Professional Development
Professional Development Project
History of Professional Development Guidelines Project in ND
- Chapter I: Introduction
- Chapter II: Background of the Project
- Chapter III: Methodology
- Chapter IV: Presentation of the Interview Data
Chapter I: Introduction
The Quality Professional Development Project began in 1995, supported by a grant from the Goals 2000 Educate America Act. This project produced the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices document published by the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board. The collaborative partners in this continuing project are Valley City Public Schools, the Greater Barnes County Consortium of Schools, the North Dakota Teacher Center Network, and the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board. This report provides information on the impact of the project over the past four years and gives insight to districts seeking to move ahead toward making professional development plans a more purposeful part of the overall improvement of education for students.
The purposes of the project when it began in 1995 were to: 1) determine guidelines for best practices that will assist educators in improving the design and delivery of professional development opportunities, and 2) to provide a reflective discussion of how barriers to effective professional development can be overcome. It was the intent that the systematic application of the guidelines and the reflection process would: 1) help educators build a cycle of ongoing professional development into the overall process of education improvement, and 2) increase the effectiveness of professional development's impact on student success in a positive and measurable way.
- Professional Development Guidelines (16kb pdf)
Chapter II: Background of the Project
Valley City Public Schools has served as fiscal agent for the collaborative project since it began. The Greater Barnes County Consortium was involved in the earliest development stages along with other regional sites and continues to be one of the key pilot sites for new activities. The ND Teacher Center Network assisted in all years of the project by arranging video taping sites, facilitating workshops and graduate credit, and conducting evaluation interviews. The Education Standards and Practices Board staff assisted with grant writing, coordination of statewide activities, video production, research and analysis, and publication of the project products and reports.
Fiscal Year 1996-1997: Quality Professional Development Project Year One
The Quality Professional Development Standards Project funded during fiscal year 1996-1997: 1) developed the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices which reflect both successful models within the state and national research on effective practice, 2) produced supporting video materials documenting examples of models within the state and solutions to the common barriers of time, funding, etc., and 3) trained teams of experts in each Teacher Center region who would be available to assist schools in their professional development planning. The videos and materials placed at the state's ten Teacher Centers continue to be checked out and used by educators. Complete information about the developmental process and research base is printed in an independent study project at the University of North Dakota (Jensen, 1997).
Since their development, the Guidelines have been used to train 152 individuals on best practices in professional development. An initial training was held November 15-16, 1996 with 32 trained. Two additional trainings were conducted in the third year of the grant, one in Valley City with 78 participants January 28 and February 16, 1999, and one in Bismarck/Mandan with 42 participants March 3 & 16, 1999. Many awareness sessions have been conducted at conferences and professional meetings.
During the first three years of the grant, the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices document and videos were shown at the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), and the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) national conferences. Articles mentioning the Guidelines appeared in the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McRel) and National Staff Development Council (NSDC) newsletters. Copies of the Guidelines have been requested by several other states seeking to improve the effectiveness of professional development for their teachers.
Fiscal Year 1997-1998: Quality Professional Development Project Year Two
The goals of the second-year continuation grant (1997-98) were to develop a one semester hour course for standards-based instruction using the key precepts in the Professional Development Guidelines and deliver that training in two pilot sessions. Five individuals were selected from the ND Mathematics and Science Alliance to develop and administer standards-based instruction workshops using the North Dakota and national standards in these areas. These individuals met and developed syllabi for one-semester hour courses for each of these two subject areas. Two workshops scheduled and advertised to take place August 6-7, 1998 in the Valley City and Devils Lake Teacher Center regions did not attract enough participants and had to be cancelled. The syllabi developed through the second-year grant efforts remain and can be used by the trainers to deliver credit workshops as teachers in the state become more aware of the North Dakota curriculum standards and benchmarks being developed by the Department of Public Instruction. Information gained from the Standards-Based Instruction Conference sponsored by the MidContinent Educational Research Laboratory in October, 1997 and the National Academy on the Alignment of Standards and Teacher Development for Student Learning in Washington, DC June 5-6, 1998 in combination with the information from the interview evaluation data will enable the writing of rubrics for the Professional Development Guidelines themselves. The rubrics will guide educators in designing purposeful professional development plans that will be more likely to have a positive impact on student success.
Fiscal Year 1998-1999: Quality Professional Development Project Year Three
The third year of the Quality Professional Development Project self-study evaluation is reported in this document. The purposes of the evaluation and procedures followed are discussed in Chapter III Methodology. The compiled data is presented in Chapter IV.
Fiscal Year 1999-2000: Quality Professional Development Project Year Four
The fourth year of the Quality Professional Development Project received funding in June of 1999. It will provide additional training on how to use multiple assessments within the cycle of effective professional development practice outlined in Guideline II. The additional emphasis on assessment was requested by educators participating in the project and validated through the self-study evaluation data. The fourth year proposal activities are outlined in Chapter V: Summary of Findings, Recommendations, and Reflection.
