This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 20 November 2014, At: 09:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Professional Development Workshops forStudent Teachers: An Issue of ConcernAmy Hsu a & Fran Malkin aa SUNY College at Old WestburyPublished online: 19 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Amy Hsu & Fran Malkin (2013) Professional Development Workshops forStudent Teachers: An Issue of Concern, Action in Teacher Education, 35:5-6, 354-371, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2013.846165

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.846165

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not 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 liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Action in Teacher Education, 35:354–371, 2013Copyright © Association of Teacher EducatorsISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01626620.2013.846165

Professional Development Workshops for StudentTeachers: An Issue of Concern

Amy HsuFran Malkin

SUNY College at Old Westbury

Professional development programs are critical in addressing the needs of teacher education studentsand graduates. In an effort to best meet the desired needs and wants of these new educators, profes-sional development opportunities must target essential issues. This study examines topics includingclassroom management, exceptional children, parent involvement, and navigating the first year ofsuccessful teaching. Although the student teaching experience allows for growth of its participants,it is simply not sufficient. To best target areas of concern for future educators, there is a call forfocus areas of professional opportunities allowing for an advancement of skills. In this study treat-ment group participants demonstrated increased confidence and significant growth in these specificareas addressed at workshops they attended, justifying the need for future professional developmentopportunities.

INTRODUCTION

Equipping student teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are necessary as theybegin to work in the field alongside practicing educators is a critical, yet daunting task. Despite thevast number of credit hours preservice teachers take in theory and practice before they enter thefield, they are never truly prepared for what awaits them in the classroom with the unpredictabilityof students, the mandate of explicit policies and procedures specific to a particular school, and allthe politics of navigating through that first year of teaching.

Once a teacher sets foot inside a classroom, it is essential that he or she participates in profes-sional development opportunities to help in further refining his or her craft, learn about the latesttrends in education, and to feel supported as he or she continues to develop in this challengingand constantly changing career. Geringer (2003) not only affirmed that a good teacher is a crucialfactor in student learning, but also added that teacher quality outweighs the importance of stan-dards, funding, and class size. The educator holds the power (and nowadays, the accountability)to help his or her students achieve. Educators directly touch the lives of students on a daily basis;therefore, the road to improving student achievement must directly cross the path to improvingthe quality of teachers, namely through professional development.

Correspondence should be addressed to Amy Hsu, School of Education, SUNY College at Old Westbury, P.O.Box 210, Old Westbury, NY 11568. E-mail: hsua@oldwestbury.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 355

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Defining Professional Development

To understand a concept, it must be meticulously classified. Many organizations and institu-tions have defined the term professional development in a variety of ways. As labeled by theProposed Amendments to Section 9101 (34) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Actand as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, “professional development meansa comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to improving teachers’ and principals’ effec-tiveness in raising student achievement.” More recently, the U.S. Department of Education’sRace to the Top initiative (2010) expanded on the definition of professional development inthe Great Teachers and Leaders section calling for statewide support of “data-informed pro-fessional development, coaching, induction, and common planning and collaboration time toteachers and principals that are, where appropriate, ongoing and job embedded” (para. Div.A). In addition, the National Staff Development Council has defined professional developmentas a comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to improving teachers’ effectivenessin raising student achievement (http://aypf.org/documents/62609NSDCDefinitionofProfessionalDevelopment908.pdf, 2012). Fullan (1991) expanded the definition to include “the sum totalof formal and informal learning experiences throughout one’s career from pre-service teachereducation to retirement” (p. 326).

Although definitions vary semantically, the revolutionizing of professional development sendsthe same common message. Professional development aims to improve teacher quality, which inturn advances student learning. National organizations, such as the National Staff DevelopmentCouncil and the American Federation of Teachers, have designed their own criteria for successfulprofessional development. With the definitions provided and the conceptual framework in mind,state education departments created their own professional development standards. As mentionedearlier, states vary in terms of their requirements; however, most professional development stan-dards target the need for educators to commit to continuous learning and reflection throughcollaboration, establish goals and engaging in purposeful activities, all in an effort to supportstudent learning. All of these efforts point in the direction of teachers’ professional development.

Teachers remain the focal point of student success. The investment in student performancemust lie in the hands of the teachers that lead and guide them on a daily basis. The primaryquestion now is to how to ensure that professional development plans are most effective andmeaningful for all parties involved, most importantly the teachers who facilitate the growth oftomorrow’s children.

Designing Professional Development and Teacher Input

Teachers’ voices must be heard. Research suggests

professional development activities should be based on teachers’ identified needs, even though note-worthy evidence shows that teachers rarely are able to articulate their needs. Although they have nodifficulty identifying problems, dilemmas, concerns, and wants, teachers tend to describe symptomsof needs that must be diagnosed more thoroughly and interpreted more broadly. (Jones & Hayes,1980, p. 390)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

356 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

Professional development programs should be based on teachers’ requested problems, dilemmas,concerns, and wants. Those who design professional development programs need to be responsiveto teachers’ expressed areas of need. Teachers are able to identify their problems and concerns.Those dilemmas must be transformed into appropriate professional development workshops thatoffer solutions.

