National Staff Development Council Research Articles

Primary schools as professional learning communities and teachers’ professional development: an empirical study in a Greek educational context

ABSTRACT This study investigated the level of professional learning communities (PLCs), teachers’ professional development (PD), and their relationship in Greek primary schools. This quantitative survey, which included 428 Greek public primary schools, yielded 674 and 571 responses regarding PLCs and PD, respectively. Hord’s five PLC dimensions were measured using the Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised questionnaire. The National Staff Development Council’s 12 standards/three PD dimensions were measured using the Standards Assessment Instrument. The findings revealed that primary schools function as PLCs, but at the second implementation level, thus not refining their culture or becoming mature PLCs. Teachers’ PD experiences focused more on the content of their professional learning, whereas the standards of research, assessment, and learning communities presented lower averages. The non-significant, low-degree, and negative correlation between PLCs and PD indicates that, as schools do not provide sufficient job-embedded PD experiences, teachers’ PD is based on individual initiatives rather than schools’ needs/learning/development.

The Use Culturally Proficient Professional Development to Enhance Learning Transfer

The National Staff Development Council recommends that principals devote 10% of the school budget and 25% of teacher time to professional development (PD). While PD requires time, it is crucial that the time be organized, carefully structured, and purposefully led to avoid the waste of human and financial resources. Despite the millions of dollars spent on professional development nationally, student learning outcomes continue to stagnate or dwindle, discipline issues continue to skyrocket, and teacher moral plummets. This may be due, in part, to leaders paying little attention to learning transfer. Culture plays a key role in one’s ability to learn because learning is a social endeavor. Because our schools worldwide are more and more diverse, professional development that is grounded in culture is paramount for educators whose goal is to improve learning outcomes for all students. Because attending professional development does not necessarily equate to the implementation of knowledge or skills, this conceptual paper proposes a Culturally Proficient Professional Development (CPPD) framework that includes a Multidimensional Model of Learning Transfer (MMLT). The MMLT and its rubrics aim to be culturally responsive tools that school leaders in PK-12 schools can use to organize, deliver, and assess professional development offerings while also enhancing learning transfer and improve educators’ cultural proficiency. Considering culture as the main enhancer or inhibitor to transfer is innovative and useful because schools spend large amounts of money and resources on PD, yet the money invested does not often produce the desired outcomes.

<p>Cyber-supported Professional Learning Experiences that Build Technology and Engineering Educators’ Practice</p>

Educational changes due to school reform and the introduction of new national standards create a need for professional learning experiences for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) educators that are results-driven, easily accessible, and aligned with identified best practices (National Research Council, 2009; National Staff Development Council, 2001). This need, specifically addressing technology and engineering educators, generated the development and delivery of the Transforming Teaching through Implementing Inquiry (T2I2) project. Within the T2I2 development stage, learning objects were created to introduce, reinforce, and broaden technology and engineering educators’ conceptual content and pedagogical content knowledge to inform and impact their personal teaching practice. To deliver this instruction, a cyber infrastructure was created to support content development, assessment, community building, and cyber-coaching.
 This field study followed the methodology established within T2I2’s two-year pilot study (Ernst, Segedin, Clark, & DeLuca, 2014), selecting participants from the identified five-state region (IL, KY, OH, NC, and VA) and requiring these participants to complete T2I2 learning objects and accompanying written and video artifacts. Submitted artifacts were analyzed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-signed-ranks Test, providing evidence that suggested that the field study teachers demonstrated proficient abilities to contribute to a learning community; manage, monitor, and adjust learning environments, and increase their self-assessment. The combined pilot and field test studies provide evidence to support expanding the development and use of the T2I2 model for science educators for a more interdisciplinary approach to STEM professional learning experiences.

Exploring Virtual PLCs: Professional development for the busy practitioner.