Chapter III: Methodology
The third-year self-study evaluation of the project used a statewide interview process to determine exactly how the Professional Development Guidelines: Effective Practices (Guidelines) were being applied in professional development activities and how teachers and administrators perceive that these activities have effected their educational practices. This evaluation served to provide information on the effectiveness of the professional development activities in which the respondents were involved. It also helped identify strengths and weaknesses in the Guidelines or the manner in which they were applied.
The interview instrument was developed by Deb Jensen of the Education Standards and Practices Board using the Professional Development Guidelines themselves as the template for the interview questions. The interview questions are reprinted with the presentation of the data in Chapter IV. Copies of the initial and in-depth interview evaluation instruments also appear in Appendix A. The interview instrument included yes/no responses, a five-point quantitative response scale which was converted to a three-point scale in the final analysis, and opportunities for narrative comments. The interviews were conducted by Pat Beil, Director of the Valley City Area Teacher Center with assistance from the North Dakota Teacher Center Network. Individuals interviewed included those who were involved in the formative stages of the Quality Professional Development Project and those who were involved in the subsequent training sessions after the Guidelines were developed. Those involved in the formative stages included members of the original statewide Goals 2000 Professional Development Subcommittee, the Professional Development Guidelines writing committee, those who were involved in the videos, members of the North Dakota Teacher Center Network, and training participants from the original training-of-trainers in November of 1996. Training participants from the two training sessions held January - March 1999 were also interviewed. Data on the interviewees appears with the presentation of responses in Chapter IV.
A letter explaining the self-study evaluation of the project and a copy of the Professional Development Guidelines were sent to each potential interviewee prior to the first phone contact. The letter explained that Pat Beil would be calling to see if they would be interested in taking part in the evaluation. The interview process included two phases. In phase one a phone call was made to the interviewees in which they were asked fourteen initial interview questions regarding their awareness of and use of the Professional Development Guidelines, videos, and trainers. The initial interviews were conducted during the fall of 1998 and spring of 1999. Those indicating substantial knowledge of the Guidelines or substantial involvement in professional development were contacted for the second phase, in-depth interview. The in-depth interview consisted of fifty-six questions following the format of the Guidelines and eight closing questions on overall perceptions about the usefulness of the Guidelines. Multiple respondents from the same school or consortia were interviewed separately.
The participants in the 1999 training sessions in Valley City and Bismarck/Mandan completed the interview evaluation instrument as part of their assignment for graduate credit. They responded to the same fifty-six questions and eight closing questions as those who were originally involved in the project. Participants attended the training in teams consisting of teachers, administrators, professional development committee members, and professional development providers. They completed the interview instrument as a team. The training participants worked on the interview instrument in class and did research on some of the questions back in their schools during the interim period between the first and second days of the training session.
The staff of the Valley City Area Teacher Center gathered and compiled the interview information. Six data sets were produced:
- Data Set A, Greater Barnes County Constortium (GBCC) in-depth interviews,
- Data Set B, interview assignment from the 1999 Valley City training session,
- Data Set C, interview assignments from the 1999 Bismarck/Mandan training session,
- Data Set D, in-depth interviews from all original participants from across the state other than those from the GBCC,
- Data Set E, in-depth interviews of professional development providers, and
- Data Set F, all of the initial interviews.
Analysis of the data was completed by Deb Jensen, Assistant Director of the ND Education Standards and Practices Board. Data sets of like respondents were combined resulting in three categories of responses:
- Combined Data Sets A, D, and E: In-depth Interviews in which respondents with significant involvement are commenting on authentic professional development experiences,
- Combined Data Sets B and C: In-Depth Interviews resulting from the assignment in the 1999 training sessions, and
- Data Set F: Initial Interviews.
The decision to keep Combined Data Sets A, D, and E separate from Combined Data Sets B and C was made for two reasons. First, the training participants completing the interview instrument as part of their graduate credit assignment were given a choice of either completing the interview instrument as an evaluation of an authentic professional development activity or as a hypothetical planning tool, depending upon their beginning experience levels. The training data sets therefore include some information that is based upon expectation or personal perception rather than actual events. Second, those who were part of the 1995-96 developmental process were already experienced in using some of the standards that became part of the Guidelines before the Guidelines were finalized. Keeping the groups separate allows for comparisons based upon these varied perspectives. Comparison and triangulation of information in all three data sets provided a better analysis of the usefulness of the Guidelines format and the principles represented in the Guidelines from the varied perspectives. The interview questions and responses, compiled into these three data sets (ADE, BC, and F), are presented in Chapter IV.
Chapter IV: Presentation of the Interview Data
The abridged copy of the report contains only Chapters I, II, III and V. It does not include the complete Chapter IV data compilation included in pages 9-77 of the unabridged report. A synopsis and analysis of the findings is presented in Chapter V. Copies of the interview questions are included in Appendix A. Tables summarizing the quantitative response data appear in Appendix B.
Readers of the abridged report are encouraged to review the complete narrative responses in Chapter IV for additional information. Readers can obtain the complete Chapter IV presentation of data from the Education Standards and Practices Board.
Top
Back
Print Friendly Version