This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of In-Service EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie19

Customized professionaldevelopment for in-serviceteachers in a school-universitypartnershipVivian Gunn Morris a & Lucinda H. Chance aa University of Memphis , USAPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Vivian Gunn Morris & Lucinda H. Chance (1997) Customizedprofessional development for in-service teachers in a school-university partnership,Journal of In-Service Education, 23:3, 335-348, DOI: 10.1080/13674589700200026

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674589700200026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Customized Professional Developmentfor In-service Teachers in aSchool–University Partnership

VIVIAN GUNN MORRIS & LUCINDA H. CHANCEUniversity of Memphis, USA

ABSTRACT This article describes a successful professional developmentmodel conducted in an urban K-6 (ages 5-11) elementary school locatedin Memphis, Tennessee, in the Southeastern United States. FrayserElementary School is one of 11 schools involved in the University ofMemphis Professional Development Schools Partnership. The school andthe partnership have progressively moved toward using an approach toprofessional development that has the greatest potential for influencingstudent learning. This approach includes the presentation of theory,modeling, practice, feedback, and peer-coaching for application (Joyce &Showers, 1980). Professional development activities are inextricablyconnected to the four major components of the PDS programme,supervision of student teachers, school improvement planning, clinicalprofessor training, and applied research and inquiry.

Introduction

Do you experience concerns as you conduct a 1- or 2-day workshop inSeptember with 200 eager teachers hanging on your every word? Will youimpact on learning or are you the day’s entertainment? You eloquentlyexpound new instructional strategies that you hope they are burning to tryin their classrooms. In your worst nightmare, you see those same teachersin December with the materials they needed to guide the proposed newinstructional strategies still in the trunks of their cars – never removed.What happened? They left your workshop in September with suchenthusiasm and great intentions, but with all of the other things they had

335

British Journal of In-service Education, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

to do as classroom practitioners it seemed there was no time to plan fornew classroom innovations. How many thousands of teachers have thissame experience each year, and how many millions of school districtdollars are spent in private and public funds with resulting insignificantchanges in the professional growth of teachers and improvement in theteaching and learning environments in PreK-12 schools? Teachers andteacher educators alike agree that the continuing professionaldevelopment of teachers is critical to the educational achievement ofstudents in our classrooms. How do we ensure that professionaldevelopment programmes are effective for both teachers and the studentsthey teach? The purpose of this article is to describe a successfulprofessional development model conducted in an urban K-6 (ages 5 - 11)elementary Professional Development School located in Memphis,Tennessee, in the Southeastern United States.

Customized Professional Development: what is it?

Lieberman & Miller (1992) define professional development as “knowledge,skills, abilities, and the necessary conditions for teachers learning on thejob” (p. 1045). In this context, customised professional development refersto staff development for in-service teachers that is driven by the schoolimprovement plan. The plan has been developed through thecollaborative efforts of the entire faculty or by a large segment of thefaculty with input and review by the entire faculty. The staff developmentactivities are designed for the faculty in a specific school and may also bepersonalised for a small faculty group or individual teacher, depending onthe need.

The need for continuing high-quality professional development forteachers is a critical need because of its influence on students’ educationaloutcomes (Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America’sFuture, 1996). The Report outlines the findings of the National Foundationfor the Improvement of Education (NFIE) on what constitutes high-qualityprofessional development for teachers. High-quality professionaldevelopment:x has the goal of improving student learning at the heart of every school

endeavour;x fosters a deepening of subject matter knowledge, a greater

understanding of learning, and a greater appreciation of students’needs;

x helps teachers and other staff meet the needs of students who learn indifferent ways and who come from diverse cultural, linguistic andsocio-economic backgrounds;

x provides adequate time for inquiry, reflection and mentoring, and is animportant part of the normal working day;

x is rigorous, sustained and adequate to the long-term change of practice;x is directed toward teachers’ intellectual development and leadership;

336

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

x is teacher designed and directed, incorporates the best principles ofadult learning, and involves shared decisions designed to improve theschool;

x balances individual priorities with school district needs;x makes best use of new technologies;x is site-based and supportive of a clearly articulated vision for students

