Incredible Teacher Narrative

The course at Z is going extremely well. I feel as though the 26 teachers participating are involved and eager to try to change things in their writing instruction and that many are thinking about their own learning and really taking ideas and thoughts back to their classrooms.

Last week we had a virtual session and the task I gave was to write a professional narrative connected to the teaching of writing and/or writing with students. Beforehand we discussed the rational of the task and I even brought an example from last year’s group. Many of the participants in this group are not too computer confident and I was worried that they wouldn’t manage finding the virtual campus, posting their stories and responding to others. All in all my worries were unwarranted and most of the teachers wrote and posted narratives. At the moment they are reading and responding to other stories.

The night before this week’s session, I was busy collecting the stories (for future use…) and responding. I respond to each and every narrative and try to be involved in the responses too. Many of my responses at this stage are questions which will help in the revision process to come.

One story made my heart race and brought tears to my eyes. I read it again and again before I wrote a detailed response. Immediately I wrote an email to the teacher author and asked her permission to bring her narrative to the group session. She readily agreed.

O wrote that at our last session she wasn’t able to concentrate – not in my lecture, not on the PowerPoint presentation that went with it and not on the workshop we did together. She said that concentrating on the writing process wasn’t possible for her. O told that that morning she had been on a hike with her class and that at one stage an eight year old boy fell off a cliff. He was extremely lucky that he wasn’t killed and that he was only injured fairly lightly. She told of her experience, of the phone call from the principal telling her that the incident was already reported on the Internet, of the terror, the helplessness and the frustration of not being able to protect her student.

O went home after our session and didn’t sleep all night. She was terrified of walking into the classroom the next morning and facing this reality. The injured child was in hospital and she had a whole classroom of traumatized children to deal with. After hours of deliberation, O remembered what we had been talking about in the course session and decided, at 4 am when she finally got out of bed, to devote the day to writing with her pupils. She decided to spend the day writing with her students to different audiences with different goals.

Lacking confidence, O entered the classroom and after a brief discussion, explained to the pupils what they could do. Some wrote to their injured friend in hospital, some wrote to the people responsible for the hiking trail, some wrote thank you letters to the parents who helped on the hike and helped deal with the complex situation and some wrote rules for behavior on trips outside school. During the writing time, O was free to move between the pupils and talk privately to each and every one of them. She could hear how they were coping and how they were feeling.

The pupils wrote and wrote. O was surprised that even her weakest students, those that usually refrain from writing, were creating important texts. She wrote that she sensed that the act of writing was helping these children process the experience and regain confidence and control. She admitted that the classroom interactions, the writing and the activity helped her regain her self confidence as a teacher. The pupils were so involved in this process that they asked to continue the next day, they had discovered that they enjoyed writing for real purposes and for real audiences. They had experienced writing as a means of sincere self expression.

A few days later O decided to tell this story as her narrative about writing. She told her story bravely and as a result received a lot of positive and supportive feedback from the other teachers. This event has changed the way O sees writing instruction and has changed the way many of her pupils view writing tasks.

One of the questions I asked O was whether she had told her principal about the way she decided to cope in the classroom. She replied that she hadn’t . I suggested she show the principal (if not all the other staff) her narrative – they can all learn from it as we did in the group.

Since reading  O’s story she is with me all the time. I am thinking about her terrifying experience, about her coming to my course after such a traumatic event and not telling anyone and about how she used writing to help her students recover.

Apart from receiving a lot of satisfaction that the materials we discuss in the course are making a real difference in the professional lives of teachers and their pupils, I was excited to see the process of writing itself encouraging the creation of new texts. O described how the writing done by her pupils encouraged her and stimulated her to write and I told her that her narrative had stimulated me to write a narrative of my own. I have no doubt that the writing of many teachers in the course will be enriched by the sharing of O’s story.

In a reflective discussion in her classroom, O told her pupils that she too had written a story after the traumatic event. Her pupils were very curious to hear that their teacher enjoyed the benefits of  writing too.

I still have a lot of thinking to do about the links between O’s story and the learning in our course and about professional narratives being links in a chain, a chain which strengthens and supports both writers and readers.

I am waiting to read the responses on the online forum, to see O’s text revised and to see the influence of O’s story on other narratives being created by teachers in the group.

amud

The location of the hike.