No AccessPerspectives on School-Based IssuesArticle1 Jun 2013Exploring Virtual PLCs: Professional development for the busy practitioner. Kerry J. Davis Kerry J. Davis Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi14.2.28 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In As speech-language pathologists remain in short supply in many geographical regions, virtual learning communities may be one way for clinicians to support each other professionally. Participating in social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook may support meaningful professional development and enhance collegiality. In this article, I discuss the theoretical framework related to professional learning communities and communities of practice, and how technology can support professional development. I outline suggestions for administrators and practitioners who want to use technology to enhance collaboration opportunities and strengthen district-wide professional development programming. References Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder.Educational Leadership, 59(8): 6–11. Google Scholar Barton, E., Moore, H., & Squires, J. (2012). Preparing speech-language pathologists to work in early childhood.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32(1), 4–13. Google Scholar Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration.Computers & Education, 52, 353–364. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.004 Google Scholar Bennett, S., Matton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ―digital natives‖ debate: A critical review of the evidence.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x Google Scholar Blankenship, S., & Rouna, W. (2007, Feb 28-Mar 4). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models, literature review.Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in The Americas (Indianapolis, IN, 2007). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED504776&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED504776 Google Scholar Davis, K. (2012). Learning in 140 characters: Teachers' perceptions of Twitter for professional development.(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=2827839191&Fmt=7&clientI d=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD Google Scholar DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2010). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools.Bloomington, IN: Solution. Google Scholar Edgar, D., & Rosa-Lugo, L. (2007). The critical shortage of speech-language pathologists in the public school setting: Features of the work environment that affect recruitment and retention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(1), 31–46. LinkGoogle Scholar Espuny, C., González, J., Lleixá, M., & Gisbert, M. (2011). University students' attitudes towards and expectations of the educational use of social networks.In The Impact of Social Networks on Teaching and Learning.‖ Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 8(1), 186–199. Retrieved from http://rusc.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/rusc/article/view/v8n1-espuny-gonzalez-lleixa-gisbert/v8n1-espuny-gonzalez-lleixa-gisbert-eng Google Scholar Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults.Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/ Google Scholar Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2007). Foreign language teacher preparation and asynchronous CMC: Promoting reflective teaching.Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 15, 513–532. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jtate/ Google Scholar Mawhinney, L. (2008). Laugh so you don't cry: Teachers combating isolation in schools through humor and social support.Ethnography and Education, 3(2), 195–209. doi:10.1080/17457820802062466 Google Scholar Morewood, A. L., Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of the influence of professional development on their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and curriculum.College Reading Association Yearbook, 31, 201–219. Retrieved from http://www.aleronline.org/ Google Scholar Schmucki, L., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (2010). Final report: School principals and social networking in education: practices, policies, and realities in 2010.Retrieved from http://www.edweb.net/fimages/op/PrincipalsandSocialNetworkingReport.pdf Google Scholar Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/ Google Scholar Tagg, J. (2007). Double-loop learning in higher education.Change Magazine, 39(4), 36–41. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/ Google Scholar Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/stateproflearning.cfm Google Scholar Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., 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 (Technical Report).Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf Google Scholar Wenger, E. (2004, January/February). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice.Ivey Business Journal, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/ Google Scholar Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm Google Scholar Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities.Portland, OR: CPSquare. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 14Issue 2June 2013Pages: 28-32 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Jun 1, 2013 Metrics Downloaded 31 times Topicsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Professional Development for Early Childhood Education: A National Perspective

The article introduces the reader to a special issue of NHSA Dialog that focuses on the professional development (PD) of early childhood educators. The article opens with a perspective from a historical lens, namely that of PD in K--12 education and the evolution of Learning Forward, formerly the National Staff Development Council. The recently (2011) revised Standards for Professional Learning are included, leading into more recent developments in early childhood education professional learning. Finally, the article introduces the reader to each research article included in the issue.

