Professional Development

Professional Development Project

Evaluation of Professional Development Practices in North Dakota 1995-1999

• Findings
• Initial Interviews
• Guideline I
• Guideline II
• Guideline III
• Guideline IV
• Guideline V
• Guideline VI
• Guideline VII
• Guideline VIII
• Closing Questions
• Recommendations
• Reflection

Discussion: Findings, Recommendations, and Reflection

A synopsis of the findings is presented in this Chapter. Readers are encouraged to review the complete narrative responses in Chapter IV for additional information. The recommendations and reflection follow the findings and suggest next steps in the process to make professional development more purposeful and effective in ultimately improving student success.

Findings

The discussion of findings first reviews the initial interview responses from Data Set F, then presents the findings from the in-depth interviews, following the format of the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices. The in-depth interview analysis progresses sequentially through Guidelines I – VIII, and ends with the closing questions. The respondents in Combined Data Sets A, D and E who were part of the original group involved in the development process for the Guidelines are referred to as the original respondents or original participants. The respondents in Combined Data Sets B and C who attended the 1999 training sessions are referred to as the training respondents or training participants.

Initial Interviews

Questions Asked:

1. Did you have a copy of the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices booklet prior to receiving one with our letter?
2. Have you talked with others about the availability of the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices booklet as a planning and evaluation tool or recommended its use to others?
3. Have you watched the videotapes developed by the grant?
4. Have you recommended that others watch the videos or use them in professional development training or planning?
5. Were you aware of the training-of-trainers and availability of these individuals for consultation or training on professional development in all regions of the state?
6. Do you know who the attendees of the training-of-trainers were for your region of the state?
7. Have you contacted, or do you know of others who have contacted the trainers for information on the PD Guidelines?
8. (If they attended the training-of-trainers themselves) Have you provided information on the PD Guidelines to anyone since the training?
9. Has your involvement with this professional development project made you reflect more deeply about the importance of professional development or about the types of professional development that are most valuable?
10. Has the availability of the PD Guidelines changed the way you choose the professional development opportunities in which you participate?
11. Are you involved in planning, recommending, or delivering professional development to others?
12. (If yes to #11) Has the availability of the Guidelines changed the way you plan, recommend, or deliver professional development?
13. One of the things the PD Guidelines urges is goals-based planning clearly tied to teacher knowledge and behaviors and student achievement assessments. Do you feel that your experience with the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices information has in any way influenced the goals you set for the improvement of education for students in your classroom or at your school?
14. Do you feel that experience with the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices information has in any way influenced the attitude of the administration and staff of your school toward providing time and or funding to enable educational improvement through the professional development of teachers and administrators?

The intent of the first eight questions was to determine if the project awareness sessions were being effective in publicizing the Guidelines resources, if those originally involved had retained and shared their copies of the Guidelines, and if they were making use of the videos and trainers.

Those contacted for the initial interviews were asked if they had a copy of the Professional Development Guidelines prior to receiving one with our contact letter. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the respondents to the initial interviews (Data Set F) had a copy of the Professional Development Guidelines prior to receiving our interview mailing and 60% had talked about them with or recommended them to others.

Half (51%) said they had watched the videos and 25% recommended them to others although many made narrative comments that they felt the documentary nature and length of the videos were a drawback to their use in training. (Editor's note: A shorter awareness video was produced at the request of trainers in 1997. Respondents in the initial interviews did not seem to be aware of this.)

Sixty percent (60%) of the respondents were aware that trainers were available for consultation, but only 28% knew who the trainers for their region were and 18% had contacted the trainers for information. Of those respondents who participated in the initial training of trainers, 30% had provided information since the training. Narrative comments indicated information was shared in a wide variety of ways: informally among peers; in teacher education classes to preservice teachers and graduate students; among teacher education faculty; with professional development committees, school improvement teams, and administrator groups; through newsletters; through local, regional and statewide inservices; and in a statewide mailing by the Department of Public Instruction as a model for title program professional development plans.

