1. QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ASYNCHRONOUS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
by
Margie Teel Johnson
Copyright 2014
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
University of Phoenix
2. ii
The Dissertation Committee for Margie Teel Johnson certifies approval of the following
dissertation:
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ASYNCHRONOUS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Committee:
Vicki Purslow, EdD, Chair
Carolyn P. Haas, EdD, Committee Member
Diane Hughes, EdD, Committee Member
_________________________
Vicki Purslow
_________________________
Carolyn P. Haas
_________________________
Diane Hughes
_________________________
Jeremy Moreland, PhD
Dean, School of Advanced Studies
University of Phoenix
Date Approved: November 14, 2014
3. iii
ABSTRACT
E-learning has become an option for delivering teacher professional development for
many school districts in K-12 public education (Killion, 2013). One method of e-
learning is asynchronous professional development, particularly professional
development portals. Portals provide a single entry point for accessing a variety of
resources. The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the
factors influencing the use of My HUB, an asynchronous professional development
portal, and to identify the portal features district teachers perceived as useful for
improving their teaching. Data were collected from three sources: usage data reports, a
questionnaire, and a focus group. Three themes emerged from the data analysis:
knowledge management, collaboration, and accessibility. Teachers acknowledged the
convenience of having resources in one location for collaborating with others and
improving their teaching. However, teachers expressed uncertainty about the purpose of
the portal and the district’s expectations for using it. District administration needs to
develop a clear purpose about how teachers use the portal and a two-way communication
plan.
4. iv
DEDICATION
Nothing we do can be accomplished alone. I am thankful for my awesome and
loving support system throughout this journey. First, I thank my wonderful husband,
Mark. Without your support and encouragement, this journey would not have even been
a thought in my mind much less a reality. You are my biggest cheerleader not only in
words, but in deeds. I cannot imagine “doing life” with anyone else. I thank my
awesome sons--Samson, Caleb, and Asher. Each of you are unique blessings in my life.
All the nights that I put you to bed to then start writing, you did not complain…..too
much. I am thankful God allowed me to be called your mommy. My final dedication
goes out to my parents, Charles and Rena Teel, who always told me to dream big and to
never quit. They have always been there for me.
5. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have helped me during the dissertation process. Dr. Vicki Purslow,
my mentor, was with me every step of the way. Dr. Vicki was not only knowledgeable,
but persistent. At times when I was struggling with figuring things out and with what to
do next, she provided the encouragement and guidance needed to move forward.
Without her support and motivation, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Also, I was fortunate to have Dr. Carolyn Haas and Dr. Diane Hughes, my committee
members, who provided objective reviews and recommendations of my work to improve
my dissertation. I also acknowledge the study participants in my study. Without your
willingness to participate in the study, no data would have been collected. Therefore, the
dissertation would not have been finished. Finally, I acknowledge my family and friends
who were my moral support throughout the process.
6. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Figures..............................................................................................................................x
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................1
Background......................................................................................................................2
Statement of Problem.......................................................................................................4
Purpose of Study..............................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................8
Theory of Change ................................................................................................8
Activity Theory....................................................................................................9
Nature of the Study..........................................................................................................11
Overview of Research Method ............................................................................12
Overview of Research Design .............................................................................13
Research Questions..........................................................................................................14
Definition of Terms..........................................................................................................15
Assumptions.....................................................................................................................16
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations.............................................................................16
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................17
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ..................................................................................................19
Historical Background of Teacher Professional Development........................................20
Federal Role in Teacher Professional Development............................................22
7. vii
Methods of Delivery of Teacher Professional Development...............................25
Theories of Evaluating Teacher Professional Development................................27
Current Findings ..............................................................................................................30
Efficacy of Workshops ........................................................................................30
Efficacy of Action Research ................................................................................32
Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching....................................36
Summary of the Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching .........47
Efficacy of Online Teacher Professional Development.......................................48
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................57
Summary..........................................................................................................................58
Chapter 3: Research Methods......................................................................................................60
Appropriateness of Research Method..............................................................................60
Appropriateness of Research Design...............................................................................61
Population and Sample ....................................................................................................62
Informed Consent.............................................................................................................62
Confidentiality .................................................................................................................63
Data Collection ................................................................................................................64
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................66
Dependability and Credibility..........................................................................................68
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................69
Summary..........................................................................................................................70
Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of Data .............................................................................72
Epoche..............................................................................................................................72
8. viii
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................73
My HUB Usage Reports ......................................................................................73
Questionnaire.......................................................................................................75
Synthesis of My HUB Report Data and Questionnaire .......................................77
Focus Group.........................................................................................................78
Findings by Themes.............................................................................................79
Summary and Conclusion................................................................................................87
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................89
Discussion of Findings and Implications.........................................................................89
Theme 1: Knowledge Management.....................................................................90
Theme 2: Collaboration .......................................................................................91
Theme 3: Accessibility ........................................................................................93
Limitations.......................................................................................................................95
Recommendations for School Leaders and Teachers ......................................................95
Suggestions for Future Research .....................................................................................97
Summary and Conclusion................................................................................................98
References....................................................................................................................................99
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form .........................................................................................129
Appendix B: Premises, Recruitment, and Name Use Permission ...............................................132
Appendix C: Data Access and Use Permission Form..................................................................135
Appendix D: Non-respondent Memo...........................................................................................137
Appendix E: Focus Group E-mail................................................................................................138
Appendix F: Initial Questionnaire ...............................................................................................139
9. ix
Appendix G: CVR Participation Email........................................................................................141
Appendix H: Content Validity Ratio (CVR) for each Questionnaire Item.................................142
Appendix I: My HUB Questionnaire...........................................................................................144
10. x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Learning Forward's Proposed Theory of Change ..............................................9
Figure 2: Engestrom's Activity Theory Model for the My HUB......................................11
Figure 3: Number of Teachers Accessing My HUB per Month for Study Population
(N=41)...............................................................................................................................74
Figure 4: My HUB Teacher Distinct Logins for Study Population (N=41).....................75
11. xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Outcomes of Professional Development Training With and Without Follow-Up
Coaching ...........................................................................................................................42
Table 2: Types and frequency of Open Code Labels, by Category..................................76
Table 3: Axial coding and selective coding chart for open coded labels .........................77
Table 4: Major Themes from Coded Responses to My HUB Questionnaire...................78
Table 5: Major Themes from Subthemes for Accessibility..............................................84
12. 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Educational reformers challenge schools to improve the academic achievement of
all students, especially by closing the achievement gaps among diverse student
populations (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). “At no time in American history is
the possession of skills and education so necessary for individuals’ economic self-
sufficiency and the country’s national competitiveness” (Gatta, 2009, p. 109). While
many factors affect student achievement, the student’s teacher has more effect on student
achievement than any other factor (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Buddin &
Zamarro, 2009).
The quality of instruction students receive in the classroom is the most important
factor in student achievement (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003). When placed with a high
performing teacher, students perform three times higher on student achievement
assessments than their peers (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Transforming schools and
improving education for all students requires equipping every classroom with an effective
teacher (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; National Council on Teacher Quality,
2011; Stronge, 2010), which includes providing teachers with continual access to
professional development (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos,
2009).
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB by district teachers as a professional development
delivery method to improve their teaching. Chapter one includes a review of the
background, problem statement, purpose of the study, significance of the study, and
13. 2
theoretical framework. The chapter will also include the nature of the study, research
questions, definition of terms, assumptions, scope, limitations, delimitations, and a
chapter summary.
Background
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 established federal mandates of
high academic achievement standards for all students in math and reading and for closing
the achievement gap among subgroup populations, including students with disabilities,
English language learners, economically disadvantaged, and ethnic groups (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). “No generation of educators in the history of the
United States has ever been asked to do so much for so many” (DuFour & Marzano,
2011, p. 5). To meet the challenge, school districts need to develop effective teachers in
every classroom by providing continuous access to high-quality professional
development to improve their teaching effectiveness (DuFour & Marzano, 2011;
Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Learning Forward, 2011; National Education Association,
2010). To provide professional development to all teachers with limited resources,
districts must find innovative, cost-effective delivery methods (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Demir, 2010; Killion, 2013).