Special Issue: Instructional Teacher Leadership in Action

This special issue explores the work of instructional teacher leaders, often referred to as coaches. The proliferation of formal instructional teacher-leader roles has been motivated by education policy contexts that pressure school administrators and district leaders to identify effective ways to improve student achievement. This pressure became especially pronounced with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. One way to improve instructional practice is through the provision of high-quality professional development opportunities for teachers. Research indicates that effective professional development is instructionally focused, school embedded, ongoing, and supported by human and material resources (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Elmore & Burney, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999). Formal instructional teacher-leader roles provide one possible source of high-quality professional development. These teacher leaders serve as a resource for teachers: conducting workshops, coplanning, and modeling lessons, observing teaching and providing feedback, collecting and analyzing data, facilitating dialogue and reflective critique, and promoting shared practices among peers. The development of instructional teacher-leader roles has been a core component of recent education reform initiatives. Support for these positions comes from federal initiatives, including Reading First and the Math Science Partnership, private foundations such as the Small Schools Coaches Collaborative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, large-scale comprehensive school reform models such as America’s Choice and Success for All, and professional organizations like the National Staff Development Council. As a result, formal teacher-leader roles have been evident in largescale school reform efforts as seen in New York, San Diego, Boston, and Chicago

Professional Development Worth Paying for

The National Center on Education Statistics projects that, in 2009, nearly 3.3 million teachers will teach in public schools across this country. That's a projected increase of 36,000 teachers over 2008, or about 1% of those in the classroom. improving the quality of instruction truly is a goal, we cannot ignore the fact that 99% of staff are already working with kids. Certainly, improving teacher preparation programs can impact that 1% or so of teachers entering the profession each year, and over the years, those numbers do add up--but we also need to pay greater attention to developing teachers already in our classrooms. Determining Cost-Benefit While state leaders understand the value of professional development, they also need to consider the costs. Such costs are some of the most difficult to calculate. The complex way in which professional development is interwoven into recertification and local salary schedules and included in the required number of school days makes it difficult to pinpoint what's spent and who pays. For policy makers, cost increases the importance of showing results. Some states try to ensure program quality by accepting recertification credits only from approved program providers. Until recently, evaluation based on results of those and other programs has been scarce. For the most part, educators have received credit for seat time, with little attention to changes in instructional practices. state leaders are going to pony up for improving the instructional skills of teachers and principals, they want to know that their dollars are well-spent. The same can be said for taxpayer parents, who increasingly find their children at home on early-release or late-start days. They want a reasonable assurance that noninstructional time is well-spent and is making a difference to their kids. A growing number of policy makers are insisting on evaluation--particularly tied to increased student learning. Equating with Impact According to A Vision for Professional Development in All Vermont Schools, Quality professional development has the power to increase educators' knowledge of academic content and teaching skills, while changing what educators believe about student learning and how they interact with students. Powerful professional development can transform schools into places in which all adults and students are deeply engaged in learning and making meaning of their lives. How can we tell what's powerful? The National Staff Development Council (NSDC), author of the Standards for Staff Development, asserts that If staff development is to improve student learning, many levels of change are required, each with its own particular evaluation challenges. Unfortunately, a great deal of staff development evaluation begins and ends with the assessment of participants' immediate reactions to workshops and courses. While this information may be helpful to staff development planners, good evaluation design also gathers additional information. Beyond the 1) initial collection of data on participants' reactions, evaluation must focus on 2) teachers' acquisition of new knowledge and skills, 3) how that learning affects teaching, and in turn 4) how those changes in practice affect student learning. In addition, evaluators may also be asked to provide evidence of 5) how staff development has affected school culture and other organizational structures. Tied to Student Learning More states are beginning to focus on evaluation. Arkansas' criteria for evaluating the impact of professional development include improving student achievement on state assessments, other related indicators as defined by the state's accountability system, and evaluations of professional development. In Iowa, 2007 legislation requires the state department to collaborate with local districts to establish teacher development academies for school-based teams of teachers and administrators. …

Cooperating Teaching as a Professional Development Activity

This study examined cooperating teachers’ perceptions of how student teacher supervision is aligned with the standards of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC). The conceptual framework of this research advanced that serving as a cooperating teacher is equivalent to a professional development activity. The researcher adapted an instrument from the NSDC to measure cooperating teachers’ perceptions in grades K-12. The survey was completed by 181 out of the 287 sample population. Cooperating teachers moderately agreed that student teacher supervision aligned with the standards of the NSDC. This role used the three categories needed for effective professional development: context, process, and content.

