SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitating STE ...€¦ · SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitating professional development to change classroom practice Hedi Baxter

STE

SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitatingprofessional development to change classroom practice

● Hedi Baxter Lauffer

Page 13 ● Science Teacher Education ● Science Teacher Education ● No 59 ● October 2010

The challenge

Understanding the essence of effectiveteacher professional learning is a complexeducation challenge. We turn our attentionto this challenge because our goal is toidentify clearly those qualities shared byteacher professional learning that result in improved classroom practices. Knowingwhat elements are essential in qualityprofessional learning is necessary to inform our efforts in science educationimprovement. What we do know is that,although continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD) efforts are growinginternationally, typical US and Europeanscience classrooms continue to placeproportionally greater emphasis onmemorisation and procedural knowledgethan on coherent understanding of scientificconcepts (Resnick & Zurawsky, 2007; Roth,K.J. et al, 2006). Research suggests that theproblem stems from teachers’ professionalrepertoires remaining too limited to supporteffectively the type of learning forunderstanding that is sought by reformefforts (Osborne & Dillon, 2008). Overall,reform-aligned teaching is rare (Tyack &Cuban, 1995; Rutherford, 2005), andresearchers with goals for improving thesituation continue to probe change-orientedCPD for clues about what constituteseffective teacher professional learning(Borko, 2004).

In response to the less-than-satisfactoryeffects on classroom practice reported byresearch on professional development (PD),we are rethinking our approach todesigning professional learningopportunities for in-service teachers. Duringthe last seven years, we have beendesigning, studying, and refining a model

for professional learning design that we callthe SIMPL approach (Lauffer & Lauffer,2009), which we discuss at length later inthis article. Like our professionaldevelopment facilitator colleagues, webegan our work in school districts' scienceeducation reform efforts by turning to theresearch for guidance about what contentand which types of events we shouldinclude in the teacher professional learningwe planned. The scope of these decisionstook on new significance when I began toco-lead the Science Immersion project, partof a five-year, 35 million dollar mathematicsand science partnership reform effortfunded by the National Science Foundation.

Science Immersion was charged withdeveloping and supporting one student-centred science inquiry learning experienceat every grade level (K-12) in the project'sfour urban school districts. In one districtpartner in the project, supporting a singlegrade level with science inquiry CPD meantreaching up to 2500 teachers. The stakeswere high, and we could not possibly workdirectly with teachers in these numbers.Instead, we worked with those individualswho provided professional development forteachers: local university educators, districtlead teachers, and district administratorswho were responsible for in-service teachertraining. However, early Science Immersionexperiences taught us that a ‘train thetrainers’ approach in which a ScienceImmersion facilitator modelled a workshopand then local leaders replicated it led towidely varied CPD learning experiences that lacked coherence. How any givenprofessional development might align (or not align) with the Science Immersionvision for inquiry teaching and learning was too unpredictable.

STESIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitatingprofessional development to change classroom practice



The challenge the Science Immersion projectfaced is common for any education reformeffort that is intended to permeate a large-scale system. For solutions, we turned toeducational research and our ownexperiences. We adopted an underpinningmodel for coherence, adapted from work inmaths reform efforts (Ball & Cohen, 2000;Mumme & Seago, 2002; Loucks-Horsley et al,2003) as shown in Figure 1, which places theclassroom learning experience that isintended for student learners as the focus‘content’ for teacher-learners. Then, theteacher professional development experience(which focuses on student learningexperiences) becomes the ‘content’ forfacilitator-learning experiences, building

coherence across the system. Thus, theScience Immersion vision expanded to includeall learners throughout the system. Still, wegrappled with the practical question: whatcan we do to improve CPD experiences toeffectively influence classroom practices?

We have learned from research intoeffective professional development thatteachers need sustained PD (White RoseUniversity Consortium Team, 2005; Holman,2009). We also know that we need toprovide opportunities for teacher-learnersto construct understanding of the subjectmatter they teach (Resnick & Zorawsky,2005), while giving support for makingconnections between curriculum standards

Figure 1 The Science Immersion underpinning model for system-wide learning coherence




and reform-oriented instructional practice(Keeley, 2005). A meta-analysis ofprofessional development in K–12mathematics and science conducted by theCouncil of Chief State School Officers in theUSA (CCSSO, 2009) found that theoutcomes (change from traditional practicetowards practices aligned with standards)were measurable when the programmesincluded focus on both content knowledgeand pedagogy-knowledge (Blank, Alas & Smith, 2008). Additionally, a synthesis of research into the key features shared byeffective programmes reveals a list of keyqualities that are important to addresswhen planning CPD to positively affectteaching practices (see Figure 2, fromHolman 2009).

