Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers
(USC Thesis Other)
Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUALIZED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDINGS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
OF TEACHERS
by
Brooke Amber Howland
_______________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Brooke Amber Howland
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, my hero. One of the most significant
findings of my research was his undying support, love, friendship, and
understanding. Over the past three years, Bryan often became a “single parent” who
took care of household chores, loved and played with our son, and slid meals under
the door for me – even while successfully completing his own master’s degree. I
could not have completed this dissertation or Ed.D. program without his
encouragement and confidence in me.
Also, to my son Brody who was born one year into the start of this program. You
have been a source of strength to me. As I have watched you grow you have helped
me to stay focused on what is really important. May you cherish learning and
always seek ways to achieve your potential.
ii
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my utmost gratitude to the following people that helped me
through this process:
• The faculty and staff of the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California for their hard work and professionalism.
• Dr. Etta Hollins, chairperson of my dissertation committee, whose
research and wisdom led me on a pathway that pushed me to learn as
much as I could while embarking on this journey.
• Dr. Dennis Hocevar, whose love of research and words of encouragement
made my dissertation a pleasurable experience.
• Dr. Ragusa, who shaped and challenged my thinking around teacher
education.
• Dr. Kaplan, for being willing to support me in the final stages of this
process.
• My mother, Lila Klein, who has always believed in me. She taught me
how to dream big and how to work hard to achieve my goals. She
supported me in so many different ways throughout the duration of my
Ed.D. program and for that, I am forever grateful.
• My loving parents, Lila and Jerry, Richard and Cheryl, and Bob and
Sandy. Each one of you in your own unique way encouraged my
educational pursuits. It was with all of your support that I was able to
fulfill this dream.
iii
• My family and friends who graciously accepted being “put on hold” for
the past three years and always extended kind words and thoughtful
gestures of support.
• I would like to sincerely thank the principal, teachers, and school district
for participating in this study. I am very appreciative of their dedication
to this project.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………. ii
Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………… iii
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………… vi
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………….. ix
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………… x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ………………………………………... 1
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature ………………………………... 13
Chapter Three: Design and Methodology of the Study …………………….. 52
Chapter Four: Research Findings …………………………………………... 88
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings ……………………………………… 297
References ………………………………………………………………….. 322
Appendices …………………………………………………………………. 328
v
List of Tables
Table 1: School's AYP/API Reading History …………………………………… 59
Table 2: SCOE Test Scores Correlated to Teacher Matrix Placement ………….. 69
Table 3: Benchmark Test Scores Correlated to Teacher Matrix Placement …….. 71
Table 4: Baseline Teacher Matrix - OCR Needs Assessment …………………… 93
Table 5: Baseline Teacher Matrix - Teacher Observations ……………………… 95
Table 6: Baselines Teacher Matrix - On-Going Student Assessments ………….. 97
Table 7: Participant Participation in Individualized Learning Activities ……….. 98
Table 8: Attending Participants for Each Individualized Learning Activity …… 99
Table 9: Concluding Teacher Matrix - OCR Needs Assessment ………………. 107
Table 10: Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Matrix - OCR
Needs Assessment ……………………………………………………………… 108
Table 11: Concluding Teacher Matrix - Teacher Observations ………………... 111
Table 12: Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Matrix - Teacher
Observations ……………………………………………………………………. 112
Table 13: Teacher A - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment ……. 117
Table 14: Teacher A - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD ……………………………………………………………. 118
Table 15: Teacher A - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD …………………………………………………………... 126
Table 16: Teacher A - On-Going Student Assessments ……………………….. 127
Table 17: Teacher B - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment ……. 144
Table 18: Teacher B - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD ……………………………………………………………. 145
vi
Table 19: Teacher B - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD …………………………………………………………. 156
Table 20: Teacher B - On-Going Student Assessments ………………………. 157
Table 21: Teacher C - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment …… 178
Table 22: Teacher C - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD …………………………………………………………… 178
Table 23: Teacher C - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD …………………………………………………………. 187
Table 24: Teacher C - On-Going Student Assessments ……………………… 189
Table 25: Teacher D - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment …... 204
Table 26: Teacher D - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD …………………………………………………………... 205
Table 27: Teacher D - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD …………………………………………………………. 213
Table 28: Teacher D - On-Going Student Assessments ……………………… 215
Table 29: Teacher E - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment ….. 231
Table 30: Teacher E - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD …………………………………………………………. 232
Table 31: Teacher E - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD ……………………………………………………….. 240
Table 32: Teacher E - On-Going Student Assessments …………………….. 242
Table 33: Teacher F - Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment …. 255
Table 34: Teacher F - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs
Assessment per IPD ………………………………………………………… 255
Table 35: Teacher F - Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher
Observations per IPD ………………………………………………………. 264
vii
Table 36: Teacher F - On-Going Student Assessments ………………….. 266
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: IPD Methodology …………………………………………… 64
Figure 2: OCR Needs Assessment ……………………………………. 66
Figure 3: Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet ………… 76
Figure 4: Observation Reflection Sheet ………………………………. 78
Figure 5: Demonstration Reflection Sheet ……………………………. 80
ix
x
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of an original
method of professional development that acknowledged and addressed the specific
learning needs of teacher-learners, while capitalizing on the current state of
knowledge regarding effective professional development characteristics, and teacher
cognition and learning. Specifically, the researcher analyzed what changes occurred
in the instructional practices and theoretical understandings of elementary teachers as
they participated in Individualized Professional Development (IPD).
The process of IPD began with determining the learning gap needs of
teachers through the use of a needs assessment, classroom observations, and student
assessments in order to drive the professional development plan. Based on these
findings teachers were grouped as determined by their level of needed support into
one of three categories: Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention. In collaborative groups
based on similar support needs, teacher-learners were then provided with
Individualized Learning Activities to support their level of theoretical understandings
and/or level of curriculum implementation. Post teacher support, an additional needs
assessment was conducted along with classroom observations to determine teacher
growth, or lack of. Based on those findings, teacher-learners were re-categorized.
This process was conducted for each of the instructional routines necessary for
effectively implementing Open Court Reading.
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Though little research exists that specifically defines a highly effective
teacher, current research informs us that teacher quality has the greatest effect on
student learning and is the most influential factor for promoting student success
(Darling-Hammond, 2001, 2002; Ferguson, 1991; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). In order
to capitalize on this concept, much emphasis has been dedicated to the study of how
continuing professional development influences teacher efficacy, as well as student
learning and achievement, and has clearly determined that the academic success of
students can be significantly influenced by teachers’ access to and participation in,
quality professional development activities (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey,
2002; Akiba, et al., 2007; Izumi et al., 2002). Although these findings demonstrate
the ability for professional development to influence teacher effectiveness, there is
currently much dissatisfaction with the implementation of today’s professional
development programs. A review of the professional development literature elicits
substantial criticism for failing to have lasting effects and for leaving teachers feeling
unprepared for the classroom (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Clair,
1998; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Dawson, 1978; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991;
Guskey, 2003). Much of this criticism is directed at one to three day workshops,
often referred to as “drive-by workshops”, which are presented by content area
specialists such as college Professors, or by outside independent consultants who do
not provide teachers with any follow-up support, and who only offer short-term
1
services which are market-driven and menu-oriented (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Dawson, 1978; Guskey, 2002, 2003; Little, 1989).
Researchers criticized the “one-size-fits-all” method commonly used for
implementing professional development, because it has been determined that the
adult learners or teachers participating in professional development are just as
diverse as the students they teach. “It is unwise for educational leaders to ask
schools and teachers to be vigorously sensitive to individual student differences
while leaders function as though all schools or all teachers are alike” (Tomlinson,
2000). Additionally, it appears that the current research on learning is not being
practiced in reference to educating our educators. Ann Lieberman (1995) reported
that “what everyone wants for students – a wide array of learning opportunities that
engage students in experiencing, creating, and solving real problems, using their own
experiences and working with others – is for some reason denied to teachers when
they are learners” (p.591). And although lists of effective professional development
characteristics have been derived, they provide only a starting point in their efforts to
improve the quality of professional development programs and activities. Therefore,
it is important for professional development endeavors to consider not only the
learning outcomes of students, but they need also to address the specific learning
gaps of each individual teacher in order to provide researched-based support that is
in direct alignment with the specific needs of each teacher and is reflective of teacher
learning acquisition. Currently, little to no research has been conducted in the area
of individualized instruction for teacher-learners in the form of professional
2
development, but research is beginning to recognize the importance of responding to
teacher diversity accordingly by differentiating professional development methods
(Elmore, 2002; Hertberg & Brighton, 2005; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000;
Tomlinson, 2000).
Statement of the Problem
Researchers have clearly determined that effective professional development
practices directly contribute to improved student achievement (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Guskey, 2002; Akiba, et al., 2007; Izumi et al., 2002). However, currently
many schools continue implementing traditionally ineffective models of professional
development that do not address the diverse needs of teacher-learners.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of an original
method of professional development that acknowledged and addressed the specific
learning needs of teacher-learners, while capitalizing on the current state of
knowledge regarding effective professional development characteristics, and teacher
cognition and learning. Specifically, the researcher analyzed what changes occurred
in the instructional practices and theoretical understandings of elementary teachers as
they participated in Individualized Professional Development.
3
Research Questions
This study aimed to reveal the outcomes of an original method for providing
professional development. The overarching research question for this dissertation
was: What is the overall effectiveness of Individualized Professional Development as
a theoretical model? The sub-questions researched included:
a) What changes occur in the instructional practices of the OCR instructional
routines when elementary teachers participate in Individualized Professional
Development?
b) What changes occur in the theoretical understandings of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in Individualized
Professional Development?
Definition of Terms
Individualized Professional Development (IPD): Individualized Professional
Development (IPD) is an original method created by the researcher for providing
professional development for teacher-learners. The underlying theory of this method
contrasts other professional development methods that focus on working with entire
staff populations and/or particular grade levels regardless of individual teacher
needs, knowledge, and/or strengths and weaknesses of the teacher-learners. IPD
provides the opportunity for professional development providers to differentiate and
adjust their staff development methods in order to create a professional development
plan that meets the diverse and specific needs of each individual teacher-learner.
The primary goals of the IPD model are to enhance instructional professional
development time for the teacher-learner by providing specifically relevant
4
professional development information within the appropriate context; to monitor the
effects of the professional development activities through teacher and student
growth; and to simultaneously model one of the Open Court Reading Program lesson
components – Workshop. The process of IPD begins with determining the learning
gap needs of teachers through the use of a self-survey, and classroom observations in
order to drive the professional development plan. Based on these findings teachers
are grouped as determined by their level of needed support into one of three
categories: Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention. In collaborative groups based on
similar support needs, teacher-learners are then provided with Individualized
Learning Activities to support their level of theoretical understandings and/or level
of curriculum implementation. Post teacher support, an additional survey is then
conducted along with classroom observation(s) to determine teacher growth, or lack
of. Based on these findings, teacher-learners may potentially be re-categorized. This
process is conducted for each of the instructional routines necessary for effectively
implementing Open Court Reading. Overall, this format is intended to allow the
suitably trained to provide collaborative and individualized support using researched
characteristics of effective professional development in order to assist teacher-
learners in reaching their potential in a real-world learning context. In IPD each
teacher-learner is valued for their unique strengths, while being offered opportunities
to demonstrate their skills through a variety of techniques. To individualize
professional development is to acknowledge various teacher-learner backgrounds,
readiness levels, languages, interests, and learning profiles.
5
Individualized Learning Activities: Once the diverse needs of teacher-learners
are defined, teacher-learners are grouped based on their similar instructional needs,
learning readiness, ability and interest levels, and learning styles in order to receiving
support through Individualized Learning Activities. Individualized Learning
Activities are defined as learning activities that are aligned to meet the specific needs
of individual teachers. For example, if teacher-learners are categorized as Challenge
teachers, they then become a resource or expert teacher for their peers, which then
allows them to share their knowledge and expertise as an in-house resource. If
teacher-learners are placed in the Reteach category, they are provided theoretical or
implementation support through researched-based practices. Teachers in need of
theoretical support are provided with Individualized Learning Activities such as:
presentations, reflective learning, and/or teacher collaboration meetings. Teachers in
need of implementation support are provided with individual learning activities such
as: demonstration lessons, team-teaching opportunities, video-reflections, reflective
learning, and/or teacher collaboration meetings. If teachers are placed in the
Intervention category they are provided both theoretical and implementation support
using a combination of the previously mentioned practices. Despite the frequent
implementation of each of the learning activities in other professional development
endeavors, the term Individualized Learning Activities has been coined to reflect this
particular method as it allows teacher-learners to participate in the exact learning
activities specifically aligned to meet their individual needs.
6
Significance of the Study
The NCLB Act requires that all third through eighth grade students become
proficient in reading by the 2013/2014 school year. This mandate prompts urgent
need for effective school-wide professional development endeavors, especially for
under-performing schools that may face sanctions if they fail.
The potential impact of this study therefore, is to provide an alternative to
traditionally ineffective professional development in order to address teacher and
subsequently student learning needs present at under-performing schools. For
practical relevance, IPD was designed to support teachers with their implementation
of Open Court Reading, but if effective, the method itself could be adapted to
support teachers with other standards-based curriculums. Ultimately, this study had
the conceptual intent of providing insight into how teachers acquire new
understandings in order to improve their instruction – through targeted, meaningful
and sustained professional development. It also provided additional understandings
of the role of reflection in adult learning and transfer of skills to classroom practice.
The importance of individualized professional development has increased as
the push for heterogeneous professional development continues to be the norm.
Differentiation of professional development is challenging but is vital to the success
of all teacher and student learners in a standards-based environment. This study is an
attempt to illuminate how teacher and subsequently student learning can be enhanced
through an individualized professional development methodology.
7
Methodology
A case study analysis of six participants located at an under-performing
elementary school was conducted to determine the teacher outcomes of IPD. The
school name has been changed and the names of the teachers have been coded to
maintain anonymity. Mixed methods of combined quantitative and qualitative
research was considered as the appropriate means for conducting this research in
order to fully understand the effects of an original professional development method.
An initial and post needs assessment was conducted, concluding interviews with
each participant was performed, and classroom observations were used to contribute
to a holistic perspective of the outcomes of IPD.
Assumptions
There were two assumptions underlying this research. First, it was assumed
that the teacher-participants would continue their participation in the IPD until the
conclusion of the study. And, second, it was assumed that the teacher-participants
would provide truthful and accurate information.
Limitations of the Study
Both delimitations and limitations are recognized for this study.
Delimitations are the boundaries or limits set by the researcher in the study, while
limitations are the factors not controlled by the researcher that may affect the study.
Due to the effects of these limitations a variety of sources and resources will be used
8
and their strengths will be drawn upon in order to minimize the weaknesses of any
single approach through the process of triangulation (Patton, 2002). For this study,
the limitations and delimitations are as follows:
1) This study consisted of one elementary school located in Orange County,
CA comprised of grades K-6.
2) The particular school chosen is in year five of Program Improvement, and
was recently provided a School Assistance and Intervention Team
(SAIT).
3) Due to time constraints, there were a limited number of days available to
provide teacher-learners Individualized Learning Activities.
4) Due to time constraints, there were a limited number of days available for
teachers to practice the instructional routines after being provided support
and before conducting their final observations.
5) Because of the short duration of the study, not all elements of the
professional development activities and their impact on teacher learning
were directly observed.
6) If a teacher was to remain in the Reteach or Intervention category for a
particular routine during the post observations, the researcher used the
opportunity to team teach with the teacher to support teacher learning of
the routine being implemented. However, due to time constraints the
concluding effects of these team teaching experiences were not later
observed and/or documented on the Teacher Matrix.
9
7) During the concluding interviews, some participants may have answered
in ways they thought the researcher preferred and may have been less
open to express themselves since the researcher conducted all of the
observations and professional development activities.
8) The professional development method researched was specifically
designed to support teachers with their implementation of Open Court
Reading. Therefore, the findings of this research are inconclusive in
acknowledging its efficiency towards supporting teacher-learners with the
implementation of other standards-based curriculums.
9) Only one school was studied using a case study approach, therefore all of
the observations and inferences are limited to that specific school site.
10) Limitations of the observations may have included the possibility that the
participant-observer affected the situation being observed in unknown
ways.
11) The observations conducted were limited to observing external behaviors.
12) Because qualitative methods were used it was important for the
researcher to be cognizant of any potential subjective biases.
13) The documents and records used may be incomplete or inaccurate.
14) The researcher was the OCR consultant for all of the participants during
the previous 2007-2008 school year and has therefore informally
evaluated each participant in the past. To that end, the researcher may
10
bring biases to each observation based on prior knowledge of each
teacher's performance.
15) The teachers who were interviewed in order to determine their overall
preference, or lack of, towards IPD may have brought bias to each
interview based on their previously established relationship with the
researcher.
16) Although the study did not measure the direct effects of professional
development on student achievement, the measures of teaching practice
that were used can be considered as indirect contributors to the gains, or
lack of, in student achievement.
17) The researcher recognizes that a totally unbiased qualitative study with
precise valid data is almost impossible (Merriam, 1998; Airasian and
Gay, 2000).
Chapter Introductions and Overviews
Chapter one of this study has introduced the research being conducted. Also,
a statement of the study problem, the purpose of the study - including the
investigative research questions, an overview of the methodology used, the
importance of the study itself, limitations-delimitations-assumptions, and definitions
of key terms were defined and presented.
Chapter two explores relevant literature from databases and keywords
searched. It describes the concerns regarding the role of traditional professional
11
development practices and explores findings on reformed professional development
activities, while providing the rationale for a new individualized professional
development approach.
Chapter three provides the methodology used in the selection of the sample
and population, instrumentation, research questions, and how the data were analyzed.
Chapter four presents the findings and analysis of the data and documents
reviewed. Verbatim responses to the interview questions along with the researcher’s
analysis are presented.
Chapter five summarizes emergent themes and shares the conclusions and
implications of the study. Following that overview are more detailed conclusions
and implications of the study in the areas of future research in regards to professional
development practices.
12
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature
Introduction
This chapter presents a detailed analysis of related literature that supports this
study. Through the use of peer-reviewed educational journals and books, this
research describes and synthesizes the importance of effective teachers in urban
schools with particular focus given to creating and sustaining effective professional
development for urban educators. Both traditional and emerging models of
professional development are summarized with emphasis placed on a newly derived
method – Individualized Professional Development (IPD). A conclusion is posted,
however its primary purpose is to emphasize the need for continued research and
ultimate application of effective professional development methodologies.
