- Email: [email protected]
The architecture of professional development: materials, messages and meaning
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Educational Research 37 (2002) 661–675
Chapter 1
The architecture of professional development: materials, messages and meaning Paul V. Bredeson The University of Wisconsin–Madison, 12 82 J Educational Sciences Building, 1025 West John Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Abstract As an aesthetic form, architecture deals with the creation and definition of space expressed in buildings and other physical structures. The Colosseum in Rome, Notre Dame in Paris, and the United States capital in Washington, through their designs define space, capture our imagination, and communicate important cultural and historical messages. Similarly, the architecture of professional development communicates messages about teaching, learning, and educational reform by creating and defining professional learning spaces for teachers and principals. In this paper I build on and extend earlier work on the architecture of professional development in schools (Designs for Learning: A New Architecture for Professional Development in Schools, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA). The purpose of this paper is to accomplish three objectives. First, I describe an emerging architecture for teacher professional development highlighting its underlying design principles, essential components, and expressions in contemporary educational reform in schools. The second objective is to propose a framework for evaluating the architecture of professional development. In the final section of this paper, I describe how the systematic evaluation of professional development helps us better understand the messages and meanings communicated in current expressions of professional development in architecture. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Architecture is a form of language, of communication. It speaks. It can convey through its design its place in society, its content (O’Gorman, 1998). 1. The architecture of professional development The idea of teacher professional development as the design and construction of opportunities for professional growth and improved practice is not a new one. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.V. Bredeson). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00064-8
ARTICLE IN PRESS 662
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
See for example the works of Day (1993), Gaunt (1997), Joyce and Showers (1995), Sparks and Hirsch (1997), Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998) and Bredeson (2003). These scholars and others have argued persuasively that designs for on-going professional learning are critical to successful implementation of various educational reform initiatives focused on enhanced student learning outcomes. Notwithstanding the general consensus about the importance of professional development to educational reform, creating appropriate and lasting opportunities for continuous professional learning remains a nettlesome problem in many schools. The lack of time, money, and appropriate structures undermine continuous learning opportunities to enrich and refine professional knowledge and practice (Bredeson, 2001; Bredeson & Scribner, 2000). These constraints within the context of contemporary education pose significant challenges to educators as they design professional development that supports school improvement and enhances student learning. Thus, the metaphor of architecture is more than just another convenient metaphor. I believe examining professional development through the lens of architecture is helpful to scholars, policymakers, and practitioners in several ways. The essence of the architecture of professional development is its creative and generative possibilities to create spaces for professional learning using familiar materials within the landscape of teachers’ and administrators’ daily work. To begin, architecture is an evocative metaphor with a rich language and compelling structural elements that illuminate various aspects of professional development and their connection to professional practice in schools. For instance, the suggestive comparisons from such architectural terms as footings, design themes, style, materials, space, site, and plan offer possibilities to scholars and practitioners to ‘‘make the familiar strange’’ and to think in new ways about the design, delivery, content, context, and outcomes of teacher professional development. The architecture of professional development, located at the intersection of educational reform, teacher work, and professional learning, is also a unifying concept. As a structural metaphor, the architecture brings together in concrete and creative ways the sometimes contradictory and fragmented elements of the context, content, and processes of teachers’ work and learning giving them wholeness and integrity. Lastly, the metaphor of architecture is empowering to teachers and administrators suggesting that they are in charge of professional learning that enhances practice and contributes positively to school improvement. 1.1. Defining professional development Teacher professional development, once referred to as an ‘‘educational step-child’’ (Smiley, 1996) and criticized for being fragmented, incoherent, and ineffective (Sparks & Hirsch, 1997), currently enjoys a favorable reputation among policy makers and practitioners in educational reform circles. Research reports, policy statements, and legislative mandates in Europe and the United States provide convincing evidence that professional development is seen as a critical component in
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
663
school improvement efforts around the world (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000). Le Metais (1997) describes the emerging role of professional development in Europe. ‘‘Changes in structures, curriculum or assessment are currently a feature in many European countries. Continuing professional development (CPD) is a key means of informing staff, enhancing their ability to implement reforms, and changing attitudes and behaviours which are no longer appropriate’’ (p. 152). Notwithstanding the current fervour around professional development, there is some ambiguity in terms of what we mean by professional development. For instance, sometimes we use the terms in-service, staff development, continuing education, training, and self-improvement interchangeably with professional development with little regard for any conceptual and/or practical differences. To avoid being caught up in a semantic diversion and provide clarity to the reader, I define professional development as learning opportunities that engage educators’ creative and reflective capacities in ways that strengthen their practice (Bredeson, 2003). Thus, regardless of what the activity is, or what it is called—a lecture, action research, reflective journal writing, or a workshop—if it conforms to three criteria in this definition, I consider it to be professional development. The definition highlights three interdependent concepts—learning, engagement, and improved practice. Professional development is first and foremost about learning. Thus, the design for professional development begins by thinking about the learner—needs, preferences, motivation, prior knowledge, and experience. Though there are many positive examples of professional development occurring in schools, there are still too many instances in which professional development in schools focuses more on activities and events than on explicit learning outcomes linked to participants’ needs, school goals, and student learning. There are many learning opportunities for teachers and principals in schools. What makes professional development a unique experience is that it engages the learner’s creative and reflective capacities. Teachers and principals must transfer new learning (knowledge and skills) to situations of practice in ways that fit the demands of daily work and meet their personal styles. Thus, it is important that the learning activities provide opportunities to learn new content and skills as well as occasions to reflect on their relationship to practice and integrate the new knowledge with existing professional habits and practice. All of this takes time, resources, and support. Lastly, the purpose of professional development is to strengthen individual and collective practice. This purpose is anchored in the belief that the investment of huge sums of money, billions annually in the United States and Europe, will contribute to enhanced professional practice leading to improved student learning outcomes.
2. Design themes in the new architecture for professional development Designs themes are an architect’s signature on a building. For example, Taliesin, Fallingwater, and Wingspread express Frank Lloyd Wright’s view on the relationships among the natural environment, daily living, and the creation of habitable
ARTICLE IN PRESS 664
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
spaces. Horizontality, the repetition of geometric shapes, and an organic feel in Wright’s distinctive prairie architecture are the strokes of his signature. In a similar fashion, recognizable design themes in a new architecture for professional development express important relationships among teachers’ learning, practice, and educational reform. These themes draw on familiar, sometimes ordinary materials, yet ones used in different and creative ways. The emerging architecture for teacher professional development in schools is anchored in six design themes: * * * * *
*
Professional development is about learning. Professional development is work. Professional expertise is a journey not a credential. Opportunities for professional learning and improved practice are unbounded. Student learning, professional development, and organizational mission are intimately related. Professional development is about people not programs (Bredeson, 2003).