Current research and resultant analysesaddress significant aspects of CPD: theprogramme, the teachers as learners, andthe context in which the learning occurs(Borko, 2004). However, while some ‘well-specified’ CPD projects consider thefacilitator's role, the associated researchfalls short of illuminating how to supportthis essential role because the teacher-learning experiences in these projects areconducted primarily by the original CPD

designers (Borko, 2004). Therefore, what I present here is a theoretical framework fordesigning CPD that grew out of our iterativework taking Science Immersion to scale witha cadre of professional developmentfacilitators. My intention and hope is thatour framework, SIMPL, will continue toevolve through its use and revision byfacilitators and researchers who share ourgoal to orchestrate professional learningthat improves classroom practices.

In the following text, I begin by describinghow the SIMPL framework was developedthrough sustained reflective practice toaddress the challenge of designing effectivelearning environments for teachers. Next, I explain how we used the SIMPLapproach to build coherence between thevision for reform-oriented classrooms andteacher professional development learningenvironments. Then, in the Implicationssection, I offer three examples of howSIMPL can play a role in teacher learning,CPD facilitator learning and reflection onprogramme design. The SIMPL frameworkis overarching to the multiple facets ofteaching and learning that involve students,teachers and PD facilitators. Addressing allfacets is beyond the scope of this paper.

● Relevant to teachers’ needs – teaching science to their pupils in their schools

● Sustained

● Collaborative, with teachers working together on shared problems

● Embedded in the culture of the institution

● Continuous throughout the teacher’s career

● Involving teachers accumulating, articulating, and communicating professional knowledge

Figure 2 Qualities of Effective CPD (Holman, 2009)




Rather, what follows is an introduction tothe origins and rationale for the SIMPLapproach, several instances of how SIMPLhas been used and an invitation to reflecton strengthening the quality of CPD that wedesign, conduct and support.

Addressing the challengeFor teacher-learners to walk away from aCPD experience with deep understanding ofthe science content and pedagogy that wastargeted – and be motivated and determinedto change their professional practice –requires significant growth in severaldifferent learning domains. We design forteachers as learners to develop deepunderstanding of science content; we aimto support learning student-centredpedagogical approaches for teachingscience content; and we seek to influenceparticipants' knowledge and beliefs aboutteacher and learner roles. With experience,we came to realise that an ad hoc approachto addressing these different types oflearning in our PD resulted in aninconsistent experience at best andsignificant confusion or frustration at worst.

As a result, we decided to shift fromimplicitly addressing the targeted learningdomains involved in teacher professionallearning to designing explicitly to addressthese domains. To accomplish our goal ofintentionality, we adapted the learningmodel approach used by Driver and Scott(1996), Bybee et al (2006) and others, todesign students’ learning experiences,adding a new dimension to supportteacher-learners in the different domainsneeding their attention during PD. Our learning model explicitly allocates time

for teacher-learners to learn in multipleroles – learning science concepts, learningto teach science concepts, and reflecting on practice (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009). This model, developed and dubbed SIMPL1

by Dan Lauffer and me in 2005, grew as adesign framework to build coherencebetween the vision for students’ science-learning experiences and teachers’ science-teaching-learning experiences. Thehallmark of SIMPL, which sets it apart frominstructional models designed for student-learners, is that it is used to apportionspecific times for different roles that teacher-learners play during effective professionaldevelopment (i.e. learning science content,learning about teaching science content,reflecting on teaching practices).

In the SIMPL approach for teacher-learners(Figure 3), participants are engaged inlearning sessions that are designed withboth an intentionally targeted pedagogicallearning outcome and a science-contentfocus. The length of a SIMPL session istypically no less than 60 minutes and nomore than one day.

A SIMPL session explicitly moves through asequence of stages in which participantsare facilitated to take on particular rolesthat pertain to the area of learning that is inthe foreground (e.g. learning scienceconcepts in a lesson like students wouldexperience, or learning about teachingstudents science concepts). The sequentialprogression, outlined below, is made visibleto participants by the facilitator, whodisplays a SIMPL poster during the PD tomake this design element visible to all(Figure 3).

1 The full title for SIMPL was originally the Science Immersion Model for Professional Learning. Because SIMPL was later used in maths CPD, we renamedSIMPL the SCALE Immersion Model of Professional Learning (SCALE being the overarching project for Science Immersion).