More specifically, this research intended to contribute new and generalized
knowledge of effective professional development strategies by suggesting a new
model, Individualized Professional Development (IPD). This model recognized the
individually diverse needs of teacher-learners and subsequently offered access to
learning activities through individualized methods in order to meet those specified
needs. Further, based on the research discussed in this literature review, IPD
recognized the need for effective teachers whose efficiency is contributed to by
professional development opportunities. IPD also recognized research regarding the
challenges of traditional professional development and was therefore originated
based on suggested reform professional development endeavors that reflect adult
learning. Based on the importance of these findings, this research study was
13
designed to determine the overall effectiveness of IPD as a theoretical model by
observing the changes that occurred in the instructional practices and theoretical
understandings of elementary teachers when teacher-learners participated in
individualized instructional support.
Documentation
This literature review was conducted through a data-base search. The
primary data-base source searched for dissertations and peer reviewed journals was
the University of Southern California’s USC Libraries, Quick Search/Scholars
Portal. However, ERIC, JSTOR, and the Googlescholar search engine were also
used to locate relevant books, empirical journal articles, and reports. Keywords and
descriptors were used to narrow the scope and relevance of the information and
included: professional development, in-services, learning community, cognitive
apprenticeship, student achievement, reflective teaching, reflective journaling,
teacher learning, teacher efficacy, teacher quality, staff development and
differentiated instruction. Some journals were hand-searched for current articles
which included: American Educational Research Journal, Educational Researcher,
and Phi Delta Kappan. The assigned course readers from the University of Northern
California’s, Teacher Education in Multicultural Societies program were also hand-
searched for relevant articles. Additionally, references from all selected papers and
texts, as well as electronic searches of related articles were used to identify
additional sources that were relevant to this study. Most literature used was
restricted to a 10 year time frame, with the exception of a few articles which were
14
determined as applicable due to their current relevancy and theoretical practice.
Once appropriate articles were located, note cards were created that summarized the
research. Each summary included the researched question, method, sources, and
findings. The gaps in the literature and significance of findings were also noted.
Each note card was then organized by topic, and summarized in order to synthesize
similar and contrasting findings to develop the body of this literature review.
The Purpose of Effective Professional Development
Over the past decade, much emphasis has been dedicated to the study of how
professional development influences teacher efficacy, as well as student learning and
achievement. These studies clearly determined that the academic success of students
were significantly influenced by teachers’ access to and participation in quality
professional development activities (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey, 2002; Akiba,
et al., 2007; Izumi et al., 2002). And while teaching may appear to be relatively
easy, Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) pointed out that getting a diverse
group of students to learn in deep and meaningful ways is “inherently complex and
messy…” (p. 147). Therefore, in order for this literature review to address the
purpose of professional development and how it can be effectively implemented in
order to influence teacher effectiveness, it was imperative that it begin with
analyzing the need for creating highly effective teachers.
15
Influencing Teacher Effectiveness
According to No Child Left Behind, all students must be taught by a “highly
qualified teacher”. The term “highly qualified teacher” as defined by No Child Left
Behind is an outline of required content knowledge and teaching skills. These skills
are considered to be evidenced by the earning of a bachelor’s degree and by
acquiring full state-certification, based upon the candidate’s demonstrated
knowledge of the core academic subjects that S/he teaches. However, due to various
interpretations of the general guidelines mandated by No Child Left Behind, states
defined teacher quality differently, and therefore enacted differing policies (Cochran-
Smith & Fries, 2005).
To further complicate matters, educational researchers did not agree on a
single definition of teacher quality. Researchers generally utilized two broad
approaches. First, researchers such as Williams Sanders and colleagues (1996, 1997)
defined teacher quality as the greatest factor in adding value to student achievement
or pupil performance (Cochran-Smith, & Fries, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2002;
Haycock, 2004; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Second, researchers defined
teacher quality in terms of teacher qualifications (i.e. characteristics and attributes)
that were considered to influence student achievement (Cochran-Smith, & Fries,
2005; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Shulman, 1986).
Of the research conducted to address the question of what teachers should
know, be able to do, and be able to do with what they know, several similar and
consistently recognized domains of teacher knowledge were determined. These
16
domains include: knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge,
knowledge of other content, knowledge of the curriculum, knowledge of learners,
knowledge of educational aims, and general pedagogical knowledge (Darling-
Hammond, 2001, 2002; Shulman, 1986).
Though little research existed that specifically defined a highly effective
teacher, researchers determined that teacher quality had the greatest effect on student
learning and was the most influential factor for promoting student success (Darling-
Hammond, 2001, 2002; Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; and
Sanders & Rivers, 1996). For example, Ronald Ferguson (1991) conducted research
that determined the greatest influence in raising student achievement was the quality
of teachers. In his research, it was this variable that accounted for the large
disparities in achievement between black and white students. Ferguson found that
differences in the quality of schooling accounted for between one quarter and one
third of the variation among Texas school districts in students’ scores on statewide
standardized reading exams. The estimated effect was most influenced by a single
measure of teacher quality—their performance on a statewide recertification exam.
Teacher experience and Master’s degrees were additional measures of teacher
quality that predicted higher test scores for students.
Research conducted by Sanders and Rivers (1996) also determined that the
single most dominant factor affecting student academic achievement was teacher
effectiveness. As a result of a particular sequence of assigned teachers, these
researchers found that students with comparative initial abilities had vastly different
17
outcomes based on both additive and cumulative teacher effects. Sanders and Rivers
(1996) further determined that the residual effects of the assigned sequence of
teachers continued to be measurable in later years, regardless of the teacher
effectiveness in later grades.
Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (1998) also identified teacher quality in terms of
student performance outcomes. Their research which involved 200,000 students in
3,000 schools revealed that teacher quality was the most important school-related
factor influencing student achievement. This study further indicated that the
variation in teacher quality accounted for at least 7.5% differential of total student
achievement.
While conducting a meta-analysis, Linda Darling-Hammond (2001) similarly
found that measures of teacher quality, within the specified context of teacher
preparation and certification, was more strongly and more directly related to
improved student achievement than other kinds of investments – such as reduced
class size, overall spending on education, and teacher salaries.
In summary, the findings from these four research studies are analogous as
they conclude that teacher quality is imperative for raising student academic
achievement. As illustrated by research conducted by Sanders and Rivers (1996),
effective teachers produced measurable improvements among low-achieving
students that averaged an astounding 53 percentile points, while less effective
teachers produced gains of approximately 14 percentile points. These measurable
outcomes further reflected Ferguson’s (1991) findings that differences in the quality
18
of schooling accounted for between one-quarter and one-third of the variations found
within Texas school districts’ student scores on statewide standardized reading
exams. This equated to documented percentile differences that directly determined a
student’s future, based on remediation or acceleration.
What is valuable at the summary of this data is the conclusion that of all
factors within our direct control, nothing matters more than the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes of the teacher. Nothing impacts student learning as directly or
powerfully as a “quality teacher”. It is empirically evident that students who are
assigned to several ineffective teachers in a row have significantly lower
achievement and outcome gains than those who are assigned to several highly
effective teachers.
Though there was general agreement that high quality teachers can be
instrumental in producing improved academic achievement, these particular studies
did not address how to influence the effectiveness of teachers. Therefore the
following section examined current efforts of traditional professional development,
and its ability, or lack of, to contribute to teacher effectiveness.
The Problems with Traditional Professional Development
Although findings demonstrated the need for effective teachers and the
ability for professional development to influence teacher effectiveness, there was
much dissatisfaction in the research with the implementation of teacher professional
development.
19
Despite the general acceptance that professional development was essential
for improving education, it was also determined that professional development was
frequently limited to occasional conferences or workshops that were attended by
reluctant teachers who were mandated to attend. These one to three day workshops,
often referred to as “drive-by workshops”, were presented by content area specialists
such as college professors, or by outside independent consultants who did not
provide teachers with any follow-up support and only offered short-term services
which were market-driven and menu-oriented (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Dawson,
1978; Guskey, 2002, 2003; Little, 1989). A review of the professional development
literature produced substantial criticism of these “drive-by workshops”, for failing to
have lasting effects and for leaving teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom
(Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Clair, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Dawson, 1978; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991; Guskey, 2003).
Because professional development activities were often imposed, they did not
take into account the teachers’ perspective of classroom reality, and they simply
considered teachers to be passive receivers of knowledge and information rather than
creators of educational ideology. For these reasons, researchers determined that
teacher in-services tended to be ignored and therefore generated little permanent
effect on teachers (Dawson, 1978; Flores, Tefft-Cousins, & Diaz, 1991, Little, 1989).
Judith Warren Little (1989) suggested that the traditional “training model” of
professional development, which assumed that a clearly-defined body of skills can
be transferred from trainers to teachers through a well-specified process, is largely
20
inappropriate, given the complexity of the tasks that are required for all schools to
help students meet high academic standards.
Traditional professional development endeavors tend to focus on isolated
topics such as pedagogy and student discipline (Elmore, 2002). There is frequent
disregard for the processes of teaching and learning, which results in a lack of
practical preparation support for teachers (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998;
Flores, et al., 1991).
In essence, there is great disconnect found within the area of teacher
professional development. Researchers determined that there was disconnect
between the ability of teacher in-services to provide relevant information that was
pertinent to the teachers’ perspective of reality for meeting the challenges presented
by today’s contemporary society (Dawson, 1978; Elmore, 2002; Little, 1989).
Additionally, teacher professional development was further faced with the challenge
of redirecting or even changing teacher perspectives when teacher beliefs were based
on misconceptions and the in-services did not consider teacher contributions. All too
often professional development activities offered little opportunity for participants to
become involved in conversations due to the district-level control over professional
development priorities and practices (Dawson, 1978; Little, 1989).
Despite its great importance, reviewed research continually recognized the
ineffectiveness of most professional development programs. As illustrated in this
body of research, the ineffectiveness of professional development was undeniably
contributed to by a number of influences that were not based on strong theories of
21
teacher learning and therefore lacked the necessary components to engender long
lasting change. It was therefore the purpose of the following section to define
effective professional development, to compile research-suggested characteristics of
professional development which are tied to theories of learning, and to suggest a new
method of professional development based on those findings.
Meeting the Challenge – Creating Effective Professional Development
Defining Effective Professional Development
Professional development as defined by the National Staff Development
Council (NSDC) improves learning for all students and includes standards that
address the context, process, and content of the training. The key components of
these standards included:
• preparing educators to apply research to decision making
• applying knowledge about human learning and change
• deepening educators' content knowledge
• providing research-based instructional strategies to assist students in
meeting rigorous academic standards
• preparing educators to use various types of classroom assessments
appropriately
Guskey (2000) defined teacher professional development as ongoing, intentional,
and systematic educational training opportunities that are made available to
educators in their schools and districts. A study conducted by Judith Little, District
Policy Choices and Teachers’ Professional Development Opportunities (1989)
defined staff development as “any activity that is intended partly or primarily to
prepare paid staff members for improved performance in present or future roles in
22
the school district” (p. 166). Little (1989) later added that professional development
establishes a reciprocal relationship with accountability which therefore becomes an
investment in knowledge and skill in order to achieve an end. Elmore (2002)
adopted the definition endorsed by Fenstermacher and Berliner (1985).
Staff development is the provision of activities designed to advance
the knowledge, skills, and understanding of teachers in ways that lead
to changes in their thinking and classroom behavior. This definition
limits the scope of staff development to those specific activities that
enhance knowledge, skills, and understanding in ways that lead to
changes in thought and action (p. 14).
However, Elmore furthered this definition by including that it is necessary for
professional development to explicitly connect to student learning in order to
improve individuals as well as schools and school systems.
While these definitions of professional development varied widely in content
and format, their shared common understanding was that the purpose of professional
development was to alter the professional practices, beliefs, and understandings of
school persons toward an articulated end, or improvement of student learning. When
synthesized, effective professional development facilitates change in teacher
effectiveness when teachers have the opportunity to partake in learning experiences
intended to develop new knowledge, skill, and attitudes that directly influence
student learning outcomes.
23
Teacher Learning and Effective Professional Development
Teachers are not typically challenged by the ideas presented in professional
development endeavors, but expecting teacher transfer or consistent classroom
implementation of newly shared ideas requires teachers to shed their comfortable
practices and operate outside of their comfort zone for less predictable outcomes,
while the instructional day and expectations continue moving at a rapid pace
(Tomlinson, 2000). It is therefore important for professional development endeavors
to consider not only the learning outcomes of students, but the learning acquisition of
teachers.
Because teachers are being asked to think about their learners,
classroom organization, roles as educators, and curriculum and
instruction in significantly different ways, staff development that
stops with telling teachers what to do will fall short of effective
transfer (Tomlinson, 2000, p. 28).
Similarly, Hoffman and Pearson (2000) advocated for teacher education programs
that support a nesting of training within a broader construct of teaching. Hoffman
and Pearson (2000) made a clear distinction between the terms training and teaching
teachers. They defined training as the “direct actions of a teacher that are designed
to enhance a learner’s ability to do something fluently and efficiently…Skills are
behavioral routines that operate, when internalized, with automaticity and a
minimum amount of cognitive attention or inspection” (p. 5). Further, training
models were defined as being dependent upon the identification of “specific
behavioral and psychological routines that become the target of interventions” (p. 5).
By contrast, Hoffman and Pearson (2000) regarded teaching as “the intentional
24
actions of a teacher to promote personal control over and responsibility for learning
within those who are taught” (p. 5).
In order to provide a rewarding learning experience for teachers through
professional development learning activities, it is necessary to consider why
knowledge gaps exist and ways in which adults learn. Clark and Estes (2002)
determined that there were three major causes for performance gaps that essentially
elicited the need for professional development: lack of knowledge and skills, lack of
motivation, and organizational barriers.
Wilson and Berne (1999) advocated that to document what teachers know,
one must assess knowledge even if those assessments might look, or feel like,
“tests”. Furthermore, these researchers declared that we have an obligation to move
beyond documenting what teachers say they know. As Fenstermacher (1994)
asserts:
There are some serious epistemological problems in identifying as
knowledge that which teachers believe, imagine, intuit, sense, and
reflect upon. It is not that such mental activities might not lead to
knowledge; rather, it is that these mental events, once inferred or
expressed, must be subjected to assessment for their epistemic merit
(p.47).
This presents a challenge in finding the appropriate balance between teacher wants
and expectations, and the goals of the provided professional development. This
belief was further supported by Loughran and Berry (2005) who contended that there
is an ongoing tension between balancing teachers’ perceived needs and concerns
with teacher educators’ beliefs about what teachers need to know and be able to do.
25
Because of the need for new techniques and because professional development
addresses adult-learners, there is a constant negotiation of content, purpose, control,
and discourse style known as the “agenda-setting dilemma” (Wilson & Berne, 1999).
Researchers such as Wilson and Berne (1999) have concluded that even when
professional development was voluntarily attended, teachers arrived at professional
development endeavors with clear ideas of what types of “knowledge” were most
helpful and relevant to their learning. Teachers expected to learn new theories of
learning or new instructional strategies, but seldom did teachers attend professional
development with the mindset that their views of knowledge, subject matter or
students need to change (Wilson & Berne, 1999). According to Wilson & Berne
(1999), teachers did not expect to have their knowledge or previous practices
questioned and were not interested in spending their free professional time admitting
to what they did not know. This type of self-reflection and personal exposure was
often unsettling. Yet professional development intended to help teachers acquire
new professional knowledge, especially subject matter knowledge, often involves
exactly that. Extrapolated from the educational psychologist Ormrod (2006), the
high level of anxiety, or the “debilitative anxiety” that such self-reflection can
produce, can interfere with several processes critical for successful learning and
performance. However, it is important for professional development providers to
note that a small amount of anxiety or “facilitative anxiety”, can frequently improve
performance (Ormrod, 2006).
26
As reported in the findings of research conducted by Lemlech and Kaplan
(1990), collegial relationships promoted reflective thinking and prompted the
reconsideration of the philosophical underpinnings and the effect of teaching
processes on teaching and learning. As these researchers determined, this
understanding and skill transfer led to the enhancement of the teaching of social
studies. The ultimate conviction is that professional development as a reflective
practice is dependent upon self-reflection, and the opportunities to exchange
information and ideas with others is necessary for purposeful reconsideration of the
uncertain in order to gain insight (Lemlech & Kaplan, 1990).
Collegiality is dependent on the establishment of a professional
relationship for the purpose of service and accommodation though the
mutual exchange of perceptions and expertise in order to create a
bond that enhances one’s ability to become a professional (p. 11).
To obtain constructive collaboration, it is important for facilitators of teacher
professional development to create an atmosphere that is conducive to open debate
and evaluation of ideas that are topic focused and engage all teachers in the
discussion. As determined by Flores, Tefft-Cousins, and Diaz, (1991) teachers
required time to think, develop, share, plan, debate, question, and to reflect critically
with each other. Similar findings by Clair (1998) found that teacher study groups
were an alternative to traditional professional development structures in that they
provided opportunities for teachers to explore together, the complex issues of
teaching and learning, especially within the context of linguistically and culturally
diverse schools.
27
Wilson and Berne (1999) contended that teacher learning was best facilitated
when professional development endeavors provided teachers the opportunity for
regular teacher collaboration meetings whereby new knowledge and practices to be
learned were teacher presented, discussed, and modeled amongst them. Effective
professional development provides this opportunity for teachers to be the experts or
coaches and promotes teacher involvement in making management decisions. Such
management decisions include creating or choosing the topics for future professional
development, which allows the teachers to take a more aggressive role in the actual
professional development design and implementation. Dawson (1978) determined
that:
Any service program imposed on teachers, which does not confront
teachers at their own level of perception of reality, is destined to
failure. In-service education, to be successful, to have permanent
lasting effects on teachers and subsequently on their students, has to
be generated dynamically by the teachers themselves, from their view
of the classroom reality (p. 51).
Using the teacher as the expert will ensure relevancy to the contexts in which they
are teaching, promote long-term change or commitment to the newly presented
information, and will provide teachers with a sense of determination. This sense of
determination will support teachers in their belief that they are in control of their
own destinies and choices about the direction their lives will take. However, to
obtain the goal of establishing long-term dialogue between teachers and resource
personnel, it has been recognized that longer periods of time for professional
development were also necessary (Ball, 1996; Clair, 1998; Dawson, 1978).