(p. 83).The Report of the National Commission noted that the features outlined byNFIE are rarely found in professional development programs today. TheReport further communicates that:

Most professional dollars are spent either reimbursing teachers forcourses that may not be related to school needs or their classroomresponsibilities or for district-determined workshops with even lessconnections to teachers’ own practice. As traditionally organized,in-service education – usually conducted as mass-producedhit-and-run workshops – is not well suited to helping teachers withthe most pressing challenges they face in deepening their subjectmatter knowledge, responding to student diversity, or teachingmore effectively. (p. 84)

The National Commission recommends: (1) an allocation of at least 1% ofstate and local education funding to be consistently devoted tohigh-quality professional development activities; (2) organising newsources of professional development to include professional developmentschools; (3) making ongoing professional development part of teachers’daily work, using a wide variety of activities to include joint planning,research, curriculum and assessments, study groups and peer coaching(Report, 1996).

In a review of research on teacher professional development,Sprinthall et al (1996) report on current approaches to staff development.One approach that is particularly relevant to this discussion is based onthe work of Joyce & Showers (1980). They reported that the most effectiveteacher professional development activities are those that combinetheory, modelling, practice, feedback and coaching for application,particularly peer coaching (Joyce et al, 1992). Joyce & Showers argue that“the knowledge seems firm enough that we can predict that if thosecomponents are in fact combined in in-service programs, we can expectthe outcomes to be considerable at all levels” (Joyce & Showers, 1980, p.385). Based on Joyce & Showers’ work, Sprinthall et al (1996) stated that“if the transfer of significant new skills and or training models of teachingis the goal of professional development [and it should be] training willneed to be more extensive and in-class coaching will be needed” (p. 684).

337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Professional Development within a School-University Partnership

The Professional Development School Partnership at The University ofMemphis has four major components that incorporate the definition ofProfessional Development Schools communicated by the Holmes Group(Report of the Holmes Group, 1990): (1) supervision of student teachers;(2) school improvement planning; (3) clinical professor training (staffdevelopment for in-service teachers); (4) applied research and inquiry.Each of these components is inextricably connected and contribute to theprofessional development of in-service teachers. The partnership hasprogressively moved toward using the staff development approachsuggested by Joyce & Showers (1980) as a means for having significantinfluence on the educational achievement of children.

Professional Development at Frayser Elementary

Frayser Elementary is one of 11 schools in the Professional DevelopmentSchools Partnership at the University of Memphis and joined thepartnership in its first full year in 1992. Frayser Elementary is a K-6 schoollocated in Memphis, Tennessee, a middle-sized city in the SoutheasternUnited States. The school population fluctuates from 500 to 600 per yearand is predominantly African-American from low-income families. Studentsin general rank below city-wide and statewide median scores onstandardised achievement tests. The school has maintained strongleadership over the life of the partnership along with a committed,dedicated teaching staff.

School Improvement Planning

As part of the partnership agreement, the school developed a schoolimprovement plan that required the collaboration of the entire faculty.The plan is updated each year to meet the changing needs of the school.The process was facilitated by the university liaison, a full-time universityfaculty member that was assigned half her academic load to work with theschool. The school improvement plan was based on a set of beliefs agreedon by the superintendent of schools and the College of Education. Thenine beliefs are:(1) all children can learn;(2) student success is the goal of all school activity;(3) students need to be challenged by learning to pursue difficult tasksand persist with tasks at which they are unsuccessful; (4) learning is an active process; (5) parental involvement is an essential element in effective schools;(6) teachers are leaders and principals are leaders of leaders;

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

(7) the business of the school district and the state is to assure that eachschool unit operates under optimal conditions, and produces optimalresults;(8) staff success results from motivated and competent people working inan environment that is committed to their success, continuing growth, anddevelopment;(9) instruction will be developmentally appropriate and educationallysound (Chance, 1992).The school improvement plan was developed primarily during after-schoolhours and was organised around five goal areas: (1) students; (2) faculty;(3) school administrators; (4) central office administrators; (5) parentsand community. The entire faculty worked together using the followingsteps to develop the plan:x development of a mission statement;x discussions and written descriptions of individual perceptions of

important goals;x discussions and written descriptions of perceptions of inhibiting

factors;x prioritising of perceived goals and objectives;x development of action plans that included what, who and when as well

as needed resources to carry out the actions.This plan set the stage for the staff development activities needed topursue the plan effectively.