The SIMPL sequence occurs in three stages:

1. Teacher-learners’ prior conceptionsabout the session’s primary pedagogicallearning outcome are engaged from ateacher’s perspective (e.g. quick-write orbrainstorm chart about a particularaspect of supporting learners, such assupporting students to develop scientificexplanations). This is the first segment,commonly referred to as ‘the yellow’.

2. Teacher-learners explore from a learner’sperspective a lesson that was selectedbecause of its relevance to the session’sintended pedagogical learning outcome(e.g. they participate in a lesson similarto what we envisage for student-learners; in this example, the contentfocus could be the ability to form scientificexplanations or the scientific explanationfor a particular phenomenon). Thissegment is commonly referred to as ‘theblue’ and includes all three engage,explore, explain subsegments that arecentral to the pedagogical approach wewant teacher-learners to use in theirclassroom practices.

● During this stage of the SIMPLsession, participants suspend‘teacher’ thinking and questions,experiencing the learning solely fromthe learner’s perspective (frequentlylearning science content in waysnever encountered before).

● Also during this stage, the facilitatorexplicitly models the classroomteaching role that is a key aspect of the learning outcome for the SIMPL session.

3. From their common explore experience,teacher-learners reflect from a teachingperspective to explain the lesson’srationale with regard to the session’sintended learning outcome. In otherwords, teacher-learners now return tothe teacher role and examine the lessonthey experienced in the learner’s role.This is the second teacher-segment, andis also commonly referred to as being ‘inthe yellow’.

● Teacher-learners are facilitated during this time to construct anunderstanding of the intended

Figure 3 SIMPL approach for teachers as learners




learning outcomes and a rationale forthe pedagogical approach modelled inthe lesson experienced in ‘the blue’.

● Typically, additional resources (e.g. research excerpts or otheroutside reference materials) are usedwith a variety of learning strategiesduring this segment to connectteacher-learners’ experiences witheducational research.

● This time is intentionally designed for teacher-learners to reflect back on their initial conceptions (from the engage experience) and be metacognitive about their ownlearning of both science content and the pedagogy.

● Because our intention is to facilitatechanges in teachers’ knowledge andbeliefs about teaching and learning,we explicitly employ status constructsfrom the Conceptual Change Model(Hewson & Lemberger, 2000). Wehelp teachers to discuss if the ideasexplored seemed intelligible andplausible; we make time for reflectionon how fruitful the lesson was as alearning experience; and we explicitlyask if participants think the modelledapproach might be fruitful for theirown students’ learning.

Coherence and consistencyDesigning and facilitating teacher learningto align with those features we know arecritical for high-quality CPD requires askilled professional educator. Coherencebetween what we envisage for students inthe classroom and teachers’ experiences inCPD depends primarily on the PD facilitator.

A qualified CPD facilitator must understand,plan, and implement experiences thatengage a complex interplay of the teachers’knowledge and beliefs about teaching andlearning, if the PD is to change classroompractice (Crawford, 2007; Anderson, 2002).It is this quality of the CPD facilitation andthe facilitator’s ability to challenge teacher-learners’ thinking (i.e. knowledge andbeliefs about teaching and learning) that areimplicated as the two most influentialfactors in determining how fruitful alearning experience is perceived to be byteachers (Kibble, 2009). Given their pivotalimportance, it is critical that we askourselves: what are we doing to explain whatwe mean by ‘quality facilitation’ and toprepare those who facilitate teacher-learnersfor the complex role they assume?

It is common practice to select classroomteachers who successfully teach studentsand grant them the role of teacher-trainer,mentor, or PD facilitator with little or noguidance. We too often provide minimalsupport for the design and facilitation ofCPD, though it is intended to accomplishthe challenging goal of effectivelytransforming teachers’ knowledge andabilities with regard to both content andpedagogy. While it makes good sense torecruit CPD facilitators from amongexemplary teachers – those who both teachchildren skillfully and can explain what theydo and why it works – we need CPDfacilitators with additional skills becauseexplaining what they do and why it works isinsufficient for transforming teacher –learners’ practices. ‘Quality facilitation’ ofCPD is a complicated endeavour. Teacher-learners – like student-learners – need morethan demonstration and description fordeep learning and change in practice to




occur (Anderson et al, 1994; Borko &Putnam, 1996; Carter, 1990). To be effective,facilitators must support teacher-learners toconnect their beliefs, reasoning, andknowledge with the changes in practicesought by CPD (Davis, 2003; Feldman, 2000).