Picture: http://tiyulim.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_19.html

Coffee Shop Thoughts

coffee_240700_l

Yesterday on the way to Z I had time to stop at a coffee shop for a break. I knew I would have time to do some work so I brought a book on teaching writing and my notebook for free writing. When my sandwich and coffee arrived I had to decide what I would do. I decided to free write on a topic worrying me at the moment and as a result made a decision which turned out to be an important one.

I wrote:

“I have been thinking a lot about cutting the course down from 60 hours to 30 hours. I can see myself making a lot of mistakes. At the moment it is irrelevant that I don’t agree with the cut in hours or that I am frustrated that I had no say in the matter. What is relevant now is how I choose to use those 30 hours available to me and I how I make them significant enough for the teachers to come back for more.

I must be wary of trying to pack too much into too little time. What I can see happening is me racing through the “material” and not letting the teachers talk, collaborate on and process what is being learned. Slow down should be my message to myself. Giving the teachers time to discuss what they have been doing in the classroom since the last session is not a waste of time – it is reflection, it is socially processing the new knowledge.

If each teacher presents her peers with a short oral narrative on something she is doing in her classroom or reflects aloud on questions she is dealing with, these must be seen as real learning activities.

I believe that in this way, the teacher participants will be more active in their learning, they will be taking responsibility for putting new knowledge into practice. They will possibly be made more aware of their learning.

last year at K there were a few teachers who complained that the course was too theoretical. They weren’t actively involved and didn’t understand that the activities and strategies presented could and should be explored in the classroom. If I had given 10 minutes at the beginning of each session for discussion in small groups, they would have heard what their peers were experiencing.”

 

When I finished my free writing (and my snack), I made a decision to change the timetable for the session.  I really had planned too much. After the session I was convinced that I had made the right decision. The discussions and the writing exercises really were essential.

This decision will mean that that there will be topics I don’t touch this year but tht is realistic when I remember that I only have 30 hours…

 

 Image: http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=240700

New Course at A, New Excitement

Yesterday I opened course number 2 for the present school year, close to home, at A. I heard, ahead of time, that they had closed the enrollment (at 30) because there were too many teachers but in fact there were only 26 in the group. I was so worried that there would be a large group that I planned the session a bit differently.

My main problem in planning the opening session was that I knew that a few of the teachers had been present when I did a session for DK last year in her course at the same centre. When I stood in for her and did some introductory activities and a lecture on writing, I knew I would have a problem if the same teachers enrolled in my course. On the one hand I knew the taste of the course would encourage them to enrol but on the other hand, I wouldn’t be able to return to the introductory activities.

The group is very different to that in Z in that many of these teachers have been in contact with me in the past. At least 3 have studied in my courses on inclusion and four are from my school. At least 10 others teach at schools in which my professional learning colleagues work.

I haven’t had time to read their questionnaires yet but it will be interesting. I particularly want to read why they chose this course.

When I arrived at the centre I saw something that worried me greatly. There were teachers standing in a line and the receptionist was handing them a big folder (binder) of pages advertising courses and the teachers were choosing according to categories like “Oh, for this one I don’t need to use a computer” or “Great, this one finishes by…”. Is that how educators should be choosing their professional learning? Is that what happens when teachers are coerced into taking two 30 hr courses in a year? I want to hope that nobody chose my course for those kinds of reasons.

When we got to the stage when I asked the teachers to try out “looping” there was all over agreement and cooperation. Maybe the timer I brought did the trick? I asked them to free write on the topic of “Difficulties in Teaching Writing”, a topic they can all relate to. I put the clock on for three minutes and asked them to write quietly without stopping. Then I asked them to stop, to circle the 5 most important words they had written. I then gave them another three minutes on the clock to continue writing, this time concentrating on those five central terms. Apart from the teacher who corrected maths exams throughout the whole session (3 hours!), they were all quiet and did quite a bit of writing.

This wider participation may have been due to several reasons:

  • The teachers were trying out a strategy to be used in the classroom
  • I wrote on the program for the course that teachers would be expected to write
  • It is that kind of group…

I told them that the discussion on how they felt during the writing and how they reacted to the task would be in the virtual campus so I better set up the discussion group quickly. There is no doubt that I will find the 30 hour time limit frustrating. I need to be careful that it isn’t always the collaborative work and the discussions that I skip.