Questions nine through fourteen in the initial interview were intended to probe the respondents' impressions of the usefulness of the Guidelines. Eighty percent of the respondents felt the Guidelines had made them reflect more deeply on the necessity for and quality of professional development (50% significantly, 30% somewhat). Responses on whether the Guidelines had changed the way respondents choose professional development opportunities were inconclusive. Narrative comments were split as to whether changes were attributable to the Guidelines and comments were also made as to whether opportunities respondents may want to choose would actually be available and accessible.

Nearly all of the respondents (94%) stated that they were involved in planning, recommending, or delivering professional development. Sixty-five percent (65%) indicated that the Guidelines had changed the way they do this (43% significantly, 22% somewhat). Sixty-six percent (66%) indicated the Guidelines have influenced the goals they set for the improvement of education for students (55% significantly, 11% somewhat). Narrative comments indicated that some respondents felt they were already doing many of the things the Guidelines suggest and that the Guidelines did not produce but did validate that practice. This would be consistent with the interviewees being involved in some way in the formative stages before the Guidelines were printed.

Forty-two percent (42%) felt the Guidelines information had influenced their administration to provide time or funding to enable educational improvement through professional development (29% significantly, 13% somewhat). Several respondents stated that 2-4 days were built into their schedules for professional development. Significant budget line items were cited only by larger districts or consortia. Most respondents referred to federal funding initiatives such as Title programs or School to Work providing professional development funds. Some also cited teacher workshop fees feeding back into professional development funds.

Respondents were asked to share additional thoughts at the end of the initial interview. The most common closing comments encouraged use of the Guidelines, emphasized the importance of professional development and lifelong learning, and the importance of being purposeful, focusing on goals and the needs of students. Respondents expressed a need for more comprehensive and ongoing training for educators in order to produce real change, more understanding and support by the legislature and the public, and expressed frustration at the general lack of funding and other support.

Similar questions regarding the usefulness of the Guidelines were asked in the in-depth interview closing questions. The above information from the initial interviews is triangulated with that information at the end of this analysis.

Top of Page

Guideline I

Effective professional development responds to identified vision, mission, and goals by:

1. promoting high student achievement.
2. aligning student, educator, and school vision, mission, and goals, while being sensitive to individual needs.
3. promoting cumulative movement toward a long-term vision for the future.
4. recognizing the inter-related complexity of teaching and learning.

Most respondents reported using standardized testing (77% CTBS/Terra Nova, 61% ACT/SAT/PSAT/PLAN), grades/report cards/honor rolls (52%), and teacher-made tests (25%) for measures of student achievement. Some mentioned specialized tests such as vocational aptitude, competency, and skills tests (9%); counseling and career guidance tests (5%); Title program assessments (4%) and special education evaluations (9%). Some were using standards-based reading tests and other rubric-graded assessments (14%), portfolios (9%), periodic progress reports (5%), or olympiads and project-based assessments (5%). Other singular responses included teacher observations, parents (Editor's note: comments did not clarify if this was from individual conferences or mass surveys), peer consultation, professional assessments available with texts, school improvement data analysis, and assessments done by outside consultants.

Seventy-five percent (75%-41% Yes and 34% Sometimes) of those originally involved in the Guidelines project and 62% (12% Yes and 49% Sometimes) of the training respondents stated that student assessment data is used to determine what professional development activities should be undertaken. When asked if the Guidelines had in any way influenced a more student-centered approach to professional development 57% (41% Significantly, 16% Somewhat) of original respondents and 40% (18% Significantly, 22% Somewhat) of training respondents said they had. Ninety-four percent (94%) and 70% respectively reported they choose professional development activities based on their personal goals; 96% and 85% respectively based upon identified school goals.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the original respondents stated that their schools are involved in a formal school improvement process, 11% responded not applicable since they represented providers, professional organizations, or higher education. The processes included the North Central Association (NCA) 14%, DPI State Educational Improvement Process 36%, Curriculum Leadership Institute was reported by 7%, and the remainder did not know or did not respond. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the training respondents reported formal school improvement processes (36% NCA, 34% SEIP, and 30% don't know or no response).