In order to address the need tocommunicate clear expectations regardingour vision for quality PD facilitation, wedeveloped the SIMPL approach and graphicfor facilitators as learners (Lauffer &Lauffer, 2009). Our first experience usingSIMPL with facilitator-learners developedwhen we formed and facilitated aprofessional development learningcommunity of CPD facilitators in thesecond-largest school district in the US, LosAngeles Unified School District (LAUSD).This professional group of up to 58educators met monthly (approximately) fortheir own learning, and also facilitated theScience Immersion CPD for teachers. Theyhelped shape and refine SIMPL, whichframed the PD for both facilitator- andteacher-learners (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009).From extensive experience using andanalysing our work with SIMPL, werecommend the following regarding thedesign and facilitation of quality facilitator-learning environments:

Just as we propose that a critical elementin teacher professional learning is theexplicit attention to different learningroles, so do we recommend that CPDfacilitators need professional learningopportunities to:

● engage prior conceptions about CPDfacilitation;

● explore in collaboration withcolleagues the various learningdomains and key elements involvedin facilitating teacher-learners;

● actively construct explanations forrelevant content through experiencesthat model effective facilitation andteacher-learning; and

● explicitly reflect metacognitively onboth CPD content and facilitation(pedagogy).

When the SIMPL approach is used tosupport CPD facilitator-learners, it isextended on both ends to address thefacilitators’ additional learning domain, thedomain in which their role is the facilitationof teacher-learners (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 SIMPL approach for professional development (PD) facilitators as learners




Coherence is fostered by using the SIMPLframework because the vision – thepedagogical goal for student-learners – isembedded in the professional learningexperience for teacher-learners, which isthen also embedded in the facilitator-learners’ experience. In the ‘green’segments of SIMPL for facilitator-learners,there are explicit opportunities forfacilitators to engage and developmetacognitive awareness of theirknowledge and beliefs about whatconstitutes quality CPD. Through theseexperiences, facilitators can develop acommon understanding of the vision andexpectations for CPD, which is central to aparticular reform effort.

During SIMPL sessions (for teachers and forfacilitators) an arrow is physically movedalong the SIMPL poster to indicate whichstage of the model is currently engaged. Thisrather rigid-sounding, linear approach is notintended to undermine the co-construction ofthe learning environment by all involved orrestrict the unpredictable teachable momentsthat arise. Rather, the facilitator uses theSIMPL poster to establish a norm amongparticipants to foreground and backgroundtheir various roles. This allows the group tohave shared, uninterrupted learningopportunities that are designed explicitly toaddress these different roles. Through thisexplicit use of the SIMPL framework,facilitators are supported to ask participantsto engage actively as learners from a varietyof angles, and the SIMPL poster clearlycommunicates that background roles will bemoved into the foreground at designatedtimes. Thus, teacher- and facilitator-learnerscan know that putting their teacher orfacilitator role concerns aside does not meanthey will be ignored. This allows for more

freedom to participate actively in the variousroles during all three segments of the SIMPLsequence.

We find that having clear expectationsabout making time for teacher-learners to become immersed in one role at a time is particularly important, because there is a strong tendency for teachers who areengaged in a lesson that involves unfamiliar content and/or pedagogy todisengage by critiquing the teaching orprocedures of the lesson.

We can anecdotally document fromhundreds of hours facilitating teacher-learners that lessons being modelled byfacilitators are frequently interrupted bycomments such as ‘my students couldn’t dothis’, or questions about materials andprocedures for conducting the lesson.However, using SIMPL, facilitators canredirect these comments respectfully with astatement such as ‘that’s an interestingquestion/comment; we’re in the blue rightnow, so please save that for the yellow’. Inthis way, SIMPL scaffolds both the facilitatorand teacher-learner to stay focused in aparticular role, allowing the time needed todevelop a common experience with thepedagogical learning outcome that istargeted by the session, before beginning toanalyse and explain its rationale.

The explicit use of SIMPL also encouragesPD facilitators to plan carefully to includemeaningful content in all segments andavoid shortchanging the teacher-roleexplain segment. By calling attention to thisimportant aspect of CPD – the time whenteacher-learners are facilitated to examinetheir knowledge of educational researchand best practices, and to reflect on their




own beliefs about teaching and learning –we set a clear expectation that facilitatorsneed to include this element in their CPD design.

