Category Archives: professional development

Thought Provoking Email

Posted on by
Reply

Last night I received this email from L after I sent out the assignment rubrics and marks yesterday morning.

 

הי ניקי, לראשונה מזה  14 שנות עבודתי בהוראה, קיבלתי התייחסות כזו אישית ממדריכה בהשתלמות.

 תודה ושנה מצויינת

ל

Translation: Hi Nikki, This is the first time, in my 14 years teaching, that I have received a personal response such as this from a leader in a professional development course.

Thank you and have an excellent year,

L.

Answer same day:

ל, ריגשת אותי!

שבת שלום,

ניקי

Translation:

L,

You moved me!

Good Sabbath,

Nikki

 

Most of the teachers wrote back and returned my blessings for a good new year and a few remarked that they hoped I would run additional courses in the future. Some commented again on the positive learning experience they had received.

I was struck by L’s response but realized quickly that instead of smiling to myself and enjoying the compliment, the remark troubled me and opened up a flow of questions:

2

What did I do that was seen as being so personal?

Is this really (so) unusual?

What causes a teacher to feel seen and heard in a learning framework?

What does the Education Department have to say on these issues? Are there guidelines? Is this an issue?

Why is personal response so absent in many professional learning frameworks?

and maybe more importantly: Is this the dialogue that is so missing in the eyes of a few of the teachers I have interviewed for my PhD. It is indeed becoming more and more apparent that this is a key concept!

2

I have complained in the past that the decision to shorten courses to 30 hours makes it far more difficult to form significant relations with the lecturer and within the group. I have written often that it bothers me that I don’t know all the names of the teachers in these groups and I don’t always know how to match the narratives I read on the online campus with the faces I see in class.

What is the connection between personal attention and response to significant learning? We talk about it all the time in reference to pupil learning and it is somehow disregarded when considering teacher education.

Where do I place emphasis on personal and professional relationships in these courses?

I begin my courses with the letter I write to participants. The letter, inspired by the work of Dr Julian Kitchen, tells about myself and the way I see the course. In my experience, it immediately forms a sense of intimacy between myself and the teachers individually. The letters I receive in return have a personal tone to them and many teachers remark that they were excited to read my letter and to have a chance to present themselves in their own words.

Another feature of the course is the opportunity to write a narrative about the teaching of writing. Teachers are invited (required) to compose a text which describes a successful project, lesson or interaction, to present a dilemma or a problem or to describe another aspect of their work in detail. Teachers are given the stage on the online forum and then receive significant feedback from peers – compliments, thoughtful questions, ideas, advice, empathy etc. In addition, I respond, in length, personally to each and every teacher narrative. A face to face session invites the teachers to further engage in peer conferencing and evaluation surrounding the narratives before revision and reposting on the online forum.

The final assignment of the course is mainly reflection on what happened in the teachers’ classrooms and what significance the learning experience had for them personally and professionally. Maybe this opportunity to look inward and to communicate those thoughts with others contributes to the feelings of sharing and personal connection.

I return the assignment with a rubric explaining the grade and a personal comment. Usually I write which part of the assignment I found most interesting. After reading L’s email, I ask myself  how other lecturers communicate with teachers about their assignments. Are the assignments returned? Are marks sent by email? What kinds of comments are written?

It seems I have little knowledge about what really goes on in other courses. I need to follow this lead as it will throw a lot of light on the stories I am hearing in my interviews with teachers.

 

 

I don’t have a bag of magic tricks!

Posted on by
Reply

huge_22_110378

After months of silence here, a recent experience has brought me back to the blog. Most of my writing and freewriting has been done privately, off line in the past few months but this is an experience I felt I should / could / might share if anyone is still around and reading.

I was attending a meeting of leaders of professional development in my field (another thing I haven’t done for months for various reasons) and as I was collecting my bags and getting ready to go home, I was stopped by a new member of the group, someone I have never met before. She had recognized me during the introduction phase of the meeting and approached me.

“Oh, you are Nikki Aharonian… can I ask you a question?”

“Yes, sure…”

“My name is ____ and this year I am working with teachers in the ____ area. This week I was approached by a teacher from ___ school who took part in your course last year… This teacher said that although she had enjoyed the course and got a lot out of it, she has a serious problem, her second grade pupils still don’t know how to write!”.