When combined, these design themes reflect new understandings of professional learning and work within the current context of educational reform. Research and exemplary practices in schools suggest that effective professional development is more than the sum of individual workshops and training sessions. In the new architecture for professional development, teacher and principal learning that builds individual and collective professional capacity to support student learning is embedded in the school’s structure, culture, and work. Professional expertise requires career-long learning and opportunities for improvement and refinement of practice. The integration of professional learning and work also expands the venues for professional development. Learning that engages teachers creative and reflective capacities in ways that improve their practice may include professional development opportunities ‘‘in work’’ (reflection in and on practice), ‘‘at work’’ (work place learning), ‘‘outside of work’’ (off-site learning), ‘‘beyond work’’ (lived experiences beyond school and professional work). Because teachers and principals are at different stages in their growth and development, their opportunities for on-going learning need to be as rich and varied as the professional learners themselves. For instance, novice teachers often need sustained opportunities to practice, receive feedback on, and experiment with classroom management strategies, instructional techniques, and emerging teaching styles. Within the same school, expert teachers, ones who have mastered these aspects of their work, also need time to reflect on and improve their professional practice. Professional learning for master teachers acknowledges their expertise and experience while providing new opportunities to grow in such activities as collaborative inquiry, curriculum design work within and beyond the school, and mentoring new teachers. The design themes described above are complemented by research on exemplary professional development practices in schools. Over the past decade various professional associations, teacher networks, scholars, and government agencies have developed lists of the characteristics of high-quality professional development.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
665
See, for example, Standards for Staff Development (1995), National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996), Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998), and Professional Development: Learning from the Best (1999). The latter is based on a set of criteria that The United States Department of Education developed for The National Awards Program for Model Professional Development. Based on these works, there are at least ten identifiable characteristics of high-quality, effective professional development. Combined with the emerging design themes, these characteristics embody the essential components of professional development architecture and serve as helpful guides for planning, implementing, and judging the quality of professional development practices in schools. High-quality professional development: (1) focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet includes all other members of the school community; (2) focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement; (3) respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others, in the school community; (4) reflects the best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership; (5) enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards; (6) promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools; (7) is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development; (8) requires substantial time and other resources; (9) is driven by a coherent long-term plan; (10) is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning, and this assessment guides subsequent professional development efforts. The list of essential characteristics is not as a prescriptive fix for professional development in schools. Rather, the list provides a framework, one anchored in school-based research and exemplary practices that inform educators as they design, deliver, and evaluate professional learning and its outcomes.
3. Utilitas, firmitas, and venustas: the essential components of architecture In a recent book on architecture, O’Gorman (1998) refers to the classic work of the ancient Roman architect and engineer, Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. O’Gorman believes this work is one of the most influential texts on architecture ever written. Vitruvius identified three essential components in architecture—function (utilitas), structure (firmitas), and beauty (venustas). O’Gorman invites us to imagine these components as the corners of an equilateral triangle in which each side links two corners of the triangle creating discrete sides, ‘‘yet all combine to shape a larger whole’’ (p. 11). The architecture of professional development, like its physical counterpart, brings together the same essential components. 3.1. Utilitas-function The first corner of the triangle, utilitas, represents the function of professional development. Architects rely on a wealth of knowledge and skills that informs their
ARTICLE IN PRESS 666
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
work. Primary among these is their ability to listen, hear, and respond to the needs, interests, and priorities of their clients. In professional development, this means that the design, delivery, and intended outcomes of learning activities are to serve the interests of clients. To whom do the designers of professional development in schools listen and respond? Who benefits from professional development? What interests are being served? Clearly, the most obvious clients and interests are teachers and principals. After all, they are the participants in the learning activities. Professional development opportunities are designed to meet teachers’ and principals’ needs, some shared others individually unique, helping them learn and grow as people and professionals by strengthening their professional practice and its outcomes. Though teachers are the major beneficiaries of professional development, there are other important stakeholders (clients) with different interests. Schlechty and Whitford (1983) describe professional development activities as serving one or more of three primary functions in schools. These include, ‘‘(1) an establishment function (e.g., increasing awareness) when the purpose is to promote organizational change through the implementation of programs, technologies, or procedures in schools and districts: (2) an enhancement function (e.g., apply to and improve practice) to improve teacher effectiveness; or (3) a maintenance function (e.g., continued practice) to ensure compliance with administrative and organizational goals and objectives.’’ (Bredeson & Scribner, 2000). However, based on the definition of professional development used in this chapter, activities designed solely to meet establishment and maintenance functions, though important, are not considered professional development. Having said that, professional learning opportunities designed to meet teachers’ and principals’ interests and needs (an enhancement function) serve other important interests. For example, professional development also contributes to improved student learning outcomes, enhances the quality of educators’ work life, facilitates organizational change and school improvement, and helps to build community. Lastly, professional development advances the fields of teaching and administration through the establishment of professional networks, the exchange of ideas, and development of standards for professional practice. 3.2. Firmitas-structure The second essential component of professional development is structure, firmitas. Structure refers to the processes, materials, and content brought together in ways that serve the needs of clients. Structures are the concrete and visible dimensions of professional development experiences ‘‘in’’, ‘‘at’’, ‘‘outside’’, and ‘‘beyond’’ work that support and enhance professional practice. The connection between professional development structures and function is obvious, but nonetheless often ignored. For instance, staff development may be more the result of convenience (e.g., a speaker is available) and organizational expediency (e.g., teachers need to know about new state laws) than it is based on the critical needs and interests. Professional development structures that emerge without clear purpose and do not meet the needs and interests of teachers and administrators (utility), most often result in fragmented and faddish activities masquerading as
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
667
professional learning. A weak connection between structure and function may also result in unanticipated negative outcomes in schools: teachers who become resistant, cynical, and frustrated by professional development designs created and imposed without their input. 3.3. Venustas-beauty The third essential component of the architecture of professional development triangle is beauty, venustas. The idea that there is an aesthetic component in professional development seems tenuous given the lack of evidence in the literature and in everyday discourse in education. When we look at monumental achievements in architecture, the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim in Bilbao, and the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, the component of beauty is visible and obvious. In professional development, beauty comes from the artistic arrangement and use of materials and systems to create learning spaces that engage teachers and administrators in growth opportunities that meet their needs and change them as people and professionals. ‘‘Beauty, architectural beauty, is the hoped-for result of appropriate planning and sturdy structure’’(O’Gorman, 1998). How is the beauty expressed in professional development in schools? One example is the dynamic interaction of teachers (excitement, engagement, reflection, collegiality, and commitment) in a study group created to explore culturally relevant curriculum and its connection to instructional practices. It is the hoped for result of a professional development design that provides teachers with adequate time, resources, structures, and expertise to examine their work. Similarly, there is beauty in a multi-year professional development design that builds individual and collective capacity to enable the school to transform itself–changing from a traditional teachercentered environment into a student-centered learning community. Thus, beauty in professional development may be expressed in enhanced motivation, positive emotions, and renewed feelings of empowerment. Creating new designs for professional learning for teachers and administrators is anchored in three essential components of architecture. The work of professional development architects is to create artful designs for learning (beauty) with structural integrity (structure) that appropriately meet the needs of teachers, principals, and the students and communities they serve (function).