This analysis and reflection aspect of CPDdesign can be challenging because itinvolves thoughtful selection of relevantresources to augment the featured lesson.The segment also can demand skillfulfacilitation of teacher-learners who may bequite resistant to the session’s learningoutcomes; therefore, inexperiencedfacilitators may avoid this domain ifinsufficient guidance is provided. Inaddition, reflection activities are regardedby some facilitators as ‘touchy-feely’ andwithout value. Because SIMPL providesmore direction about what needs to beincluded in the ‘yellow’ teacher-rolesegments (e.g. reading and discussingrelevant educational research, andreflecting using conceptual changeconstructs), facilitators have more guidanceto plan substantive content and activities,which is better for both learners andfacilitators. One final benefit we noted inusing SIMPL is the effect on facilitators’redesign choices that are made on the flyduring facilitation. CPD sessions arenotorious for running longer than theallocated time, and that causes a commonproblem: cutting the time allowed forprocessing a CPD lesson experience. Use of the SIMPL poster makes skipping or minimising the teachers’ processingtime clearly noticeable and tends toencourage facilitators to modify sessions,when necessary, and use creative strategiesthat leave all segments represented.Overall, we find that using the SIMPLframework helps to cultivate a shared visionfor quality facilitation.

ImplicationsThe SIMPL framework for designing andcommunicating a model for CPD representsa synthesis of strong CPD practices andtheories that Dan Lauffer and I gleanedfrom a wealth of experiences with talentededucators. While others have most certainlyunderpinned teacher and facilitatorprofessional learning with a multi-rolevision for learners’ experiences (Ball &Cohen, 2000; Mumme & Seago, 2002;Loucks-Horsley et al, 2003), SIMPL is arelatively new innovation for enacting andcommunicating that vision. The SIMPLframework is the result of our ongoingreflective practice designing and facilitatinglearning environments for teachers andCPD facilitators across the USA.

In the sections that follow, I discuss whatwe can know from the research on ScienceImmersion about influencing teachers'classroom practices using SIMPL in CPD. Next,

I offer an example of how SIMPL can be an effective approach for building acommon vision of CPD among PDfacilitators. Then, an example of SIMPL as a research lens in a South Africanscience CPD project is given to demonstrateits use as a tool for reflection.

SIMPL Supporting Teacher LearningThe most mature Science Immersion workwith SIMPL occurred at the middle schoollevel in LAUSD2. In two consecutive years,we used the SIMPL innovation both duringsessions for facilitators as learners(preparing to facilitate middle-level ScienceImmersion institutes and CPD) and for allCPD involving teacher-learners. During the2006/2007 school year, work in grade six




became the subject of an in-depth casestudy, involving extensive data collectionand analysis. Data collected from ScienceImmersion CPD teacher-participantsincluded the following:

● observations in 34 classrooms (two tothree observations per classroom fora total of 81 lessons)

● student work samples from 23classrooms (including 20 of thoseobserved)

● post-implementation survey ofscience classroom content with allparticipants

● post-implementation interview withall observed teachers

The research and evaluation team in theYear 5 Report to the National ScienceFoundation reported initial analyses ofthese data, and the following list of findingsis from the Evaluator’s Report (Porter et al,2007). Some of the ways that Grade 6 (platetectonics) Science Immersion CPD affectedclassroom practices included:

● Teachers reported statisticallysignificant increases in the percent ofinstructional time students spent (a)discussing data, (b) working in pairsor small groups, and (c) maintainingand reflecting on a portfolio of theirown work. Statistically significantdecreases were reported in thepercentage of instructional timedevoted to (1) students listening toteachers presenting material to theclass as a whole, and (2) taking testsor quizzes. This represents anincrease in active learning, oneindicator positively correlated withfidelity of implementation of animmersion approach.

● Classroom observations showed thatimmersion classrooms were much morecharacterised by teachers striving toteach for conceptual understandingand engaging students in analytictasks, than is typically seen in middleschool science classrooms in the USA.

● Teacher content coverage patternsshifted in ways consistent with theintent and design of the platetectonics unit in several importantways, including: (a) increasedemphasis on topics in the nature ofscience area, especially engagingstudents in asking scientifically-oriented questions, using evidence inscientific inquiry, and formulatingscientific explanations; and (b)moving instructional emphasis awayfrom memorisation as an expectationfor student learning and towardanalysis and application of knowledgeto real world phenomena.

