Creating learning communities to meet teachers' needs in professional development

Journal of In-service Education, Volume 29, Number 3, 2003

439

Creating Learning Communities to Meet Teachers’ Needs in Professional Development

JENNIFER M. GOOD & ANDREW WEAVER Auburn University, USA

ABSTRACT Professional development is an essential component of retaining high quality teachers. Current US legislation, as stated in No Child Left Behind, emphasises this premise. Although professional development opportunities have been abundant for decades, a closer look at standards and criteria for effective professional development is essential in order to increase the possibility of programing opportunities that will truly impact teacher behaviors. According to the National Staff Development Council, effective professional development places teachers into learning communities. This can be a challenge to professional development center administrators, who often program single-session workshops for teachers from different school systems as the primary mode of delivery or instruction, minimising the opportunities for collaboration among a cohort. The purpose of this study is to determine instructional preferences of teachers, taking into account teaching experience and grade level, and suggest methods for placing teachers into learning communities by these preferences in order to meet current standards of professional development.

Teachers, like students, are learners, and in order to continually develop and encourage teacher effectiveness throughout the course of an individual’s career, teachers must stay current in educational theory and practice. Thus, it seems to be a logical assumption that teachers must continue to learn about their craft and content, making quality professional development opportunities essential. In response to this general need, legislators in the State of Alabama created 11 regional in-service centers to support the professional development of teachers. Under the direction of governing boards, these centers offer numerous in-service programs per year.

Jennifer M. Good & Andrew Weaver

440

Background

The in-service centers were initiated in the mid 1980s through Alabama legislation. The primary intent of the centers remains the same as it was during the inception of the centers – equitable professional development opportunities and training of school personnel in critical-need areas for all school systems in the State of Alabama. Thus, regardless of funding or support available to a particular school system, the in-service centers provide additional resources, materials, sessions, and expertise equally to all teachers and administrators when requested. In addition to system-requested sessions, the in-service center directors also provide open-enrollment sessions through summer programs to all interested teachers in the systems served. Program content for all sessions is based upon the results of region-wide needs assessments and the work of planning teams composed of representatives from area schools.

In order to hold the in-service centers accountable for equitable professional development offerings across the State, a special task force assigned by the Alabama State Board of Education drafted ‘Regional In-service Center Accountability Standards’ in 1987. These standards provide clear criteria for establishing consistency in areas of fiscal, governmental and programmatic responsibilities among the centers. For instance, the Accountability Standards require all 11 centers to complete biannual needs assessments, an annual summary report of activities and regular evaluations of sessions.

Although not required to present professional development as stand-alone workshops, this remains the standard mode of delivery among the centers. In fact, the language in the Accountability Standards regulates consultant pay per daily session, rather than fees for ongoing services, intimating that the stand-alone workshop is the most common form of professional development. Possibly, exorbitant cost, lack of resources, lack of time and the ease of disseminating information to large groups at one staff development session tunnel in-service center administrators into seeking the most convenient avenue for meeting staff development requirements.

Although the centers were grounded in legislation and initially based on current research regarding professional development practices, educators’ knowledge base of effective programing has evolved over the past two decades, since the foundation of these centers. In order to continue providing effective programing, the centers, and the standards that regulate them, should evolve to ensure the continued programing of effective professional development. Knowles (1978) recognised the need for a theory of adult learning that capitalised on the distinct needs and beliefs of the adult learner. Over two decades later, as educators gain a fuller understanding of the learning needs of teachers, definitions of quality professional development and the role of the centers in relation to these definitions may and should continue to change.

LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND TEACHERS’ NEEDS

441

Current Literature and Its Potential Implications on Programing

In 2002, the US government increased the accountability of professional development in education through the No Child Left Behind legislation. The legislation places a strong emphasis on preparing, training, and recruiting highly qualified teachers and principals, with professional development often acting as the key to achieving these objectives. The language of the law also imposes criteria to guide and inform professional development activities, requiring that programing be academic in content, connected to K-12 standards, sustained and intensive, and based on scientifically-based research (US Department of Education, 2002). Closely aligned with the language regarding professional development in No Child Left Behind are the standards of effective professional development as defined by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), which encourage ongoing, job-embedded, data-driven and research-based programing.

According to the NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development, an awareness of learning strategies appropriate to the intended outcomes is essential in order to accomplish meaningful and productive professional development: ‘That means that staff development leaders and providers must be aware of and skillful in the application of various adult learning strategies’ (NSDC, 2001, p. 22). Huberman (1995) recognised that teachers have varying needs at different points in their careers, which affect their desire for varying kinds of professional development experiences. For this reason, teachers’ professional development needs may change at different points along their career and experience continuum.

