Professional+Development+-+Final


 * Professional Development**

At the heart of any change that involves integrating technology into an organization is Professional Development. In particular technological changes that are to accommodate innovative pedagogical practices, affect and mediate change on a concentric set of contextual levels (Kozma 2003) and the PD program needs to have the vision and resources to support this change across all levels and through the life of the project.

The PD processes, practices and people need:

To focus on the different 3 levels: The classroom Level a) teacher b) student c) curriculum d) instructional materials and infrastructure

University, Departmental Level a) leadership b) organizational environment

National and International Level a) national policies b) international trends

To focus on specificities related to 3 time periods: o Before implementation o During implementation o After implementation

To offer instruction and support in: o The new technology o Classroom instruction and learning as it relates to the new technology, the organizations aims and instructional trends o Evaluation at all 3 levels and time periods

The PD team needs to have the following competencies: o Technical expertise relating to the new technology. In our example: • Instructional design • Web development • Moodle technical expertise o Knowledge of Curriculum and innovative Pedagogies o Training and change management expertise o Evaluation



Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Innovative Pedagogical Practices. (Kozma 2003)


 * THE CLASSROOM LEVEL**

__Changing Teacher's Practices__

The 3 major goals of PD according to (Guskey 2002) are :

1. Change in the practices of Teachers 2. Change in their attitudes and beliefs 3. Change in learning outcomes of students



Figure 2. A Model of Teacher Change (Guskey 2002)

The 'Model of Teacher Change' (Guskey 2002) suggests that it is not the PD itself that changes teacher's attitudes and beliefs but rather the gains they notice in Student Learning Outcomes that change them. They believe in the new practices because they have seen them work and will thus be more committed to continue with the new practices. With this in mind any PD should include an assessment of the outcomes on Student Learning, as well as indices relating to changes in their behaviour and attitudes such as, class involvement, motivation for learning, attendance etc. These results would not be used only for a summative evaluation of the innovation but included as input into the process of PD for the teachers as evidence of the effectiveness of their new practises.

__Individualising just-in-time PD and creating knowledgeable Peer-Group Support units__

Another aspect to PD at the micro-level that appears to be neglected is the uniqueness of the individual setting, the particular context, as a critical factor in education (Guskey 1995). Reforms need to be configured to integrate in a way that best suits and fits with the organization's policies, structures, resources and processes but the individual teacher and their class is a particular context within the organization itself. An effective PD program will cater for the individual needs and concerns of each teacher. Fullan (XXX) summarized a number of reasons for failure of PD that highlight the need for this individualization:

1. One-shot workshops are widespread but are ineffective. 2. Topics are frequently selected by people other than those for whom the in-service is intended. 3. Follow-up support for ideas and practices introduced in in-service programs occurs in only a very small minority of cases. 4. Follow-up evaluation occurs infrequently. 5. In-service programs rarely address the individual needs and concerns. 6. The majority of programs involve teachers from many different schools and/or school districts, but there is no recognition of the differential impact of positive and negative factors within the systems to which they must return. 7. There is a profound lack of any conceptual basis in the planning and implementing of in-service programs that would ensure their effectiveness.

A practical example from Virginia Tech's Faculty Development (Bates 2000) provides some ideas on the structure and processes that PD can take to combat these failures.

The development team did not concentrate on the technology itself but rather on the teaching and learning that occurs with the technology. They used a problem-based approach to training that combined a focus on instructional practice and collaborative learning. Small groups, with an instructor, prepared lessons using the technology. This enabled the latter to be learnt whilst being able to cover any teaching issues that surfaced. These were not one-shot workshops, instead a number of them were held as part of the development program. This approach was followed by a number of best-practise institutions. Faculty development was orientated to particular teaching issues and the design concepts emerged in response, rather than being imposed. Through this process of creating instructional software in a team, faculty members rethought their teaching and learning processes.

The effectiveness of this approach is further demonstrated by a quote from a faculty member from a case study of ICT implementation (Kidd 2010).

“In short, faculty have a difficult time applying technology skills in the classroom unless there is a direct linkage with the curriculum, teaching strategies, or improvements in achievement. Professional development tends to have a stronger impact when it is framed and intertwined in the teaching and learning process associate with the faculty. This is when training comes into play—to show faculty the possibilities of what can be done. This process has not only helped me become a better faculty, but an optimal user of technology.”