Clinical Professor Training

The clinical professor component is the heart of the staff developmentactivities and is driven by needs identified in the school improvementplan. At the end of the completion of 51 hours of training (designed tomeet the requirements of a graduate course at the university if teacherschoose to enroll), faculty and administrators received clinical professorcertificates and became “adjuncts of choice” at the university if they alsomet the education criteria. During the first year of the project, weprimarily used the ‘expert’ approach to professional development whereprofessors (experts), mostly from the College of Education, conducted oneor two workshop sessions on a particular topic that faculty members hadidentified in the school improvement plan. These sessions generallycombined theory, modeling, practice and feedback.

By year 2, coaching for application as suggested by Joyce & Showers(1980) was added to most of the professional development activities andmany sessions were held during the school day. For example, a universityprofessor conducted a classroom management workshop for the entirefaculty. Then she worked in classrooms with two teachers who requestedadditional help in arranging their classrooms and using cooperativelearning as a new instructional strategy. The university professor modeledlessons and engaged in coaching activities within the classroom setting.

339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

One teacher, in particular, communicated improvement in his ability tomanage teaching and learning activities in his classroom as a result of thisactivity – both short- and long-term positive results. Cooperative learningstrategies, family involvement in the educational activities of their childrenand the use of technology in the classroom were areas included in theschool improvement plan. Descriptions of professional developmentactivities in these areas follow. Some of the initiatives required writinggrants to obtain funds from outside the district, while others could beimplemented without additional funds. A team of faculty members,designated as the grant writing team, collaborated with the universityliaison to write grant proposals to support initiatives included in theschool improvement plan. Three such grants were awarded at thebeginning of the third year of the partnership.Cooperative learning. After attending two on-site workshops oncooperative learning (in addition to other sessions sponsored by theschool district in a larger setting earlier), the fourth grade team decided touse cooperative learning strategies in their classroom. It was evident thatteam members coached one another and provided coaching for teachersat other grade levels during faculty sessions as reports were made abouttheir progress. Each grade level team made a report near the end of theschool year on accomplishments for the school year as well as challengesfor the next school year.

The fourth grade team reported the following changes as a result ofimplementing cooperative learning in their classrooms. Students:(1) were more actively involved in the learning process;(2) enjoyed learning from each other;(3) improved their social skills;(4) had stronger problem-solving skills;(5) learned more from each other;(6) had increased interest in many subject areas;(7) developed stronger verbal skills;(8) experienced an improved classroom environment;(9) had fewer discipline problems;(10) improved their grades in many areas;(11) had more positive attitudes about learning;(12) were excited and turned on to learning and interacting with oneanother;(13) gained more self-confidence;(14) seemed glad to help each other learn (Morris et al, 1994).Family literacy. Improving the reading skills of children, developingtechnology skills (especially using computers), and increasing theinvolvement of family and community in educational activities of childrenwere areas addressed in the school improvement plan. At the beginning ofthe 1994-95 school year, Frayser Elementary was awarded two grants fromNational Foundation for the Improvement of Education and theInternational Paper Foundation to fund initiatives in these areas. Theproject was designed to accomplish three major objectives: (1) improve

340

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

the literacy skills of K-6 at-risk students by training their parents toprovide literacy skills instruction at home and at school; (2) increase theinvolvement of parents as volunteers in classrooms and in otherschool-related activities; (3) use technology to improve the writing skills ofat-risk grade students. Parents were invited to participate in a series ofteacher-led workshops on tips for reading with children and wereencouraged to use these skills in the home setting and as volunteers intheir children’s classrooms. The major components of the project were:x training classroom teachers to conduct workshop sessions for parents;x conducting training sessions for parents;x inviting parents to volunteer in classrooms;x training sixth grade teachers to use computers and computer software

to develop newsletters and poetry book to distribute to parents andselected community agencies;

x training sixth graders to develop newsletters and poetry book usingcomputer skills taught by their teachers.