At this stage I took a deep breath. I didn’t answer, I just waited for the rest.

“How could that be the case? She studied with you all year didn’t she? Can you give me the tips I need to tell her what to do? What should I tell her?…”

Trying to keep calm, I explained what I explain in my courses, that there are no magic tricks in teaching children to write. That writing is a process and that learning to become a proficient writer begins at age 2 approximately and continues well into adulthood. I told her that if the teacher sits quietly with her notes from the course and with the powerpoint presentations I prepared, she will (hopefully?) remember the message she heard during the course. I pointed out that the teacher attended 30 hours of sessions and not a whole year and that the learning achieved depends a lot on what the teacher did in her classroom between the meetings. I firmly said that the three factors which really make a difference to the writing done by children are 1. time given (How much time a day / week are these pupils actually writing? I explained quickly that copying from the blackboard and doing close exercises isn’t writing)  2. clear and appropriate direct instruction and 3. teacher support and significant feedback.

The response was another request for “tips”.

“Teaching writing just doesn’t work like that”  I replied and turned to organize my bag.

I left this discussion feeling depressed. I was sorry that the teacher reacted hysterically to the children’s writing instead of taking a deep breath and getting down to work. I was frustrated that a leader of professional development (learning) should be looking for recipes in such a complex field. I was frustrated again by the length of the course, what should I expect after 30 hours?

I have a feeling this story will ring bells when I begin interviewing course participants for my thesis. I must prepare myself to hear how quickly many teachers “move on” from learning experiences if they are not brought into the classroom and put into practice.

This week I begin my courses for the 2010 – 2011 school year. Again I will meet extremely heterogeneous groups of teachers eager (more or less…) to learn how to improve their students’ writing.

What will I do differently this year?

Education and training committee final report: Inquiry into effective strategies for teacher professional learning. Thoughts on the Victorian Inquiry.

Posted on by
Reply

  This report was also recommended to me by GP.

One of the first things I noticed was that all the members of the committee are men, all politicians. I don’t know if any of them have the slightest hint of personal background knowledge on the subject. The “staff” members of the committee are all “Ms”.

One early question worrying me is why is a political body working on its own in isolation to produce this kind of report?

The report states:

“… quality teaching… has the greatest impact on the quality of student learning” (p. v). That is certainly a sentence which most would agree with, here it is unsupported though.

“International best practice indicates that teacher professional learning will be most effective when it is supported by a robust policy framework, and includes mechanisms for defining, certifying and recognising the development of teaching expertise” (p. xii).

According to the VIT Renewal of Registration Guidelines, 2007, all Victorian teachers are required to do 100 hours of professional learning every 5 years, in order to renew their registration.

The committee is concerned that emphasis is being placed on the quantity of professional learning and not the quality. The recommend demanding accreditation for professional learning providers, as is done in NSW and Scotland. The committee believes that at least 50% of the required hours be from accredited providers.

Another committee recommendation is that there be “…opportunities to progress through higher categories of teacher registration”– that a system of additional credential be established (as in Scotland and Ontario, Canada). In order to advance to a higher category, teachers would have to take part in PL which leads to credentials and demonstrate advanced teaching practice. (How on earth do you prove that?)

The committee recommends the establishment of a framework for PL which prepares teachers for school leadership positions and determines their eligibility to serve in those roles.

Chapter 3 Types of Content and Delivery

(p. xiii) “… variety is an essential characteristic”. This variety  relates both to content and delivery mode (inquiry based, action orientated, value of school based PL…).

The report explains that off site PL is “… most effective when it is undertaken by teams of teachers, and closely integrated with school based professional learning programs” (p. xiii). This is also true in my own experience, both as a participant and as a provider of PL. When teachers go back to school and share their learning and share their experiences in the classroom, the learning may have a better chance of being continued at school.

Chapter 4 – Implementing the Policy Framework in Schools

The report emphasises the importance of integrating PL into  “… teacher’s day-to-day work”. The claim that teachers prefer to learn during the school day. I agree that learning should be an important part of a teacher’s day and that it can indeed work effectively in the racing car pace of school, but it cannot replace the allocation of quiet learning time outside school hours.