Of the original respondents: 91% reported having a personal five-year educational vision,

• 68% reported an identified school vision,
• 93% a written school mission statement,
• 86% a personal long-range plan for improvement, and
• 70% a school long-range plan for educational improvement.

Of the training respondents: 55% reported a personal vision,

• 46% an identified school vision,
• 88% a written school mission statement,
• 67% a personal long-range plan for improvement, and
• 49% a school long-range plan for educational improvement.

When asked if their professional development activities were chosen to address their mission or identified goals, both groups were able to provide specific examples. The narrative responses of the original participants included more references and philosophical statements showing the activities to be related to vision, mission and cumulative movement toward goals as stated in Guideline I.C. This is consistent with the fact that the original participants had been involved in some way in professional development longer and were involved in the project as a result of their experience and previous leadership. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the original respondents and 76% of the training respondents indicated that the specific professional development activity they were describing was chosen because of an identified improvement goal.

Similar percentages (84% and 85% respectively) were reported when respondents were asked if their districts budget support for professional development and provide release time (91% with 2% NA, and 100% respectively) for activities related to school goals. (Editor's note: There was no distinction made between district professional development funds and federal program funds. Other question responses indicated that most professional development funding came from federal or other grant sources.)

Fifty percent (50%-32% Significantly, 18% Somewhat) of the original respondents felt the Guidelines caused them to think differently about the role of professional development in the educational improvement process. Sixty-four percent (64%-52% Significantly, 14% Somewhat) felt the Guidelines caused them to think differently about the role of professional development as it relates to student learning in the classroom. Percentages for the training respondents were 33% (12% Significantly, 21% Somewhat) regarding educational improvement and 85% (52% Significantly and 14% Somewhat) regarding student learning. Those responding affirmatively made strong narrative comments that purposeful professional development was vital to the success of educational improvement plans and improved student success. Original participants responding no indicated that they already felt that way before seeing the Guidelines. Training respondents' narrative comments showed an increased awareness of the big picture, how all of these things work together for cumulative improvement. The narrative comments generally indicated that the respondents understood the inter-related nature of improved teaching resulting in improved learning. When asked to respond to changes in school climate and effectiveness, both groups commented that the participatory nature of the Guidelines contributed to better buy-in and ownership of professional development initiatives. Original respondents commented that the Guidelines alone, while they are a helpful template, will not do it all. Educators must seek out all available resources.

Top of Page

Guideline II

Effective Professional Development is a Sustained, Continuous Process, which forms a cycle by:

1. assessing needs in light of vision, mission, and goals,
2. undertaking purposeful planning,
3. providing learning opportunities that address knowledge, skills and attitudes,
4. providing time and opportunity to apply what has been learned,
5. providing follow-up support,
6. gathering assessment data of results through instruments aligned with the original purpose of the program, and
7. using assessment data for evaluative feedback into the planning process.

Respondents were asked to identify the steps in the cycle of effective practice from Guideline II that were used in their professional development activities. The original participants responded:

89% A 91% B 77% C 77% D 66% E 43% F 43% G

The training participants responded:

82%A 91%B 91%C 71%D 61%E 27%F 30%G

Both groups saw follow-up support and use of post-assessments based on the original goals as the weakest parts of the cycle. This is consistent with the findings that appear later under Guidelines VI, VII, and VIII.

Top of Page

Guideline III

Effective professional development is a process which promotes participation by:

1. involving all partners in the process from the beginning.
2. seeking, valuing, and using participant input.
3. establishing a representative steering committee.
4. using clear, two-way communication.

Original participants reported that input from those who would be effected by the professional development initiatives had been sought (91%) and used (91%). Training participants responses were 64% input sought and 70% input used. Seventy percent (70%) of the original respondents stated there was an organized process for professional development decision making compared to 55% of the training respondents. Groups involved in decision making included:

Original Respondents

• 77% teachers
• 77% admin.
• 20% students
• 52% school bd.
• 55% community
• 39% higher ed.
• 30% others

Training Respondents:

• 70% teachers
• 67% admin.
• 3% students
• 36% school bd.
• 12% community
• 12% higher ed.
• 6% others

The original respondents had a higher rate of involvement in the larger school community (beyond teachers and administrators). Both groups reported lowest levels in student involvement. Most student involvement was reported by those involved in middle school initiatives. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the original respondents and 64% of the training respondents reported an established system for two-way communication with the groups involved.