Limited resources led many organizations to leverage technology to provide
professional development because traditional delivery methods of professional
development cost time and money and provide little or no follow-up (Guskey & Yoon,
2009; Joyce, 2009). Electronically delivered professional development, or e-learning,
provides cost-effective access to professional development (Chen, Huang, & Shih, 2002;
Knowledge Advisors, 2010; Yang & Liu, 2004). Faced with a global, knowledge-based
14. 3
economy, corporations and higher education institutions turned toward e-learning as a
solution for remaining competitive in the late 1990s (Larson-Daugherty & Walker, 2010;
Seraphim, 2010). Because e-learning reduces cost and increases efficiency, e-learning
represented 23.36% of workplace training by the end of 2006 (American Society for
Training & Development, 2011, p. 38). The economic downturn in 2007 resulted in
tightened financial resources for K-12 education (National Bureau of Economic
Research, 2010). Many school districts followed the lead of other organizations by
implementing e-learning strategies as a cost-effective alternative to delivering school-
based professional development for teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
In 2008, a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States began an
initiative to decentralize professional development. Professional development would no
longer be managed by central office administration. The focus of the initiative was for
school administrators and school leadership teams to assess the needs of the school and
develop a professional development plan (Dr. C. Smith, personal communication, July 8,
2008). The role of the central office administration was to facilitate these processes and
provide resources as requested by the school leadership teams to build the schools’
capacity to improve student achievement (Leana, 2011).
To support school-based professional development, the school system began
investigating online professional development delivery methods. In January 2014, the
school system launched My HUB, an asynchronous professional development delivery
portal provided for teachers in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United
States (K. McKinney, personal communication, April 2013). Teachers use the portal to
register for synchronous events (face-to-face workshops and webinars) and to access
15. 4
asynchronous materials (online courses, instructional materials, classroom videos,
lectures, podcasts, webinars, and self-directed courses). To assist teachers in improving
instruction, all portal resources correlate with the state’s teacher evaluation program. The
correlation allows professional development resources to be recommended to teachers
based on their evaluation results to help them improve their teaching effectiveness (K.
McKinney, personal communication, October 30, 2012).
Statement of Problem
Teachers need to improve the academic achievement of all students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002) by improving the quality of instruction in their
classrooms (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003). To support teachers in improving teaching
effectiveness, school districts must focus on providing teachers access to high-quality
professional development (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010;
National Education Association, 2010). The economic downturn limited the resources
available and challenged districts to leverage technology for providing professional
development (Killion, 2013).
The general problem is students need access to high performing teachers to make
significant academic achievement gains each year and to close the achievement gaps (Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Buddin & Zamarro, 2009; Hattie, 2009). Research
showed that professional development increases teachers’ abilities to provide high-
quality instruction (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009), which may result in reduced gaps in
student achievement. The specific problem is teachers need access to high-quality
professional development for the improvement and refinement of teaching to increase
16. 5
teacher effectiveness (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Killion,
2011).
A large, urban school system in the southeastern United States created My HUB
to provide teachers with access to high-quality professional development. The single-
location descriptive case study included data from My HUB usage data reports, a
questionnaire, and a focus group. Because the portal was a new implementation, it
remained unknown how teachers were using the portal. Data were collected from My
HUB usage reports provided by the program director, through a questionnaire
adminstered to teachers, and through a follow-up focus group with teachers.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers
perceived as useful for improving their teaching. Implementing an evidence-based
program provides “an opportunity to learn more about the program itself and the
conditions under which it can be used with fidelity and good effect” (Fixsen, Naoom,
Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005, p. 17). From the study, the school system learned
more about the portal and recommendations for improving its implementation so teachers
continue to improve their teaching effectiveness.
The identification of common themes and patterns teachers perceived about My
HUB as a professional development delivery method was facilitated through a qualitative
descriptive case study. The participants represented a middle school with grades five
through eight. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect perception data. The
focus group was to triangulate the usage report and questionnaire data. The multiple data
17. 6
sources provided qualitative data, which was suitable for a qualitative descriptive case
study (Yin, 2009).
A qualitative approach was the best choice for the study because it allowed the
researcher to explore, compare, and assess teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about My
HUB as a professional development delivery method. The qualitative method included
data from three sources: portal usage reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group with
teachers that documented their perceptions of My HUB. Coding and descriptive analysis
was used for data analysis to identify common patterns and themes.
A case study approach was the best choice for the study because the portal was
studied within its context, which was important to building an explanation about how and
why the portal was used by teachers. Yin (2009) posited that case studies are the
preferred method when answering how and why questions about a contemporary event
because data from a variety of sources, including having the persons involved respond to
a questionnaire, are collected. A descriptive case study allowed for a complete
description of the phenomenon within its context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011), which
included 41 fifth through eighth grade teachers from a large, urban school system in the
southeastern United States, representing one middle school.
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study to students is that students need a high-quality
education to remain competitive in a global economy and increase their quality of life.
Students who have high-quality teachers, coupled with measurable gains in achievement,
increase their wage earnings at the age of 28 by approximately $25,000 per year (Chetty,
Friedman, & Rockoff, 2012). To improve schools and positively affect students’ lives,
18. 7
teacher effectiveness must be increased (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Professional
development for teachers is critical in helping students achieve high academic standards
(Colbert, Brown, Choi, & Thomas, 2008). The results of the study contribute to the body
of knowledge about teacher professional development.
Teaching is complex with teachers facing new challenges each year, particularly
with an increase in the diversity of student populations (Garcia, 2012). Educational
administrators can support teachers facing these challenges by providing professional
development to help teachers improve their teaching skills and effectiveness (Mizell,
2010). When teachers feel administrative support, their sense of job satisfaction
increases. Professional development is a promising strategy “for retaining effective
teaching staff” (Mello, 2008, p. 40).
To provide assistance in school improvement, instructional leaders must be
empowered to make evidence-based decisions about different delivery methods for
teacher professional development (Fullan, 2007). The significance to leaders and society
is that the results of the study revealed if teachers perceive online professional
development as an effective alternative to traditional delivery methods. Online
professional development allows teachers access to more professional development
options in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Professional development aligned to
teachers’ professional development needs may increase their teaching effectiveness and
student learning.
The significance of the study also has implications for society. Teacher quality is
“very significantly and positively correlated with student outcomes” (Darling-
Hammonds, 1999, p. 29), including choosing not to drop out. When students drop out of
19. 8
high school, the nation’s economy is affected adversely. Researchers from the Alliance
for Excellent Education (2011) reported that approximately $154 billion is lost by the
nation because high school dropouts have lower incomes.
Another implication for society is the annual cost of teacher attrition. Half of the
teachers entering the professional leave within the first five years. Attrition costs $2.2
billion annually in the United States (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014, p. 3). The
results of the study may have major implications for improving teacher quality,
decreasing the dropout rate, decreasing teacher attrition rates, and improving the nation’s
economy.
Theoretical Framework
To examine the implementation of My HUB as a professional development tool,
the study was grounded in two theories: the theory of change and activity theory.
Teacher professional development is a complex process, particularly when delivered
online. Both theories have a direct application to the processes of an asynchronous
professional development delivery system.
Theory of Change
A theory of change is useful when examining complex processes, such as teacher
professional development, because the early and intermediate changes that occur are
documented. A theory of change is used to identify a long-term goal, but according to
the theory, intermediate steps must occur to reach that goal (Anderson, 2005).
Developing an explicit theory of change for professional development allows one to
specify the change to occur and “serves as a planning tool, an implementation tool, a
monitoring tool, and a tool for evaluating the program’s success” (Killion, 2003, p. 17).
21. 10
explaining the tools, rules, and division of labor involved in an activity (Kim, Chaudhury,
& Rao, 2002). Activity theory, as a framework for identifying and analyzing the
components of the activity, particularly how people interact with their environment, was
used to conceptualize e-learning (Mwanza, 2001; Nardi, 2001).
My HUB for professional development was a complex process with several
activities interacting. Using Engestrom’s activity theory model, the specific activities
being investigated in the study were represented in Figure 2. The tool was the portal.
The subjects included teachers from a large, urban school system in the southeastern
United States at a selected middle school. The object was to increase teachers’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions and to change teaching practice resulting in increased
student achievement. The portal allowed teachers to self-select resources and offered
recommendations for professional development based on individual teacher evaluations
and professional growth plans. The community was the district and the teacher’s
respective school. The division of labor was twofold—the district staff provided and
approves resources within the portal, and teachers accessed the resources.
22. 11
Figure 2: Engestrom's Activity Theory Model for the My HUB. Adapted from "Where
Theory Meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory Based Methodology to Guide
Computer System Design," by D. Mwanza, 2001, INTERACT 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 9-13 July 2001, Tokyo, Japan. Copyright
2001 by D. Mwanza. Retrieved from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/11804/1/Daisy_Japan_Interact_2001.pdf. Adapted with permission.