“These programs should be informed by, and evaluated against, evidence of how professional learning activities have contributed to demonstrable improvements in teaching practice and student learning” (p. xiv).

Of course this statement is not supported by suggestions of HOW THESE THINGS CAN BE DETERMINED. As hard as it is to recognise “improvements in teaching practice”‘ it is far harder to relate particular changes (improvements?) to a particular PD course or coaching session at school. It is just as difficult to connect student learning to a particular learning event undertaken by a particular teacher.

Chapter 5 – Early Childhood Sector

Recommendations  – P. xvii

The committee calls for the compulsory recording of all PL activities and their outcomes (p. xix).

How should I record the learning I am doing this morning while blogging these notes I wrote a month ago? How should I record the life changing effect these notes are having on the teachers I work with and on my grade 6 pupils?

I don’t know why it annoys me so much, but why on earth is Committee written with a capital C? (p. 3).

“As a comprehensive review of all available literature lay beyond the scope of the inquiry, the Committee relied primarily on written and oral submissions to summarise or draw attention to salient research” (p. 3).

International investigations – Finland, Scotland, Canada (p. 5-6)

Definitions:

  • teacher – (p. 7 )
  • PL (and PD) – (p. 8 )

Distinction between PD and PL (School of Education, Victoria University, NSW Institute of Teachers) – (P. 8)

“The Committee supports this differentiation between the learning that results from activities aimed at developing professional expertise, and the activities themselves” (p. 8).

The Australian Education Union provided a list of activities which can be considered PD. Included are writing articles for professional journals, curriculum writing and internet discussion groups. (p. 9)

Effective is defined by outcomes. The Committee believes there should be an improvement in student learning.

The use of the term “teacher expertise” is always interesting.

“… if a professional development activity does not enhance teacher expertise, then professional learning has not taken place.” (p. 10). The Committee admits that professional learning is not neccessarily “new knowledge” (p. 10). Very often it supports and enriches previous knowledge.

A survey is quoted to present the fact that often teachers do not change their teaching as a result of their PD activities.

The Committee believes that Victorian schools should continue to look for changes in teaching practice as a determinant of the effectiveness of PL, it also notes the subtleties that must be taken into account. (p. 10).

“The Committee recognizes that professional learning may still benefit teachers even if their practice does not noticeably change, by increasing their confidence in their existing practice or contributing incrementally to changes in practice in time” (p. 10). This may not be bad. I imagine there are teachers around doing some good things in their classrooms. If they just increse their confidence and receive positive feedback on their practice… should that be replaced by change???

“… relationship between teacher professional learning and student learning is most complex of all” (p. 10). At least this is acknowledged.

Points raised:

  • This connection is long term
  • differences between classrooms make it hard to determine
  • sometimes teacher learning affects students in different ways, not necessarily in their achievement levels.

The evaluation of teacher professional learning in Victoria is based ob teacher satisfaction levels, parent opinions and student surveys. The report recognises that it is very complicated to evaluate teacher learning by student outcomes, another method is to examine the characteristics of professional learning.

In 2005 the Department of Education and Training published “Seven Principles of Highly |Effective Professional Learning”

  1. Focused on student outcomes (not just individual teacher needs.
  2. Focused and embedded in teaching practice (not disconnected from schools).
  3. Informed by best available research on effective teaching and learning (not just limited to current teacher knowledge).
  4. Collaborative, involving reflection and feedback (not just individual inquiry).
  5. Evidence based and data driven (not anecdotal) to guide improvement and measure impact. (???????)
  6. Ongoing, supported and fully integrated into the culture and operations of the system – schools, networks, regions and the centre (not episodic, fragmented).
  7. An individual and collective responsibility at all levels of this system (not just the school level) and is not optional.

Context for the Inquiry – P. 12

– This is a period of “heightened professional accountability” (p. 12).

-“Professional Learning Research Strength, Faculty of Education, Monash University, cautioned against a paradigm of professional learning that conceptualises it as a ‘remedy for deficiencies and gaps in teachers’ existing practices’ ” (p. 12).

Many particularly suggested professional learning ” to be regarded as a means of recognising and supporting teacher professionalism, not as a way to address perceived ‘defecits’ in teacher expertise” (p. 12).

