Evidence-Based Professional Development: Differentiated, Transformational Learning for School

Karen C. Davis Melissa Malani

Kimberly A. Murza

Leadership into New Frontiers

Stacey L. Pavelko Janet L. Proly

Cheran A. Zadroga

Barbara J. Ehren

•  Summarize the research on effective professional development.

•  Describe the three tools of the Concerns Based Adoption Model.

•  Analyze alternative methods of professional development delivery depending on SLP needs.

•  Explain principles to guide provision of and participation in high quality professional development.

•  Changes in Professional Development •  Research on Effective Professional Development •  High Quality Professional Development •  Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) •  CBAM in Action (Results of the Story Grammar

Marker study) •  Using CBAM Results to Plan PD •  Action Planning: Lessons Learned

•  Audience – Providers

• Design effective PD. – Participants

• Make informed decisions about selecting PD that has the best chance of helping you grow professionally.

Means professional preparation.

It exists on a continuum from preservice to inservice

Professional development is the process of cultivating growth.

the individual professional

the system can change and facilitate better student outcomes.

THE INDIVIDUAL

THE SYSTEM

William Bridges, 1997

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council.

PD should be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice.

Corcoran, McVay & Riordan, 2003; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Banilower, 2002

Educators do not receive enough PD in a given area to improve their skills and their students’ learning.

2003-2004 federal Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics

PD should focus on student learning and address the teaching of specific curriculum content.

Merek & Methven, 1991; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Snow-Renner & Lauer, 2005

Educators report that much of the PD available to them is not useful.

Topic of PD % of Educators

% with >16 hrs on topic

“useful” or “very

useful” Subject Content 83.4 43.3 59.3

Use of computers for instruction 64.9 13.4 42.7

Reading Instruction 60 19 42.5

Student discipline/classroom

management 43.5 5 27.4

Professional Development should align with school improvement priorities and goals

(Integrated Professional Development)

Elmore & Burney, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Garet et.al., 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Galleger, 2007

•  Relevance – Job embedded – Curriculum-focused

•  Support – Allotted time – Collaboration – Coaching

Relevance Support Student Achievement

Knowledge Skill Classroom Acquisition Application

Present Information

Present + Model Present + Model + Practice + Feedback

Present + Model + Practice + Feedback + Coaching

40-80% 10% 5%

80-85% 10-40% 5-10%

80-85% 80% 10-15%

90% 90% 80-90%

National Staff Development Council, 1995; Fullan, 1991; Joyce & Showers, 1988; Mehring, 1999.

Weak Support System

School and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2003-2004

Professional development should build strong working relationships among educators.

Hord, 1997; Joyce & Calhoun, 1996; Louis, Marks & Kruse, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Successful California Schools, 2007

Working relationships are negatively impacted by:

•  Weak collaboration

•  Educators’ feelings of limited influence on school-based decisions

Standard Assessment Inventory, NSDC, 2007-2008

•  “High Quality” or “effective” professional development is that which results in improvements in educators’ knowledge and instructional practices, as well as improved student learning outcomes.

Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos 2009).

“is to ensure that every educator engages in effective professional learning every day so every student achieves.”

•  Context •  Process •  Content

•  Context Standards – Learning Community – Leadership – Resources

•  Process Standards – Data Driven – Evaluation – Research Based – Design – Learning collaboration

•  Content Standards – Equity – Quality Teaching – Family involvement

•  planned •  organized •  sustained throughout the school year •  focused for every grade level and every subject •  beneficial for all students.

•  Schools can meet federal requirements and public expectations for school performance.

•  Educators can increase their skills and knowledge to ensure that they are able to teach diverse learners, remain knowledgeable about student learning, be competent in their content area.

•  Students can be taught by highly qualified educators using evidence-based practices and can continue to make learning growth.

•  “…a conceptual framework that describes, explains, and predicts probable teacher concerns and behaviors throughout the school change process.”

sedl.org

•  The Concerns Based Adoptions Model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2006) provides research-validated tools for professional developers to understand and manage the adoption process of an innovation. – The Innovation Configuration (IC) Map – Stages of Concern (SoC) – Levels of Use (LoU)

Innovation Configuration (IC) Map: •  A tool used to visualize and graphically depict

the different configurations for an innovation – Portray “carefully developed descriptions” of

variations of the innovation – Rich & precise descriptions – Notes quality and fidelity ranges (acceptable vs. not)

•  Instrumental to facilitating change

Key Elements 4 3 2 1 0 Initial assessment Student goal development SLP introduces SGM SGM specific vocabulary taught SLP models SGM Modeling of the graphic organizers Graphic organizer use with scaffolding SLP uses scaffolding to aid in student’s story retell Progress monitoring Collaboration SLP chooses stories that demonstrate specific learning objectives

Ideal (4)

In Process

(3)

In Process

(2)

In Process

(1)

Non (0)

The SLP describes the critical features of the SGM. The SLP tells the students why they will be learning to use it and what it can help them do. The SLP explains and shows when it should be used.