Nature of the Study
A qualitative descriptive case study was suitable for the research study based on
the identified problem and the focus of the study. The problem was teachers need access
to cost-effective, high-quality professional development to improve their teaching
effectiveness (Killion, 2011). The focus of the study was on the central phenomenon of
teacher use of My HUB as a professional development delivery method.
An objective of the qualitative descriptive case study was to understand factors
influencing the use of the portal by participating teachers as a professional development
23. 12
delivery method. A qualitative study permitted an understanding of the portal’s use in
the organization and a comprehension of the teachers’ experiences with the portal. The
study was limited to a set of unique conditions within one middle school with grades 5
through 8 in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States.
Overview of Research Method
Qualitative research involves studying a phenomenon within its context and
interpreting the perceptions people have about the phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
Teachers’ experiences with a new professional development portal are multidimensional
and required in-depth exploration best accomplished through a qualitative research
design. The intention of the qualitative design is the collection of in-depth, information-
rich data providing an extensive understanding of a bounded system (Turner, 2010). The
data may inform future decision-making about the implementation of the portal.
To collect data about the experiences of participants, qualitative research allows
for the selection of a nonrandom, purposeful sample (Merriam, 2009). Selected
participants provided details about their feelings and attitudes toward using My HUB as a
professional development delivery method. Participants had the opportunity to express
personal biases and concerns about using the portal. Qualitative research allowed for an
inductive approach that may inform the development of a theory (Merriam, 2009) about
the use of the portal.
A qualitative approach was more appropriate than quantitative research because
the objective was to explore the usage of a professional development delivery portal in a
unique setting. Both qualitative and quantitative research studies include the collection
and analysis of data. Unlike quantitative research that focuses on the identification of
24. 13
variables and statistical procedures, qualitative research allowed for contextualized data
(Merriam, 2009), which provided a deeper understanding of specific situations as
experienced by participants.
Overview of Research Design
A descriptive case study approach was the best design for exploring the usage of
My HUB. Case studies are the preferred research strategy when exploratory research
questions are being asked about a phenomenon and allow an in-depth investigation within
the real-life context (Yin, 2009). The portal was investigated in its context.
Three types of case studies exist: descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. A
descriptive case study was used in the study. A descriptive case study involves
investigating an intervention in its real-life context (Yin, 2009) and attempting to provide
a complete account of the phenomenon in its context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The
research questions aimed at answering how and why questions to determine the worth of
My HUB to the organization. A descriptive case study design was the most appropriate
choice for addressing the research questions in the study.
An explanatory case study involves the examination of the effect of a program
(Morra & Friedlander, n.d.). Researchers begin the study with an accurate description of
the case. After considering alternative explanations, a theory about causation is
developed (Harder, 2010). This approach was not suitable for the research study because
causation was not being investigated.
An exploratory case study involves beginning data collection without defined
research questions. Researchers begin the study with a broad scope, which may lead to
alternative study design approaches being used throughout the study (Yin, 2009).
25. 14
Because clearly defined research questions and theoretical frameworks guided the study,
an exploratory approach was not appropriate for the study.
Other research designs, such as phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded
theory, were deemed inappropriate for the study. The objective of a phenomenological
design is to understand lived experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The research
questions about how and why teachers are using the portal cannot be answered with data
about their lived experiences. In an ethnography, a researcher studies the culture of
people (Falzon, 2012). The goal of the study was not to understand the culture of
teachers, but the use of the portal. The purpose of a grounded theory design is to
“construct a theory ‘grounded’ in the data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 2). While systematic data
collection and analysis approaches were used for the study, no theory was constructed.
Research Questions
The development of the study was guided by one central research question and
two sub questions.
CRQ 1. How might participating teachers use My HUB to help improve their
teaching, if at all?
SQ 1. Why does the use of My HUB vary among teachers, if at all?
SQ2. How can My HUB be improved, if at all, as a professional development
tool?
The research questions were designed to obtain insight into the use of the portal
by teachers as a professional development tool. The data may be used to guide further
implementation of the portal throughout the district. Other educational institutions and
26. 15
teachers may decide to explore the possibility of developing an asynchronous
professional development delivery system.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used throughout the study.
Asynchronous professional development: Professional development accessed at
any time (Rosenberg, 2001).
Collaboration: The coordination of people and resources within an organization
that can improve organizational performance by fostering creativity and integration
around specific problems (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
E-learning: Internet technologies used to deliver resources for enhancing
knowledge and performance (Rosenberg, 2001).
Knowledge Management: Technology system used for the dissemination of
resources and information throughout the organization (Amir & Parvar, 2014).
My HUB: The asynchronous professional development delivery portal provided
for teachers in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States (K.
McKinney, April 2013).
Portal: Online website that provides a single entry point for accessing a variety
of resources (Hartmann, 2012). Advanced portals also provide differentiated access to
resources based on a teacher’s role in the organization and tracks the individual’s usage
of the resources within the portal (Ethridge, Hadden, & Smith, 2000; Morrison, Buckley,
& Coppo, 1999).
27. 16
Assumptions
Four assumptions supported the study. The first assumption was the participants
are using My HUB for asynchronous professional development. The usage data reported
from the portal reflected the number and types of resources viewed by the participating
school. Second, the sample population was representative of the selected school. The
participants represented perspectives and experiences that may be representative of
teachers at the school but may not be generalizable to teachers in the entire district.
Third, the teachers wanted to participate in the study. Participation in the study by
teachers to share their perspectives about the portal was voluntary. Finally, participating
teachers responded honestly and completely to the questionnaire and focus group
questions.
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations
The study population included 41 fifth through eighth grade teachers from one
middle school in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States. Of the
41 teachers, a minimum convenience sample of 21 teachers was included. Participating
teachers responded to questions that reflected their perspectives about and experiences
with My HUB.
The study had two limitations. The first limitation was that of the honesty of the
participants’ responses to the initial questionnaire and subsequent focus group.
Responding honestly to questions about professional development may have been
difficult for teachers. Teachers may not have felt comfortable responding to questions
about how much - or how little - they use the portal. Reassurances of anonymity helped
foster truthfulness. If subjects feared scrutiny or repercussions, their perspectives and
28. 17
experiences may not have emerged. The My HUB usage reports confirmed My HUB
usage by teachers, but not the answers to the other questionnaire questions. A second
limitation was the generalizability of the study. Although the sample size was sufficient
for a qualitative study, it limited the generalizability of the study. The sample data may
not be representative of other schools.
The study had three delimitations. The intent of the study was to collect opinions
from invited participants working for one middle school in a large, urban school system
in the southeastern United States. The small sample size and the focus on the specific
school system limited the amount of data collected and the generalizability of the study.
Limiting the data collection period to three months helped ensure that the process was not
extended beyond the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
Chapter Summary
To improve classroom practice, teachers need continuous access to high-quality
professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Demir, 2010; DuFour & Marzano,
2011). Because of budgetary constraints, K-12 organizations are adopting e-learning for
professional development solutions. A large, urban school system in the southeastern
United States implemented My HUB, an asynchronous professional development
delivery portal, to support teachers in improving classroom practice.
Studying teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of My HUB may inform the
continued implementation of My HUB as a means of delivering professional
development. Chapter two includes a comprehensive literature review of the historical
background and current research of teacher professional development. Chapter two will
29. 18
also include a discussion of various delivery methods of teacher professional
development.
30. 19
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
In the knowledge economy of the 21st century, an organization’s best investment
is in building the capacity of its people (de la Fuente & Ciccone, 2003). Building
capacity requires continual professional development, so employees can learn new
information and skills (Cambell, 2004). In education, teacher professional development
is a priority for educational reform (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Desimone,
2009), which has led to much research in the field. A review of the research was
necessary to investigate the usage of My HUB as a professional development tool. The
specific topics reviewed in chapter two include the historical background, the federal role
in education, methods of professional development delivery, and theories of evaluating
teacher professional development. The chapter concludes with current findings, which
include the efficacy of various delivery methods in teacher professional development,
including online teacher professional development.
Scholarly, academic, and professional resources were reviewed. Searches in the
EBSCOhost, ERIC, and ProQuest databases resulted in more than a thousand articles. To
supplement the search, Google Scholar was used. The search terms and strings used to
conduct the literature search included teacher professional development, e-learning,
efficacy in professional development, online teacher professional development, job-
embedded professional development, and asynchronous learning. Additional search
terms included training practices, portals, distance learning, high-quality professional
development, workshops, action research, coaching, and effective teacher professional
development. A total of 148 articles were reviewed for chapter two.
