University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Modeling Collaboration in K-12 Teacher Professional Development
by
Mia Sachiko Kang

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Mia Sachiko Kang 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Mia Sachiko Kang certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Datta
Robert A. Filback
Cathy Sloane Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This study sought to explore the discrepancies between the invested resources and the outcomes
of teacher professional development. Stakeholders in the effectiveness of teacher professional
development are teachers and students. The effectiveness of teacher professional development in
the United States is influenced by many factors. These factors include school principal
instructional leadership, design of teacher professional development, and emergent models to
address unique learning challenges. The methodology of this study involved two simulated
teacher professional development sessions and a follow-up focus group interview. Three
recommendations arose from the study. The first was that schools should engage in advanced,
purposeful planning of teacher professional development. The second was that cooperative and
collaborative teacher professional development should be directly taught to and practiced by
teachers. The third recommendation, was student and teacher professional development as a
model to promote equity in the classroom. The effects of Covid-19 on this study are unknown.
Keywords: [professional learning, school leadership, cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, democratic classrooms, sociocultural learning, discussion protocol, planning]

v
Dedication
To my family for their love and support, especially my brother and mother who encouraged me
when I did not want to keep going.

To Patsy Swayze, teacher of teachers, who taught me that teaching is an art that only some of us
are born to.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Sloane Crop for her tireless
patience, encouragement, and guidance. I know that I would not have made it through my
dissertation or the OCL program without her. I would also like to acknowledge my wonderful
dissertation committee, Dr. Monique Datta and Dr. Robert A. Filback. Their expertise and advice
helped focus my study. It is through my experience of working with my Chair and committee
that I have come to believe in the power of my potential contributions to education.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................5
Field Goal for Professional Development............................................................................6
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Performance Goals ...............................................8
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Performance Goals ...................................................8
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .....................................................................9
Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework ..................................................9
Definitions..........................................................................................................................11
Implications of Covid-19 in This Study.............................................................................12
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................14
Organizational Factors in K-12 Professional Development ..............................................14
Self-Directed Learning.......................................................................................................16
The Mirage Study ..............................................................................................................18
Why Current Professional Development is Not Working .................................................20
Lack of Design to Meet Teachers’ Needs ..........................................................................21
Role of School Leadership in Professional Development .................................................22
Lack of Evaluation .............................................................................................................25

viii
Models of Effective Professional Development ................................................................26
Teach the Teacher ..............................................................................................................29
Boundary Spanners and Externships .................................................................................31
Theoretical Framework for This Study ..............................................................................33
Sociocultural Theory ..........................................................................................................34
Cooperative and Collaborative Learning ...........................................................................37
Democratic Classrooms: Traditional to Progressive Education ........................................40
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................42
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................44
Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................44
Approximation of Zone of Proximal Development ...........................................................45
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................45
Spaghetti Towers Challenge: Introduction to Biomimicry ................................................46
Professional Development Discussion Protocol ................................................................47
Participants .........................................................................................................................48
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................50
Focus Group Interviews .....................................................................................................51
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................52
Ethics and Role of Researcher ...........................................................................................52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................54
Participant Stakeholders.....................................................................................................55
Research Question Findings and Themes ..........................................................................55
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................56
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................65
Research Question 3 ..........................................................................................................75

ix
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................77
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................79
Recommendation 1: Engage in Advanced, Purposeful Planning ......................................81
Recommendation 2: Cooperative and Collaborative Professional Development ..............86
Recommendation 3: Student and Teacher Professional Development ..............................90
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................93
Directions for Future Research ..........................................................................................95
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................96
References ......................................................................................................................................98
Appendix A: Save the Last Word for Me ....................................................................................109
Appendix B: Spaghetti Towers Lesson Plan ...............................................................................111
Appendix C: Participant Consent Form .......................................................................................120
Appendix D: Nvivo Codebook ....................................................................................................124
Appendix E: Focus Group Questions ..........................................................................................125

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 46
Table 2: Overview of Recommendations 80
Table 3: Implementation Plan for Recommendation 1 85
Table 4: Implementation Plan for Recommendation 2 89
Table 5: Implementation Plan for Recommendation 3 92

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 10
Figure 2: Planning and Delivery of Professional Development 82

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Student achievement is precarious due to many inequities in society. The ever-changing
nature of students’ needs calls for the continual development of new, innovative ways of
teaching (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Much money and time are invested in K-12 teacher
professional development with minimal direct, measurable impacts on teaching and learning
(Wei et al., 2009). Guiding benchmarks for professional development are not adopted nationally
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2009). There is much research on this topic, but best
practices in design, implementation, and evaluation are not systematically used or applicable to
individual schools (Darling-Hammond, 2005). This study examined the impact of improving the
quality of the learning experience in teacher professional development on transfer to classroom
practices.
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education and the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation conducted a 2-year study on professional development programs in reading and
math. There were no significant measurable gains in student achievement as a result of
professional development. The researchers concluded that the criteria for best practices in
professional development should continually evolve to address specific curricular and student
needs (Quint, 2011). Professional development is key to improving student learning, especially
as students’ needs change and increase with time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Jayaram et al.,
2012). U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in 2012, “As I go out [and] talk to great
teachers around the country, when I ask them how much is that money improving their job or
development, they either laugh or they cry. They are not feeling it.” (Camera, 2017, para 8). A 2-
year comprehensive study found that the amount of professional development teachers engaged
in has increased, yet there is still no reliable data as to its effectiveness (Wei et al., 2009).
2

Each state, district, and teacher decides the design, nature, and continued use of their
professional development without the support of systematic researched-based planning,
implementation, and evaluation.
Background of the Problem
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 as part of
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign against poverty. In the ESEA, Title I and Title II funds
were distributed to underperforming schools to close the achievement gap. Both Title I and Title
II provisions have been reauthorized every 5 years (Paul, 218). Title I funds were meant to
address achievement gaps for students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged or who had
academic needs. Title II funds were meant to improve the quality of teaching through
professional development (ESEA, 2016).
Title II funding has presently brought over three billion dollars a year of spending on
professional development (Paul, 2018; Wei et al., 2009). According to a report by the District
Management Council in 2014, current spending per school district on K-12 professional
development is estimated at $25 to $40 million (Levenson et al., 2014).
Elmore (2002) noted that schools are designed to maintain the status quo rather than
evolve by improving and learning. The term “professional development” has been used by
schools to encompass everything from 1-day workshops, conferences, common planning, and
other learning activities. Elmore (2002) concluded that increasing the funding to professional
development or the amount of professional development without improving its quality is not
likely to have much impact on student outcomes because research has not established the
relationship between these types of learning experiences and student achievement.
3

Presently, professional development is usually planned as one-size-fits-all with the idea
that a general topic might hold some learning for many teachers (Elmore, 2002). In 1995, the
National Staff Development Council gathered characteristics of effective professional
development. One of these was professional development directly related to a model of effective
teaching practice (Jayaram et al., 2012). Further, Wei et al. (2009) said that the focus of
professional development must be on real problems experienced by teachers and students.
Personalization of professional development and the National Staff Development Council’s
standards illustrate what Elmore called the gap between excellence and reality. The criteria for
excellence that was accepted before may no longer hold because of organizational constraints or
the changing nature of schooling (Elmore, 2002).
Blank et al. (2008) analyzed the outcomes from math and science professional
development programs implemented in 14 states. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
sponsored the study based on the most recent research on professional development practices. Of
the 25 math and science professional development programs studied, one-third reported
measurable effects. Ten programs reported that teachers’ knowledge of content increased. Four
programs reported a measurable impact on the instructional practices of participating teachers.
Seven reported quantifiable effects on student achievement (Blank et al., 2008). The programs
that led to the most significant student outcomes were designed with content knowledge, training
on utilizing the content knowledge, follow-up teacher support, and scientifically designed
evaluation systems yielded measurable results in student achievement or pedagogy (Blank et al.,
2008). Outcomes for teacher-selected versus school-wide professional development programs
were difficult to evaluate, and the authors concluded that coordination between the professional
development planners was needed to track program outcomes to test scores effectively (Blank et
4

al., 2008). Professional development must have planned evaluations based on research, and the
design must incorporate the goals of the assessments (Blank et al., 2008).
Future promising directions for prospective evaluation of professional development
programs came from the work of Blank et al. (2008). Four of the programs used effective
evaluation instruments to measure the relationship between teacher knowledge gains and
classroom practice changes. The authors suggested establishing a baseline by pre-selecting
teachers and classes before a professional development to measure professional development
outcomes (Blank et al., 2008). Further outcomes could be used to make decisions in design,
replication, and the program’s progression. For example, if a program outcome was not positive,
the program would be altered. Blank et al. (2008) emphasized that to be effective, teacher
professional development must respond to teachers’ needs, which could mean modifying
programs as needs arise rather than consistent program implementation. Teachers may
understand what their professional development needs are, but due to a lack of knowledge or
capacity of their organization, these needs may not be met (Blank et al., 2008).
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) further stated that professional development
activities need to evolve with teachers’ and students’ needs. Wei et al. (2009) described effective
professional development as supported by a school climate of inquiry, continuous learning, and
support. To foster this type of climate, organizational structures such as block scheduling,
teaming teachers with shared students, and designated collaborative planning need to be
considered. Many European and Asian school systems provide examples of such organizational
structures. In these systems, the school day is structured so that teachers’ time to plan and
collaborate with colleagues is between 15 to 20 hours per week, while in the United States, it is
less than 5 hours per week (Wei et al., 2009). One key feature of education systems in Japan and
5

Taiwan is that national standards to be mastered are few and broad. The task of mastery of these
standards is placed in the hands of the teachers who have organizational support to develop them
in ways that best suit their students (Darling-Hammond, 2005). In the United States, the degree
and quality of administrative support for teachers vary widely. Evidence is in the numerous
studies that seek to understand the disconnect between professional development and student
outcomes (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Jayaram et al., 2012; Killion,
2013).
Importance of the Study
The problem of the disconnect between K-12 professional development and positive
student outcomes in the United States is essential to study for equity, access, and the country’s
economic and global position. Similarly, Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) emphasized that what
learners need to know is more complex than ever before. In addition to subject matter content,
students need to develop skills in solving problems, communication, collaboration, and
autonomy. Studies of successful school reforms have always included major redesigns of
professional development. An example of this was seen in Tennessee in 2001. Under a
comprehensive plan known as the Benwood Initiative with redesigned professional development,
reading proficiency for third graders in Benwood schools improved from 53% to 80% within 5
years (Silva, 2008). The reform initiatives involved carefully planned organizational
restructuring, financial incentives, and large investments from partners such as the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Annenberg Foundation,
contributing instructional support and assessment tools that could accurately measure student
progress. The glue that held everything together was professional development at every level of
the school (Silva, 2008). In 2006, Benwood schools administered a school climate survey within
6

its campus and surrounding schools. Teachers from Benwood rated their professional
development and instructional assistance with higher scores than their non-Benwood colleagues.
The high ratings resulted from the leadership philosophy that teachers’ effectiveness to improve
instruction is not fixed. To make sure that teachers could address their students’ evolving needs,
they were granted more autonomy in their choices (Silva, 2008). Innovative and designed
programs to achieve long-term increases in educational productivity, such as Benwood, have
been shown to lead to positive outcomes.
An additional predictor of effective professional development programs is a focus on the
teacher key competencies necessary for an effective classroom and student outcomes to
continuously refine and improve these programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
Professional development has the potential to enhance student outcomes. The large investment in
funds and time warrant a careful look at the best strategies to ensure positive results.
Field Goal for Professional Development
The field goal for K-12 professional development in the United States, as established by
the National Staff Development Council, is the continual empowerment of teachers with relevant
skills to empower their learners to develop their academic, social, and creative potentials
(Killion, 2013). The guidelines’ language and feasibility are open to interpretation and may not
be practical (Killion, 2013).
Professional development for teachers has typically been unfocused, uneventful, and not
evaluated for effectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Fullan, 2007). There is little to no
evidence that large investments produce improved outcomes for teachers or students (Fullan,
2007). Professional development designed with metrics for results would help determine what is
effective. The U.S. Department of Education (2020) suggested that the lack of investment in
7

infrastructure and data is responsible for poor student outcomes in the form of low standardized
test scores. They acknowledged that efforts to address this have been disappointing.
In 2013, California Superintendent of Education Tom Torlakson adopted the Quality
Professional Learning Standards (QLPS). The purpose of these standards was for educators to
understand what effective professional development is and how it may be developed and
maintained. The QLPS stated,
Much of the professional development that educators have traditionally experienced has
been poorly planned and implemented with disappointing results. Such activities have
often been externally derived and delivered, disconnected from system goals and
educator practice, episodic, and not tailored to students, educators, and schools’ specific
needs. Finally, even when professional development is effective in helping educators
master discrete content or instructional strategies, it does not contribute to a broader
process of transforming practice (Torlakson, 2015, p.5).
Torlakson (2012) made a distinction between professional development and professional
learning. Professional development is dreaded by teachers because of its one-size-fits-all or one-
shot nature. Torlakson acknowledged that such experiences seldom lead to professional learning,
which is what educators need to address the evolving needs of their students. Some of the
recommendations for professional learning include customization, modeling best practices in
pedagogy, follow-up support, and continuity (Torlakson, 2012).
In 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) into law. The
ESSA defined professional development as job-embedded, connected, and relevant to classroom
experiences (Every student, 2020). Still, quality, relevant professional development has been
8

elusive in many schools because of the lack of organizational skills in its implementation and
relevance (Williams & Welsh, 2017).
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Performance Goals
Two main stakeholder groups related to achieving the field goal are teachers and
students. Teachers are the leading stakeholder group because they participate in professional
development. The ability and the decision to implement what they learn in their classroom are in
the hands of teachers. The teachers in this study may use a democratic classroom teaching
philosophy as evident through their pedagogy that elicits student perspectives and honors
constructive knowledge. Students are another key stakeholder group in this study because they
are the recipients of teacher professional development. Jayaram et al. (2012) suggested that
schools should have professional development that meets the needs of both teachers and
students.
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Performance Goals
Critical, democratic thinking, voice, and ownership of one’s propensities are
opportunities that teachers must provide for their students (Leach, 2018). Students and teachers
are the most important beneficiaries of quality professional learning. Teachers made up the
stakeholder group for the study. The study group was composed of four purposefully selected
teacher participants.
The teacher participants’ goal is to consider the impact of modeling of cooperative and
collaborative learning during professional development on transfer to classroom practice. This
goal is requisite to the field goal because teachers need to be empowered to develop their
students as constructors of knowledge. Teacher empowerment develops when teachers feel
confident in their ability to teach or demonstrate a skill or concept (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014).
9

The goal for students is to acknowledge the power of their voice in the classroom. Students who
understand the power of their voice can engage in dialogic learning as they construct content
(Leach, 2018; Morrison, 2008).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The study aimed to determine how improvement in professional development sessions’
learning design may be applied to optimize positive outcomes. Ideas for effectiveness were
examined and developed through the theoretical framework of sociocultural theory and
democratic classrooms. Three research questions guided the study:
1. How could the modeling of cooperative and collaborative learning in teacher professional
development influence cooperative and collaborative learning in the classroom?
2. How may modeled collaborative learning in professional development influence practices
of equity and student voice in the classroom?
3. What do teachers suggest would be most impactful in the design of future teacher
professional development?
Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Sociocultural theory (SCT; Vygotsky, 1978) of learning is the foundation of this study’s
theoretical framework. Learning takes place within SCT by using the student’s zone of proximal
development (ZPD). A democratic classroom guided by SCT is purposeful in providing an
equitable learning environment through challenging tasks in which students construct
knowledge. In this environment, both the teacher and student develop voice and power (Leach,
2018).
As shown in Figure 1, SCT is foundational to teacher and student empowerment. In SCT,
students learn through planned, purposeful interactions with more capable teachers. Capable
10

teachers may be classroom teachers, other students, or a combination of both. Intentional use of
the ZPD to enhance equity and the construction of knowledge is essential in maintaining a
democratic classroom. In democratic classrooms, both teachers and students are empowered
(Edwards, 2007; Shabani, 2016).

Figure 1
Theoretical Framework

11

Professional development for teachers that enhances knowledge and motivation needs to
take place at the edge of the ZPD (Veresov, 2020). This study sought to identify professional
development methods that will utilize the ZPD to maximize outcomes for teachers and their
students. In SCT, knowledge is co-created between the student and the teacher. For meaningful
learning that enables teachers to promote positive outcomes for students, SCT poses that the
training must be closely matched to the teacher’s classroom (Eun, 2008). The study used SCT as
a foundation for two simulated professional development sessions. Teacher participants took part
in one cooperative and one collaborative professional development session. The first was the
Spaghetti Tower Challenge, and the second was an analysis of a journal article Rules for
Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network Design using the discussion protocol Save the Last Word
for Me developed by the education equity organization New School Reform Faculty (NSRF;
Appendix A; Tero et al., 2010). The process of cooperation and collaboration was modeled for
each of these simulated sessions. After these sessions, the teacher participants engaged in a focus
group interview.
Definitions
• Biomimicry: using nature as inspiration to solve problems (Stier, 2020).
• Cooperative learning: a methodology of pedagogy and learning in which social
interdependence, group and individual accountability, positive interactions, enhanced
social skills, and group processing of a task (Johnson et al., 2007).
• Collaborative learning: a more advanced form of cooperative learning that is student-
generated with a goal of producing new content (Bruffee, 1995; Sawyer & Obeid, 2017)
• Equity: every student learning in a manner that develops their abilities to function in a
democratic society (Sikander, 2016)
12

• Sociocultural theory: learning takes place through social interactions (Shabani, 2016)
• Intermental plane: one of the two planes within the ZPD. It refers to the abilities the
learner already possesses (Veresov, 2020).
• Intramental plane: the second plane within the ZPD. It is the new learning that takes
place due to social interactions (Veresov, 2020).
• Professional learning: continuous learning and growth for educators rooted in best
practices, timeliness, and relevance (ESSA, 2020).
• Zone of Proximal Development: the area in which a learner can acquire a new skill or
knowledge with the assistance of a more experienced teacher or peer (Vygotsky, 1978)
Implications of Covid-19 in This Study
The original plan of study was to recruit a diverse group of teachers and conduct the
study over 3 weeks. The lengthy time it took to obtain school district approval and distance
learning made necessary by COVID-19 led to a homogenous sample of teachers and a
compacting of the study into 3 consecutive days, which may have greatly reduced the processing
of the simulated professional development sessions.
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters organize this study. This chapter provided an introduction to the problem of
practice of significant resources invested in K-12 teacher professional development with little
direct, quantifiable influences on teaching and learning in the United States. Chapter Two
examines literature in relation to professional development, models of professional development,
organizational barriers that may hinder best practices in professional development, and
democratic classrooms and SCT to support the idea of the role of constructivism in professional
development. Chapter Three provides detailed information on the methodology of the study,
13

such as participants, data collection and analysis. Chapter Four analyzes the findings and themes
of the study. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice and further research.