28
As Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) found, teachers were often
reluctant to participate in practices that were incompatible with their current beliefs.
These researchers further noted that if change in teacher beliefs occurred, they were
not always viewed as desirable because teachers oftentimes change or distort new
information to fit their existing beliefs. Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998)
have therefore criticized the assumption that simply providing knowledge stimulates
desirable changes in teacher behavior and instead suggested that professional
development opportunities be built upon the beliefs of teachers, be long in duration,
and feature systematic and consistent long-term support in a collaborative setting.
Similarly, Flores, Tefft-Cousins, and Diaz (1991) found that teachers may
rely solely on personal experiences and may not ignore their personal prejudices
which guide their instructional practices and decisions. These habitual practices are
based on unexamined attitudes coined as “habitudes.” Experienced teachers often
had difficulty when asked to challenge their deeply embedded practices regarding the
range of student knowledge and skill they can accommodate in a given classroom –
these entrenched beliefs worked against the acquisition of new models of practice
(Flores, et al., 1991).
Researchers documented that if teachers are taught new teaching practices,
the retention or shelf-life is approximately one year or less if it is not continuously
monitored (Warren & Rosebery, 2001). Because veteran teachers practiced
automaticity (based on either good or bad teaching) teachers worked from their built
schema. If that schema was not transposed, then the new information was
29
superficially attached and therefore considered a burden which was later purged
when the monitored pressure was removed. Therefore, researchers determined that it
was vital to change the habit of mind, in order to change the habit of practice
(Warren & Rosebery, 2001). For example, in the Cheche Konnen Project, Rosebery
and her colleagues found that when teachers attended a summer workshop and were
“walked through” a new curriculum, the following year teachers did not enact the
new curriculum and materials as intended. When the researchers investigated why,
they discovered that the teachers had not changed their beliefs about the subject-
content or pedagogy and therefore when filtered through and shaped by old beliefs,
the implementation of the curriculum became more traditional than not. In this
study, it was later determined that changes did not occur until efforts were redirected
towards helping teachers understand their own knowledge (Warren & Rosebery,
2001).
To further eliminate issues of “habitudes”, researchers suggested designing
professional development programs around the specific beliefs of teachers beginning
with the initial examination of their predisposed ideology and then evolving into the
negotiation of good teaching practices. Current research has been used to generate
the ‘Model of Teacher Change’ for creating professional development that elicits
long-term change in teacher classroom practices, attitudes and beliefs, and in the
subsequent learning outcomes of students (Guskey, 2002).
The constructivist theoretical perspective proposed by Piaget, purports that
learners construct knowledge, rather than absorb it from their experience. Within the
30
context of this information processing theory, the learner is encouraged to use prior
knowledge based on schemes (groups of similar actions or thoughts) as the
foundation from which to scaffold newly acquired knowledge. It is this mindset
based on prior experience, knowledge, and beliefs which factor into teacher learning:
What teachers bring to the process of learning to teach affects what
they learn. Increasingly, teachers’ own personal and professional
histories are thought to play an important role in determining what
they learn from professional development opportunities (Ball, 1996,
p. 501).
This concept was similarly recognized by Joyce and Showers (1987) who
noted that a basic level of knowledge or skill prior to addressing a new method is
necessary for teacher “buy-in” and growth.
Ball and Cohen (in press) theorized that teacher learning requires some
disequilibrium and that teacher learning emerges only from those occasions when
teachers’ assumptions are challenged: “Situating professional development in
materials, teaching, and incidents that may stimulate some productive disequilibrium
offers useful territory for teachers’ learning” (p. 15). Furthermore, Guskey (2002)
suggested that significant change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, or transposed
schema occurs primarily after they experience evidence of improvements in student
learning. Therefore, professional development should allow teachers the opportunity
to think critically or to engage in the process of evaluating the accuracy of one’s
information and line of reasoning. By providing this setting, teachers are afforded
the opportunity to continually reflect upon and critically examine their assumptions,
inferences, and teaching practices.
31
Finally, the use of a journal can also be incorporated into professional
development programs in order to support teacher reflection. Within this text,
conceptualized descriptions of teaching experiences surface as well as one’s
underlying beliefs, values, emotions, concerns, questions, and problems in regards to
events, experiences and future plans. Journaling has been found to be a powerful
method for self-study by documenting and learning from one’s own experience
through the engagement of analysis of ones own practice. According to Hollins
(1993), teacher journals document learning experiences and teacher growth that have
an overall impact on the social context of the classroom. After analyzing research
literature and studying teachers who were selected on the basis that they were able to
design and deliver instruction that enabled culturally diverse learners to meet
predetermined objectives, Hollins (1993) found that effective teachers of culturally
diverse student populations were able to examine the context in which they teach.
Recommendations by Hollins (1993) included the use of a journal and teaching
portfolio to assist in the process of professional growth in order to make connections
between learning experiences and that of students’ lives. Further expansion of this
concept included journal reflections that are shared throughout the process of on-
going professional development. For example, collegial dialogue journals between
teachers could provide opportunities for teacher collaboration and learning as teacher
questions are posed and peer-generated solutions are suggested.
Piaget theorized that active experimentation with the physical world is
essential for cognitive growth. By conducting professional development
32
opportunities within the classroom (or in real-world contexts) teachers discovered
the reasons why and how certain strategies can be effective and the likelihood that
teachers actually used the learned information and skills later on was increased
(Putnam & Borko, 2006).
While conducting a meta-analysis, Putnam & Borko (2006) reviewed the
importance of situated learning experiences for practicing teachers and provided
researched-based methods. One suggested method grounded teachers’ learning
experiences in their practice by conducting activities at school sites, with a large
component of the learning activities occurring in their individual classrooms.
Another researched method required teachers to bring experiences from their
classrooms to the professional development activities (i.e. workshops) in order to
examine and discuss their instructional practices. A third method utilized videotapes
as springboards for discussion and practical argument purposes. Furthermore, one
promising model for the use of multiple contexts was explored. This model
combined summer workshops in order to initially introduce theoretical and research-
based ideas with on-going support during the school year. As teachers attempted to
integrate the theoretical ideas into their own classroom practice, they were provided
with feedback, demonstrated lessons, opportunities for reflection, and additional
workshops for exploring issues as they emerged. Researchers determined that this
model of multiple contexts was most effective in assisting teachers in developing
different conceptions of content knowledge, student learning, and teaching.
33
After conducting a meta-analytic review of the professional development
literature, Joyce and Showers (1987, 2002) similarly concluded that when increased
knowledge, skills, classroom transfer, and student learning were the desired
outcomes, professional development endeavors that utilized a multiple component
design which combines the presentation of theory, demonstration of the new
strategy, initial practice in the workshop, and feedback regarding their efforts are
most successful.
These contextual methods recognize and address the previously discussed
teacher complaint that professional development learning experiences are too often
removed from the day-to-day work of teaching to have meaningful impact. Further,
these methods affirm the situative perspective that all knowledge is situated in
context thus focus on various settings for various kinds of teacher learning (Putnam
& Borko, 2006).
To further provide a learning environment in which learners are presented
with real-world context embedded with authentic tasks that emphasize social
interaction and situated learning, researchers suggested providing a cognitive
apprenticeship. By creating a cognitive apprenticeship, teachers are able to work
intensely with an expert to learn how to accomplish a complex task or solve a
difficult problem. This guided participation helps the learner achieve a task that
independently would be too challenging. Applying apprenticeship methods to
largely cognitive skills requires the externalization of processes that are usually
carried out internally. Education researchers Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989)
34
proposed one of the best-known frameworks for cognitive apprenticeship. In this
model, the purpose of instruction was to make the invisible processes that experts
used to handle complex tasks, visible through interactive learning experiences.
Because it may take a teacher up to 30 trials for a new teaching strategy to be
implemented to the point that it is considered under “executive control” – the transfer
of learned knowledge and skills is by no means guaranteed (Joyce & Showers,
2002). Therefore, teachers are likely to maintain new strategies if they receive on-
site coaching from internal and external experts while implementing the ideas to
allow for discovery learning within the realm of teacher development. Building
upon this premise, Loughran and Berry (2004) also propose enhancing interactive
learning experiences by explicitly modeling the thoughts and actions that underpin
the pedagogical method being used. While conducting a collaborative self-study
Loughran and Berry (2004) determined that professional development providers
must model the use of teaching procedures while offering teachers access to the
pedagogical reasoning, feelings, thoughts, and actions that accompany the practice
rather than “deliver” information about such practice through a traditional
transmissive approach. These researchers suggest that such access can be made
available through thinking aloud, journaling, discussions, and through the inquiry of
shared teaching and learning experiences.
In essence, cognitive apprenticeships allow for: modeling, coaching,
scaffolding, articulation, reflection, exploration, and reciprocal teaching to occur
within the context of the classroom.
35
• Modeling provides the opportunity for the teacher to observe and listen to
the expert demonstrate tasks while simultaneously thinking aloud about
the process.
• Coaching, is the established process that allows the expert to provide
frequent suggestions, feedback, and hints as the teacher performs the task.
• Scaffolding allows the expert to provide various forms of assistance for
appropriate teaching practices through simplification of the task, breaking
the task into more manageable components, or by providing less
complicated equipment.
• Articulation requires that the teacher talks aloud to explain what S/he is
doing and why. This allows the expert to examine the teacher’s thinking,
knowledge, reasoning, and problem-solving skills.
• Reflection creates the opportunity for the teachers to compare his or her
performance with that of experts or an ideal model to determine
appropriate implementation.
• Exploration provides the context for the teacher to ask the expert
questions to expand and refine acquired skills.
• Reciprocal teaching or team teaching can be used as a method in which
teachers observe and imitate what the expert does. Initially, the expert
leads the activity or conducts the lesson but gradually hands over the
responsibility to the teacher.
36
Overall, the lack of agreement and consistency among researchers and
practitioners regarding the criteria for effective professional development practices,
has those who design and implement professional development endeavors for
educators frustrated, and has prompted coherency efforts. In fact, much of the
supporting research for the identified characteristics is inconsistent, often
contradictory, and rarely includes rigorous investigations of the relationship between
the characteristics and improvements in instructional practice and/or student learning
outcomes. For example, research conducted by Guskey (2003), analyzed 13 popular
lists of characteristics of effective professional development endeavors that are used
to guide school leaders in their improvement efforts. His goal was to determine if
the lists were derived in comparable ways using the same sources or frames of
reference, to ascertain whether specific characteristics appear on all of the lists to
determine consensus, and to verify that the identified characteristics corresponded to
the revised Standards for Staff Development NSDC, 2001.
Importantly, of the 13 lists reviewed, 11 of them noted the most frequently
mentioned characteristic of effective professional development as the enhancement
of teachers’ content and pedagogic knowledge. Despite current reform efforts,
Guskey (2003) found that less than half of the lists cited the importance of ensuring
that the professional development activities were on-going, job embedded, provided
follow-up, were focused on individual and organizational improvement, or used
student learning data to drive professional development. Yet, examples of such
designed professional development proved to be of success as illustrated through
37
research conducted by Izumi and colleagues whose research found that coaching,
mentoring, modeling, collective learning and practice, self-analysis of instructional
delivery, continuous use of student assessments to monitor student and teacher
progress, and district and school-site administrative support contributed to a 14
percentile point increase in standardized test scores for students at eight Los Angeles
Unified School District elementary schools using Open Court Reading (Izumi et al.
2002).
Based on the findings of this literature review, it was evident that strategies
for authentic teacher professional development endeavors needed to include
systematic, long-range, on-going, on-site support that was relevantly focused on the
content students, and are held accountable for learning while being embedded in the
contextual reality of school life. The literature found for this review most notably
claimed that professional development endeavors must: (a) focus on individual and
organizational specified needs by reflecting principles of student learning to increase
the level of teacher skills, knowledge, self-efficacy, and motivation, (b) be relevant
to the context of what occurs in the classroom (c) provide teachers the opportunity to
provide input in shared decision-making, and (d) promote opportunities for self-
reflection and collaboration while receive on-going external support. It is important
here to reemphasize that to be successful, it is suggested that these strategies be
continuous in their efforts because without on-going support it has been determined
that only 10% of teachers will add a new strategy to their teaching repertoire
38
compared to 90% when continual professional development is provided (Joyce and
Showers, 2002).
In summary, these researched examples demonstrated that there are many
differing strategies that can be successful when providing teacher professional
development. However, as previously noted, each individual strategy, or
characteristic varies widely in their frequency of recommendation and was not
always consistently listed by researchers. And although lists of effective
professional development characteristics based on diverse criteria are valuable, they
provide only a starting point in efforts to improve the quality of professional
development programs and activities – thus, further supporting the purpose of the
research presented in this paper.
A New Method – Individualized Professional Development
The literature up to this point advocates that teacher effectiveness can be
further developed through effective professional development. Yet, researchers also
determined that the adult learners or teachers participating in professional
development are just as diverse as the students they teach and therefore a diversified
or an individualized approach to professional development is needed. In order to
address this need, professional developers need to respond to this diversity
accordingly by differentiating their staff development methods (Elmore, 2002;
Hertberg & Brighton, 2005). Elmore (2002) argued that to develop the capacity to
39
lead, create, and sustain professional development, a differentiated role for the leader
is required.
Professional development as a “one-size-fits-all” method contradicts the
message many staff developers hope to convey and instill in teacher-learners.
Hertberg and Brighton (2005) conducted a five-year study that used mixed-methods
to investigate factors that inhibit and support teachers’ implementation of
differentiated instruction. Seventy five teachers from nine middle schools across the
United States participated in monthly coaching sessions, follow-up classroom
observations, and formal interviews. Additionally, shared journals, planning
documents, and student work were reviewed. Their findings determined that as in
the classroom with student learners, there are times when professional development
is most appropriately conducted through whole group, direct instruction. Yet they
found that individual or small group coaching tailored to address teachers' specific
learner needs was also necessary – dependent upon where teacher-learners were in
their overall understandings. With this philosophy in mind, the core of
individualized instruction is the ability not only to individualize professional
development experiences, but to acknowledge the variance of learning readiness and
learning styles within a mixed-ability context and then adjust instruction accordingly.
According to Tomlinson (2000) differentiation can be described as a modification of
the actual content to be learned, the process by which the learning takes place, or the
eventual output or product at the end of the learning experience. Embedded within
these three core areas is the notion that learning can also be differentiated by a
40
learner’s readiness or ability, a learner’s personal learning profile, or by a learner's
interest in a particular topic.
At this point in time, most researchers have focused on differentiated
instruction within the context of the classroom and have included the students as the
learners. Little to no research has been conducted in the area of individualized
instruction for teacher-learners in the form of professional development, but research
is beginning to recognize the importance of similarly differentiating teacher support.
As recognized by Newmann, King, and Youngs, (2000), it is possible for urban,
elementary schools serving low-income students to organize professional
development through a diverse and customized method in order to provide
differential emphases dependent upon a school’s development needs. Research
conducted by Marsden (2007) found that all of the six teachers who participated in
his job-embedded professional development research agreed that they preferred a
differentiated professional development format to best facilitate their individual
professional needs. Similarly endorsed by Tomlinson (2000), “It is unwise for
educational leaders to ask schools and teachers to be vigorously sensitive to
individual student differences while leaders function as though all schools or all
teachers are alike” (p.27).
Conceptual Framework of Individualized Professional Development
While many researchers and practicing teachers acknowledge differentiated
instruction as a compelling and effectual means of restructuring the traditional
41
classroom to include students and teacher-learners of diverse abilities, interests, and
learning profiles, this philosophical ideal is lacking in empirical validation.
Therefore, Individualized Professional Development (IPD) attempted to take part of
its impetus from cognitive coaching as endorsed by Costa and Garmston (2002), as it
pertained to the teacher-learner and the learning process.
Costa and Garmston (2002) developed a mentoring process that provided a
foundation for the professional growth of teachers by transforming their internal
thought processes and resources, values, and cognitive processes. This process,
known as cognitive coaching, differs from other mentoring programs because it
focuses on internal mental resources and intellectual functions rather than changing
overt, task specific behavior.
Cognitive coaching provided a structured process in peer mentoring. Costa
and Garmston (2002) defined cognitive coaching as:
...a non-judgmental, developmental, reflective model derived from a
blend of the psychological orientations of cognitive theorists and the
interpersonal bonding of humanists. It is based on the belief that
growth is achieved through the development of intellectual
functioning. The coaching interaction is focused on mediating a
practitioner’s thinking, perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions toward
the goals of self-directed learning and increased complexity of
cognitive processing (p. 5).
Cognitive coaching was organized around three major goals: trust, mutual
learning, and holonomy. Costa and Garmston (1994) described trust as an assured
reliance on the character, and ability or strength, of someone or something. There
are four areas of trust: trust in self, trust between individuals, trust in the coaching
42
process, and trust in the environment. Trust entails consistency, maintaining
confidentiality, visibility and accessibility, keeping commitments, sharing personal
information, expressing interest in others, listening reflectively, acting non-
judgmentally and admitting mistakes, and demonstrating professionalism.
Maintaining trust was vital to the process but was quickly destroyed if these
behaviors were overlooked and/or violated. Mutual learning and holonomy were
dependent upon building trust because it created a safe environment where learning
could occur (Garmston & Costa, 1994).
Mutual learning was described as the engagement and transformation of
mental processes and perceptions. Coaching was used as means to engage, enhance,
and mediate the intellectual functions of teaching. As noted by Costa and Garmston
(1994, 2002), teaching involves a highly intellectual process of continuous decision
making in diverse settings – before, during, and after instruction takes place.
Coaches needed to develop strategies, learning activities, and assessment
indicators that focused on the intellect rather than superficial behaviors (Costa &
Garmston 1994, 2002). This ideal began with the input of data through the senses
and through the collection of data from one’s short and long-term memory. The
second phase included processing that data into meaningful relationships to interpret
its meaning. Once the data was processed, it was elaborated, evaluated, or applied
into a new or novel situation or meaning. This intellectual process led to
metacognition, or the process of self-monitoring one’s own thoughts, actions, and
43
beliefs. It is the ability to reflect on one’s self while managing instruction (p. 87,
151).