The SLP describes the critical features of the SGM and tells the students why they will be learning how to use it and its advantages but does not explain or show when it should be used.

The SLP only describes the critical features of the SGM.

The SLP only describes some of the critical features of the SGM.

The SGM is not introduced.

•  The SLP describes the critical features of the SGM. The SLP tells the students why they will be learning to use it and what it can help them do. The SLP explains and shows when it should be used.

Ideal Implemen-tation (4)

•  The SLP describes the critical features of the SGM and tells the students why they will be learning how to use it and its advantages but does not explain or show when it should be used.

In Process

(3)

•  The SLP only describes the critical features of the SGM.

In Process (2)

•  The SLP only describes some of the critical features of the SGM.

In Process

(1)

•  The SGM is not introduced. No

Implemen-tation (0)

The ways thoughts and feelings change as the innovation progresses are known as the Stages of Concern

“The composite representation of the feelings, preoccupation, thought, and consideration given to a particular issue or task is called concern.”

Hall & Hord, p. 138

•  Stages of Concern questionnaire •  Open-ended concerns statement •  One-legged interview

IMPA

CT

TASK

SE

LF

Hall & Hord, p. 139

UNRELATED

IMPA

CT

TASK

SE

LF

Hall & Hord, p. 139 UNRELATED

•  How educators act or behave during the change process can be pinpointed with the Levels of Use.

•  Levels of Use can be identified with – Branching Interview – Focused Interview

0 •  Nonuse

I •  Orientation

II • Preparation

III • Mechanical Use

IVA •  Routine

IVB •  Refinement

V •  Integration

VI • Renewal

Levels of Use (LoU) Branching Interview: •  The purpose of this interview is to gather

information quickly about a participant’s level of use to make decisions about how to provide appropriate assistance to move them to the next level of use.

Are yo u u s in g th e inn ovat i o n ?

H ave you d ec id e d t o u s e i t a nd s et a d a t e to b eg in u s e ?

W h at ki n ds o f c h a n ges are yo u m ak in g i n yo u r u se o f th e inn ovat i o n ?

Are yo u c u rre ntl y l oo ki ng f or in fo r ma ti o n a b o u t t h e inn ovat i o n ?

Are yo u coor din at in g yo u r u s e o f t h e inn ovat i o n w it h o t h e r u se r s , in c lu d in g a n ot h e r n o t in yo u r or i gi n a l gro up o f u se r s?

Are yo u pl a n n in g or ex pl or in g m ak in g ma j or m od ifi ca ti on s or re pl ac in g t h e inn ovat i o n ?

I I

0

I

I V B

V I

V

I I I

I V A

LoU Branching Interview

Stimulate teachers to provide examples of behavior.

•  Using CBAM in a large school district •  What is the Story Grammar Marker ®

•  Demographics of a large school district in Florida – 180 Schools K-12 – More than 175,000 students – Over 12,000 instructional personnel – 850 administrators (6 SLP administrators) – Approximately 200 SLPs

•  SES – Over 45,000 students served by Title 1 services – 68% district poverty average

•  This research study was designed: –  to determine levels of implementation of the innovation

throughout the district –  to develop professional development protocols

•  The study’s purpose was to answer the following questions: – What patterns of Stages of Concerns are common

throughout the district? – What are the Levels of Use throughout the district? – What types of professional development experiences would

be effective to increase implementation levels?

0 5

10 15 20 25 30

Never 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years

N=63 SOC questionnaires

How long have you been involved with the innovation?

Que

stio

nnai

res

0 10 20 30 40 50

User Type N=63 SOC questionnaires

•  With the innovation, do you consider yourself…

Que

stio

nnai

res

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 Most

Concerned About

Least Concerned About

Que

stio

nnai

res

N = 63 People Completed SOC Questionnaires

0 2 4 6 8

10 12

N = 28 Interviews In

terv

iew

s

61%

39%

Use in the Classroom? Yes No

N = 28 Interviews Returned

•  IC Map •  Video Modeling •  State Assessment, Benchmarks & IEP tie-ins

with innovation •  Identifying students on caseload for whom

innovation is appropriate •  Professional Development on Collaboration

•  Professional development on the IC Map, what it means, how to use it, what is the bare minimum use?