14

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Teacher professional development has the potential to meet its many diverse learners’
needs (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2007). Yet, there is no
consensus on how it should be planned, carried out, and evaluated amongst the many challenges
presented by school districts, school sites, school leaders, teachers, and students. Chapter Two
will examine K-12 professional development’s current state, why it is not working, and how it
could be based on highly effective models. A sociocultural theoretical framework that examines
teaching and learning through classroom dynamics of equity was used to reveal possibilities for
improvement.
Organizational Factors in K-12 Professional Development
Education systems sometimes adopt novel strategies to keep up with the continually
growing demands of teaching and learning. This adoption, and not adaptation, needs to consider
the underlying causes of why professional development does not yield the results that education
leaders are seeking. The word adoption means to choose to utilize or to follow (Dictionary.com,
2020). School systems are so dynamic and complex that the mere adoption of the next new idea,
program, intervention, or curriculum very often does not lead to lasting positive impacts
(Garmston & Wellman, 2016).
Garmston and Wellman (2016) proposed that complex systems need to be adapted rather
than adopted. The meaning of the word “adaptive” implies changing in response to evolving
needs. The problem may seem simplistic, but there are foundational characteristics to
organizations that determine whether they will be adoptive or adaptive (Baer & Frese, 2003;
Garmston & Wellman, 2016). Foundational characteristics of adaptive organizations may be
illustrated by the example of the shipping container tycoon Malcolm McClean. McClean started
15

as a truck driver in 1950, innovating and responding to the needs of his time, and developed an
industry to move shipping containers in processes that enhanced commerce and merchants. The
example pointed to the five principles of adaptive organizations:
• More data do not lead to better predictions
• Everything influences everything else
• Tiny events create major disturbances
• You don’t have to touch everyone in the system to make a difference
• Both things and energy matter (Garmston & Wellman, 2016, pp. 9–10)
The above five characteristics were also used to differentiate effective from ineffective teacher
professional development. Organizations, particularly schools that can embody these, may
effectively respond to the needs of the people they serve (Garmston & Wellman, 2016).
Professional development is a career-long endeavor organized on many levels with
formal and informal experiences. It should start from the moment a teacher is credentialed in the
form of induction programs and should continue through each career phase, deepening a
teacher’s engagement and capacity over time (Ginsburg, 2011). It may be organized and
provided for by the school district, school site, local university, teachers’ union, non-profit
organizations, or educational consulting companies (Ginsburg, 2011). Additional models include
conferences wherein one or two teachers attend and then present what they learned to their
colleagues (Flint et al., 2011).
In a report sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), Ginsburg (2011) explained the connections between the educational system structures
and the quality of the development of teaching and learning. These include coordination and
planning to build on teachers’ previous skills, the relevance of training by including teachers in
16

planning, modeling of pedagogy by professional development providers, professional
development in assistance for support providers, and ensuring core standards are central in
decisions on professional development (Ginsburg, 2011). In addition to being organizationally
driven, quality professional development is also self-directed. In self-directed professional
development, teachers choose to select their training opportunities (Ginsburg, 2011).
Self-Directed Learning
Lohman and Woolf (2001) examined the relationships between self-directed learning
activities and the organization of schools. The study included 22 experienced teachers from three
schools in Iowa. In this study, professional development took the form of district-sponsored and
directed professional conferences, reimbursement for external conferences, and self-selected
activities on the school campus (Lohman & Woolf, 2001). Self-selected activities on the school
campus included collaborating with colleagues, exploring the Internet for additional resources,
and trying new instructional methods. These activities were essential to note because the teachers
chose them to improve their teaching and their students’ learning (Lohman & Woolf, 2001).
All 22 teachers in the study reported that collaboration through discussions, reflection,
sharing of physical resources, experimentation, and external source location was vital to the
growth and development of their teaching abilities. The collaboration helped them gain insights
into specific classroom issues, acquire new technological skills, and gain new ideas. In addition
to collaboration between teachers, collaboration happened in working groups such as education
groups, vertical teams, subject-specific study groups, and curriculum development groups. The
collaborative experiences were most valuable when group members had established working
relationships. Observing other teachers was another vital way of improving pedagogy. (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Lohman & Woolf, 2001; Wei et al., 2009).
17

Within the study, 77% of the teachers reported that observing other teachers led to
improvements in their teaching (Lohman & Woolf, 2001). While observing other teachers was
difficult due to school schedules or other assigned campus duties, teachers accomplished
observations creatively: looking into another classroom from the hall during their planning
period or learning from a co-teacher (Lohman & Woolf, 2001). Only 40% of teachers indicated
that sharing physical resources led to exchanges of new content or new pedagogy because
resources were not specific to lessons or content. All 22 teachers used experimentation that
entailed teaching a lesson, taking notes on how well the lesson went, and then modifying it as it
was taking place or for the future (Lohman & Woolf, 2001). External source location included
searching the internet for teaching resources, reading educational publications, or attending
external conferences where they could engage with other teachers regarding content or practice
(Lohman & Woolf, 2001).
The organizational factors that influenced the amount and intensity that teachers engaged
in were resources, the school campus’s physical layout, and autonomy in choosing their learning
opportunities (Garet et al., 2016; Jayaram et al., 2012; Lohman & Woolf, 2001). The most
valuable limiting resource was time to collaborate. For the teachers who taught elementary
school, this was especially pronounced. The limitations on time during the school day made
physical proximity another critical factor in determining teachers’ self-directed learning.
Teachers who taught the same subject matter and whose classrooms were close together were
more likely to engage in subject matter collaboration. If breakrooms or faculty lunch areas were
near classrooms, teachers took advantage of these and used them as opportunities to discuss
teaching or subject matter issues (Lohman & Woolf, 2001).
18

Autonomy was significant in predicting the degree of self-directed learning. The teacher
participants felt that they had a great deal of independence within their classroom, so they
regularly engaged in self-directed learning. In school-related matters outside of their classroom,
they were very limited, so they engaged very little in school business (Jayaram et al., 2012;
Lohman & Woolf, 2001).
Additional structural factors that affect professional development included the individual
school district’s approach to professional development, what activities were within the scope of
the professional development budget, the calendar of the school site, and the knowledge and
experience of supervising administrators (Lohman & Woolf, 2001; Wei et al., 2009). Other
structural factors in professional development effectiveness included administrator and teacher
evaluations, as presented in The New Teacher Project (TNTP, 2015) study The Mirage.
The Mirage Study
This study looked at three large school districts and one charter network. In 2015, the
educational non-profit organization TNTP conducted a comprehensive study of the relationship
between school districts’ expenditures for professional development and the outcomes. The
following research questions guided the study: How much is invested in teacher professional
development? Is there a relationship between teacher professional development and teacher
improvement? Can this relationship be applied to all school districts? (TNTP, 2015). From 2013
to 2015, TNTP collected data about professional development through surveys, interviews, and
focus groups (TNTP, 2015). The organization analyzed professional development budgets,
professional development attendance records, and coaching (TNTP, 2015).
To calculate the total investment of professional development funds per teacher, the
TNTP researchers calculated the time and money spent on school-site training, coaching,
19

observing and evaluating teacher performance by administrators, and school district-provided
workshops. It also included salary increases for professional development that met salary point
requirements. Teacher time that was devoted to these activities averaged 150 hours per school
year. The amount spent on professional development per teacher averaged $18,000 per teacher
per year (TNTP, 2015). The TNTP researchers included costs in this average of $18,000 that
may not have been included in other studies on estimates of teacher professional development
(Hill, 2015).
Teacher observations, standardized test scores, focus group responses, and administrative
evaluations from year to year were used to measure improvement. The study’s results were that
there was no significant improvement, even between teachers who acknowledged that they
needed improvement and those who did not recognize that they did. For example, when
surveyed, 44% of the improver group indicated that professional development was a fair use of
their time, while 40% of non-improvers did so (TNTP, 2015). When examining in-school
collaboration, independent learning, one-session professional development, peer observations,
long-term professional development, university course participation, coaching, and mindsets, the
researchers found minimal differences between the groups. The only time there was a consistent
improvement pattern was when the teacher’s and administrator’s assessments of the quality of
pedagogy were similar (TNTP, 2015). Despite this pattern, teachers were not able to gauge their
effectiveness in the classroom accurately.
When administrators rated the quality of teacher instruction as low, most teachers rated
their instructional quality as high. In focus groups, teachers revealed that they did not believe
that administrator evaluations were accurate judgments of their teaching abilities. There was also
little relationship between the perceived effectiveness of professional development and effective
20

classroom practice. The main reason for this was the lack of relevance between the training and
each teacher’s classroom situation. Both administrators and teachers expressed that they believed
that professional development lacked continuity and relevance (TNTP, 2015). The study’s
overall conclusion was that school districts do not have a clear understanding of how to help
teachers improve their practice. The study pointed out that teacher satisfaction surveys are used
to evaluate most professional development. Upon examining the effects of teacher experience
and teacher improvement, they found that significant improvement declined after the first few
years in the teaching profession. In individual cases where very significant teacher improvement
was found, it could not be traced to professional development (TNTP, 2015).
Why Current Professional Development is Not Working
Many diverse factors account for the ineffectiveness of current professional development.
Some factors include a mismatch in design between teacher needs, school leadership, and
relevant evaluation. Wei et al. (2009) made a strong case for using the phrase “professional
learning” instead, as it implies a continued process that leads to the improvement of pedagogy
and student outcomes. Elmore (2002) explained that professional learning is making the correct
decisions that positively impact the work you do. This type of learning has not been the focus of
professional development in the United States. Flint et al. (2010) described the one-shot
approach to professional development as obligatory, unconnected to classroom practice, and
ineffective. The purpose of these one-shot sessions is to show teachers how to implement a
newly adopted curriculum, teach new standards, or prepare for or administer new assessments.
They further pointed out that this approach does not consider the teacher’s experience, classroom
context, or pedagogical needs (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004; Flint et al., 2011; Jayaram et al., 2012).

21

Lack of Design to Meet Teachers ’ Needs
In 2012, McKinsey sponsored a study on ineffective professional development and found
that it can be effective if school districts strategically use it. Instead, sessions design often does
not suit teachers’ needs. The study suggested that professional development would show more
positive results if these needs were addressed systematically and continuously (Elmore, 2002;
Jayaram et al., 2012). The first step in this system is that the district’s plan has to be based on a
vision of teacher effectiveness. This plan could check all decisions related to professional
development. Jayaram et al. (2012) used the District of Columbia Public Schools Teaching and
Learning Framework as an example of a plan for teaching and learning. This plan is cyclical,
with planning, teaching, and increasing effectiveness being dynamic. In the plan’s subsections,
there are goals for instruction and goals for the learning environment. Instructional goals
included developing yearly goals that promote student achievement and develop learning plans
driven by specific objectives. Learning environment goals involved behavior management, clear
procedures, and the organization of classroom spaces. The purposes for teaching involved
clarity, checking and responding to misunderstandings in lessons, developing critical thinking
skills through questioning, engagement of all levels of students through challenging work,
maximizing learning time, and creating a classroom environment of learning and support.
Increased effectiveness was essential for responding to students’ changing needs and assessing
professional development (Blank et al., 2008; Jayaram et al., 2012).
The challenge for schools and school districts in designing professional development is
that teacher effectiveness varies. Efforts to address the needs of the most teachers often address
the needs of few (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004; Elmore, 2002; Jayaram et al., 2012). The professional
development that addresses few needs could be replaced by individualized offerings (Jayaram et
22

al., 2012). To utilize professional development to increase classroom outcomes, teachers need to
assess their teaching effectiveness (TNTP, 2015). Teachers have difficulty assessing their
effectiveness and their students’ needs because most teachers in the United States work in
isolation within their classrooms (Elmore, 2002; Jayaram et al., 2012; TNTP, 2015). Teachers do
not develop a sense of their effectiveness because they do not engage in activities that target
classroom effectiveness. Diaz-Maggioli (2004) wrote that when procedures are transmitted to
teachers in a purely traditional instructional manner, they may not be able to transfer the
techniques to their classroom, or they may have to expend twice the amount of effort to do so.
Jayaram et al. (2012) explained that these activities should, instead, include peer observations,
teacher evaluations aligned with promoting growth, comparing student work samples across
classrooms, and utilizing experiences with coaches and instructional leaders for improvement.
These activities’ delivery needs to be purposeful and designed to meet teachers’ needs (Blank et
al., 2008; Jayaram et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2009; Yoon et al., 2007).
Role of School Leadership in Professional Development
The decisions and actions of school leaders contribute to the effectiveness of professional
development. These decisions include the degree of emphasis on pacing plans or relevance
(Elmore, 2002). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) explained four skills school leaders need to
develop to increase professional development effectiveness. Most important is identifying
teachers’ needs. Training for principals and learning coaches often does not explain how to
determine what assistance teachers need in the classroom. The second most important skill is
navigating the time within the master schedule for professional development sessions, which is
why many are short and take place in a day. These are easy to schedule and are cost-efficient.
Third is carrying out the sessions in a meaningful way so that teachers gain the skills they need
23

and then use them in the classroom. It can be challenging for principals to locate experts on their
campuses who can carry out this task. Finally, the skill that most often is forgotten is assessing
and following up with outcomes (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
Ganser (2000) said that school administrators’ role is to support teacher-centered
professional development. According to Bredeson and Johansson (2000), this support involves
the principal being engaged in instructional leadership, modeling personal learning, collaborating
with teachers in professional development design, and purposeful evaluation of outcomes. Best
practices in professional development have been thoroughly researched and presented by a
variety of educational organizations. These include the National Staff Development Council, The
National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, and numerous guiding
standards put forth by school districts. The difficult challenge is implementing and evaluating
effectiveness (Blank et al., 2008; Bredeson & Johansson, 2000; Yoon et al., 2007).
The school principal creates and sustains the school environment through his or her
influences. Bredeson and Johansson (2000) examined the impact of the school principal’s role in
teacher professional development. Leadership from the principal is central to facilitating learning
for the teacher and then students. To meet this challenge, principals have to engage in supportive,
nurturing actions that empower their teachers.
Principals who are role models of continuous learning and improvement communicate
the importance of learning with their actions. These principals participate and learn with teachers
during professional development. They are not distracted by other business, and they do not
leave the room to do something else. The foundation of their credibility is what they know about
pedagogy, curriculum, learning theory, teachers, and their students, not the power of
authoritarian decision making (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000).
24

Elmore (2002) said that in schools with poor outcomes, teacher professional development
is often a source of conflict. Moore and Kochan (2013) compared professional development
facilitation in schools that were high-poverty and high-achieving to schools that were high-
poverty and low-achieving. In the high-poverty, high-achieving schools, principals promoted a
school culture of collaboration and teacher involvement in designing professional development.
Family relations, diversity, culture, and utilizing researched best practices were essential factors
in over 90% of high-poverty, high-achieving schools. They attributed the higher test scores of
their students to effective, well-developed professional development. The high-poverty, low-
achieving school principals did not see collaboration, shared leadership, culture, diversity, and
family relations as being related to student achievement. Only 14% of principals in low-poverty,
low-achieving schools saw their teachers as instructional leaders (Moore & Kochan, 2013). All
principals experienced mostly the same challenges when trying to implement high-quality
professional development, such as lack of time, follow-up, community partnerships, and being
isolated geographically. The only difference was that high-poverty, low-achieving principals did
not see their lack of technology as a barrier to implementing high-quality sessions(Moore &
Kochan, 2013).
From a study of school principals in California, Torlakson (2012) found that school
principals may not develop as instructional leaders because of their lack of engagement in
ongoing professional development that supports the administrative skills needed to become
instructional leaders. These skills included engaging teachers and academic coaches, evaluating
teachers beyond district evaluations, understanding and developing curriculum with teachers and
coaches, using data to monitor instruction, and working with teachers to improve classroom
practices. In addition to a lack of access to professional development that targeted these skills,
25

California principals reported less participation in administrative internships, mentorships, or
administrative coaching. They also did not participate in teacher professional development as
much as other principals did in other states. California’s only professional development program
for administrators is the Administrator Training Program (ATP). California administrators
described this program as not being useful because it did not address the needs of California’s
principals at very diverse schools with diverse needs. Torlakson stated that for principals to be
effective and to enable positive outcomes from professional development for their teachers, they
have to engage in relevant professional growth at every stage of their career.
Lack of Evaluation
The evaluation of impact has to be well-developed to gather information on the
effectiveness of the activity. Vigilant evaluation of effectiveness will communicate to teachers
that their time is valuable and that the school district is accountable. Providers of professional
development will also get the message that their offerings must be carefully and well-designed
with built-in measures for teacher effectiveness (Jayaram et al., 2012).
Meaningful evaluation of teacher professional development seldom occurs (Blank et al.,
2008; Jayaram et al., 2012). A quick survey asking how the participants enjoyed the seminar is
usually a substitute that only assesses enjoyment of the session. Jayaram et al. (2012) said that
surveys must be offered after a reasonable amount of time to see whether the training affected
pedagogy or student outcomes. Additional measures of effectiveness such as content matter
mastery and specific teacher behaviors such as class management or pedagogical techniques are
usually not included in these evaluations (Jayaram et al., 2012).
Five evaluation levels may be used to assess the effectiveness of professional
development (Guskey, 2002). The additional levels after participant satisfaction include
26

assessing participant learning, organizational supports, use of new knowledge, and student
outcomes. Each of these expected outcomes has specific evidence and a method of measurement.
For example, if the desired effect is positive student outcomes, then evidence of these outcomes
must be gathered from multiple sources like student portfolios, school records, and formal
interviews with students, teachers, and parents. Their evaluation must also be multidimensional,
assessing changes in academics, attitudes about learning, and desired skills (Guskey, 2002).
The central ideas of effectively evaluating professional development are multiple
measures of evidence and measurement (Guskey, 2002). Time may be a limiting factor in
carrying out this type of assessment, as this process can become overwhelming (Guskey, 2002;
King, 2013). Guskey (2002) recommended using backward planning when designing
professional development. Backward planning starts with the outcome first and then plans how
the outcome will be achieved. Guskey explained that this may help avoid one of the main pitfalls
of planning in professional development that often puts the most time and resources into
planning what professional development will be instead of the impacts and effects. Locating
evidence of training effectiveness is facilitated when the goal is considered before the planning
(Guskey, 2002; Jayaram et al., 2012).
Models of Effective Professional Development
Even though current established forms of professional development have generally not
yielded positive outcomes, some models show promise, such as career and technical education
(CTE), Teach the Teacher, boundary spanners, and externships. They all have common elements
with research-based best practices for planning, implementation, and evaluation.
Gregson and Sturko (2007) noted that the delivery of learning content in professional
development is via pedagogy, with teachers in the role of students dependent on experts for
27

knowledge and skills. They analyzed the learning process used in a CTE professional training
program. At the end of each course, teacher participants completed a survey focused on learning
through collaboration. They also wrote a reflective paper on their experience. The broad,
generalized professional development that districts and schools usually offer does not
acknowledge teachers’ experiences or require much intellectual challenge and engagement.
Teachers dread these passive experiences (Gregson & Sturko, 2007).
The CTE workshop kept critical assumptions about adults as learners in mind as it
designed its professional development for teachers. The premises are that adult learning is
purposeful, adults are self-directed, and they do not appreciate always being told what to learn.
Throughout their careers and adult lives, they have had many learning experiences that have
included cooperative, collaborative, and experiential learning. These assumptions implied that
adult learners needed to be involved in designing their professional development, that the
professional development should have provided opportunities for adults to drive their learning,
and that teachers needed collaborative and active professional development relevant to the
classroom (Gregson & Sturko, 2007). These assumptions, considered as the main principles of
adult learning, were applied to the design of the seminar.
Traditional professional development often discounts teacher participants’ experiences
and learning needs (Gregson & Sturko, 2007). These characteristics have led to professional
development’s ineffectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Gregson & Sturko, 2007;
Jayaram et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2009). The adult learning principles used within the seminar led
to outcomes that were not common in traditional professional development. The results that the
teachers experienced could be attributed to these principles. The CTE seminar valued these
experiences. An environment of collaboration and professionalism that enabled the learning
28

process resulted. The teachers’ procedures that had to be taught to their students were modeled
by a master teacher, with teacher participants trying them out and receiving assistance and
feedback. Gaining competence made it more likely for teachers to use the procedures in their
classrooms. The collaborative experience was specific and individualized as teachers with
varying levels of expertise strengthened their knowledge and learned new skills (Gregson &
Sturko, 2007).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) noted that teacher practice may be changed through
collaborative work in teacher professional development. The collaboration took many forms
within the workshop, including discussions, strategies to increase student mastery of content,
class management, observing each other’s procedures, and providing specific feedback (Gregson
& Sturko, 2007). The essential principle of adult learning of the workshop was action and
reflection to promote intrinsic motivation. The workshop design ensured that the content was
relevant and could be immediately used within the classroom. A teacher commented, “The single
most valuable portion of this class has been the opportunity afforded to reflect on past teaching
and to creatively integrate academics into my daily classroom work” (Gregson & Sturko, 2007,
p. 14). Teachers felt empowered because of their newly gained skills. The workshop provided
the opportunity to engage in the reflection and shifting of their pedagogy.
Ganser (2000) said that constructivist learning for teachers is as important as it is for
young learners. Constructivist learning enables teachers to synthesize the skills and strategies
they need for their classrooms. For change in pedagogy to occur, the social, emotional, and
intellectual dimensions of teacher engagement need to be enacted.