Creating learning communities to meet teachers' needs in professional development

Professional development is an essential component of retaining high quality teachers. Current US legislation, as stated in No Child Left Behind, emphasises this premise. Although professional development opportunities have been abundant for decades, a closer look at standards and criteria for effective professional development is essential in order to increase the possibility of programing opportunities that will truly impact teacher behaviors. According to the National Staff Development Council, effective professional development places teachers into learning communities. This can be a challenge to professional development center administrators, who often program single-session workshops for teachers from different school systems as the primary mode of delivery or instruction, minimising the opportunities for collaboration among a cohort. The purpose of this study is to determine instructional preferences of teachers, taking into account teaching experience and grade level, and suggest methods for placing teachers into learning communities by these preferences in order to meet current standards of professional development

Creating a Community of Teacher–Learners

Professional development is an essential component of retaining high quality teachers. Current US legislation, as stated in No Child Left Behind, emphasises this premise. Although professional development opportunities have been abundant for decades, a closer look at standards and criteria for effective professional development is essential in order to increase the possibility of programing opportunities that will truly impact teacher behaviors. According to the National Staff Development Council, effective professional development places teachers into learning communities. This can be a challenge to professional development center administrators, who often program single-session workshops for teachers from different school systems as the primary mode of delivery or instruction, minimising the opportunities for collaboration among a cohort. The purpose of this study is to determine instructional preferences of teachers, taking into account teaching experience and grade level, and suggest methods for placing teachers into learning communities by these preferences in order to meet current standards of professional development

What Makes Professional Development Effective?

After an examination of 13 recent lists of characteristics of professional Mr. Guskey concludes that they vary widely and that the research that supports them is inconsistent and often contradictory. Nonetheless, he argues, we need to seek agreement on criteria for along with clear descriptions of contextual factors. DO WE KNOW what makes professional development effective? Have researchers and practitioners reached consensus about what factors contribute to a successful professional development experience? Do we even agree on what criteria should be used to judge professional development's effectiveness? A review of newly developed lists of the characteristics of effective professional development indicates that the answer to each of these questions is Maybe not. Recently I analyzed 13 different lists of the characteristics of effective professional development, all published within the last decade. These lists were drawn from publications of the American Federation of Teachers, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Education Development Center, Educational Research Service, Educational Testing Service, Eisenhower Professional Development Program, National Governors' Association, National Institute for Science Education, National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, National Staff Development Council, and U.S. Department of Education. My goal was to find out the extent to which these various lists agreed. What I discovered is that they were derived in very different ways, used different criteria to determine effectiveness, and varied widely in the characteristics they identified. I also found that the research evidence regarding most of the identified characteristics is inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. In considering their development, I concluded that most of the lists could be described as research-based. But that research rarely includes rigorous investigations of the relationship between the noted characteristics and improvements in instructional practice or student learning outcomes. Instead, it typically involves surveys of the opinions of researchers and educators. In other words, researchers and practitioners generally favor these characteristics and believe they are important, despite the lack of verifying evidence. Only a National Institute for Science Education (NISE) analysis and an Educational Testing Service (ETS) study show a direct link between their identified characteristics and specific measures of student achievement.1 Of the 21 characteristics distinguished in the lists, the most frequently cited was enhancement of teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge. Helping teachers to understand more deeply the content they teach and the ways students learn that content appears to be a vital dimension of effective professional development. At present, however, nearly all of the studies relating this characteristic to improvements in student learning focus on achievement in mathematics or science. Whether the same is true for achievement in language arts, social studies, or other subject areas has yet to be thoroughly investigated. Most of the lists mention the provision of sufficient time and other resources as essential to effective professional development. Obviously, educators need time to deepen their understanding, analyze students' work, and develop new approaches to instruction. But significant contrary evidence exists. The NISE analysis, for example, showed that differences in time spent in professional development activities were unrelated to improvements in student outcomes. Similarly, the ETS study found that the amount of time spent in professional development was unrelated to achievement. So while effective professional development surely requires time, it's clear that the time must be well organized, carefully structured, and purposefully directed. Another consistently noted characteristic is the promotion of collegiality and collaborative exchange. …

Professional Development and Teacher Change

This article describes a model of teacher change originally presented nearly two decades ago (Guskey, 1986) that began my long and warm friendship with Michael Huberman. The model portrays the temporal sequence of events from professional development experiences to enduring change in teachers' attitudes and perceptions. Research evidence supporting the model is summarized and the conditions under which change might be facilitated are described. The development and presentation of this model initiated a series of professional collaborations between Michael and myself, and led to the development of our co-edited book, Professional Development in Education: new paradigms and practices (Guskey & Huberman, 1995), which was named 'Book of the Year' by the National Staff Development Council in 1996.

