The key elements that form any professional development system are the professional development program, the teachers, the facilitators and the context in which the professional development occurs. Desimone (2009) provides a core conceptual framework that focuses on five features connected to effective PD: content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. Professional development is an essential component in reforming teaching and learning, which is why it is important to create a consistent set of instruments to measure professional development. Desimone (2009) explains that in order for the framework to assist in the potential of teacher learning and student achievement outcomes, two central components need to occur. First, all five features mentioned in the framework must be present, as well as the need for teachers to take their new found knowledge, skills and change in beliefs and apply it in the classroom.
Leko and Roberts (2014) define professional development as “a set of coordinated, comprehensive, and intensive activities designed to enhance educators’ knowledge, beliefs, skills and practices for the purpose of improving student outcomes” (p.43). Borko (2004) suggest three phases that describe the research activities that can help the progression of professional development. In Phase 1, the research activities study the relationship between two of the elements; the professional development program and the teachers as learners. The purpose of this phase is to provide evidence that professional development can create a deeper knowledge in teachers and facilitate a change in their instructional practices. In order for teachers to gain and apply their newfound knowledge, they must have ownership in the professional development. Leko and Roberts (2014) state the attitudes that teachers hold regarding professional development can influence how they interpret the information. If teachers do not believe that the professional development is relevant or important it can effect whether or not they put the information into practice. Desimone (2009) suggests that effective PD not only increases teacher knowledge and skills, but it can change attitudes and beliefs. This suggests that it is possible to help teachers let go of previous attitudes and beliefs as long as the PD is effective in showing them how these attitudes and beliefs are not best practice. In Phase 2, the focus is on one single professional development program at various sites and with many facilitators. This is to allow exploration of the relationships among the program, teachers and the facilitators and to determine if a professional development program can maintain its integrity when it is taught at many sites by many facilitators. It is believed that if the professional development is effective, it will work in any context. So by testing it in several contexts, one can determine if it is effective or not. Phase 3 is a more extensive focus as it studies the relationship among all four key elements. The purpose of this phase is to gather and analyze data from many programs, delivered by multiple facilitators at multiple sites.
The key elements that form any professional development system are the professional development program, the teachers, the facilitators and the context in which the professional development occurs. Desimone (2009) provides a core conceptual framework that focuses on five features connected to effective PD: content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. Professional development is an essential component in reforming teaching and learning, which is why it is important to create a consistent set of instruments to measure professional development. Desimone (2009) explains that in order for the framework to assist in the potential of teacher learning and student achievement outcomes, two central components need to occur. First, all five features mentioned in the framework must be present, as well as the need for teachers to take their new found knowledge, skills and change in beliefs and apply it in the classroom.
0 Comments
It is agreed by most that teacher evaluations are necessary in order to ensure that quality instruction is occurring in the classroom. In order to measure the effectiveness of a teacher, many evaluation tools look at the outcomes of students to determine a teacher’s effectiveness. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (2012) states that the measure of student growth is a commonality among all federal policies regarding teacher evaluations. According to Goe (2008) and Kennedy (2010), contextual factors influence teachers’ practices greatly. In an effort to consider all of these factors in a teacher evaluation, many states use the value-added model. This model takes the total of student’s state mandated test scores, along with school and student demographics and produces a score for the teacher which claims to describe the teacher’s impact on student growth (Lipscomb, Teh, Gill, Chiang, & Owens, 2010).
Does this value-added score take into consideration the effect that context has on a teacher’s practice? What if that context demands that a teacher co-teach? Steele, Hamilton & Stetcher (2010) state that research claims that the value-added scores are invalid for co-teach classrooms as it is impossible to determine which teacher has had the impact on student achievement. Something else to consider is the special education teacher who is often placed in these co-teach situations. According to the CEC, another issue that special education teachers face is that “the value-added method tends to mark teachers lower when they teach students with disabilities” (p.7) This makes sense considering students with special needs often do not perform well on standardized tests. It seems illogical to put such a great emphasis on a model, which consists of an algorithm that does not consider teacher context, varying learning needs of students as well as the home life of each student. Brownell, Steinbrecher, Kimerling, Park, Bae, & Benedict (2014) in the Handbook of Research on Special Education Preparation (HRSEP) provide a conceptual framework for defining the features of teacher quality for students with disabilities. This framework considered three factors: teacher preparation and input, processes and context, and effectiveness. Throughout their literature review, Brownell et al used this framework to try to focus in on the practices of teachers. However, research is limited especially in reference to special education. There is no doubt that teachers should be held accountable for their teaching practices. As more research emerges, perhaps we can better answer how to effectively measure teacher practice. According to Sindelar, McCray, Brownell & Lignugaris/Kraft (2014) our schools today are diverse in many ways other than just race, ethnicity and language but diversity has expanded to socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and immigrant status, to name a few. Because of the growing diversity, it is necessary to prepare our teachers to understand and teach diverse students.
Our preservice teacher programs need to incorporate coursework and field experiences where they can learn to work with these diverse populations. “…..when novice teachers feel that they are well prepared by their teacher education programs, they join the teaching force with optimistic views and enthusiasm that they can become change agents” (Sleeter & Owuor, 2011). This means that the one or two courses that they are required to take is not enough. Preservice teachers need to not only learn about the diversity among students but how to teach them and time to practice teaching them with effective coaching. This will build the confidence of our preservice teachers and make help them to be agents of change in how we educate the diverse populations. Education about diversity cannot stop with our preservice teachers. According to Sindelar et al. diversity preparation needs to move our teachers to promoting social justice, not just having a basic awareness. As diversity increase and changes in our schools, we need to ensure that our teachers are moving beyond basic awareness and making strides toward social justice. |
AuthorMy name is Tracy and I am pursuing my doctorate at the University of South Florida. I also supervise teacher residents in the Urban Teacher Residency Program at USF. Archives
April 2015
Categories
All
|