Chapter 2 – p. 15 – Towards an Effective Policy Framework

VIT – Victoria’s regulatory teaching authority

A policy for the development of teacher ezpertise may involve:

  • professional learning
  • professional standards for defining teacher expertise
  • policies for certifying teacher expertise through professional credentials
  • policy for the recognition of teacher expertise through rewards and incentives

Imust reread Grahm Parr’s article which argues for distiunction between quality teachers and quality teaching.

VIT – “The Institute is charged with recognising and promoting the profession of teaching, and regulating members of the Victorian teaching profession” (p. 52). There are similar bodies in most states and a national body “Teaching Australia” est 2005.

 Pre-service Teachers (p. 19)

There is a 4 year teacher education program + practicum. Programs must be VIT accredited.

The authors of the report are happy with the changes which have occurred since the standards were introduced and would like to see similar guidlines for practicing teachers.

Provisionally registered teachers

Questions relating to current policy:

  1. Can early carreer teachers cope with extra PD in their first year/s of teaching?
  2. Should they take the time for PD in the first year/s?
  3. Should they need it?
  4. Is the aim to add to pre-service knowledge or to give “support or encouragement as they apply the knowledge they bring with them to their day-to-day work”?  (p. 20)

The committee believes that beginning teachers should have access to external PD but should concentrate on mentoring and support within schools.

Current Policy for Provisionally Registered Teachers p. 20

Provisional registration is 12 months up to full registration, at least 80 days of teaching and an “evidence-based assessment process to demonstrate that their teaching meets or exceeds the VIT’s standards for professional practice for full registration”.

Seminars, mentor programs with a school based panel –

  • The required work for the program is a problem for many teachers
  • time is also an issue for mentors
  • A school based panel can be problematic…

In NSW there is an external assessment  rather than a school based assessment (solves the objectivity issues).

Registered Teachers

“… increased teacher enthusiasm and morale are important outcomes of teacher professional learning… “ (p. 23).

Current Policy Framework for Registered Teachers

Every 5 years teachers must:

  • demonstrate ongoing suitability
  • undergo a criminal history check
  • do a minimum of 50 days of teaching
  • and now… do a hundred hours of PD (at least 50 hours outside school).

In Israel teachers are not required to do any of these things to remain teaching.

Quality assurance of PD in Victoria

Professional Development Interface (PDI) online – an online database of PL providers.

Participant feedback is an important tool but is very subjective. There must be a formal system of quality assurance. The Committee suggests that 50 of the 100 required hours be provided by an accredited source.

Principles of Learning and Teaching PoLT (p. 31)

rubric for examining practice.

Certification for Professional Learning

The Committee believes this can help. They recommend higher tertiary study for teachers but acknowledge that this is not always possible because of the time and the cost.

In Ontario, there  is a separate system of credentialing specific for teacher professional learning. It is called the “Additional Qualifications Framework”.

84% of teachers sign up, at their own expense, on holidays and weekends.

In Scotland there is the “Framework for Professional Recognition”. It is based on curriculum subjects and cross curricular (literacy, special needs etc) and also caters for mentoring and leadership training. Accommodation is made for self evaluation, reflection, discussion and professional learning.

Accomplished and Expert Teachers (p. 35)

Table 2.4 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Professional Standards for Teachers

  • Graduate teachers
  • Accomplished teachers
  • Expert teachers
  • Leading teachers

“Progress through the levels is conditional on the demonstration of advanced teaching practice, evaluated against applicable professional standards. At present… in goverment schools the decision to progress a teacher to a higher level of salary rests with the principal” (p. 37).

2008 NSW Institute of Teaching – added two additional levels for teachers:

  1. Professional Accomplishment
  2. Professional Leadership.

These levels are based on reports made by the school and external assessors.

In Western Australia there is the “Senior Teacher program”. Teachers must undergo “recent and relevant studies at a college or uni or specific professional learning programs”.

The Committee believes that “the development of higher categories of teacher registration would provide a valuable incentive and opportunity for Victorian teachers to develop their professional expertise to an advanced level”.

The Committee believes that “the program should not reflect the attainment of credentials alone but should also require teachers to demonstrate advanced teaching practice” (p. 39).

The report quotes a survey:

“… principals and teachers in leadership roles tended to rate overall measures of quality, relevance and support for their professional learning much more highly than those in classroom based roles” (??????????)