Top of Page

Guideline IV

Effective professional development uses valid research and proven theory by:

1. identifying and incorporating current research and theory relevant to the targeted area.
2. incorporating challenging content standards.
3. enlisting instructors who are knowledgeable of the research and theory in their area.
4. ensuring that resources and consultants are from credible organizations.
5. clearly linking practice to research and theory.

Respondents were asked if the professional development planners had made conscious use of research in the goal area or of professional organization content area standards if the goal involved a content area. Of the original respondents 86% considered research and 73% professional standards. Of the training respondents 40% considered research and 46% professional standards.

Respondents determined the qualifications of and choice of professional development instructors in the following ways:

Original respondents:

• 91% word of mouth recommendations
• 77% formal recommendations from universities or other experts in the field
• 34% review of resume information on education and experience
• 91% district develops its own local experts for the purpose of training others
• 25% other

Training respondents:

• 73% word of mouth recommendations
• 67% formal recommendations from universities or other experts in the field
• 33% review of resume information on education and experience
• 48% district develops its own local experts for the purpose of training other
• 13% other information from resources from class handouts
• 2% no response

Respondents determined the credibility of materials, resources, and consultants used for professional development in the following ways:

Original respondents:

• 91% word of mouth recommendations
• 82% professional research/referral services
• 57% review of bibliographical references and original sources of information
• 32% other

Training respondents:

• 73% word of mouth recommendations
• 55% professional research/referral services
• 33% review of bibliographical references and original sources of information
• 21% other not sure; not sure this can be verified; educational background and experience
• 4% no response

Both sets of respondents relied significantly on word-of-mouth recommendations and referrals rather than first-hand analysis of credibility, but the original respondents indicated at a significantly higher rate that they made conscious use of research and standards. It may be that the original group was more aware of the research and standards base since they on average had been involved more deeply in professional development than the training respondents. It may also mean that the training respondents did not have as high a level of confidence in their knowledge base about research and standards. The information on career stages in the original project research (Leithwood, 1992) indicated that educators tend to value on their accumulated experience as they become more accomplished and want to share that experience back to the profession. It may also be that the educational community in North Dakota is close-knit enough due to our small population that those accepting word-of-mouth recommendations and referrals know whether they are based upon credible analysis because they know the recommenders personally. It was therefore difficult to determine conclusively if this data represented a weakness in the application of Guideline IV.

Eighty-four percent (84%/82%) of the original respondents and 49% of the training respondents felt they were enabling professional development participants to incorporate research knowledge into classroom practice and allowing them time to practice and apply their new knowledge and skills in actual classroom practice.

Top of Page

Guideline V

Effective Professional Development is Learner-Centered and Focuses on the Participant(s) by:

1. recognizing individual goals.
2. being relevant to the needs of the learners.
3. encouraging and empowering personal responsibility.
4. considering the physical and emotional needs of the learners.
5. being responsive to career stages.

Respondents were asked if their districts had a formalized means for educators to set and work on individual improvement goals or if the district allowed release time or funding for personal goals not directly related to school/district goals. Original participant responses were 50% regarding formalized means and 87% regarding time and funds. Training participant responses were 25% regarding formalized means and 55% regarding time and funds. (Editor's note: In the analysis of Guideline I, percentages of 84% and 85% were reported when respondents were asked if their districts budget support for professional development, and 91% and 100% in regard to release time for activities related to school goals.) Some of the narrative comments from original respondents stated that teachers are expected to establish professional, personal and district goals as part of their professional development plans. Some also commented that goal setting is part of their staff evaluation process, or that personal educator goals were expected to compliment district goals.

Ninety-three percent (93%) of the original respondents and 67% of the training respondents indicated that relevancy was addressed by using needs assessment based on participant input or needs identified by data. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the original respondents and 61% of the training respondents stated that their school/district provides incentives and job-embedded opportunities for educators to engage in ongoing professional development in addition to or regardless of the state requirements for re-licensure. Both groups mentioned monetary and release time incentives and opportunities to become trainers of other educators. The original group also mentioned intrinsic rewards and individually initiated sharing, observation, and professional inquiry activities.