The third goal of cognitive coaching was holonomy which involved an
individual’s cognitive ability to be simultaneously autonomous and interdependent.
Costa and Garmston (2002) purported that:
…effective teachers are autonomous individuals, self-asserting, self-
motivating, and self-modifying, whole in terms of self and yet
subordinate to a larger system. However, they are also parts of larger
wholes: a department, a school, a district. Teachers become
influenced by the norms, attitudes, values, and behaviors of their
group. The school is a human organization which interacts with an
even greater unit, the district and community (p. 123).
Cognitive coaching was a non-evaluative process contrived around a
planning conference, observation, and a post conference session performed by a
colleague or supervisor (Costa & Garmston 1994, 2002). Frequently this process
was done in pairs and focused on what the observed teacher needed. Cognitive
coaches worked to guide people into becoming self-directed, autonomous agents and
self-directed members of a larger group. Cognitive coaches were committed to these
skills and beliefs in order to enhance the autonomy of others. The set of components
that comprised cognitive coaching include: skills, capabilities, mental maps,
commitments, beliefs, and values to become a facilitator of self-directed learning
(Costa & Garmston, 2002). Cognitive coaches:
1. engaged and transformed thought through constructed and posed
questions.
44
2. established and maintained trust and intellectual engagement through
non-judgmental response behaviors.
3. established and maintained rapport through non-verbal behaviors.
4. encouraged others to become self-managed, self-monitored, and self-
modifying.
Cognitive coaching was an on-going relationship which supported teachers in
their ability to become self-directed learners by unlocking their potential within. A
self-directed learner was constantly mindful of what should happen, what is
happening, and what needs to happen in order to improve student achievement. A
self-directed learner had the ability to manage themselves by setting clear goals and
being able to identify success indicators. Once these goals and indicators were
established, a self-directed learner continued to be mindful of teaching by self-
monitoring, or reflecting on what was happening in order to determine if pre-
established goals were achieved. Self-directed learners then utilized self-modifying
behavior by assessing their performance and modifying their behaviors to ultimately
achieve the intended outcomes. Self-directed learners used these cognitive behaviors
and applied them to their teaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002).
A component of cognitive coaching linked behavior to previous perceptions
and experiences, and that a change in perception and thought was needed to change
behavior (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Flores, Tefft-Cousins, and Diaz, 1991; Warren
& Rosebery, 2001; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon, 1998). It is through reflective
45
thinking that human beings constructed their own meanings and behaviors (Costa &
Garmston, 2002).
In keeping with this grounded theoretical framework, Individualized
Professional Development (IPD) proposed a viable alternative to traditional
professional development strategies. Both cognitive coaching and IPD inherently
promoted the long-range goal of permeating a mental blueprint that teachers
mindfully used while teaching in order to foster their intellectual growth. Both
models used non-evaluative methods that supported the efforts of teachers to
internalize the intellectual functions and processes of effective teaching when a
coach or professional development provider was not present. Further, both models
promoted self-directed learning by supporting teacher efforts to be mindful of their
teaching through pre-established goals, and self-monitoring or reflecting on what
was happening and if their pre-established goals were achieved. In IPD, self directed
learning was promoted during debriefing sessions by engaging and transforming
teacher thought through constructed and posed questions in order to scaffold their
theoretical understandings, implementation practices, and self-reflection practices.
Additionally, teacher-learners were provided with reflection sheets that establish the
cyclical process of pre-establishing goals, evaluating the teaching process and
outcomes, and establishing future learning goals based on those findings. And,
teachers were also provided opportunities to collaborate with one another in order to
promote self-reflection of their own theoretical understandings and implementation
practices. In sum, the goals found in cognitive coaching which were also reflective
46
of the goals of IPD were: to engage and transform thought through constructed and
posed questions, establish and maintain trust and intellectual engagement through
non-judgmental response behaviors, establish and maintain rapport through non-
verbal behaviors, and encourage others to become self-managed, self-monitored, and
self-modifying.
Despite the similarities between the two models, a few major distinctions set
them apart. First, the professional development provider not only acted as a
cognitive coach but also supported teachers with their behavior modification by
providing instructional materials, learning opportunities, information, and
demonstrated lessons through Individualized Learning Activities in order to
ultimately support teachers in achieving their intended outcomes. Further, to support
teachers in their behavior modification quest, the group dynamics of IPD differed
from cognitive coaching in that it utilized flexible grouping based on teacher needs.
It is within this flexible grouping that a second theoretical difference was found
between the two models – a Challenge, or “expert” teacher took on the role of
becoming the cognitive coach for their peers. A third and major theoretical
difference between the two models was that IPD was established to change not only
the internal mental resources and intellectual functions of teachers like cognitive
coaching but also to change specific task-behaviors in order to provide fidelity to
their mandated, prescriptive language arts program.
In conclusion, cognitive coaching has been used in the construction of IPD
however additional best practices of professional development have been
47
harmoniously infused to differentiate it from the weaknesses of existing professional
development. With these infusions, IPD offered the professional development
provider a more dynamic, facilitating role, as it created purposeful learning activities
and environments to maximize opportunities for meaningful and reflective learning
with and among teachers using a prescriptive language arts program.
Summary
This literature review presents evidence intended to support the logic
underlying the purpose and methods of this research. This review began by first
summarizing why effective professional development is important in influencing
teacher effectiveness as it was determined that the academic success of students can
be significantly influenced by teachers’ access and participation in quality
professional development activities (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey, 2002; Akiba,
et al., 2007; Izumi et al., 2002). The literature then described traditional professional
development endeavors and how those methods are widely viewed as inadequate due
to their lack of lasting effects and for leaving teachers feeling unprepared for the
classroom (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Clair, 1998; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Dawson, 1978; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991; Guskey, 2003).
Literature describing the nature of reformed teacher professional development in
correlation to teacher learning was then reviewed as suggestions for conducting
effective professional development were provided. Finally, a new method was
introduced as possible methodology for providing individualized professional
48
development which incorporates many of the suggested characteristics reflective of
the diverse needs and learning acquisition styles found among teacher learners
(Elmore, 2002; Hertberg & Brighton, 2005; Tomlinson, 2000). The concluding
literature then illustrated how the Learner-Centered Psychological Principles
endorsed by the American Psychological Association’s Board of Educational Affairs
(1997), have been adopted as the theoretical framework for providing individualized
professional development in relation to teacher learning.
At the conclusion of this literature review, it is necessary to recognize that the
researcher will be providing English Language Arts support for teachers who are
mandated to teach the comprehensively-packaged program Open Court Reading
(OCR). It is not the researcher’s intent here to review the full range of this program
or its effectiveness; however, it is important to note that OCR has been specifically
designed to support schools in addressing the “gap” that exists between today’s
desired norms and the present condition during an era driven by high accountability
through quantifiable empirical data. Additionally, the intent of most packaged
programs like OCR is to uniform the erratic delivery of instruction by teachers of
differing ability levels. Despite the program’s ability to provide direct and explicit
“skills based” instruction and its ability to speed up the literacy acquisition of at-risk
students through the use of phonics (Cunningham, 2007) it is recognized that the
cognitive and behavioristic frameworks used in the historical construction and
current delivery of OCR fail to recognize current research on the cultural and
historical contexts in which individuals of different societies learn. Additionally,
49
such packaged programs are naturally committed to the systematic training of
teachers as a critical element of improvement but fail to provide teaching
opportunities for teachers as previously defined by Hoffman and Pearson (2000).
The grounding emphasis of “transmission” through direct and explicit “skills
based” instruction of OCR (Rueda & Garcia, 1996) naturally lends itself to a
professional development experience grounded in a cognitive and behavioristic
framework focused on training teachers rather than teaching teachers (Hoffman &
Pearson, 2000). This fact illustrates a misalignment between what some current
researchers advocate in terms of professional development as described in this
chapter and in reality what can be done during professional development that
supports such programs. However, despite the differences in these theoretical
frameworks, the current research of “best practices” for professional development
endeavors should not be denied to those teachers mandated to teach pre-packaged
curricula nor should they be denied to those professional development providers who
support the theoretical and implementation practices of teachers who teach such
programs. Therefore, in the construction of IPD as described in chapter three, it was
the researcher’s attempt to creatively incorporate many of the theories presented in
this literature review by researchers such as Ball, Darling-Hammond, Hollins, and
Lemlech and Kaplan – all of which are proponents of a teaching model rather than a
systematic training model of professional development. However, it remains evident
that despite IPD’s attempt to include reflective and collegial practices along with
other aspects of an educative teaching model of teacher learning, IPD maintains itself
50
as a training model set in the context of teaching because of its emphasis on the
mastery of the specific set of teaching procedures, or routines endorsed by OCR.
Implications
It is now necessary to recognize the importance of conducting additional
research and practice in addressing the challenges of meeting the individual needs of
teachers during professional development endeavors. Due to the lack of conducted
research in this area, this research has examined related literature and applied its
theoretical framework relevance in hopes of advancing our abilities as teacher
educators in devising new methodology for professional development that explicitly
meets the needs of teacher-learners – as comprehensively outlined in Chapter Three
as the research design for this study.
51
Chapter Three: Design and Methodology of the Study
Research Design and Introduction
According to Patton (2002), a case study approach allows for an in-depth,
holistic description and interpretation of educational phenomena. Therefore, a
unique case study approach was chosen as the best overall design for this research
project because most of the qualitative inquiry was conducted in a natural setting
bound in time and location. To further support the case study approach, Merriam
(1998) emphasizes that a case study allows the researcher to get as close to the
subject matter of interest as possible, which is "a particularly appealing design for
applied sciences such as education” (p.41). This chapter details the overall design of
this case study and reviews the methods of data collection and measurement tools
used.
The intent of this case study was to contribute new and generalizable
knowledge by gaining a greater understanding of effective strategies that contribute
to the knowledge base of in-service teacher education, and so suggest new practices
recognized for facilitating educational achievement. The conducted research was
based on a data system that incorporated multiple contributors to determine the
specific program routine components most needing improvement by each individual
teacher in order to influence the design of the customized or Individualized
Professional Development (IPD) plan. Therefore, mixed methods of combined
quantitative and qualitative research were considered as appropriate means for
conducting this research (Creswell, 1998).
52
As defined in chapter one and further discussed in chapter two, IPD has been
described as an opportunity for professional development providers to differentiate
and adjust their staff development methods in order to meet the diverse needs of
teacher-learners. Once the diverse needs of teacher-learners are determined, the
teacher-learners are grouped based on their similar instructional needs, learning
readiness, ability and interest levels, and learning styles. The underlying theory of
this method contrasts to other professional development methods in that it does not
focus on working with entire staff populations and/or particular grade levels,
regardless of the individual strengths and/or weaknesses of the teacher-learners. It is
this method that allows teacher-learners to participate in individualized learning
activities, or professional development models that are geared to meet their specified
needs. The primary goals of the IPD model were to enhance instructional
professional development time for the teacher-learner by providing relevant
professional development information within the appropriate context; to monitor the
effects of the professional development activities through teacher achievement; and
to simultaneously model one of the OCR program lesson components, Workshop.
As discussed in chapter two, IPD is recognized as being a training model set
in the context of teaching because of its emphasis on the mastery of the specific set
of teaching procedures, or routines endorsed by OCR. The elements of effective
teacher training are best summarized by the findings of the literature reviewed by
Cruickshank and Metcalf (1990):
53
1. Establish clear performance goals and communicate them to the learners.
2. Ensure that learners are aware of the requisite skill level of mastery.
3. Determine learners’ present skill level.
4. Introduce only a few basic rules during early learning stages.
5. Build upon learners’ present skill level.
6. Ensure, during the initial acquisition stage, a basic, essential, conceptual
understanding of the skill to be learned and when and why it is used.
7. Demonstrate during the initial stage what skill performance should look
like.
8. Provide opportunities for the learners to discuss demonstrations.
9. Provide sufficient, spaced skill practice after understanding has been
developed.
10. See that practice of the skill is followed by knowledge of the results.
11. Provide frequent knowledge of the results early in the learning process.
12. Provide knowledge of results after incorrect performance.
13. Delay knowledge of results when the learner is beyond the initial stage of
learning.
14. Provide for transfer of training that is enhanced by maximized similarity
between the training and the natural environment, over-learning salient
features of the skills, providing for extensive and varied practice, using
delayed feedback, and inducing reflection and occasional testing.
54
15. Provide full support and reinforcement for the use of skills in natural
settings.
As noted in completed works by Hoffman and Pearson (2000) variations in the
labeling, ordering, and emphasis of some of these components of skill teaching
abound, but essentially the elements are represented in these 15 points and are
reflected in the ultimate design of IPD.
As an original method for professional development, the design of IPD is not
embedded in the published works of SRA McGraw-Hill, the publisher of Open Court
Reading (OCR). The professional development options provided by SRA McGraw-
Hill include: two-day presentation workshops, Professional Guides, on-line
professional development, a Teacher Resource Library of classroom instruction
videos, and follow-up consultant support. In-school consultant support primarily
entails demonstration and observation lessons, but a specified method of support to
address teacher and/or administrative growth and/or concerns is not emphasized.
However, the process of IPD was an adaptation to the method of differentiated
instruction for students, which as a theoretical concept is embedded in one of OCR’s
instructional routines – Workshop. By utilizing a professional development method
such as IPD the researcher, as the professional development provider, capitalized on
the opportunity to not only provide individualized teacher-learner support, but to also
model one of the program’s components. As an instructional routine of OCR,
Workshop is a time for teachers to differentiate student instruction. Similar to the
process of IPD, teachers place students in one of three categories: Challenge,
55
Reteach, or Intervention, using criterion that is based on the individual needs of each
student. Teachers then provide students with individualized instruction in order to
meet those assessed needs. Therefore, the process of IPD also lends itself as a model
for teachers to reflect upon as they incorporate Workshop into their classrooms.
As discussed in chapter two, IPD was grounded in the framework of
cognitive coaching endorsed by Costa and Garmston (1994, 2002). Like cognitive
coaching, IPD was created to promote self-directed teacher-learning by supporting
teacher efforts to: pre-establish self-learning goals, be mindful of their teaching
through self-monitoring, and determine if their pre-established goals were achieved.
In addition to the cognitive coach framework, additional best practices of
professional development were used to further support teachers with their behavior
modification.
The researcher facilitated the process of IPD for teachers of the state
approved and district mandated reading and language arts program, Open Court
Reading (OCR). The researcher acted as a participant-observer towards the
implementation of the program’s instructional routines which are the essential
instructional program components used to teach comprehensive, explicit instruction
in order to achieve effective student learning. The participant-observer model was
clearly beneficial to the researcher in order to fully understand the complexities of
the various situations that existed. Airasian and Gay (2000) highlight the advantages
to a participant-observer research model by stating, "The advantages of the
participant observation include the ability to gain insights and develop relationships
56
with participants that cannot be attained in any other way – being a participant and
having residence in the field provides a broad breadth and depth of information about
the participants and the setting" (p. 212).
Research Questions
The compelling questions that this research seeks to answer are:
1) What is the overall effectiveness of IPD as a theoretical model?
a) What changes occur in the instructional practices of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in
Individualized Professional Development?
b) What changes occur in the theoretical understandings of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in
Individualized Professional Development?
Participants and Setting
A mixed design study was conducted with six participants at Markham
Elementary School. A small but purposeful sample was used because in-depth
description and interpretation was the goal of this research analysis.
Markham Elementary school was a Program Improvement, year five school
being provided a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT). Therefore, the
school was interested in this research and was willing to participate in the four month
project. Markham Elementary School was an urban, high minority, low-performing,
Reading First elementary school which used OCR as their core reading and language
arts program, therefore, the sampling context was appropriate as it reflected the
57
situation and instance of the phenomenon the researcher wished to study (Merriam,
1998).
Markham Elementary School was located in the seventh largest school
district in the state of California, and the largest in Orange County. The surrounding
community that Markham Elementary School served was Hispanic as 76.1% of the
city’s entire population was Hispanic. In the surrounding community, Spanish is the
most common language spoken at home as the city itself ranked as the number one
port of entry for English language learners new to the United States statewide by
Educational Testing Service.
All participants at Markham Elementary School are licensed by the State
Department of Education and meet the "Highly Qualified" criteria as defined by the
standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. All participants have experience
limited to teaching Kindergarten thru fifth grade. For this study, two teachers from
grade one and one teacher from grades two thru five were willing to participate.
Each of these participants have been formally trained to teach OCR as recommended
by the state of California and mandated by the provided SAIT intervention. This
OCR training, Assembly Bill, 466 (AB466) is a two-week training program provided
by an outsourced company.
This particular school was selected because of its failure to meet their annual
federally and state mandated AYP and API goals in reading and language arts for the
past four years (Table 1). This school was chosen in order to provide teachers
additional OCR program support. At this school site, 100% of the student population
58
is Hispanic or Latino, 85% of the students are English Learners, and 95% of the
students participate in Free or Reduced-Price lunch.
Table 1
School’s AYP/API Reading History
API
Base
API Actual
Score
Growth in
API
Similar
Schools
Median API
Goal Status
2004-2005 573 618 45 627
Met API but not
AYP in ELA
2005-2006 618 613 -5 650
Did not meet API or
AYP
2006-2007 617 636 19 661
Met API but not
AYP in ELA
2007-2008 632 678 46 695
Met API but not
AYP in ELA, PI 5
2008-2009 N/A N/A N/A TBD
As previously noted, the researcher acted as the previous professional
development provider for Markham Elementary School. Therefore, it is vital to
highlight the capacity in which potential and/or endemic biases may have existed.
During the 2006/2007 school year, the researcher was contracted to provide School
Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) support by the county office. During the
2007/2008 school year, the researcher was contracted by the district office to provide
continued school support in efforts to maintain school progress. Over the duration of
that time, five of the six teachers were in traditional classrooms and therefore
received teaching support similar in nature to the Individualized Learning Activities
59
used in this research. The amount of support provided to each individual teacher
varied and was primarily based on their observed needs. Therefore, the researcher
had a preconceived knowledge base of their teaching capabilities and styles. While
this prior relationship is sited as being a potential problem, professional judgment
was used in the recruitment of the participants, in the creation of the IPD process,
and in the overall research design and implementation in order to minimize the risks
of altering the research and its outcomes.
