Professional Learning and Development by Shaun Herold https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5 Excellence in Education en-us 2020-06-24 02:27:24 UTC 2026-01-01 04:55:47 UTC hello@padlet.com What Do 50 Years of Experience Tell Us About What It Takes to Make a Difference? heroldshaun https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/638191872 The federal government has historically supported professional development at times--especially as a part of mandates originating from various educational programs.

Over time, the federal government's interest in professional development has increased, as has funding--while the stipulations for the NATURE of PD have become more and more specific.

The most basic role of the federal government in education is to "ensure equal access to a basic education"

There are 5 Basic Methods for the Federal Government to Influence Professional Development and Education Programs:

1. Maintenance Programs $ (large scale like title 1/esea to run a program defined by the feds)
2. Capacity Development $ (providing funds to a broad number of schools to develop a capacity like STEM to improve a future public service)
3. Demonstration $ (small programs schools can apply for which would demonstrate how an idea might work)
4. Research/ Dissemination (sharing info)
5. Goal Setting/bully pulpit (placing pressure for change on districts by raising media and public awareness)

Often, changes begin to take hold only to be shifted or revamped by a subsequent administration.

Partisan Politics influence these pursuits for change as politicians worry about money for PDs reaching or influencing unions, argue that PDs take away money from specific instructional needs, argue that states are in charge of producing quality teachers, or simply don't believe in federal involvement in specific educational program decisions.

Professional development can be implemented by state and local governments in distinct ways:
1. Through teacher in-service days
2. Through professional society conferences
3. Through incentivizing advanced degree programs

AUTHOR'S RECCOMENDATIONS

Long argues that "Federal involvement in professional development has a record of general programs that have failed to register a significant difference"

He cites lack of evaluation of PD and critical analysis of how to improve it is missing.

He argues teachers have not had enough exposure to the concepts and demands of the CCSS.

He says stand alone funding like block grants are infrequent but funding is provided as part of reform measures in recent times.

Recent changes in educational policy include schools being mandated to create measurable goals, link student performance with professional evaluation of teachers and giving teachers and principals input into deciding PD and how they can best improve their practice.

He says ideas like building-level professional learning committees, short term conferences and graduate study are rarely supported. Graduate programs are seen as disconnected from the problems at hand and short conferences judged as ineffective.

Long concludes that most federal pushes for professional development pivot too quickly and fail to make lasting change-- and the policies are not set up to even
evaluate them adequately.

-----------------------------------

TIMELINE of Increasing Federal Interest in Professional Development for Teachers:

1787 Northwest Ordinance (federal government earmarks land and resources for schools)

1800s development land grant colleges for people freed from slavery supported by fed govt
1957 With the launch of Sputnik, US funded math and science education PDs to prepare US students to compete with Russia

1953 separate but equal debunked

1964 ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)- added funding to disadvantaged school districts
---> Title 1 funding to help students living in poverty reach same levels of achievement in literacy and math as their peers
---> saw as a result, just adding funding alone did not make much difference
---> revisions of this act included PDs for low performing schools
---> also expanded to include right to education for children with special needs and ELLs

1972 Right to Read Act (PDs for reading programs and how to teach reading linked to title 1 goals)

mid 1970s director of US Dept of Education seeks focus for reading instruction and commissions research based on vocabulary specifically (which was thought to indicate intelligence)

1976 First conception of IDEA passed under a different name (with explicit sections on PD) created legal category of learning disabilities

1982 Nation at Risk Report (for the first time, teacher education was emphasized as a focus area)
--> federal involvement shifts from equity in access to educational quality, including the quality of teachers
--> political awareness that education impacted nation's economic progress
-->massive change in nation's schools as more students (ELLs and students with disabilities) were now staying in school for longer

1989 NCTM initiates push for mathematics standards which were used as yardsticks for state standards

1994 Improving America's Schools Act (more federal involvement in education)

Goals 2000:Educate America Act had teacher education and professional development as 1 of 8 listed goals

1997 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Act (first federal attempts to define instruction)

1998 Reading Excellence Act (provided funding for states who submitted applications to improve reading instruction-- in part by training teachers in scientifically based reading research-SBRR)

2002 No Child Left Behind
-->more emphasis on PD than ESEA, but not to be used on 1 day workshops or conferences (which the policymakers deemed ineffective)
--> Redefined Professional Development
--> Said PD MUST:
-improve teacher's knowledge of subjects, standards, management
-not 1 day or short term workshops
support training of highly qualified teachers
-advance understanding of scientifically based practice

Reading First
-->reading first led to PDs surrounding reading research, and the results of the National Reading Panel's conclusions
--> required local governments to write plans supporting PDs about reading (including phonics and phonemic awareness)
--> separate accountability requirements leading to widespread use of DIBELS
--> this program was controversial and people claimed it espoused certain programs and required states to pick programs from a list

Race to the Top
-->made over 3.5 billion available for professional development
--> focused on "job-embedded" professional development which was defined as:
closely related to daily work activities
occurring on a regular basis
aligned to standards and goals
involves collaboration and active engagement
focuses on students learning and using data to inform teaching

FORMS include classroom coaching, common planning time, expert consultation, classroom observation

2010 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (provides substantial funding to schools with PD emphasis)


]]> 2020-06-24 02:41:31 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/638191872 Questions: heroldshaun https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/638267590 David Pearson is quoted in this chapter, saying "We used to believe that if we provided teachers and principals with research-based information that they would change their practice" Why might this not be the case? What other factors are at play?