In addition, teachers of different grade levels share a preference for certain instructional methodologies in professional development. Certainly, a basic desire to work with a particular age group of students, or a love of a certain subject or content, drives individuals to choose specific teaching careers at various grade levels. Killion (1999) asserted that staff development needs of middle school teachers are specific to their teaching grade levels, and Loucks-Horsley (1996) suggested that staff development sessions should use instructional methods that parallel the methods teachers would opt to use in their actual classrooms. This basic attitudinal difference among educators may also be reflected in professional development preferences. It then seems logical to attempt to offer professional development programming that places teachers into groupings with other teachers by the same grade levels and with the same professional development needs by experience, in an effort to encourage collaborative thinking and planning in a community think-tank forum.

An important tenet of current thinking on professional development, as stated by the National Staff Development Council is as follows: ‘Staff development that improves the learning of all students requires


442

resources to support adult learning and collaboration’ (NSDC, 2001, p. 12). Abdal-Haqq (1996) suggested that effective professional development provides teachers with the opportunity to interact and collaborate. Much learning occurs in the teaching context with the expertise of fellow professionals shaping the experience. Hord (1997) defined a professional community of learners as a community ‘in which the teachers in a school and its administrators continuously seek and share learning, and act on their learning’ (p. 10). This can be a difficult principle to achieve in workshops drawing teachers from multiple school systems; however, learning that is decontextualised becomes fragmented and less meaningful. Instead, learning that recognises and draws strength from the learning community is most successful, making it imperative to offer professional development in settings that build upon collaboration and foster a sense of community.

The State of Alabama recently adopted new standards for professional development. These standards, based on the NSDC standards, emphasise the importance of ongoing efforts in professional development that draw upon the strength of the learning community of teachers. Essentially, these standards challenge the basic modus operandi that has been accepted among in-service centers: the single session workshop that lasts for a brief 3 hours to a day is no longer seen as the most effective method for providing professional development to teachers.

Thus, a number of questions are posed as a result of recent legislation, educators’ increased understanding of quality professional development, and the needs of adult learners:

• How can in-service centers evolve organisationally and philosophically in order to most effectively meet the learning needs of the teachers they serve?

• How can learning communities be formed in traditionally constrained professional development environments, such as those encountered in programing through centers?

The purpose of this study is to discover instructional preferences of teachers, taking into account teaching experience and grade level, and brainstorm methods for placing teachers into learning communities by these preferences in order to meet current standards of professional development.

Method

In order to ascertain the preferred instructional strategies and modes of professional development delivery of teachers from various teaching levels, a survey was given to 112 participants in a variety of professional development workshops. The survey intended to explore the learning


443

preferences of teachers from different grade levels and the resources teachers seek when pursuing help in professional growth, with the hopes of using obtained information as a basis for forming learning communities in programing; the survey was given in randomly selected professional development sessions during the course of a summer program at an Alabama Regional In-service Center.

The majority of the survey can be broken into four primary areas of exploration:

• resources for seeking help; • helpfulness of various instructional activities; • reasons for enrollment; • usefulness of the information covered in a specific workshop.

The first section of the survey solicits general demographic information regarding the respondent: position classification, years in the position, years in education, teaching grade level and educational background. The respondents represented regular classroom teachers (77%), special educators (9%), media specialists (8%), Title I educators (2%), counselors (1%), and other areas such as pre-service teachers and paraprofessionals (4%). Thirty-three per cent were elementary teachers, with 28% of the respondents teaching at the high school level, 23% teaching at the middle school level and 14% teaching at the early childhood level. Over 57% of the respondents had over 10 years of teaching experience, while a small percentage (5%) had a year or less, making comparisons of responses by years of teaching experience problematic for this particular study.

After collecting the surveys over the course of a summer in various sessions, the responses were analysed using different methods, depending upon the type of information yielded in the survey. The information regarding preferences of help seeking sources was considered by percentage of responses, while information regarding instructional modes was analysed by mean ratings (based on a 1-5 point Likert-type scale, with 5 being the highest possible rating.)

Results

As indicated by the data in Table I, the results from the survey suggest that teachers across all grade levels are most likely or very likely (94%) to seek help from other teachers at the same school. The second most frequently cited source of help as noted by the teachers is the professional conference, with almost 97% of the elementary teachers seeking assistance from that source. In contrast, teachers are not at all likely to seek help from central office personnel. In fact, consistently for all groups, central office and curriculum coordinators are the least likely resources that teachers turn to when in need of assistance. This finding has implications for in-service center administrators as well; teachers are


444

more likely to seek assistance in professional growth from another teacher before they seek assistance from an outside source or center.