This preliminary research indicates that asignificant increase in the use of inquiry inthe classroom occurred for teacher-participants. In addition, the study of teacherswho engaged in CPD to learn the Grade 6inquiry in plate tectonics showed significantgains in content knowledge. Those teacher-learners who scored the lowest on the pre-test of content knowledge attained anequivalent level of knowledge as the moreexperienced science teachers as a result ofinstitute participation (Osthoff et al, 2007).This indicates that the SIMPL approach,which includes time foregroundingconceptions of teaching and learning, did not dilute the science content learning(and may have enhanced it), and itinfluenced the classroom practices towardswhat was intended.




SIMPL Supporting FacilitatorsScience Immersion's influence on teachers'practices implies that the CPD that wasused in preparing facilitators – both indesigning the professional learning andfacilitating teacher learning – had qualitiesthat were effective in changing classroompractices. This is notable because suchtransformative results are what we seekwhen the intended outcome for our CPD isto change students’ science-learningexperiences to involve less memorisationand vocabulary and significantly moreconceptual understanding development.While we acknowledge that changingclassroom practice through any reformeffort requires co-ordinated support frommultiple directions, we identify quality CPDfacilitation as a critical feature of theScience Immersion project that influencedteacher-learners’ classroom practices(Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009). Further, weattribute the quality of the facilitationlargely to our consistent use of the SIMPLframework (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009).

SIMPL developed from our need tocommunicate effectively to both teacher-learners and facilitators what we mean byquality CPD facilitation. We used SIMPL withScience Immersion CPD facilitators tocommunicate and build an expectation forcoherence between the learningexperiences we all envisaged for studentsand the learning experiences we facilitatedfor teachers. Over the two years of ScienceImmersion when the professionaldevelopment facilitators met and co-facilitated CPD, we observed a significantshift in their goals and vision for qualityfacilitation (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009).

Discussions during our facilitator-learningsessions moved away from an emphasis onteacher-learner activities to more emphasison teacher-learning outcomes.

Through experience we learned that usingSIMPL explicitly with teacher-learners inCPD also created some accountability forfacilitators to model effective pedagogy.Further, using SIMPL to guide teacherprofessional learning design increasedfacilitators' attention to planning (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009). Designing CPD with SIMPLhelped to build appreciation for andcommitment to scheduling time forparticipants to reflect on their conceptionsof teaching and learning and activelyconsider how CPD experiences couldchange their classroom practices.

In one of our final meetings for facilitator-learners, we began developing a set ofSIMPL-aligned criteria for quality CPD (seeFigure 5). The purpose of this documentwas to communicate to others (e.g.administrators, new CPD facilitators, andpotential partners) the group’s expectationsfor CPD design and facilitation.

This level of PD analysis surfaced becauseof the shared vision for and commitment toquality CPD that grew among facilitatorswho were using the SIMPL framework. Wecite this draft of the group’s work as earlyevidence that the intentional use of SIMPLto frame CPD supported professionallearning among facilitators and articulatedcoherence. Even more important than whatis represented in this written document iswhat we observed over the course of theScience Immersion project: a significant

2 Science Immersion was a project within a large mathematics and science partnership grant for System wide Change for All Learners and Educators(SCALE), which was funded by the National Science Foundation




transformation in PD facilitation practicesdistrict-wide. Expectations elevatedsignificantly for both facilitators and CPDparticipants, and the rigour increased asCPD designers began to address teacher-learners’ multiple roles.

SIMPL Supporting Reflective PracticeIn addition to framing CPD design andfacilitation, SIMPL is being usedretrospectively to analyse a teachereducation programme in South Africa. The programme was designed to facilitate

● Participant concerns appropriately aligned with learning outcomes

❍ Concerns are anticipated, using the Concerns Based Adoption Model as a guide.

● Science content learning embedded

❍ Opportunities to develop understanding of the lesson’s content and appropriate additional content/context, to be well prepared to facilitate effective learning by students with diverse needs.

● Knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning addressed explicitly

❍ Opportunities to become familiar with the learning research and standards underpinning the pedagogy and conceptual flow embedded in the instructional materials and modeled in the professional development.

❍ Sufficient time is allocated for eliciting, building upon, making connections with, and sharing learning that is grounded in participants’ prior experiences and expertise.

❍ Explicit opportunities are given for metacognitive awareness about both content and pedagogy learning.

● Intentionally modeling and reflecting on pedagogical approaches

❍ Support for understanding and for having the ability to conduct and teach students through engaging in scientific inquiry.