Respondents were asked if professional development activities allowed adult learners to exercise some autonomy over their learning, to practice in non-critical environments, and to process and interact with peers. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the original participants and 67% of the training participants responded affirmatively. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the original respondents and 70% of the training respondents felt the learning environments had been comfortable and user-friendly. When asked if their school/district recognizes the differing needs of educators at various career stages and made a variety of opportunities available to accommodate those differing needs, 71% of the original respondents and 43% of the training respondents replied affirmatively.

Top of Page

Guideline VI

Effective professional development demonstrates effective teaching strategies for transference into the classroom by:

1. addressing a variety of learning styles.
2. providing for the needs of all students.
3. using a variety of assessments.
4. responding to student feedback.
5. modeling practical, appropriate teaching techniques.
6. promoting the use of human and material resources to broaden student learning.
7. using and encouraging the application of the most advanced and appropriate technologies.

The responses to the questions regarding whether their professional development activities modeled appropriate classroom teaching strategies for transference into the classroom were as follows:

Original Respondents:

• 86% used strategies sensitive to a variety of learning styles
• 84% modeled inclusive strategies (82% Yes, 2% Sometimes)
• 55% used a variety of assessments
• 52% included avenue for student feedback
• 80% modeled authentic situations or included authentic classroom application
• 88% informed participants of additional human or material resources for implementation in their schools (86% Yes, 2% Sometimes)
• 90% modeled or explained use of appropriate technologies (88% Yes, 2% Sometimes)

Training Respondents:

• 67% used strategies sensitive to a variety of learning styles
• 52% modeled inclusive strategies
• 36% used a variety of assessments
• 30% included avenue for student feedback
• 58% modeled authentic situations or included authentic classroom application
• 64% informed participants of additional human or material resources for implementation in their schools
• 67% modeled or explained use of appropriate technologies

Highest responses from both groups were in regard to learning styles, technology, and information about resources. Lowest responses were in regard to using a variety of assessments and student feedback.

Top of Page

Guideline VII

Effective professional development incorporates coaching and/or mentoring support by:

1. identifying appropriate individuals to be trained in coaching/mentoring skills.
2. outlining a systematic plan for regular contact and two-way communication.
3. encouraging formal and informal interaction and sharing among participants.
4. recognizing mentoring/coaching is a positive growth process apart from formal evaluation.

Seventy-nine percent (79%-75% Yes, 4% Sometimes) of the original respondents and 37% of the training respondents reported use of coaching or mentoring support. The following characteristics of the coaching or mentoring taking place were reported:

Original Respondents:

• 60% formal plan for contact and two-way communication ( 55% Yes, 5% Sometimes)
• 82% formal and informal interaction and sharing among participants (75% Yes, 7% Sometimes)
• 58% positive growth process apart from formal employee evaluation process (56% Yes, 2% Sometimes)

Training Respondents:

• 21% formal plan for contact and two-way communication
• 46% formal and informal interaction and sharing among participants
• 21% positive growth process apart from formal employee evaluation process

Top of Page

Guideline VIII

Effective professional development includes assessment mechanisms for feedback by:

1. documenting the process and content.
2. including an evaluation of student learning.
3. recording changes in participant practices.
4. using evaluations, of the program and of student learning, for future planning and ongoing improvement.
5. sharing evaluation results with all partners and participants.
6. comparing results to the previously set goals.

When asked if the process followed (during the planning, delivery, and follow-up of the professional development) and the content delivered were documented for future reflection and planning, 70% (68% Yes, 2% Sometimes) of the original participants and 48% of the training respondents responded affirmatively. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the original respondents and 33% of the training respondents indicated that the activity included an assessment of its potential or actual impact on student learning. Thirty-two percent (32%) of original respondents and 38% of training respondents indicated a means to document changes in participant practices back in the school setting. Significantly more (91%) of original respondents than training respondents (42%) indicated that evaluations of the professional development activity were used to inform future planning or would be used. (Editor's note: It can probably be assumed, since evaluations of potential or actual impact on student learning were only included about a third of the time, that this feedback consisted primarily of the participants perceptions of the professional development's usefulness to them as educators, or their opinions on the quality of its content and delivery).