31. 20
Historical Background of Teacher Professional Development
In the 1830s, politicians in the Massachusetts Commonwealth determined
teachers needed more training to provide quality instruction (Williams, 1937). At the
time, Horace Mann, known as the Father of American Education, laid the groundwork for
the American public school system. While leading the movement, Mann believed that
teachers instructing American students were not prepared (Sarason, 1990; Williams). In
preparation for teaching careers, some individuals attended an academy. Other teachers
had no education beyond the district schools they had attended (Williams). In response
to the lack of well-qualified teachers, Mann and other reformers created Teacher
Institutes, which were professional development opportunities that brought
underqualified teachers together to listen to lectures about new ideas in education. The
popularity of Teacher Institutes spread throughout the United States and remained the
primary model for teacher professional development until the 1930s (Richey, 1957).
By the 1930s, 32 states required teachers to complete college-level coursework.
Based upon a 1933 national survey of teachers, “three-fourths of teachers had attended
college two or more years” (Richey, 1957, p. 43). Because the purpose of Teacher
Institutes was to train underqualified teachers, Teacher Institutes became obsolete, and
other forms of professional development emerged, including teacher reading circles,
summer school, and extended college courses (Frazier, 1935).
In the 1950s and 1960s, inservices became the dominant method for providing
teacher professional development. Inservices usually occurred during a day when
students were not in the building (Killion, 2010). The teachers would gather in a central
location and listen to an expert present new ideas or current trends (Bellanca, 2009). The
32. 21
assumption behind inservices was, “If experts tell teachers what they need to know,
teachers will be able to put the knowledge into practice” (Killion, p. 6).
In the 1970s, inservices, shaped by district office staff and principals, became
known as staff development (Killion, 2010). The assumption was that effective teachers
learned what administrators wanted them to learn (Killion). Few concerted efforts of
staff development existed because of the lack of funding and low priority given to staff
development (McLaughlin, 1991; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). Growing concerns
about the effectiveness of staff development arose among researchers and educators, but
consensus grew that staff development had a critical role in school improvement (Sparks
& Loucks-Horsley).
In the 1980s, teachers had more choices for staff development (Killion, 2010),
which were based on a deficit model (Lieberman & Miller, 1999). The assumption of the
model was that because teachers lacked the knowledge and skills needed to improve
student achievement, outside experts needed to teach teachers how to improve student
learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Fullan, 2007; Lieberman &
McLaughlin, 1990). While teachers may have learned new information during the staff
development workshops, they received little feedback or follow-up upon returning to
school, and very little implementation occurred (Bean & Morewood, 2007; Guskey,
2000).
In the 1990s, educational reformers became concerned about the preparedness of
students for the 21st century and agreed that professional development must be at the
center of reforming education (U.S. Department of Education [DOE], 1995). Staff
development became known as professional development when the focus became the
33. 22
implementation of standards-based instruction. Teachers needed to learn a variety of
instructional strategies to help all students meet standards (Killion, 2010). Instead of the
central office personnel making decisions for schools, school personnel became the
decision makers regarding student learning.
Federal Role in Teacher Professional Development
In early American education, teacher professional development was not a focus of
federal legislation (McLaughlin, 1991). Various social, political, and educational
influences led to teacher professional development legislation beginning with the 1981
formation of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). Educational
policy changes and technological advances began to influence teacher professional
development during the late 20th century.
In 1981, the NCEE was formed, and members were charged with conducting a
thorough investigation of the current state of the American education system. After 18
months of investigating U.S. students’ achievement on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and
national assessments, the NCEE released A Nation at Risk (National Commission of
Excellence in Education, 1983). A Nation at Risk resulted in the initiation of major
educational reform in America, which focused on improving schools by moving toward a
national standards-based curriculum and student achievement testing system (Jorgensen
& Hoffman, 2003). A critical finding of A Nation at Risk was that many teachers did not
have the knowledge, skills, and training necessary to educate children effectively,
particularly in math and science. A corollary finding was a recommendation for more
time devoted to teacher professional development (National Commission of Excellence in
Education).
34. 23
One year after the release of A Nation at Risk, the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mathematics and Science Education Act passed as a legislative response. The act
earmarked $90,100,000 of federal funding for improving teachers’ knowledge and skills
and quality of instruction in math and science throughout the United States (U.S. DOE,
1995). The federal government distributed the funds to state educational agencies for
distribution to the states’ local educational agencies. Besides supporting mathematics
and science professional development and instruction, another benefit of the Eisenhower
Program was professional development research (Koppich, 2000).
In 1994, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act was
reauthorized as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). IASA expanded
the scope and purpose of the program beyond mathematics and science professional
development (Koppich, 2000). The new Eisenhower program provided funding for all
core academic subject area teachers to receive professional development. The goal was
to provide students with a high-quality education that prepares them for the next century
(Koppich).
In the 1990s, most teacher professional development “typically consisted of short,
stand-alone workshops on topics selected by schools and districts (often without
consulting teachers), along with college or university course taking” (Choy, Chen, &
Bugarin, 2006, p. 1). Researchers began questioning the effectiveness of traditional
professional development in meeting the academic needs of students (Corcoran, 1995;
Miller, 1995; Sprinthall, Reiman, & Theis-Sprinthall, 1996). In response to the research,
the U.S. DOE (1996) published Achieving the Goals: Goal 4 to support the
implementation of high-quality professional development. The recommendation posited
35. 24
that teachers needed professional development that was job-embedded, collaborative, and
sustainable through continuous access (U.S. DOE, 1996).
Despite Achieving the Goals, student performance did not improve, resulting in
additional professional development research (U.S. DOE, 2002b). The research had
major policy implications on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which
included new federal mandates of educational reform (Altwerger et al., 2004). Based
upon the legislation, state educational leaders were required to create academic standards
in reading and mathematics that students must meet. State educational leaders were also
required to calculate a school’s Average Yearly Progress using standardized tests scores
with disaggregated data by subgroups, including students with disabilities, English
language learners, economically disadvantaged, and ethnic groups (U.S. DOE, 2002b).
Tying federal funding to the reform efforts helped ensure that state educational officials
implemented NCLB because failure to do so would result in a loss of federal funding
(Tozer, Violas, & Senese, 2002).
NCLB required teachers to participate in high-quality professional development
(U.S. DOE, 2002a). To facilitate high-quality professional development throughout the
country, the U.S. DOE released a non-regulatory guidance document in 2002. The
document synthesized current teacher professional development research studies to
define effective professional development activities. The U.S. DOE (2002a) defined
effective professional development as “high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-
focused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the
teacher's performance in the classroom” (p. 87). Effective professional development was
not described as one-day workshops or short-term conferences. Although high-quality
36. 25
professional development was a requirement of NCLB, the lack of funding prohibited its
implementation.
Methods of Delivery of Teacher Professional Development
“Ninety-nine percent of public school teachers and 96 percent of private school
teachers” (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47) reported participating in different types of
professional development. Workshops and conferences were the most popular method of
professional development delivery with 94.8% of teachers participating (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009, p. 19). During workshops or conferences, teachers sit and listen
to external experts (Darling-Hammond et al.; Fullan, 2007).
The second most popular delivery method for teacher professional development,
at 46% (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47), was participation in research either individually or
collaboratively on a topic of interest. The delivery method included a variety of activities
and allowed teachers to promote their own learning. A teacher may read professional
publications or conduct action research (Joyce & Calhoun, 2010). Action research
involves using a disciplined inquiry approach of identifying a problem, gathering and
analyzing data, and trying a solution, with the intended outcome of improving
instructional practice (Hine, 2013).
Based upon the results of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Choy et al.
(2006) grouped mentoring, peer observation, and coaching together and reported that
42% of teachers had participated in these types of professional development (p. 47).
Many teachers reported receiving little or no feedback throughout their careers. One
common benefit of mentoring, peer observation, and coaching was feedback. Feedback
37. 26
allowed teachers to analyze and reflect upon instruction and improve upon it (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
Differences among these types of professional development existed. Mentoring
focused on supporting new teachers where the mentor is an expert teacher and expected
to support the mentee’s development as a teacher (McNulty & Fox, 2010). Peer
observations and coaching are not limited to new teachers. Peer observations occurred
when one teacher visits another teacher’s classroom to provide feedback and assistance
(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Coaches focused on improving student
achievement by helping teachers improve instructional skills and knowledge (Joyce &
Calhoun, 2010).