4. Evaluating the architecture of professional development Evaluation has a long history in education. Teachers and administrators routinely use a variety of formal and informal assessment measures to plan, monitor, adjust, and make judgments in their professional work. Given the importance of evaluation in educational practice, it is somewhat surprising that when discussions in schools turn to evaluation it is often, ‘‘seen as an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into the important work that needs to be done’’ (Guskey, 2000, p. 2). Negatives attitudes toward formal evaluation can be explained in part by mandates and policies that use
ARTICLE IN PRESS 668
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
evaluation measures as an accountability tool, one that is generally out of the control or influence of practitioners. As justified as such attitudes may be, it seems reasonable that policymakers, researchers, and practitioners would want to assess whether or not the billions of dollars invested in professional development in schools annually have any impact. There are four key organizers that guide professional development evaluation: purpose (what do we want to know?), value (why is this assessment information important?), method (how do we go about gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data?) and, utility (how will these assessment data be used?). 4.1. Purpose When applied to the architecture of professional development, credible assessment requires being clear about what we want to know (purpose). There are various approaches used to articulate the purpose of professional development evaluation. One is a standards-based approach. An example is a self-assessment instrument developed by the National Staff Development Council used in local school districts across the United States. It asks respondents to react to descriptions of attributes across three dimensions of professional development—content, context, and processes (NSDC, 1995). The general purpose of this self-assessment evaluation is to give respondents, individually and collectively, feedback regarding a school’s capacity for and implementation of high quality professional development. A second approach used to clarify the purpose of the evaluation, is to focus on specific dimensions of professional development including its design, delivery, context, content, and outcomes each requiring different types of data and methods (Bredeson, 2003). Building on the work of other evaluation scholars, Guskey (2000) provides a third approach for clarifying the purpose of professional development evaluation. He proposes a framework with five critical levels: (1) participant reaction; (2) participant learning; (3) organizational support/change; (4) participant use of new knowledge and skills; and (5) student learning outcomes. Lastly, the essential components of architecture (function, structure, and beauty) could be used to describe the purpose of the professional development evaluation. For example, an evaluation of function would examine how clients’ needs are being met. An evaluation of structure would focus on the design, content, and context of professional learning in a particular school. Evaluation of beauty in the architecture of professional development would look at affective indicators from participants (e.g. enthusiasm, motivation, and responses to learning opportunities). Regardless of the approach used, the central message across the four evaluation frameworks is the same: be clear about what you want to know. 4.2. Value Understanding why the assessment information is important (value) helps shape the purpose as well as provides the justification for carrying out the professional development evaluation. To begin, the purpose would determine whether the
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
669
assessment was formative, e.g., to provide information to monitor and adjust professional development practice, or summative, e.g., to make judgments about the overall quality of professional development and choices regarding its future. Within these two broad categories, assessment data from the evaluation of professional development provides valuable information for conducting cost-benefit analyses; understanding outcomes for learners and their clients; making adjustments in the design, delivery, and content of learning opportunities; building individual and collective capacity in schools; diagnosing critical gaps in knowledge, skills, practices, and conditions to support professional learning; reporting to policy makers; and, documenting professional learning for teacher evaluation, pay for performance teacher compensation systems, and professional licensure. 4.3. Methods Depending on the purpose and context (organization, resources, and expertise) the methods for systematically gathering, analyzing, and reporting professional development evaluation data will vary. For instance, in Guskey’s five critical levels of evaluation, as the evaluation moves from participant reactions to participant learning and then on to student learning outcomes, the methods needed to gather information generally require more time, resources, personnel, and expertise to complete the assessment. If, for example, we want to know how participants liked the learning activity and if the conditions for learning were appropriate (Level I) we might use written questionnaires, group interviews, and/or individual written logs. At Levels II, III, IV, (teacher learning, organizational change and support, and participant use of new knowledge and skills), methods may include paper-pencil assessments, simulations, portfolios, case study analyses, assessment of school/ district records, direct observations, and video recordings. These extensive evaluations often require external resources (federal, state, and/or private monies). For example, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and Yoon (2001) in a large-scale survey employed a national probability sample of 1027 science and mathematics teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, a component of the Title II of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Funded by the United States Department of Education, the research team identified three core features of professional development activities (a focus on content knowledge, opportunities for active learning, and coherence with other learning opportunities for teachers) that significantly affected teachers’ self-reported increases in professional knowledge and skills as well as changes in their classroom instructional practices. The researchers also report that three structural features of professional development activities (form-interactive learning; duration-contact hours and time span; and, collective participation) exerted a significant influence on the core features that in turn positively affected teacher learning. At Level V, the focus of the assessment is on improvement in student learning outcomes resulting from enhanced teacher knowledge and skills. Understanding the impact of teacher professional development on student learning outcomes is a complex task. Methods may include the use of written questionnaires, interviews,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 670
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
observations, and case studies to examine student learning outcomes resulting from the professional development experience. Several recent investigations using case study design with mixed methods, have examined the link between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. Gallagher (2002) examined professional development embedded in a teacher evaluation system employing a knowledge and skills-based pay program. She described how one elementary school’s, investment in RESULTS, a professional development literacy program, ‘‘led to an increase in both teachers’ and evaluators’ (these groups overlap) pedagogical content knowledge. This is turn had several desirable outcomes including a strong relationship between teacher evaluation scores and student achievement and student achievement in literacy’’ (p. 167). In another study, Archibald (2001) examined resource reallocation in a high school. She reported that dramatic reallocation of resources, including investments in professional development, supported key changes in the high school organization and structure that in turn contributed to significant improvements in student achievement. These studies are examples of Level V evaluation that examine the impact of teacher professional development on student learning outcomes. 4.4. Utility The ways in which evaluation data will be used (utility) influences the design, implementation, and impact of professional development assessments. Eraut (1994) identified three general contexts of use (policy, academic, and practice). For instance, within the policy context, professional development evaluation information may be used for individual, organizational, and professional accountability purposes or, used as basis for decisions at national, state, and local levels regarding the allocations of resources to existing or proposed teacher development programs. In the academic context, evaluation data provide evidence to advance theory in professional learning, change, and school improvement as well to suggest directions for future inquiry. In the practice context, teachers and principals want evaluation information that is relevant to their needs and that informs their daily practice in schools. Professional development evaluations guided by a clear purpose with valued ends, appropriate methods, and usefulness are more likely to have an impact on professional practice, student learning, and school improvement goals.