Seven classroom teachers (one from each grade level) plus the Title Ifacilitator for the school were trained in two workshop sessions toconduct literacy training for parents. The sessions were conducted by areading and language arts specialist from The University of Memphis whoused a staff development approach that included theory, modeling,feedback, practice and coaching.

The Family Literacy Programme was introduced to the parents at anopen house held in September. All parents were invited to participate.Three consecutive workshops were conducted by the teachers for parents(using the same format as used in their training sessions). Workshopsessions included the rationale for reading to children, modeling, practice,feedback and coaching. At each session, parents were able to check outbooks and games from the resource centre to use with their children athome. During the last morning session, parents were invited to read tochildren in classrooms. Parents who attended the fall sessions continuedto volunteer at school in the spring semester and to check out books andgames from the Teacher Parent Action Centre (TPAC). This centre wasestablished with funds from the NFIE grant and the collaboration grantfrom the International Paper Foundation.

In order to pursue the technology/writing skills objectives, twohands-on training sessions were conducted on site by a computerspecialist from the University of Memphis for the two sixth grade teachersand the Title I Facilitator. They received training in using the Macintoshcomputer and The Writing Centre, a software package for developingnewsletters. Substitute teachers were hired with project funds so thatteachers could use the entire 2 days for training, modeling, practice,feedback and coaching in order to prepare for training their students. Theteachers who received the computer training indicated that they wereready to begin their work with the students. Some teachers expressedopinions that there was a need for the workshops to continue. Oneteacher noted, “... longer time of period with the instructor to cover more

341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

in-depth procedure/problems.” Another teacher stated that she would liketo take a course on using computers.

In February, the 6th grade classes (11 - 12-year-olds) were invited tocomplete a 1-day computer skills workshop at The University of Memphis.The field trip to the university campus included a 2½ hours computer skillsworkshop, a welcome by an assistant dean of the College of Education andlunch in one of the university cafeterias with university students fromselected fraternities and sororities. Prior to attending the computerworkshop, students were asked to bring essays they had written thatcould be included in the school newsletter. Each student was able toprocess her/his essay into a newsletter format by the end of the workshopsession. This was a major motivator in getting students ready to completetheir school newsletter. The session was conducted by the Project SMART(Science and Mathematics Advancement Radically Raised ThroughTechnology) staff. Frayser Elementary School is a partner in that project.Students completed one school newsletter during the second semesterthat was distributed to all parents.

The project evaluation report noted that the seven classroomteachers involved in the literacy project were anxious about their roles intraining the parents. The staff development role was a new leadership rolefor many of the teachers. However, following the training sessions and theinitial workshop for parents, the teachers felt more confident andcomfortable with their role. The teachers reported success in their newroles since there was an increase in the number of books and games usedwith students both at home and at school. The project evaluation resultsalso reflected the success of the classroom teachers as workshop trainersfor parents. The site coordinator reported on this success:x After the teacher led workshops, parents were energised about reading

with students (their child).x The workshops were conducted in a way that led to support groups for

parents. They began exchanging phone numbers, discussing ideasgained and suggesting ways they could implement the programme athome.

x Teachers created excitement among the parents about using books atthe workshop sessions.

x The workshop helped parents gradually to become confident enough togo into classrooms and read to larger groups.

x Several parents asked if the workshops could be extended.x One parent reported that the teacher-led training sessions were not only

informative, but also made her feel more comfortable with teachersbecause of the one-on-one relationship she had with teachers.