“Thirty-four percent of teachers surveyed had made observational visits to other
schools” (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47). Observational visits to other schools are similar to
peer observations. The observations allowed educators from one school to visit teachers’
classroom in another school. The purpose of the observational visits was twofold: to
provide feedback to the school being observed and to learn new strategies to implement
(Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).
Higher education institutions offered university courses. Teachers take university
courses for two reasons. One reason was for certification purposes; the other reason was
to keep current in the teaching field. In 1999-2000, 30% of teachers took a course
because of recertification or advanced certification, and 23% of teachers took a course to
stay current in their field (Choy et al., 2006).
The final delivery method of professional development identified by SASS was
teacher networks. Teachers learning together to change teaching practices and increase
38. 27
student learning formed teacher networks (Gilford, 1996). On a 1999-2000 survey,
teacher networks were “organized by an outside agency or available through the Internet”
(Choy et al., 2006, p. 47), and 25% of teachers had joined a network.
Theories of Evaluating Teacher Professional Development
A satisfaction survey administered at the end of a professional development
activity was the only evaluation for professional development for many years (Guskey,
2000; Killion, 2006). Professional development evaluation models focus on collecting
data about teacher changes in cognition, beliefs, and practice, and student achievement
(Guskey; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Killion). This section includes Guskey’s five levels of
evaluation, Killion’s evaluation framework, and Desimone’s core conceptual framework.
Guskey’s five levels of evaluation. Guskey (2000) proposes using five levels of
evaluation for professional development. The first level of evaluation focuses on
participants’ reactions. This evaluation is the most common and simplest form. Data
collection regarding participants’ reactions occurs in two ways. At the end of the
activity, a questionnaire eliciting participants’ views of the activity’s content, process,
and context is administered. Another data collection format is “the use of personal
learning logs or reflective journals” (Guskey, p. 105). The format allows participants to
record narrative reflections regarding the professional development activity.
The second level of evaluation involves gathering evidence of participants’
learning acquired as a result of the professional development experience. The level
measures “the knowledge, skills, and perhaps attitudes that the participant gained”
(Guskey, 2000, p. 83). No standardized measure for the level exists. The most common
forms are a competency assessment at the end of the workshop and personal reflection.
39. 28
The critical factor in measuring the participant’s learning is to identify learning goals for
the professional development prior to the professional development experience (Guskey).
The third level’s focus shifts from the individual to the organization. While
participants can make gains in levels one and two, these gains become minimal if
sufficient organizational support does not exist (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997). Level three
focuses “on organizational characteristics and attributes necessary for success” (Guskey,
2000, p. 84). Gathering data for the level is difficult and requires analysis of various
district and school records, including policies and meeting minutes (Guskey).
The focus of level four returns to the participant by measuring the implementation
of information learned from the professional development activity. Using clear indicators
of implementation, data collection may include questionnaires, structured interviews,
classroom observations, personal reflections, or journals. Gathering this level of
evaluation does not occur at the immediate completion of the professional development
activity. Time must elapse before collecting the data (Guskey, 2000).
Guskey’s final level of evaluation is level five and focuses on student learning
outcomes (Guskey, 2000). Multiple measures of student learning are essential for the
level (Joyce, 1993). Student assessment results, portfolio evaluations, teacher interviews
about student learning, and student standardized assessment scores are examples of data
used for measuring level five outcomes (Guskey).
Killion’s evaluation framework. Killion’s evaluation framework expands upon
Guskey’s five levels of evaluation by advocating for the thorough planning of the
professional development evaluation before implementation. The first step to the
framework is defining the professional development goals and objectives. A goal defines
40. 29
the desired purpose of the professional development and expected outcomes. An
objective refers to the desired changes expected from the professional development.
Instead of using evaluations at five levels as proposed by Guskey, goal setting before the
implementation of the professional development determines the level of evaluation
conducted (Killion, 2008).
The next step in evaluating professional development requires the establishment
of a theory of change. The theory of change outlines the sequence of events that should
occur to obtain the desired results. Other benefits for developing a theory of change
include creating a common language for all the stakeholders, minimizing the number of
implementation issues, and providing a framework for ongoing assessment of the
program (Killion, 2008).
The final step of Killion’s evaluation framework is creating a logic model for
professional development. “A logic model includes the theory of change and outlines the
program resources, or inputs, and the actions, or strategies, program designers plan to use
to produce the results (theory of change), and the outputs each action produces” (Killion,
2008, p. 46). A logic model applies the theory of change to the specific professional
development initiative. A critical component of a logic model is the identification of
initial and intermediate outcomes. These outcomes serve as benchmarks for the
professional development program and help assess progress toward the program’s goal
and make adjustments as necessary (Killion).
Desimone’s core conceptual framework. Desimone (2009) synthesized
professional development research studies to propose a core conceptual framework for
evaluating professional development. The foundations for the framework are the core
41. 30
and critical features of professional development. The core features of high-quality
professional development emerged from research and include collective participation,
active learning, content focus, duration, and coherence (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, &
Freeman, 2005; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007; Penuel et al., 2007). With these core
features in place, Desimone proposed an operational theory of change where the
intermediate steps to the outcome of student achievement are increased teacher
knowledge and skills, teacher change in attitudes and beliefs, and teacher change in
instruction. Using the core conceptual framework, the quality of professional
development studies is elevated and helps advance the field (Desimone).
Current Findings
Improving teacher quality and effectiveness throughout the United States are a
high priority (Obama, 2009). With the increasing demands of accountability and
decreasing educational budgets, questions about the effectiveness of professional
development emerged, and more research in the area has been conducted (Killion, 2013).
This section explored the efficacy of teacher professional development delivery methods
identified by the Schools and Staffing Survey, including workshops, action research,
mentoring, peer observation, coaching, and online teacher professional development.
Efficacy of Workshops
The most popular teacher professional development delivery method is
workshops (Choy et al., 2006). Traditionally, administrators plan a workshop with little
or no teacher input (Reeves, 2010; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). During the session,
external experts deliver information while teachers sit and listen with few opportunities
for collaboration and hands-on activities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Fogarty & Pete,
42. 31
2009; Reeves). Upon returning to their classrooms, teachers have workshop handouts
and notes, but continue to work in isolation without support or feedback about
implementing the change in their practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).
While some educators find workshops a waste of time and unrelated to their
professional practice (Nieto, 2009), workshops are not always ineffective (Van Keer &
Verhaeghe, 2005; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Educators can
increase their knowledge and skills, change instructional practice, and increase student
achievement (Reeves, 2010; Yoon et al.). Researchers recognize workshops that extend
the duration, occur at the school, and actively engage educators can lead to positive
results (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2013; Garet et al., 2001; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010).
Institutes, a workshop with an extended duration, are effective for helping
teachers improve their practice and student achievement (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Twenty
science teachers attending a weeklong summer workshop, or institute, demonstrated
positive results in teacher knowledge and skills (Ramlo, 2012). The mixed-method
research study explored the teacher’s understanding of force and motion concepts using
pre- and post-testing. All participants but one, who scored 100% on the pre-test,
demonstrated statistically significant gains in knowledge of forces and motion (Ramlo).
Another study supported workshops with extended duration. A quantitative
research study, which divided the 255 participants from 26 states into three treatment
groups based on the type of professional development method: one to three-hour
conference presentations; workshops lasting between four and 14 hours; and an institute
lasting up to 60 hours (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Participants completed a self-rating survey
to report the usefulness of the assigned professional development method in their
43. 32
classrooms. Researchers found positive results on teacher classroom practice as the
duration of the professional development increased (Dunst & Raab), which supported an
earlier meta-analysis study reporting that “more than 14 hours of professional
development showed a positive and significant effect on student achievement” (Yoon et
al., 2007, p. 3).
Educators rated on-site workshops as more beneficial than off-site conferences
and workshops (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Student populations differ from school to school.
On-site workshops addressed specific learning needs of their students and allowed time
for educators to focus on improving instruction at their school (Robinson, 2010).
Effective workshops engage participants and model classroom strategies (Garet et
al., 2001). The Enhancing Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation (ESP) project
was a series of professional development workshops created to help 19 secondary
mathematics teachers engage students in “cognitively challenging mathematical
activities” (Boston, 2013, p. 9). During the workshops, teachers participated in a
practice-based approach, whereby facilitators modeled instructional strategies by having
teachers participate in hands-on activities (Boston). A mixed-method study of the ESP
project found significant increases in teachers’ knowledge and skills and observed
changes in instructional practice (Boston).