5. Messages and meaning in the architecture of professional development This chapter began with a description of the architecture of professional development. Designs for professional learning in schools are works of architecture, built environments, that create and define space much like buildings and monuments do in the physical world. These structures represent architects’ and builders’ efforts to integrate function, structure, and beauty in ways appropriate to setting and historic moment. The evaluation of this architectural form, addressed in the second
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
671
section of the chapter, described how the systematic gathering and analysis of assessment provide opportunities to examine various aspects of the design, delivery, context, content, and outcomes of professional development. These evaluation data also permit us to examine the architecture of professional development as a form of language that communicates important messages. The architecture of professional development for teachers and principals conveys meaning beyond its structural dimensions. In the last section, I examine symbolic dimensions of professional development architecture. O’Gorman (1998) notes that, ‘‘To communicate architecturally, or to respond appropriately to a building’s message, you must use or read its formal parts according to their associative meanings. The principal building blocks of architectural meaning is style, but materials, size, even location do play roles in how we interpret a building’’ (p. 98). What messages then does the architecture of professional development communicate? I begin with a discussion of the metamessages communicated in the architecture of professional development. Next, I use three types of professional learning experiences—workshops/conferences, convenience courses, and collaborative action research—to illustrate how style (expressed in professional development design and delivery) is a language that also communicates important messages and meaning. 5.1. Meta-messages in the architecture of professional development The current language of professional development architecture conveys a number of meta-messages to policymakers, academics, and practitioners. To begin, the term—professional development—has gained currency and a sense of urgency in contemporary education reform. In Europe and across the United States, reform literature, policy mandates, and school improvement initiatives all contain sections that specifically describe the need for professional development and its connection to goals and policies (Gaunt, 1997; Day, 1993; Law, 1997; Sparks, 2003). The current flurry of activity and investment in educators’ professional development also conveys the message that it is no longer the educational stepchild as it was once described (Smiley, 1996). The unequivocal message is that professional development is essential to high quality professional practice that contributes directly to student learning and school improvement. The current prominence of professional development sends another message, albeit perhaps, an unintended one. At times, professional development enthusiasts suggest that professional development is an educational cure-all, powerful enough to treat what ever ails a school. Professional learning enhances individual and collective capacity, but it is not a panacea nor is it a substitute for adequate resources, reasoned policy, appropriate structures, and workable organizational processes in schools. Another meta-message in contemporary professional development architecture is its legitimacy as a policy lever to initiate change, monitor progress, ensure accountability, and/or make critical judgments on policies and practices. For instance, there are explicit messages about the importance of professional
ARTICLE IN PRESS 672
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
development in: teacher evaluation systems (Danielson & McGreal, 2000), knowledge and skills-based compensation systems for teachers (Odden & Kelley, 2001), state regulations governing professional licenses (e.g. Wisconsin Administrative Code for Certification Rules PI 34 for professional certification and licensure), and criteria for external funding and support. There is also a hidden message in the four examples cited. Professional development is something that needs to be regulated and controlled externally. The rhetoric may say that ‘‘teachers are in charge of their own learning,’’ but the reality is government mandates and professional development gate keeping by administrators in schools are necessary to control the quality of professional development content, delivery, and outcomes. The issue of autonomy suggests another important meta-message in the architecture of professional development. There is a natural tension between individual responsibility and control over professional growth and development and organizational priorities and needs. Architects find ways to deal with competing forces in buildings to give them structural integrity and support over time. Similarly, professional development designers look for creative ways to link staff learning to school improvement priorities while dealing with the natural tensions between the countervailing forces of individual teacher autonomy and organizational imperatives. For instance, school districts may provide a menu of professional development activities, ones that specifically are linked to district goals. Based on self-identified interest and needs, teachers select professional development opportunities. Thus, the district sets priorities and provides opportunities of learning while teachers continue to exercise both autonomy and choice. The design and delivery of professional development also communicates important messages about the nature of teachers’ professional knowledge. To illustrate, next I describe some of the messages, explicit and implicit, in three common professional development designs—professional workshops/conferences, convenience courses, and collaborative action research. 5.2. Types of professional learning Workshops and conferences have been and continue to be major contributors to teacher and administrator professional development. They provide important venues to increase awareness of issues, exchange ideas, and establish meaningful networks among professional educators. Notwithstanding these benefits, at times the design, delivery, and content of workshops and conferences also communicate the message that professional knowledge is a commodity—a marketable economic product—that can be quickly picked up, taken back to school, and used immediately. For example, workshops and conferences frequently offer ‘‘nuggets of knowledge’’ (Bredeson & Scribner, 2000), and/or ‘‘information showers’’ (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000). Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon experience for teachers and principals to attend a conference that is ostensibly a trade-show for the educational consultants and vendors, who like midway sideshow barkers, stand in front of gaudy displays and hawk their wares. Pre-packaged, ready-to-use professional knowledge (e.g.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
673
instructional practices, curriculum designs, and assessment tools) are offered as solutions to complex problems of practice. This message distorts the realities of teachers’ and principals’ acquisition, refinement, and use of professional knowledge. The best and most successful workshops and conferences find ways to engage learners and make contributions to school improvement without glitz and hype packaged in easy right answers to complex problems of practice. ‘‘Convenience courses’’ represent another style of professional development architecture. Common design features include limited time required in formal class settings, nearby or on-site locations, minimal work and assignments beyond class time, and availability on demand. Offered by small colleges, private vendors, school districts, and other educational agencies, these courses constitute a major part of professional development activities in the United States and in many other countries. Universities have a long history of providing a variety of opportunities for teacher professional development through graduate programs, summer institutes, and clinical experiences. However, in Europe and the United States with millions of school teachers and administrators requiring opportunities for on-going professional development, the requirements, content, and delivery of traditional graduate programs at selected institutions no longer can meet the burgeoning demand for professional development. In response to this demand, ‘‘convenience courses’’ offering graduate credits have become the proverbial cash cow for many small colleges and private corporations or quick delivery strategies of government agencies. What do ‘‘convenience courses’’ communicate? An emphasis on convenience suggests a type of fast food architecture featuring professional improvement that is quick, easy, nutritionally questionable, and minimally intrusive in a busy professional’s work and life. Convenience courses communicate other messages as well. Professional development is primarily an individual responsibility that occurs outside of one’s work. Professional improvement is a compliance exercise to meet minimal requirements. Lastly, professional growth is more about accumulating credits than it is professional competence. An underlying message communicated through such convenience courses is that educators’ professional development continues to be fragmented, incoherent, faddish, and often unaligned with teachers’ and schools’ most pressing needs, interests, and goals. Collaborative action research represents another style of professional development architecture. Its design features send important messages about teaching and professional development. Among these are that teachers, with appropriate guidance, support, and resources, can enhance their knowledge, skills and practice through inquiry and critical reflection on their practice and its outcomes. A second key message is that the answers to school improvement and improved instructional practices are not ‘‘somewhere out there’’ but they lie within teachers’ individual and collective capacity. Teachers create environments that foster inquiry and reflection; promote collegiality and dialogue, and support changes in practice with adequate resources and structures. The architecture of professional development stands at the intersection of teacher learning, work, and school improvement. Its essential components—function,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 674
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
