introduction
Few would argue that teachers exposed to technology-focused professional development are better prepared to effectively and systematically integrate computers, peripherals and software into their classrooms than those without any formal training. However, one must necessarily assume that quality matters … that teachers participating in high-quality professional development are more likely than those engaged in token or perfunctory training to use technology well (for instructional preparation, delivery and assessment); to be cognizant of technology’s advantages and limitations; and to situationally model both hardware and software (Hirsh & Sparks, 2000).
background
Professional Development: The Conceptual View
Unfortunately, a high-quality professional growth experience does not occur by happenstance. According to Norman (1999), top-notch programs, no matter what their topic or purpose, are always focused on students as the critical stakeholder group.1 Teachers are more likely to enthusiastically embrace efforts that directly or indirectly aim to “… strengthen student performance on reading, reasoning, problem-solving, and related tasks drawn from state curriculum standards” (McKenzie, 2002, p. 34). Clearly, however, other stakeholders play prominent roles in the design, implementation and assessment of program quality—among them, teachers, the principal and other key administrators, parents, the school board and community members (Payne & Wolfson, 2000).
A sound grounding in the theoretical underpinnings of professional development can positively inform program planning. Conceptually driven planning is strategic, not merely tactical; application-specific skills are far less important than curriculum, instructional strategies and techniques, and assessment (Bybee, 2001). Activities are well funded, allowing for training customization, ongoing mentoring and follow-up (Hirsh & Sparks, 2000). There is a focus on metacognition and learning awareness that leads to replicable communities of practice (Burns, 2002). Finally, assessment is fully integrated into program activities; both staff and participants recognize that evaluation helps to ensure program relevance, identify points of resistance that might thwart success or reduce impact, pinpoint opportunities for instructional enrichment or remediation, and suggest strategies to build sustainability and/or replicability (Mulqueen, 2001).
Professional Growth: A Spectrum of Possibilities
Pedagogy is the art, science or profession of teaching; it attends to the approaches and strategies that guide instruction as well as the theories that frame them. Clearly, then, changes in instructional pedagogy cannot be divorced from the professional growth efforts in which teachers are engaged. But Bellanca (1995) takes this position one step further, distinguishing professional development from activities that teachers attend by mandate or choice.
Staff development, he argues, is the “… effort to correct teaching deficiencies by providing opportunities to learn new methods of classroom management and instruction, or to ‘spray paint’ the district [or school] with hoped-for classroom innovations” (Bellanca, 1995, p. 6). Staff development often unfolds over several days, and may include demonstrations and opportunities for guided practice. While attendees are encouraged to apply what they have learned, no formal follow-up activities are specifically scheduled, and evidence of changed classroom practices is neither required nor expected.
In-service is the “… scheduling of awareness programs, usually of short duration, to inform teachers about new ideas in the field of education or, in the worst case scenario, to fill mandated institute days with any available topic or speaker” (Bellanca, 1995, p. 6). Simply put, in-services tend to be brief, often a day or less—the audience captive. The content tends to be general, structured to conform to lecture-style delivery. It is often left to the individual attendee to determine how the information relates to his or her discipline (e.g., science) or student population (e.g., 4th graders; children with special needs).
Professional development, then, is what allows for constructive educational change and reasoned accountability. It is a planned, comprehensive and systemic program of goals-driven, competency-based activities that promotes productive change in individuals and school structures. Behavioral and attitudinal change is both expected and supported; although differential involvement among staff is accepted, an array of incentives and rewards promote commitment. Because the effort is systemic, activities are interrelated and cumulative. As important, they complement the school’s and district’s vision/strategic mission and reflect all key constituencies.
Professional Growth: underlying Drivers
The views of Sparks and Hirsh (1997) mesh well with Bellanca’s (1995). They argue that today’s schools—and the professional growth opportunities that occur within them—are driven by three powerful ideas: results-driven education, systems thinking and constructivism.
A school or district focused on results “… judges the success of schooling not by the courses students take or the grades they receive, but by what they actually know and can do as a result of their time in school” (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997, p. 4). Not surprisingly, a results-driven environment means changed thinking about what constitutes successful professional development; indicators that target benefits to students (cognitive, behavioral or attitudinal) outweigh such quantifiables as number of ‘sessions’ offered, seat time or number of attendees.
A school that thinks systematically looks at school reform holistically. Reactive thinking that attends to hot spots and quick fixes is replaced by a proactive mindset promoting an interconnectedness among school functions and personnel. Not surprisingly, a school environment with a systems view promotes multileveled, well-coordinated professional development that affects everyone, from the janitor to the principal.