29

Teach the Teacher
Fullan (2007) asserted that outside approaches to teacher instructional improvement are
seldom “powerful enough, specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the
classroom and school” (p. 35). By contrast, programs tailored and implemented to each school
culture bring intellectual, social, and emotional connections that increase skills and commitments
to teaching and learning (Blank et al., 2008; Ginsburg, 2011; Jayaram et al., 2012). Such a
program is Teach the Teacher, which was founded in 2011 and is sponsored by the Victoria
Student Representative Council (VicSRC) in Victoria, Australia (VicSRC, 2020). Holdsworth
(2014) explained the necessity of this program as a space for equitable student participation. It is
recognized worldwide that student voice is necessary for the development of critical thinking, yet
such opportunities for student and teacher planning and learning are few (Holdsworth, 2014).
Teach the Teacher is written by students with guidance from Teach the Teacher staff. This
program is designed to promote positive relationships between students and their teachers. It is
led by students who conduct professional development around issues that affect their academic,
emotional, and behavioral well-being. At their school, they become part of the Student
Representative Council (SRC). The SRC students who lead the professional development are
involved in training by VicSRC, and they have the support of the SRC coordinator. The SRC
coordinator is an adult who has experience in the organization’s methodologies (VicSRC, 2020).
The methodologies of VicSRC Teach the Teacher set it apart from most traditional
professional development programs. Schools must take a short assessment to determine whether
the program is appropriate for their school. To assess readiness for the program, schools answer
four questions:
Does your school community have a shared understanding of what student voice means?
30

Does your school already have some student voice practices in place?
Have you spoken with the rest of the school staff (especially school leadership about
Teach the Teacher and are they willing to participate)?
Have the students involved volunteered to participate, understand what the program is,
and lead this process themselves? (VicSRC, 2020)
If schools do not pass the readiness quiz, they receive specific recommendations of
actions they can engage in to be ready for Teach the Teacher. For example, if a school
community does not have an agreed-upon understanding of the definition of student voice, a
suggestion pops up with a link to a resource on developing it. A contact email address for further
questions is included. If a school is ready to implement the program, a plan that includes the
philosophy of student engagement and voice is uniquely developed to meet that school’s needs
(VicSRC, 2020).
The duration of the program depends on the school’s grade level. For example, senior
high school is divided into 10-week terms. Each term, there is a planned SRC series of activities
or sessions. At Mount Waverley Secondary College (the equivalent of senior high school in the
United States), an introductory workshop took place in the first 10 weeks of school. In the next
10 weeks, SRC students designed and administered surveys to students and teachers, analyzed
the data, and presented the results at a school faculty meeting. They then engaged in a workshop
during which they created an action plan based on the findings and feedback from the faculty. In
the next 10 weeks SRC students conducted their first student-led professional development
workshop for their teachers, which was videotaped and used in a report for the student body.
During the last 4 weeks of the school term, a second SRC student-led workshop took
place for the school’s teachers. With each activity, workshop, or session, the next steps were
31

planned with the idea that the work is continuous, ongoing, and developing. The Teach the
Teacher model rethinks duration more effectively (Wei et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2017; Yoon et al., 2007). According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) and Torlakson (2012),
duration is one of the most important considerations in effective professional development. In the
United States, duration has referred to continuous hours, such as 8 hours a day for 1 or 2 weeks.
Teach the Teacher weaves professional development into the school culture by starting with the
premise of long-term and ongoing learning (VicSRC, 2020).
The action plan developed with the SRC students and teachers leads to authentic
evaluation (VicSRC, 2020). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) discussed that a significant barrier
to the evaluation of professional development is the lack of time and resources. Yoon et al.
(2007) said that evaluation is difficult to show because teaching and learning impact is difficult
to detect. In the Teach the Teacher program, evaluation is built in through an action plan that
empowers both the students leading the professional development and the teachers involved.
Incorporating the action plan helps SRC students to build self-efficacy and metacognitive skills.
The overall goal is not for students to teach teachers how to teach. VicSRC acknowledged that
teachers know how to teach, and the program seeks to implement students’ perspectives, such as
engagement through conversation and dialogue (VicSRC, 2020).
Boundary Spanners and Externships
When effectively used as a tool for planning and pedagogy, cooperative learning has
shown success as a professional development model (Goodyear, 2017; Johnson et al., 2007).
Goodyear (2017) used collaboration to design a study on the effects of cooperative learning. The
essential element that defines cooperative learning is positive interdependence, where everyone
in a cooperative group depends on each other to learn a task (Johnson et al., 2007). Goodyear
32

served as both study designer, author, and boundary spanner to examine sustained professional
development effectiveness in cooperative learning. A boundary spanner has the role of
connecting outside resources to an organization with which they have an inside connection.
Goodyear was an ideal boundary spanner because she was a former physical education teacher at
the school where the study was conducted. She also knew the physical education program and
the teachers with whom she worked and worked closely with the department leader to develop a
cooperative learning curriculum. The study’s purpose was to examine student outcomes when
cooperative learning was sustained with support for the individual teacher and the department.
Goodyear observed cooperative lessons and provided individual teachers advice on overcoming
problems with the lessons. Some teachers needed and used more advice than others. The study’s
outcome was that when professional development was sustained, supported in the department,
and supported individually, students’ physical and social skills could be increased (Goodyear,
2017).
Externships are similar to the idea of boundary spanners. They connect K-12 educators to
industry professionals who can help them develop real-world problem-solving skills, particularly
in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM; Bowen & Shume, 2018). Bowen and
Shume (2018) studied the teacher effects of externships and found that teacher behavior and
attitudes changed due to these types of immersive opportunities. The professional development
was initiated via an application process in which teachers had to compete and be chosen to enter
the work-study program. The duration of the work experience was 4 weeks during the summer.
During the 4 weeks, the teacher became familiar with different aspects of the engineering design
process related to the company. In addition to work experience, the teachers participated in
additional aspects of the company, such as meetings and training. Their workday was Monday
33

through Thursday, with Friday being a day for collaboration with other teachers. On Friday, the
collaboration activities centered around classroom use of their newly-developed skills.
Reflection and lesson planning were completed in college-level classes. At the end of the
program, teachers received a small stipend for their participation (Bowen & Shume, 2018).
As described in participating teacher interviews, the externships’ results showed shifts in
belief systems from teacher-centered to student-centered learning in which students work
together to solve problems and connect content rather than having the teacher tell them what they
should know. A common theme that emerged was the importance of developing clear
communication skills in students as well as skills in collaborative work. These were the goals of
the externship program. Content can be acquired, but skills need to be developed in the world of
STEM (Bowen & Shume, 2018).
Teach the Teachers and Boundary Spanners were models of empowerment wherein both
the trainers and the subjects benefited. The student trainers in the Teach the Teacher program
gained empowerment, self-confidence, and voice. The boundary spanner gained research to
which she was connected. The companies that provided the externships contributed to the
indirect education of teachers who would provide the kind of skills training that their companies
would need. Training of this kind is rooted in the educational philosophies of sociocultural
learning and democratic classrooms.
Theoretical Framework for This Study
The theoretical framework is a tool to reexamine this problem of practice from a learning
perspective of growth and development. The research questions in this study are based on this
framework. The theoretical framework’s basis is in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning
(Edwards, 2007). The use of SCT of the ZPD was considered to show how teachers may shift
34

long-held education perspectives (Shabani, 2016). The ZPD has a two-fold use in teacher
professional development in the planning and content to be positive for both teachers and
students (Edwards, 2007; Shabani, 2016). The use of cooperative and collaborative learning was
examined. If all of the elements mentioned previously work together, a democratic classroom
environment is possible.
Sociocultural Theory
If teacher professional development is planned to capitalize on improving what teachers
already know how to do, classroom practice will become increasingly effective (Blank et al.,
2008; Jayaram et al., 2012). Vygotsky proposed that knowledge is constructed when a learner is
assisted by a more capable mentor or teacher (Fani & Ghaemi, 2011). Vygotsky called this the
ZPD. The ZPD consists of two planes: intramental and intermental. The intermental plane is the
abilities, intelligence, and experiences that the learner possesses, while the intramental plane is
the new learning established by the social connections between the learner and the experienced
mentor (Shabani, 2016;Vygotsky, 1978 ).
A teacher or mentor would make the best use of the ZPD when it is learner-centered and
continually developed to suit the learning needs towards independent actions. Assistance from
the teacher would be gradually withheld to assist the learner in developing a skill. When the
learner develops a skill through interactions, the learner remembers and learns the skill
(Vygotsky, 1978). This type of learning did not depend on age or IQ (Fani & Ghaemi, 2011).
Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory is usually applied to children but has become
increasingly applied to adults, particularly in educational settings (Edosomwan, 2016; Edwards,
2007; Fani & Ghaemi, 2011; Shabani, 2016).

35

Vygotsky Applied to Teachers
Edwards (2007) studied the appropriation of SCT to transform teaching practice.
Edwards examined early childhood educators working within developmental work research. The
developmental work research method allowed teachers to reflect on how a new conceptual
framework fit within their existing framework and improved their practice (Edwards, 2007).
Edwards explored how teachers applied new knowledge to their existing teacher practices. In
Australian education reform, as in the United States, there is a wide discrepancy between
educational theory and classroom practice (Dwyer, 1998; Edwards, 2007). Dwyer (1998) and
Nuthall (2004) said that closing this gap requires addressing social and psychological aspects of
teaching and be intellectually accessible to the average teacher. Edwards (2007) pointed out that
teacher professional development can close this gap but must consider the individual teacher’s
experiences, knowledge, and goals for growth.
The professional development project’s purpose was to assist teachers who wanted to
develop their teaching skills from theme-oriented to constructivist. The training employed
sociocultural methodologies such as reflection on connections between current classroom
practices and constructivism. Existing classroom practices were closely examined in light of
traditional Piagetian developmental learning theories. The group then transitioned to Vygotskyan
theories of the ZPD in sociocultural learning theories. These contrasts in theories of learning
provided study teachers opportunities to construct their learning. For example, a teacher realized
that she valued the developmental assessment of knowledge over the home and cultural
experiences her students brought to the classroom (Edwards, 2007). After the study, observations
of the teachers showed their use of the intermental and intramental planes. Teachers also used
sociocultural methodology when documenting the learning that was taking place. They were able
36

to see learning as what was happening between their students within the moment, not as what
they could or could not do based on their developmental age (Edwards, 2007).
Sociocultural theory offers a lens through which to analyze the relationship between
process and outcomes as well as opportunities for rethinking and redesigning teacher
professional development. Warford (2011) applied teacher training through the lens of this
theory and concluded that learning is a condition that takes place before and after training.
Warford (2011) saw teacher education as a dialogic process that included the teacher trainee’s
past experiences, the present theories of pedagogy of the teacher training program, and early
field teaching experiences. Shabani (2016) applied SCT and ZPD to outcomes in teacher
professional development. Shabani (2016) proposed that sociocultural factors included
collaboration, context, discourse, tools of mediation such as artifacts, reflective journal writing,
and participation in action research. The degree to which professional development involved
sociocultural factors would determine the effectiveness of the outcomes.
In keeping with Vygotsky’s ideas of learning being an interaction between the learner
and his/her environment, the learner must have an active ZPD. For this study, that means that the
teacher must continually seek new learning experiences and opportunities for growth (Shabani,
2016). Sociocultural theory was foundational to this study because it allowed examination of the
philosophical problems of teacher professional development design and implementation.
Sociocultural theory is a tool to examine learning experiences that provides the possibility of
looking past deficits such as lack of funds and organizational capacity. For educators,
professional learning is both a cooperative and collaborative partnership between the teacher and
his/her social environment: the school (Shabani, 2016).

37

Sociocultural Theory Applied to this Study
This study examined the effects of professional development that provides models for
equitable teacher-student interactions. One of the reasons previous research cited for lack of
effectiveness in K-12 teacher professional development is that it does not address the teacher’s
immediate needs (Ginsburg, 2011; Jayaram et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2009). In sociocultural
learning theory, the student learns because the lesson is designed to challenge what the student
already knows and support new skills related to current knowledge (Shabani, 2016). The teacher
participants in this study have some knowledge and experience of equity in their classrooms.
Teacher participants experienced models of collaborative learning to consider whether it
transfers to classroom teaching.
Cooperative and Collaborative Learning
Cooperative and collaborative processes in the design of professional development can be
focused on bringing new value to its outcomes (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2017; Ginsburg, 2011; Wei et al., 2009). Cooperative learning is a type of collaborative learning,
although the terms collaborative and cooperative are often used interchangeably (Gapinski,
2018). The end goals of cooperative and collaborative learning are positive social engagement,
increased critical thinking abilities, and enhanced communication skills (Gapinski, 2018;
Johnson et al., 2007). Cooperative learning in education is now used worldwide because it is a
pedagogy that combines learning theory, educational research, and best classroom practices
(Johnson et al., 2007). Best practices in professional development have been identified as
cooperative learning pedagogy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Jayaram et al., 2012). Voogt et
al. (2016) found that when teachers worked together to design curriculum, innovation and
practical implementation resulted.
38

The four cooperative learning elements are positive interdependence, cognitive processes,
group interactions, and accountability (Johnson et al., 2007). Effective teacher professional
development on cooperative or collaborative learning needs to include these elements in its
design, implementation, and evaluation (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;
Jayaram et al., 2012; Roy, Patricia, 2013; Wei et al., 2009). The group’s obligation and positive
interdependence may be developed when all group members’ contribution is necessary for their
success (Johnson et al., 2007). Cognitive processes are maximized as group members work
together to complete a task. Positive group interactions serve as academic and social support.
Accountability for cooperative groups takes place when the instructor evaluates a goal or product
(Johnson et al., 2007). When all of the elements of cooperative groups work together, the
individual learner gains more than if he/she worked alone.
Vermette and Foote (2001) cautioned that educators need to consider the purposes of
cooperative learning. Aronson and Bridgeman (1978) and Cohen and Roper (1972) emphasized
that cooperative learning in education has an essential role in our society’s racial equity. Aronson
and Bridgeman (1979) explained that cooperative learning was developed in the United States to
aid in educational equity during and right after desegregation. The Supreme Court, in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, ruled that separate could never be equal. However, despite this
ruling, desegregation brought negative results to minority learners (Aronson & Bridgeman,
1979). Cohen and Roper (1972) and Aronson (1978) conducted found the traditional
competitiveness model was responsible for these learners’ low achievement and low self-esteem.
Cooperative learning narrowed the achievement gap between minority and majority students.
(Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979; Cohen & Roper, 1972). Important implications for teacher
39

professional development came from studies that examined relationships between cooperative
learning and minority achievement.
Aronson and Bridgeman (1979) credited the element of planned interdependence in
cooperative learning for gains in classroom equity through the development of academics, social
skills, and confidence. In professional development, designed interdependence would look like
coaching and expert support, feedback, small learning communities, segmentation of teachers
into needs groups, and active engagement of all teachers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;
Jayaram et al., 2012; Killion, 2013; Wei et al., 2009). Researched cooperative learning best
practices may be used to develop equity in professional development (Garet et al., 2016; Jayaram
et al., 2012). Collaborative and cooperative learning in teacher professional development may
provide a model of pedagogy for teachers, thus allowing for a democratic classroom to emerge
(Jayaram et al., 2012).
Bruffee (1995) and Gapinski (2018) made distinctions between cooperative and
collaborative learning. Cooperative learning is mostly teacher-guided, with group members
having specific roles and contributions to the task. There are also evaluations of teacher-defined
tasks, group dynamics, and group products as the groups are working to ensure that learners
acquire the desired content and skills. Collaborative learning is mostly student-guided, with
group roles being more fluid than defined. The teacher may not monitor interactions and work
products because the purpose of collaborative learning is for new understandings or new content
to emerge as a result of the collaborative process (Bruffee, 1995; Sawyer & Obeid, 2017).
Teachers should make deliberate choices to use cooperative or collaborative learning, depending
on their students’ social and academic needs. Students should master cooperative learning before
moving on to collaborative learning (Bruffee, 1995). If students develop autonomy and intrinsic
40