The formal project evaluation also reflected the success of the teachertrainers. Twenty-five parents responded on workshop evaluations that thepresentations addressed the topics well; the majority of the parents feltthat workshop leaders had knowledge of the materials; and the goals andobjectives of the sessions were met. All of the parents felt that theworkshop content was relevant for them. The parents reported that the

342

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

workshops were helpful to them because they now know how to get theirchildren to become interested in reading. One parent reported, “Since thisprogram my smaller children and I are reading more and we are reallyenjoying it.” A second parent stated, “I think this program is a great idea, ithelps parents so they can help their children.” Another parentcommunicated her desire for more workshops on family literacy by saying,“Hopefully this could be repeated this spring.” All of the adults attendingthe workshop sessions considered the workshops to be relevant to theirneeds, helpful and enjoyable.Project SMART. Probably the most successful teacher professionaldevelopment program in which we have been involved over the life of thepartnership is Project SMART (Science and Mathematics AdvancementRadically Raised Through Technology). A teacher team from FrayserElementary along with five other Professional Development Schools in thepartnership developed this grant proposal and was awarded $900,000 fromthe US Office of Education to conduct a three-year science, mathematicsand technology project. The programme was designed to providesustained, intensive, high quality professional development activities thatfocused on using technology to improve instruction in mathematics andscience. This 3-year project provided training for all science andmathematics teachers in each of the 11 PDSs. The training approachincluded the presentation of theory, modeling, practice, feedback andpeer-coaching, all the components recommended by Joyce & Showers(1980) as the professional development approach having the greatestpotential for influencing students’ learning.

Six of the PDSs were involved in three intensive summer institutes (4weeks each), academic year on-site workshops and one model technologyclassroom was established in each school. Lead teacher teams, consistingof the lead teacher for the school and two or three additional teachers,attended the summer institutes and then served as trainers at their ownschools and at the other five PDS sites. These teams also met on a regularbasis with the project staff to plan summer and academic year training forthemselves and their peers. Included in the first summer training programwas a 1-week summer camp with students from their own schools wherethe teachers had an opportunity to try out their newly acquired skills withtheir students. It was a great success. Some teachers noted that thestudents learned in one day the concepts that took them 3 weeks to learn.Over the 3-year period, Lead Teacher Teams were also established at eachof the 11 sites and a model classroom was installed at each site. Allscience and mathematics teachers at the 11 PDSs were providedsystematic, intensive, professional development by the Lead TeacherTeams, project staff from the university and consultants. This means thatall teachers at Frayser Elementary received training because allelementary teachers teach science and mathematics.

The Frayser Elementary Lead Teacher Team was included in thegroup of six schools that received the intensive summer training. Membersof the programme planning team provided training for peers at their

343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

school and for colleagues in other partnership schools. After receiving theProject SMART grant, which they helped to write, faculty members feltmore confident about initiating the writing of proposals instead of relyingon the university liaison. Since that time, the faculty has developed andbeen awarded at least three new grants: (1) a technology grant thatenabled the school to establish seven additional model technologyclassrooms; (2) a science grant designed to involve parents in reinforcingscience concepts with their children; (3) a literacy grant which involvesparents in enhancing the reading skills of their children.

A comprehensive evaluation plan was written as an importantcomponent of the Project SMART grant which included both formative andsummative evaluation processes. Over the 3-year period, evaluation datawere collected via surveys, individual interviews and focus groups. At theend of each training cycle (i.e. summer institute and each semester), theevaluation data were used to improve the programme. The findingsreported here are based on aggregate data collected from Frayser and theother 11 PDSs. A mid-term peer review team reported that the majoraccomplishments of the project were:x 230 teachers have been trained;x lesson plans utilising technology have been developed and

implemented;x teachers have developed a comfort level for managing their classrooms

to utilise the acquired equipment in a productive manner;x the amount of dissemination among teachers in the Professional

Development Schools within a short time period is impressive;x the teacher enthusiasm and motivation is impressive (Abraham, 1996, p.

51).The peer review team also reported on the unique characteristics of theproject that may be valuable to others. They reported that:x The staff development aspect of this project supports continuous

growth and support. Systems are in place to support teachers as theyencounter difficulty with technology and/or applications. There appearsto be easy access to University staff. Within the schools, teachersappear to rely on those teachers who have been trained as Modelclassroom teachers or Lead Team Teachers and they seem to supporteach other. Regularly scheduled training seems to be scheduled for allteachers at a school site with more intensive sessions scheduled forTeam leaders. The summer institute provided in-depth training andallows teachers to expand their knowledge.

x The systematic design of activities and their tryout with children in asummer camp is commendable.

x The high level of respect for the university faculty and the nature andquality of the training received were exceptional. The teachers readilycompared this training with other technology-based projects and ratedProject SMART superior. The most frequently cited difference was theapplication of computer programs to classroom instruction (Abraham,1996, p. 53).

