performance within the classroom. Many
professional development programs take a one size fits all approach and do not
acknowledge that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if programs are
to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teachers’ learning styles is vital
for understanding and possibly improving professional development because teachers
become the students in professional development.
The challenge of teaching teachers is that they have a wealth of knowledge and
life experiences, are a diverse population and participate in various formats professional
development (King & Lawler, 2003). In the current era of high stakes testing it is
important that professional development meet the needs of teachers and students to
enhance learning for both (Diaz-Maggioli). This is important because if teachers are able
to learn more in professional development, they may bring new practices and ideas to the
4
classroom. Further, professional development programs need continuity and adequate
follow up (NCES, 2008).
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the importance of
evaluating the professional development of elementary-school teachers. According to
Sparks (2004):
If teachers are to successfully teach all students to high standards, virtually
everyone who affects student learning must be learning virtually all the time. That
not only includes teachers and principals, but superintendents and other
administrators, school board members, and school support staff. Because the vast
majority of the decisions about staff development are made in district offices and
school improvement team meetings, the urgent pressure that many school leaders
feel to improve student learning means that they are interested in knowing . . . if
their staff development is making a difference. (p. ix)
By studying educator learning styles and teacher self-efficacy, the research will
seek to understand how evaluating professional development will maximize teacher
effectiveness. Through an analysis of how teachers perceive themselves as effective
change agents within the classroom, factors surrounding where and how professional
development can become more effective are expected to emerge. The findings will be
provided to the professional development committee of the participating school district
and administrators within the county who are responsible for the planning and execution
of teacher inservice programs.
The theoretical foundation of the study is adult learning theory, frequently
referred to as age and stage theory. The focus of the construct is on learning styles and
5
preferences of the adult learner. Age theorists are interested in “distinct, qualitative
differences in modes of thinking that [are] not necessarily age related” (Trotter, 2006, p.
8). Stage theorists, however, focus on determining commonalities between adult learners
and various life states. Teachers parallel other learners. They progress through
developmental stages as they advance in their careers and experience specific needs and
crises they must address (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Despite these specific needs, many
professional development programs are based on standardized approaches. Consequently,
the concept of developmental stages is important to professional development and its
evaluation of teachers because it is contrary to the underlying assumption that all teachers
must perform at the same level regardless of their particular experiences.
In addition to adult learning theory, another important construct to the proposed
study is learning-style theory or experimental learning. Kolb (1981) asserted, “Each of us
develops a unique learning style, which has both strong and weak points” (p. 237).
Learning-style theorists differ on how to meet the different needs of the various learning
styles within each classroom (Muse, 2001).
The case study is qualitative in nature to effectively determine the optimal way to
evaluate the overall effects of professional development programs. Eight teachers and
two staff development specialists within one New York State school district will
participate in the research. The teachers will be randomly selected and the staff-
development specialists will be purposefully selected. The Guskey (2002) five levels of
professional development evaluation will provide structure for implementation and
evaluation of specific initiatives. Data will be collected via teacher interviews,
observation, and postobservation teacher reflection. Data sources will include the Guskey
6
five levels of evaluation processes to assess professional development practice within the
participating district.
The data collected in the proposed study will be organized and prepared by a
coding system that will identify the professional development processes under study.
Data intervals will be coded into a ratio of the number of times each process was
mentioned by interviewees, the reflective success of the process or delivery system based
upon the reflections of the participants, and interviewee knowledge of the processes
implemented. The open coding will include the setting, evaluation of the delivery system,
type of professional development, knowledge of professional development, and
classroom effectiveness.
The open coding process will generate a description of the setting including the
type of professional development used, the knowledge and comfort level of the
participants, and participant training. The data will be disaggregated by grade level and
participant job description, interconnecting the knowledge with the manner in which the
participants were trained. Axial coding will facilitate connections between each theme
presented by the open coding. The themes will be represented in narrative passages to
convey the findings of the analysis. This will include a chronological discussion of
events, a detailed discussion of the multiple perspectives of the participants, and a
connection between participant training in professional development processes and
classroom delivery.
The following research questions will guide the proposed study:
1. How can the school district move professional development from initiatives to
implementation within the classroom using the five critical levels of
7
evaluation (i.e., participant reaction, participant learning, organizational
support, participant use of new knowledge, and student outcomes)?
2. How can the school district identify any difference between the knowledge
and skills presented in professional development and classroom
implementation?
3. What tools or resources do teachers need to successfully implement
professional development initiatives within the classroom?
4. What is the professional development process implemented within the school?
5. What is the content of professional development delivered to teachers?
6. What is the format of professional development delivered to teachers?
Today, more productive approaches to investigating the effectiveness of
professional development are commonly implemented (Guskey, 2000). The key to
greater clarity with regard to the definition of effective professional development
rests in the development of stronger theories connecting practices with results
(Guskey & Sparks, 1996). An essential aspect is to identify and measure the
intervening professional development processes that result in improved student
learning (Guskey, 2000).
8
References
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(8), 249–
305.
Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Fleischman, B. J. (2006). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional
development in systematic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–
658.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New
York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff
development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff
Development, 17(4), 34–38.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.
Iacoboni, L. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others.
New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Grioux.
King, K. P., & Lawler, P. A. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development: Using
adult learning strategies. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
9
Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences: Diverse pathways. In
A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 57–76). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levin, H., Belfield, C., Meunnig, P., & Rouse, C. (2007). The costs and benefits of an
excellent education for all American children. New York, NY: Columbia
Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional
development that matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., &
Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher
development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement
of the Northeast & Islands.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: comprehensive framework for
effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Muse, F. (2001). A look at teacher to learning styles: Is it really worth the effort?
Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1), 76–87.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Overview and inventory of state
education reforms: 1990-2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nations
reportcard/states/
Oliva, L., & Pawlas, F. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teacher.
Education Research Quarterly, 24(4), 34–43
10
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, 915–945
Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development,
15(4), 26–29.
Sparks, D. (2004). The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system.
Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 306–306.
Stigler, J. (2002). Redesigning professional development: Creating a knowledge base for
teaching. ASCD, 59(6), 6–11.
Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as
inquiry. New York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Teacher Education in Education, 11, 57–67.
11