motivation through cooperative and collaborative learning, theirs may be a democratic classroom
(Hur et al., 2013).
Democratic Classrooms: Traditional to Progressive Education
Professional development may be presented as a vision of highly effective teaching, just
as democratic classrooms are visions of a democratic society and equitable practice (Jayaram et
al., 2012; Sikander, 2015). As much of traditional education may not be working, typical
standard professional development may not be working, and the ideas needed to transform it are
similar in concepts between traditional and progressive education (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Ginsburg, 2011; Killion, 2013; Knapp, 2003; Torlakson, 2012; Wei et al.,
2009). As one of the first progressive education theorists, Dewey (1938) said,
The history of educational theory is marked by opposition between the idea that
education is development from within and that it is formation from without; that It is
based upon natural endowments and that education is a process of overcoming natural
inclination and substituting in its place habits acquired under external pressure. (p. 17)
In a critique of traditional schoolhouse education, Dewey pondered the illogic of the gap
between content and how young learners acquired it. These ways included drills, memorization,
and strict compliance. Dewey pointed out the paradox of schools’ purpose to prepare learners for
the future by using knowledge from the past. The content transmitted to students remained fixed
for a long time and did not address the needs of young learners in a changing society (Dewey,
1938).
Dewey (1938) referred to progressive education as placing the learner’s free-thinking at
its center. Depending on other learners for one’s learning was termed “associated life” (Dewey,
1938). From the 1920s to the present, cooperative pedagogies have been implemented, studied,
41

and refined (Bruffee, 1995). Sociocultural theory of development explains that learning depends
on social interactions between learners of different experiences, as learners have to be active in
their learning process (Sawyer & Obeid, 2017).
The phrase “democratic classrooms” refers to an active teaching and learning model
based on developing dispositions that promote a society where members can effectively exercise
their free choice and learn how to think critically (Morrison, 2008; Pryor, 2012; Turabik & Gün,
2016). Those who promote democratic education argue that students educated with a
combination of choice and freedom will develop into effective citizens, understanding how to
exercise their own choices and freedoms. Dewey (1938) argued that the school’s purpose was to
prepare learners to function in a democratic society. Teachers enact ideals and practices in a
democratic classroom that run counter to traditional classrooms. In the traditional classroom,
teachers are the central figure of power, with students gaining knowledge (Morrison, 2008).
Externally imposed power is in opposition to the democratic ideals of our society. Dewey said
that the institutions that can develop democratic models and dispositions are schools.
The infiltration of democratic principles into traditional education speaks to the positive
impact on classroom environments and learning (Sadovnik et al., 2017). Training teachers to
enact a democratic classroom is challenging, and negotiating power between professors of
education and new teachers has not been the subject of many studies. As education transmission
has come under scrutiny (Brubaker, 2012; Dewey, 1938; Turabik & Gün, 2016), it has also been
difficult to use democratic teaching pedagogy to teach democratic classroom ideals. Perhaps this
difficulty is due to there being no one way to teach these ideals due to the student-centered
nature of democratic classrooms. The pedagogy of democratic classrooms that one professor
42

uses will be different from that of another professor due to the differences in the students whose
needs guide the class’s direction (Brubaker, 2012).
The challenge of modern-day public education is how to bring about reforms to improve
outcomes for all students. Democratic educational ideals would be impactful in teacher training
or professional development if they were presented within the context of a democratic
environment with the teachers helping to select the topics they will learn about as well as plan
and carry out the training (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Gandin & Apple, 2012).
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) said, “Effective professional development involves
teachers both as learners and as teachers and allows them to struggle with the uncertainties that
accompany each role” (p. 598). Most teachers in training and experienced teachers may not have
experienced a democratic learning environment as students or teachers (Edwards, 2007).
Edwards (2007) acknowledged that more research is needed to understand how teachers develop,
display, and transform their teaching philosophies within their classrooms. This study considers
the possibility that teacher professional development may be used to present new pedagogies in
ways that may lead to shifts in teachers’ mindsets. Blank et al. (2008) said that evaluation of
teacher professional development should be based on outcome measures. A democratic learning
environment is an outcomes measure.
Conclusion
The literature review suggested significant gaps between current ineffective professional
development and what it could be. Some adaptive organizations schools have defined for
themselves how these programs and sessions may be useful, and others that are adoptive have
not. A large-scale study found no significant change in teacher effectiveness after professional
43

development and that there is a strong possibility that teachers may not be able to judge their
effectiveness in the classroom (TNTP, 2015).
Overarching reasons that current efforts may not be working include instructional design,
school leadership disparities, and lack of meaningful evaluation. Promising models address these
reasons for ineffectiveness. The commonality in the effective models was a desire by some or all
stakeholders to develop into an adaptive organization responsive to teachers’ and students’
changing needs. The theoretical framework was used to examine a model that includes
cooperation, collaboration, and the development of equity in classrooms. Chapter Three explains
the methodology of the model.

44

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to examine how modeling of cooperative and collaborative
learning in professional development may influence classroom practice. The quality of learning
was examined to address the discrepancy between resources spent and outcomes. Two
professional development sessions were designed to challenge teacher participants at their
optimal level of ZPD so that new ideas about the relationship between the design of cooperative
and collaborative learning and transfer to classroom practice may emerge. Three research
questions guided this study:
1. How could the modeling of cooperative and collaborative learning in teacher professional
development influence cooperative and collaborative learning in the classroom?
2. How can modeled collaborative professional development influence practices of equity
and student voice in the classroom?
3. What do teachers suggest would be most impactful in the design of future teacher
professional development?
Overview of Methodology
This study examined qualitative data. Data collection was from June 16 to June 18, 2021,
following the University of Southern California Institutional Research Board’s (IRB) and school
district’s approval. The stakeholder group consisted of teachers at one middle-school campus
who value the development of learner voice and agency in the classroom. The learners who work
with these teachers are also stakeholders. Teacher participants engaged in two professional
development sessions that served as models of cooperative and collaborative learning. The first
activity was a cooperative engineering design, Spaghetti Towers, that introduced biomimicry.
The second was an analysis of the article Rules for Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network
45

Design (Tero et al., 2010). The article was collaboratively analyzed using the discussion protocol
Save the Last Word for Me.
Both activities were conducted and recorded over Zoom, which was the platform teachers
and students had been using since March 2020. After data were collected, coded, and analyzed,
ideas constructed by participants were used to gather emerging themes that responded to the
research questions. The advantage to utilizing Zoom was that participants had my full attention
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Approximation of Zone of Proximal Development
For the past 3 years that I have worked at the school, teacher professional development
has had little planning and unknown effectiveness. The spaghetti tower, biomimicry, and the
NSRF discussion protocols have not been a part of the science, history, or English language arts
curriculum. Some English language arts teachers have used Socratic Seminars, which are similar
to NSRF discussion protocols. Socratic seminars lacked the specific structures of equity that are
built into NSRF protocols. The activities for the study were chosen to approximate the potential
teacher participants’ upper limit. Edwards (2007) found that the use of the ZPD can improve
pedagogy if it also considers the teacher’s prior experiences and goals for future growth.
Data Sources
Data sources were recorded conversations during the two sessions and responses to the
focus group interview. Zoom’s recorded videos and transcripts offered an advantage because
they could be carefully reviewed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Table 1 displays the data sources
used to address each research question.

46

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Spaghetti Tower
Challenge
conversations
Discussion protocol Focus group
interviews
How do teachers perceive
the use of modeling in
cooperative and
collaborative learning
affecting classroom
practices?

X X X
How can collaborative
learning develop equity
in professional
development?

X X X
What do teachers suggest
would be most impactful
in the design of future
teacher professional
development?
X

Spaghetti Towers Challenge: Introduction to Biomimicry
The Spaghetti Towers Challenge lesson (Appendix B) was a modeled cooperative
learning lesson, as the group members worked together to complete a teacher-defined objective
(Bruffee, 1995; Johnson et al., 2007; Sawyer & Obeid, 2017). While informal and formal lessons
with clear engineering objectives have been in place for many years (NASA, 2016; Skillman,
2006), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) suggested that students learn science
content by building on concepts (NGSS, 2016). Distance learning made the modification of this
lesson necessary. Teacher participants completed this cooperative activity on Zoom. The
objective was to build the tallest tower to balance the marshmallow at the top and withstand a
47

simulated earthquake test. There was a time limit of 20 minutes to complete this task. During the
tower’s construction, teacher participants discussed their ideas with one another as they built and
modified their towers. At the end of 20 minutes, each participant displayed and explained their
results. Participants simulated an earthquake by shaking the base of their spaghetti tower.
Everyone’s tower collapsed.
As part of this exercise, each participant completed a biomimicry intervention (Stier,
Sam, 2020). This intervention involved going outside to observe how trees and other plants
naturally engineered their height. Participants then reconvened on Zoom to redesign their
spaghetti towers based on the strategies they found in nature. They had 20 minutes to redesign
their towers. After 20 minutes, teams displayed and presented their redesigned spaghetti towers
as they described the strategies they applied from looking at plants and trees in their backyards.
Professional Development Discussion Protocol
The discussion protocol simulated a model of collaborative professional development.
Teachers were both learners and participants and were the same individuals who participated in
the Spaghetti Towers exercise. The NSRF protocol, Save the Last Word For Me, was used as a
basis for the participants to analyze an article from a scientific journal. The discussion protocol
provided a step-by-step procedure for each participant to listen to and elaborate on the thinking
of other group members (NSRF, 2020). I emailed the article and the discussion protocol to the
teacher participants with directions to preview the protocol and annotate the article before the
session.
The analysis activity with the discussion protocol included me because one of the teacher
participants did not attend. I reviewed the written directions for the protocol and asked the
participants if they needed time to review or annotate the article. The written directions in the
48

protocol guided the activity. The activity started with me modeling participation as the main
speaker. The main speaker started the protocol by reading a selected passage and sharing
thoughts on it. Each teacher participant responded to the thoughts of the main speaker. When the
participants had finished responding, the main speaker explained their thinking and responded to
the thoughts of the teacher participants. Another teacher participant assumed the role of the main
speaker until each teacher participant had the opportunity to be the main speaker. A group
discussion and debrief of the protocol in which teacher participants shared their thoughts on the
process concluded the professional development activity.
This activity was a collaborative learning model because the teacher participants
generated new ideas using the discussion protocol to analyze the article. Teacher participants set
the learning goals for the activity. The collaboration took place as the main speaker connected
the original ideas of the selected text passage to the group members’ views, thus synthesizing
ideas (Bruffee, 1995; Sawyer & Obeid, 2017).
On the third day of the study, I conducted a focus group interview with the teacher
participants. The recorded transcripts were analyzed. Participants added to and elaborated on the
ideas and experiences shared (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). They shared their ideas of effective
professional development and how it may be improved. Constructed data emerged from this
group. There was no expectation for specific responses from participants. All of their responses
were treated with value in the study. The theoretical justification for this activity was Vygotsky’s
SCT and democratic classrooms.
Participants
I recruited four teachers by email to participate in the study. They were all from one
middle-school campus in Los Angeles, California. Each participant was given a clear explanation
49

and purpose for the study, their role in the study, and assurance of confidentiality that provided
for withdrawal from the study at any time (Appendix C). Teachers who taught humanities or
science received an email describing the study.
Two participants were science teachers. The third was a history teacher. The fourth did
not attend or communicate that they were not attending. The three teacher participants were
currently teaching in a gifted program on the school campus. The history teacher participant
engaged in collaborative work with the English teacher on their team this school year. Distance
learning has made consistent grade-level team meetings and opportunities for collaboration with
a new English teacher possible for the history teacher this year. In the 20 years that he had been
teaching at the school, he stated that he had not ever had the opportunity for collaboration. Of all
three participants, he provided the most responses that reflected a synthesis of content and
metacognition.
The focus group interview results are not generalizable to an entire population of teachers
and students. This type of sampling was nonprobability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
purposeful sample was assembled from those who had signed up for the study. The sampling was
purposeful so that the data could be applied to similar teachers (Maxwell, 2013). The qualities
sought in teacher participants were those of teachers in democratic classrooms that developed
learner’s voice and used student-driven curriculum (Krueger & Casey, 2015; Leach, 2018). The
choice to participate in the study was meant to parallel their choice in professional development.
Jayaram et al. (2012) said that professional development should be relevant to the teachers’
developmental needs so that they might use what they learn to benefit their students. Self-
selected professional development is a way to promote autonomy and relevance in teacher
learning (Gregson & Sturko, 2007; Jayaram et al., 2012).
50

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The professional development sessions consisted of two activities. The first was
constructing a spaghetti tower, and the second was analyzing a journal article. Teacher
participants used the NSRF’s discussion protocol to analyze the article to construct meaning. I
delivered the materials and handouts to the teacher participants. All participants received the
activity materials for the spaghetti tower (a bag of uncooked spaghetti noodles, masking tape,
lesson plan), the protocol, and the article in advance of the study activity. Participants’
preparation before a professional learning experience was based on research-informed best
practices (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Ginsburg, 2011; Wei et al., 2009).
The discussion protocol, Save the Last Word For Me, was designed by the NSRF to
facilitate voice, equity, and constructed meaning within a meeting or learning situation. The
protocol was designed to guide discussions so that all participant voices are heard and
acknowledged (NSRF, 2020). The protocol’s procedures provided a model for guiding points for
discussion as well as time limits on participant speaking time. I served as the moderator for the
groups.
The use of Rules for Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network Design (Tero et al., 2010)
was at the top of the ZPD for teacher participants. Teacher participants are used to using
traditional curriculum materials and following a prescribed set of standards for their teaching.
The article and analysis activity with the protocol was challenging. When applied to teacher
training, the ZPD provides skills that teachers can acquire with the assistance of more capable
peers (Shabani et al., 2010). In the study activity, the more capable peers are the teacher
participants. This shifting of roles experienced by teacher participants between teachers and
learners may have pushed all participants to the edge of their intramental plane and brought
51

equity to the teaching and learning experience. This simulated professional development was a
model to develop equitable experiences of the teacher participants as they developed cooperative
and collaborative skills through modeled professional development.
The video conferencing platform Zoom was utilized to conduct both the study activities
and the focus group interviews. Due to distance learning, this has been the primary mode of
teaching and learning by the time the activity and focus group interviews were conducted. Zoom
was particularly useful because the activities and transcript were recorded. The transcript was
analyzed as data for spoken participation that showed equity, voice, and constructed knowledge.
Statements that teacher participants made during the activity were categorized and coded
(Krueger & Casey, 2015). NVivo was used to code, categorize, and analyze the recorded
transcript (Appendix D).
Focus Group Interviews
The purpose of a focus group interview is to collect opinions on a specific issue (Krueger
& Casey, 2015). This type of interview was appropriate because the study was narrow in focus.
The research questions investigated particular types of learning and examined the impact of
cooperative and collaborative learning modeling on professional development outcomes. The
focus group members were three teacher participants who took part in the Spaghetti Towers
activity and the discussion group protocol. Their views were examined for patterns to find
emerging themes to address the research questions (Krueger & Casey, 2015). The study used an
unstructured/informal interview protocol. This type of interview used open-ended questions and
was exploratory (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants’ data were constructed based on their
experience within the Spaghetti Towers and article analysis activities. Thirteen questions were
asked of participants (Appendix E). There was one focus group. The research questions were the
52

basis of the focus group questions. During the interview, the participants’ responses were
monitored, and further probing questions were asked when needed.
Data Analysis
The activities and the focus group interviews were recorded, and their transcripts were
coded and analyzed. Data analysis began with the coding of statements, conversations, and
responses to focus group questions related to the professional development sessions. Focus group
questions were created to analyze emerging themes that may be used to address the research
questions (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Analysis was also systematic and immediately followed
each focus group.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
The study took place at the organization where I work: a public school in Los Angeles,
California. All three participants are colleagues. I have worked directly with two of them, and the
third will be joining the specialized gifted program next year. I do not oversee any of the
participants and play no role in their advancement. The University of Southern California’s IRB
reviewed and approved this study. The school district’s Committee for External Research
Review also reviewed and approved the study.
I have twice previously conducted similar teacher professional development using the
Save the Last Word for Me discussion protocol. The topics of each of these sessions centered
around equity in the classroom. Bias was reduced in this study because the purpose and
outcomes differed for each session, and the learning environment of the previous sessions
included teachers and students working together. The environment of this study only included
teachers.
53

A researcher’s influence on the participants is known as reactivity (Maxwell, 2013). I had
to consider that I was a doctoral student at USC conducting this study in that role. To avoid
inaccurate assumptions about the study and correct responses, I chose careful language and
demeanor. Reactivity was minimized by careful review of the questions so that participants could
respond authentically (Maxwell, 2013). A clear explanation of the purpose of the study also
helped to reduce reactivity. I provided participants the discussion protocol ahead of the activity. I
also provided a review of the directions before the activity (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Discussion
protocols are not typical of the average science classroom (Leach, 2018).
I acted as a participant in the Save the Last Word protocol professional development. One
participant did not attend, so it was necessary to participate. I served as a model for the
discussion protocol.
The recorded Zoom activities and focus group interviews and transcripts were important
in recording data as presented (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Informed consent was essential for the
teacher-participant group. The teacher participants were reminded that participation was
voluntary and that they may have chosen to discontinue at any time. The consent forms
(Appendix C) explained this as well as the risks and benefits of the activities and the focus group
interview (Creswell, 2014; Krueger & Casey, 2015).