In 2008 there were plans to create an Institute of Educational Leadership.

Summary and Recommendations (p. 44 – 46)

Chapter 3 Types of Content and Delivery (p. 47)

Participants expect “the content of teachers professional learning to be based on sound educational research international best practice, and scientifically proven teaching methods” (p. 47).

They also expect “credible presenters with strong background knowledge…”

ICT (p. 55)

Modes of Delivery (p. 62)

Learning through Practice (p. 65)

“Arguably, the most important form of teacher professional learning occurs through actual teaching practice. Practicing teachers learn constantly, by experimenting with new approaches and developing practice to meet emerging needs. The Committee heard that an important part of learning through practice is reflection, or thinking about practice, either individually or through discussion with colleagues” (p. 65).

“The Australian Centre for Effective Partnerships commented that teachers need encouragement and support to engage in ongoing reflection on their practice” (p. 65).

Learning from each other (p. 67)

Peer observation, mentoring, working in teams, networking beyond the school.

Electronic collaboration and web 2.0 (p. 74)

Joint research (p. 77)

Professional Reading (p. 79)

Online Professional learning (p. 105)

Parliament of Victoria. (2009). Education and training committee final report: Inquiry into effective strategies for teacher professional learning. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/reports/professional%20learning/fullreport.pdf

 

Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain / Borko

Posted on by
1

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.

Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher

Posted on by
Reply

Here is another really new up to date report on the state of professional development (or professional learning), this time from the US.

 

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos,

S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher

development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development

Council.

 

The report can be found online here.

 

I found the report to be reader friendly and I was happy to see that it was compiled by academics in the field of Education (The School Redesign Network at Stanford Uni), rather than politicians eager to push schools and educators in a particular direction. There were many things I agreed with in the report and many others that caused me to feel uneasy or mark them with huge question marks.

 

The preface is called “Creating Effective Professional Learning Systems to Bolster Teaching Quality and Student Achievement”. Immediately I ran to the dictionary to see if I understand the word “bolster” correctly. There is a hint here that PL is something that someone else gives teachers, something external that will support them (or prop them up?). This statement boldly states that there are two aims in PL enriching the quality of teaching and also improving student achievement levels. Here in the preface I find my first real question: Can it be expected that all PL for teachers will positively influence student learning (and even academic achievement levels – as that is the only thing that matters it seems …)? Is that the goal of all PL?

A question to explore is the reasons teachers choose certain types of PL/PD. What are the expectations they come with? Are they expecting to achieve student achievement levels or are there other goals in mind?

 

The call is for “… high quality, sustained PL throughout the school year, at every grade level and in every subject…” (p. ii).

This of course is very desirable state of affairs but it seems that the report recommends that this PL be well defined and meet certain specifications.

A sentence I found very surprising was “… have become the norm in many countries that are our competitors…”. Of course I know how much importance is placed on the international examinations like PISA and PIRLS, but I have never thought of the other countries as competitors. I have never thought of it as a contest. Yes, I am always disappointed by the Israeli results and believe we should do everything possible to improve the reading and mathematics of our students, but only because that is our aim, not because we are in a race against Finland.

A document I should look up is the NSDC Standards for Staff Development.

The report takes for granted that PL is “… high intensity, job embedded collaborative learning that is most effective… “(p. iii).

 

It is interesting to see that the distinction between Professional Development and Professional Learning is a central issue in the report. It is even stated that “We recognize that PD does not always lead to PL, despite its intent.” (p. 1).

Easton (2008) and Fullan (2007a) are the sources quoted and I think they should be followed up quickly.

The report quotes Fullan (2007a):

“… external approaches to instructional improvement are rarely powerful enough, specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school” (p. 35).

The report explains that the most significant learning occurs within the context of a teacher’s work. It involves teacher assessments of student needs and teacher learning goals. (Easton, 2008).

“It is clearer today than ever that educators need to learn, and that’s why PL has replaced PD. Development is not enough. Educators must be knowledgeable and wise. They must know enough in order to change. They must change in order to get different results. They must become learners, and they must be self developing” (Easton, 2008, p. 756).

 

Must become? Weren’t educators (at least some…) always learners?