A school that is constructivist recognizes that knowledge is “built” in the mind of the learner— whether a child or staff member. The implications of constructivism for professional development are fairly profound. Eclectic classrooms that promote active learning and student autonomy/initiative are not created via professional growth activities premised on the transmittal view of learning. A constructivist bent to staff development promotes a collaborative spirit, action-oriented agenda and reflective practices.
Professional Development: Reflecting Teaching Responsibilities
Danielson (1996) advocates a framework for professional practice that brings clarity to new theoretical paradigms for staff development. Organized into four domains of teaching responsibilities,2 the framework makes a definitive statement about teaching as a field on par with others we hold in high regard: physicians, accountants, architects. By establishing definitions of expertise and procedures to certify both novice and advanced practitioners, educators guarantee to the larger community that its members “hold themselves and their colleagues to the highest standards” (Danielson, 1996, p. 2). Though some might argue the simplicity of the rating scale (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, distinguished), the structure Danielson advocates attends well to the complexities of teaching as well as its physical and mental demands. It “offers the profession a means of communicating about excellence” (p. 5) and different paths its practitioners may take to reach their potential.
Technology-focused professional development:
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
To what should high-end, technology-focused professional development attend? Forward-looking program developers plan in phases and dimensionally – relying on sound instructional design principles to guide their work (Richey, Fields, Foxon, Roberts, Spannaus & Spector, 2001). They tend to begin by considering their program’s long-term outcomes and its underlying pedagogy or philosophy, then assessing learning needs, creating targeted and individualized learning paths, and fashioning scaffolds of support (Bray, 1999; McKenzie, 2002; Norman, 1999). According to McKenzie (2002), a systematically designed program focused on technology use and integration is one that effectively blends “chunks” of traditional presentation/demonstration with ample opportunities for hands-on practice, self-reflection and interactive discussions.
Successful technology-focused professional development is positioned as an opportunity for continuous performance improvement that targets everyone with any role to play in student learning (McKenzie, 2002). It is a critical administrative responsibility/function, structured around core dimensions that emphasize individual and organizational development; align with the site’s and/or district’s strategic plans; focus on student needs and learning outcomes as well as changes in teachers’ on-the-job behaviors; promote teacher reflection on instructional/learning processes; and emphasize multiple forms of job-embedded learning (Payne & Wolfson, 2000). The message is clear: Professional development is an indispensable process without which schools cannot hope to prepare young people for citizenship and productive employment (Bybee, 2001).
Following, then, are brief descriptions of ways the core dimensions of high-end professional development may be operationalized, even when a program budget is small and staffing constrained.3 These descriptions reflect real evaluations that this author and several colleagues have conducted over the years— projects both short- and long-term in nature and funded with both private (foundation) and public (federal, state, local/regional) monies. While the presentation is linear (Element 1, 2, 3, etc.), in practice the components are iterative and interconnected.
Element 1: To the extentpossible, provide teachers with menus of training options and flexible schedules.
A sound program is one that attends to the unique characteristics of adult learners. It features activities to match their interests, learning styles and developmental readiness; promote their engagement and interactivity; and acknowledge and honor their current understandings and knowledge (Bybee, 2001; McKenzie, 2002).
Logistically, then, designers of professional development must consider both scheduling and leveraging.
A flexible schedule for site-based training implies that sessions are offered during school breaks as well as during the academic year; at different times of the day; and for differing lengths oftime (Zahner, 2002). But also important in terms of flexibility is setting, with sessions offered both online and at multiple locations to reduce commute times and fatigue (Zahner, 2002). Location variety ensures that all teachers are accommodated, including those who may be inadvertently disadvan-taged or inconvenienced by virtue of their placements (year-round, variable day, multiple preps).
Leveraging suggests that core activities (attending to the pedagogical elements of technology use/integration) are supplemented with optional small-group sessions focused on specific tools and techniques or individualized assistance with large/intricate projects. Leveraging also means that at least a portion of the training is self-paced and individually determined; attendees are actively encouraged to take responsibility for determining their learning needs and choosing paths best suited to their personal interests and goals, instructional obligations and time constraints (McK-enzie, 2002).
Element 2: Recognize that professional development takes many shapes, with each ‘type’ accompanied by an appropriate level of assistance.