School Reform and Professional Development

WORK SMARTER, and hurry up about it. Stripped down to the essentials, this seems to be the standards-based reform message being delivered to teachers around the country -- no matter how long they have been and no matter what they teach. However, many teachers find the message hollow. They believe that working smarter, in today's terms, means knowing how to improve students' standardized scores and nothing more. If all the activity attending change in education dissolves into a morass of upping scores, then students, teachers, and the whole education establishment will be victims of not very smart responses to the reforms. There is plenty of evidence around that, when teachers know their content and know how to teach it at high levels to all students, teaching to the test fades into the background of everyday instruction and learning. How much proof do teachers need? In studying the implementation of problem-solving instruction in California's schools, David Cohen and others found that teachers who took part with their peers in consistent, high-quality learning that was focused on content and on the pedagogy that relates to that content improved their students' achievement considerably on state tests. Teachers who focused on process-type development, such as cooperative learning, did not have similar results. In Pittsburgh, students of teachers who taught from high standards and under conditions in which the curriculum, assessment, and development opportunities all aligned with one another outperformed students in schools where this kind of alignment had not taken place. Black students in the high- implementation schools did better on tests than white students in low- implementation schools. In Chicago, students in even the most disadvantaged schools scored better on standardized tests of basic skills and produced higher- quality intellectual work if they had experienced high-quality instruction. Teachers who used interactive instruction (lots of different strategies) consistently saw their students make achievement gains that were above the Chicago average on state tests and on nationally normed tests. Students of teachers who clung to didactic instruction made below-average gains. Underlying such results are the kinds of opportunities that enable teachers to learn themselves. Stephanie Hirsh, deputy executive director of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), estimates that only 10% of what teachers learn in traditional development activities is ever used in the classroom. Yet traditional forms of development persist. Teachers are usually subjected to the one-shot workshop, the district-developed catalogue of disconnected classes, or the unstructured professional development day. The mantra of the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind, is scientifically based research. That phrase is scattered more than 200 times throughout the legislation, and, while it can be confusing and sometimes contradictory, its intent is to give substance to the initiatives funded by the federal government. The new legislation comes at a time when what constitutes high-quality development is well documented. For example, NSDC has just published its revised standards for K-12 development. They are based on research and on input from more than a dozen organizations. What distinguishes these standards from other pronouncements is that they assume that all the work will be focused on improving student learning. According to the standards, to ensure that students make progress, the learning environment in development for teachers must address the context (organization of the development), the process (the how), and the content (the what). …

Substitutes with Significance: Increasing the Impact of Substitute Teachers in Special Education

The impact of substitute teachers on student learning, especially on children with disabilities, is often overlooked. Special education substitute teachers must have the appropriate preparation and continuing professional development to be effective professionals. This article suggests ways to develop effective substitute teacher programs. The suggestions are framed around the Standards for Staff Development created by the National Staff Development Council. Substitute training and support systems need to address appropriate context, process, and content. Detailed recommendations are presented.

Continuing To Learn: a Guidebook for Teacher Development By Susan Loucks-Horsley, Catherine K. Harding, Margaret a. Arbuckle, Lynn B. Murray, Cynthia Dubea, and Martha K. Williams Andover, Mass.: the Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands/the National Staff Development Council, 1987

Continuing To Learn: a Guidebook for Teacher Development By Susan Loucks-Horsley, Catherine K. Harding, Margaret a. Arbuckle, Lynn B. Murray, Cynthia Dubea, and Martha K. Williams Andover, Mass.: the Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands/the National Staff Development Council, 1987