This week I have my second session at Z – I had a few email responses which were very positive.

New group

Yesterday afternoon I set off for my long drive to X. I was very excited to meet my new group, and hoped that we would get off to a good start. There were supposed to be 28 in the group but only 22 turned up for the first session.

The staff at the centre were waiting for me and the room and the technology were all fine. As soon as I had my computer set up, teachers started arriving.

This group is different from others I have worked with in that 90% of the teachers are from a very religious backgrounds and they teach in very religious schools. It will be interesting to see how they bring their school experiences to the sessions and to learn from them about their environment. I must ask them about their Internet access – often these families have limited Internet experience and facilities.

The room was set up with tables and chairs all facing the front in a horseshoe and I didn’t move them yesterday. I will definitely set them up differently next time, in order to promote small group discussion. As a result, the first meeting was more lecture style than I would have liked.

One of the conclusions I reached after last year was that I have to be more direct in explaining to the teachers what hey can take to the classroom and what my expectations are of them between sessions. Last year I encouraged them to take as much of their learning as possible to the classroom, but not all of the teachers understood the links. Those that did understand and tried the big and the little strategies and tools in the classroom, got a lot more from the learning experience. Yesterday I was very specific: “This is an important question to ask your students”, “Did you notice that I gave you all very small pieces of paper? This is so… In the classroom…”, “In the next two weeks, until we meet again, fill in this table which will help you examine what is happening in your classroom…”.

I am extremely frustrated that the Department of Education decided to cut all courses down from the compulsory 60 hours from last year to 30 hours this year. Instead of all teachers learning one 60 hour course, they are required to choose two different 30 hour courses. What can you do and learn in 30 hours? It isn’t enough to form any kind of learning community, especially when there are 25-30 teachers in the group. In my mind I have made a decision: rather than complain about it all the time, I will see this course as part A in a series. If it’s good they’ll come back for more.

It is frustrating that the desicion makers “up above” don’t listen to the teachers’ feedback (which said that the 60 hours facilitates deeper, more relevant learning) or current research on professional learning (sustained, ongoing…)

I suppose I shouldn’t complain, I believe that in the US, 16 hours is considered a long course.

Next week I will do the same program with another new group, they are located at K.

Taking a few baby steps forward

When I see that my last post is from the end of August I feel that time is running away from me. We went back to school on the first of September and since then I have been on the run. I have been trying to get up at 4:00 am every morning in order to sit and work on my doctorate. I can’t say that it happens every day and there are days when I do get up but have some urgent assessment or planning to do for school and I do that. Most days I manage to take a few baby steps forward.  

I am working on three different things at once. My ethics application is being read by GP and I already know that there will be many changes made to it. I wanted to get the application in and authorized before starting this years’ courses but I understand now that that was unrealistic. Once I have the forms in, I need to send similar documents to the Israeli Department of Education, to get their approval too.

In the meanwhile, I have started working on the literature review, according to the recommendations in Destination Dissertation by Foss and Waters. I feel as though I am progressing and am enjoying the work so far.

In addition, I started teaching the first of my four professional learning groups yesterday. As part of my big effort to write a lot about my experiences with the groups, I returned to blogging this morning.

http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=266493

http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=266493

 

The clock is ticking all the time and I must write a new post, the one I got up to write, about my session yesterday.

Almost a month since I wrote last, end of year blues…

I can’t believe that it is almost a month since I wrote last. Things have been terribly hectic at school and I finished teaching both of my courses. At home things are also heating up as end of year concerts, parties  and ballet performances get closer. I am trying to organize an extra day off for study next year – otherwise there is no way that I will be able to keep up with all my commitments.

So what’s up?

School:

As every one who works in education knows, the end of the school year is a difficult period. There is a lot of tension in the air for many reasons: pressure to get everything done, not easy working with tired children who are dreaming about the swimming pool or their next party, the teachers still don’t know what they will be doing next year and they are nervous about it… I feel as though I am organizing hundreds of things at once and nothing gets done 100% properly and certainly not from A to B without interruptions.

Courses:

I finished teaching both my courses and received interesting feedback from both groups. I will write a separate post on that.