Early

Childhood %

Elementary %

Middle School/Jr High

%

High School

%

Total %

Principal 66 58 71 48 58 Teacher at same school

100 91 96 90 94

Mentor 93 77 77 70 77 Outside educator

87 75 75 71 75

Curriculum coordinator

38 34 49 30 40

Central office

23 10 16 17 15

University faculty

67 18 59 60 46

Conferences 93 97 88 91 93 Journals 86 86 82 90 86

Table I. Help sources and percentages of likelihood for seeking assistance. Although totals indicate that the majority of teachers seek help from teachers at their same school, it can also be observed that teachers of different grade levels have distinctive sources from which they seek help. For instance, by noting patterns of responses, it appears that early childhood teachers tend to be more at ease with seeking the guidance of a mentor than their counterparts at other grade levels. Journals appear to be a more popular resource for secondary teachers than teachers from other grade levels. Analysing the same information by years of experience yielded no observable patterns in differences of responses. In summary, the higher percentage of responses for seeking help from ‘teachers at the same school’ and ‘conferences’ regardless of grade level or years of experience supports the literature asserting that teachers need opportunities to collaborate with other professionals and form learning communities, although this remains a difficult task in workshop settings.

In reference to learning preferences for modes of instruction found in Table II, the survey results suggest that both elementary and early childhood teachers prefer ‘Make and Take’ activities during professional development sessions; teachers from these grade levels appear to want tangible and concrete materials to take with them after professional development sessions. In contrast, middle school and junior high teachers indicated that group work was most beneficial. High school teachers prefer discussion sessions and group work equally. Not surprisingly, none of the teachers, regardless of grade level, rated the


445

lecture mode as helpful, although this remains a common method of disseminating information in professional development settings.

Early

childhood Elementary Middle

School/Junior High

High school

Total

Lecture 3.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.2 Discussion 4.0 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.8 Group work

4.3 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.1

Projects 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 Role-play 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 Make and take

4.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1

Case study 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.7 Guest speaker

3.5 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.5

Self-instruction

3.5 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.5

Table II. Mean ratings for preferred instructional strategies.

When analysing the data by years of experience, the teachers with 1 year or less of experience preferred ‘Make and Take’ activities, probably due to the need for quick and tangible ideas for use in the classroom. Group work appeared as a favored mode for many of the groupings by years of experience, particularly for teachers who have taught for 6-8 years (M = 4.6). This, again, supports the literature claiming that professional development should be planned around learning communities by grade levels, capitalising on teachers’ distinctive learning needs.

Responding to the Research and the Legislation

In response to these findings, administrators of this particular center have initiated multiple series of workshops centered on educational topics that place teachers from different schools and systems into learning cohorts by grade configurations. The teachers are able to explore themes in depth with other teachers, drawing upon their actual classroom experiences. In addition, rather than filling the typical role of experts or external consultants, the presenters for professional development workshops are selected by nomination from other teachers and administrators in the school systems; thus, presenters act as workshop facilitators, rather than outside experts, allowing participants to share and problem-solve classroom scenarios they have encountered. Hence, even though the professional development is occurring outside the authentic classroom environment, the sessions allow teachers to seek


446

help from other teachers as they form learning communities in which they can explore topics at their own unique pace. Simply drawing among strong teachers in the region from a pool of nominated presenters has appeared to initiate a sense of community within the professional development context. In comments on regional in-service center evaluations, teachers have indicated that they appreciate learning from others who are also experiencing instructional and management challenges on a daily basis.

In order to meet the learning preferences of the teachers at different grade levels, training sessions were held with workshop facilitators. During these training sessions, the presenters brainstormed methodologies they considered most appropriate per grade level and years of teaching experience. Their discussion points were compared with the results of the survey in order to familiarise the facilitators with the learning preferences of the teachers at different grade levels. During training, facilitators were then paired with colleagues to discuss changes to their professional development plans and agendas that would be most effective in meeting the needs of the teachers. The training was implemented in order to allow for the facilitators to get a better understanding of the teachers’ preferences. Essentially, teachers have different developmental needs at different points along their career paths and allowing the facilitators to grapple with these possible needs helped them to foster a sense of learning community within their professional development sessions.