344

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A separate ongoing evaluation of the project was conducted by localconsultants. After interviewing the Lead Teachers from six PDSs, theyreported that: “All teachers agreed that Project SMART has had a verypositive impact on their students. Most teachers noted that their studentswere more motivated, excited, and involved in learning” (Abraham, p. 61).Teachers reported that the most positive outcome of their participation inProject SMART was “the skills they learned and how they were able toeffectively pass on the skills to their students” (Abraham, p. 84). This isthe real measure of the effectiveness of professional developmentactivities – positive influence on students’ learning. Teachers have becomeso confident about their work in technology that four teacher-teams fromfive different schools made technology-related presentations at a recentarea PDS conference. They shared with other teachers and administratorsthe exemplary practices that were being implemented in their classroom.

Supervision of Student Teachers as a Source of Professional Development

In our partnership, cooperating teachers are called mentor-teachersbecause we view them as more than evaluators, they also serve ascoaches. They are asked to take the lead role in the mentoring processwhile the university supervisor (named university liaison) takes on therole of a consultant. As part of their clinical professor training,mentor-teachers receive training in reflective mentoring, supervision,observation, coaching and evaluation. Some interesting findings haveemerged from one of the research studies that make the case forsupervision of student teachers as an important source of professionaldevelopment for the mentor-teacher (Morris et al, 1998). FrayserElementary teachers were included in the responses of 211 teachers fromeight schools in our partnership that asked teachers to list the benefitsteachers derived from mentoring student teachers. Two major themesemerged from a preliminary analysis of the data. First, in-service teachersnoted that their own professional development skills were enhanced. Theystated that they learned new ideas, new ways to teach and there was anexchange of knowledge between them and their student teachers.Secondly, the teachers stated supervising student teachers providedopportunities for them to reflect on their teaching practices. Theycommunicated that they had time for self-evaluation and self-reflection,opportunities to observe other teachers, to improve their classroommanagement skills and, as a result, they had renewed energy for teaching.Teachers also expressed satisfaction in helping to prepare the nextgeneration of teachers. So, in addition to the professional developmentskills that all teachers received via the school improvement planningprocess and the clinical professor training, the mentor-teachers derivedadditional benefits in their roles as mentor.

345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Research and Inquiry

Research and inquiry has been an integral part of the partnership atFrayser Elementary from the first year. However, most of the studies havebeen initiated by the university liaison with cooperation from the facultyand staff using surveys, focus groups and individual interviews to gaintheir input on important issues. Studies have been conducted on teacherempowerment, changes in school culture, and roles and responsibilities ofteachers. The data have been used to improve the designated staffdevelopment component (clinical professor training) of the programme, aswell as the other three components which impact on professionaldevelopment activities also.

One major goal of the partnership is to encourage classroompractitioners to initiate action research projects to solve classroomproblems. Probably, the one project most nearly related to this approachis the cooperative learning initiative conducted by the fourth grade teamin year 1 of the partnership. However, classroom teachers have joinedwith their university peers to write articles and book chapters about theirexperiences, and have made joint presentations at local and stateconferences. Further staff development activities will need to beimplemented in the research area to enable classroom teachers to feelmore confident in pursuing action research activities.

Summary and Conclusions

The professional development of teachers at Frayser Elementary School, amember of The University of Memphis PDS Partnership, is inextricablyconnected to the four major components of the partnership, i.e.supervision of student teachers, school improvement planning, clinicalprofessor training, and applied research and inquiry. The professionaldevelopment activities are customised in that they are designedspecifically for this faculty based on needs identified in their schoolimprovement plan that was developed collaboratively by the entirefaculty. Most of the activities are planned for all faculty, while some followup activities may be planned for an individual teacher or small groups ofteachers. We have found that the approach that has the greatest potentialto influence student learning includes a presentation of theory, modelling,practice, feedback, and peer coaching for application (Joyce & Showers,1980). We have progressively moved toward using this approach over thelife of the partnership. We have found short-term, hit-and-run workshopsto be ineffective, and a waste of time and money.