For the last meeting I showed the teachers the movie “The Freedom Writers” about the Freedom Writers Diary. It was a nice way to end the course and the movie touches many of the issues discussed during our learning. There was a great atmosphere in both groups and the movie and popcorn added a lot. There is nothing like sitting together and sniffling over a great movie.

I must quickly reread the written feedback I received and make some kind of report out of it. I must inform the Teachers’ Centers where the courses were held, and I want to get the school principals involved in what the teachers experienced. In addition I must start thinking about next year and how I will improve on this year’s programs.

I received an invitation to go to Tel Aviv to a meeting with those in charge of Language and literacy in the Education Department. They are interested in working with teachers and writing more next year and wanted to hear more about my courses. They are planning a series of filmed lectures on teaching writing which will be used in inservice teacher learning all over the country. The Centre for Educational Technology is producing them. They liked my ideas and I am already going to do one filmed lecture in the next month, before I go to Australia. It sounds like something new and exciting, but a bit scary too. Lecturing in front of a camera will be a totally new experience – I am used to developing a topic together with the teachers listening and participating.

Conference:

I swore to myself that I wouldn’t leave my paper to the last minute. This week this will be one item at the top of my list. My paper is on the last day of the conference and I probably will have a very small audience. I am quite happy about that as my main aim here is just gaining experience. The problem is that I was hoping to get it over and done with early in order to enjoy the conference.

PhD:

No progress here. I think in a way I am waiting to get to Australia to sit down face to face with my supervisors in order to get myself going. On the other hand, all I did and am doing with my courses is the ground work for this enormous project. What worries me here is the less you DO, the less self confidence you have. When I am busy reading and writing and discussing ideas I feel I can achieve this task, when I’m not involved, it looks impossible.

Good news:

GP wrote to congratulate me that my article for English in Australia is out, that he actually read it. I can’t wait to see it – exciting news.

I’m off to make huge lists of things to do. I WILL keep writing here!

 

Moving towards meaningful peer collaboration

Today’s workshop at N will be based entirely on materials brought by the teachers. We have an assessment  workshop  with written texts straight from the classrooms and then will have a workshop for peer evaluation of our new teacher narratives and  a rubric produced by one of the teachers. I am happy that the teachers feel comfortable bringing their materials to the group and that there are many pieces to choose from.

One message which is being communicated by the participants is that they are constantly surprised that they are now going back to classroom activities and teaching strategies from the past. They are realizing that it is legitimate to use “forbidden” activities from the Whole Language days.

I’ll write more after the session.

 

Full Day Seminar for the N teachers

This week, school holidays for Passover,  I met with the teachers from N for a full day seminar. As we couldn’t meet at the teachers’ center, we met at my school. There are many benefits in this, including the use of our wonderfully equipped computer room and the friendly, educational environment (which we certainly don’t have this year at the center which is always “just about to be done up”). There is much to discuss about where external PL meetings take place and how the surroundings can contribute or hinder learning. An interesting comparison I should make is the experience I have this year at the two teachers’ centers, K and N.

Anyway, this time we met at my school, we began with hot coffee and cakes I brought with me. With 100% attendance (very rare, especially in school holidays) we began the seminar.

The day was divided into two parts – the first dealing with the digital text and the effect of the Internet on writing and the second on connections between reading and writing.

We began with a brilliant piece from You-tube, one I was introduced to by Ilana Snyder in the course I studied with her at Monash.

 

This piece has so much in it that I could have based a whole two hour workshop / lecture on it and still not touch all of the information and messages contained. The workshop was successful with very lively participation from all the participants (including those closer to the web and those that are barely computer literate).

My frustration with the Hebrew language surfaced again. Why aren’t there materials such as these being developed here daily? Why isn’t more material being translated?  When I bring something in English (even a cartoon), there is always tension in the air. Israeli teachers as a rule are threatened by the English language and would prefer not to use their knowledge in their learning, despite the fact that most have a fairly good grasp of the language.

Together we explored what our curriculum has to say about digital texts. I was surprised that most of the participants had not noticed these pages before. Then we moved on to a document that none of the participants knew existed, the standards booklet for  learning in an ICT environment. The necessary link between literacy teachers and the digital world out there is just not being formed. I got the impression that even the teachers who are technologically independent and do use computers and the Web in their teaching, have never dealt with the changes occurring in written language.