54

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore cooperative and collaborative designs of teacher
professional development and their potential to positively affect the transfer of learning to
classroom practices, particularly practices of cooperative and collaborative learning and equity.
The quality of the learning design was used to address the disparity between the large
investments in teacher professional development and improvements in classroom practice.
Sociocultural theory of learning provided a lens to examine learning aspects that might influence
the transfer of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The findings and emergent themes revealed that, when
viewed through a lens of SCT, teacher professional development has to be planned to meet the
teachers’ needs.
Chapter Two surveyed the problems associated with current forms of teacher professional
development and discussed best practices and highly effective models. Chapter Three presented
the theoretical framework, sociocultural learning, and made a case for applying this theory to
teachers within school settings. This chapter presents the findings from two simulated teacher
professional development sessions and one focus group interview. The following three research
questions sought to consider the relationship between the quality of the sessions and their
influence on classroom practice:
1. How could the modeling of cooperative and collaborative learning in teacher professional
development influence cooperative and collaborative learning in the classroom?
2. How may modeled equitable practices in teacher professional development influence
equitable classroom practices?
3. What do teachers suggest would be most impactful in the design of future teacher
professional development?
55

Participant Stakeholders
Three teachers from the same program at one middle-school campus participated in the
two professional development sessions and one focus group interview. Two taught science, and
one taught history. They all had at least 10 years of teaching experience and had been teaching at
this one campus for at least five years. Two participants have had some previous experience with
collaborative learning in teacher professional development. Participant 1, on the other hand, had
experienced collaborative learning for the first time in his career within teacher professional
development during distance learning. The collaborative work was over time, so he experienced
developing his collaborative teaching and fine tuned the learning process for his students. He met
with his grade-level team every week to reflect on the process and share the work his students
produced. This participant contributed the most to discussions and showed the most synthesis of
new ideas. His previous experiences may have enhanced the quality of his responses and
experiences in the study.
Research Question Findings and Themes
The overall finding was that modeled teacher professional development may be used to
develop capacity to teach cooperative and collaborative learning as well as develop equity in
classrooms. The following section provides data and analysis for the research questions as well
as themes that arose through the two simulated teacher professional development sessions and
focus group interviews. Data were the interactions, comments, questions, and responses. In
sociocultural learning theory, social interactions are essential to the learning experience. For Day
1 of the study, the activity was the Spaghetti Towers Challenge. The challenge was a cooperative
lesson in which teachers took on the roles of students as they constructed a tower made from
uncooked spaghetti noodles. Day 2 of the study included a collaborative analysis of a
56

biomimicry article using the NSRF discussion protocol. The focus group interview took place on
Day 3 of the study.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “How could the modeling of cooperative and
collaborative learning in teacher professional development influence transfer of cooperative and
collaborative learning to the classroom?” The two simulated teacher professional development
sessions were designed to engage in cooperative and collaborative learning with the teacher
participants. Since cooperative learning is a simpler form of collaborative learning, the second
session may have been enhanced by the first session. Based on the conversations during the two
sessions and the focus group interview, three themes arose related to how the participants could
see this type of professional development influencing collaborative learning in their classrooms.
Throughout both sessions, the teachers made statements that showed the connections between
the activities they were engaged in and how they could use them in their classrooms.
Teacher participants actively synthesized new ideas and engaged in metacognition.
Shabani (2016), Voogt et al. (2016), and Warford (2010) concluded that if the synthesis of new
ideas and the development of metacognition occurs, then teacher participants may be likely to
use what they learn from professional development within their classrooms. There were more
novel ideas synthesized during the discussion protocol than the challenge. The challenge
modeled cooperative learning in which teacher participants worked together to complete a
teacher-defined task, while the protocol modeled collaborative learning in which they worked
together to analyze an article.
The themes that emerged regarding the first were relevance to classroom practice,
interdisciplinary connections through interactions, and connections to prior knowledge in
57

increasing transfer of learning. Learning transfer from modeled cooperative and collaborative
activities may be enhanced if it is relevant to classroom practice, if it is interactive enough for
interdisciplinary connections to emerge, and if it is connected to teachers’ prior knowledge and
experiences.
Theme 1: Relevance of Professional Development Learning to Classroom Practice
The elements of cooperative learning that were modeled in the challenge were intellectual
interactions, the interdependence of group members, interactivity, and accountability (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999). As participants engaged in discussion, their intellectual interactions modeled the
academic rigor of cooperative learning. Participants 2 and 3 gave an example of an intellectual
interaction through cooperative learning. Even though the end product, a stable spaghetti tower,
was teacher-defined, participants used their interactions to guide their learning. Participant 3, for
example, completed an action based on an intellectual conversation she had with Participant 2.
After the earthquake and intervention, Participant 3 said,
I have an orange tree outside. And this one has branches that are coming up fairly low,
but as I noticed, the trunk of it. It widens at the base so, even though it has branches
going off in all directions. I think it’s a really sturdy base. It’s almost like a triangle. It
gives it its durability. What I’m going for is a really sturdy base, and then that way I can
just focus on building up the top.
Participant 2 used Participant 3’s ideas to consider another aspect of stability and
connected a past experience to his present learning situation when he replied,
I don’t have this particular tree, but I’m reminded of a tree in Hawaii when I was last
there. It had vines that went straight down from branches to help hold up the massive
58

branches. I’m wondering if I can connect some of these down to create even more
stability.
The participants modeled group interdependence for each other as they assumed roles as
teacher and student as they worked together. Sometimes, they were in the role of a teacher as
they offered suggestions to the other participants. At other times, they were in the role of
students as they were learning from another participant. Even though the challenge took place on
Zoom, participants saw each other’s work. Sometimes, they moved their cameras to describe
what they were thinking. When Participant 1’s tower fell apart, he looked at Participant 2’s tower
to rebuild it and make it stronger. The strategy that Participant 2 used was incorporated by
Participant 1:
But that’s the idea, and that’s what we did, and Participant 2 showed it well. So from my
standpoint, I need to reexamine my base, make it better, make it stronger, and go higher.
How do I go higher? I think Participant 2 has a good idea about that to where the higher
you go, the less strands of spaghetti you use.
Participant 2 replied, “Where Participant 1 went with lower and sturdier, I went with higher and
less sturdy, and then Participant 3 met us, right in the middle. We’re perfect Goldilocks.”
Participants 1 and 2 shared ideas to accomplish a task. They actively engaged in their learning
processes with this opportunity to practice what they might want their students to do within a
cooperative learning situation. The statement by Participant 2 that “we’re perfect Goldilocks”
was a statement of support and showed group interdependence.
During the challenge, as participants built and rebuilt their towers as they discussed
strategies, their thinking was made visible as they modeled quality interactions for each other.
Accountability was in the form of constraints. Each participant worked with the same materials,
59

time limits, and end product. In the focus group interview, Participants 1 and 2 discussed that the
time factor of accountability was particularly useful in the professional development activity and
would be useful in cooperative activities in class.
The challenge was a model of cooperative engagement that teachers stated they could use
in their classrooms. They practiced the activity and experienced the benefits of cooperative
learning as they built their towers. Even though they worked together to accomplish a teacher-
defined goal, some collaborative thinking also emerged as they were finding connections outside
of the assigned activity. The study participants were able to get and give feedback to each other
as well as use each other’s cooperative strategies.
Theme 2: Interdisciplinary Connections Emerged Through Interactions
Teacher participants made interdisciplinary connections during the challenge and
protocol. Interdisciplinary teaching and learning is the application of concepts or content of one
subject to another subject to create new ideas or solve real-world problems (Duerr, 2008; Styron,
2013). During the Challenge, Participant 1 related the stability of the tower to warfare in ancient
history. He related the fortification of the tower to a warfare tactic of strength in numbers and
was able to pull out the metaphor of it as he said,
Actually, there’s a historical reference for this like as you add more in there, it makes a
stronger structure there because they’re all fighting against moving, and so they’ve
oftentimes used that as a metaphor for war and battles so like the more men that you have
compact, the more they can move around like the Spartan warriors.
To build a tall spaghetti tower, many noodles had to be bundled together to form a thick,
strong structure to support the tower. Participant 1 connected the challenge task in literal ways as
he pointed out the metaphor for war. The participants’ conversations showed that
60

interdisciplinary teaching may be facilitated when there are interactions between teachers of
different disciplines. Throughout the 3 days of the study, participants expressed interest in the
connections that their colleagues revealed. They used words of emotion like “amazing,”
“awesome,” “interesting, “I like that idea,” and “I really enjoyed.” The words and phrases
showed social interactions and participation at an emotional level.
During the protocol activity, Participant 1 connected the complex task of empire building
to biomimicry. Empire building was not just the conquering of one piece of land after another, as
it was planned in terms of resources that could contribute to the empire, just as nature is looked
at for inspiration in biomimicry. The article discussed the growth nature of fungus as it only
grows underground where it can obtain resources. Participant 1 explained,
What struck me is very interesting is I don’t know if there’s a correlation between nature
and humans in terms of what I would consider empire building. I’ll give you an example
of what ancient armies did before they would attack. They would do reconnaissance, they
would send scouts out and control and look at the territory, look at the terrain look at all
these factors to see what is the optimum way of attacking the empire, and then after that,
they would use diplomacy, first, so these people thought of a cost-effective analysis and
consider that it might be more prudent to reach out to these people without warfare first.
During the challenge, connections to prior experiences and other content arose, and
during the discussion protocol, deeper connections were made. Relating the ideas of the way
empires used their resources and nature uses its resources to solve its own problems was a way
for Participant 1 to make sense of the topic of biomimicry.
In the focus group interview, Participant 3 said, “So, I like how you have mentioned,
Participant 2 and Participant 4 how math is not happening in Room 2, but it’s happening in math
61

class in Room 5, but it’s also happening all around us in nature, which is amazing.” Participant 3
was referring to the math concepts within the science article. She continued, “So, we can have
them know that all knowledge is connected, that it’s just not separate little entities. They tend to
compartmentalize what we teach them into always just science, just math, or just history.” The
connections between the science article, history, and math showed processing of the content and
flexible thinking by the teacher participants. The sessions, both on the topic of biomimicry,
provided models for the gathering of teachers of different subject matters to begin thinking about
content from different points of view.
The participants showed that they were intellectually stimulated as they continually
participated in both sessions. The historical connection of the Spartan warriors and nature could
not have been discussed without the presence of the history teacher. The math connection of
patterns in nature would not have been understood if the science teacher did not discuss them.
They each helped each other to acquire new content using their expertise and past experiences.
During the focus group interview, Participants 1 and 2 discussed how their prior
knowledge was activated when offering their content connections to biomimicry. Participant 1
was thinking out loud when he said, “ It was amazing to see other disciplines and how complex
they can be, but also how I can with my prior knowledge glimmer an understanding, overall, of
what you guys are talking about and what your disciplines are saying.” The interdisciplinary
connections arose spontaneously and added interest as they would in a classroom (Duerr, 2008).
The teacher participants spontaneously identified connections as they interacted and considered
the article’s content in the protocol activity. They each responded with interest to each other’s
connections. Some of the connections were further discussed, but the structure of the protocol
kept everyone on task.
62

Thinking skills that were initiated during the challenge were furthered during the
discussion protocol session. Throughout all 3 days, the teacher participants expressed it was
valuable for them to interact with each other, particularly to share strategies and learn about each
other’s classes. Participant 2 expressed,
It’s a nice idea if we take a lesson from the history department, a lesson from math, and
lesson from science, and we do an activity like this over the course of a PD [session]. It
does open up our thinking. I want to see what you know because I don’t always know
what they’re teaching in math or what they’re teaching in history.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) discussed that collaborative work during teacher
professional development may change teacher practice. When teachers experience cooperative
and collaborative learning, they can bring relevance to their learning and pedagogy because they
can simultaneously be student and teacher. Professional development at the campus of study was
generally done in isolation, either within departments or by video and quiz. This was also the
case before distance learning. Teacher participants generated interdisciplinary connections and
expressed how the study’s modeled professional development led to more interesting interactions
than their past experiences with professional development.
Theme 3: Connections to Prior Knowledge May Increase Transfer of Learning
All three teacher participants have used cooperative learning in their classrooms.
Participant 3 compared a project that her class does to the activity within the simulated
professional development, “design a sustainable home, which is part of having a sustainable
world for the future. They can take ideas from nature and come up with their ideas. If we could
all do that, maybe we could develop better ones.” She considered the biomimicry components of
the spaghetti towers and science article in terms of her current environmental project. The
63

connection to her previous experience allowed her to make more sense of the immediate lessons
of the challenge as well as further her thinking about how to use the new ideas in her classroom.
Participant 2 said that he would use what he learned from the study professional
development sessions in his classroom, “Like, would they work in our classrooms? I think they
would.” He continued, “Right, so I like that idea with engineering, implementing the two units of
engineering and environmental science mashing them all together.”
Participants 2 and 3 practiced connecting new ideas with preexisting ideas. Shabani
(2016) applied SCT to teachers when he suggested that learners needed to connect their prior
knowledge to new knowledge for learning to take place. The teacher participants practiced
making connections to prior knowledge as they experienced what they may want their students to
do in a similar collaborative class situation. During the focus group interview, Participant 2 said,
So, I really like that aspect of it, which was fantastic and again showed us different
perspectives on the article’s importance. And me looking at it and being able to see and
realized, yes, there is that evidence, so this will help the students when they develop a
claim, evidence, and reasoning statement. They usually focus on only very limited
perspective of evidence, and this will help them to reinforce bringing a lot of the evidence
into their ideas and help them to come up with the overall statement that reflects more
diverse thinking.
Academic exercises that require students to create statements of claim, evidence, and
reasoning are used to develop scientific thinking and critical thinking in other subjects such as
social studies and English language arts. These often appear on standardized formative and
summative assessments. Both Participant 2 and Participant 3 did not have to learn completely
new skills. The teacher participants could see the parts from the professional development
64

sessions that would improve their classroom practice. The new ideas were similar enough to their
preexisting ideas so that learning transfer may be facilitated. Research on learning transfer
indicates that new ideas that are similar to a learner’s current knowledge would be transferred
more readily than completely new content (Day & Goldstone, 2012).
Summary for Research Question 1
Cooperative and collaborative learning transfer may increase if professional development
is specifically designed. Three themes emerged. Teacher participants are able to practice or
refine the skills and interactions that they may teach their students. Highly interactive sessions
allow teachers to find relevance to their content areas and allow interdisciplinary connections to
emerge. The third is that connections to prior knowledge and experiences may impact transfer of
learning.
Cooperative and collaborative learning provide teachers opportunities to practice
interdisciplinary thinking. During the discussion protocol session, interdisciplinary connections
that reflected different ways of looking at the article’s content arose as teacher participants
shared their ideas. The interactive nature of the sessions allowed the interdisciplinary
connections to naturally emerge. Teacher participants related the activities to what they have
done in their classrooms and what they might do in the future. The skills teachers need to
develop pedagogy for collaborative learning involve a process that may need to be developed.
Participant 1 had the most in-depth responses as well as the most experience with collaborative
learning. The conversations and responses grew in depth from the first session to the focus group
interview. This may have been because of the consistency in the theme. Modeling cooperative
and collaborative teaching and learning pedagogy through interactive sessions that consider
teacher prior knowledge may increase transfer of learning to the classroom.
65

Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “How may the modeled equitable practices in
teacher professional development influence equitable classroom practices?” The manifestation of
equitable classrooms within the theoretical model for this study is a democratic classroom where
knowledge is constructed. Edwards (2007) acknowledged that equity that leads to democratic
classrooms is very difficult to teach teachers. Guskey (2002) said that most teachers default to
teaching the way they have been taught. For teachers to adapt new practices, they have to work
together in a collegial environment and they feel confident that they can use new strategies
(Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2002). Three themes emerged to address. The themes suggest that
equitable thinking in the classroom may be developed through teacher professional development
that fosters foundational thinking in equity, the practice of synthesizing knowledge, and direct
experiences with equity.
Theme 4: Foundational Thinking to Develop Equity in the Classroom
Teaching teachers to develop equity in their classrooms was a primary challenge
Brubaker (2012) discussed regarding developing equity in democratic classrooms. In a
democratic classroom, learning is constructed by cooperative and collaborative interactions
between students and teachers. Each teacher must develop a flexible methodology to suit their
learning environments because there is no prescribed way to teach students how to function
within a democratic environment or construct knowledge (Brubaker, 2012). During the protocol
activity, Participant 1 referred to encouraging the critical, free thinking of his students as he
expressed that his job as a history teacher was to teach more than traditional historical facts. He
said, “And regarding asking questions, the fact is that asking questions is essential to science,
but, to me, it’s essential for everything. It just doesn’t stop there.” Participant 1 acknowledged
66

that students need to ask questions. He also realized the value of student thinking. The
opportunity for Participant 1’s reflection on asking questions was built into the Save the Last
Word for Me discussion protocol. This step in the protocol provided an opportunity to experience
equity in a way that is not available to teachers in traditional professional development.
In the focus group interview, Participant 2 discussed some initial discomfort with the
article. He said,
Initially thinking about it, the article was really difficult to read. I had to go and check
sites and sources for verbiage, and things like that, so I think the article would be difficult
for the students but I actually kind of like that difficulty.
To have them have that moment of struggling through something and then give
them the experience of we’re going to talk about it, go in depth together so that it’s okay
to not fully understand something so, I guess initially, I was like, oh man, this is heavy
reading, but I get the point of it, and I think that’s actually a good thing.
In a classroom where free thinking that Dewey (1938) believed was essential to
equity, all students do not learn everything in the same way or at the same time. Participant 2
expressed his discomfort as a participant. The feeling of discomfort may need to be experienced
and processed by teachers of classrooms that desire to develop equity. If Participant 2 did not
have to struggle with the article, he might not have foundational understanding of teaching for
equity.
An equitable and democratic classrooms environment was modeled in the challenge and
the protocol activities. In the challenge, equity was modeled as the teacher participants worked
together to help each other overcome the difficulties of building their towers. They gave each
other suggestions and words of encouragement. A democratic environment was modeled for
67

participants as they had choice in how to process content, and their academic interactions
became interdependent. In a traditional classroom, students would receive the content from the
teacher. In a democratic classroom, everyone’s ideas are valued. In the challenge, participants
worked cooperatively to make sense of a goal. Even though the cooperative task had a teacher-
defined goal, the processing of the content was negotiable. It was these negotiations that
provided an experience of equity. The protocol was a procedure that invited equity. Every
participant could participate if they chose to with the depth of intellectual contributions they felt
appropriate. There was no element of competition or only one correct answer.
The participants’ responses regarding the protocol showed how they understood diverse
ideas as foundational to equity in the classroom. Participant 1 said,
And the fact that we are at one point in our history as human beings, we resisted
knowledge, and we resisted moving forward. All these things that we now embrace
ultimately and understand are essential to our survival. Participant 2, you raise some
excellent points because we’re talking about them.
Participant 1 said, “because we’re talking about them.” He was referring to a diversity of ideas
that were not typically connected for him before the protocol. Such ideas from the article were of
nature’s strategies for survival, like fungus creating its own path to scarce resources and plants
generating their own systems of communication. He did not think that these new ideas would
deepen his understanding or give him a new perspective on history. The main idea of history is
understanding that civilization advanced with developed knowledge. It was this realization that
equity is new knowledge and is going to be resisted, but it is necessary to move forward. Each
teacher participant modeled equitable practices for each other as they participated in the
Protocol.
68