Information from the evaluation of the professional development activities was reported as shared back to planners or participants by 77% of the original respondents and 46% of the training respondents. When asked if any documented effects of the professional development activity were used to assess whether the original goals of the activity were met, 68% of the original respondents and 33% of the training respondents responded affirmatively. Only 40% of the original respondents and 18% of the training respondents replied that there was a plan for re-assessment of student achievement to compare to original baselines. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the original respondents and 24% of the training respondents reported feedback from the participants specifically on the items in Guideline V (learner-centered focus on needs of participants).

For the original respondents, affirmative responses to the Guideline VIII assessment questions were lower over all than for questions asked about other Guidelines. Overall affirmative responses to the Guideline VIII assessment questions were also low for the training respondents. This is consistent with the responses analyzed previously under the Guideline II cycle of effective practice findings.

Top of Page

Closing Questions

Questions asked at the end of the in-depth interviews were:

1. How would you rate the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices overall as a planning tool for professional development?
2. Has the availability of the Professional Development Guidelines changed the way you plan and deliver professional development opportunities, or the way you choose the professional development opportunities in which you participate?
3. How would you rate the Professional Development Guidelines overall as an assessment tool to help evaluate the effectiveness of professional development offerings?
4. Has the availability of the Professional Development Guidelines changed the way you choose goals for professional development or the way you determine whether you have reached those goals?
5. Do you feel the Professional Development Guidelines is a useful tool that you will use as part of the formal school improvement process?
6. Do you feel the Professional Development Guidelines would be an effective standard for deciding if professional development activities should be approved as continuing education credit for renewal of educational licensure in North Dakota?
7. Has this interview process itself provided you with reflective information or ideas that will be useful in your future professional development efforts?
8. Are there any suggestions you would like to make regarding what would enable you to provide better professional development for yourself or other educators or to enable better use of the Professional Development Guidelines in educational improvement?

When asked to rate the Guidelines as an overall planning tool, 100% of the original respondents rated them as useful (93% Very, 7% as Somewhat). Seventy-three percent (61% Very, 12% Somewhat) of the training respondents rated them as useful.

It should be noted that 24-30% of the training participants chose not to respond to the closing questions 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 compared to 5% of the original participants. Likewise, 24-28% of the training participants stated that their professional development practices in regard to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 had not changed. It is logical to assume that this is because most of the trainees had not yet had a chance to apply the Guidelines except for the few weeks between the first and second days of the training. Narrative comments by the training participants included what parts of the Guidelines they felt could be implemented, or what they felt should be done in their schools as a result of what they had learned.

Seventy-three percent (47% Significantly, 16% Somewhat) of the original participants said the Guidelines have changed the way they plan, deliver, or choose professional development compared to 59% (37% Significantly, 12% Somewhat) of the training participants. Ninety-three percent (84% Very, 9% Somewhat) of the original respondents and 64% (46% Very, 18% Somewhat) of the training respondents felt the Guidelines would be a useful tool to assess the quality of professional development offerings. Fifty-two percent (34% Significantly, 18% Somewhat) of the original respondents and 46% (34% Significantly, 12% Somewhat) of the training respondents felt the Guidelines changed the way they choose goals and determine if they have reached those goals. Both groups' narrative comments included indications that there is still a need for more assessment and feedback and that the Guidelines made them reflect on what they are doing or not doing in this area.

Closing question number five asked whether the Guidelines were a useful tool to be used as part of the formal school improvement process. Eighty-eight percent (84% Yes, 4% Some) of the original respondents and 73% of the training respondents felt the Guidelines were. Seven percent (7%) of the original respondents and 27% of the training respondents felt the Guidelines were not.