 

According to the report there is a clear link between professional learning and “excellent student learning” (p. 2). This link should be explored. In my personal experience, as I became more aware of my own learning and the processes I undergo as I learn, I am far more aware of the need to talk to my students about learning, about what helps or hinders their learning.

 

The report defines “high quality” or “effective” PD “as that which results in improvements in teacher knowledge and instructional practice, as well as improved student learning outcomes” (p. 3).

 I was glad to note that the report admits that the influence of teacher PL may not be immediately apparent in student achievement and that there is a need for other ways of examining PL.

 

The authors of the report based their work on quantitative experimental studies and also used qualitative and case studies. They clearly state that the latter should be regarded as “suggestive rather than conclusive” (p. 3).

 

Key Principles for PL Design:

Pl Content:

v     Focus on “concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation and reflection” (Darling, Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995, p. 598).

v     Focus on specific teaching skills and how to teach specific kinds of content.

v     Focus on student learning.

Saxe, Gearheart and Nasir (2001), identify 3 kinds of frameworks for teacher learning:

1.      Traditional PD workshops

2.      Community based activity learning for new teaching materials.

3.      Integrated learning (e.g. Integrated Math…) – content + pedagogy.

 

The report concludes: “Student achievement improved most when teachers were engaged in sustained, collaborative PD that specifically focused on deepening teachers’ content knowledge and instructional practices” (p. 5).

 

The authors call to link curriculum, assessment, standards and PL. (p. 6)

 

The report explores the importance of collaboration and communities of practice.

Knapp (2003) and Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) are cited.

 

This is certainly one of my central interests.

 

Putnam and Borko (2000) discuss the need for a situated approach to PL – grounded in teachers’ own practice.

 

Killion (1999) contends that PL which takes place inside schools deals with “real issues”.

 

Collaborative approaches are discussed by

Perez et al. (2007)

McLaughlin and Talbert (2001).

 

“Collaborative work in trusting environments provides a basis for inquiry and reflection into teachers’ own practice, allowing teachers to take risks, solve problems and attend to dilemmas in their practice” (p. 6).

Liebermann and Wood (2002)

Ball and Cohen (1995)

Bryk, Camburn and Louis (1999)

 

In the chapter “Design of Learning Experiences” (page six and onwards),

The authors explore the character of teacher learning.

They discuss active learning and “sense making” (Snow-Renner & Lauer, 2005).

 

“Active learning opportunities allow teachers to transform their teaching and not simply layer new strategies on top of the old.” (Cohen & Hill, 2001).

I find this distinction very helpful. When I get the time I will look for examples of times I took PL to the point of transformation and examples of learning I layered on top.

 

“PD that is sustained and intense has a greater chance of transforming teaching practices and student learning”.

Cohen and Hill (2001)

Desimone et al. (2002)

Garet et al. (2001)   “hands-on” “increasing sense of efficacy”

Weis and Pasley, (2006)

Knapp (2003)   “rigorous”, “cumulative”

 

 

“Suggestive” findings:

Conditions for TL which influences student learning:

v     Number of contact hours

v     80 hours or more (in science) are more likely to bring classroom change.

 

Yoon et al. (2007) – large study – the influence of PD on student learning is substantial between 30-100 hours.

 

Teacher Learning in Professional Communities (p.9)

“job embedded”

“collaborative teacher learning”

 

“… The literature increasingly describes how teachers learn by working with their colleagues in professional learning communities (PLCs), engaging in continuous dialogue and examination of their practice and student performance to develop and enact more effective instructional practices…” (p. 9).

 

The report admits that the distinctions between formal and informal and internal and external PL are becoming blurred.

 

The authors note that teachers are used to working in isolation and that this needs to change.

 

Joint Work in School Based Communities (p. 10)

Little (1990) discusses “joint work”.