Research Methodology
A case study approach was conducted with six participants at Markham
Elementary School. The duration of this project was four months. A mixed method
of qualitative and quantitative data was used as the research methodology to answer
research questions that would not have been effectively answerable by either
qualitative or quantitative approaches alone (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). During
the course of this mixed methods study, the researcher collected a variety of
narrative and numerical data, using a combination of qualitative (open-ended,
naturalistic, and holistic) and quantitative (close-ended, structured, and variable-
specific) data. Post completion of the case study consisting of six participants, a
cross-case analysis was performed. This secondary analysis allowed the researcher
to study each individual’s learning as it compared to and differed from that of each
participant. A cross-case analysis approach provided the researcher with a deeper
understanding of participant learning as a whole. Yin (1984) defines such an
60
approach as a replication strategy or “…a theoretical framework used to study one
case in depth, and then successive cases are examined to see whether the pattern
found matches that in previous cases” (p.174).
Teacher Matrix
In order to support the researcher as the professional development provider in
designing an IPD plan, a researcher-developed Teacher Matrix was used as the
foundation for documenting and analyzing teacher needs and growth. This matrix
was used confidentially and solely by the researcher as the professional development
provider over the course of the provided professional development term, in order to
better cross-references the categorization placement of teachers. Placement was
based upon theoretical understandings and overall implementation levels of the
instructional routines associated with OCR. The Teacher Matrix was used to
contemporaneously document on-going teacher growth, or lack of, as teachers
moved up and down in their categorical placement. To determine an initial and on-
going categorical placement or level of needed teacher support for each of the
instructional routines, two resource components were used OCR Needs Assessment
and Teacher Observations. A third and final category was used On-Going Student
Assessments. The use of student data was not analyzed but used as an indicator to
determine if individual teachers needed additional support when there were
conflicting OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation categorical results. In
essence, the Teacher Matrix was used to design and drive the IPD plan, as well as to
61
reflect on the effectiveness of IPD to promote teacher transfer of program
implementation (Appendix B).
Individualized Learning Activities
As part of the IPD plan, teachers were provided various Individualized
Learning Activities. These provided learning activities were researched as best
practices as defined in chapter one, described in the Creating Effective Professional
Development section of chapter two, and grounded in the Learner-Centered
Psychological Principles as also defined in chapter two. Based on the cross-analysis
of the Teacher Matrix, the Challenge teachers of each routine were invited to be
resources for their peers. Challenge teachers were asked to become in-house “expert
teachers” in order to share their knowledge and expertise during meetings and asked
to be observed by their peers. Reteach teachers were collaboratively grouped to
receive either theoretical and/or implementation support. While receiving theoretical
support, Reteach teachers were provided with: theoretical presentations along with a
reflection sheet; teacher handouts and packets of information which included helpful
teacher tips and classroom instructional aids; Question and Answer sessions which
allowed them the opportunity to ask questions and address their concerns to either
the Challenge teachers and/or the researcher as the professional development
provider; and/or opportunities to collaborate with their peers. When receiving
implementation support, Reteach teachers were collaboratively grouped and
provided with: demonstration lessons provided by either a Challenge teacher and/or
62
the researcher as the professional development provider; observation lessons; team-
teaching opportunities; video presentations of a classroom teacher implementing the
particular instructional routine in question; and/or opportunities to collaborate with
their peers and in-house expert teachers. During each of these learning activities the
teachers were provided with a reflection sheet and follow-up debriefing session.
Teachers in the Intervention group who lacked both theoretical understanding and
classroom implementation of an instructional routine received a combination or
accumulation of the previously listed professional development learning activities –
dependent upon the intensity level of each individual’s need. Due to the
comprehensive nature of the Teacher Matrix, every teacher was valued for their
unique strengths, while being offered opportunities to grow in their specified areas of
need.
As trends and changes evolved - based on the continuous OCR Needs
Assessment and Teacher Observations, the course of the professional development
learning activities changed. When the researcher observed that routine
implementations were not being fully or effectively implemented, the subsequent
professional development learning activities focused on providing individualized
teacher support in those key areas, with the expectation that observations would
follow to review those particular routines in order to document a change in teacher
performance (Figure 1).
63
Figure 1
IPD Methodology
Quantitative Research
Quantitative methods were used as part of this research methodology.
Quantitative research requires the use of standardized measures so that various
perspectives and experiences of people can be classified into a limited number of
predetermined categories. Quantitative findings take form as: survey tests,
experiments, and secondary data (Patton, 2002).
64
OCR Needs Assessment
To support the initial baseline establishment of the Teacher Matrix a
researcher-developed, self-reporting OCR Needs Assessment was distributed and
collected by the researcher. This close-ended assessment asked the participants to
assess their theoretical understandings and implementation level of the program’s
instructional routines, using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. Overall, this
information provided the researcher with meaningful data regarding the level of
teacher need in order to begin developing an IPD plan. This OCR Needs Assessment
also enabled the researcher to gauge the concluding theoretical understandings and
improved implementation practices at the end of the four month project, when
teachers were again asked to conduct the same OCR Needs Assessment (Figure 2).
65
Figure 2
OCR Needs Assessment
Teacher Name__________________Grade Level____________ Date____________
Contact email and/or telephone number ____________________________________
I effectively
implement
this
instructional
routine.
I would like
support
theoretically
understanding
this instructional
routine.
I would like
support
implementing
this
instructional
routine.
I am not
familiar with
this
instructional
routine.
The grade level
I teach does not
require me to
implement this
instructional
routine.
Classroom
Environment
Writers’
Notebooks
Sound/Spelling
Cards
Phonemic
Awareness
Blending
Dictation
Word Building
Game
Word Knowledge
Pre/Decodable
Books
High Frequency
Word Bank
Fluency
Clues, Problems,
Wonderings
Selection Vocab.
Selection Vocab.
Word Walls
Comprehension
Strategies
Comprehension
Skills
Story Crafting
Handing Off
Concept/Question
Board
Inquiry &
Investigation
Word Analysis
Writing Process
Strategies
English Language
Conventions
Workshop
66
Based on the OCR Needs Assessment, teachers were placed on the Teacher
Matrix and assigned to one of three groups: Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention.
The categorical names of these three groups were coined using terminology
borrowed from OCR. This was done in order to provide common language among
the participants and the professional development provider, as well as to provide
consistency with the terminology of the program’s instructional Workshop routine.
A teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix column, OCR Needs Assessment
– Challenge Group if the teacher felt that S/he theoretically understood the listed
program routine and was therefore not interested in receiving any additional support.
A teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix column, OCR Needs Assessment –
Reteach Group if the teacher wanted theoretical or implementation support. A
teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix column, OCR Needs Assessment –
Intervention Group if the teacher was not familiar with the program’s instructional
routine (Appendix A).
On-Going Student Assessments
The On-Going Student Assessments column of the Teacher Matrix placed
teachers in the Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention categories based on the overall
test scores of their students. However, student assessments were only used when
conflicts arose on the Teacher Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and
Teacher Observation columns to ultimately determine teacher placement.
67
In grades K-3, students are formally assessed using the district mandated
SCOE assessments. The SCOE assessment is published by Reading Lions and is
intended to assess student phonemic awareness, spelling/phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension skills. These assessments are conducted at the end of
each unit of the OCR program and are in direct alignment with the skills being taught
in the program. For each on-going assessment, students are placed into one of four
categories based on their level of proficiency for each skill: Challenge, Benchmark,
Strategic, or Intensive. To be placed in the Challenge category, students must
correctly answer 9 out of 10 questions (.90). To be placed in the Benchmark
category, students must correctly answer 8 out of 10 questions (.80). To be placed in
the Strategic category, students must correctly answer 5, 6, or 7 out of 10 questions
(.50-.70). To be placed in the Intensive category, students must correctly answer 4
or less out of 10 questions (.0-.40).
Teachers of grades K-3 were placed in the Teacher Matrix column On-Going
Student Assessments - Challenge Group if the majority of the classrooms’ students
were placed in the Challenge and Benchmark categories. Based on the proficiency
level of their students, teachers placed in the On-Going Student Assessments -
Challenge Group demonstrated a high level of theoretical understanding as
demonstrated by their ability to efficiently implement the instructional routine and
therefore recognized as not needing any additional professional development
support. Teachers of grades K-3 were placed in the Teacher Matrix column On-
Going Student Assessments - Reteach Group if the majority of the classrooms’
68
students were placed in the Strategic category. Based on the proficiency level of
their students, teachers placed in the On-Going Student Assessments - Reteach
Group demonstrated some level of theoretical understanding as demonstrated by
their ability to implement the instructional routine and were therefore recognized as
needing either theoretical or implementation professional development support.
Teachers of grades K-3 were placed in the Teacher Matrix column On-Going Student
Assessments – Intervention Group if the majority of the classrooms’ students were
placed in the Intensive category. Based on the proficiency level of their students,
teachers were placed in the On-Going Student Assessments - Intervention Group if
the teacher reflected little to no theoretical understanding as demonstrated by their
lack of implementation of the instructional routine and therefore recognized as
needing both theoretical and implementation support (Table 2).
Table 2
SCOE Test Scores Correlated to Teacher Matrix Placement
Student Score Student Group Placement Teacher Placement
9/10 (.90)
8/10 (.80)
Challenge
Benchmark
Challenge
5-7/10 (.50-70) Strategic Reteach
0-4/10 (.0-.40) Intensive Intervention
Similarly, in grades 4 and 5, students are formally assessed using the district
mandated Data Director Benchmark Assessment. The Benchmark Assessment is
69
created by the Santa Ana Unified Research and Evaluation Department, using testing
questions borrowed from Data Director and is intended to assess students based on
the California State Standards. These assessments are conducted at the end of each
unit of the OCR program and are in direct alignment with the state standards which
are reflective of the skills being taught in the curriculum program. For each on-
going assessment, students are placed into one of five categories based on their level
of proficiency for each standard or skill: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic,
and Far Below Basic. To be placed in the Advanced category, students must score
between .8001-.100. To be placed in the Proficient category, students must score
between .6001-.80. To be placed in the Basic category, students must score between
.4001-.60. To be placed in the Below Basic category, students must score between
.2001-.40. To be placed in the Far Below Basic category, students must score
between 0-.20.
Teachers of grades 4 and 5 were placed in the Teacher Matrix column On-
Going Student Assessments - Challenge Group if the majority of the classrooms’
students were placed in the Advanced category. Based on the Advanced proficiency
level of their students, teachers placed in the On-Going Student Assessments -
Challenge Group demonstrated a high level of theoretical understanding as
demonstrated by their ability to efficiently implement the instructional routine and
were therefore recognized as not needing any additional professional development
support. Teachers of grades 4 and 5 were placed in the Teacher Matrix column On-
Going Student Assessments - Reteach Group if the majority of the classrooms’
70
students were placed in the Proficient and/or Basic category. Based on the
proficiency level of their students, teachers placed in the On-Going Student
Assessments - Reteach Group demonstrated some level of theoretical understanding
as demonstrated by their ability to implement the instructional routine and was
therefore recognized as needing either theoretical or implementation professional
development support. Teachers of grades 4 and 5 were placed in the Teacher Matrix
column On-Going Student Assessments – Intervention Group if the majority of the
classrooms’ students were placed in the Below Basic and/or Far Below Basic
categories. Based on the proficiency level of their students, teachers placed in the
On-Going Student Assessments - Intervention Group demonstrated little to no
theoretical understanding as demonstrated by their lack of implementation of the
instructional routine and therefore recognized as needing both theoretical and
implementation support. (Table 3)
Table 3
Benchmark Test Scores Correlated to Teacher Matrix Placement
Student Score Student Group Placement Teacher Placement
.8001-.100 Advanced Challenge
.6001-.80
.4001-.60
Proficient
Basic
Reteach
.2001-.40
0-.20
Below Basic
Far Below Basic
Intervention
71
In sum, the group placements of the teacher-participants in the OCR Needs
Assessment category were determined by the teachers themselves. While the group
placements of the teacher-participants in the Teacher Observation category was
determined by the researcher, as the professional development provider, as a
reasonable indicator of teacher knowledge, or lack of, as demonstrated by teacher
performance. If conflicting teacher placement was observed among the two
categories, the On-Going Student Assessment category took precedence in
determining overall teacher needs. With each new observation, needs assessment,
and/or evidence of change in student achievement levels, teachers were reassigned to
the appropriate categorical placement.
Qualitative Research
Creswell (1998) defines qualitative research as, “an inquiry process of
understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a
social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes
words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural
setting”(p.15). Qualitative studies are chosen for various reasons, but are primarily
chosen because of the nature of the research question, because a particular topic
should be explored, or because there is a need to present a detailed view of a topic.
In this particular study, there was a need to present a detailed examination of the
changes that occurred in the theoretical understandings and implementation practices
of teacher-learners when IPD was provided.
72
According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods facilitate the study of issues
in depth and detail without being constrained by predetermined categories of
analysis. Qualitative findings stem from three kinds of data collection: field
observations, document analysis, and interviews. Merriam (1998) writes that in a
qualitative study, "Data collection is about asking, watching, and reviewing" (p. 69).
Data collection typically includes "direct quotes from people about their experiences,
opinions, feelings, and knowledge obtained through interviews; detailed descriptions
of people's activities, behaviors, actions recorded in observations; and excerpts,
quotations, or entire passages extracted from various types of documents" (p. 69).
To gather direct quotes, detailed descriptions, and other documentation, the
following qualitative data collection instruments were utilized in this study: Teacher
Observations, Teacher Observation Field Notes, Reflective Sheets, and Concluding
Interviews.
Teacher Observations
Data derived from direct observations consists of detailed descriptions of
people’s activities, behaviors, actions, interpersonal interactions, and organizational
processes that are part of observable human experience (Patton, 2002). Therefore,
one way for the researcher to track and evaluate teacher learning progress, based on
whether the participants are able to apply the new learning to the context of their
own classrooms, is through the use of regular fieldwork observations.
73
Observations of individual routines varied between twenty to forty minutes in
duration. The number of routines each participant was observed teaching pre and
post instructional support varied from twelve to nineteen – dependent upon the level
of support identified by and for each teacher – more classroom visits were provided
to those teachers classified at the Reteach or Intervention levels. For each
observation conducted, a debriefing session followed – nine of which included a
formal theoretical presentation of the routine being studied. Overall, Teacher
Observations were used to establish an initial baseline of observed teacher needs and
document participant learning growth and application.
In order to continuously determine observed areas of strength and areas in
need of support, teachers were placed in the second column Teacher Observations of
the Teacher Matrix and assigned to one of three groups: Challenge, Reteach, or
Intervention. To assist in teacher categorization placement, the researcher created an
OCR Teacher Rubric, which was used to define the level of implementation for each
instructional routine (Appendix C).
A teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix column Teacher Observations -
Challenge Group if the teacher demonstrated a high level of theoretical
understanding as demonstrated by their ability to efficiently implement the
instructional routine and therefore was recognized as not needing any additional
professional development support. A teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix
column, Teacher Observations - Reteach Group if the teacher demonstrated some
level of theoretical understanding as demonstrated by their ability to implement the
74
instructional routine and was therefore recognized as needing either theoretical or
implementation support. A teacher was placed in the Teacher Matrix column,
Teacher Observations - Intervention Group if the teacher demonstrated little to no
theoretical understanding as demonstrated by their lack of implementation of the
instructional routine and therefore was recognized as needing both theoretical and
implementation support.
Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet
Field notes were accumulated in written form by the researcher during the
observations and debriefing periods of each individualized professional development
learning activity. The researcher developed, Teacher Observation Field
Notes/Reflection Sheet was used to document the: date, instructional routine,
observations, role of the consultant and learner, teacher’s name, grade level,
observed teacher and student behavior, relationship of behavior towards the
implementation of particular OCR routines, and debriefing questions used to guide
teacher and self-reflections (Figure 3). The recorded field notes were uploaded to
the researcher's computer and notes of key points were written to document the
emerging themes and understandings expressed by the participants as further
described in chapter four. These field notes contained both a descriptive and
reflective component (Airasian and Gay, 2000). These field notes were used as
guides for the future professional development sessions.
75
Figure 3
Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet
School:
Consultant: Brooke A. Howland
Date of Visit:
Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet
General Comments:
•
Routine Analysis
Instructional Routine:
Consultant’s Role:
Learner’s Role:
Teacher:
Grade Level:
Teacher Matrix Placement:
Comments:
Things that I observed that are going well:
Things that I observed that may require additional theoretical and/or
implementation support:
Questions I would like to ask the teacher during our debriefing session:
Debriefing Session:
1. To what extent were your goals for this learning experience accomplished?
2. What about this lesson helped you to meet your objectives?
3. What might you change in the future?
4. In the future, what can we do to better support you in the advancement of your
level of understanding and implementation of OCR?
*As the professional development provider, what new insights can I glean from
this experience regarding the teacher-learner, myself, and about facilitating
learning of specific concepts, skills, and/or the application of theory?
76
Observation Reflection Sheet
While conducting a Teacher Observation an Observation Reflection Sheet
was completed by the teacher-learner (Figure 4). This reflection sheet was
distributed to the teacher-learner prior to conducting their lesson in order to assist the
teacher-learner in generating personal learning goals. Post completion of the
learning experiences, the teacher-learner was then asked to complete the Observation
Reflection Sheet by reflecting on the extent to which their goals were accomplished,
the things that went well during the lesson, and the things the teacher-learner would
consider changing in the future. Additionally, the Observation Reflection Sheet
encouraged the teacher-learner to list additional notes and questions they wanted to
discuss during the debriefing session. These sheets were copied so that the teacher-
learners could use the original copy for future reference and it was recommended
that the teacher-learners use their Observation Reflection Sheet during the debriefing
sessions in order to facilitate reflective dialogue among their peers and with the
researcher as the professional development provider. The teacher-learner reflections
were documented by the researcher as the professional development provider on the
Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet and used as a guide to develop
future professional development sessions.
As trends began to emerge during teacher observations, the course of the
professional development learning activities changed. When the researcher observed
that routine implementations were not being fully or effectively implemented, the
subsequent professional development learning activities focused on providing
77
individualized teacher support in those key areas with the expectation that
observations would follow to review those particular routines in order to document a
change, or lack of, in teacher performance.