When asked if the Guidelines would be an effective standard for deciding if professional development activities should be approved as continuing education for re-licensure, 82% (75% Yes, 7% Sometimes) of the original respondents and 49% of the training participants responded affirmatively. The narrative responses indicated some differences in respondents' perception of the implications of this question. Some felt it meant the state department or ESPB may decide what content to offer and felt that should be determined locally, based on local goals. Others seemed to feel the type of professional development accepted for re-licensure should be flexible or that applying a standard may be too complicated a process to manage. Most respondents expressed that the Guidelines were a good template and allowed for flexibility while assuring school-based input, credibility of content, and value-added as a result of the activity.

One hundred percent (100%) of the original respondents and 70% of the training respondents felt the interview questions and process itself had provided them with reflective information or ideas that would be useful in their future professional development efforts.

The final narrative comments included requests for more support for professional development (primarily funding, time in school calendar and foundation aid to cover the extra days), support for educators as they try new ideas, longitudinal approaches to monitoring student success, making all educators aware of the importance of professional development and how the Guidelines can be used.

Top of Page

Recommendations

The majority of respondents in all interviewed groups indicated that the Professional Development Guidelines were or could be a useful planning and evaluation tool and that the Guidelines and related interview questions made them reflect more deeply and purposefully on their practices. The fact that those already using model practices before the Guidelines were printed, those new participants in the training sessions, and the general survey in the initial interviews all indicated these things encourages continued training on and application of the Guidelines. The work-to-date on the project has provided information that can be developed into rubrics to guide educators and help them progress more systematically in effective application of the Guidelines.

Pat Beil, while conducting the interviews, noted a great deal of interest in learning more from peers. Rubrics developed from actual peer experience could begin to do that. She also recommended putting original respondents in touch with training respondents to share information in a coaching or mentoring relationship. This could also happen during the next year's training sessions. If additional coaching and mentoring relationships can be established it would create more follow-up support for those attending training sessions and would raise awareness of who the resource people are in various regions. These were areas of weakness identified in initial interview questions 5 and 6 and in Guideline VII.

The data was somewhat unclear as to whether a weakness existed in the incorporation of valid research and proven theory. This area should be watched in future activities for more conclusive evidence.

The areas that were consistently weaker were those involving follow-up support and assessment. Individual educators and schools expressed a need for additional training to 1) appropriately use a variety of assessments to identify professional development needs and set goals, and 2) use pre-planned, follow-up evaluations to see how the goals are impacted by the professional development activities implemented to address those goals. One of the recommendations called for in the original paper on the Guidelines project (Jensen, 1997) was in fact to attach more reliable assessments to professional development plans.

In response to the evaluation findings, a fourth-year grant proposal was submitted and was funded in June of 1999. The fourth year proposal will focus on the greatest area of weakness in assessment. It will also incorporate elements to strengthen secondary weaknesses in follow-up support within the project itself and consistent use of credible research and standards. This will be accomplished by developing an assessment training model, providing a coordinated list of trainers and other resources across the state, and conducting training using the model. The assessment training will include modules on a variety of types of assessment that can be used by individuals or districts to determine professional development needs and evaluate the results of professional development activities. These modules may include 1) the use of student assessment data (baseline and longitudinal) gathered through existing testing and school improvement processes, 2) use of qualitative information from surveys, 3) use of standards and performance indicators in content areas, 4) use of supervision strategies and performance indicators to document changes in teacher behaviors, 5) methods of systematically planning and documenting personal development goals, 6) documentation of interactive professional development processes such as mentoring and collegial study groups, 7) use of the Professional Development Guidelines with rubrics to assist schools in determining longitudinal gains in the effective, purposeful use of professional development.

The fourth-year grant activities will once again be coordinated through the VCATC with Valley City Public Schools as fiscal agent. The grant model and training will be developed by contacting and coordinating information from the Education Standards and Practices Board, the Department of Public Instruction, the North Central Association, the ND Colleges of Teacher Education, the ND English/Language Arts Project, the ND Mathematics and Science Alliance, and other professional groups with existing educational assessment expertise.

The list of resources and trainers developed in the fourth year of the project's funding will be facilitated through the North Dakota Teacher Center Network. The Centers work closely with local schools and professional organizations across the state and have the expertise to draw this information together and to make it readily available statewide.