❍ The Engage––>Explore––>Explain teaching and learning paradigm shift made explicit.

❍ Sufficient time given to reflect on how the intended teaching strategies in the instructional materials (and the rationale underpinning them) can work in participants’ own classroom contexts.

● Participants’ expertise honored; time given for problem solving and developing implementation strategies and collegial professional learning.

Figure 5 Draft criteria developed to describe quality professional development




prospective science teachers’ learning toteach argumentation as a particular form ofcritical thinking (Zohar, 2008), a designatedlearning outcome in the national curriculargoals of the country (Department ofEducation, 2002). Using SIMPL as aframework for reflection led to fruitfuldiscussions about how best to differentiateconversations in each of the different rolesinvolved when facilitating teacher-learners.SIMPL is being used in this case as a lensthrough which the programme is beinganalysed to identify where the learningexperiences bring clarity (or perhapsconfusion) to teacher-learners’ roles(Hewson et al, in preparation).

ConclusionIn our work with educators, SIMPL hasbecome an integral strategy that is usedduring CPD facilitation to support educatorsfrom multiple perspectives. We use SIMPLto guide and communicate our expectationsfor quality learning design and facilitation,and SIMPL is being employed effectively asa PD analysis framework. In all cases –learners learning science, teachers learningto teach science, and PD facilitatorslearning to facilitate teacher-learning – wefind that using an explicit learningframework to underpin professionallearning is a valuable approach for makingthe inner workings of CPD visible toteachers, facilitators, and researchers. Ourexperiences suggest that explicitly using alearning framework to plan and facilitateCPD results in a high percentage of teacher-participants changing their roles byadopting and implementing reform-orientedclassroom practices.

Both anecdotal evidence and the initialresults from research on teacher- and

facilitator-learning with the SIMPL approachare promising. However, these are entrypoints; we need greater understanding ofother factors in professional learning thataffect the likelihood of changing teachers’classroom practice, and there is much moreto understand about the elements within theSIMPL framework that are particularlyimportant for supporting change. This leadsus to advocate for additional research intohow CPD can better reach teacher-learnersand result in their ‘walking the talk’ that isenvisaged by education-improvement efforts.

Special thanks to Peter Hewson for hiscontributions to the evolution of the SIMPL framework.

References Anderson, R.D. (2002) ‘Reforming Science

Teaching: What Research Says AboutInquiry’, Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 13, (1), 1–12

Anderson, R.D., Anderson, B.L., Varanka-Martin, M.A., Romagnano, L., Bielenberg,J., Flory, M., Mieras, B. & Whitworth, J.(1994) Issues of curriculum reform inscience, mathematics, and higher-orderthinking across the disciplines. TheCurriculum Reform Project, University ofColorado. U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research andImprovement

Anderson, R.D. & Helms, J.V. (2001) ‘Theideal of standards and the reality ofschools: Needed research’, Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 38, (1), 3–16

Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (2000) Challenges ofimproving instruction: A view from theclassroom. Paper prepared for the Councilof Basic Education




Blank, R.K., Alas, N. & Smith, C. (2008) DoesTeacher Professional Development HaveEffects on Teaching and Learning?Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief StateSchool Officers. Retrieved August 13,2009, fromhttp://www.ccsso.org/projects/improving_evaluation_of_professional_development.

Borko, H. (2004) ‘Professional Developmentand Teacher Learning: Mapping theTerrain’, Educational Researcher, 33, (8), 3

Borko, H. & Putnam, R.T. (1996) ‘Learningto teach’. In R.C. Calfee & D. Berliner(Eds.), Handbook on educationalpsychology (pp. 673–708). New York:Macmillan

Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., VanScotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A. etal. (2006) The BSCS 5E instructionalmodel: Origins, effectiveness, andapplications. Colorado Springs: BSCS

Carter, K. (1990). ‘Teachers' knowledge andlearning to teach’. In W.R. Houston (Ed.),Handbook on research on teachereducation (pp. 291–310). New York:Macmillan

Council of Chief State School Officers(CCSSO). (2009) Effects of TeacherProfessional Development on Gains inStudent Achievement. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers

Crawford, B.A. (2007) ‘Learning to TeachScience as Inquiry in the Rough andTumble of Practice’, Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 44, (4), 613–642

Davis, K. S. (2003) ‘“Change is hard”: Whatscience teachers are telling us aboutreform and teacher learning of innovativepractices’, Science Education, 87, (1),3–30