Efficacy of Action Research
Teachers participating in the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) identified
individual and collaborative research, or action research, as the second most popular
delivery method for teacher professional development (Choy et al., 2006). Action
research involves using a systematic inquiry approach of identifying a problem, gathering
44. 33
and analyzing data, and trying a solution with the intended outcome of improving
instructional practice (Ferrance, 2000; Hine, 2013). Teachers use action research either
individually or collaboratively to move from theory to solving local educational practice
issues (Ferrance; Geyer, 2008; Robinson, 2010), such as addressing specific learning
needs (Robinson) and investigating the effects of new methods on student learning
(Hine).
Researchers identified benefits of action research, including data-driven change
focused on student learning, teacher self-reflection, a collaborative culture, and the
empowerment of teachers, to reduce the achievement gap that exists in education (Bersh,
Benton, Lewis, & McKenzie-Parrales, 2012; Cullen, Akerson, & Hanson, 2010; Hahs-
Vaughn & Yanowitz, 2009; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011). A case study of three teachers
using action research to improve the literacy skills of at-risk students in Florida
demonstrated the use of data to focus of student learning. Each teacher collected and
analyzed data for their different research topics to inform their instructional decisions for
literacy instruction. Based upon the results of the study, teachers’ classroom practices
improved (Bersh et al.). A quasi-experimental study of grade-level action research
teams, using data to focus on student learning, also demonstrated greater student
achievement gains than teachers in comparable schools (Saunders, Goldenberg, &
Gallimore, 2009).
Action research encourages teachers to reflect upon their professional practice, to
use research to find solutions, and to make changes in their practice to improve their
teaching and student achievement (Herr & Anderson, 2008; Hahs-Vaughn & Yanowitz,
2009). Researchers conducting a six-year case study of German chemistry teachers
45. 34
found that developing self-reflection skills takes time. In year one, self-reflection was
limited. Teachers were reluctant to express their opinions and primarily tried out
practices recommended by university researchers. By year three, teachers began
implementing their own initiatives. After self-reflection through participation in action
research, many teachers initiated changes in their instructional practices to improve their
practice (Atay, 2008; Eilks & Markic, 2011).
Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) noted, “School culture matters” (p. 52). In the late
1980s, a researcher conducted a mixed-method case study of 78 elementary schools in
Tennessee to explore school culture. Using student reading and math achievement scores
for three consecutive years, schools were divided into two types: low achieving and high
achieving. Rosenholtz (1991) found schools with higher student achievement fostered a
culture of collaboration.
Teachers participating in action research collaborate with others (Butler &
Schnellert, 2012; Eilks & Markic, 2011). A qualitative case study of 18 English teachers
explored teachers’ attitudes toward action research. For six weeks, teachers recorded
information about their experiences in a journal. Using coding to identify themes in the
teachers’ journals, teachers shared that collaborating with others helped them reflect upon
their own practices, find solutions to problems, and renewed their enthusiasm about
teaching (Atay, 2008). Action research allows teachers to support one another, which
helps reduce teacher isolation and teacher attrition (Hord & Hirsch, 2009; Louis &
Wahlstrom, 2011).
Another study investigating the link between action research and school culture
was an exploratory case study. In the study, only three schools in the United States met
46. 35
the criteria for participants. Site visits were conducted to gather data from faculty,
administrators, university liaisons, and archival documents (Berger, Boles, & Troen,
2005). Data analysis identified six central findings that require schools to balance two
sides of implementing school-wide action research, which were referred to as paradoxes:
1. Paradox #1: it must be mandated; it cannot be mandated
2. Paradox #2: it must be championed by a strong principal; it cannot be owned
by the principal
3. Paradox #3: there must be an outside actor; the outside actor is questionable
4. Paradox #4: teachers must learn research skills; teachers must trust their own
knowledge so as not to be overwhelmed by the things they need to learn
5. Paradox #5: teachers’ teaching changes profoundly; teachers say their
research confirms things they already knew
6. Paradox #6: for it to work as a whole school reform, teacher research must be
woven into the fabric of the school culture; teacher research is contrary to the
culture of schools. (Berger, Boles, & Troen, pp. 100-102)
While action research has the potential to be an effective professional
development delivery method, implementing action research has its challenges. A
qualitative study collected data over a three-year period from a total of 34 teachers.
Grounded theory and axial coding data analysis revealed the challenges faced by
participants when engaging in action research: time, teacher readiness, and process
(Goodnough, 2008).
In the qualitative study, all participants identified time as a challenge
(Goodnough, 2008). Time embedded within the workday allows teachers to engage in
47. 36
the process of action research (Salleh, 2006). Without enough time, teachers have
difficulty changing instructional practices (Guskey, 2000). Administrators demonstrated
support for action research when common planning time was provided for teachers
(Goodnough).
Over one-half of the participants identified teacher readiness as a challenge
(Goodnough, 2008). Because most teachers are not researchers, identifying an area of
focus and formulating a research question was difficult (Goodnough; Hine, 2013).
Participants also identified data analysis and interpretation as a struggle (Goodnough).
Pre-planning prior to the implementation of action research helps teachers become ready.
The final challenge was the lack of process. Teachers need to know the logistics
of the action research, including the collaborative structures, action research structures,
timelines, and strategies for minimizing disruptions (Goodnough, 2008). Addressing
these challenges at the beginning of the year helped action research teams maximize their
time and yield better results (Butler & Schnellert, 2012).
Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching
Mentoring, peer observation, and coaching, which were grouped together on the
1999-2000 SASS, were identified by teachers as the third most common professional
development delivery method (Choy et al., 2006). In 2003-2004, the researchers grouped
mentoring and coaching together, but reported peer observations separate, on the SASS.
Of the teachers participating in the survey, 46% reported involvement in mentoring and
coaching and 63% reported involvement in peer observations (Darling-Hammond, Wei,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). This section includes the similarities and
48. 37
differences among mentoring, peer observation, and coaching and a summary of their
efficacy as a professional development delivery method.
Mentoring. Upon entering the profession, “new teachers are expected to assume
the same job responsibilities as skilled teachers who have years of experience” (Kent et
al., 2012, p. 2). Researchers reported approximately 50% of new teachers leave the
profession within the first five years (Ingersoll, 2012; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). One
strategy for reducing attrition is mentoring (Cook, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Kent
et al.). Mentoring pairs a new teacher with an experienced teacher to provide support,
facilitate collaboration, and promote professional growth (Berry, Daughtrey, & Weider,
2010; Cook).
Researchers conducted an experimental study including 17 districts with 418
elementary schools and 1,009 eligible new teachers and randomly assigned participants to
either the treatment group or the control group. New teachers in the treatment group
received mentoring from trained mentors. The outcomes used to measure the
effectiveness of the mentoring program included teacher satisfaction with program,
classroom practices, and student achievement. The study resulted in no statistically
significant effect on any of the outcomes except for one area. In the third year, data
revealed “a positive and statistically significant impact on student achievement”
(Glazerman et al., 2010, p. xxv).
A descriptive research study examining the perceptions of new teachers regarding
the availability and quality of mentoring added information to the Glazerman et al. study.
Survey results from 97 participants indicated that 78.5% participated in mentoring (Cook,
49. 38
2012). Mentees reported the positive aspects of mentoring, which include mentor
availability, feedback, collaboration, and support (Cook).
Some mentoring programs lack formal structure and focus (Kent et al., 2012).
Cook (2012) noted some mentees reported negative responses to mentoring, including a
lack of support from their mentor, ineffective communication, unavailability of mentor,
and unfamiliarity of the mentor with their content area. The most successful mentoring
programs trained mentors and provided structures for interactions between the mentor
and mentee (Cook; Kent et al.).
The positive results of mentoring research studies has led to the implementation
of statewide mentoring programs. In North Carolina, a requirement for new teachers is to
work with a mentor during the first two years of teaching. Researchers, using chi-square
analysis, analyzed data from the Teaching Working Conditions survey of 8,828 teachers
(Parker, Ndoye, & Imig, 2009). The factors examined by researchers included the
association among mentor matching, amount of support, and novice teachers’ intentions
to stay in the field. The study found statistically significant relationships between a new
teacher’s intention to remain in the profession and being matched with a mentor teaching
on the same grade level, the degree of assistance provided, and the frequency of
assistance provided (Parker, Ndoye, & Imig).