It seems quite obvious that those involved in a situation should best be able to assess it.Unfortunately, much research has addressed the lack of teacher input in conveying these desires.Choy, Chen, and Bugarin (2006) found that “the content of professional development activities,designing and planning activities, and conducting activities rests most commonly with districtstaff or principals rather than teachers or outside providers” (p. 7). In many school systems,administration and staff hold the responsibility of designing the professional development pro-grams for educators. Why rely on administration to identify the needs and wants of their teachers?Who better to address the needs of individuals than the individuals themselves? Teachers needthe power of voice to express their own aspirations.

Allowing educators to verbalize their requests also empowers them to direct the future of theirprofessional development endeavors. Psychologically, Richardson (2003) addresses the notion of“developing a buy-in among participants” as essential to feeling a part of a program (p. 401).Fullan (1991) also believes that most people do not develop new understanding until they areinvolved in the process. A lack of involvement in a process can lead to inappropriate and non-purposeful professional development experiences, as was found by Eric Hirsch (2008), directorof Special Projects with The New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Hehas been working with individual states to assess what teachers “want and need,” and how theirperceptions of various aspects of their jobs correlate with student achievement and teacher reten-tion. His findings indicate the importance of teacher involvement in the professional developmentprocess.

Teachers in a lot of schools are not engaged in selecting professional development. In most states,about half the teachers say they play no role or only a small role in choosing what professionaldevelopment opportunities are available to them. And because they’re not getting to have a say, whatwe’ve found is a mismatch between what teachers say they need in professional development andwhat they’re actually getting. (Hirsch, 2008, para. 13)

Giving teachers the autonomy to execute their professional opinions about their needs offers amost efficient reflective process, as this autonomy can provide teachers with the ability to choosethe problem and also identify the best solution to the problem (Bonner, 2006). In summary, edu-cators know what they need to help their students meet with success. It is the responsibility ofprofessional development programs to provide teachers with the training they request.

National Statistics

National data suggests that when teachers think they have influence in determining the contentof professional development, they are more likely than those who think they have no influenceto participate in such opportunities (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2005).Because many professional opportunities are voluntary, to be most effective and widely attended,teachers must be stakeholders in the professional development opportunities in which they takepart. Because they are the ones who directly affect students, we must be sure that teachers get the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 357

most they can from these professional development activities and find them valuable and worthyof their time.

Local Statistics

Recent research (Exit-Based Interview [EBI] Teacher Education Exit Assessment 2011) hasindicated that our college’s School of Education graduates reported feeling least prepared inseveral areas. These include managing behavior of their students, working effectively with par-ents, collaborating with administrators, and dealing with school politics. Similar data was alsocollected internally within in the School of Education. Surveys were sent to recent School ofEducation graduates who indicated how their education coursework and training did or did notprepare them to deal with several areas of teaching. These results mirrored that of the EBI data.Graduates specifically indicated a lack of knowledge with regards to identifying child abuse,working effectively with parents and managing the behavior of their students.

Present Study and Research Question

This study aimed to address the expressed needs of recent teacher education graduates. In aneffort to assist these new educators in meeting their professional development needs, this studydesigned free, voluntary workshops to target some of the issues. This study presents itself withone research question: What are the effects of professional development workshops on studentteachers’ reported self-perception of their pedagogical and content skills?

METHOD

Introduction

Guskey (2000) defined professional development as “those processes and activities designed toenhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn,improve the learning of students” (p. 16). Lucilio (2009) suggests that all professional devel-opment and its success in bringing about improved student achievement begin with the teacher.Because our recent teacher education graduates were able to articulate their concerns and wants,we designed our professional development workshop plan based on their requested needs.

Participants

Participants consisted of undergraduate and graduate college students majoring in teachereducation (childhood, special education, bilingual education, and secondary) at a small, pub-lic, suburban university in New York State. The 4-year university comprises approximately3,500 undergraduates; almost 80% are full time students. Thirty percent of the school popula-tion lives on campus, and the rest are commuting students. The university has a diverse studentbody. About 50% of the student population is African American, Hispanic, Asian, and NativeAmerican. All participants in this study (undergraduate and Master of the Arts in Teaching [MAT]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

358 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

graduate students) were enrolled in the mandatory student teaching course during the Spring2011 academic semester. This 15-week fieldwork experience is the final course in the teachereducation program prior to graduating with a BS in education or an MAT in an area of secondaryeducation. Of the 74 students enrolled in Student Teaching during the Spring 2011 semester,63 agreed to participate in the study. There were a total of 63 participants (59 undergraduate andfive graduate) in this study (34 in the comparison group and 29 in the treatment group) at theoutset of the study. The undergraduate population consisted of 30 childhood majors, 14 specialeducation majors, and 15 secondary education majors. By the termination of the study, sevencomparison group participants failed to complete the postsurvey (five childhood education andtwo special education), leaving the comparison group with an n of 27 and the treatment groupwith an n of 29.