structure, and beauty—are expressed in a variety of architectural styles— some classical, some exotic, still others vernacular. Each style of professional development architecture represents different structures that convey important messages, some explicit others hidden. The structural and symbolic dimensions of this architecture are indeed fertile ground for research on professional development. References Archibald, S. (2001). A case study of dramatic resource reallocation to improve student achievement: Harrison Place High School. CPRE-UW Working Paper, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bredeson, P. V. (2001). Negotiated learning: Unions contracts and teacher professional development. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9(26), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n26.html. Bredeson, P. V. (2003). Designs for learning: A new architecture for professional development in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bredeson, P. V., & Johansson, O. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26, 385–401. Bredeson, P. V., Scribner, J. P. (2000). A statewide professional development conference: Useful strategy for learning or inefficient use of resources. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(13). http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v8n13.html. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Day, C. (1993). The importance of learning biography in supporting teacher development: An empirical study. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development. London: The Falmer Press. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press. Gallagher, H. A. (2002). The relationship between measures of teacher quality and student achievement: The case of Vaughn Elementary. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Gaunt, D. (1997). Building on the past: new opportunities for the profession. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. New York: Longman. Law, S. (1997). Privatising policies and marketising relationships: Continuing professional development in schools, leas, and higher education. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Le Metais, J. (1997). Continuing professional development: The European experience. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development of teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: Author. Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2001). Paying teachers for what they know and do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. O’Gorman, J. F. (1998). ABC of architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Professional Development: Learning from the best (1999). http://www.ncrel.org/pd/toolkit.htm. Smiley, M. A. (1996). From bureaucractic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
675
Schlechty, P. C., & Whitford, D. L. (1983). The organizational context of school systems and functions of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: 82 Yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (1997). A vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Standards for Staff Development (1995). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
International Journal of Educational Research 37 (2002) 661–675
Chapter 1
The architecture of professional development: materials, messages and meaning Paul V. Bredeson The University of Wisconsin–Madison, 12 82 J Educational Sciences Building, 1025 West John Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Abstract As an aesthetic form, architecture deals with the creation and definition of space expressed in buildings and other physical structures. The Colosseum in Rome, Notre Dame in Paris, and the United States capital in Washington, through their designs define space, capture our imagination, and communicate important cultural and historical messages. Similarly, the architecture of professional development communicates messages about teaching, learning, and educational reform by creating and defining professional learning spaces for teachers and principals. In this paper I build on and extend earlier work on the architecture of professional development in schools (Designs for Learning: A New Architecture for Professional Development in Schools, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA). The purpose of this paper is to accomplish three objectives. First, I describe an emerging architecture for teacher professional development highlighting its underlying design principles, essential components, and expressions in contemporary educational reform in schools. The second objective is to propose a framework for evaluating the architecture of professional development. In the final section of this paper, I describe how the systematic evaluation of professional development helps us better understand the messages and meanings communicated in current expressions of professional development in architecture. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Architecture is a form of language, of communication. It speaks. It can convey through its design its place in society, its content (O’Gorman, 1998). 1. The architecture of professional development The idea of teacher professional development as the design and construction of opportunities for professional growth and improved practice is not a new one. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.V. Bredeson). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00064-8
ARTICLE IN PRESS 662
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
See for example the works of Day (1993), Gaunt (1997), Joyce and Showers (1995), Sparks and Hirsch (1997), Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998) and Bredeson (2003). These scholars and others have argued persuasively that designs for on-going professional learning are critical to successful implementation of various educational reform initiatives focused on enhanced student learning outcomes. Notwithstanding the general consensus about the importance of professional development to educational reform, creating appropriate and lasting opportunities for continuous professional learning remains a nettlesome problem in many schools. The lack of time, money, and appropriate structures undermine continuous learning opportunities to enrich and refine professional knowledge and practice (Bredeson, 2001; Bredeson & Scribner, 2000). These constraints within the context of contemporary education pose significant challenges to educators as they design professional development that supports school improvement and enhances student learning. Thus, the metaphor of architecture is more than just another convenient metaphor. I believe examining professional development through the lens of architecture is helpful to scholars, policymakers, and practitioners in several ways. The essence of the architecture of professional development is its creative and generative possibilities to create spaces for professional learning using familiar materials within the landscape of teachers’ and administrators’ daily work. To begin, architecture is an evocative metaphor with a rich language and compelling structural elements that illuminate various aspects of professional development and their connection to professional practice in schools. For instance, the suggestive comparisons from such architectural terms as footings, design themes, style, materials, space, site, and plan offer possibilities to scholars and practitioners to ‘‘make the familiar strange’’ and to think in new ways about the design, delivery, content, context, and outcomes of teacher professional development. The architecture of professional development, located at the intersection of educational reform, teacher work, and professional learning, is also a unifying concept. As a structural metaphor, the architecture brings together in concrete and creative ways the sometimes contradictory and fragmented elements of the context, content, and processes of teachers’ work and learning giving them wholeness and integrity. Lastly, the metaphor of architecture is empowering to teachers and administrators suggesting that they are in charge of professional learning that enhances practice and contributes positively to school improvement. 1.1. Defining professional development Teacher professional development, once referred to as an ‘‘educational step-child’’ (Smiley, 1996) and criticized for being fragmented, incoherent, and ineffective (Sparks & Hirsch, 1997), currently enjoys a favorable reputation among policy makers and practitioners in educational reform circles. Research reports, policy statements, and legislative mandates in Europe and the United States provide convincing evidence that professional development is seen as a critical component in
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
663
school improvement efforts around the world (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000). Le Metais (1997) describes the emerging role of professional development in Europe. ‘‘Changes in structures, curriculum or assessment are currently a feature in many European countries. Continuing professional development (CPD) is a key means of informing staff, enhancing their ability to implement reforms, and changing attitudes and behaviours which are no longer appropriate’’ (p. 152). Notwithstanding the current fervour around professional development, there is some ambiguity in terms of what we mean by professional development. For instance, sometimes we use the terms in-service, staff development, continuing education, training, and self-improvement interchangeably with professional development with little regard for any conceptual and/or practical differences. To avoid being caught up in a semantic diversion and provide clarity to the reader, I define professional development as learning opportunities that engage educators’ creative and reflective capacities in ways that strengthen their practice (Bredeson, 2003). Thus, regardless of what the activity is, or what it is called—a lecture, action research, reflective journal writing, or a workshop—if it conforms to three criteria in this definition, I consider it to be professional development. The definition highlights three interdependent concepts—learning, engagement, and improved practice. Professional development is first and foremost about learning. Thus, the design for professional development begins by thinking about the learner—needs, preferences, motivation, prior knowledge, and experience. Though there are many positive examples of professional development occurring in schools, there are still too many instances in which professional development in schools focuses more on activities and events than on explicit learning outcomes linked to participants’ needs, school goals, and student learning. There are many learning opportunities for teachers and principals in schools. What makes professional development a unique experience is that it engages the learner’s creative and reflective capacities. Teachers and principals must transfer new learning (knowledge and skills) to situations of practice in ways that fit the demands of daily work and meet their personal styles. Thus, it is important that the learning activities provide opportunities to learn new content and skills as well as occasions to reflect on their relationship to practice and integrate the new knowledge with existing professional habits and practice. All of this takes time, resources, and support. Lastly, the purpose of professional development is to strengthen individual and collective practice. This purpose is anchored in the belief that the investment of huge sums of money, billions annually in the United States and Europe, will contribute to enhanced professional practice leading to improved student learning outcomes.
2. Design themes in the new architecture for professional development Designs themes are an architect’s signature on a building. For example, Taliesin, Fallingwater, and Wingspread express Frank Lloyd Wright’s view on the relationships among the natural environment, daily living, and the creation of habitable
ARTICLE IN PRESS 664
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
spaces. Horizontality, the repetition of geometric shapes, and an organic feel in Wright’s distinctive prairie architecture are the strokes of his signature. In a similar fashion, recognizable design themes in a new architecture for professional development express important relationships among teachers’ learning, practice, and educational reform. These themes draw on familiar, sometimes ordinary materials, yet ones used in different and creative ways. The emerging architecture for teacher professional development in schools is anchored in six design themes: * * * * *
*
Professional development is about learning. Professional development is work. Professional expertise is a journey not a credential. Opportunities for professional learning and improved practice are unbounded. Student learning, professional development, and organizational mission are intimately related. Professional development is about people not programs (Bredeson, 2003).