Long writes, "by focusing on the short-term, the federal government has crippled most professional development outcomes to the point of ineffectiveness" However, he states that policymakers often view graduate programs as too disconnected from the immediate student achievement issues addressed in reform movements. How does your graduate learning compare to your learning in: mentor programs, evaluation conferences, in-service PDs, or conference based PDs?

From the chapter: "Looking at the more than 50 years, should the federal government be in the professional development business? IS it an effective tool of federal education policy?"



]]> 2020-06-24 04:31:45 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/638267590 Emily Poole epoole20 https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/639060613 Professional development is imperative for teachers as it impacts the nature and success of their students' learning. Teachers must keep learning and improving. In this article, we focus on Chris, a reading teacher who has recently become head of the reading department and must now train his team members. However, he fully recognizes his weakness- guided reading groups. It is clear to both him and his observers that he struggles to fully utilize this time in a meaningful way, as he has trouble with knowing what to say "in the moment" and tends to stray away from his original intent. He finds himself doing most of the talking and fully understands he needs more training. In short, he needs to become more focused and adaptive. Dennis (2018) explains, "In codifying their knowledge, exemplary teachers become adaptive in their lexical assignments, using their expertise to problem solve and label new situations" (p. 2). He then states, "...expert knowledge is organised in a prioritised fashion so that adaptive expertise is utilised seamlessly" (Dennis, 2018, p. 2). This bank of knowledge is referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).  

Chris' PD consisted of observed guided reading group sessions in which he was advised and given material to help in his areas of weakness. The objective of this program was built upon the idea that teachers need a foundation of pedagogy and a rich background knowledge of specific skills in order to access throughout their teaching. There is no way to prepare fully for what a child may say or what needs may arise. Therefore, a teacher must have a rich PCK.

Throughout the course of the year, he was monitored closely (albeit remotely through video) by an expert named Danielle. She coded and evaluated the session, and then went over the results with Chris in detail. They worked very closely over the year and in total held seven sessions. At the end of their time together, Chris was a confident guided reading group teacher and had a rich PCK which improved both his planning and "in the moment" skills. 

This article revealed several things. One- self evaluation and humility are key in education. Chris was able to admit he needed help- and that is exceptional. Two- PD is extremely valuable, specifically when it is teacher-tailored. Each teacher has very specific strengths and weaknesses, so this one-on-one approach was incredibly valuable. Three- every word counts. This is basically what the author meant by his title "Making the simple more complex." A simple guided reading group session can tell a lot about a teacher in his/her responses and questions etc.... So we truly must be cognizant of how we plan and what we say.

However, I wonder how the nature of this program could be broadened. One-on-one training of this kind seems to be the exception and not the rule (which the article did mention). It seems obvious to me that PD such as this would be successful, but how realistic is this to duplicate and broaden? ]]> 2020-06-24 17:54:07 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/639060613 Eve Knepp eknepp https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642308478 Overview:
In this article, Hunt looks at how discourse in literacy coaching through a techno-rational perspective may affect professional learning and professional interactions. Within the techno-rational perspective, “teacher development is seen as mastery of skills, teachers’ learning is conceptualized as linear with a predetermined and predictable trajectory, and the role of literacy coach is limited to supporting the implementation of best practices” (p. 123). Hunt notes that in this perspective, literacy coaches must have a greater level of knowledge and expertise to help move other teachers forward in their teaching of literacy. 

Hunt used a micro-ethnographic approach of discourse analysis and data was obtained from a year-long study investigating “professional learning interactions between literacy coaches and teachers” in a medium-sized elementary (K to 8) school district in the U.S. Midwest. The participants included two literacy coaches, ten teachers, two administrators and two district literacy facilitators, but the report focused on a micro analysis of one literacy coach and a second year special education teacher she was working with. Hunt noted that the interactions, even though the literacy specialist said she wanted the teachers she was working with to come away with learning that they had done instead of just being told, often came away feeling like the teacher had been told. The questions asked were just questions confirming they understood or asking if they agreed to do what the literacy specialist had told them. When the literacy coach met with other coaches in the district and showed them a video of her interactions, the other coaches noted her dominating the conversation and she brushed it off as the new teacher needing extensive modeling and being frustrated, even though that’s not what she had told Hunt earlier about the teacher. 