Context/Recruitment

Student teaching is a mandated course for all students graduating with an undergraduate or MATdegree in education. This 15-week course has teacher candidates teaching in their content areaunder the direct supervision of a university supervisor and certified cooperating teacher in theschool district that they are placed. University supervisors observe and assess a student teacher’sprogress a minimum of three times (class periods) during the course of the semester. In addition,student teachers gather with their university supervisor and fellow peers (four to six studentsper group) for weekly seminar meetings. These seminars are designed at the discretion of theuniversity supervisor but are typically trouble-shooting and venting sessions for student teachersto share their experiences and seek assistance. In addition, the School of Education offers childabuse and violence prevention workshops to student teachers for an extra charge that are requiredfor New York State certification.

Just prior to the start of the all semesters, student teachers are required to attend a manda-tory student teaching orientation workshop, as part of the required course. At this workshop,in January 2011, the student teachers were informed of the voluntary (and free) ProfessionalDevelopment Workshops (four) being offered over the course of the Spring 2011 semester. Theywere given a handout with the topics, dates, times, and descriptions of each of the workshops(Appendix A). Student teachers were asked to complete a sign-up sheet indicating their desire toattend any or all of these workshops.

A third-party investigator also explained to students that there was a research study beingconducted with regards to students’ opinions about their content and pedagogical knowledge.Students were given a consent form and told that the investigators of the research (who are alsothe workshop coordinators) will not be told who volunteered to participate until the semester isover (Appendix B). Consent forms were held by the third-party investigator until the semesterended at which point she turned them over to the investigators of the research for use in the study.All willing participants completed the presurvey that questions them about the degree to whichthey are knowledgeable in a variety of areas in the field of education (Appendix C). All presurveyswere collected by the third-party investigator and given to the investigators at the end of thesemester. The students who completed the presurvey and do not participate in the professionaldevelopment workshops are considered the comparison group. The students who completed thesurveys and participate in the professional development workshops are the treatment group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 359

The workshop series was conducted throughout the course of the semester. The workshopstargeted the expressed needs of the graduates from the School of Education based on the earliermentioned research. The four goals of the Spring 2011 Professional Development Workshops forstudent teachers include offering the student teachers a “toolbox” of classroom management tech-niques and strategies to assist them in eliminating their “teacher nightmares” and motivating theirstudents, further developing student teachers’ understanding of students with exceptional needs,specifically autism and students’ social skills, enhancing the student teachers’ abilities to commu-nicate effectively and efficiently with parents through real-life exchanges, and reacquainting thestudent teachers with the NYS state assessments and assisting them in navigating school politicsand building policies throughout their first year of teaching. The four workshops are detailed inAppendix A.

At the conclusion of each of the workshops, participants (treatment group) were asked tocomplete a feedback form (Appendix D). At the end of the Spring 2011 semester, all studentteachers were also required to hand in paperwork to their university supervisor. At this time allwilling participants (who signed the consent form at the start of the semester) completed thepostsurvey (whose questions are identical to the presurvey, Appendix E). Again, all postsurveyswere given to the third party investigator (by the university supervisors) who turned them over tothe investigators once the semester has ended. Both groups completed the pre- and postsurveys;whereas only the treatment group submitted the four feedback forms (Appendix D).

Instruments

The materials for this study consisted of pre- and postcourse surveys (Appendices C and E) andfour feedback forms (Appendix D) completed by the treatment group only. Table 1 outlines theinstruments used during this study as well as the number of participants (N) who completed theinstruments.

Surveys

The participants completed surveys at the start of the semester and at the end of the semester.The surveys were all completed in hard copy. The surveys were adapted based on the Education

TABLE 1Instruments

Instrument Administration Group N (pre) N (post)

Surveys Pre and post Both C = 34 C = 27T = 29 T = 29

n by WorkshopFeedback forms At the conclusion of each workshop session Treatment 1 = 20

2 = 213 = 114 = 20

C = Comparison Group; T = Treatment Group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

360 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

Benchmarking (EBI) Teacher Education Alumni & Employer Survey as well as the inter-nal research conducted at the university. The surveys were designed using a Likert-type scale(3 = highly, 2 = somewhat, and 1 = not at all) for the 10 statements to determine thedegree to which the participants felt knowledgeable in each of the areas. The 10 questionstargeted the following topics: effective lesson planning, fostering intellectual developmentin students, effective managing behavior of students, collaborating with colleagues, effec-tively working with parents, successfully teaching diverse students, effectively teaching incontent area, assessing students’ learning in multiple ways, successfully navigating throughfirst year of teaching, and identifying and reporting child abuse. Participants could also writeany comments that they had about their knowledge and its development. This same surveywas also given again at the end of the semester. The complete surveys are presented in theappendices.