Participant 2 added,
I think again in bringing in others’ perspectives, is perfect, because even though, like we
all kind of saw the main gist of the article, the fact that we all brought different focal
points and seeing those different ideas like, especially from different mindsets. So,
Participant 1 kind of coming at it, but historically. It’s awesome because I don’t always
know all the historical events you could tie this to, so hearing what you had to say makes
perfect sense now.
Both Participant 1 and Participant 2 practiced and reflected on connecting diverse ideas that they
did not consider were related. They also shared the value of different perspectives. The ideas of
metacognitive awareness and different perspectives arose from Participant 1 when he said that
humans have resisted knowledge. All of these processes, from connecting diverse ideas to
metacognitive awareness, were modeled by each teacher participant during the protocol activity.
In a classroom environment where equity is central, each student’s ideas about the content would
be valued and used to benefit others. As a history teacher, this idea of resistance to knowledge
impeding historical progress is foundational, not just to his own growth and development as a
history teacher but also to the historical understanding that he is trying to impart to his students.
Participant 2 validated Participant 1’s ideas of conceptual thinking when he expressed the value
of knowing what students are learning in history class. The discussion protocol was a chance for
Participant 2 to experience looking at science content from a historical perspective. Participant 3
also reflected on diverse student thinking as she said,
I find it fascinating when the students show me the patterns they choose, such as flower
petals, and how everything is geometrically designed in such a way. I’m amazed at that,
69

so I feel that we can make that connection between all those patterns and how nature uses
geometry.
Participant 3 was able to make further connections beyond science and history to math,
nature, and design. All three teacher participants were able to experience thinking and learning
beyond the traditional classroom experience. Their responses were models for deep consideration
of multiple perspectives and critical thinking. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) said
that for teacher professional development to be impactful, teacher participants must
simultaneously experience teaching and learning and struggle and negotiate content and their
roles within the classroom. All the study participants did those things within the two simulated
professional development sessions. They were teacher-learners as they assimilated content
within their existing schemas. Jayaram et al. (2012) said that democratic classrooms could be
mirrors of democratic societies. The learning experiences of the teacher participants could serve
as mirrors for equity in their classrooms.
Theme 5: Teachers May Benefit if They Practice Synthesis of Knowledge
In traditional classrooms where learning is mostly teacher-directed, knowledge is taken
in, not synthesized by students (Dewey, 1938). Classrooms may be places where equity is
practiced if thinking over knowing is emphasized (Dewey, 1938). Teacher participants practiced
synthesizing knowledge. Synthesizing learning in teacher professional development is as
valuable for teachers as it is for their students. In the Save the Last Word protocol session,
teacher participants actively engaged in making the professional development relevant by
synthesizing content.
In the focus group interview, teacher participants discussed specific skills they might
have to pay close attention to if they implemented a discussion tool such as Save the Last Word
70

for Me. Despite the steps of participation being established, they all had ideas of how to make the
most of their students’ learning experience through the emphasis of self-editing, wait time, and
reflection. The ideas may not have been arrived at if it were not for their conversation and
collaborative experience within the focus group interview. The teacher participants who
discussed skills and strategies may use a tool such as Save the Last Word for Me more effectively
than a teacher who individually tried to implement it.
During the protocol, Participant 1 said, “Basically, we are inspired by just observing the
world and realizing that there’s a universal language at work here, and if we listen to it, we can
adapt, we can succeed, we can flourish within our society.” Participant 1 defined biomimicry as
he understood it. The idea of “universal language” was processed through the Protocol
conversation as the group analyzed the article. As they discussed other subject matter as
universal languages such as math, history, science, and art, they came to see nature as a universal
language for sustainability. Participant 1 remarked, “I’m surprised that this curriculum
[biomimicry] wasn’t noticed hundreds of years ago.” The teacher participants continued the
conversation with how their perceptions were challenged with new knowledge of biomimicry.
For example, they said that they never thought that plants communicate with each other or that
they are able to figure out the most efficient ways to solve resource challenges. They concluded
that the reason mankind has not been able to harness the strategies of nature is that humanity
views itself as separate from nature. The ideas were not specific to any of the content areas that
they teach. Gregson and Sturko (2007) said that teachers who have confidence in newly learned
skills are more likely to teach them. Practicing synthesis of content with their colleagues may
help teachers feel confident and, thus, engage more often in content synthesis with their students.
71

The teacher participants discussed that the protocol offered opportunities for students to
think beyond the content of the article. Participant 3 said,
This article implies to me that they are having a type of communication, in which they
are all working together as one single unit in which they are working and connected to
others. I would like to know more about it. I just find it fascinating.
Participants continued to make connections to outside ideas as their conversation moved
from fungal communication to man-made energy grids as Participant 1 explained as he
considered the discussion protocol,
Not having these assumptions, if my kids are learning this now in the classroom,
challenging their beliefs and not making everything so rigid. This applies to every aspect
of their life, and I think this is valuable for them.
He also continued with his thoughts of the value of the discussion protocol: “[The
protocol brought up] ideas in terms of understanding the true nature of questions being asked,
and also the idea that I could grow.” Participant 1 used his participation as a teacher/learner
within the protocol to reflect on the metacognitive nature of the protocol itself and his growth as
a lifelong learner. He was able to make the connection between a skill, metacognition, and how
the skill would be useful in other life contexts. His comments were not just about connecting one
idea to another, as there were multiple ideas that showed divergent thinking, such as when he
related the fungal networks in the analysis article to ancient military tactics and then the Catholic
church. He first started with a literal connection between fungal networks and military
reconnaissance. Then he ended with his thoughts on the discussion protocol process and how he
related it to critical thinking and the importance of other perspectives. He was able to verbalize
the danger of one perspective when he gave the example of the geocentric universe that was
72

historically promoted by the Catholic Church. The deep connections that Participant 1 made may
have been due to the proximity of his existent use of cooperative and collaborative learning to
the professional development sessions. If teachers are provided with opportunities to create ideas
in professional development, their comfort with their students synthesizing knowledge may
grow. Participant 1 was very comfortable with synthesizing knowledge during the professional
development sessions.
Theme 6: Teachers May Benefit From Modeled Experiences That Deal With Equity
Teachers may benefit from direct experiences with equity. Teachers may not have
developed equitable pedagogy from their teacher training programs (Edwards, 2007). The
methodologies that promote equity in the classroom may be taught within professional
development if taught within a democratic classroom context with teachers engaging in selecting
content (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Gandin & Apple, 2012; Hensley et al., 2017).
Elements of pedagogy that promote equity in the classroom were modeled during the
professional development sessions in the study. Equitable pedagogy included placing student
interactions at the center of learning in the Challenge and constructing knowledge in the
Protocol. The Protocol elicited opportunities for engagement and reflection of equitable
practices. Participants connected the characteristics of their students to equitable practices from
the discussion protocol. Participant 2 explained his thinking:
They draw out their thinking, share it, and receive it simultaneously, especially with the
more they practice. This sharing out should be a daily occurrence. Because the more
students practice, the better they get at communication. And not only better
communicating but also receiving information in their listening skills which I think is
vital.
73

Participant 3 added her thoughts about how the discussion protocol could include everyone, even
students who might not be prepared. Students may not be prepared for a variety of reasons. She
said,
Oh, I enjoyed this idea of having the students focus on one concept and then expand upon
it, bringing everything that they know. I feel that it will help the students that have not
done a lot of the reading for them to get a lot of information from it, and I believe that it
will then kind of strengthen the weak within the group.
Participant 1 elaborated on Participant 3’s thoughts, emphasizing the tendency of students in
gifted programs to dominate conversations and class discussions in which they have high
interest. Everyone else’s voice is silenced when only one or two students speak within a small
group or class discussion. Participant 1 agreed with Participant 3’s thoughts as he pointed out
that this is an issue of equity. Participant 1 said,
Participant 3, you raise a good point, and the word is equity; this is an equitable thing and
removes the acrimony or the bias that students may have, or at least I would hope it
would. We incorporate their ideas with our ideas to make something even better, and this
is a good lesson for not only the discipline of understanding complex information but also
understanding the mindset of the people and how they can reduce their prejudice and
bias, or whatever they come into class with and just be open to things and open to new
things and ideas that they’re exposed to.
The discussion protocol activity was an opportunity to experience equity of thought and
behavior as the teacher participants hoped their students would. Participant 1 discussed that
equitable thinking may be developed in students when they are able to both understand complex
content and the viewpoints of others to reduce bias. All the teacher participants recognized that
74

equitable thinking is an ability that needs to be developed. Participant 3 explained that not all
students would be comfortable with not knowing the “answer” or being given the “information,”
like they experienced in the professional development, but that once they practiced, and became
more comfortable, they would just “take off with it.” Equity is a practice and may be enhanced
by practice first with teachers and then their students. In regards to equity, Participant 1 said,
The thing with me is I’ve had certain assumptions about how I teach, and this article has
challenged one of the most critical assumptions. Like I said before, the idea of centralized
versus decentralized. What is better? You’re assuming that centralized control, whether
it’s a government or whether it’s anything, is more efficient [and] the best way to go
about doing it, but it may not be and for me to challenge my assumption is something that
I feel is vital. If my assumptions are challenged, then my students’ assumptions are
challenged, and that’s very important. You know, I’m 60 years old, so because I’ve been
a long time with my assumptions and they are comfortable, they’re comfortable to me, I
like them, but then again, they may not be the best.
To develop equity in classrooms, teachers may need to challenge their assumptions about what
equity is and provide experiences for their students that promote equity. Participant 1’s mention
of his age and questioning of his comfort suggest that teachers can learn new ways of doing
things. The realization was both emotional and intellectual for Participant 1. His comments
showed that he understood that equity takes time to develop when he discussed incorporating
ideas of others to synthesize new ideas. Teachers who are not comfortable with their students
developing ideas beyond the text may not be ready to provide a foundation of equity for their
students to think freely. To feel comfortable and confident with providing equitable
opportunities, teachers may need to practice equitable activities with their colleagues.
75

Summary for Research Question 2
Modeled equitable practices in teacher professional development may influence
classroom practices if the foundations of equitable thinking are developed. The foundations of
equitable thinking that the professional development sessions modeled were different
perspectives, synthesis of content, reflection, and interaction. Teacher participants noted that
they wanted their students to understand the value of different perspectives. They drew parallels
between their own experiences in the challenge and the protocol to what they wanted their
students to experience. They also noted that students may feel uncomfortable with constructing
knowledge and that it may take time and practice by teachers and students. By the end of the
protocol, teacher participants felt more comfortable with their comments. Participant 1, who had
the most experience with collaborative learning contributed the most reflections on equity and
perspectives. Participants’ reflections on equity that resulted from the protocol suggested that it
may be helpful for teachers in facilitating the understanding of an abstract concept such as
equity.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What do teachers suggest would be most impactful in
the design of future teacher professional development?” The teacher participants responded to
the focus group questions related to this research question based on their experiences at the
school at which they presently teach. One day each week, students are dismissed an hour and a
half early so that teachers may engage in professional development in the form of content
department meetings, grade-level meetings, specialized program meetings, or school-wide
district-mandated topics on this campus. A major theme that emerged from the focus group
interview was the need for effective planning in allocating school time.
76

The seventh theme pertained to using school time for professional development.
Participants suggested that what is currently taking place does not make effective use of school
time. They cited lack of planning that included last-minute agendas, no agendas, disconnect to
classrooms, and poor execution on campus as contributing to ineffective sessions. Participant 1
said that frequently, his department chair says the same thing, “Well, I got nothing from the
administration,” as he looked for the agenda and replied again, “I got nothing.” Another teacher
participant replied, “Right.” Participant 3 added,
And make it so that it is worth our time versus some other piece that we’ve gone to and
which some person says, I got nothing for you. We’re just going to hang out here. Oh,
okay, why don’t we just talk, or is there, like some purpose to that talk?
Participant 1 replied, “Yeah, well, you know what happens in our meetings.” According to the
participants, professional development is not organizationally driven. The participants indicated
that planning is non-existent at the school.
Further, the participants stated that even when there has been an agenda from the
administration, the time spent on professional development has still been wasted. Participant 1
said, “Oh, wait, we have to fill all these boxes. You gotta stop talking; we gotta get a ‘good.’” He
was referring to the teachers moving through the agenda items. The teacher participants indicated
that they wanted professional development that was interactive and interesting. Participant 2 said
he wants to have professional development that will help him make learning memorable for his
students.
Teacher participants suggested that professional development should be unified and
organized. Unified, instead of fragmented, professional development would be connected so that
teachers could develop as learners over time. The participants also referred to unity as not being
77

isolated within their own content departments. They also expressed that they wanted to know
what their colleagues in the school were teaching in their classrooms. They said that talking with
other teachers is helpful to their own teaching, especially when they discuss teaching strategies.
Organization with a specific purpose and agenda would bring professionalism to
professional development. Further ideas about this organization included goals that involved
equity and access as well as the timing of professional development. The participants noted that
the timing of professional development sessions often does not match what they are teaching or
could immediately be teaching in their classrooms.
In terms of professional development they engaged in through this research, the teacher
participants explained that they thought the Protocol was mostly verbal and that there could be a
discussion of how to include other styles of learning preferences within the professional
development session. An example suggested by a teacher participant was a lesson in annotation
or visualization that could be used as a preview lesson before analyzing complex text.
They also wanted professional development to address strategies that teachers could use to
differentiate the learning for their specific group of students. Strategies might include vocabulary
development, a preview of complex text with the teacher, text annotating skills, and developing
questioning skills. They all said they want professional development sessions like “these,”
referring to the professional development sessions of the study.
Conclusion
In teacher professional development, the ideal learning environment may be constructed
based on teachers’ knowledge and past experiences. It may need to be interactive, engaging
socially, supportive, and intellectually challenging. Such an environment is also the environment
of a highly effective classroom where equity is supported. The study explored how the modeling
78

of cooperative and collaborative professional development could influence collaborative learning
in the classroom and equitable practices, as well as what teachers suggest would be the most
impactful in the design of future sessions. The main findings were that effective development
may be influenced by proximity to classroom practice, that interdisciplinary thinking may
emerge when cooperative and collaborative learning are designed into the sessions, and that it is
connected to teachers’ prior knowledge. Additional considerations that emerged in developing
abstract concepts such as equity may need to be developed over time with teachers having access
to ideas and conversations that are foundational to equity. Experiences with equity may need to
be both indirect, embedded in the structures of session design or direct as in the Save the Last
Word for Me discussion protocol.
Teacher professional development may be a powerful tool to strengthen pedagogy that
may lead to positive classroom outcomes. The foundation of effective development is school
planning. If not unified and organized, these sessions will become a wasted resource. Finally,
effectiveness may not be possible unless teachers’ needs are addressed. Based on the findings
from this research, the following chapter provides recommendations for practice.
79

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to consider modeled cooperative and collaborative teacher
professional development as a design to address the large investments of time and money in
teacher professional development with little evidence of improvements in classroom practices or
student achievement. The problem was examined from a sociocultural learning perspective
because teacher training in the context of traditional professional development has not shown
evidence of impacting teacher practices or student outcomes. The potential effects of modeling
cooperative and collaborative learning were explored during two simulated teacher professional
development sessions. The two sessions were designed according to sociocultural learning
theory. A focus group interview was conducted after the two sessions.
According to the teacher participants, effective teacher professional development is
highly organized, relevant to immediate classroom pedagogy, promotes metacognition for the
teacher, models metacognitive strategies for the students, is highly interactive, and offers
opportunities for interdisciplinary thinking and learning. Recommendations to address the
themes are presented below. Research question three will be addressed first because an emergent
theme was that teacher professional development often suffers from poor planning, limiting its
effectiveness. Consistent with researched best practices, effective planning is essential to highly
effective teacher professional development (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;
Fullan, 2007; Ginsburg, 2011; Gregson & Sturko, 2007; Jayaram et al., 2012). Addressing the
issue of effective planning early will help schools to develop capacity for professional learning.
Table 2 contains an overview of recommendations to address the themes that emerged from the
study. The following recommendations and suggested implementation plans take into account
school campuses that may have limited financial capacity. The recommendations do not require
80

significant investments in funding to be implemented. Rather, they require careful consideration
of how to use existing resources, particularly in shared leadership between the school
administration, teachers, and students.

Table 2
Overview of Recommendations

Research Question Themes Recommendations
Research Question 3: What
do teachers suggest would
be most impactful in the
design of future teacher
professional development?

Use of school time for
professional development
Engage in advanced
purposeful planning
Research Question 1: How
could the modeling of
cooperative and
collaborative learning in
teacher professional
development influence
collaborative learning in
the classroom?

Relevance of learning to
classroom practices

Interdisciplinary connections
emerged during
interactions

Connections to prior
knowledge may increase
transfer of learning

Design cooperative and
collaborative professional
development to develop
interdisciplinary teaching
and learning
Research Question 2: How
may the modeled equitable
practices in teacher
professional development
influence equitable
classroom practices?

Foundational thinking to
develop equity in the
classroom

Synthesis of knowledge may
need to be practiced

Teachers may benefit from
modeled experiences that
deal with equity

Implement student/teacher
professional development

81

Recommendation 1: Engage in Advanced, Purposeful Planning
Highly effective teacher professional development has foundational characteristics in
common: planned and organized to engage teachers, interaction, collaboration, modeling,
sustained duration, some teacher autonomy, feedback and reflection, relevance to classroom
practice, and focused on student learning (Blank et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;
Garet et al., 2016; Ginsburg, 2011; Jayaram et al., 2012; Torlakson, 2012; Wei et al., 2009; Yoon
et al., 2007). Based on findings from the focus group interview following the teacher
professional development sessions, Figure 2 contains a process plan for the two types of teacher
professional development generally offered in public schools. District-mandated professional
development involves standardized knowledge that everyone in the school district needs to
know. It is generally transmitted via video and quiz with no opportunities for teacher interaction.
Topics that are supposed to be learned include suicide prevention, child abuse recognition, and
equity. The teacher participants said that professional development needs to be unified and
organized. They had a conversation about how time was wasted when agendas were not sent to
department chairs.

82

Figure 2
Planning and Delivery of Professional Development

83

If professional development is district-mandated, it will be planned in one of two ways.
Teachers will process mandated content that is repeated year after year through professional
development that involves cooperative learning pedagogy. Since the content is familiar to
faculty, the teachers may focus on the process and elements of cooperative learning. If the
mandated content is new, then teachers will process it through collaborative professional
development. Collaborative professional development will provide teachers the tools to make
sense of and question the new content while practicing collaboration.
School-planned professional development may be content-specific. It may involve a
department, grade level, or teams of teachers. The goals/outcomes, as well as who will plan the
session, are essential. In the focus group, teacher participants discussed professional
development in which they would arrive at their department with their department chair having
no agenda. In addition to goals/outcomes, who will plan, who will receive it, its delivery, and
reflection are essential checkpoints to make sure the planning process results in learning. The
teacher participants said that they wanted professional development like what they were
experiencing in the study. Figure 2 presents a process similar to that used to plan the activities of
this study.
School-based restructuring for effective planning, designing, monitoring, supporting, and
evaluating professional development may take place so that teacher needs and student learning
are central. Schools may have structures to guide professional development, but their principals
may not understand how to empower and guide them (Young & Kim, 2010). Bredeson and
Johansson (2000) said that the primary role of the school principal in professional development
is to make sure that it is designed to meet the teachers’ needs and focused on student learning.
School administrators may need to identify teachers qualified to guide the sessions (Bredeson &
84

Johansson, 2000; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The school administration may need
to have a supportive, teacher capacity-building role, rather than a direct administrative role
(Garmston & Wellman, 2016; Wei et al., 2009; Young & Kim, 2010).
The pervasive top-down practice of school principals overseeing professional
development disempowers teachers (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000). Bredeson and Johansson
(2000) recommended that schools with limited professional development capacity could benefit
from developing a learning environment through consistent and effective planning of school-
based professional development that empowers teachers with dialogic learning. The role of the
school principal is to make sure professional development is designed and delivered in ways that
lead to teacher improvement and successful student outcomes (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000).
The teacher participants emphasized that they wanted interconnected professional development
like a year-long lesson plan that a teacher would develop for their students. Unified and
organized planning to meet the learning needs of both teachers and students may lead to transfer
of learning to the classroom.
The implementation plan for Recommendation 1 would start with the assistant principal
assembling the Local School Leadership Committee (LSLC), the professional development
committee, and the department chairs. Getting the responsible faculty together should be
completed before each school year ends. The LSLC would work with the assistant principal to
determine a schedule. According to Blank et al. (2008), Jayaram et al. (2012), and Darling-
Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), effective teacher professional development capitalizes on
what teachers already are doing or know how to do but can improve upon. A survey could be
sent to teachers to determine what their instructional needs are for the coming year. In SCT,
learners acquire new skills by connecting them to existing skills when working with a more
85

capable teacher (Shabani et al., 2010). Effective planning needs to be preceded by surveying
teachers on their skills and needs regarding cooperative and collaborative learning. Throughout
both sessions, teacher participants continually connected what they did in their classrooms to
what they were doing in the sessions. The professional development committee and the
department chairs would plan the sessions. Communication of outcomes would be ongoing so
that teachers know what goes on in other departments. See Table 3 for more information.