When combined, these design themes reflect new understandings of professional learning and work within the current context of educational reform. Research and exemplary practices in schools suggest that effective professional development is more than the sum of individual workshops and training sessions. In the new architecture for professional development, teacher and principal learning that builds individual and collective professional capacity to support student learning is embedded in the school’s structure, culture, and work. Professional expertise requires career-long learning and opportunities for improvement and refinement of practice. The integration of professional learning and work also expands the venues for professional development. Learning that engages teachers creative and reflective capacities in ways that improve their practice may include professional development opportunities ‘‘in work’’ (reflection in and on practice), ‘‘at work’’ (work place learning), ‘‘outside of work’’ (off-site learning), ‘‘beyond work’’ (lived experiences beyond school and professional work). Because teachers and principals are at different stages in their growth and development, their opportunities for on-going learning need to be as rich and varied as the professional learners themselves. For instance, novice teachers often need sustained opportunities to practice, receive feedback on, and experiment with classroom management strategies, instructional techniques, and emerging teaching styles. Within the same school, expert teachers, ones who have mastered these aspects of their work, also need time to reflect on and improve their professional practice. Professional learning for master teachers acknowledges their expertise and experience while providing new opportunities to grow in such activities as collaborative inquiry, curriculum design work within and beyond the school, and mentoring new teachers. The design themes described above are complemented by research on exemplary professional development practices in schools. Over the past decade various professional associations, teacher networks, scholars, and government agencies have developed lists of the characteristics of high-quality professional development.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
665
See, for example, Standards for Staff Development (1995), National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996), Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998), and Professional Development: Learning from the Best (1999). The latter is based on a set of criteria that The United States Department of Education developed for The National Awards Program for Model Professional Development. Based on these works, there are at least ten identifiable characteristics of high-quality, effective professional development. Combined with the emerging design themes, these characteristics embody the essential components of professional development architecture and serve as helpful guides for planning, implementing, and judging the quality of professional development practices in schools. High-quality professional development: (1) focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet includes all other members of the school community; (2) focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement; (3) respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others, in the school community; (4) reflects the best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership; (5) enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards; (6) promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools; (7) is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development; (8) requires substantial time and other resources; (9) is driven by a coherent long-term plan; (10) is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning, and this assessment guides subsequent professional development efforts. The list of essential characteristics is not as a prescriptive fix for professional development in schools. Rather, the list provides a framework, one anchored in school-based research and exemplary practices that inform educators as they design, deliver, and evaluate professional learning and its outcomes.
3. Utilitas, firmitas, and venustas: the essential components of architecture In a recent book on architecture, O’Gorman (1998) refers to the classic work of the ancient Roman architect and engineer, Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. O’Gorman believes this work is one of the most influential texts on architecture ever written. Vitruvius identified three essential components in architecture—function (utilitas), structure (firmitas), and beauty (venustas). O’Gorman invites us to imagine these components as the corners of an equilateral triangle in which each side links two corners of the triangle creating discrete sides, ‘‘yet all combine to shape a larger whole’’ (p. 11). The architecture of professional development, like its physical counterpart, brings together the same essential components. 3.1. Utilitas-function The first corner of the triangle, utilitas, represents the function of professional development. Architects rely on a wealth of knowledge and skills that informs their
ARTICLE IN PRESS 666
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
work. Primary among these is their ability to listen, hear, and respond to the needs, interests, and priorities of their clients. In professional development, this means that the design, delivery, and intended outcomes of learning activities are to serve the interests of clients. To whom do the designers of professional development in schools listen and respond? Who benefits from professional development? What interests are being served? Clearly, the most obvious clients and interests are teachers and principals. After all, they are the participants in the learning activities. Professional development opportunities are designed to meet teachers’ and principals’ needs, some shared others individually unique, helping them learn and grow as people and professionals by strengthening their professional practice and its outcomes. Though teachers are the major beneficiaries of professional development, there are other important stakeholders (clients) with different interests. Schlechty and Whitford (1983) describe professional development activities as serving one or more of three primary functions in schools. These include, ‘‘(1) an establishment function (e.g., increasing awareness) when the purpose is to promote organizational change through the implementation of programs, technologies, or procedures in schools and districts: (2) an enhancement function (e.g., apply to and improve practice) to improve teacher effectiveness; or (3) a maintenance function (e.g., continued practice) to ensure compliance with administrative and organizational goals and objectives.’’ (Bredeson & Scribner, 2000). However, based on the definition of professional development used in this chapter, activities designed solely to meet establishment and maintenance functions, though important, are not considered professional development. Having said that, professional learning opportunities designed to meet teachers’ and principals’ interests and needs (an enhancement function) serve other important interests. For example, professional development also contributes to improved student learning outcomes, enhances the quality of educators’ work life, facilitates organizational change and school improvement, and helps to build community. Lastly, professional development advances the fields of teaching and administration through the establishment of professional networks, the exchange of ideas, and development of standards for professional practice. 3.2. Firmitas-structure The second essential component of professional development is structure, firmitas. Structure refers to the processes, materials, and content brought together in ways that serve the needs of clients. Structures are the concrete and visible dimensions of professional development experiences ‘‘in’’, ‘‘at’’, ‘‘outside’’, and ‘‘beyond’’ work that support and enhance professional practice. The connection between professional development structures and function is obvious, but nonetheless often ignored. For instance, staff development may be more the result of convenience (e.g., a speaker is available) and organizational expediency (e.g., teachers need to know about new state laws) than it is based on the critical needs and interests. Professional development structures that emerge without clear purpose and do not meet the needs and interests of teachers and administrators (utility), most often result in fragmented and faddish activities masquerading as
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
667
professional learning. A weak connection between structure and function may also result in unanticipated negative outcomes in schools: teachers who become resistant, cynical, and frustrated by professional development designs created and imposed without their input. 3.3. Venustas-beauty The third essential component of the architecture of professional development triangle is beauty, venustas. The idea that there is an aesthetic component in professional development seems tenuous given the lack of evidence in the literature and in everyday discourse in education. When we look at monumental achievements in architecture, the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim in Bilbao, and the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, the component of beauty is visible and obvious. In professional development, beauty comes from the artistic arrangement and use of materials and systems to create learning spaces that engage teachers and administrators in growth opportunities that meet their needs and change them as people and professionals. ‘‘Beauty, architectural beauty, is the hoped-for result of appropriate planning and sturdy structure’’(O’Gorman, 1998). How is the beauty expressed in professional development in schools? One example is the dynamic interaction of teachers (excitement, engagement, reflection, collegiality, and commitment) in a study group created to explore culturally relevant curriculum and its connection to instructional practices. It is the hoped for result of a professional development design that provides teachers with adequate time, resources, structures, and expertise to examine their work. Similarly, there is beauty in a multi-year professional development design that builds individual and collective capacity to enable the school to transform itself–changing from a traditional teachercentered environment into a student-centered learning community. Thus, beauty in professional development may be expressed in enhanced motivation, positive emotions, and renewed feelings of empowerment. Creating new designs for professional learning for teachers and administrators is anchored in three essential components of architecture. The work of professional development architects is to create artful designs for learning (beauty) with structural integrity (structure) that appropriately meet the needs of teachers, principals, and the students and communities they serve (function).