Department of Education, Republic of SouthAfrica (2002) Revised National CurriculumStatement for Grades 8-9 Schools. Pretoria:Department of Education

Driver, R. & Scott, P.H. (1996) ‘Curriculumdevelopment as research: A constructivistapproach to science curriculumdevelopment and teaching’, Improvingteaching and learning in science andmathematics, 94–108

Feldman, A. (2000) ‘Decision making in thepractical domain: A model of practicalconceptual change’, Science Education,84, 606–623

Hewson, P.W. & Lemberger. (2000) ‘Status asthe hallmark of conceptual change. Anexample from learning genetics’. InMillar, R., Leach, J. & Osborne, J. (Eds.),Improving science education: Thecontribution of research (pp.110–125).London: Open University Press

Hewson, P.W., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M.,Koopman, R. & Braund, M. (Inpreparation). Learning to TeachArgumentation: A Pre-Service Curriculumfor Science and Technology Teachers inSouth Africa

Holman, J. (2009) ‘Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment for science teachers: thepresent position and the future’, ScienceTeacher Education, 55, 4–9

Keeley, P. (2005) Science curriculum topicstudy: Bridging the gap between standardsand practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Kibble, B. (2009) ‘Teachers changingdirection—the refractive practitioner’,Science Teacher Education, 55, 10–13




Lauffer, H.B. & Lauffer, D. (2009) ‘Buildingprofessional development cadres’. In S.Mundry and K. Stiles (Eds.), Professionallearning communities in science.Arlington, VA: NSTA

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E.,Mundry, S. & Hewson, P.W. (2003)Designing professional development forteachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Mahiri, J. (2004) Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 38, (4) (May, 2004), (pp. 467–471)Published by National Council ofTeachers of English Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171691

Mumme, J. & Seago, N. (2002) Issues andchallenges in facilitating videocases inmathematics professional development.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Education ResearchAssociation

National Research Council (NRC). (1996)National science education standards.Washington, DC: National ResearchCouncil

Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008) ‘Scienceeducation in Europe: Critical reflections’,A Report to the Nuffield Foundation.London: Nuffield Foundation

Osthoff, E., Clune, W., White, P., Ferrare, J.,Kretchmar, K. & Kelly, K. (2007)‘Tentative Findings of the SCALE Study ofMiddle School Immersion in LAUSD: AConversation with LAUSD Immersion PDFacilitators – System-wide change For AllLearners and Educators website’.University of Wisconsin-Madison, WisconsinCenter for Education Research: SCALE.Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.scalemsp.org/index.php?q=Tentative_Findings_MS_Immersion_LAUSD_Conversation_LAUSD_Immersion_PD_Facilitators

Porter, A., Millar, S., Watson, J. & Clune, W.(2007) System-wide Change for AllLearners and Educators Year 5 Evaluator'sReport, Submitted to the National ScienceFoundation (pp. 24–42). Annual Report,Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved January 11, 2010,fromhttp://www.scalemsp.org/index.php?q=Fifth_Annual_Evaluators_Report

Resnick, L.B. & Zurawsky, C. (Eds.). (2005)‘Teaching teachers: professionaldevelopment to improve studentachievement’, Research Points.Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association

Resnick, L.B. & Zurawsky, C. (Eds). (2007)‘Science education that makes sense’,Research Points. Washington, DC:American Educational ResearchAssociation

Roth, K.J., Druker, S.L., Garnier, H.E.,Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T. etal. (2006) Teaching Science in FiveCountries: Results from the TIMSS 1999Video Study. US Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center forEducation Statistics

Rutherford, F.J. (2005) ‘The 2005 Paul F-Brandwein Lecture: Is Our Past OurFuture? Thoughts on the Next 50 Years ofScience Education Reform in the Light ofJudgments on the Past 50 Years’, Journalof Science Education and Technology, 14,(4), 367–386

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995) TinkeringToward Utopia: A Century of Public SchoolReform. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press




White Rose University Consortium Team(2005) ‘The continuing professionaldevelopment of science teachers: adiscussion paper’, School Science Review,87, (318), 105–111

Zohar, A. (2008) ‘Science teacher educationand professional development inargumentation’. Argumentation in scienceeducation: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 245–268

Hedi Baxter Lauffer, Director ofCurriculum and Professional Development,The Wisconsin Fast Plants Program, Collegeof Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,Wisconsin, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Documents

SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitating STE ...€¦ · SIMPL: A framework for designing and facilitating professional development to change classroom practice Hedi Baxter