 

Louis Marks and Kruse (1996) describe the conditions necessary for a professional community to evolve:

v     Smaller school size

v     Common planning times

v     Supportive leadership

v     Mutual respect

v     Strong professional knowledge

v     Climate suited to risk taking and innovation

v     Lower staff complexity (more staff actually teaching)

v     Empowerment of teachers

 

Hord (1997) describes:

v     Supportive and shared leadership

v     Collective creativity

v     Shared values and vision

v     Supportive conditions

v     Shared personal practice

 

Studies which deal with community in TD:

Achinstein (2002)

Grossman, Wineberg, and Woolworth (2001)

Hollins et al. (2004)

Horn (2005)

Little (2003)

 

Grossman, Wineberg, and Woolworth (2001)

v     Communal responsibility for individual growth

v     Formation of group identity

v     Norms of interaction

v     Productive use of difference and conflict

 

Little (2003) found that learning occurred as teachers learned to describe, defend and adjust their practices according to an emerging, collectively held standard of quality teaching (p. 11).

 

Qualitative studies explored by the authors:

Calkins, Guenther, Belfiore and Lash (2007)

Goddard, Goddard and Tschannen-Morgan (2007)

Supovitz and Christman (2003)

Vescio, Ross and Adams (2008) – review of increased student achievement

 

Peer Observation and Practice (p. 12)

Visiting and observation in professional communities –

Opportunity to receive feedback and assistance.

Hord (1997) connects this with student learning.

 

I must look up Critical Friends Groups (National School Reform Faculty)

—– Dunn, Nave & Lewis, 2000

 

Developing Student Groups (p. 12)

When teachers work together in professional learning communities they can work together to experience that learning in the classroom.

v     Killion (1999; 2002a,b)

v     Hollins et al. (2004)

 

Learning from Professional Communities beyond the School (p. 13)

v     Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995)

v     Fullan (1991)

v     Lieberman and Wood (2002) – NWP

 

School Based Coaching

Can make a connection between what is learned in external PD and what is practiced in the classroom.

 

Mentoring and Coaching During Induction (p. 15)

“A special subset of coaching and mentoring strategies…”

–          used in more than 30 states

–          is the primary source of PD in the first few years of teaching

 

PD in the US and Abroad (p. 18)

Today “there is greater understanding of what constitutes high-quality PD, and while more such opportunities are gradually being offered in the US, surveys find that well-designed opportunities are not representative of most US teachers’ PD experiences” (p. 18).

(Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007)

Quality PD as described here “are commonly available in nations that have been recognized as high achieving… PISA, TIMSS (mathematics)…”

 

This report focuses on nations which have top achievement levels in international examinations.

 

Common features in high ranking countries: (p. 18)

–          many opportunities for formal/informal development

–          time for PL and collaboration in school hours

–          PD activities in teachers’ work context and ongoing

–          School policy which involves teachers in decision making

–          Induction programs for new teachers

–          Time for meetings

–          Formal training for mentors

 

There has been no causal relationship found between high student achievement levels and the characteristics of PL. – there may be some connection.  (p. 19)

 

E.g. In Japan – lesson study approach (used in Israel in mathematics PL)

 

Formal PD

“Relatively few countries have established national PD requirements” In Singapore, Sweden and the Netherlands 100 hours + collegial planning are required (OECD, 2005; Barber & Mourshed, 2007).

 

These countries support teachers in higher studies and provide financial support. In Israel, teachers studying towards an MA or a Med can also apply to the Department of Education to receive assistance.

 

Singapore’s Investment in PL (p. 23)

1.      Learning Circles – problem solving – 4-10 teachers

2.      Teacher led workshops – teachers present their ideas and work

3.      conferences

4.      well-being program

5.      website

6.      publications (Tripp, 2004; Sallen, 2006)

 

“Since 2004, the Australian government has been sponsoring the Quality Teacher Program… three levels:

  1. Teaching Australia (formerly the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership)
  2. National Projects
  3. State and Territory projects…”

 

Teacher Induction (p. 25)

PD programs for new teachers and inductory programs are mandatory in Australia, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

“Mentor teachers and coaches play a key part in launching new teachers into the profession and some countries (including Israel, Switzerland, France, Norway and England) require formal training for mentors” (OECD, 2005).

 

Teacher Involvement in Decision Making

In Finland teachers are involved in developing syllabi, selecting textbooks, developing curriculum and assessments.

 

 “In Finland… scholars attribute the academic success of their students in part to an emphasis on teachers’ professional learning and the high status of teachers as professionals” (p. 28).

Well, I guess that explains why Israeli students do so poorly… here teachers are considered lower than low!