Some might have considered self-reports to yield “inaccurate results” (Hook & Rosenshine,1979). However, there is more recent data that indicates the positive use of teachers’ self-reportingdata (Porter, Kirst, Osthoff, Smithson, & Schneider, 1993). When it comes to professional devel-opment, it is preferable to gather self-reported estimates of learning, because participants oftenperceive direct assessment as intimidating (Guskey, 2000).

Data Analysis

To address the research question, what are the effects of professional development workshopson student teachers’ reported self-perception of their pedagogical and content skills, pre- andpostsurvey data must be analyzed. First, the presurvey data of both groups was analyzed todetermine their comparability with regards to their knowledge in the targeted areas of the sur-vey at the onset of the study using independent t tests. Next, dependent t tests compared pre-and postsurvey data within each group to determine differences from pre- to postinstruments.Lastly, the postsurvey data was compared across the treatment and comparison groups to exam-ine whether professional workshop attendance affected the participants’ knowledge in certainareas.

Procedure

The Spring semester began at the end of January 2011. The mandatory orientation occurred aweek prior to the start of the semester. The professional development workshop series offeredone free professional development 11/2 hour presentation in February, March, April, and May.The workshops were conducted from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. after the student teachers have completedtheir academic day. Each of the four workshops targeted an expressed area of need includingclassroom management, diverse student learners, working with parents, and new teacher survival.Student teachers could choose to attend all or none of the workshops. At the end of each workshopparticipant completed feedback forms. At the culmination of the semester, the second and thirdweeks in May, student teachers completed postsurveys. Once the third-party investigator receivedall surveys, all data was turned into the principal investigators.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 361

FINDINGS

The quantitative data was based upon the pre- and postsurveys. The survey questions with theirtargeted areas are again outlines in Table 2. The survey questions aimed to address some of thetargeted needs of the population of teacher education candidates, as well as other important skillsrequired in the field of education. Questions 3, 5, 6, and 9 are directly linked to the four workshopsdesigned. Comparison group participants did not attend any of the four workshops and treatmentgroup participants might have attended any or all of the four workshops given. Attendance forthe workshops was as follows: Workshop 1 (classroom management): 20 participants, Workshop2 (diverse learners): 21 participants, Workshop 3 (parents): 11 participants, Workshop 4 (newteacher survival): 20 participants.

To best analyze the data, first, the presurvey data of the comparison and treatment groups wasanalyzed to determine their comparability with regards to their knowledge in the targeted areasof the survey at the onset of the study. Table 3 clearly outlines the premean survey data for bothgroups of participants based on the results from independent t tests.

As shown in Table 3, only one of the independent t tests revealed statistically significant dif-ferences between the mean presurvey scores for the two groups of participants. This indicatedthat both groups of participants were comparable in terms of their knowledge in all of the identi-fied areas except child abuse. An independent t test revealed a statistically significant differencebetween the mean knowledge of the comparison group with regards to child abuse (M = 2.04,s = .64) and the mean knowledge of the treatment group (M = 1.66, s = .72), t(52) = 2.021,p = .048, α = .05. This indicates that the comparison group participants felt better equipped todeal with issues of identifying and reporting child abuse than the treatment group participantsdid. The workshop series decided not to focus on this area considering the lack of compara-bility of the two groups. In addition, the School of Education offers state-mandated obligatorypresentations on this topic during all participants’ student teaching experience. The fact that thecomparison and treatment groups were similar academically at the outset of the study in all areasexcept child abuse will prove to be valuable information. It will allow for there to be importantfindings drawn with regards to the impact that the workshop series had on the treatment groupparticipants’ perception of their content and pedagogical knowledge.

TABLE 2Survey Questions

Survey Question Number Target Area

1 Lesson planning2 Fostering intellectual development in students3 Effectively managing classroom behavior of students4 Collaborating with colleagues5 Effectively working with parents6 Successfully teaching diverse students7 Effectively teaching in content area8 Assessing students in multiple ways9 Successfully navigating first year of teaching10 Identifying and reporting child abuse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

362 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

TABLE 3Comparability of the Comparison and Treatment Groups at the Outset of the Study

Targeted Survey Questions C – Premean Score n = 27 T – Premean Score n = 29 t p

Overall 2.24 2.17 .553 .294(.20) (.26)

1 2.44 2.24 1.406 .165(.58) (.44)

2 2.41 2.31 .819 .416(.50) (.47)

3 2.19 2.10 1.074 .287(.48) (.67)

4 2.26 2.48 −1.297 .200(.59) (.57)

5 2.00 2.07 −.547 .587(.56) (.53)

6 2.11 2.28 −.947 .348(.51) (.53)

7 2.48 2.38 .669 .506(.51) (.57)

8 2.44 2.31 .982 .330(.51) (.60)

9 1.96 1.90 .133 .895(.38) (.56)

10 2.04 1.66 2.021 .048∗(.64) (.72)

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) is 16 for overall and 52 for Questions 1–10. Standard Deviations appear in parenthesesbelow means. ∗Indicates statically significant result.