In general, the article emphasized the leaning towards literacy coaches being looked at as ultimate experts in best practices of reading and writing and new teachers being positioned negatively as needing help. Veteran teachers were also often unfairly viewed as not wanting to change. It noted the view of teacher development as linear, where one needs to move from one end to the other to be doing something correctly and “the end goals of teacher development were non negotiable and universal in the sense that teachers were expected to implement best practices in a particular way” (p. 137). Hunt argues that for the perspective of teacher development, breaking away from the techno-rational perspective allows literacy coaches to fully value “all teacher knowledge and be curious about teachers’ perspectives, values, and identities (p. 138).” This way both novice and expert are able to learn from one another in what Hunt called “shared participation.” In this, literacy coaches need to pay attention to how their conversations either support or hinder listening, questioning, and reflecting. She argues, also, for creating opportunities from critical reflection on the discourse used as literacy coaches as ongoing professional development.

My thoughts:
Since I have not been in the U.S. school system as a full time teacher in 11 years, I do not have any experience with this. The school I taught in before did not have a literacy coach. But, in the reading, it made me think of a previous article I read where a 2nd year teacher did such wonderful things with non-narrative texts and was being help up as an example for others to follow. So it makes me wonder if this techno-rational perspective is more prevalent or if the breaking away perspective is becoming more prevalent.

Questions:
1. I'm curious what perspective have you all seen more of in your schools? The techno-rational where the literacy coach is the expert and others need to learn from them, where learning is linear, nonnegotiable and universal, or breaking away, where there's more dialogue and shared participation.

2. Have you experienced or seen reflection of professional discourse in your schools? If so, was it helpful and did it bring about any changes to your school?

3. How are literacy coaches viewed in your school? What sort of positioning do you see happening in your school within the faculty? What kind of culture does that positioning create?


]]> 2020-06-28 18:33:34 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642308478 First-Grade Teachers’ Response to Three Models of Professional Development in Reading article discussed a study conducted to compare teachers’ responses to early reading professional development programs. These programs differed in various levels of support for teachers. The first model explained in the study provided teachers with only seminars. The second model also contained seminars, but provided teachers with support on the evaluations of their own instruction. The final model included all the factors from the second model as well as the help of a literacy coach to assist teachers in integrating the new information into their teaching practices. To measure the success of the professional developments and record feedback, surveys and observations were implemented. The results of this study showed teachers who participated in the third model, the 3-component model, were distinguished from the educators in the other models when referring to changes in their teacher practices throughout the year (Carlisle et al, 2011, p. 212). The authors explained that the majority of studies conducted on teaching PD programs focused on content knowledge of reading needed for teachers to understand, but they did not focus on the delivery or structure of this (Carlisle et al, 2011, p. 230). Just like students, teachers need to be engaged in their learning during a PD as well as be supported in changing their instructional practices. Teachers also need to feel their interaction with new professional knowledge is working in their teaching. This makes sense why the 3-component model showed the best results. This model provided educators with assistance in their learning to evaluate their teaching. They also received support from a literacy coach to help with working with other teachers and to assist with making changes to literacy instruction (Carlisle et al, 2011, p. 230). The results showed that simply providing educators with new knowledge on literacy instruction is not likely to cause improvements in their teaching. As I reflect, I think about the PD programs I have attended in my years of teaching. The majority of these trainings were just seminars, where I was provided with up-to-date information on new literacy practices. I think I would feel more confident integrating this knowledge into my current teaching practices if I had a literacy coach to assist me in doing so. I also like the idea of a system in assisting me in evaluating not just my students’ learning, but also my own teaching. What professional development programs that you attended do you feel made significant changes to your teaching? What aspects of these programs allowed such improvements? katiepetkovich1 https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642386117 2020-06-28 21:26:22 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642386117 Eve Knepp eknepp https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642535065 Instructional coaching is being used in many schools across the country to facilitate teachers’ professional learning and increase student achievement. It is used to help support teacher learning through instructional coaching by using continual, job-embedded learning instead of what Heineke calls “one-shot workshops” of teacher inservice or professional development seminars. Instructional coaching can stretch across disciplines and subjects, so it is far reaching. “Site-based coaching can be used to implement both collaboration and reflection as components of job-embedded professional development” (p. 410). Research studies have supported the statements that it is an effective means of impacting change within a classroom through teacher practices. 