Another statewide mentoring program, the Alabama Teacher Mentoring Program
(ATM), provided formal structures, including mentor selection criteria, mentor
professional development, a stipend for the mentor, and formal meeting expectations. A
mixed method study of ATM demonstrated that the majority of first-year teachers
reported feeling supported and encouraged by their mentor. Based upon the survey data,
50. 39
“less than two percent of Alabama’s first-year teachers indicated that they did not intend
to return” (Kent et al., 2012, p. 7) compared to 10% of the national average.
Even though research studies of mentoring programs have demonstrated benefits
for supporting new teachers, challenges can arise. One challenge is the fidelity of
implementation. Mentoring programs may provide formalized structures for supporting
new teachers, but the level of implementation may vary between districts and schools
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Kent et al., 2012; Mullen, 2011). Effectively matching
mentees and mentors is another challenge (Cook, 2012). Personality conflicts between
mentor and mentee and the inaccessibility of a mentor within the school can hinder the
process. The final challenge is the logistics for documenting and paying mentors for their
work (Kent et al.) as funding is often limited.
Peer observation. People in many occupations, including business, law, and
medicine, learn more about their respective field by observing practitioners (Richards &
Farrell, 2005; Sullivan, Buckle, Nicky & Atkinson, 2012). Peer observation in education
occurs when one teacher, regardless of the teacher’s experience level, visits another
teacher’s classroom. The purposes of peer observations include gaining an understanding
of a particular aspect of teaching (Richards & Farrell) and providing feedback and
assistance (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
The benefits of peer observations include learning new ideas from others;
receiving and providing constructive feedback; fostering self-reflection; and encouraging
collaboration (Chamberlain, D’Artrey, & Rowe, 2011; Hirsch, 2011; Richards & Farrell,
2005). By observing a peer, a teacher may learn a new idea or way of handling a
situation (Richards & Farrell). A study of a teaching faculty development program
51. 40
incorporating peer observations found that teachers valued feedback from their peers.
One teacher reported, “One very rarely gets feedback—positive or negative--on teaching,
so it was an interesting and worthwhile experience” (Sullivan et al., 2012, p. 4). Regular
peer observation feedback can lead to more self-reflection upon teaching and improve
teacher effectiveness (Shortland, 2010; Sullivan et al.). In a qualitative study of eight
teachers’ experiences with peer observation, one teacher explained that observing another
teacher’s classroom provided time for self-reflecting upon teaching practices, which led
to changes in the classroom (Hirsch, 2011).
Although teacher isolation continues to exist (Fullan, 2010), peer observation
encourages collaboration (Chamberlain et al., 2011; Hirsch, 2011). In a quantitative
study, 32 teachers completed the School Professional Staff as Learning Community
(SPSaLC) survey to determine if peer observations encouraged collaboration within the
school. The two-tailed t-test results indicated a statistically significant increase in
teachers’ perceptions of collaboration within the school after the implementation of peer
observations (Doyle, 2012).
While peer observation as a professional development delivery method has its
benefits, it also has challenges. One challenge is the perception of peer observations.
Often, teachers perceive observations as evaluations (Hirsch, 2011; Richardson, 2000).
For peer observation to be effective, teachers must not perceive it as an evaluation.
Instead, peer observation is a professional development delivery method for helping
improve teacher effectiveness (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2008).
Another challenge is the logistics of peer observation. Teachers need allocated
time to participate in peer observations (Richards & Farrell, 2005). All participants in a
52. 41
qualitative study of peer observation mentioned time as an issue. One math teacher
reported “that her largest challenge was setting up the observation, and then not being
available to attend” (Hirsch, 2011, p. 93). Another logistics issue was the lack of
structure. A mixed-method study of peer observation at the university level found that
peer observations lacked structure, which led to disengagement by faculty members
(Chamberlain et al., 2011). Even when a formal peer observation structure was in place,
based upon the findings of a qualitative study, faculty lacked understanding of the roles
and processes. The recommendation of the study was for more training for teachers prior
to implementing peer observation as a professional development delivery method
(Salvador, 2012).
Coaching. Teachers need to learn to transfer newly gained knowledge and skills
into practice (Nolan & Hoover, 2008). In 2002, a meta-analysis of 200 research studies
compared the relationship among the training components included in the professional
development and the attainment of knowledge, skill demonstration, and use in the
classroom in terms of the percent of teachers (see Table 1). The highest transference, a
95% implementation rate in all three outcome categories, occurred when teachers
participated in training but also received follow-up coaching in the classroom (Joyce &
Showers, 2002, p. 78).
53. 42
Table 1: Outcomes of Professional Development Training With and Without Follow-Up
Coaching
Professional
Development
Outcomes: Percent of teachers who demonstrate knowledge,
demonstrate new skill in a training setting, and use new skills in the
classroom
Training
Components
Knowledge Skill Demonstration Use in the
Classroom
Theory &
Discussion
10% 5% 0%
Demonstration
in Training
30% 20% 0%
Practice &
Feedback in
Training
60% 60% 5%
Coaching in
the Classroom
95% 95% 95%
Note: Coaching. Adapted from Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.),
by B. Joyce & B. Showers, 2002, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Copyright 2002 by the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Adapted with permission.
Researchers define coaching as “an expert (e.g. university faculty, or supervisor,
lead teacher, skilled peer) providing individualized support to teachers after an initial
training occurs” (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010, p. 280). Teachers of all experience
levels and life experience may participate in coaching as it addresses adult learning needs
(Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010) by recognizing that “adult learners are both autonomous
and collaborative” (Gordon, 2004, p. 20). Trying out a new teaching idea can be difficult
for teachers because they are changing their practice (Apte, 2009). Coaching provides
teachers emotional and psychological support to implement change in their practice
(Apte; McLaughlin, 2012; Scott et al., 2012).
54. 43
Two models of coaching exist: supervisory coaching and side-by-side coaching.
The similarity between both coaching models is the focus on improving teacher
effectiveness and increasing student achievement (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Kretlow &
Bartholomew; Shidler & Fedor, 2010). Supervisory coaching is not for evaluation
purposes. The focus of supervisory coaching is to provide teachers feedback about the
implementation of a technique learned in a prior training (Kretlow, Cooke, & Wood,
2012). During training, teachers learn a new technique. Coaching provides
encouragement for implementing the new technique into the classrooms. After a period,
a supervisory coach observes the teacher to record “the presence or absence of particular
instructional techniques the teacher was instructed to use in the initial training” (Kretlow
& Bartholomew, 2010, p. 281). After the observation, the coach provides non-evaluative
feedback to the teacher about the implementation of the technique. Teachers use the
feedback to adjust their practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew; Shidler & Fedor, 2010).
Side-by-side coaching provides not only feedback about the implementation of a
strategy but also ongoing support to the teacher. During side-by-side coaching, the coach
plays an active role during the lesson. The coach models the new technique and provides
the teacher with practice opportunities with ongoing, immediate feedback provided
(Cooke et al., 2012; Kretlow & Bartholomew). Experimental investigations of side-by-
side coaching show an improved rate of technique acquisition (Kohler, Kerry, Shearer, &
Good, 1997), an increase in a teacher’s implementation accuracy of the technique (Cooke
et al.), and a sustained use of the technique (O’Reilly & Renzaglia, 1992).
Effective professional development “occurs on site, as close in proximity as
possible to the very classrooms where it is to be employed” (Shidler, 2009, p. 454). On-
55. 44
site coaching provides critical feedback and reinforcement to support teachers in
transferring newly gained knowledge and skills into the classroom (McCombs & Marsh,
2009; Shidler). Results of a meta-analysis indicate that after an initial training, coaching
provided ongoing on-site support and led to increased fidelity in implementation of the
practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).
Because coaching occurs on-site, a critical component of successful coaching
programs is administrator support (McCombs & Marsh, 2009; Scott, Cortina, & Carlisle,
2012). Principals are instrumental in defining the coach’s role and responsibility
(McCombs & Marsh) and in encouraging teachers to participate in coaching (Nolan &
Hoover, 2008). Principals need to be knowledgeable and involved in the implementation
of coaching (Reeves, 2010; Scott, Cortina, Carlisle, 2012) either by collaborating
regularly with coaches (Sumner, 2011) or by depending upon the coach to provide
instructional support to teachers (Shulman, Sullivan, & Glanz, 2008).