Table 3
Implementation Plan for Recommendation 1
Actions Responsible staff Timeline
Assemble professional
development committee,
department chairs, LSLC

School principal who
appoints assistant principal,
department chairs, teachers
who are interested in
participating in the LSLC

At the end of each school
year in anticipation for the
following school year
Survey to determine teacher
needs
Professional development
committee, department
chairs, teacher team leaders

At the beginning of each
school year
Establish and publish a
professional development
calendar
Assistant principal,
professional development
committee, LSLC

At the beginning of the
school year

Plan each professional
development
Assistant principal,
department chairs,
professional development
committee, LSLC

Ongoing, based on teacher
needs
Communicate outcomes of
professional development
to the entire school
Department Chair or teacher
team leaders
Ongoing

86

Elmore (2002) said that if teachers are to be held accountable for student outcomes, then
school administrators must provide the resources and develop the school‘s capacity to support
them. The most relevant resources for planning highly effective professional development may
be the teachers. Learning, not compliance, should be at the center of the design. When the focus
of school administrators is on management, professional development becomes an issue of
compliance (Elmore, 2002). As teachers would not be asked to deal with school organizational
management, administrators should not be asked to lead the learning aspects of teacher
professional development.
Recommendation 2: Cooperative and Collaborative Professional Development
The teacher participants discussed that the way we access knowledge from the past to
make it relevant to the present is by combining disciplines and learning how to make connections
between them. They also discussed that hearing and thinking about the points of view of others
helps to expand students‘ critical thinking. Tight (2021) acknowledged that there are variations
on what consititutes 21st-century skills, and the nature of these skills lends support to
cooperative and collaborative teacher professional development. Twenty-first century pedagogy
skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, problem solving, and communication may be
refined through unified teacher professional development. In SCT, learners and teachers aquire
new knowledge and skills through the fluidity of their roles (Shabani, 2016).
The elements of and relationship between cooperative and collaborative learning may
need to be explicitly taught and practiced by teachers. Modeling, practice, and reflection are
important because cooperative and collaborative learning may be confused by teachers in that
they believe they are promoting advanced synthesis of knowledge by only using cooperative
learning (Johnson et al., 2007). During the protocol activity, the teacher participants remarked
87

about their teaching practice, connections to other content areas, and thinking that would
enhance their students’ learning. The teacher participants discussed the finer points and issues of
concern when engaging their students in cooperative or collaborative work. One of these issues
was that there often seems to be one or two students who speak all the time or dominate projects.
If one or two students dominate a project, then the teacher did not design positive
interdependence and/or individual accountability into the project. In this type of situation where
two of the four essential components of cooperative learning were missing, students experienced
negative aspects of learning. A group of students in this situation learned the opposite of a
cooperative mindset. Cooperative learning is not a group of students who create a poster or sit at
the same table in the classroom, just as collaborative learning is not when students have a
conversation about answering the questions at the end of the textbook (Gapinski, 2018). Sawyer
and Obeid (2017) differentiated cooperative learning as teacher-driven with a teacher-defined
task as a goal and collaborative learning as student-driven with students synthesizing new
content as the goal. Explicit teaching and practice during teacher professional development may
positively impact cooperative and collaborative teaching practices.
Teachers and students learn through social interactions (Dewey, 1938; Warford, 2011).
Effective professional development involves dialogic learning conversations between teachers
with the opportunities for them to experience the role of students. Teacher participants said they
could not wait to use Save the Last Word for Me in their classes. They said that the protocol
would enhance student learning and connections as well as bring more opportunities for diverse
ideas into their classrooms. Teachers have to practice teaching what they want their students to
learn and learning what they want their students to be able to do (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995). Teachers should not sit passively during professional development. Elmore (
88

2002) and Darling-Hammond et al. ( 2017) said that teacher professional development should
focus on the skills that students need the most and be presented in a manner that teachers are
expected to teach them. In the Protocol, the process of synthesizing knowledge was built within
the structure of Save the Last Word for Me. If teachers were to use this type of protocol with their
students, their students may synthesize knowledge in the same manner that the teacher
participants did.
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) explained that new pedagogies that address
teacher and student improvement also need new structures of delivery. Figure 2 is an example of
a new structure for professional development planning and delivery. A new structure of delivery
may be developed using the content of district-mandated professional development within
designed cooperative or collaborative professional development. District-mandated professional
development content that is new may be learned by teachers through cooperative processes,
while mandated content that is repeated year after year may be learned through collaborative
processes so teachers generate new ways of looking at the content. A specified professional
development structure for cooperative and collaborative teaching and learning may focus on
skills since the mandated content is not related to curricular matters.
Interdisciplinary teaching is a process that must be developed over time. Brandt (1991)
said that it starts with teachers looking for logical overlaps between different subject matter.
Logical overlaps begin to emerge when teachers know what their colleagues are teaching, what
their students study in their subject matter in the lower and upper grades, and potential themes
within each subject matter that lend to interdisciplinary learning (Brandt, 1991). The teacher
participants said that teachers who share the same students must have devoted time to meet with
each other if the school wants to develop interdisciplinary teaching and learning. When teachers
89

and students engage in cooperative, collaborative, and interdisciplinary learning in authentic
ways, equity in the classroom has a clearer path to development (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995). See Table 4 for more information.

Table 4
Implementation Plan for Recommendation 2
Actions Responsible staff Timeline
Design a plan for blending
district-mandated content
or professional
development with
cooperative and
collaborative learning
strategies
Familiar content: Cooperative
learning
New content: Collaborative
learning

Department chairs,
professional development
committee
At the beginning of the
school year
Model lessons within
department meetings/PDs
or teams
All teachers Throughout the school year

90

Recommendation 3: Student and Teacher Professional Development
Equity in the classroom is difficult to define. It is even more difficult to teach teachers
how to develop an equitable classroom. Jensen et al. (2021) studied equitable classroom talk
(ECT) and concluded that meaningful ECT cannot be merely taught by traditional teacher
professional development, as it must be embedded throughout meetings and carefully designed
teacher professional development that allows teacher participants to experience equity. The
teacher participants expressed their appreciation for diverse ideas that arose during both
professional development sessions. They discussed how the process of consideration of different
perspectives may reduce bias. Participant 2 said that practice is necessary to develop equity in
the classroom.
When discussing equity in the focus group interview, Participant 3 saw it as an issue of
learning access when she brought up the problem of students who might not complete reading
assignments and thus be excluded from class participation. Not being able to participate in class
discussions and activities used to be seen as a consequence of not being prepared. It was not seen
as an issue of equity until educators have had to consider equity, especially magnified during the
pandemic and distance learning.
Student/teacher professional development could be a new model that provides direct
experiences and opportunities for reflecting on equitable practices in the classroom. New models
have been developed by school districts, schools, and organizations to address specific needs.
Examples of new models that address specific goals and outcomes are CTE courses that address
career education, boundary spanners and externships that may be used at the school level to
develop specific goals, and Teach the Teacher training and workshops used to develop equity
and student voice in schools (Goodyear, 2017; Gregson & Sturko, 2007; VicSRC, 2020). The
91

teacher participants repeatedly discussed the importance of including different perspectives and
mindsets. They also discussed the common learning difficulties that teachers and students
encounter, specifically listening to the ideas of others and speaking up for themselves when they
do not understand something. The NSRF protocols could be used as collaboration tools in
student/teacher professional development.
Modeled equity in practice, synthesis of new knowledge, interactivity, and
interdisciplinary thinking may be developed using the NSRF discussion protocols in conjunction
with teacher/student professional development. Teachers or students may use the NSRF
protocols to deepen critical thinking and synthesize new content. They were designed with goals
of inclusion and inquiry. Each protocol has directions so that a problem may be solved through
collaboration (NSRF, n.d.). The teacher participants in the study found Save the Last Word for
Me to be effective in equitable actions. They were able to discuss specific issues of equity as
applied to their classrooms. Participant 1 explained that he would even like to hear the thinking
of a student who may have misconceptions to understand how to assist that student.
In the focus group interview, teacher participants discussed that timing of professional
development is essential in determining whether it would be used in the classroom. If content or
strategies fit in with what they are immediately doing or will be doing in the near future, they are
more likely to use what they learned. Student/teacher professional development may be
implemented to address present classroom learning. It may be used by grade level, subject
departments, or the whole school as a formative assessment. The use of student/teacher
professional development as a formative assessment may build capacity for equity as teachers
are able to guide continuing instruction that meets the needs of their students.
92

The model of student/teacher professional development involves planning, selecting a
topic that invites issues of equity, student rehearsal of the discussion protocol using the topic,
completing the discussion protocol with teachers, and a follow-up reflection activity (Table 5).
Such an activity uses social, emotional, and cognitive forces to cement outcomes for both teacher
and student participants.

Table 5
Implementation Plan for Recommendation 3
Actions Staff Timeline
Planning and selecting a topic Professional development
committee, teachers,
selected students who are
trained in student/teacher
professional development
At different times of the
school year: beginning,
middle, end, and selected
times

Preview of topic and protocol Students, teacher(s) who will
guide students
A week before the
student/teacher
professional development

Engage in protocol Teachers, students During professional
development

Reflect on issues of equity,
content related to equity
Teachers, students A week after the
student/teacher
professional development

93

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are constraints in the study that are beyond the researcher’s control.
(PhDStudent.com, 2020). Delimitations are what the study is not meant to apply to because of its
limitations (PhDStudent.com, 2020). A considerable limitation was that school was presented for
14 months by distance learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In place of attending school 5
days a week in person, teachers and students met every other day and completed learning
asynchronously. The effects of this learning situation on the intellectual and social development
of school-aged children and their teachers are not known.
The number of participants in the activity and focus group interviews was small. Distance
learning impacted the activities, timing, and number of participants in the study. The study was
originally supposed to be conducted over 3 weeks, with the simulated teacher professional
development sessions taking place over the first 2 weeks and the focus group interview taking
place in the third week. Due to the school schedule and the conditions of the school district
approval, I had to conduct the simulated teacher professional development sessions and focus
group interview 3 days in a row the week after school closed for the summer. There was very
little time for teacher participants to reflect on connections between the professional
development sessions and their classroom practice.
Initially, four participants signed up for the study. The fourth participant did not attend
the sessions. This fourth participant was an experienced teacher who had no association with the
gifted programs in which the other teacher participants taught. Of all the participants, she was the
least familiar to me. Her contributions to the study would have been invaluable and may have
offered diverse perspectives. I was a participant during the second session.
94

The Spaghetti Tower Challenge is usually completed by a group of three to four students
building one tower. Distance learning changed many of the interactions that may have taken
place due to working on Zoom. Each teacher participant had to design and construct their own
tower. The interactions in groups of three to four students may have created more positive
interdependence (Johnson et al., 2007).
A research-based best practice in professional development is reflection and follow-up
support (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Jayaram et al., 2012). The reflection of the study was
the focus group interview. During the focus group interview, I was challenged to stay focused
because of familiarity with the participants. The focus group interview was an informal
evaluation, but there was no follow-up support in this study. Evaluation, while cited by research
as an important element in effective teacher professional development, was not tested in this
study.
A key delimitation of the study was that the data from the professional development and
focus group interviews could not be applied to every teacher. Due to the constraints of
dissertation work and COVID-19, the study was limited to one school, one specialized program,
and three teachers. The participants’ characteristics, the journal article, and the number of
participants limited the applicability of the results. The teacher participants are colleagues, so it
is not clear how this relationship may have affected their responses. A further delimitation is that
all three teacher participants have been teaching in gifted programs. The teacher who participated
the most had the most experience teaching in gifted programs. The impact of working with gifted
students on teacher attitudes of professional development is not known.

95

Directions for Future Research
This study centered around the effects that modeling cooperative and collaborative
learning may have on the transfer of cooperative and collaborative learning as well as equity in
the classroom. The design of effective professional development was also considered. Future
research could examine best practices that teachers may use in transitioning from cooperative to
collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is an advanced form of cooperative learning that is
student-driven. A challenge that teachers have in implementing collaborative learning is time
constraints in the school day with the amount of content that they must cover. One of the teacher
participants mentioned that time constraints for the activities kept him moving along so that he
completed the task.
Research into additional strategies that may be used in cooperative learning models may
assist teachers in enhancing the cooperative learning experiences of their students. A new model
that blends cooperative and collaborative elements may be needed to address this issue. In
cooperative learning, there is both individual and group accountability (Johnson et al., 2007).
Another challenge that teachers have with cooperative learning is structuring it so that it
maximizes group interdependence, intellectual thinking processes, social skills, and interactivity.
Multicultural strategies for developing the elements of cooperative learning may need more
research and development to lead to inclusive practices. For example, Chinese students may not
feel comfortable with critically questioning the content of textbooks (Huang et al., 2017).
Research into cultural barriers along with teaching strategies to address barriers could be helpful.
Teachers have diverse populations of students in their classrooms. It might be helpful if specific
strategies could be used for different populations of students, specifically regarding grouping
students for maximum intellectual growth in cooperative and collaborative work. The current
96

understanding of grouping students for cooperative and collaborative work is heterogenous
grouping in which students of mixed abilities work together (Brame & Biel, 1970). Students,
society, and conditions in schools have changed much since cooperative and collaborative
learning were researched from the early 1970s. Strategies that deal with complex issues of equity
that are faced in schools, classrooms, and by students may need more research.
Cooperation and collaboration between students may not be sufficient to develop
democratic classrooms. The interactions that have taken place at the student level may need to
shift to the level of students and teachers. If the goal of democratic classrooms is to develop
student voice and agency within a democratic society, student and teacher cooperation and
collaboration may be a more effective model of student experience. Research that examines the
cognitive, social, and emotional effects of teacher/student cooperation and collaboration may
uncover valuable tools for critical thinking, learning retention, and 21st-century skills.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine what might lead to improved outcomes in
teacher professional development. The key findings of this study were that teacher professional
development needs to be planned and organized with specific learning goals. Progressive
teaching practices such as cooperative and collaborative learning may need to be practiced as
well. Both of them are structures of pedagogy that have been proven through research to be
highly effective. Delivering cooperative and collaborative pedagogy is not as straightforward as
a lecture or answering questions at the back of the textbook. The study participants discussed
strategies, synthesizing content, interdisciplinary learning, and issues of equity. As they were
discussing their ideas, they continually made connections between their pedagogy and students’
experiences. Timing also plays a role in whether or not sessions may be useful for teachers. Ideas
97

that are abstract and adaptable, like equity, interdisciplinary, and synthesizing content, may need
both direct and indirect practice for teachers to feel comfortable with implementing them in their
classroom. The teacher participant who had the most experience with cooperative and
collaborative learning participated and contributed the most during the study. His contributions
showed more depth and complexity than those of the other two participants.
In pursuit of eliminating a one-size-fits-all mindset, school districts may need to
reconsider their strategies for planning, developing, and evaluating teacher professional
development. Teaching and learning on every level need to evolve to meet the changing needs of
both teachers and students. Innovative ways of professional learning could model teaching
innovation. Each professional development session could be an opportunity for teachers to
strengthen existing pedagogy, consider new ideas, practice teaching new skills, and develop
social skills with their colleagues. Just as students need interesting, inspiring learning
experiences, so do teachers.
If teachers need to be developed as lifelong learners, then it is time to consider their
needs as learners. The adage that teachers teach like they have been taught does not have to come
with a negative connotation. Teacher professional development could reflect what we want our
students to experience in the classroom. It holds the keys to our students’ self-actualization.
Effective teacher professional development could be an invaluable investment on par with
reducing class size, technology access, and every other issue that plagues public education.