Figure 4
Observation Reflection Sheet
After pre-reading and preparing
for this lesson, I have established
the following goals for this
learning experience:
Things that
went well
during my
lesson…
My Name:
Grade Level I Teach:
Consultant’s Name: Brooke
Howland
Date:
Activity Observed:
To what extent were my goals
for this learning experience
accomplished?
Things I would
consider
changing in the
future…
Additional Notes: pacing,
materials used, classroom set
up, student placement,
consultant preparation…
Questions I’d Like To Ask
During Our Debriefing:
78
Demonstration Reflection Sheet
The Demonstration Reflection Sheet was distributed prior to providing
teachers with a modeled demonstration lesson provided by either an in-house expert
teacher, by the researcher as the professional development provider, and/or through a
video presentation of a modeled lesson. Each teacher attending the modeled lessons
was asked to reflect before, during, and after their observation of the modeled
learning experience. Before the modeled lesson began, the teacher-learners were
asked to establish learning goals based on the instructional routine being presented.
At the conclusion of the modeled lesson, the teacher-learners reflected upon the
extent to which their learning goals were met. Additionally, the teacher-learners
were asked to reflect upon the theoretical understandings and implementation
procedures that were similar to and different from what they do in their classrooms.
The teacher-learners then considered the theoretical understandings and
implementation procedures that they would or would not incorporate into their own
classrooms. The teacher-learners were also encouraged to list additional notes and
questions that they wanted to discuss during the debriefing session (Figure 5).
The use of the purposeful reflection sheets just described allowed the
researcher to conduct content analysis of participants’ thoughts towards their
professional growth and understanding. In essence, the researcher was able to reflect
on the teachers’ ability to work through their implementation problems, and gauge
their aptitude for applying and adapting program content to the context of their own
classrooms. The reflection sheets also provided the researcher with insight as to how
79
teachers did or did not express and internally process their learning (Merriam, 1998;
Airasian & Gay, 2000).
Figure 5
Demonstration Reflection Sheet
I have established the
following learning goals
for this learning
experience:
Theoretical understandings
and implementation
procedures I learned that
are similar to what I do in
my classroom…
Theoretical understandings
and implementation
procedures I learned that
are different from what I do
in my classroom…
My Name:
Grade Level I Teach:
Consultant’s Name:
Brooke Howland
Date:
Activity Demonstrated:
Theoretical
understandings and
implementation
procedures I learned that
I will now incorporate…
Theoretical
understandings and
implementation
procedures I learned that
I will not incorporate…
To what extent were my
goals for this learning
experience accomplished?
Additional Notes:
pacing, materials used,
classroom set up, student
placement, consultant
preparation…
Questions I’d Like To
Ask:
80
Triangulation
Triangulation was an important component of this research methodology
used to strengthen this study by combining both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. As Patton (2002) writes, "Studies that use only one method are more
vulnerable to errors linked to that particular method than studies that use multiple
methods in which different types of data provide cross-data validity checks" (p. 248).
The researcher used triangulation in the manner that Denzin (1978) describes as
comparing multiple data sources across the participants in the study.
The Teacher Matrix was used to set the context for individualized instruction,
as its purpose was to determine individual teacher needs based on a triangulation of
methods. Once the initial data set from the OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher
Observations, and Student Assessment were collected, a cross-analysis was used to
select on average five instructional routines for each teacher as the focus of their
individualized support. Additionally, the cross-analysis highlighted teacher strengths
that were used as peer resources. Accumulatively, the OCR Needs Assessment,
Teacher Observations, and Student Assessment columns contributed to the overall
understanding of the existing teacher and student needs, and it is with this knowledge
that an appropriate alignment of professional development methods evolved.
Concluding Interviews
In-depth, on-going, open-ended interviews are used to yield the experiences,
opinions, feelings, and knowledge of teachers (Patton, 2002). Patton (1990) wrote,
81
"We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly
observe...We cannot observe feelings, thoughts or intentions" (p. 196).
As the final research component, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with each teacher-participant. Each interview took place over a 30 minute time
period in which each teacher was asked ten questions (see below). The questions
were designed with the analytical purpose of asking descriptive and structural
questions in order to determine teacher feelings, knowledge, values, and background
information. The questions were open-ended to avoid leading the participants to any
preconceived conclusions of the research. With permission, all interviews were
recorded, transcribed, and developed as a culmination of the entire research project
in order to give the participants the opportunity to report their beliefs and preferences
towards or against the IPD method used and how or if it affected their theoretical
understandings and instructional implementation. Interviews took place at the
completion of the project as an "after treatment" data source. The interview protocol
method was semi-structured, as a predetermined agenda of the following 10
questions were asked. However, additional questions emerged as relevant
information presented itself:
1) During this study you were asked to self-assess, practice reflective
thinking/writing, take part in classroom demonstration lessons and
observations, and participate in debriefing sessions. Identify and explain the
most useful learning activity of this type of professional development.
2) At the beginning of this study you were asked to evaluate your understanding
of the program routines for Open Court Reading. Has your understanding
changed in any way? If so, please explain.
82
3) This study included a lot of discussion on theories endorsed by Open Court
Reading. You were then asked to apply those theories in your classroom.
Please describe that experience.
4) Research (Showers, 2002) tells us that after a teacher learns a skill through
professional development, it may take at least 30 applications of that skill for
the teacher's knowledge to fully transfer to classroom instruction. Do you
agree or disagree? Has participation in this project shaped your belief?
5) You have participated in one-day and two-week long workshops, college
courses, and outside consultants providing you with training. Please describe
the difference between traditional professional development and the IPD you
experienced throughout this project.
6) Has IPD changed your teaching practices? If yes, how? If no, why not?
7) Has IPD affected your students’ outcomes? If yes, how? If no, why not?
8) Describe, if possible, how you were able to demonstrate through your
practice, your emerging understandings of routine implementation for Open
Court Reading.
9) How could this project have been designed to better address your needs as an
educator and also an adult learner?
10) Please comment on your overall experience with IPD.
The interviews took place in the Conference room located at Markham Elementary.
The interviews were recorded, transcribed by an independent service and then coded
by the researcher to determine emerging themes. The researcher has gathered this
data to document teacher learning as a result of this project.
Analysis of Results
As previously discussed, the research problem dictates the method or
methods for analyzing data or empirical evidence. In this case, a mixed method was
83
used. This case study used a needs assessment, observations and student
assessments through the use of a Teacher Matrix to determine the overall
effectiveness of the IPD method. The researcher also analyzed the semi-structured
interviews to determine teacher preference or lack of for the IPD method. As part of
the process to make meaning of the results, the researcher organized and coded the
data, and continually referred back to the research questions as outlined in the
qualitative analysis process, suggested by Creswell (1998):
1) Bracketing. The first step in the data analysis process is commonly
referred to as phenomenological reduction and requires the researcher to
set aside, to the best of his/her ability, all preconceived experiences in
order to best understand the participants’ experiences in the study.
2) Horizonalization. During the second step of the phenomenological data
analysis, the researcher lists every significant statement relevant to the
topic, giving each statement equal value.
3) Cluster of meanings. In the third step, the researcher clusters the
statements into themes or meaningful units, and removes repetitive or
overlapping statements.
4) Imaginative variation. The fourth step requires the researcher to reflect
upon his/her own description, as well as other divergent perspectives,
varying the frames of reference regarding the phenomenon, in order to
construct a description of how the phenomenon was experienced.
84
5) Essence. During the final step, the researcher constructs a description of
the essence, or meaning of the experience.
Once each case study was composed a cross-case analysis using the data
from the individual case studies compared and contrasted the changes that occurred
in the theoretical understandings and implementation levels of teachers, as well as,
their beliefs regarding professional development.
Limitations of the Study
The researcher understands that studying a phenomenon while one creates it
always presents problems. Brown (1992) discusses these problems by recognizing
two distinct reasons. First, the endeavor is complicated because the researcher’s
attention is focused on creating meaningful professional development while
conducting rigorous research. This “design experiment” is used to create innovative
learning environments while simultaneously studying the behavior and cognition of
the participants. Second, “design experiments” are a “methodological headache for
traditional psychology”: “Components are rarely isolatable; the whole really is more
than the sum of its parts. The learning effects are not even simple interactions, but
highly interdependent outcomes of a complex social and cognitive intervention”
(p.166). Therefore, the researcher recognizes that a totally unbiased qualitative study
with precise valid data is almost impossible (Merriam, 1998; Airasian and Gay,
2000) and took several additional measures to address the issues of researcher and
participant biases as suggested by Airasian and Gay (2000):
85
• Make a concerted effort to obtain participant trust and comfort.
• Recognize one's own biases and preferences and be honest with oneself to
seek them out.
• Allow participants to review field notes and tape recordings.
• Use verbatim accounts whenever possible.
• Examine closely any unusual results; ignoring outliers may represent a
bias.
• Use a triangulation of data (p. 225).
Further noted by Patton (2002), “…there is no perfect research design. There are
always trade-offs. Because there are limits to resources, time, and the human ability
to grasp the complex nature of social reality, trade-offs are necessitated” (Patton,
2002).
Resource limits are a contributor to the lack of breadth available for
conducting this research. Because depth was the priority for the researcher, only one
particular school was chosen to participate in this research project.
Due to time constraints, there were a limited number of individualized
learning activities provided to the teachers at Markham Elementary. On average,
each teacher was provided 5 participatory opportunities. Additionally, time
constraints also limited teachers’ opportunities to practice their supported routines
before being observed to determine if teacher growth occurred.
The researcher’s human ability to fully understand the experience of other
persons may be limited. As a participant observer who conducted all of the
86
interviews, overt observations, and facilitated the professional development during
the entire project, some participants may have answered in ways they think the
researcher preferred and may be less open to expressing themselves. Additionally,
the researcher was the OCR consultant for all of the participants during the previous
2007-2008 school year and has therefore informally evaluated each participant in the
past. To that end, the researcher may have brought biases to each observation based
on prior knowledge of each teacher's performance. Similarly, while interviewed to
determine their overall preference, or lack of, towards IPD, the teachers may have
brought bias to each interview based on their previously established relationship with
the researcher. A detailed description of this project and the research findings are
presented in Chapter Four.
87
Chapter Four: Research Findings
This case study looked at teacher learning in the context of professional
development. Chapter Four presents the findings of a four month study of six
teachers involved in an original method of professional development, Individualized
Professional Development (IPD) that focused on increasing teachers’ theoretical
understandings and their implementation practices of instructional routines endorsed
by their Language Arts program, Open Court Reading (OCR). These findings are
reported after careful analysis of a self-reported pre and post OCR Needs
Assessment, pre and post teacher observations, on-going student assessments,
teacher reflection sheets, and semi-structured interviews. The data was coded in
order to present the themes that emerged from the analysis. Chapter four presents
this data in individual case study format written in chronological order of when the
data was gathered through descriptions of the findings and the participants in the
study. Chapter Five will discuss the findings in reference to the literature reviewed
in Chapter Two and then suggest implications for professional development
practices.
Overview
Chapter Four is divided into four major sections:
1. Introduction: A review of the purpose of the study, the demographics of
the location of the study, and the sample of teachers in the study are
discussed.
88
2. An overview and explanation of each data collection method and tool.
3. Individual teacher cases: Six individual case studies are presented to
highlight each participant’s learning. Each case study has the following
components:
• Introduction of teacher.
• Findings from the Teacher Matrix: A review of the baseline and
concluding Teacher Matrix structure, participant placement on the
matrix, and its subsequent use in professional development
sessions.
• Findings from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection
Sheets: A look at teacher responses to the reflection sheets that
focused on teacher learning and application to practice.
• Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews: This data is
summarized to determine teacher preferences for or against IPD
based on its overall level of effectiveness.
• Summary of each case.
4. Cross-Case Analysis: This section presents a summary of findings when
comparing the effectiveness of IPD to increase the theoretical
understandings and implementation levels of the six participants.
89
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to examine the changes that occurred in
the theoretical understandings and instructional implementation of teachers after
being provided Individualized Professional Development (IPD). A case study was
the best overall research design because it assisted the researcher in determining the
application, or transfer of learning by participants who engaged in the IPD process.
After the completion of six individual case studies, a cross-case analysis was
performed. This secondary analysis allowed the researcher to study each
individual’s learning as it compared to and differed from each of the participants. A
cross-case analysis approach provided the researcher with a deeper understanding of
the teacher learning that occurred across all six participants and the ways they
transferred that learning into the implementation of the routines found within their
language arts program.
The researcher used all of the following data sources – a Teacher Matrix
(consisting of a self-reported pre and post OCR Needs Assessment, pre and post
teacher observations, and on-going student assessments), teacher reflection sheets,
and semi-structured interviews – to compose each individual case study. The cross-
case analysis used the data from the individual case studies to compare and contrast
the levels of theoretical understanding and implementation practices of teachers, and
their beliefs about IPD.
During the study, the researcher facilitated nine Individualized Learning
Activities which included: demonstration lessons (conducted by both the researcher
90
and expert teachers), theoretical presentations, video observations, teacher reflection
sheets, and teacher collaborated debriefing sessions. Each Individualized Learning
Activity ranged in length from 30 to 45 minutes which included follow-up debriefing
sessions.
Data Collection Methods and Tools
Baseline Teacher Matrix
To provide the researcher with meaningful data to develop an IPD plan, a
Teacher Matrix was used. For each of the 24 routines endorsed by OCR, teachers
were placed in a Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention group in order to be provided
with Individualized Learning Activities that specifically targeted their areas and
levels of need. Within the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observations
categories were two separate cells, baseline and concluding. These separate cells
were used by the researcher to distinguish between pre and post IPD. For the OCR
Needs Assessment and Teacher Observations conducted prior to the provided IPD,
the baseline cells were used (Appendix B).
Baseline OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation levels of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order to
91
determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to being provided with IPD.
The scale was as follows:
• I effectively implement this instructional routine.
• I would like support theoretically understanding this instructional routine.
• I would like support implementing this instructional routine.
• I am not familiar with this instructional routine.
• The grade level I teach does not require me to implement this
instructional routine.
If a teacher self-determined effective implementation of a listed instructional
routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline OCR Needs Assessment –
Challenge group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined responses, 51 routines out
of 120 were determined by the six participants as being effectively implemented.
This equated to teachers, on average, feeling 42.5% fully competent in their overall
understandings and instructional delivery of their language arts program prior to
receiving Individualized Learning Activity support (Table 4).
If a teacher determined that theoretical or implementation support was
needed for a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline
OCR Needs Assessment – Reteach group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined
responses, 66 routines out of 120 were highlighted by teachers as being areas in
which they desired support. This equated to teachers, on average, feeling that they
needed theoretical or implementation support with 55% of the instructional routines
found in their language arts program (Table 4).
92
If a teacher determined that they were not familiar with a listed instructional
routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline OCR Needs Assessment –
Intervention group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined responses, three routines
out of 120 were not recognized by the teachers. This equated to teachers, on
average, feeling that they needed theoretical and implementation support with 2.5%
of the instructional routines found in their language arts program (Table 4).
Table 4
Baseline Teacher Matrix – OCR Needs Assessment
Number of Baseline Teacher
Selected Responses
Combined Baseline
Averages
Challenge 51 42.5%
Reteach 66 55%
Intervention 3 2.5%
Total Number of
Responses
120
Baseline Teacher Observations
The second column of the Teacher Matrix was Teacher Observations. The
researcher conducted twelve initial observations, two for each participant prior to
facilitating Individualized Learning Activity support. The observations took place at
a predetermined time at Markham Elementary School. Observations ranged from
120 to 150 minutes in duration – depending upon the length in time of their
individual language arts block. Two initial observations of the entire language arts
93
blocks were conducted in order for the researcher to observe as many of the
instructional routines as possible. Of the 144 combined routines, 70 routines were
observed. Therefore, the following data presented in this chapter is reflective of that
figure.
The researcher collected data on the Teacher Observation Field
Notes/Reflection Sheet that focused on observable teacher understanding and
application of the instructional routines. The observed routine elements that were
determined as going well and needing additional theoretical and/or implementation
support were noted. The elements of each routine were predetermined on the
Teacher Rubric created by the researcher (Appendix C). Based on those
observations, teachers were placed in the Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention groups
as noted on the Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection Sheet and documented
on the Teacher Matrix under the Teacher Observations heading, in the baseline cells.
Before and after the observed lessons, the teachers were asked to set their own
learning goals and to reflect on the lessons in terms of their own theoretical
understandings and routine implementation practices (Figure 4). These Observation
Reflection Sheets were then used during the debriefing sessions in order to facilitate
reflective dialogue with the researcher as the professional development provider.
If a teacher was observed conducting effective implementation of a listed
instructional routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline Teacher
Observations – Challenge group of the Teacher Matrix. The combined number of
routines observed as being effectively implemented was 36 out of 70. This equated
94
to teachers, on average, as being 51.42% fully competent in the observed
instructional routines found in their language arts program prior to receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support (Table 5).
If a teacher was observed as needing theoretical or implementation support,
for a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline Teacher
Observations – Reteach group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined observations,
20 routines out of 70 were observed as needing support. This equated to teachers, on
average, needing theoretical or implementation support with at least 28.57% of the
observed instructional routines found in their language arts program prior to
receiving Individualized Learning Activity support (Table 5).
If a teacher was observed as needing theoretical and implementation support
for a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed in the baseline Teacher
Observations – Intervention column of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined
observations, 14 routines out of 70 were observed as needing full support. This
equated to teachers, on average, needing theoretical and implementation support with
20% of the observed instructional routines found in their language arts program prior
to receiving Individualized Learning Activity support (Table 5).
Table 5
Baseline Teacher Matrix – Teacher Observations
Observed Placements Combined Averages
Challenge 36 51.42%
Reteach 20 28.57%
Intervention 14 20%
95
Baseline On-Going Student Assessments
The third column of the Teacher Matrix was On-Going Student Assessments.
The On-Going Student Assessments column of the Teacher Matrix placed teachers in
the Challenge, Reteach, or Intervention groups, based on the overall test scores of
their students. Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the
Teacher Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation
columns to ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical
teacher placement occurred 29 times. Twenty-three of those times, teachers placed
themselves in the Reteach group. Of those 23 times, 11 teacher observations placed
teachers in the Challenge group and 12 observations placed teachers in the
Intervention group. Based on the averaged test scores of students, nine teachers were
ultimately placed in the On-Going Student Assessments – Challenge group, while 13
teachers were ultimately placed in the On-Going Student Assessments – Reteach
group, and one teacher was ultimately placed in the On-Going Student Assessments
– Intervention group (Table 6).
