thesisthoughts

I was happy to see that Sage are having another month of free access to all of their journals. They can be accessed here.

 The first article I chose to read is by Hilda Borko, one of the researchers cited in the Stanford report (although they cite a different study). This article maps the research which has been completed or is currently underway in the field of PD and teacher learning, but more importantly, it outlines necessary directions for new research.

Borko presents examples of policy papers (e.g. No Child Left Behind – 2001) which call for “high-quality” PD programs for teachers. She notes that these policy makers do not usually include descriptions of what constitutes quality programs and guidelines how they can be achieved. Citing the work of Ball and Cohen (1999) and Putnam and Borko (1977), the author claims that PD programs are usually “fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we know about how teachers learn” (p. 3).

 Borko believes that much progress has been made in the past 20 years of research, and that there is evidence available that teacher learning can influence instruction and student learning. Despite this progress, she is aware that “we are only beginning to learn, however, about exactly what and how teachers learn from professional development, or about the impact of teacher change on student outcomes” (p. 3).

The author adopts the situative theory of learning which views “learning as changes in participation in socially organized activities, and individuals’ use of knowledge as an aspect of their participation in social practices” (p. 4). She quotes Adler (2000, p. 37) “… a process of becoming knowledgeable in and about teaching”.

 Teacher learning takes place in a variety of different contexts, in the classroom, at school and in PD frameworks. Research on the professional learning of teachers must examine the teachers as individual learners and the context in which the learning is based.

Borko lists the main elements of PD systems:

• “The professional development program;
• The teachers, who are the learners in the system;
• The facilitator, who guides teachers as they construct new knowledge and practices; and
• The context in which the professional development occurs” (p. 4).

 The author chooses to divide research into three phases, each continuing on from the previous phase.

“Phase 1 research activities focus on an individual program at a single site. Researchers typically study the professional development program, teachers as learners, and and the relationship between these two elements of the system. The facilitator and the context remain unstudied. In phase 2, researchers study a single professional development program enacted by more than one facilitator at more than one site, exploring the relationship among facilitators, the professional development program and teachers as learners. In phase 3, the research focus broadens to comparing multiple professional development programs, each enacted at multiple sites. Researchers study the relationships among all four elements of a professional development system: facilitator, professional development program, teachers as learners and context”. (p. 4).

Aims of the different phases:

• Phase 1 – to prove that a particular PD program can have a positive influence on teacher learning.
• Phase 2 – to determine whether a particular PD program can be delivered “with integrity”, in different locations by different facilitators.
• Phase 3 – “to provide comparative information about the implementation, effects, and resource requirements of well-defined professional development programs” (p. 11).

Phase 1 -

• Most of the research done to date has been this kind.
• usually small studies
• usually the creators of the program are the researchers.
•  ”evoke images  of the possible… not only documenting that it can be done, but also laying out at least one detailed example of how it was organized, developed, and pursued” (Shulman. 1983, p. 495).
• provide evidence of the positive influence of teacher learning communities on learning and instruction.
• “Records of practice are powerful contexts for teacher learning” (p. 7). (e.g. videos of lessons, student work, lesson plans).
• The challenge of exploring the individual teacher learner and the community is discussed.

Phase 2:

“A professional development program must be well defined and clearly specified before researchers can investigate how it is enacted by multiple facilitators in multiple settings, and what resources are needed to ensure its effectiveness” (p. 9).

Borko did not find any programs which are able to prove that they can be presented “with integrity” in different locations by different facilitators. She does however bring a few examples of programs (like the NWP), which are aiming towards this goal or are widespread.

In my experience… In previous years, when we used to sit as a team to plan PL courses, they always turned out to be very different, despite the similar content. The way a facilitator understands the material, the group of teachers participating (motivation, background knowledge, willingness to take learning to the classroom and bring it back for reflection…) and even the physical conditions at the PD centre (technology, atmosphere, set up of tables…) all make a huge difference.

Today, I am teaching the same material in two different sites and I can see that the courses are very different. The differences between the groups and even the physical conditions at the teachers’ centre determine, very often, how the workshop will be delivered.

Phase 3:

“Research tasks include gathering and analyzing data from multiple professional development programs, as they are enacted by multiple facilitators at multiple sites” (p. 11).

The author does not know of any phase 3 research that has been done, despite its importance for resource allocation.

Directions for future PD design and research:

• important for research to be done in all 3 phases
• investigating whether the characteristics of effective PD programs can be utilized when planning PD in a different content area.
• Projects like the NWP should explore whether their content and materials are sufficiently clear to enable other sites to  present them “with integrity”.
• Phase 2 must explore the dilemmas associated with “fidelity and adaptation”. “Which elements of a program must be preserved to ensure the integrity of its underlying goals and principles” (p. 13).
• In stage 3 there will be a need for new data collection and analysis tools.
• Stage 3 research – “resource requirements for successful enactment of professional development programs and impact on teacher and student learning” (p. 13).

Reading this article has helped me put my blurry image of my research into perspective. According to Borko’s division into 3 phases, my work will be stage one.. or maybe stage 2…? 

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-15.

This entry was posted on April 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm and is filed under PL course, professional development, professional learning, research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.