Next, dependent t tests compared pre- and postsurvey data within each group to determinedifferences from pre- to postinstruments. Table 4 shows the pre- and postmean survey data forthe comparison group.

Table 4 shows the pre- and postmean survey data for the comparison group. This data indicatesthat comparison group participants’ changed overall from the beginning of the study until the end.This general mean score would be expected to improve over the course of their student teachingexperience regardless of their professional development opportunities. The comparison groupdemonstrated overall improvement and this difference was statistically significant, t(9) = -2.914,p = .017, α = .05. Student teaching is a time for intensive lesson planning. Not only are teachercandidates required to design lessons, they now must execute them and then reflect heavily ontheir successes and lesson breakdowns. It is therefore logical that the comparison group’s pre- topostmean data was statistically significant, t(26) = −2.266, p = .032, α = .05. In addition, thecomparison group demonstrated a difference in their knowledge of working with students fromdiverse backgrounds. This difference was statistically significant from pre- to postmean data,t(26) = −2.302, p = .029, α = .05. This is also to be expected because all student teachers wereexposed to diverse student populations based on the field placement.

Table 5 shows the pre- and postmean survey data for the treatment group. There were sta-tistically significant differences between the treatment group’s premean scores and postmean

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 363

TABLE 4Means of Pre- and Postsurveys for Comparison Group

Targeted Survey Questions C – Premean Score n = 27 C – Postmean Score n = 27 t p

Overall 2.24 2.36 −2.914 .017∗(.20) (.21)

1 2.44 2.70 −2.266 .032∗(.58) (.47)

2 2.41 2.52 −1.140 .264(.50) (.51)

3 2.19 2.41 −1.537 .136(.48) (.50)

4 2.26 2.22 .296 .769(.59) (.51)

5 2.00 2.07 −.527 .602(.56) (.62)

6 2.11 2.41 −2.302 .029∗(.51) (.50)

7 2.48 2.56 −.700 .490(.51) (.51)

8 2.44 2.41 .296 .769(.51) (.50)

9 1.96 2.15 −1.991 .057(.38) (.53)

10 2.04 2.11 −.527 .602(.64) (.72)

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) is 9 for overall and 26 for Questions 1—10. Standard Deviations appear in parenthesesbelow means. ∗Indicates statically significant result.

scores in the majority of the target areas. The treatment group demonstrated overall improvementand this difference was statistically significant, t(9) = −19.303 p = .000, α = .05. In addition,in terms of their perceived knowledge of lesson planning, the pre- to postmean difference wasstatistically significant, t(9) = −4.770, p = .000, α = .05. The treatment group also exhibitedsignificant improvements in their knowledge of fostering intellectual development in their stu-dents, t(9) = −4.770, p = .000, α = .05, and classroom management, t(9) = −5.214, p = .000,α = .05. With regards to their perceived ability to work with parents, the difference from pre- topostmeans was statistically significant for the treatment group, t(9) = −4.848, p = .000, α = .05.Statistical significance was also evident in this group’s knowledge of teaching diverse students,t(9) = −6.860, p = .000, α = .05, effectively teaching in their content area, t(9) = −63.285, p =.003, α = .05, assessing their students in multiple ways, t(9) = −3.025, p = .005, α = .05, navi-gating their first year of teaching, t(9) = −6.669, p = .000, α = .05, and identifying and reportingchild abuse, t(9) = −6.277, p = .000, α = .05. The only area where there was no statistical sig-nificant change in the treatment group was in their ability to collaborate with colleagues in theschool.

Lastly, the postsurvey data was compared across the treatment and comparison groups toexamine whether professional workshop attendance affected the treatment group participants’knowledge in certain areas. Table 6 indicates the postdata for both groups of participants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

364 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

TABLE 5Means of Pre- and Postsurveys for Treatment Group

Targeted Survey Questions T – Premean Score n = 27 T – Postmean Score n = 29 t p

Overall 2.17 2.73 −19.403 .000∗(.26) (.11)

1 2.24 2.69 −4.770 .000∗(.44) (.47)

2 2.31 2.76 −4.770 .000∗(.47) (.44)

3 2.10 2.79 −5.214 .000∗(.67) (.49)

4 2.48 2.72 −1.885 .070(.57) (.46)

5 2.07 2.59 −4.848 .000∗(.53) (.63)

6 2.28 2.97 −6.860 .000∗(.53) (.18)

7 2.38 2.79 −3.285 .003∗(.57) (.44)

8 2.31 2.66 −3.025 .005∗(.60) (.48)

9 1.90 2.76 −6.699 .000∗(.56) (.44)

10 1.66 2.59 −6.277 .000∗(.72) (.72)

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) is 9 for overall and 28 for Questions 1–10. Standard Deviations appear in parenthesesbelow means. ∗Indicates statically significant result.

As shown in Table 6, the difference in the overall reported knowledge of both groups wasstatistically significant, t(52) = −2.544, p = .020, α = .05. These statistical significant resultswere similar for certain target areas, specifically, classroom management, t(52) = −2.960, p =.005, α = .05, collaborating with colleagues, t(52) = −4.395, p = .000, α = .05, effectivelyworking with parents, t(52) = −3.170, p = .003, α = .05, successfully teaching diverse students,t(52) = −5.753, p = .000, α = .05, navigating through their first year teaching, t(52) = −4.870,p = .000, α = .05, and identifying and reporting child abuse, t(52) = −4.277, p = .000, α = .05.Interestingly the areas where there were statistically significant differences were the same targetareas in which the professional development workshops were based.

DISCUSSION

What are the effects of professional development workshops on student teachers’ reported self-perception of their pedagogical and content skills? In this study both groups began the semesterwith comparable knowledge in the targeted areas, with the exception of child abuse. The treat-ment group was less confident in their ability to identify and report cases of child abuse than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 365

TABLE 6Comparability of the Comparison and Treatment Groups at the End of the Study

Targeted Survey Questions C – Postmean Score n = 27 T – Postmean Score n = 29 t p

Overall 2.36 2.73 −2.544 .020∗(.21) (.11)

1 2.70 2.69 .107 .916(.47) (.47)

2 2.52 2.76 −1.931 .059(.51) (.44)

3 2.41 2.79 −2.960 .005∗(.50) (.49)

4 2.22 2.72 −4.395 .000∗(.51) (.46)

5 2.07 2.59 −3.170 .003∗(.62) (.63)

6 2.41 2.97 −5.753 .000∗(.50) (.18)

7 2.56 2.79 −1.637 .108(.51) (.44)

8 2.41 2.66 −1.928 .059(.50) (.48)

9 2.15 2.76 −4.870 .000∗(.53) (.44)

10 2.11 2.59 −4.277 .000∗(.72) (.72)

Note. Degrees of freedom (df ) is 16 for overall and 52 for Questions 1–10. Standard Deviations appear in parenthesesbelow means. ∗Indicates statically significant result.

the comparison group. Interestingly, as the conclusion of the semester, the treatment group’s per-ceived knowledge in this area significantly improved, more so than their peers in the comparisongroup. Both groups participated in a mandated child abuse and violence prevention workshopsponsored by the regional certification agency. Although none of the four professional devel-opment workshops directly targeted child abuse, the topic did come up during discussions ofclassroom management, diverse student populations, and navigation through the first year ofteaching. Perhaps the treatment group’s exposure to these workshop experiences improved theirperceived ability to identify and report child abuse.

As indicated by the above data, in general, student teaching experiences yield changes in itsparticipants. Through their fieldwork experiences, the comparison group demonstrated significantoverall gains, and most specifically in lesson planning and working with diverse students. Lessondesign, implementation, and reflection are key components of the student teaching experience.It is to be expected that all teacher candidates involved in this process benefit from it. In addition,the field placement office highly monitors the field placements to ensure that all candidates haveexperience working with students from diverse backgrounds. Since this one of the missions ofthe College’s School of Education, it is not surprising that this was an area of improvement forthe comparison group of participants. This group of participants also appeared less confident intheir ability to collaborate with colleagues and assess their students in multiple ways at the end of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

366 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

the experience. Perhaps their student teaching exposure made them more aware of the challengesof teamwork and assessment.

Although the comparison group showed improvement in some areas, the treatment group’sperceived knowledge far surpassed their peers. The treatment group demonstrated increased con-fidence in the majority of target areas. The only area in which the treatment group did not showimprovement in their pre- to postsurveys was in collaborating with school faculty. Although fac-ulty cooperation is common in everyday teaching, it is not customary during student teachingexperiences . Student teachers do not always form close relationships with the teachers in theirbuilding, as many faculty view the student teachers as students themselves, as opposed to col-leagues. Therefore, this finding is not so surprising for teacher candidates, who are still consideredstudents in the eyes of many cooperating teachers.

When examining the postsurvey results between the two groups of participants, the results aretruly eye opening. Treatment group participants demonstrated significantly higher score in thesame topics that were covered in the professional development workshops. Interestingly, theseprofessional development experiences had noteworthy effects on these student teachers’ per-ceptions of their knowledge with regards to classroom management, student diversity, parentalrelations, collegial interactions, and first-year survival. The first four topics were directly coveredin the workshops presented. The final two were indirectly mentioned through the workshop dis-cussions and presentations. Interestingly, collegial interactions were statistically significant here,though not so from the pre- to postsurvey data for the treatment group itself. This could be thatthe premean score for the treatment group (2.48) was initially higher than that of the comparisongroup (2.26) leaving less room for gain. The most important finding from this study was the con-nection between the statistically significant differences in the same target areas as the professionaldevelopment workshops.

LIMITATIONS

Identifying limitations is an important step for further investigation. One such limitation ofthis study is the small number of participants. Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflicts withworkshop times due to school, work, and family commitments, it was difficult to get some stu-dent teachers to participate in the workshops. To learn more about the impact of professionaldevelopment workshops, a larger and more diverse sample should be studied. Another limi-tation includes reliance on self-report measures. To further our understanding of the effect ofprofessional development workshops on student teachers, future studies should include infor-mation gathered via multiple methods from multiple sources (i.e., student achievement results,administrative evaluation, etc.).

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study calls for an intense need for targeted professional development opportunities for stu-dent teachers as they begin their journey through the field of academia. Classroom experiencesand fieldwork are simply not sufficient means to address the many needs to new teachers today.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 367

Workshops that are designed based on the expressed needs of the teachers or teacher candi-dates will improve the educators’ perceived knowledge and levels of confidence in these areas.Voluntary professional development workshops allow teachers the flexibility and control overtheir experiences, resulting in improved confidence. As another series of workshops are offeredto the next semester of student teachers, the times of workshops will be changed to draw a largertreatment group population. In addition, the workshop series topics will be continually altered totarget the needs of the evolving population of teacher education candidates and recent graduates.The goal of future professional development workshops for student teachers will be to addresstheir needs and dilemmas in the most effective and creative ways possible.

REFERENCES

Bonner, P. J. (2006). Transformation of teacher attitude and approach to math instruction through collaborative actionresearch. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 27–35.

Choy, S. P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher professional development in 1999-2000: What teachers, principals,and district staff report (NCES 2006-305). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Education Week Teacher PD Sourcebook. (2008). Empowering teachers: A researcher seeks teachers’ input on howto improve their working environments. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2008/03/01/02hirsch.h01.html

Fullan, M., with Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teacher’s CollegePress.

Geringer, J. (2003). Reflections of professional development: Toward high-quality teaching and learning. Phi DeltaKappan, 84(5), 373–380.

Guskey, T. R. (1994, April). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED369181)

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Hirsch, E. (2008). Empowering teachers: A researcher seeks teachers’ input on how to improve their working environ-

ments in Education Week Teacher PD Sourcebook. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2008/03/01/02hirsch.h01.html

Hook, C. M., & Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Accuracy of teacher reports of their classroom behavior. Review of EducationalResearch, 49(1), 1–12.

Jones, L. L., & Hayes, A. E. (1980). How valid are surveys of teacher needs? Educational Leadership, 37(5), 390–392.Lucilio, L. (2009). What secondary teachers need in professional development. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry

& Practice, 13(1), 53–75.National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Characteristics of public school teachers’ professional development

activities: 1999-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.National Staff Development Council. (2012). NSDC Definitional of Professional Development. Retrieved from http://

aypf.org/documents/62609NSDCDefinitionofProfessionalDevelopment908.pdfPorter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. S., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis

of high school mathematics and science classrooms (Final Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant No.SPA-8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison,Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development, Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 401–406.U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the Top funding: Great leaders and teachers. Retrieved from http://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/11/18/E9-27427/overview-information-race-to-the-top-fund-notice-inviting-applications-for-new-awards-for-fiscal#h-2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

368 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

Amy Hsu is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at SUNY College at Old Westbury.She is a teacher educator, with a strong research interest in literacy and language learning,standardized testing, teacher accountability, and professional development. Before becoming acollege professor, Dr. Hsu worked as a secondary educator in the public school system.

Fran Malkin is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at SUNY College at OldWestbury. She is a teacher educator, with a strong research interest in language learning, teacheraccountability, and professional development. Before becoming a college professor, Dr. Malkinworked as a secondary educator in public and private school systems.

APPENDIX A

Join us for Professional Development Sessions!Open to all Graduate and Undergraduate Student Teachers

Tuesday, February 8th

Classroom Management and Motivation: Overcoming the “teacher nightmares”This interactive workshop will include real anecdotes of “teacher nightmares” and role-plays to

resolve situations. Student teachers will leave with a “toolbox” of classroom managementtechniques to use in their classes.

Tuesday, March 1st

Teaching Exceptional Children: Autism and the Social NetworkThis workshop addresses the new NYS requirements and the ways to successfully integrate

exceptional students into a mainstreamed classroom.

Tuesday, March 15th

Parents and Teachers Unite!This workshop is designed as a panel where parents will address the student teachers expressing

their needs for their children. Student teachers will interact with the panel through role-playactivities.

Tuesday, April 12th

New Teacher Survival SkillsFrom first-day jitters to dealing with school politics to new NYS assessments, this workshop iscoled by teacher experts (including administrators) to help student teachers navigate their first

year of teaching. A surprise (and useful) gift will be given to each attendee.

All sessions will be held from 4:30–6:00pm in Multipurpose Room C of the Student Union.

Please contact Dr. Hsu (hsua@oldwestbury.edu) or Dr. Malkin (malkinf@oldwestbury.edu) tosign up or if you have any questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 369

APPENDIX B

Consent Form for Students

You have been invited to participate in a research study to learn more about the professionaldevelopment for pre-service teachers. This study will be conducted by Dr. Amy Hsu and Dr. FranMalkin.

If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to:

• Complete a pre-survey and a post survey

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate without penalty.

The third party investigator will maintain all consent forms and the investigators will not knowwho consented until after the Spring 2011 semester ends.

There are no known risks associated with your participation in this research beyond those ofeveryday life. Although you receive no direct benefits from participating, this research mayhelp the investigators better understand the role professional development plays for pre-serviceteachers.

For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the STATEUNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK/COLLEGE AT OLD WESTBURY

Institutional Review Board (Human Subjects Research Committee) SUNY Old Westbury POBox 210 Old Westbury, NY 11568-0210 or papademasd@oldwestbury.edu.

You have received a copy of this consent document to keep.

If there us anything about the study or participation that is unclear or that you do not under-stand, or if you have any questions you may contact: Dr. Amy Hsu at (516) 334-2899(hsua@oldwestbury.edu) or Dr. Fran Malkin at (516) 876-3407 (malkinf@oldwestbury.edu) -SOE, SUNY Old Westbury PO Box 210 Old Westbury, NY 11568-0210.

Agreement to Participate________________________________________ _________________Participant’s Signature Date

APPENDIX C

Presurvey

Thank you for participation in this study. Please answer each of the below questions honestly.Your name:________________________________________________In what area will you be student teaching? Please circle one.Childhood Childhood Bilingual Special Education Please indicate concentration:______Secondary Education: Please indicate discipline:___________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

370 AMY HSU AND FRAN MALKIN

Are you undergraduate or graduate? Please circle.

Please circle the number which best reflects to what degree you feel knowledgeable in eachof the areas.3 = Highly 2 = Somewhat 1 = Not at all

1. Effectively develop a lesson plan 3 2 12. Foster intellectual development in my students 3 2 13. Effectively manage the behavior of my students 3 2 14. Collaborate with colleagues in my school 3 2 15. Effectively work with parents 3 2 16. Successfully teach students from diverse backgrounds 3 2 17. Effectively teach in my content area 3 2 18. Assess my students’ learning in multiple ways 3 2 19. Successfully navigate through my first year teaching 3 2 110. Identifying and reporting child abuse 3 2 1

Please share your comments about your above knowledge and how you developed the aboveknowledge.

APPENDIX D

Professional Development Workshop Feedback Form

Thank you for participation at this Professional Development Workshop 1 for Student Teachers.Workshop title: Classroom Management and Motivation – “Overcoming the Teacher”Date:___________________ Location:____________________________Workshop Presenter(s):_____________________________________________________Your name:______________________________________________________

Please circle the number which best reflects your feedback regarding the above workshop:3 = Highly 2 = Somewhat 1 = Not at all

1. I found the workshop to be informative with regards to classroom management strategies. 3 2 12. I found the workshop to be applicable to my future teaching experiences. 3 2 13. I found the workshop presenter(s) to be knowledgeable in the topic presented. 3 2 14. I found the workshop presenter(s) to be prepared,organized and interactive. 3 2 15. I found the workshop materials and/or resources provided to be useful. 3 2 16. I would recommend this workshop to colleagues. 3 2 1

Please share your comments and suggestions for the above workshop.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS 371

APPENDIX E

PostsurveyThank you for participation in this study. Please answer each of the below questions honestly.Your name :________________________________________________In what area did you student teach? Please circle one.Childhood Childhood Bilingual Special Education Please indicate concentration:______Secondary Education: Please indicate discipline:___________________________Are you undergraduate or graduate? Please circle.

Please circle the number which best reflects to what degree you feel knowledgeable in eachof the areas.3 = Highly 2 = Somewhat 1 = Not at all

1. Effectively develop a lesson plan 3 2 12. Foster intellectual development in my students 3 2 13. Effectively manage the behavior of my students 3 2 14. Collaborate with colleagues in my school 3 2 15. Effectively work with parents 3 2 16. Successfully teach students from diverse backgrounds 3 2 17. Effectively teach in my content area 3 2 18. Assess my students’ learning in multiple ways 3 2 19. Successfully navigate through my first year teaching 3 2 110. Identifying and reporting child abuse 3 2 1

Please share your comments about your above knowledge and how you developed the aboveknowledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:32

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14