4. Evaluating the architecture of professional development Evaluation has a long history in education. Teachers and administrators routinely use a variety of formal and informal assessment measures to plan, monitor, adjust, and make judgments in their professional work. Given the importance of evaluation in educational practice, it is somewhat surprising that when discussions in schools turn to evaluation it is often, ‘‘seen as an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into the important work that needs to be done’’ (Guskey, 2000, p. 2). Negatives attitudes toward formal evaluation can be explained in part by mandates and policies that use
ARTICLE IN PRESS 668
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
evaluation measures as an accountability tool, one that is generally out of the control or influence of practitioners. As justified as such attitudes may be, it seems reasonable that policymakers, researchers, and practitioners would want to assess whether or not the billions of dollars invested in professional development in schools annually have any impact. There are four key organizers that guide professional development evaluation: purpose (what do we want to know?), value (why is this assessment information important?), method (how do we go about gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data?) and, utility (how will these assessment data be used?). 4.1. Purpose When applied to the architecture of professional development, credible assessment requires being clear about what we want to know (purpose). There are various approaches used to articulate the purpose of professional development evaluation. One is a standards-based approach. An example is a self-assessment instrument developed by the National Staff Development Council used in local school districts across the United States. It asks respondents to react to descriptions of attributes across three dimensions of professional development—content, context, and processes (NSDC, 1995). The general purpose of this self-assessment evaluation is to give respondents, individually and collectively, feedback regarding a school’s capacity for and implementation of high quality professional development. A second approach used to clarify the purpose of the evaluation, is to focus on specific dimensions of professional development including its design, delivery, context, content, and outcomes each requiring different types of data and methods (Bredeson, 2003). Building on the work of other evaluation scholars, Guskey (2000) provides a third approach for clarifying the purpose of professional development evaluation. He proposes a framework with five critical levels: (1) participant reaction; (2) participant learning; (3) organizational support/change; (4) participant use of new knowledge and skills; and (5) student learning outcomes. Lastly, the essential components of architecture (function, structure, and beauty) could be used to describe the purpose of the professional development evaluation. For example, an evaluation of function would examine how clients’ needs are being met. An evaluation of structure would focus on the design, content, and context of professional learning in a particular school. Evaluation of beauty in the architecture of professional development would look at affective indicators from participants (e.g. enthusiasm, motivation, and responses to learning opportunities). Regardless of the approach used, the central message across the four evaluation frameworks is the same: be clear about what you want to know. 4.2. Value Understanding why the assessment information is important (value) helps shape the purpose as well as provides the justification for carrying out the professional development evaluation. To begin, the purpose would determine whether the
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
669
assessment was formative, e.g., to provide information to monitor and adjust professional development practice, or summative, e.g., to make judgments about the overall quality of professional development and choices regarding its future. Within these two broad categories, assessment data from the evaluation of professional development provides valuable information for conducting cost-benefit analyses; understanding outcomes for learners and their clients; making adjustments in the design, delivery, and content of learning opportunities; building individual and collective capacity in schools; diagnosing critical gaps in knowledge, skills, practices, and conditions to support professional learning; reporting to policy makers; and, documenting professional learning for teacher evaluation, pay for performance teacher compensation systems, and professional licensure. 4.3. Methods Depending on the purpose and context (organization, resources, and expertise) the methods for systematically gathering, analyzing, and reporting professional development evaluation data will vary. For instance, in Guskey’s five critical levels of evaluation, as the evaluation moves from participant reactions to participant learning and then on to student learning outcomes, the methods needed to gather information generally require more time, resources, personnel, and expertise to complete the assessment. If, for example, we want to know how participants liked the learning activity and if the conditions for learning were appropriate (Level I) we might use written questionnaires, group interviews, and/or individual written logs. At Levels II, III, IV, (teacher learning, organizational change and support, and participant use of new knowledge and skills), methods may include paper-pencil assessments, simulations, portfolios, case study analyses, assessment of school/ district records, direct observations, and video recordings. These extensive evaluations often require external resources (federal, state, and/or private monies). For example, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and Yoon (2001) in a large-scale survey employed a national probability sample of 1027 science and mathematics teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, a component of the Title II of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Funded by the United States Department of Education, the research team identified three core features of professional development activities (a focus on content knowledge, opportunities for active learning, and coherence with other learning opportunities for teachers) that significantly affected teachers’ self-reported increases in professional knowledge and skills as well as changes in their classroom instructional practices. The researchers also report that three structural features of professional development activities (form-interactive learning; duration-contact hours and time span; and, collective participation) exerted a significant influence on the core features that in turn positively affected teacher learning. At Level V, the focus of the assessment is on improvement in student learning outcomes resulting from enhanced teacher knowledge and skills. Understanding the impact of teacher professional development on student learning outcomes is a complex task. Methods may include the use of written questionnaires, interviews,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 670
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
observations, and case studies to examine student learning outcomes resulting from the professional development experience. Several recent investigations using case study design with mixed methods, have examined the link between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. Gallagher (2002) examined professional development embedded in a teacher evaluation system employing a knowledge and skills-based pay program. She described how one elementary school’s, investment in RESULTS, a professional development literacy program, ‘‘led to an increase in both teachers’ and evaluators’ (these groups overlap) pedagogical content knowledge. This is turn had several desirable outcomes including a strong relationship between teacher evaluation scores and student achievement and student achievement in literacy’’ (p. 167). In another study, Archibald (2001) examined resource reallocation in a high school. She reported that dramatic reallocation of resources, including investments in professional development, supported key changes in the high school organization and structure that in turn contributed to significant improvements in student achievement. These studies are examples of Level V evaluation that examine the impact of teacher professional development on student learning outcomes. 4.4. Utility The ways in which evaluation data will be used (utility) influences the design, implementation, and impact of professional development assessments. Eraut (1994) identified three general contexts of use (policy, academic, and practice). For instance, within the policy context, professional development evaluation information may be used for individual, organizational, and professional accountability purposes or, used as basis for decisions at national, state, and local levels regarding the allocations of resources to existing or proposed teacher development programs. In the academic context, evaluation data provide evidence to advance theory in professional learning, change, and school improvement as well to suggest directions for future inquiry. In the practice context, teachers and principals want evaluation information that is relevant to their needs and that informs their daily practice in schools. Professional development evaluations guided by a clear purpose with valued ends, appropriate methods, and usefulness are more likely to have an impact on professional practice, student learning, and school improvement goals.
