Beyond Comparisons of Online Versus Face-to-Face PD

Abstract

With adoption of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts (ELA) and math and release and beginning adoptions of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), teachers, schools, and districts are clamoring for professional learning opportunities to refine and re-tool teaching to bring it in line with reform visions in these documents. This increased need for professional development (PD) raises question of capacity of current systems of PD as well as effectiveness of most commonly used approaches. The nature of new demands of these reforms and scale of need means that PD will have to use innovative approaches to handle type of complex learning called for in these reforms, and will have to do so at scale (Wilson, 2013). Many may see online learning environments as part of a solution to address scale issues, because of ability to use this technology to reach broad audiences across a wide range of timeframes. There is interest in online or technology-mediated environments that promise certain kinds of functionality to support in complex work they are being asked to do (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Wilson (2013) identifies need to harness new technologies and social media to make high-quality science PD available to all teachers as one of grand challenges in science education. We argue as part of our response to Fishman et al. that a corollary to challenge of access is challenge of developing research-based design principles to guide ongoing development, implementation, and evaluation efforts in online PD to meet these new, complex demands in teacher learning. Others share this concern. Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, and McCloskey (2009) lay out case for growing importance of online delivery of PD. At same time, they convey unease about scarcity of nuanced empirical work to guide design and implementation of online PD models. Dede et al. make a twofold clarion call to funders and field to (a) conduct empirical research to tease apart not only what works but why and (b) focus on theory building that articulates design principles that can guide effective PD, disseminated in ways helpful to practitioners and researchers alike. In their recent Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) article, Comparing Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development in Context of Curriculum Implementation, Fishman et al. (2013) contribute important findings to this empirical work by comparing different modalities of PD. The Fishman et al. randomized study of secondary teacher learning to support adoption of a new science curriculum makes a welcome contribution to a high need area of research. Their comparison of three critical measures of across two different PD modalities--face-to-face and online--affirm growing importance of studies, as Fishman et al. state, measuring the impact of PD on teacher beliefs and practice and student learning as opposed to teacher self-report of change (p. 2) in two different learning contexts. The finding that online PD could produce same impact on measures of teacher beliefs, practice, and student learning as face-to-face PD is an important step forward. For community designing, implementing, and researching PD environments, this finding encourages design and study of online PD and provides a solid foundation on which to build. Yet, important research questions remain unanswered. While focus of study was a comparison of two formats for delivery of PD, design of PD itself was somewhat underspecified. For example, there is not enough information in their article about specific design assumptions guiding PD learning goals, nor is there much detail about specific nature of their evaluation measures. This is not intended to be critical, but to suggest that to take their findings as applicable to all online PD would be an overreach. …