By using a problem-based approach with a number of practical workshops the PD of the faculty becomes **a process rather than an event** (Guskey 2002). This supports changes in teaching practise throughout the implementation process, provides **just-in-time training** (Chao 2008) that also **has a practical product** – actual lesson plans which respects the time constraints and overload of teachers.


 * Working in teams** also produced a mentoring/collaborative unit that could provide peer-support and thus another source of assistance beyond the centralised faculty development office. 2 Instititutions, The University of Central Florida and Collège Boréal, formalised the finding that faculty members learn best from their peers by assigning mentorship status to faculty members that had completed training in both technical and instructional skills (Bates 2000).


 * UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL**

Leadership and organizational support are vital for implementing change. Successful PD programs have a vision of the long-term goals but a strategic plan to introduce change gradually and incrementally, building on what is successful (Guskey 1995). Organizational commitment includes allocating sufficient funds to support the program (Bates 2000). The vision, strategy and commitment of the organization need to be clearly and continuously communicated to all parties involved (Chao 2008).

“When we first embarked on using Blackboard, I felt overwhelmed, discouraged, and bewilder at the attempts to use technology tools in the classroom. There was little to no support from administration. There were no extra funds for training or professional consulting. Administration purchased the tools, but soon after where back in the shadows from which they came, leaving us as faculty who are in the trenches to suffer.” All we received was a memo stating we are now implementing a new LMS to be used to support face to face and online teaching.“There was no reason as to why we were moving in this director or what avenues were available to support faculty who were remotely interested. All of our concerns feel on deaf ears.” (Kidd 2010)

Another means of communicating organizational commitment to change and motivating staff to buy-in is by establishing an incentive program (Kidd 2010)

“It would help motivate faculty if administration would offer some type of incentive for faculty who put in a great deal of time working with new ideas and innovations within the school. But this doesn’t exist. All administration wants is for faculty to work, with no reward at the end. This is why, I think twice before getting involved in new initiatives. The work is just too hard to catch hold to and there is no support or reward in the beginning or at the end. Maybe if these types of initiatives counted toward tenure and promotion, administration would receive a better turn out. Perhaps, however as it stands now, there is nothing, but hardship working with technology."

Formative evaluation of the PD program to ensure continued quality of service as well as individual faculty members progression through this program helps to ensure alignment with the overall vision and goal of the organization.


 * NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL LEVEL**

A steady stream of innovations in education or policy changes can result in some faculty members considering them as simply another fad to be ignored until they go away (Guskey 1995). A PD program needs to focus on communicating how these changes are part of a coherent framework for improving teaching and learning and how, through this alignment, the organisation can maintain its competitive edge which benefits everyone involved with it (Chao 2008) which includes the reasoning, processes and benefits for International Accreditation.

Fullan XXX

Bates, T. (2000). Supporting Faculty. Managing technological change: strategies for college and university leaders. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chao, I. T. (2008). "Moving to Moodle: Reflections Two Years Later." Educause Quarterly 3: 46-52.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional Development in Education. In search of the Optimal Mix. Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices. T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman. New York, Teachers College Press: 114-131.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). "Professional Development and Teacher Change." Teachers and Learning 8(3): 381-391.

Kidd, T. T. (2010). "Butterfly under a pin: Exlporing the voices and stories told of a faculty who adopt ICT's for teaching and learning practices." Educ Inf Technol 15: 155-170.

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR, International Society for Educational Technology.

**Ahlam:** I find this piece informing and easy to follow. Highlighting some of the key ideas would make it better for the purpose of the guide ( I attempted at doing this by using BOLD font). I am just concerned about the headings of macro, micro and mesa. I didn't find them helpful in identifying the sub-sections and these are more of jargon words that the audience of the guide might not understand. Maybe rewording them in a different way or having the section organized in a different way? For example, "Tips on designing PD sessions", "Challenges in PD" etc... also we better rename this section to PD for teachers as this is what is about. Great stuff, nic ;)  Gilbert: I concur with Ahlam on the micro/meso/macro point. Given that our audience is at the micro level, perhaps it would be prudent to shorten or even discard the meso and macro level descriptions altogether. Your part on micro level stuff, just in time information is already good enough =).