Similarly, there were six times when teachers placed themselves in the
Challenge group. Of those six times, four teacher observations placed teachers in the
Reteach group and two observations placed teachers in the Intervention group.
Based on the averaged test scores of students, one teacher was ultimately placed in
the On-Going Student Assessments – Challenge group and five teachers were
ultimately placed in the On-Going Student Assessments – Reteach group (Table 6).
96
Table 6
Baseline Teacher Matrix – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 11 9
Reteach 23 13
Intervention 12 1
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 6 1
Reteach 4 5
Intervention 2
Individualized Learning Activities
Once the specific routines and levels of needed support for each teacher was
determined using the baseline Teacher Matrix, the teachers were grouped based on
their similar needs, in order to receive support through Individualized Learning
Activities. There were nine different learning activities that were conducted to
support their theoretical understandings and instructional routine implementation.
Each of the learning activities was only attended by those teachers who were
documented as needing additional support with each particular routine. The nine
routines were chosen based on their overall popularity, as well as, their ability to
allow each teacher the opportunity to lead at least one learning activity as the expert
teacher from the Challenge group. Since there were no routines in which a teacher
97
only needed theoretical support, all teachers attended the theoretical and
implementation support components of the learning activities (Table 7).
Table 7
Participant Participation in Individualized Learning Activities
Teacher Expert Routine Routine Support/
Post Observations
Teacher A Selection Vocabulary Comprehension Strategies
Handing Off
Writer’s Notebooks
Workshop
Teacher B Writer’s Notebooks Selection Vocabulary
Clues, Problems, Wonderings
Comprehension Strategies
Handing Off
Workshop
Sound/Spelling Cards
Teacher C Dictation Pre/Decodable Books
Clues, Problems, Wonderings
Comprehension Strategies
Handing Off
Writer’s Notebooks
Teacher D Clues, Problems,
Wonderings
Comprehension Strategies
Dictation
Pre/Decodable Books
Handing Off
Writer’s Notebooks
Teacher E Workshop Comprehension Strategies
Handing Off
Writer’s Notebooks
Sound/Spelling Cards
Teacher F Sound/Spelling Cards Pre/Decodable Books
Clues, Problems, Wonderings
Comprehension Strategies
Handing Off
Writer’s Notebooks
Workshop
Researcher/
Professional
Development Provider
Pre/Decodable Books
Handing Off
98
Six teachers participated in the nine Individualized Learning Activities, a
combined total of 36 times. Of those 36 times, teachers were categorized as being in
the Challenge group seven times, the Reteach group 12 times, and in the Intervention
group 17 times (Table 8). On average, each teacher was provided support for five
different instructional routines. Additionally, each teacher led at least one of the
Individualized Learning Activities as a teacher who was placed in the Challenge
category, while the researcher facilitated the process. The researcher led the
remaining two Individualized Learning Activities due to the fact that not one teacher
had been documented as a Challenge teacher for those particular routines (Table 8).
Table 8
Attending Participants for Each Individualized Learning Activity
Instructional Routine Challenge Reteach Intervention
Total Attending
Participants
Dictation 1 1 2
Decodable Books 3 3
Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings
1 3 4
Comprehension
Strategies
1 5 6
Handing Off 6 6
Writers’ Notebooks 1 5 6
Selection Vocabulary 1 1 2
Workshop 1 3 4
Sound Spelling Cards 1 1 1 3
Total 7 12 17 36
99
For each of the learning experiences, either the participating researcher or a
teacher placed in the Challenge group became the resource or expert teacher for their
peers to share their knowledge and expertise. The Challenge teachers provided in-
class demonstrations of the instructional routines for those teachers categorized in
the Reteach and/or Intervention groups.
Based on the field notes collected by the researcher all teachers personally
shared that they experienced some level of excitement and nervousness towards their
leading, expert teacher roles. The teachers were surprised to hear that the researcher
was also excited and nervous. But it was apparent that by sharing this information,
the teachers were more at ease with their leading role because personal information
had been exchanged and trust was built. For each of the demonstrated lessons, the
researcher observed that all of the expert teachers were well prepared, and that all of
the routines were well executed and thoroughly taught.
Following the demonstration lessons were debriefing sessions. Within these
debriefing sessions, the Challenge teachers were asked to work with their peers to
collaboratively reflect on the demonstrated lessons in terms of instructional
implementation. Within these discussions, the teachers compared the lessons to the
program’s Routine Cards, or outlined directions, to determine what similarities and
differences occurred in the demonstrated lessons and why. Additionally, the
Challenge teachers led the theoretical discussions as the teachers analyzed the
purpose and objectives of each routine. To facilitate these discussions, the
100
researcher provided the teachers with: Demonstration Reflection Sheets, mini-
presentations, videos, Routine Cards, handouts, and teaching aides and materials.
Based on the field notes collected by the researcher, the teachers were
observed sharing ideas, compliments, materials, and lesson extensions during the
debriefing sessions. It was apparent to the researcher that the collaboration that
occurred during these debriefing sessions provided opportunities for teachers to
successfully learn from one another. For example, it was observed that certain
routines caused theoretical challenges for individual teachers who struggled to
determine the primary objectives of the routines. Some teachers were observed by
the researcher as displaying signs of dissonance during the debriefing sessions. It
seemed that teachers were still processing their observations of the demonstrated
routine that in essence did not coincide with their existing beliefs or understandings.
For six years, most of the teachers had been implementing routines that in this case,
were very different than the lessons they observed. Therefore, the power of the
collaboration sessions allowed teachers to theoretically support one another as they
processed how the routine was implemented, in order to determine why. For
example, the hardest routine for teachers to determine the theoretical purpose for was
Comprehension Strategies. It took two teachers leading the discussion and sharing
their recent experiences of trying to incorporate the routine as prescribed, to assist
their peers in the realization that assessing and monitoring comprehension does not
teach students how to comprehend text. As these two teachers shared their
challenges in learning how to incorporate this routine as prescribed and shared the
101
subsequent changes that were occurring in their student outcomes, the remaining
teachers began to theoretically understand the routine’s purpose.
For two routines, Handing Off and Writers’ Notebooks, the teachers spent
some of their debriefing time discussing modifications to the routines in order to
meet their classroom needs. However, it was observed by the researcher that the
participants theoretically understood the routines based on the appropriateness of the
modifications. For example, the teachers discussed modifications of the Handing
Off rules in order to better deal with the behavioral management issues present in
their classrooms.
During the debriefing sessions, many teachers voiced their appreciation for
working with teachers at various grade levels. The teachers appreciated learning
about the knowledge their students were being previously exposed to, and learning
what knowledge their students would need to have in order to be successful in later
grades.
There were two concerns that were addressed during these debriefing
sessions. The first concern was pacing. The teachers were challenged as they began
to visualize revisions of their schedules in order to incorporate the routines as
prescribed. The second concern was because the program itself did not clearly
provide the teachers with needed instructional information. For example, when
discussing the use of the Pre/Decodable Books, the program did not always clearly
state which high frequency words and/or sound spelling correspondences were being
introduced and/or reviewed. However, the researcher who participated as the
102
professional development provider had created packets of materials that included
such information for the teachers and therefore it was apparent to the researcher that
these materials were considered useful. The appreciation shared by the participants
for these materials informed the researcher that positive rapport was further
established.
Before, during, and after the demonstrated lessons, the teachers were asked to
set their own learning goals and to reflect on the lessons in terms of their own
theoretical understandings and routine implementation practices (Figure 5). Based
on the field notes collected by the researcher, most teachers were observed not only
filling out the reflection sheets but also writing additional notes on separate pieces of
paper. Some of these notes included a “To Do List”, sketches or picture
representations of observed lesson components, and the step-by-step directions of the
process the demonstrating teacher used to complete the lesson. Additionally, the
participants requested that the researcher, as the professional development provider,
type up the posters that each group created so each participant could have a copy of
their findings. These observations informed the researcher that teachers were
beginning to visualize the routines being implemented in their classroom.
These findings along with additional field notes collected by the researcher
are presented in greater detail by each participant and are organized in chronological
order. The purpose of this structure is to illuminate individual understandings and/or
growth over the study time period.
103
Reflection Sheets
As previously mentioned, teachers were requested to fill out a reflection sheet
before and after they were observed on the Observation Reflection Sheet. And the
Demonstration Reflection Sheet was completed before, during, and after
participating in the Individualized Learning Activities. The purpose of this data
collection was to allow the participants the opportunity to reflect on their practice
and to also document occurrences of teacher learning, or changes in their theoretical
understandings and instructional practices. The teachers’ responses were coded to
highlight specific themes and commonalities. The common themes that emerged
from the reflection sheets included: evidence of teacher learning, evidence of teacher
application of learned skills, self perception of their own teaching during IPD, effects
of teacher collaboration, and concern with instructional pacing. Again, these
findings are presented in greater detail by each participant and are organized by the
chronological order of response.
Concluding Teacher Matrix
After teachers were provided with professional development support, the
same Teacher Matrix was used by the researcher to document changes that occurred
in the theoretical understandings and implementation practices of the instructional
routines. For each column – OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher Observations, and
On-Going Student Assessments, teachers were once again placed in Challenge,
Reteach, or Intervention groups in order to illustrate growth, or lack of, based on
104
their new categorical placements. Within the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher
Observations columns were two separate cells, baseline and concluding. These
separate cells were used by the researcher to distinguish between pre and post
Individualized Learning Activity support. The concluding cells were used by the
researcher for documenting the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observations
conducted after the professional development support was provided (Appendix B).
Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
After being provided with professional development support through the use
of Individualized Learning Activities, teachers were again asked to fill out the OCR
Needs Assessment. This was done in order for the researcher to determine if
teachers felt that changes occurred in their theoretical understandings and/or in their
delivery of the instructional routines.
Similar to the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, if a teacher determined
effective implementation of a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed
in the concluding OCR Needs Assessment – Challenge group of the Teacher Matrix.
Of the combined responses, 102 routines out of 120 were documented by the six
teachers as being effectively implemented. This equated to teachers, on average,
feeling 85% fully competent in their overall understandings and instructional
delivery of their language arts program after receiving Individualized Learning
Activity support – illustrating a 100% growth from the baseline figures (Table 9).
105
Similar to the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, if a teacher determined that
theoretical or implementation support was needed for a listed instructional routine,
then the teacher was placed in the concluding OCR Needs Assessment – Reteach
group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined responses, 15 routines out of 120
were documented by teachers as being areas in which they desired support. This
equated to teachers, on average, still feeling that they needed theoretical or
implementation support with 12.5% of the instructional routines found in their
language arts program after receiving Individualized Learning Activity support –
illustrating a 77.27% decline from the baseline figures (Table 9).
Similar to the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, if a teacher determined that
they were not familiar with a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed
in the concluding OCR Needs Assessment – Intervention group of the Teacher
Matrix. Of the combined responses, three routines out of 120 were not recognized
by the teachers. This equated to teachers, on average, still feeling that they needed
theoretical and implementation support with 2.5% of the instructional routines found
in their language arts program after receiving Individualized Learning Activity
support – illustrating that the level of routines needing both theoretical and
implementation support remained consistent over the course of IPD (Table 9).
106
Table 9
Concluding Teacher Matrix – OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Combined
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Combined
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 51 42.5% 102 85% 100%
Reteach 66 55% 15 12.5% -77.27%
Intervention 3 2.5% 3 2.5% 0
As Table 9 illustrates, the process of IPD successfully supported teachers’
theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings depict that their overall
program knowledge doubled and that the Individualized Learning Activities
supported their self-assessed theoretical and implementation knowledge of the
routines found in their language arts program.
Table 10 shows the comparison of the baseline and concluding numbers of
teachers from the OCR Needs Assessments – Challenge, Reteach, and Intervention
groups. Each group of numbers is correlated to only those specific instructional
routines where teachers were provided professional development support.
As Table 10 illustrates, overall most teachers re-categorized themselves in the
Challenge group demonstrating a rise in their overall theoretical understandings and
implementation practices after being provided with Individualized Learning Activity
support for nine specific instructional routines of their language arts program.
107
Table 10
Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Matrix – OCR Needs Assessment
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Teachers
Baseline
Reteach
Teachers
Baseline
Intervention
Teachers
Concluding
Challenge
Teachers
Concluding
Reteach
Teachers
Concluding
Intervention
Teachers
Dictation 2 2 4
Decodable
Books
3 3
Clues, Problems,
and Wonderings
3 3 6
Comprehension
Strategies
1 5 6
Handing Off 1 4 1 6
Writers’
Notebooks
1 4 1 6
Selection
Vocabulary
4 2 5 1
Workshop 2 4 6
Sound Spelling
Cards
4 2 5 1
Concluding Teacher Observations
After being provided professional development support through the use of the
Individualized Learning Activities, teachers were once again observed. This was
done in order for the researcher to determine if teachers demonstrated changes in
their theoretical understandings and/or in their implementation of the instructional
routines. The researcher conducted one concluding observation per participant. The
observations took place at a predetermined time at Markham Elementary School.
Observations ranged from 60 to 120 minutes in duration – depending upon the
number of instructional routines being observed. For each participant, only those
exact routines for which they had been provided IPD were observed. The average
108
number of routines observed per teacher was seven. The combined total number of
routines observed was 45.
Once again, the researcher collected data on the Teacher Observation Field
Notes/Reflection Sheet that focused on observable teacher understanding and
application of the nine instructional routines. The observed routine elements that
were determined as going well and needing additional theoretical and/or
implementation support were noted. The elements of each routine were
predetermined on the Teacher Rubric created by the researcher (Appendix C). Based
on those observations, teachers were placed in the Challenge, Reteach, or
Intervention groups as noted on the Teacher Observation Field Notes/Reflection
Sheet and documented on the Teacher Matrix under the Teacher Observations
column, in the concluding cells (Appendix B).
Similar to the baseline Teacher Observations, if a teacher was observed
conducting effective implementation of a listed instructional routine, then the teacher
was placed in the concluding Teacher Observations – Challenge group of the
Teacher Matrix. The combined number of routines observed as being effectively
implemented post provided IPD was 39 out of 45. This equated to teachers, on
average, demonstrating 86.67% full competence in their overall understandings and
instructional delivery of nine routines found in their language arts program after
receiving Individualized Learning Activity support. When filtering out the baseline
data of teacher placement for the same nine routines, the combined number of
109
routines observed as being effectively implemented was 15 out of 45 or 33.33% –
illustrating a 160% growth in comparison to the concluding figures (Table 11).
If a teacher was observed as needing theoretical or implementation support
for a listed instructional routine then the teacher was placed in the concluding
Teacher Observations – Reteach group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined
concluding observations, six routines out of 45 were observed as needing additional
support post provided Individualized Learning Activity support. This equated to
teachers, on average, as demonstrating an additional need for either theoretical or
implementation support with 13.33% of the nine routines already provided with
Individualized Learning Activity support. When filtering out the baseline data of
teacher placement for the same nine routines prior to be provided with Individualized
Learning Activity support, the combined number of routines observed as needing
either theoretical or implementation support was 15 out of 45 or 33.33% –
illustrating a 60% decline, or growth when compared to the concluding figures
(Table 11).
If a teacher was observed as needing theoretical and implementation support
for a listed instructional routine, then the teacher was placed in the concluding
Teacher Observations – Intervention group of the Teacher Matrix. Of the combined
concluding observations, zero routines out of 45 were observed as needing full
support post provided Individualized Learning Activity support. When filtering out
the baseline data of teacher placement for the same nine routines prior to be provided
with Individualized Learning Activity support, the combined number of routines
110
observed as needing either theoretical or implementation support was 15 out of 45 or
33.33% – illustrating a 100% decline, or growth when compared to the concluding
figures (Table 11).
As Table 11 illustrates, the process of IPD successfully supported teachers’
theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings depict that their overall
program knowledge more than doubled and that the Individualized Learning
Activities supported their observable theoretical and implementation knowledge of
nine specific routines found in their language arts program.
Table 11
Concluding Teacher Matrix –Teacher Observations
Baseline
Observations
Combined
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Observations
Combined
Concluding
Averages
Percent of
Growth Based
on Baseline and
Concluding
Results
Challenge 15 33.33% 39 86.67% 160%
Reteach 15 33.33% 6 13.33% -60%
Intervention 15 33.33% 0 0 -100%
Table 12 shows the comparison of the baseline and concluding numbers of
teachers from the Teacher Observations – Challenge, Reteach, and Intervention
groups. Each group of numbers is correlated to only those specific instructional
routines for which teachers had been provided IPD support.
111
Table 12
Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Matrix –Teacher Observations
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Teachers
Baseline
Reteach
Teachers
Baseline
Intervention
Teachers
Concluding
Challenge
Teachers
Concluding
Reteach
Teachers
Concluding
Intervention
Teachers
Dictation 1 1 1
Decodable
Books
3 3
Clues, Problems,
and Wonderings
2 3 3
Comprehension
Strategies
6 4 2
Handing Off 6 5 1
Writers’
Notebooks
1 4 1 5 1
Selection
Vocabulary
4 1 1
Workshop 3 3 2 1
Sound Spelling
Cards
4 1 1 1 1
As Table 12 illustrates, overall more teachers were placed in the Challenge
group after receiving Individualized Learning Activity support as they effectively
demonstrated their theoretical understandings and implementation practices. These
placements were due to teachers demonstrating an increase in their efficiency of
observable attributes after being provided with Individualized Learning Activity
support for nine specific instructional routines of their language arts program.
Concluding On-Going Student Assessments
Concluding On-Going Student Assessments were not necessary to conduct in
this research since averaged student scores were only used to determine initial or
112
baseline teacher placement on the Teacher Matrix when categorical discrepancies
among the Teacher Needs Assessment and Teacher Observations were found.
Additionally, On-Going Student Assessments were not available due to the short
duration of this research.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The final data collection was at the completion of the study. Each participant
was involved in an interview that lasted on average 30 minutes. These interviews all
took place in the conference room of the main office, were recorded, and
subsequently transcribed by an independent company. The results were then coded
for commonalities and are discussed in the individual case studies. Although semi-
structured in nature, the interviews had 10 major questions which were:
1) During this study you were asked to self-assess, practice reflective
thinking/writing, take part in classroom demonstration lessons and
observations, and participate in debriefing sessions. Identify and explain
the most useful learning activity of this type of professional development.