The third-year evaluation and the fourth-year assessment training address goals of the educators, districts, and consortia involved to improve what they do in professional development and use their limited resources as wisely as possible. The project also supports the role of the Education Standards and Practices Board to develop models for schools to use as they seek to improve professional development, to assess state needs, to project programs responsive to those needs, and to identify resources needed to implement those programs.

Top of Page

Reflection

The evaluation of the past three years of this project strongly reflects the research base for the original development process. The extent to which both the experienced participants and the trainees valued professional development as an ongoing process is very encouraging. This attitude did not necessarily persist in the profession until the last few years and represents some positive shift in the paradigm of professional development (Sparks, 1994) in the state of North Dakota. This could indicate an overall awareness of the importance of lifelong learning in the information age and an increased level of professionalism among educators. The new paradigm for professional development is alive in this project which seeks to inform and empower the profession and involve school communities rather than operating in the old top-down paradigm.

The data indicating influence on the way schools provide support (time and funding for professional development, and coaching and mentoring support), while not large (42% and 37-79% respectively) still showed exciting and promising aspects. Narrative comments indicated that where the Guidelines were influencing support, it was in the words of one respondent "deep not wide". Where the paradigms were shifting and educators were making commitments to the importance of purposeful professional development, they were substantial commitments. Administrators and systems who were supporting professional development were doing so in a systemic and systematic way and effectively combating barriers with creative solutions. This was evident in the original documentary videos as well.

The sometimes sharp difference in awareness and adoption between the original participants and the training participants is consistent with the fact that implementation of any new idea and the change process involved often take two-three years (or more) to show results. (Bridges, 1991; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992). The original respondents were part of the original project because of their experience in professional development.

While most participants still indicated a teacher-centered or school-centered emphasis on professional development, many narrative comments conceptually supported student-centered plans. The comments that the Guidelines had caused participants to think differently about the role of professional development as it related to student learning were very substantial and important. This supports the concept that educators are most conscientiously interested in those changes that will directly benefit student learning in the classroom (Johnson, P.K., 1994). It may be as the project continues and assessments are better utilized to inform plans that this conceptual support will become stronger in practice and longitudinal effects can be measured. It is important that student benefit and assessment continue to be emphasized since only 18-40% of the respondents indicated that results were compared back to original baselines on student success.

The comments of participants in the 1999 trainings indicated that they were understanding the inter-relatedness of teaching and learning and the inter-relatedness of professional development and educational improvement (Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991; Wise & Darling-Hammond, 1991; Backes, 1996; Jensen, 1996) more clearly than comments following the initial training in 1996. Many training participants in 1996 had expressed feelings of being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the big picture, whereas more participants in 1999 were expressing what they felt their specific strengths and weaknesses were and how they would use the Guidelines to improve their current practices. This could have been due to improvements made in the training as a result of evaluations of the first training, or the more structured guidance provided by the interview instrument questions. It could also reflect more awareness of educational improvement in general that has taken place as schools continue to work through reform processes and are continuously reminded of the importance of professional development by professional groups and federal funding emphases.

Most of the school communities who expressed a strong history of success with professional development efforts showed positive use of communication and participatory process. They had clearly identified visions of what education should achieve and set common goals. They were also more often recognizing the importance of affective areas in personnel development that create ownership of new ideas and buy-in on the part of those expected to produce the changes. These are factors included in Guidelines III, V and VII supported in the original research (Luft, 1970; Johnson & Johnson, 1975; Fullan, 1991, Bridges, 1991; Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992; and Sergiovanni, 1995).

Perhaps the most encouraging and humbling aspect of the evaluation was that educators in North Dakota continue to unflaggingly seek to improve themselves and the education of the students in their charge in spite of continuing barriers. Constant frustration was expressed over lack of funding, lack of time, and lack of support from local communities and state legislation. Rather than succumbing to battle fatigue, educators in the interviews and the training process continued to hold an inspiring vision for the future of education in general and continued to make progress using whatever creative means were available. It is hoped that in the future this dedication to the students of North Dakota can be more positively recognized and supported.

Top

Back

Print Friendly Version