There are a number of lessons learned about implementingprofessional development activities at Frayser Elementary and in ourentire PDS partnership that may be helpful to other educators who areplanning major reform efforts in their schools. First, professionaldevelopment activities should be tied to a school improvement plan that

346

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

has been developed by the faculty. Findings from our research (Morris etal, 1994) indicate that teacher efficacy is greatly influenced by the schoolimprovement planning process and the special knowledge and skillsacquired in training sessions. Teachers noted the knowledge gained aswell as being engaged in the planning process improved communicationamong faculty across grade levels. This finding reveals the emergence ofimproved collegiality as an important element for implementing a majorreform effort. The majority of the teachers at Frayser stated that as aresult of participating in the school improvement planning process, theywere more willing to assist other teachers, participated in a greateramount of cooperative planning, and were more willing to share and workwith peers to improve teaching and learning in their school.

Time is a factor to be considered whenever a major reform effort isundertaken in schools. Adelman & Walking-Eagle (1997) emphasise theimportance of time needed to: (1) plan and practice; (2) developcurriculum; (3) turn policy into proactive; (4) be a teacher; (5) sharesuccessful practices; (6) to sell the innovation. We found teachers to beresentful and sometimes hostile and uncooperative when most of theprofessional development activities were held during after-school hours(Morris et al, 1994). Following the first year of the project, we were able toconduct most of the professional development activities during the schoolday at designated planning periods and at times when student teacherswere in charge of classes. With our grant programmes, we allocated fundsto pay for substitute teachers during the school day while professionaldevelopment activities took place. Teachers appeared to be much happierwith this arrangement and more willing to be involved in reform efforts.

The Professional Development School model, when fullyimplemented, provides to each school a customised staff developmentplan for all in-service teachers. This plan addresses the concerns of facultythat were identified in the school improvement planning process. Thesuccessful model is teacher and school specific, and includes thepresentation of theory, modelling, practice, feedback and peer coachingfor application. These are all successfully and inextricably connected tothe four components of The University of Memphis ProfessionalDevelopment School Partnership (PDSs) – supervision of student teachers,school improvement planning, clinical professor training and appliedresearch and inquiry. The results will continue to improve both P-12 andthe teacher education programmes.

Correspondence

V. Gunn Morris, Professional Development Schools Partnership, College ofEducation, Instruction & Curriculum Leadership, University of Memphis,Memphis, TN 38152, USA.

347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Abraham, K. (1996) Interim Report of Eisenhower National Program for Math andScience: Project SMART. Memphis: University of Memphis, College ofEducation.

Alderman, N. E. & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997) Teachers, time, and school reform,in A. Hargreaves (Ed.) Rethinking Education Change with Heart and Mind.Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Chance, C. (1992) Professional Development Schools: toward a new relationship forK-12 schools and Memphis State University. Memphis: College of Education, University of Memphis.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1980) Improving in-service training. The messages ofresearch, Educational Leadership, 37, pp. 379-385.

Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Showers, B. (1995) Models of Teaching, 4th edn. Boston: Allyn& Bacon.

Lieberman, A. & Miller, A. (1992) Professional development of teachers, inM. C. Alken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th edn. New York:Macmillan.

Morris, V. G., Nunnery, J. A., Scipio, J., Knight, J., Gopalakrishnan, M. &Rinehart, R. (1994) A Case Study of Teacher Empowerment in a ProfessionalDevelopment School. Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy,College of Education, University of Memphis.

Morris, V. G., Taylor, S. I., Knight, J. & Mogge, K. L. (1998) Mentor teaching as asource of professional development in a school-university partnership. Paperpresented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Association of TeacherEducators, Dallas, USA.

Report of the Holmes Group (1990) Tomorrow’s Schools: principles for the design ofprofessional development schools. Lansing: Holmes Group.

Report of the National Commission on Teacher & America’s Future (1996) WhatMatters Most: teaching for America’s future. Woodbridge: NCTAF.

Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A. J. & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996) Teacher professionaldevelopment, in J. Sikula (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education,2nd edn. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

348

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

06:

08 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014