Heineke’s research questions were: “(a) What are the contexts in which one-on-one coaching discourse occurs? (b) What is the nature of the discourse between school-based reading coaches and teachers during one-on-one coaching? (c) What patterns of discourse are seen within coaching interactions? (d) How do the patterns of discourse found within coaching interactions support teachers in their learning?” (p. 413)  An interpretive analysis of the data was used for both the coaching discourse and the post interviews. Heineke used four sets of coach/teacher pairs that she called dyads. She found that less than half of the “coaching episodes” were considered instructional (focusing on how the teacher might change or enhance her practice to meet the needs of the students better), the coaches often dominated the discourse but that also varied considerably between coaches, they didn’t always acknowledge the teacher’s comments, and they had consistent affirmations and sensitivity to the teachers. Heineke noted that instructional coaching had a wide range of the best way to coach depending on the situation. She also noted that “coaches were not taking advantage of language as a powerful tool in shaping learning, encouraging joint meaning making or progressive discourse” (p. 430). 

Questions:
1. Heineke ends the article with saying, “These findings suggest the need for coaches to be provided with opportunities to gain a better understanding of coaching processes and the knowledge to choose among them to differentiate professional development dependent on coaching goals and the needs of the teacher with whom they are working (p. 430).” Do your experiences with instructional coaches point to the need for this? 

2. What experiences have you had with instructional coaching? Were they positive or negative and why? If you had been the instructional coach, what would you have done differently? What did you like about it?
]]> 2020-06-29 03:04:52 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/642535065 This study investigated how literacy specialist candidates demonstrated their developing literacy leadership and coaching identity during their master's level coursework. rmcallahan1 https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/643356887 The authors begin the article by outlining their review of literature, roles and responsibilities of the literacy specialist, transitioning of teachers into the roles, method of the study, and the participants/setting of the study.  The authors continue the article by discussing their findings and possible solutions for developing literacy leadership.

Developing Leadership:  The two elementary teachers continued to remain in the classroom but hopes to move into the literacy leadership position.  They plan to do this by working closely with the current literacy coach to learn skills and strategies to help educators in the future.  Two secondary teachers feel the blended method of teaching roles with collegial mentoring.

Useful coursework:  Adult learning, diversity of teaching, assessment of students, coaching model.

They all agreed that they needed to diversify their teaching experiences to better coach colleagues across grade levels.  Additionally, they needed clarifications on their jobs and evolving roles and responsibilities as they were not clear.

As a specialist, you will develop your identity over time.  Most agreed that confidence in critiquing a colleague can be challenging at time.  With that said, they are in agreement that course work has assisted in peer-coaching but also adhere to on-the-job work as the most essential for coaching success.

Overall Conclusions:  This research examined the gap in the literature regarding coaching development.  It was concluded that the utilization of coursework provided with a sociiocognitive shared space to draw on past experiences as a teacher assist in developing a coaching identity in their first steps.

Questions:
1.  If you have a literacy coach within your school, how do you feel about the support they are giving you or your staff?
2. Do you feel at times that your coach would undermine you than help you in the classroom?
3.  When a coach is giving you feedback, how often is that feedback and is it useful to your classroom practices?
4. If you wanted to step out into a literacy coaching role, what might you think about doing or changing to create your own coaching identity?]]> 2020-06-29 21:32:40 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/643356887 Vitaliya Skorobogatko vskorobogatko https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/643952246 Vast amounts of funding are spent every year on professional development for teachers.  But past research has found that the results have been inconclusive.  This article explores how personalized professional development supports upper elementary school teachers. 

Guiding Research Questions:
  1. “What needs do upper elementary teachers have related to teaching reading?”
  2. “How do the needs of the individual compare with the needs of other teachers?”
  3. “How does one-on-one personalized professional development provided to upper elementary teachers influence teacher knowledge and reading instruction after one full year of participation?” 

For this, data for collected through pre and post teacher knowledge assessments,semi structured interviews, teaching observations, and lesson planning sessions. 

The results determined that teachers have different needs.  Teachers expressed their needs and strengths.  However, additional needs were identified through teacher observations and lesson planning sessions.  Teachers with similar teaching experiences shared similar needs and strengths.

At the end the teachers in this sample study have no substantial increase in knowledge after the professional development but did exhibit substantial change and improvement in teacher instructions.  Clark and Schoepf (2007) say “these changes were especially obvious in the areas of teaching explicit instruction, merging vocabulary instruction with comprehension instruction and making stronger connections with research recommendations” (p. 43).

Personally, I think that personalized professional development is needed in all of our schools.  I have sat through numerous PDs that I did not find beneficial.  I love the idea of working with a literacy coach or another teacher and having them help you identify your strengths and weaknesses in order to create personalized professional development.

Questions:
  1. Does your school have personalized professional development? Or have you ever taught at a school that does?
  2. Have you benefited from personalized professional development?
  3. What are the steps needed to switch from whole school professional development to personalized professional development?



]]> 2020-06-30 12:55:28 UTC https://padlet.com/heroldshaun/dkc8j0h56z8fnqh5/wish/643952246