 

The Status of PL Opportunities in the US (p. 30)

“Yoon and colleagues (2007) found in their review of research that PD of 14 hours or less showed no effects on student learning, while longer duration programs – averaging 49 hours of engagement around a specific topic or teaching strategy showed positive and significant effects on student achievement” (p. 34).

 

Supports for PD (p. 36)

–          Time in regular work hours

–          Release time for PD

–          Scheduled time

–          Stipends

–          Full or partial reimbursement for college fees

–          Full or partial reimbursement for workshop or conference fees

–          Full or partial reimbursement for travel…

Job Embedded PL (p. 39)

Research: “Most effective forms of PD are directly related to teachers’ instructional practice, intensive and sustained, integrated with school reform efforts, and that actively engage in teachers in collaborative professional communities”

“… other responses suggest that the intensity of teacher collaboration is minimal in most US schools…” (p. 40).

Another Lens on PL Opportunities: The NSDC (National Staff development Council) Standards Assessment Inventory (p. 54)

Survey:

v     Opportunities for PD and collaboration

v     School leadership

v     Equity

v     Teacher influence and collaboration

 

Questions which may lead to improvement in the US

Conclusions (p. 61)

Inquiry into Effective Strategies for Teacher Professional Learning – Victoria

Posted on by
Reply

Freewriting 2 – 15 minutes of thinking

Today I’m going to have another go at writing in general about my thoughts on the report before I begin pulling it apart and analyzing it section by section.

There were many points in the report which pleasantly surprised me and many that sound fine in the framework of a government report but it is obvious that when they reach the field they will be completely different. It will be interesting to see how many of the internal conflicts will be resolved. An example of one of these conflicts is the recognition that there are a great variety of PL options and the importance of teacher choice and autonomy on one hand, and the need for control, documentation and quality control on the other. Another is the time and energy which are recommended for investment in PL and the fact that there are no effective practical suggestions for lightening teachers work load in order to make PL an integral part of a teacher’s work load.

The question addressing the connection of teacher learning to measurable student outcomes remains unclear. The committee realises that it is not always possible to evaluate PL by evaluating student achievement levels and also the fact that not all PD aims at changing student achievement levels – behavior management studies are an example of this.

I cannot understand the internal Australian politics – why on earth does each state need a separate policy and separate frameworks for determining teacher advancement and development? I wonder what happens when teachers move interstate? How does this report interact with others I have read recently?

I am interested in the learning opportunities made possible by university – school partnerships and am sorry that there are no such initiatives in my area in Israel – they probably exist in the large cities.

I was happy to see that online options for PL are gradually becoming viable.

The report is long and very detailed and I am interested to see what effect it will have.  

Inquiry into Effective Strategies for Teacher Professional Learning – Victoria

Posted on by
Reply

OK, I’m off for 15 minutes of freewriting.

Today I want to discuss the beginning of the Victorian government inquiry into PL for teachers. The report is very long and I have only read the first 40 or 50 pages.

Some of the things I have noticed in the first part of the document are:

  • The committee is made up of men only
  • All committee members are politicians and not educators
  • Education systems overseas which were investigated are: Finland, Scotland and Ontario, Canada.
  • The report values professional development for teachers
  • The report recognises that the paths to professional learning are varied.
  • The report accepts the use of the term PL instead of PD and defines both terms. The report describes PD as activities and frameworks in which PL for educators can occur.
  • As far as I can see now, the report is aiming to put PD activities and PL into measurable packages and to achieve some level of control over the learning teachers are doing.
  • This control relates to quantity (something which is already accepted practice in Victoria – 100 hours), who is authorised to provide PL , ways in which educators record their PL, etc.
  • Probably the two most worrying points I have read up to now are
  1. The link being made between teacher learning and student outcomes.
  2. The discussion of quality teachers instead of quality teaching, as discussed in the article by Parr.

I think it will be important for me to continue reading the report and read others like it.

As far as I know there is no such report here in Israel and I don’t even know how to look for one. Maybe through the Department of Hadracha. I will check.

The report is very new, dated February 2009 and I am happy that GP recommended it to me. As he said when I was preparing my proposal for application, the international setting is very important.

Here in Israel, as in Austarlia and all over the world it seems, everyone is examining Finland as a result of their high results on the Pisa examinations. I wonder how relevant the comparison is.