•  District leaders would work together to construct these maps and come to consensus on key elements and implementation criteria.

•  Appropriate for all users.

•  Professional Development for SLPs to learn how to adapt the innovation based on the needs of their students but not adapt the innovation to the point that it is unrecognizable as the innovation.

•  Appropriate for those SLPs with Management and Consequence Concerns and those with Management, Routine and Refinement Levels of Use.

•  Professional Development where SLPs have the opportunity to watch videos of successful SLPs in the district using the innovation with different grade levels, in pull-out and in classrooms.

•  Appropriate for those SLPs with Management, Consequence, and Collaboration Concerns and those SLPs at the Management, Routine, Refinement, and Integration Levels of Use.

•  Professional Development for SLPs working with students with more significant communication needs learn what types of adaptations are appropriate to make to the innovation. A focus would be on maintaining the integrity of the innovation by using the IC Map.

•  Appropriate for SLPs at all levels and with all types of concerns who work with students with more significant impairments.

•  A professional development experience in which SLPs learn about the opportunities and issues involved in using the innovation in classrooms through collaboration with teachers.

•  Appropriate for SLPs ready to try in-classroom services and SLPs already providing in-classroom services.

ACTION!

•  Focused on the assessment piece of the innovation only

•  Used the IC Map as a guide and a self-assessment tool

•  Personal Professional Development Plan

So…what should you take away from this session? What might you do differently?

Student achievement Instructional improvement Teacher/administrator behavior change

 Learn It  Do It  Refine It  Use It

Coaching, including on-site

•  Initiation •  Implementation •  Follow Up •  Sustained Use

.

Ehren, 2007

•  Differentiated PD – Different activities for different SLPs at different times. – Use CBAM tools to plan.

•  Individual Development Plans – Do one for yourself even if it is not required. – See the new roles of SLPs in the schools document.

•  Expectation of implementation – State expected outcomes of PD in implementation terms. – The launching workshop is only the beginning. –  Implementation may look different for individual

participants.

•  Support for implementation – Coaching and follow up are integral – Professional Learning Communities are helpful

•  Need for infrastructures to permit implementation – Can’t be all dressed up with no place to go.

•  Student outcomes oriented – “Proof of the pudding is in the eating.” – Beyond “seat time.”

•  Are SLPs implementing _________? •  What evidence exists that they are doing it? •  What evidence exists that they are doing it

correctly (fidelity of implementation)? •  What evidence exists that they are doing it with

enough frequency and intensity (dosage)? •  What evidence exists that it is working –

students getting better in targeted areas?

•  Start with desired student outcomes. •  Make hard decisions re priorities. •  Use school improvement plans or state/

district strategic plans as a context. •  Give people a doable job. •  Promote accountability to results as the key. •  Give choice when possible. •  Think beyond seat time.

 Summarize the research on effective professional development.

 Describe the three tools of the Concerns Based Adoption Model.

 Analyze alternative methods of professional development delivery depending on SLP needs.

 Explain principles to guide provision of and participation in high quality professional development.

Banilower, E. R. (2002). Results of the 2001-2002 study of the impact of the local systemic change initiative on student achievement in science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Ehren, B. J. (2007). Electronic Professional Development-The Unit Organizer Routine. (An online system for teaching and coaching implementation of a Content Enhancement Routine.) Florida Department of Education. Tallahassee, FL.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement, Community School District 2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Corcoran, T., McVay, S., & Riordan, K. (2003). Getting ii right: The MISE approach to professional development.

Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., 7 Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the

learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad Palo Alto, CA: School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). *Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes *(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

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

Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal: An exploration of five successful programs. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional learning community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.

McLaughlin, M. W., & J. E. Talbert (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007 December). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Successful California schools in the context of educational adequacy. (2007). Washington D.C.: American Institute for Research.

Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy 14(3), 331-356.

Tourkin, S.C., Warner, T., Parmer, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., Cox, S., and Soderborg, A. (2007). Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2007–337). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Merek , E., & Methven, S. (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28, 41-53.

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007 December). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958.

Snow-Renner, R., & Lauer, P. (2005). Professional development analysis. Denver, CO: Mid-Content Research for Education and Learning.

Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.