5. Messages and meaning in the architecture of professional development This chapter began with a description of the architecture of professional development. Designs for professional learning in schools are works of architecture, built environments, that create and define space much like buildings and monuments do in the physical world. These structures represent architects’ and builders’ efforts to integrate function, structure, and beauty in ways appropriate to setting and historic moment. The evaluation of this architectural form, addressed in the second
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
671
section of the chapter, described how the systematic gathering and analysis of assessment provide opportunities to examine various aspects of the design, delivery, context, content, and outcomes of professional development. These evaluation data also permit us to examine the architecture of professional development as a form of language that communicates important messages. The architecture of professional development for teachers and principals conveys meaning beyond its structural dimensions. In the last section, I examine symbolic dimensions of professional development architecture. O’Gorman (1998) notes that, ‘‘To communicate architecturally, or to respond appropriately to a building’s message, you must use or read its formal parts according to their associative meanings. The principal building blocks of architectural meaning is style, but materials, size, even location do play roles in how we interpret a building’’ (p. 98). What messages then does the architecture of professional development communicate? I begin with a discussion of the metamessages communicated in the architecture of professional development. Next, I use three types of professional learning experiences—workshops/conferences, convenience courses, and collaborative action research—to illustrate how style (expressed in professional development design and delivery) is a language that also communicates important messages and meaning. 5.1. Meta-messages in the architecture of professional development The current language of professional development architecture conveys a number of meta-messages to policymakers, academics, and practitioners. To begin, the term—professional development—has gained currency and a sense of urgency in contemporary education reform. In Europe and across the United States, reform literature, policy mandates, and school improvement initiatives all contain sections that specifically describe the need for professional development and its connection to goals and policies (Gaunt, 1997; Day, 1993; Law, 1997; Sparks, 2003). The current flurry of activity and investment in educators’ professional development also conveys the message that it is no longer the educational stepchild as it was once described (Smiley, 1996). The unequivocal message is that professional development is essential to high quality professional practice that contributes directly to student learning and school improvement. The current prominence of professional development sends another message, albeit perhaps, an unintended one. At times, professional development enthusiasts suggest that professional development is an educational cure-all, powerful enough to treat what ever ails a school. Professional learning enhances individual and collective capacity, but it is not a panacea nor is it a substitute for adequate resources, reasoned policy, appropriate structures, and workable organizational processes in schools. Another meta-message in contemporary professional development architecture is its legitimacy as a policy lever to initiate change, monitor progress, ensure accountability, and/or make critical judgments on policies and practices. For instance, there are explicit messages about the importance of professional
ARTICLE IN PRESS 672
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
development in: teacher evaluation systems (Danielson & McGreal, 2000), knowledge and skills-based compensation systems for teachers (Odden & Kelley, 2001), state regulations governing professional licenses (e.g. Wisconsin Administrative Code for Certification Rules PI 34 for professional certification and licensure), and criteria for external funding and support. There is also a hidden message in the four examples cited. Professional development is something that needs to be regulated and controlled externally. The rhetoric may say that ‘‘teachers are in charge of their own learning,’’ but the reality is government mandates and professional development gate keeping by administrators in schools are necessary to control the quality of professional development content, delivery, and outcomes. The issue of autonomy suggests another important meta-message in the architecture of professional development. There is a natural tension between individual responsibility and control over professional growth and development and organizational priorities and needs. Architects find ways to deal with competing forces in buildings to give them structural integrity and support over time. Similarly, professional development designers look for creative ways to link staff learning to school improvement priorities while dealing with the natural tensions between the countervailing forces of individual teacher autonomy and organizational imperatives. For instance, school districts may provide a menu of professional development activities, ones that specifically are linked to district goals. Based on self-identified interest and needs, teachers select professional development opportunities. Thus, the district sets priorities and provides opportunities of learning while teachers continue to exercise both autonomy and choice. The design and delivery of professional development also communicates important messages about the nature of teachers’ professional knowledge. To illustrate, next I describe some of the messages, explicit and implicit, in three common professional development designs—professional workshops/conferences, convenience courses, and collaborative action research. 5.2. Types of professional learning Workshops and conferences have been and continue to be major contributors to teacher and administrator professional development. They provide important venues to increase awareness of issues, exchange ideas, and establish meaningful networks among professional educators. Notwithstanding these benefits, at times the design, delivery, and content of workshops and conferences also communicate the message that professional knowledge is a commodity—a marketable economic product—that can be quickly picked up, taken back to school, and used immediately. For example, workshops and conferences frequently offer ‘‘nuggets of knowledge’’ (Bredeson & Scribner, 2000), and/or ‘‘information showers’’ (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000). Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon experience for teachers and principals to attend a conference that is ostensibly a trade-show for the educational consultants and vendors, who like midway sideshow barkers, stand in front of gaudy displays and hawk their wares. Pre-packaged, ready-to-use professional knowledge (e.g.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
673
instructional practices, curriculum designs, and assessment tools) are offered as solutions to complex problems of practice. This message distorts the realities of teachers’ and principals’ acquisition, refinement, and use of professional knowledge. The best and most successful workshops and conferences find ways to engage learners and make contributions to school improvement without glitz and hype packaged in easy right answers to complex problems of practice. ‘‘Convenience courses’’ represent another style of professional development architecture. Common design features include limited time required in formal class settings, nearby or on-site locations, minimal work and assignments beyond class time, and availability on demand. Offered by small colleges, private vendors, school districts, and other educational agencies, these courses constitute a major part of professional development activities in the United States and in many other countries. Universities have a long history of providing a variety of opportunities for teacher professional development through graduate programs, summer institutes, and clinical experiences. However, in Europe and the United States with millions of school teachers and administrators requiring opportunities for on-going professional development, the requirements, content, and delivery of traditional graduate programs at selected institutions no longer can meet the burgeoning demand for professional development. In response to this demand, ‘‘convenience courses’’ offering graduate credits have become the proverbial cash cow for many small colleges and private corporations or quick delivery strategies of government agencies. What do ‘‘convenience courses’’ communicate? An emphasis on convenience suggests a type of fast food architecture featuring professional improvement that is quick, easy, nutritionally questionable, and minimally intrusive in a busy professional’s work and life. Convenience courses communicate other messages as well. Professional development is primarily an individual responsibility that occurs outside of one’s work. Professional improvement is a compliance exercise to meet minimal requirements. Lastly, professional growth is more about accumulating credits than it is professional competence. An underlying message communicated through such convenience courses is that educators’ professional development continues to be fragmented, incoherent, faddish, and often unaligned with teachers’ and schools’ most pressing needs, interests, and goals. Collaborative action research represents another style of professional development architecture. Its design features send important messages about teaching and professional development. Among these are that teachers, with appropriate guidance, support, and resources, can enhance their knowledge, skills and practice through inquiry and critical reflection on their practice and its outcomes. A second key message is that the answers to school improvement and improved instructional practices are not ‘‘somewhere out there’’ but they lie within teachers’ individual and collective capacity. Teachers create environments that foster inquiry and reflection; promote collegiality and dialogue, and support changes in practice with adequate resources and structures. The architecture of professional development stands at the intersection of teacher learning, work, and school improvement. Its essential components—function,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 674
P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
structure, and beauty—are expressed in a variety of architectural styles— some classical, some exotic, still others vernacular. Each style of professional development architecture represents different structures that convey important messages, some explicit others hidden. The structural and symbolic dimensions of this architecture are indeed fertile ground for research on professional development. References Archibald, S. (2001). A case study of dramatic resource reallocation to improve student achievement: Harrison Place High School. CPRE-UW Working Paper, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bredeson, P. V. (2001). Negotiated learning: Unions contracts and teacher professional development. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9(26), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n26.html. Bredeson, P. V. (2003). Designs for learning: A new architecture for professional development in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bredeson, P. V., & Johansson, O. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26, 385–401. Bredeson, P. V., Scribner, J. P. (2000). A statewide professional development conference: Useful strategy for learning or inefficient use of resources. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(13). http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v8n13.html. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Day, C. (1993). The importance of learning biography in supporting teacher development: An empirical study. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development. London: The Falmer Press. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press. Gallagher, H. A. (2002). The relationship between measures of teacher quality and student achievement: The case of Vaughn Elementary. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Gaunt, D. (1997). Building on the past: new opportunities for the profession. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. New York: Longman. Law, S. (1997). Privatising policies and marketising relationships: Continuing professional development in schools, leas, and higher education. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Le Metais, J. (1997). Continuing professional development: The European experience. In H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Managing continuing professional development in schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development of teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: Author. Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2001). Paying teachers for what they know and do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. O’Gorman, J. F. (1998). ABC of architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Professional Development: Learning from the best (1999). http://www.ncrel.org/pd/toolkit.htm. Smiley, M. A. (1996). From bureaucractic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.V. Bredeson / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 661–675
675
Schlechty, P. C., & Whitford, D. L. (1983). The organizational context of school systems and functions of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: 82 Yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (1997). A vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Standards for Staff Development (1995). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.