A benefit of effective coaching should be improved student achievement (Kretlow
& Bartholomew, 2010; McCombs & Marsh, 2009). A longitudinal study of 360
children’s achievement data from 12 classrooms investigated the comparison between the
hours of coaching in the classroom with student achievement. A significant correlation
emerged in year one. The study also revealed four components of effective coaching
including “(1) instructing for specific content, (2) modeling techniques, (3) observing
teacher practices, and (4) consulting for reflection” (Shilder, 2009, p. 453). Coaches
helped teachers move theory into practice by demonstrating lessons, providing teacher
practice time, and providing feedback (Shidler). Coaches focus on improving student
56. 45
achievement by helping teachers improve instructional skills and knowledge (Joyce &
Calhoun, 2010).
Another study reported mixed results on the effects of coaching on teacher
knowledge, practice, and student achievement. The Early Reading Professional
Development Interventions study was a randomized, quantitative study that included 270
second-grade teachers from six different districts representing 90 elementary schools.
Researchers divided the selected schools into three treatment groups. Treatment A
teachers participated in eight teacher institute and seminar days on topics relevant to
second grade reading instruction. Treatment B teachers not only received the eight
teacher institute and seminar days but also approximately 60 hours of coaching.
Treatment C teachers comprised the control group and received approximately 13 hours
of professional development offered by the district. The outcomes were measured by
teachers’ knowledge about reading instruction, teachers’ use of research-based
instructional practices, and students’ reading achievement. The study found no
statistically significant effects on any outcome (Garet et al., 2008).
Three hypotheses explain the lack of statistical significance demonstrated in the
Early Reading Professional Development Interventions study. The first hypothesis is
mobility. Conducting research in a school setting results in the researcher not being able
to control the environment. Therefore, 17% of students and 33% of teachers entered the
study after the professional development began. The second hypothesis is misalignment.
The specific knowledge, skills, and practices promoted by the professional development
may not be good predictors of student achievement. For example, the professional
development mainly focused on word-level components while the student achievement
57. 46
test focused on reading comprehension. The third hypothesis is the limited amount of
time involved in the study. Enough time may not have been provided for meaningful
change in student achievement to occur (Garet et al., 2008).
The Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact study reported
similar results as the Early Reading Professional Development Interventions study.
Researchers conducted an experimental study of 195 teachers and 77 schools (Garet et
al., 2010). The treatment group received coaching throughout the two years of the study.
Based upon the results, no statistically significant effect on teacher knowledge and
student achievement was achieved. After further correlational analysis of teacher
knowledge total score and student achievement, a key finding was “that programs
positively affecting teacher knowledge have the potential to increase student
achievement” (Garet et al., 2011, p. 53). The finding supports the theory of change that
increasing teacher knowledge leads to increased student achievement (Garet et al.).
A four-year, quasi-experimental study of literacy coaches yielded different
results. The Literacy Collaborative (LC) was a one-on-one coaching program
implemented as a school reform to improve elementary children’s literacy skills. Using a
value-added model with Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
and Terra Nova results, the study results demonstrated on average 32% more gains by
children in participating schools. A carefully planned coaching program, such as LC, can
result in positive changes in student learning (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2010).
While effective coaching programs provide ongoing, embedded support, some
coaching programs face significant challenges. Time is always a challenge when
providing coaching (Quintis, 2011). Coaches can spend too little or too much time in the
58. 47
classroom (Shidler, 2009). Sometimes non-instructional activities, such as planning and
attending meetings, consumed coaches’ time, which did not allow them to be in the
classroom (Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, & Schock, 2009). If coaches spent too much time
in a classroom, they found themselves owning the classroom (Shidler). Effective coaches
find a balance.
The coach and teacher relationship is complex (Shidler, 2009). Administrators
often select master teachers to become coaches. Researchers caution the use of a master
teacher as a coach because a teacher’s teaching capabilities with students do not always
translate to effective coaching skills (Bruce & Ross, 2008). Coaches need regular
professional development opportunities to develop skills to address adult learning needs
(McCombs & Marsh, 2009), particularly with providing feedback in a supportive,
effective manner (Bruce & Ross).
Summary of the Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching
Teachers reported the trio of mentoring, peer observation, and coaching as the
third most common delivery method for professional development (Choy et al., 2006).
The main variation existing among the three methods is the targeted experience level of
teachers as mentoring focuses on teachers entering the profession (Kent et al., 2012). A
major benefit of the three methods is that formal structures of collegial support are
provided to foster teacher collaboration (Cook, 2012; Hirsch, 2011; McLaughlin, 2012).
As teacher collaboration increases, professional capital increases, and students receive a
high-quality education (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012).
59. 48
Efficacy of Online Teacher Professional Development
“Shrinking budgets, looming standards, and a dizzying array of innovations are
changing the professional learning landscape” (Killion, 2013, p. 10). In the late 1990s,
educators began investigating the use of online platforms to deliver teacher professional
development (Schlarger & Fusco, 2003). Today, several online delivery methods exist,
including online courses, online communities of practice, and portals (Dede, 2006).
Online courses. Early forms of online professional development included online
courses. In the late 1990s, several e-learning programs, such as American Museum of
Natural History Seminars on Science, Master’s in Science Education, and PBS
TeacherLine, offered online courses (Dede, 2006) by using software called a learning
management system (LMS). An LMS allows the delivery of a defined curriculum with
required assignments and assessments in a specific time frame (Killion, 2011). Limited
empirical evidence about the effectiveness of online courses in terms of changing
instructional practice and student achievement exists (Killion) because the evidence is
“often lacking, anecdotal, or based on participant surveys completed immediately after
the professional development experience rather than later, when a better sense of long
term impact is attainable” (Dede, Jass, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Briet, and McCloskey,
2009, p. 9).
To add to the body of research knowledge of online professional development
courses, researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial study to investigate the
effects of online professional development courses of fractions, algebraic thinking, and
measurement on teacher content knowledge, instructional practice, and student
achievement. The study was conducted between January 2007 and June 2009 and
60. 49
included 79 fifth grade teachers. To investigate the effects of online professional
development courses, researchers assigned participants to either the experimental group
or control group. The experimental group received “approximately 100 hours” (Masters
et al., 2012, p. 26) of online professional development. The control group received no
specific professional development but was not restricted from participating in normal
professional development activities. While no statistical difference existed between the
experimental and control group in terms of student mathematics scores, data from the
study did indicate a positive change in teachers’ content knowledge and instructional
practices (Masters et al.).
Researchers also investigated online professional development modules
developed by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction using 2010 Race to the
Top Funds. As of June 30, 2012, 13 online modules existed to support teachers with the
transition to new standards and assessments; therefore, researchers conducted a Phase I
evaluation to determine the immediate outcomes of the online modules. One half of
North Carolina’s K-12 teachers completed an online module. Seventy-six percent agreed
that the modules were easily accessible, and 78% of participants agreed that the modules
were relevant to their needs (Kellogg, Corn, & Booth, 2012). A weakness of the study
was researchers did not investigate the professional development outcomes of teacher
knowledge and skills, instructional practice, and student achievement.
Online communities of practice. While 90% of teachers believe that
collaboration is crucial to improving their practice, most teachers are only able to spend
3% of their day working with other colleagues (Scholastic & The Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2012). Online platforms allow teachers to collaborate by creating
61. 50
asynchronous online communities of practice. Communities of practice “are groups of
people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it
better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006, para. 4). Communities of practice meet
the specific needs of the learner or, in this case, the teacher.
One of the first e-learning programs for teachers was Tapped In, an online
community of practice created by SRI International in 1997. Leaders of Tapped In
provided educators with an online platform to extend professional development beyond
courses and workshops. The premise of Tapped In was to create a worldwide community
of practice for educators (Schlarger & Fusco, 2003) that supported the implementation of
“effective, classroom-centered learning activities” (SRI International, 2010, para. 2).
Researchers investigated Tapped In by having members participate in a
quantitative survey. The purpose of the survey was to learn more about the Tapped In
community members and “how their experiences in Tapped In have affected their
professional lives” (Fusco, Gehlback, & Schlager, 2000, p. 2). The results of the survey
data posited that participation in an e-learning interaction helped decrease teacher
isolation and positively influenced a teacher’s instructional practice. Researchers also
identified barriers faced when trying to participate in the Tapped In community, which
were lack of time; technological difficulties including logging-in, navigation, and
software commands; and lack of administrative support (Fusco et al.).
A case study of Tapped In engaged users to obtain feedback about the design of
the online environment with the goal of sustainability. Data collected from 1997 to 2006
included field notes, surveys, activity logs, interviews, documentation, archival records,
and physical artifacts. Because of the participatory design of the case study, designers