Another technique recently adopted by one of the Alabama Regional In-service Centers was the presentation of professional development as part of a series or ongoing sequence of sessions, revolving around a single topic or theme. With this method, participants are able to meet regularly with other participants in their same grade levels in order to build rapport and relationships as they progress into more advanced study on a given topic. Although the sessions meet outside of the regular classroom day, teachers are able to come together in support group forums. Some examples and explanations of this kind of programing are as follows:

• National Board Certification Program. This program met monthly throughout the 2001-2002 year. Two cohorts of teachers (secondary and elementary) seeking National Board Certification would come together to share their progress as they worked through the National Board Certification application process. Facilitated by nationally board certified teachers from the region, the participants would bring video clips of classroom instruction, classroom lesson plans and reflective written responses for review among the cohort of applicants. In addition to peer review, they would also benefit from the expertise of the certified teachers who actually simulated the review process, using standardised rubrics and assessment procedures.


447

• Beginning Teacher Support Program. In response to the No Child Left Behind mandate to retain highly qualified teachers, beginning teachers (those with 3 years or less of experience) met on a monthly basis throughout their first year of teaching to share their classroom experiences with other beginning teachers facing similar challenges. Facilitated by recommended veteran teachers, the participants in this program represent teachers from varying school systems. As indicated in the literature (Ganser, 1997) regarding mentoring programs, beginning teachers often feel threatened by induction programs that place mentors in an observation setting. Often, it is believed that the system mentor is sent to assess, rather than assist, particularly during non-tenure years. This program dissuades those fears by placing beginning teachers together into support systems. The first hour of each session is dedicated to a topic of assistance, recommended by current research. The second hour of each session allows the teachers to share their experiences and ask for potential solutions to classroom challenges, with the guidance of the veteran teacher, as they apply to that particular topic of discussion.

• Longitudinal Advanced Study. In order to allow for ongoing collaboration on a given topic, the in-service center personnel organised series of sessions on single topics to allow for in-depth and advanced study. For instance, in summer 2002, an entire week of programing was dedicated to integrating technology into classroom instruction. The participants who registered for sessions had to be comfortable and competent with the basics of technology use. The same participants, although representing a variety of school systems, attended session after session covering topics varying from software to website construction to use of the Internet. By organising these sessions along a continuum, the same participants from across the region were able to bring ideas to the discussions based on activities in their particular systems. Thus, the learning of the participants was enriched through an exploration of the use of technology in other systems and the sharing of innovative strategies that worked in real world settings.

Conclusions

Within the constraints of the professional development center, participants can still become part of a learning community, due to flexible and innovative programing ideas. They are also able to share understandings with other teachers, their first preferences for help-seeking sources and they are able to draw from the expertise of a veteran teacher who serves as a facilitator. Through selection and training of actual classroom teachers as presenters, the series of sessions can be


448

tailored to meet the learning preferences of the participants; sessions can account for theories of adult learning and preferred methodologies per teaching level. Communities of learners, organised by years of experience, content-area or educational goals, can be formed, enriching the professional development experience.

In spite of these early efforts at reforming professional development practices, additional research needs to be completed to verify the importance of presenting activities that meet the standards. Actual evaluative research that explores the impact of community learning as opposed to stand-alone single sessions of professional development should be explored, particularly as these modes of professional development relate to student outcomes. Even though teachers may prefer the opportunity to collaborate with others, preference alone does not suggest that these forms of learning have an impact on teacher behavior or student achievement. Hord (1997) stated that when professional development was communally organised, ‘staff members saw themselves as responsible for the total development of the students and shared a collective responsibility for the success of students’ (p. 29). Further studies should tease out the impact of professional development organised by cohorts and communities of learners on student performance, making the clear link between professional development of teachers and achievement of students.

Correspondence

Jennifer Good, East Alabama Regional In-service Center, 5032 Haley Center, Auburn University, Auburn, AL36849, USA ([email protected]).

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996) Making Time for Teacher Professional Development, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 259. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Ganser, T. (1997) Promises and Pitfalls for Mentors of Beginning Teachers, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 379, paper presented at the Conference on the Diversity in Mentoring, Tempe, AZ.

Hord, S. (1997) Professional Learning Communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Huberman, M. (1995) Professional Careers and Professional Development, in T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds) Professional Development in Education: new paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

Killion, J. (1999) What Works in the Middle: results-based staff development. Oxford: National Staff Development Council.


449

Knowles, M. (1978) The Adult Learner: a neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996) Principles of Effective Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Education: a synthesis of standards, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 409 201. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, NISE Brief 1(1).

National Staff Development Council (2001) Standards for Staff Development, revised edn. Oxford: NSDC.

US Department of Education (2002) Summary and Overview of the No Child Left Behind Act. Available at: www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/summary.html


450

Documents

Creating learning communities to meet teachers' needs in professional development