They were all interested and active and one of the senior teachers from my school commented that I must do the seminar (or at least part of it, with all the teachers at our school). I was satisfied that the questions were raised and that the topic is now “on the table”.

Two questions that need to be addressed, and of course were raised in the group are 1. the digital divide: “It’s not such a big deal at a school like this which teaches children from well off homes…” or “At our school there are no computers in the classroom and we don’t have lessons in the computer room…”   and 2. The expectation that teachers become more computer literate: “We have many teacher at our school that don’t know anything about computers, they are scared of them. How can they be expected to teach these things to the kids?”.

We then moved on to discuss the positive impact technology can have on student motivation to write. When I discussed blogs (explaining from the beginning as most had no idea what I was talking about) they were shocked by the possibilities. I could see that some of the teachers began racing in their minds what they can do with this new option, but others concentrated on the “why nots”: “My class is too big”‘, “I don’t have time to read all the writing and comment before it is posted”, “Who has time to check a blog every day and run it?”

I proudly presented the blog I am running for my students, I can’t wait to use blogging in other groups and classes next year.  

The second part of the day was dedicated to the connections between reading and writing. For a moment I was disappointed that I couldn’t show the powerpoint presentation I had prepared and then I realized that I didn’t need it. As a result the teachers talked more and I talked less – always a better situation.

As a starter they worked in pairs and prepared a venn diagram to present how reading and writing are similar and different. The discussion was very fruitful and the diagrams were very varied. I will scan them and post them on the virtual campus. We then opened up the discussion in the whole group. Later on I presented the research that has been done in the field and presented examples of work that can be done in the classroom, every day, to strengthen the connections between reading and writing. The aim is of course  to reinforce both writing and reading, and of course, thinking.

The most disturbing part of the discussion for me was when teachers who know how to combine the two spoke of how after “The Reading Wars”, they believed (or were specifically told) that everything they did in their Whole Language classrooms must be disregarded. As a result, they have been teaching reading very differently and writing has been totally separate. Some of the teachers in grades 1 & 2 commented that they thought that they weren’t allowed to ask the children to write until they “finished teaching reading” (Is that ever completed?). As the pendulum swings backwards and forwards, it seems that the more teachers are confused, and the less time is spent in real teacher learning, the results in the classroom are more destructive.  

 That’s it for today…

15 Minutes Freewriting – An Idea from Borko

“… To foster such discussions, professional development leaders must help teachers to establish trust, develop communication norms that enable critical dialogue, and maintain a balance between respecting individual community members and critically analyzing issues in their teaching (Frykholm, 1998; Seago, 2004).  

This week I ran a workshop for my group at K. I was pleasantly surprised beforehand that so many of the participants did writing activities in their classrooms and sent me examples of student texts.

After thanking those that made the effort to send me material for the workshop, I explained that our aim is to learn from the students’ writing and to experience examining texts looking through “positive glasses” and not through the “groan, spelling mistake, terrible writing…” glasses. Our aim was to look at what the students KNOW about writing, rather than point out heir problems. I asked the teachers to treat the work of their colleagues with sensitivity and respect.

The workshop wasn’t bad and I had plenty of positive feedback from the participants but after reading the article by Borko, yesterday, I understood something that is starkly missing in the course – a real feeling of being a learning community. I can’t really blame the size of the group or the participants because in N the same situation exists (though less so).

I must spend a lot of time and energy at the beginning of the course forming a group, gaining trust from the teachers, hearing far more from them about what happens in their classrooms. I must also think hard to determine ways that the online section of the course (which incidentally has more discussion between the teachers themselves on their practice – through the use of teaching narratives) can help foster trust and security within the group.

I am worried that one of the teachers felt badly about the way questions were asked and the way others saw the work of her students. I have made a note to talk to her. I read here yesterday that if teachers come to a course sure that their practice is perfect, no learning will take place. It is my responsibility to help those teachers on their road to questioning and learning.

I used to give one teacher 15 minutes or so of each meeting to present something she does in her classroom. This was always popular with the participants but the time given was really was only to share ideas. I never dared use the time for the teacher to raise dilemmas or share difficulties or for the participants and I to critically evaluate the ideas or practices for the benefit of everyone’s learning.

This is an area which definitely deserves more thought and discussion.

That’s it for now…

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

Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain / Borko

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.