98

References
Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit
of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 438–446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500405
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
Blank, R. K. (2013). What research tells us: Common characteristics of professional learning that
leads to student achievement. Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 50.
Blank, R. K., Alas, N. l., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional development have
effects on teaching and learning? Council of Chief State Schools.,
http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/cross-state_study_rpt_final.pdf
Bowen, B., & Shume, T. (2018). Educators in industry: An exploratory study to determine how
teacher externships influence K-12 classroom practices. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 19(1), 57–62.
Brame, C., & Biel, R. (1970, August 7). Group work: Using cooperative learning groups
effectively. Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/setting-up-
and-facilitating-group-work-using-cooperative-learning-groups-effectively/
Brandt, R. (1991). On interdisciplinary curriculum: A conversation with Heidi Hayes Jacobs.
Educational Leadership, 49(2), 24.
Bredeson, P. V., & Johansson, O. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional
development. Journal of In-service Education, 26(2), 385–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580000200114
99

Brubaker, N. D. (2012). Negotiating authority through cultivating a classroom community of
inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 240–250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.002
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning.
Change, 27(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722
Camera, L. (2017). The effectiveness dilemma.
Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-04-21/trumps-
proposed-cuts-to-title-ii-education-funding-draw-concern
Cohen, E. G., & Roper, S. S. (1974). On modification of interracial interation: Rejoinder.
American Sociological Review, 39(2), 285–286. doi:10.2307/2094244
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and
professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700318
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M., & Espinoza, D. (2017). Effective teacher
professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
https://kappanonline.org/policies-that-support-professional-development-in-an-era-of-
reform/
100

Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings
and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.696438
Dictionary.com (n.d.-b). Adopt. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adopt
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Touchstone.
Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Association for
supervision and curriculum development.
PhDStudent.com. (2020). Diving deeper into limitations and delimitations.
https://www.phdstudent.com/thesis-and-dissertation-survival/research-design/diving-
deeper-into-limitations-and-delimitations/
Duerr, L. L. (2008). Interdisciplinary instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(2), 173.
Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Theory and practice. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 131–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050109
Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-constructivism to socio-cultural theory and practice:
An expansive analysis of teachers’ professional learning in early childhood education.
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1), 83–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X07072155
Edosomwan, S. O. (2016). Childhood learning vs. adulthood learning: The theory of pedagogy
and andragogy. US-China Education Review A, 6(2), 115–123.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement
101

Eun, B. (2008). Making connections: Grounding professional development in the developmental
theories of Vygotsky. Teacher Educator, 43(2), 134–155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730701838934
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114–95, S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015).
Fani, T., & Ghaemi, F. (2011). Implications of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD)
in teacher education: ZPTD and self-scaffolding. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 1549–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.396
Flint, A. S., Zisook, K., & Fisher, T. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional
development among experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8),
1163–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.009
Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development,28(5),
35–37.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning
MaRS Discovery District. https://deslibris.ca/ID/242985
Gandin, L. A., & Apple, M. W. (2012). Can critical democracy last? Porto Alegre and the
struggle over ‘thick’ democracy in education. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 621–
639. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.710017
Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(618), 6–12. doi:10.1177/019263650008461802
Gapinski, A. J. (2018). Assessment of effectiveness of teamwork skills learning in collaborative
learning. Journal of Management & Engineering Integration, 11(2), 1–15.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2016). What makes
professional development effective? results from a national sample of teachers. American
102

Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school. Rowman & Littlefield.
Ginsburg, M. (2011). Teacher professional development. USAID.
Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Sustained professional development on cooperative learning: Impact on
six teachers’ practices and students’ learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 88(1), 83–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1263381
Gregson, J. A., & Sturko, P. A. (2007). Teachers as adult learners: Re-conceptualizing
professional development. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 36(1), 1–18.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45.
Hensley, B. J., Jurgenson, J. B., & Ferris, L. (2017). Combining adult education and professional
development best practice to improve financial education teacher training. Financial
Counseling and Planning, 28(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.28.1.33
Hill, H. C. (2015). Review of the mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher
professional development. University of Colorado. Retrieved from
https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-tntp-mirage
Holdsworth, R. (2014). Spaces for partnerships. teach the teacher: Student-led professional
development for teachers. Forum for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education, 56(1),
67. https://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2014.56.1.67
103

Huang, X., Lederman, N. G., & Cai, C. (2017). Improving Chinese junior high school students’
ability to ask critical questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 963–
987. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21390
Hur, E. H., Glassman, M., & Kim, Y. (2013). Finding autonomy in activity: Development and
validation of a democratic classroom survey. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 25(4), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9173-y
Jayaram, K., Moffit, A., & Scott, D. (2012). Breaking the habit of ineffective professional
development. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-
social-sector/our-insights/breaking-the-habit-of-ineffective-professional-development-
for-teachers
Jensen, B., Valdés, G., & Gallimore, R. (2021). Teachers learning to implement equitable
classroom talk. Educational Researcher, 13189.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211014859
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into
Practice, 38(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
Killion, J. (2013). School-based professional learning for implementing the common core.
Learning Forward.
King, F. (2013). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based
framework. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 89–111.
doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.823099
104

Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in
Education, 27, 109–157. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X027001109
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model:
Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate
project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups. Sage Publications.
Leach, T. (2018). Democracy in the classroom. Power and Education, 10(2), 181–194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743818756911
Levenson, N., Baehr, K., Smith, J. C., & Sullivan, C. (2014). Spending money wisely: Getting the
most from school district budgets. District Management Group.
Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced public
school teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences. Teachers and
Teaching, 7(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600123835
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.
Moore, S., & Kochan, F. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of professional development in high-
and low-performing high-poverty schools. International Journal of Educational Reform,
22(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791302200204
Morrison, K. A. (2008). Democratic classrooms: Promises and challenges of student voice and
choice, Part One. Educational Horizons,87(1), 51–59.
105

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016,). Educator guide: Spaghetti anyone?
Building with Pasta. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/spaghetti-anyone/.
National School Reform Faculty. (2020.). Home page. https://nsrfharmony.org/
Next Generation Science Standards. (2021). Using phenomena in NGSS.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2016). Using phenomena in NGSS-designed lessons and
units.
The New Teacher Project, Inc. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest
for teacher development. https://tntp.org/publications/view/the-mirage-confronting-the-
truth-about-our-quest-for-teacher-development
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why
research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3),
273–306. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.74.3.e08k1276713824u5
Paul, C. A. (2018). Elementary and secondary education act of 1965.
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-
education-act-of-1965/
Quint, J. (2011). Professional development for teachers. Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
Sadovnik, A. R., Semel, S. F., Coughlan, R. W., Kanze, B., & Tyner-Mullings, A. (2017).
Progressive education in the 21st century: The enduring influence of John Dewey. The
Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 16(4), 515–530.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537781417000378
Sawyer, J., & Obeid, R. (2017). Cooperative and collaborative learning: Getting the best of both
words. In R. Obeid, A. Schwartz, C. Shane-Simpson, & P. J. Brooks (Eds.), How we
106

teach now: The GSTA guide to student-centered teaching (pp. 163–177). Society for the
Teaching of Psychology.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:
Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language
Teaching, 3(4), 237. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237
Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional
development. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1252177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177
Silva, E. (2008). The Benwood plan. Education Sector.
Sikandar, A. (2016). John Dewey and his philosophy of education. Journal of Education and
Educational Development, 2(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446
Stier, S. C. (2020). Engineering education for the next generation: A nature-inspired approach.
W. W. Norton & Company.
Styron, R. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary education: A reflection of the real world. Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 11(9), 47–52.
Tero, A., Takagi, S., Saigusa, T., Ito, K., Bebber, D. P., Fricker, M. D., Yumiki, K., Kobayashi,
R., & Nakagaki, T. (2010). Rules for Biologically Inspired Adaptive Network Design.
Science, 327(5964), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177894
Tight, M. (2021). Twenty-first century skills: Meaning, usage and value. European Journal of
Higher Education, 11(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1835517
Torlakson, T. (2012). Greatness by design. California Task Force on Educator Excellence.
Torlakson, T. (Ed.). (2015). Quality professional learning standards. California Department of
Education.
107

Turabik, T., & Gün, F. (2016). The relationship between teachers’ democratic classroom
management attitudes and students’ critical thinking dispositions. Journal of Education
and Training Studies, 4(12). Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i12.1901
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Transforming teaching and learning.
Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/teaching
Vermette, P., & Foote, C. (2001). Constructivist philosophy and cooperative learning practice:
Toward integration and reconciliation in secondary classrooms. American Secondary
Education, 30(1), 26–37.
Veresov, N. (2020, May 2). Vygotsky. Lecture presented in University of Oulu. Retrieved May 2,
2020, from https://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwpapajl/evolution/lect17/lect1700.htm
Victoria Student Representative Council. (2020). Teach the teacher.
http://teachtheteacher.org.au/
Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum
design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 22(3–4), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (E.
Souberman, Ed.). Harvard University Press.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. NSDC.
108

Williams, S. M., & Welsh, R. O. (2017). ESSA and school improvement: Principal1 preparation
and professional development in a new era of education policy. Journal of School
Leadership, 27(5), 701–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700505
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. U.S.
Department of Education.
Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A
literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n19.2010

109

Appendix A: Save the Last Word for Me

110

Note. Reprinted from (2020). Save the Last Word Handout by National School Reform Faculty,
2020. (https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SaveTheLastWord-
wHandout-N_0.pdf) Copyright 2015 by National School Reform Faculty.
111

Appendix B: Spaghetti Towers Lesson Plan
Lesson Plan: Professional Development Session 1: Introduction to Engineering and
Biomimicry using the Marshmallow Tower Challenge
Standard: Middle School Engineering:
Science and Engineering Practices: Developing and Using Models: Modeling in 6-8 builds on
K-5 experiences and progresses to developing, using, and revising models to describe, test, and
predict more abstract phenomena and design systems (M.S. Engineering Design, 2021).
Disciplinary Core Idea ETS1.B: A solution needs to be tested, and then modified on the basis
of the test results, in order to improve it (M.S. Engineering Design, 2021).
Crosscutting Concepts: Influence of Science, Engineering, and Technology on Society and the
Natural World: All human activity draws on natural resources and has both short and long-
term consequences, positive and negative, for the health of people and the natural environment
(M.S. Engineering Design, 2021).
Rationale: The rationale for this lesson is that it provides participants with an experience that
helps them define the basics of engineering design such as collaboration, constraints, and use of
materials (Steir,2020). This lesson links engineering design principles to natural phenomena
which will help facilitate the deep understanding and application of both principles of nature and
engineering (Using phenomena, 2021).
Environment: This professional development session will last one hour and be conducted over
the video conferencing platform, Zoom.
Pre-Professional Development: Teacher participants will be emailed a copy of this lesson plan
a week before the professional development session is scheduled to take place.

112

Materials:
• 40 pieces of uncooked spaghetti: 20 pieces for Part A and 20 pieces for Part B
• Two large marshmallows: One for Part A and one for Part B
• Masking tape: 100 cm for Part A and 100 cm for Part B
• 2 Cardboard bases: One for Part A and one for Part B
• Scissors
• Tape measure with metric measurements
• Spaghetti Tower Lab Report—Graphic Organizer
Procedure:
Part A: Before engineering and biomimicry principles
1. There will be two sets of teachers who work together in pairs in break out room on Zoom.
2. Introduce teachers to the challenge: to work together to build the tallest spaghetti tower
possible. The marshmallow must balance on top.
a. Each teacher in the breakout room will have their own materials (These materials
will be gathered before the professional development). They will each work with
their own materials to come up with strategies to build one tall spaghetti tower
that is able to balance a marshmallow.
b. They may use 20 uncooked spaghetti noodles to build their first tower
c. They will have 15 minutes to construct their tower.
d. This tower with the marshmallow on top will be secured to a cardboard base with
masking tape
e. Each team will measure and record the height of their towers on their Spaghetti
Tower Lab Report
113

3. After 15 minutes is up, teacher pairs will measure their tower and note their strategies on
the Spaghetti Tower Lab Report.
4. Both teams of teachers will return to the Main session room in Zoom.
5. Each team will perform an earthquake test by moving their cardboard base back and forth
for 30 seconds.
6. All will discuss the results of the earthquake test.
7. Teacher teams will note these observations on their Spaghetti Tower Lab Report.

Part B: Discover and experiment with principles of biomimicry
1. (10 minutes)--All will go outside and note (on their lab recording sheet) what
strategies nature uses to supports it tall plants and trees. Participants who do not
have access to the outdoors may do an Internet search for tall plants, trees, and and
root systems.
2. Teacher participants will reconvene in the main session for further instructions:
a. The teacher teams will have 15 minutes to use the strategies they observed in
nature to rebuild their spaghetti towers, with their marshmallow balanced on
top.
b. Teacher teams will also be reminded to secure their towers to a cardboard
base
c. Each team will measure and record the length of their towers on their
Spaghetti Tower Lab Report
d. After 15 minutes, teacher teams will reconvene in the Main Session room in
Zoom.
114

e. Each team will perform an earthquake test by moving their cardboard base
back and forth for 30 seconds.
f. Each team will record their observations on their Spaghetti Tower Lab Report
3. Debrief: Each teacher will respond to the follow-up questions on their lab recording
sheet

Part C: Conclusion: Teacher teams will work together in break out rooms to fill out the
third column, principles of engineering based on experiences with both Spaghetti Towers

Part D: Wrap up: (15 minutes) Classroom management considerations Discussion
• PD materials will be assembled by presenters (if school is in-person) or given in advance
so participants can assemble them (distance or hybrid model of school)
Acquiring Materials:
• Cost is $1.50 per student for: uncooked spaghetti, 2 large marshmallows, masking tape,
and plastic bags (these will be reused for the following year)—Request science
department funds or instructional material funds (IMA) for this project

• For classroom use, materials should be pre-assembled. Utilize:
o Student Teachers assistants (TA’s)
o Former students
o Parent volunteers
• Grouping of students
• Procedures
115

o Slide show
o Flowchart
o Other?
• Part E: Support
o Who will be responsible for the:
Scheduling of the PD
Purchasing the materials
Making sure the materials are assembled
Assisting in differentiating lessons for: English language learners, special
education students, gifted and/or highly gifted students
Other?
How will the results be presented? By class, department, or team?

116

Spaghetti Tower Lab Report

Part A —First Spaghetti Tower
Strategy Outcome Connection(s) to Terminology

117

Part B —Second Spaghetti Tower-- Biomimicry
Strategy Outcome Connection(s) to Terminology

118

Engineering Design Terminology (NASA, 2016)
Bending: Combination of forces that causes one part of a material to be in compression and
another part to be in tension

Compression: Force that squeezes material together

Design Process: Identify the problem, brainstorm, design, build, test, evaluate, share,
redesign and rebuild

Load-bearing members: To support or strengthen a roof, bridge or other elevated structure
with a network of beams and bars

Neutral axis: An imaginary plane that runs through the middle of a material under bending,
at which zero stress is experienced

Tension: A force that pulls material apart

Truss: Support something with a structure

Parts D and E: Discussion Notes —The points from above will be addressed with notes that
are emailed to the teacher participants. For questions that cannot be answered in the wrap
up discussion, an answer will be found and added to the notes.

Part D: Wrap up: Classroom management considerations Discussion
• PD materials will be assembled by presenters (if school is in-person) or given in advance
so participants can assemble them (distance or hybrid model of school)
Acquiring Materials:
• Cost is $1.50 per student for: uncooked spaghetti, 2 large marshmallows, masking tape,
and plastic bags (these will be reused for the following year)—Request science
department funds or instructional material funds (IMA) for this project

• For classroom use, materials should be pre-assembled. Utilize:
119

o Student Teachers assistants (TA’s)
o Former students
o Parent volunteers
• Grouping of students
• Procedures
o Slide show
o Flowchart
o Other?
• Part E: Support
o Who will be responsible for the:
Scheduling of the PD
Purchasing the materials
Making sure the materials are assembled
Assisting in differentiating lessons for: English language learners, special
education students, gifted and/or highly gifted students
Other?
How will the results be presented? By class, department, or team?

120

Appendix C: Participant Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Waite Philips Hall
Los Angeles, Ca. 90089-4034

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study titled Professional Development.
The following information will describe this study to you and answer any of your questions.
This study is being led by Mia Kang from the University of Southern California. The Faculty
Advisor for this study is Dr. Cathy Krop, University of Southern California.

What the study is about
The purpose of this research is to examine the discrepancy between the economic investments
in K-12 teacher professional development and the outcomes. The research study will propose a
model of professional development to replace the one-day professional development.

What you will be asked to do
I will ask you to read and annotate an article on shark conservation, then participate in a
discussion protocol with students. The discussion protocol participants will include two
teachers and two students. It will take place over Zoom and it will be recorded. A day after the
discussion protocol activity, there will be a focus group interview. This will only take place with
121

the teacher participants. The student-participants will have a separate focus group interview.
This will also take place over Zoom and the interview will be recorded. The discussion protocol
activity and focus group interview will take between 45-60 minutes each.

Risks and discomforts
It may be uncomfortable for you to participate in this activity with students. You also may
feel uncomfortable with being recorded. In order to lessen feelings of discomfort, you will be
provided with the article on shark conservation, the discussion protocol, and a video of how
to participate in the discussion protocol.

Benefits
Information from this study may benefit teachers and their students by providing a model for
professional development that develops equity and student voice in the classroom.

Compensation for participation
There will be a $50.00 Amazon gift card that will be emailed to each participant at the
conclusion of the study.

Audio/Video Recording
Audio and video recording will be taken of the discussion protocol activity and the focus
group interview. The participation in the discussion protocol as well as the focus group
122

interview responses are data that will be collected, analyzed, and used to draw conclusions.
At the conclusion of the study, these will be erased.

Privacy/Confidentiality/Data Security
After the discussion protocol activity and focus group interview, your responses will be
categorized in a data chart as either “teacher” or “student”. Your name nor any other
identifiable feature of yourself will be indicated in the data chart. The video and audio
recording will not be permitted to be viewed by any person, participant, or employee of the
school. After data analysis is complete, the recorded audio and videos will be erased.

Please sign below if you are willing to have this interview recorded (audio and video). You
may still participate in this study if you are not willing to have the interview recorded.

I do not want to have this interview recorded (audio and video)
I am willing to have this interview recorded (audio and video):

Signed:
Date:

Taking part is voluntary
123

Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate before the study begins or as it
is taking place. You may choose to skip or not respond to any focus group questions that you
are uncomfortable with.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at: miakang@usc.edu. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Participants at 323-442-0144 or email them at
irb@usc.edu.

I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I
consent to take part in the study.

Your Signature Date

Your Name (printed)

Signature of person obtaining consent Date

Printed name of person obtaining consent

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for five years beyond the end of the study.

124

Appendix D: Nvivo Codebook

125

Appendix E: Focus Group Questions
1. How did the process of the activity assist in deepening your understanding of the
content, if at all? Please explain.
2. What new understandings, if any, about the content did you develop as a result of this
activity?
3. What were some hinderances for you, if any, in the process of learning in the activity?
4. How do you think the learner-participants felt about this process? Why do you think so?
5. Did the activity provide the opportunities you would have liked to interact with the
teacher-participants? The learner-participants?
6. Do you think this opportunity to interact with young learners increased the learning value
of the content? Why or why not?
7. Would you use this process in your classroom? Why would you or wouldn’t you use this
process in your classroom?
8. How would you use this process in your classroom?
9. If you could redesign the activity, what would you do differently? Why? What different
outcomes may result from these changes?
10. Do you feel the process is/could be reflective of the work environment of your
classroom?
11. Was equity experienced by the learner or teacher participants during this process? If so,
how do you think it was experienced by the learner participants? The teacher-
participants?
12. How do you currently assess progress in your classroom? Would you use this activity to
assess learner progress in your classroom?
126

13. Is there anything you would like to tell me about your experience in the activity that you
have not told me?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices

PDF

School-based support for students with ADHD in general education classrooms

PDF

Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to increase access and engagement in STEM for historically underrepresented and marginalized populations

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study

PDF

Achieving the educational mission: are Connecticut K-12 school nurses valued?

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

Asset Metadata

Creator Kang, Mia Sachiko (author)

Core Title Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 09/24/2021

Defense Date 08/30/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative learning,cooperative learning,democratic classrooms,discussion protocol,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,professional learning,school leadership,sociocultural learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sloane Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Datta, Monique Claire (committee member), Filback, Robert A. (committee member)

Creator Email miakang@usc.edu,nudibranch3@me.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15925678

Unique identifier UC15925678

Legacy Identifier etd-KangMiaSac-10099

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kang, Mia Sachiko

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu