The shift to Common Core State
Standards in 2010 not only changed teaching and learning by greatly increasing
and standardizing emphasis on student knowledge construction and problem-solving,
but were accompanied by an associated accountability movement that ties high-stakes
testing of student outcomes to teacher evaluation. Similar shifts are now taking
place in public higher education, where federal and private funding and policy
advocacy are also increasingly aligned with accountability structures that are
external to academic departments (Addison, 2015).
As
a teacher and former writing center coordinator who is eager to pilot and adapt
new theories, pedagogies and technologies and who has partnered with
administrators to design and implement PD at the program level, I’ve worked hard
to support faculty-driven, research-based, and discipline-rooted innovation by,
on the one hand, advocating with administrators for the professional
development time, resources and opportunities needed by teachers, and, on the
other, by suggesting to faculty that they see their roles as including collaborative
leadership in defining and achieving the larger institutional values and goals
(such as teaching 21st century skills and improving student
outcomes) that administrators also contribute specialized expertise toward
achieving.
In
close to two decades in both postsecondary and K-12 settings, I’ve observed
that the term “professional development” (PD) usually has some dimension of
negative connotation for educators. Faculty and teachers were hired for their
ability to apply epistemological, content, pedagogical, curricular, and
technological knowledge (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009; Bachy, 2014). Many associate “PD” with training sessions framed
by fiscally- or trend-driven institutional goals and with bureaucratic rather
than educational paradigms.
Yet institutions
do bear responsibility for cultivating environments in which continuous improvement
of teaching and learning is supported by PD. New paradigms of teaching and
learning and the continuous development of new technologies, often within
academic disciplines, call for effective PD.
However, when
PD is viewed by teachers and institutions as primarily an institutional
responsibility, PD practices may variously default into workshops on new
initiatives or into piecemeal attempts to impact the teacher learning and
improvement that is in fact both a highly individual process and one necessarily
embedded in the immediate cultural context of a department or grade level team
actively engaged in serving a student population.
Soine and
Lumpe (2014) found that “not all professional development is effective in
improving teacher quality,” nor is there universal agreement on the key factors
that make PD effective (pp. 304-305).
One of the challenges faced by
educators and administrators alike is that colleges and districts may not have
robust professional development programs or full-fledged educational technology
support that would ideally help them develop curriculum and instruction by
integrating technology with ongoing content, pedagogical, and curricular
knowledge development (Soine & Lumpe 2014; Schulman 1986). Yet teachers who
are expected to shift to more learner-centered teaching styles must experience professional
development that is itself reflective of a learner-centered teaching model rather
than a deficit model (Daley, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000).
Last year I designed a
faculty-led PD workshop series (LINK) based on the essential components of
data-based assessment, differentiation, collaboration, coaching, communities of
practice, and the technologies associated with those learning communities. As I
reviewed literature for that project, I found that many researchers have
concluded what was aptly summed up in a quote from an article shared with me this
week by an SPU cohort member (Center for Public Education, 2013): “Recent
education reforms have urged teachers to foster collaboration, debate and
reflection among students, in order to develop cognitive processes like those
called for in the new standards. Ironically, districts rarely apply these same
learning techniques to developing teachers.”
Similarly, Zepeda (2015) notes
that professional development that results in
professional learning should involve: 1. active knowledge construction; 2.
collaborative learning; 3. application in context, over time, with follow-up
feedback that can be incorporated into continual learning; and 4. differentiation
(Zepeda, 2015).
The principles
of andragogy further re-inforce these well-established cognitivist and
constructivist learning principles (Lawler, 2003). Professional adult learners
are self-directed and need to apply new knowledge immediately; as members of
local and disciplinary professional learning communities, they need to
collaborate in ways that allow each faculty member to co-learn, co-teach,
contribute knowledge and benefit from collective knowledge; as those who are
learning skills that were often not part of their graduate programs and may be
determined by policymakers rather than by disciplinary best practices, thy need
access to coaching, technical support, and follow-up as part of professional
development projects and infrastructure; and they need access to differentiated
learning that engages their particular disciplinary, technological, and
pedagogical proficiencies and teaching assignments (Zepeda, 2015). Soine & Lumpe (2014)
summarize effective PD as creating “opportunities for teachers to take control
of their own learning, deepen their subject knowledge, construct knowledge from
previous knowledge and experiences, become comfortable with their role as a
learner, and develop intellectual camaraderie with colleagues” (pp. 303-304).
In my current
role, I have the opportunity once again to personally experience what K-12
teachers live out. Teachers
manage a heavy load of expectations and activities regarding professional
evaluations, standardized assessment results, standards-based curricular
coverage, and a plethora of technology options. There is never enough time to
teach all that is prescribed to be taught. As a leader teacher, it is my desire
to continue to grow professionally, but also to see my colleagues, school, and
district be all that we can be.
In
such a circumstance, what is a realistic approach to providing or improving
educational technology professional development for teachers that might be put
forward by teacher leaders and other leaders?
Reflecting
on the needs of teachers while experiencing their reality, upon the words and
actions of administrators and teachers who have inspired me as leaders, and
upon my experiences in both teaching and coaching have brought me to focus on the
importance not only of research, but of realism and relationships.
While
I am looking forward to following Soine and Lumpe’s (2014) example of describing
empirical links between professional development characteristics to outcomes, I’m
also compelled by the need for realistic solutions for improved teaching and
learning through technology-related PD and for the power of authentic
relationships between teachers, teacher leaders, and those with coaching or administrative
roles.
Addison, J. (2015). Shifting the locus of control: Why the common core
state standards and
emerging standardized tests may
reshape college writing classrooms. The
Journal of Writing Assessment, 8(1).
Retrieved from: http://journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=82
Bachy, S. (2014). TPDK, A new definition of the
TPACK model for a university setting.
European journal of open, distance, and e-learning, 17(2), 15-39. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2014/Bachy.pdf
Center
for Public Education. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional
development
in an era of high stakes accountability.
Retrieved from
Daley,
B.J (Summer 2003). A case for learner-centered teaching and learning. New
directions for adult
and continuing education, 98.
Fetters,
M.L., & Duby, T.G. (February 2011). Faculty Development:
A stage model matched to
blended learning maturation.
Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 15(1), 77-86. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ918221.pdf
Jaipal-Jamani,
K., & Figg, C. (2015) A Framework for TPACK-in-Practice: Designing
Technology Professional Learning
Contexts to Develop Teacher Technology Knowledge (TPACK). In Valanides, N.
& C. Angeli (Eds.), Exploring,
developing, and assessing TPCK(pps. 137-164). New York: Springer
Publications.
Jaipal-Jamani,
K., Figg, C, Gallagher, T., Scott, R.M., & Ciampa, K. (2015).
Collaborative professional development
in higher education: Developing knowledge of technology enhanced
teaching. The journal of effective teaching, 15(2), 30-44.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1077239.pdf
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological
pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), pp. 60-70. Retrieved
Lawler, P. (Summer
2003). Teachers as adult learners: A new perspective. New directions for
adult and continuing
education, 98, 15-22.
Lawler, P.A., &
King, K.P. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult
learning strategies. Malabar, FL: Kreiger.
Shulman,
L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher
15(2),
4-14.
Soine,
K.M., & Lumpe, A. (2014). Measuring characteristics of teacher professional
development. Teacher Development 18(3), 303-333.
doi:10.1080/13664530.2014.911775
Zepeda, S.J. (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Support, collaboration,
and
learning in schools. New York, NY:
Routledge.