A sound professional development program attends to teachers’ beliefs systems, in particular, those associated with self-efficacy,4 context5 and personal agency6 (Lumpe & Chambers, 2001). One logistical strategy for attending to the personal beliefs that underlie or influence goal attainment and performance is to provide scaled support systems; that is, job aids or knowledge-management systems responsive to just-in-time learning needs (Zahner, 2002).
A strong program is characterized by apprenticeship and coaching. Online job aids must be available, of course, but they cannot and should not totally replace human contact. But mentoring is a learned art, so training is essential; participants must feel that their requests for help are seen in a positive light, not as “hints” of incompetence. Depending on the nature of the activities with which they will be assisting, mentors should be familiar with workshop logistics (the overall agenda, scheduled activities, featured software applications, etc.); cognizant of specific strategies/techniques for working with adults (providing constructive feedback, eliciting discussion, keeping participants on task); and eager to build their own skills with new or upgraded software or tools such as rubrics for assessing curriculum quality (Daresh, 2002). Debriefings held at the close of a workshop can provide a forum where mentors and staff discuss high points and/or problems with the day’s schedule, topics or facilitation. By combining this information with feedback participants provide online or via traditionally-administered surveys, adjustments may be made to content, delivery or practice/feedback.
Participants may not always be cognizant of the type or nature of support they need. Program planners might facilitate the process for procuring help by building a richly detailed Web page of resources7 that at a glance illustrates the depth and breadth of assistance available; to whom the information is best directed; and whether the material is mostly instructional or informational in nature.
Element 3: Promote professional development that is largely planned and delivered by teachers themselves, with the tenor facilitative rather than didactic.
Optimally, planners aim for coherent, logical strands while still responding to identified needs (solicited via informally administered surveys, specific requests for assistance or regular contact with a site liaison). Burke (2000) advocates a teacher-centric, results-based model that assumes teachers:
• are best equipped to determine the specific topics and issues on which they should focus
• are best qualified to decide with whom they might team or affiliate to tackle identified learning objectives
• are best able to establish the indicators by which their progress might be measured
• can manage the details associated with the delivery of training, including the mix of modalities
• can manage facilitator selection and orientation/ training, with an eye to coaching skills as well as being technology (hardware, application) savvy
Element 4: Learning is by nature progressive; critical then is a program that is cumulative, and seamlessly interweaves technical prowess and pedagogical insight.
The ultimate outcome, of course, is improved student performance and readiness for the 21 st century workforce. Successful program planners recognize that change takes time (Bradshaw, 2002; Mulqueen, 2001) and is fostered by encouraging attendees to build upon what they already know. “Technology is integrated [only] when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and engage students in meaningful learning” (Dias, 1999, p. 11). If teachers are to rethink the instructional environments they provide, they cannot be engaged in training that is overly attentive to software-specific features and functions. While staff would be remiss not to offer orientations (scaled by familiarity or savvy) to specific technological tools, they must wisely devote far more energy to transformed teaching, where they help teachers consider new ways to foster collaboration, build instructional scaffolds, attend to higher-order skills (analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and assess performance (Bradshaw, 2002).
In this vein, planners should be outcomes focused; no matter what the learning target, participants benefit by having one or more useable products in hand at the close of training. Seamon (2001) argues that a skills-only approach perpetuates old-notion stereotypes about technology, in particular, that lab access is critical or that computers are best used to deliver drill-and-practice activities to underperforming students (who work independently and at their own pace).
Element 5: Show that evaluation is valued; thoroughly integrate it into the overall professional development effort.
Objective assessment ensures that professional development reflects changes in school or district policies/mandates, accommodates newly funded initiatives and attends to personnel transitions. High functioning programs thus view assessment in a positive light; program staff recognize that regularly conducted reviews are constructive, not punitive – and integral to sustain-ability. As important, they realize school officials must respond to public outcries for accountability – and thus demonstrate empirically that professional development benefits the organization, participating teachers and staff, and students (Guskey, 2000).
But the process isn’t easy; Killion (2002) points to a host of challenges that result when districts lack the analytical sophistication needed to appropriately analyze the data and make improvement-oriented, results-based decisions.
Professional development evaluation tends to reflect two very different mindsets. Guskey (2002) focuses on assessing events, and advocates a five-level cumulative system8 premised on a four-tiered corporate framework popularized by Kirkpatrick (1996).
But other researchers advocate for a holistic position on evaluation, a stance more in concert with the systems view of professional development (Joyce & Showers, as cited in Bradshaw, 2002). Assessment is thus driven by a framework or model that attends to areas of learning (for example, the content, process and context standards promoted by the National Staff Development Council),9 program phases or cycles (Provus, as cited in Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2004) or the types of next-steps decisions (context, input, process, product) program managers/staff tend to make (Stufflebeam, 2000). This long-term perspective allows planners to structure an evaluation process with true rigor. For example, organizing participants into cohorts (structured by discipline or content area, region, grade level or years of experience) provides a way to monitor growth/progress over time and to compare the effectiveness of different strategies or interventions.
Both the event and systems views allow for an evaluation action plan to be fashioned—one that specifies the issues or questions to explore as well as the kinds or types of data needed to address them, likely information sources, selection of sampling strategies, the study time frame, specific data collection methods and potential techniques for analyzing data and reporting results (Good & Brophy, 2000; Guskey, 2000; Killion, 2002; Fitzpatrick, et al., 2004). Staff with the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) suggest that teachers who participate in well-structured evaluation will actually emulate the process at their own sites.10 In essence, a culture of continuous improvement can be created, with staff more than willing to be held accountable for their actions.
Element 6: Promote sustainability as a central tenet of any major professional development effort.
Professional development is the cornerstone of teacher retention; clearly, opportunities to learn new skills, explore new opportunities and investigate emerging interests help to keep personnel invested in their work (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). A sustainable program is one that meets different instructional needs (modularized); aligns with pivotal district mandates (thus, culturally and situationally relevant); is current and timely (responsive); defines community (end-users) broadly; and focuses on lessons learned – both successes and failures/disappointments. There is a consistency of expectations; staff is largely aiming toward the same goals and objectives (Killion & Hirsh, 2001).
future trends
This author’s notions of what characterizes high-quality, technology-focused professional development continue to evolve. Though the elements described above are not wholly replicable, several facets are certainly worth emulating by schools/districts seeking to engage all staff in activities focused on instructional improvement:
• Flexibility: Forward-thinking staff developers recognize that no one design or deployment scheme will meet everyone’s needs; among the constraints facing trainers and trainees alike are the variable structure of the school day, teacher and school involvement in an array of projects and initiatives, and extracurricular assignments. As clearly advocated in Element 1, one way to encourage participation in non-mandated training (generally the case with technology) is to offer options relative to delivery/modality, content depth/breadth, scheduling, teaming and outcomes.
• Alignment with district initiatives: Forward-thinking staff developers invest participants in non-mandated professional growth by clearly linking it to high-profile programs or projects already in place at the site (or district) level, and to measures of success with which the site (or district) is already aligned.
• Improvement oriented: Staff developers seek quality control by pursuing both formative and summative evaluation. Of course, they obtain in-process or incremental data by actively soliciting participant feedback at the close of all workshops, appropriately scaled to the activity itself. This al lows critical issues (from technical performance to room temperature) to be immediately addressed. But they also acquire longitudinal data (about comprehensive programs, for example) via survey, reflections, product/unit/lesson reviews or observations.
key terms
Communities of Practice: Informally structured groups—often geographically dispersed— whose members share similar goals and interests. In pursuing them, they employ common methods or strategies, often work with the same or similar “tools” and express themselves with common terminology.
In-Service: Brief and/or short-duration training for practicing teachers that tend to be informative (about new mandates, for example). Delivery tends to be traditional, and attendees must determine for themselves how the data relates to their situation(s) or discipline(s). Follow-up is rare, as is any effort to collect evidence of change practices.
Pedagogy: The art or science of teaching—to include philosophical or theoretical underpinnings and their associated instructional strategies.
Professional Development: A planned, comprehensive and systemic program of goals-driven, competency-based training activities that promotes productive change in individuals and school structures. The activities are interrelated and cumulative, complement the school’s and district’s vision/strategic mission and reflect all key constituencies.
Staff Development: A deficit model of training for practicing teachers, often conducted to “remedy” or “correct” perceived teaching deficiencies (instructional, managerial, etc.). Follow-up is rare, as is any effort to collect evidence of change practices.
Strategic Planning: A carefully devised plan of action (or methodology)—featuring multiple activities, tasks and interventions—to achieve a long-term goal.
Systemic Thinking/Planning: Planning that affects or relates to a system as a whole, not merely its individual elements/components.
Systematic Thinking/Planning: Planning that is carried out in an organized, deliberate and methodical manner.
Tactical Planning: Small-scale actions made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in sight. the ability to perform them (Bandura, in Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