2) At the beginning of this study you were asked to evaluate your
understanding of the program routines for Open Court Reading. Has your
understanding changed in any way? If so, please explain.
3) This study included a lot of discussion on theories endorsed by Open
Court Reading. You were then asked to apply those theories in your
classroom. Please describe that experience.
4) Research (Showers, 2002) tells us that after a teacher learns a skill through
professional development, it may take at least 30 applications of that skill
for the teacher’s knowledge to fully transfer to classroom instruction. Do
you agree or disagree? Has participation in this project shaped your
belief?
113
5) You have participated in one-day and two-week long workshops, college
courses, and outside consultants providing you with training. Please
describe the difference between traditional professional development and
the IPD you experienced throughout this project.
6) Has IPD changed your teaching practices? If yes, how? If no, why not?
7) Has IPD affected your students’ outcomes? If yes, how? If no, why not?
8) Describe, if possible, how you were able to demonstrate through your
practice, your emerging understandings of routine implementation for
Open Court Reading.
9) How could this project been designed to better address your needs as an
educator and also an adult learner?
10) Please comment on your overall experience with IPD.
Case One: Teacher A
Introduction of Teacher A
Teacher A has been teaching elementary school for seven years. She has
been teaching third grade for five years. Prior to teaching third grade, Teacher A
taught in a second grade Bilingual classroom for one year and taught a combination
class consisting of grades two and three for one year. This is Teacher A’s seventh
year of working with OCR, but while teaching the combination class, only the
Language Arts components of the second grade curriculum were used. Teacher A is
well-respected and often viewed by her colleagues and students’ parents as a
responsible and caring teacher.
Every year that Teacher A has been at Markham Elementary School, she has
participated in at least two committees. This year she is the GATE Coordinator for
114
the school and is also a member of the Safety Committee. Teacher A shared that she
decided to participate in this research project for several reasons but that the primary
reason was to improve her teaching skills because “I believe that there is always
room for improvement. I am always looking for ways to help my students succeed”.
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
Teacher A – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of closed-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowledge of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order
to determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation
in IPD.
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher A responded to 19 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 19 of the 24 routines
were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher A responded that she
effectively implemented nine of the instructional routines which placed Teacher A in
the Challenge group nine times. This equated to Teacher A feeling 47.37% fully
competent in her overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
10 of the instructional routines, or 52.63% of her language arts program, Teacher A
noted that she desired theoretical or implementation support which placed her in the
115
Reteach group 10 times. Teacher A did not note any instructional routines as
needing both theoretical and implementation support (Table 13).
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher A again responded to
19 of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 19 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher A responded that she
effectively implemented 18 of the instructional routines placing her in the Challenge
group 18 times. This equated to Teacher A feeling 94.74% fully competent in her
overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language arts program after
being provided with Individualized Learning Activities. Teacher A noted that there
were not any instructional routines needing either theoretical or implementation
support. For one instructional routine, or 5.26% of her language arts program,
Teacher A noted that she still desired theoretical and implementation support placing
her in the Intervention group (Table 13).
As Table 13 illustrates, Teacher A’s self-placement in the Challenge group
doubled from nine to 18 – depicting an overall 100% increase in her theoretical and
implementation knowledge of her language arts program after participating in IPD.
Teacher A’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from 10 to zero – depicting a
100% drop in the routines in which Teacher A felt she needed additional theoretical
or implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher A’s placement in the
Intervention group increased from zero to one – demonstrating that Teacher A
desired additional theoretical and implementation support with one of the routines
found in her language arts program after participating in IPD (Table 13).
116
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher A’s self-assessed overall
theoretical understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines
found in her language arts program after participating in IPD.
Table 13
Teacher A – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 9 47.37% 18 94.74% 100%
Reteach 10 52.63% 0 0 -100%
Intervention 0 0 1 5.26% 100%
Table 14 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher A from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher A was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
117
Table 14
Teacher A – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
As Table 14 illustrates, Teacher A placed herself in four Reteach groups prior
to being provided Individualized Learning Activities support. Post participation in
the Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher A noted that her theoretical and
implementation knowledge of four routines increased, as she re-categorized herself
from the Reteach group to the Challenge group a total of four times.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher A’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that her overall program knowledge doubled and that the Individualized
Learning Activities supported Teacher A’s theoretical and implementation
118
knowledge of four specific routines found in her language arts program.
Additionally, the inclusion of Teacher A’s placement in the Intervention group on
the concluding OCR Needs Assessment and not on the baseline OCR Needs
Assessment, was considered by the researcher as an increase in Teacher A’s ability
to engage in self reflection in order to better determine her learning needs. This
conclusion was reached by the researcher because that particular routine was not at
all addressed during the IPD process.
Teacher A – Teacher Observations
Field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations, revealed
that Teacher A was placed in a Challenge group five times, a Reteach group two
times, and an Intervention group one time as a total of eight routines were observed.
Of those eight routines, seven were applicable to the nine routines chosen for
Individualized Learning Activities support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for Individualized Learning Activities support,
Teacher A was placed in the Challenge group three times due to her demonstrated
ability to effectively implement the routines and to hold discussions that
demonstrated her theoretical understandings. Teacher A became the expert teacher
for her peers of the Selection Vocabulary routine. For the remaining four routines in
which Teacher A was placed in either the Reteach and/or Intervention groups,
Teacher A participated in the Individualized Learning Activities (Table 15).
119
Teacher A was placed in the Reteach group for Writers’ Notebooks. It was
evident during discussions that she theoretically understood why Writers’ Notebooks
were used but had not implemented them in her classroom.
Teacher A was also placed in the Reteach group for Workshop. During the
observation it was evident that Teacher A theoretically understood how and why
Workshop was implemented. This was apparent by her ability to provide her
students with an appropriate “Menu” of “Must Do” and “May Do” activities for them
to complete while she simultaneously pulled small and flexible groups. In her small
groups, she provided differentiated instruction covering ELD support, decoding
strategies, and partner reading for fluency practice. However, during this time,
Teacher A struggled with how to maintain behavioral and classroom management.
Students often had questions regarding the activities they were completing and at
times went off-task. The effects of these concerns elevated the noise level making it
challenging for small group instruction to occur. Suggestions for classroom and
behavioral management procedures were provided to the teacher during the
debriefing session.
Teacher A was placed in the Intervention group for the instructional routine,
Comprehension Strategies. The teacher demonstrated her ability to review the
comprehension strategies being taught in the lesson and her ability to monitor
student understanding during and after reading. However, as the professional
development provider, the researcher recognized that the teacher did not model or
support student application of the comprehension strategies – student comprehension
120
was monitored and assisted but students were not taught how to comprehend the text.
This observation illustrated that the teacher did not effectively implement the
instructional routine. It also became evident that the teacher did not theoretically
understand the purpose or objective of the routine during the debriefing session as
noted on her Observation Reflection Sheet. During the debriefing session, the
teacher was provided with the theoretical rationale for teaching comprehension
strategies but the teacher still requested additional support with the implementation
of the routine.
Teacher A was also placed in the Intervention group for the instructional
routine Handing Off. This placement occurred because there was no attempt for its
inclusion in her overall instruction.
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
Teacher A began to theoretically understand the instructional routine,
Comprehension Strategies. While debriefing, Teacher A shared with the group that
she had started to implement the routine as prescribed after it had been clarified by
the researcher during one of the initial observations and debriefing sessions. Teacher
A shared that she was using the modeled prompts suggested by the program because
they supported her while learning how to model the “thinking aloud” of strategy
application for her students. Despite the challenges with the routine that Teacher A
shared, she also shared that she was already seeing positive changes occur in her
student outcomes. It was with these experiences that the other participants were able
to conceptualize how and why the routine was intended to be taught. Based on these
121
observations, the researcher was able to determine that Teacher A showed an
increase in her theoretical knowledge of the Comprehension Strategies routine and
that the power of collaboration efficiently supported the theoretical understandings
and implementation practices of the participants.
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher A had been
provided Individualized Learning Activities support with four routines. Field notes
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher A was placed in a
Challenge group four times – as a total of four routines were observed (Table 15).
Teacher A was placed in the Challenge group for the Comprehension
Strategies routine. As observed by the researcher, Teacher A thoroughly introduced
the strategies being taught in the lesson and had the students contribute to the
definitions of the strategies. The teacher began by having the students apply the
summarizing comprehension strategy through a “think, pair, and share” session.
This was done to review what occurred the previous day during the reading of the
first half of the story. As they began to read the second half of the story, students
were observed being prompted to apply the comprehension strategy, Making and
Confirming Predictions. As the students applied random comprehension strategies
while dialoging about the text, the teacher stressed which strategies were applied by
telling them the name of the strategy, why it was applied, and she physically pointed
to the strategy name posted on the board. Teacher A was then observed transferring
the responsibility of naming the comprehension strategies to the students by asking
them to share which strategy they applied before contributing to the conversation.
122
Based on these observations, Teacher A demonstrated that she thoroughly
understood the theoretical rationale behind teaching rather than assessing
comprehension while demonstrating her ability to explicitly teach the comprehension
strategies. Not only was the teacher observed teaching the strategies, but she was
also able to begin transferring the responsibility of their usage to the students.
Teacher A was placed in the Challenge group for the Handing Off routine.
The students were observed sitting in a circle on the floor using their reading
materials. Teacher A began the process by reviewing the purpose of, and rules for,
Handing Off. Teacher A had sentence frames printed out on chart paper to support
the students with conversation contributions during the discussion. The teacher was
observed participating in and facilitating the conversation while the students shared
their reflections of the story and asked each other questions. At the conclusion of the
Handing Off routine, the teacher had the students self reflect on how the routine went
during a debriefing session. The students shared that they thought it was “fun
because other people weren’t talking” in order for them to hear their peers. The
students then shared that they thought they were doing a better job because everyone
had followed the rules, there was more participation, and that interesting
conversation contributions were made. Based on these observations, the researcher
concluded that Teacher A thoroughly understood why and how the routine was
taught. It was also apparent to the researcher that Teacher A was beginning to
recognize the importance and power of self-reflection as she asked her students to
engage in a debriefing session at the conclusion of the routine.
123
Teacher A was placed in the Challenge group for Writers’ Notebooks. While
discussing this component of her language arts program, the researcher clarified that
Writers’ Notebooks could be constructed using various materials. This discussion
took place after the researcher had read the Demonstration Reflection Sheet written
by Teacher A. On this sheet, the teacher noted that she preferred to use folders
rather than 3-ringed binders as suggested by her peer during the demonstration
lesson. After this clarification, Teacher A shared that she currently had a “Workshop
Folder” which was used to store student work during Workshop time and included a
journaling section. Teacher A then shared that students also used an “Open Court
Folder”. For each unit, the students stored their Word Knowledge activity pages and
fluency practice sheets. However, after being provided support with this routine,
Teacher A intended to also incorporate two additional sections – spelling words and
writing. At the conclusion of this discussion, it was apparent to the researcher that
Teacher A theoretically understood the purpose of Writers’ Notebooks and how to
incorporate them into her lessons.
Teacher A was placed in the Challenge group for Workshop. As observed by
the researcher, the teacher assigned an appropriate “Menu” of Workshop activities
which were explicitly explained to the students before they began working
independently. The “Must Do” activities reinforced and extended the lessons
already taught as the students were asked to: write words in alphabetical order,
complete their Spelling workbook, and write their Selection Vocabulary words with
their definitions into their Writers’ Notebooks. The “May Do” activities also
124
reinforced and extended what was being taught in the core program as students were
allowed to: read library books, write 15 compound words, and/or write 15 word
contractions. While the students diligently worked from their “Menu” of activities,
Teacher A met with individual students to assist them in proofreading their stories.
If a student who was working on a “Menu” item had a question, he or she would
write their name on a piece of paper sitting next to the teacher and then continue
working, rather than interrupt the teacher while she worked with students. When the
teacher had a free moment, she addressed their concern. Based on these
observations, Teacher A theoretically understood the purpose of Workshop and
effectively implemented the routine.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, that
Teacher A was able to transfer theory into practice as she demonstrated new
additions to her teaching repertoire. These steady increments of learning were also
reflected in Teacher A’s reflection sheets and in the answers she provided during the
interview.
125
Table 15
Teacher A – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X
Teacher A – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher A occurred two times. For the instructional routines,
Comprehension Strategies and Handing Off, Teacher A placed herself in the Reteach
group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention group. After reviewing the
students’ test scores and ability to comprehend text, it was determined that Teacher
A would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group for both routines (Table 16).
126
Table 16
Teacher A – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge
Reteach 2 2
Intervention 2
Teacher A – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
Observation and Demonstration Reflections Sheets were also used by the
researcher to determine the theoretical and implementation growth of the teacher-
learners. Observation Reflection Sheets were completed by the participants before
and after being provided with Individualized Learning Activities during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations. The Demonstration Reflection Sheets were
completed by the participants while being provided with support during the
Individualized Learning Activities.
It was interesting to note that the baseline Observation Reflection Sheets
completed by Teacher A mentioned that the instructional routine Selection
Vocabulary was challenging for both her and her students. This finding was
interesting because she had placed herself in the Challenge group on her baseline
OCR Needs Assessment. The baseline Teacher Observations also placed her in the
Challenge group, and Teacher A was ultimately considered as the expert teacher for
this routine.
127
Pacing was a second issue that Teacher A continuously highlighted on her
Observation Reflection Sheets. On two separate occasions, the teacher noted that
she had concerns with whether her instructional delivery was moving too slowly or
too quickly.
The third theme that emerged from Teacher A’s reflection sheets was her
concern regarding classroom and behavioral management. The teacher noted that
“Students worked quietly and were on-task during the first 15 minutes of Workshop”
but did not mention what occurred during the remainder of Workshop. However, the
teacher established future goals on the premise that she would “teach a procedure on
what students can do if they have questions during Workshop and to be firm and
consistent with acknowledging student behavior.”
The fourth theme that emerged on the baseline Observation Reflection Sheets
focused on Teacher A’s theoretical and implementation concerns with the
instructional routine, Comprehension Strategies. As the teacher noted, “I believe my
goals for this learning experience were accomplished; however, my goals were not
the same goals the curriculum had established.” Based on this reflection, the teacher
then mentioned that in the future, she would look carefully at the Comprehension
Strategies and focus on teaching those strategies. These reflections, along with the
fact that Teacher A did not list the curriculum objectives when establishing student
learning goals, illustrated her need for instructional and theoretical support.
Additionally, Teacher A later posted that she was “a bit confused” on how to teach
the Comprehension Strategies, illustrating her need for instructional support.
128
Teacher A also noted that the students were able to understand the story because she
asked them questions. This confusion between assessing and teaching
comprehension strategies illustrated her need for theoretical support with this
routine.
Lastly, it was interesting for the researcher to note that on both of the baseline
Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher A only established learning goals for the
students and not for herself. This implied to the researcher that Teacher A required
additional practice in and/or support with the process of self-reflection.
While being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support for four
instructional routines, Teacher A tended to focus more of her attention on the
implementation procedures for some of the routines rather than on their theoretical
rationales. This observation concerned the researcher who wondered if Teacher A
would ultimately understand the routines’ theoretical purposes.
Teacher A’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the routine Comprehension
Strategies showed a generated list of the step-by-step procedure used by the expert
teacher while demonstrating the routine. When the reflection sheet asked Teacher A
to reflect on the extent to which her goals were accomplished, she wrote, “My goals
for this learning experience were accomplished. I have a better understanding of
how to use the T.E. in order to help my students learn.” Based on this reflection, the
researcher concluded that Teacher A better understood how to implement the routine
and that she realized that the Teacher’s Guide was an effective tool for providing
instructional support. However, the researcher concluded that if Teacher A had fully
129
understood the theoretical rationale of how and why the instructional routine was
taught, then ultimately the teacher would not have to rely upon the Teacher’s Guide
for instructional support.
Notes taken by Teacher A on her Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the
routine Handing Off, again focused on the step-by-step procedure used by the expert
teacher while demonstrating the routine. As observed by the researcher, these notes
reflected the learning goals she pre-established – to “learn the procedure” and “how
to teach it”. Even though there wasn’t one note on why this routine was taught,
Teacher A concluded that she would be able to effectively implement this routine in
her classroom.
The third routine that Teacher A was provided support for was Writers’
Notebooks. It was observed on her Demonstration Reflection Sheet that Teacher A
planned to incorporate the notebooks exactly as demonstrated by clearly stating that
she would “…try to put the Writer’s Notebook (3-ring binder) in use – my goal for
Unit 3, Lesson 4”. Teacher A also took specific notes on how and why the routine
was taught. However, when answering to what extent her goals were accomplished
Teacher A wrote, “I understand the reasons why we should have the students keep a
Writer’s Notebook. Right now it is easier for me to have the students put their work
in a folder.” This response informed the researcher that Teacher A had full
intentions to incorporate the notebooks exactly as they were demonstrated, but, that
Teacher A did not fully understand the rationale or instructional procedures behind
130
the routine. The researcher came to this conclusion because folders can also be
appropriate formats for students to use as classes implement the routine.
Teacher A’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet for Workshop noted both how
and why the routine was implemented. One of the goals established by Teacher A
was to learn classroom management tips to use while conducting Workshop. It was
recognized in her notes that Teacher A thought that posting and reviewing rules, as
well as, holding debriefing sessions at the conclusion of Workshop, were effective
ways for her students to self-monitor their behavior and learning experience. The
second goal pre-established by Teacher A was to gather ideas for appropriate
activities to be completed during Workshop time. Teacher A noted that she was
interested in obtaining a copy of the book shared by the expert teacher. This book
provided reading and writing ideas for students to independently complete so
teachers could work with small groups of students. Teacher A also noted that it
would be instructionally beneficial for her to pre-teach lesson components to some of
her struggling students. Teacher A concluded with “I was very pleased to see that
some of the things I am doing are right on track with what other teachers are doing.
My goals for this learning experience were accomplished. I feel confident of my
own teaching.” Based on these noted observations, the researcher concluded that
Teacher A was able to meet her pre-established goals and concluded that Teacher A
felt confident in her ability to implement this supported routine.
Based on the overall Demonstration Reflection Sheets, it was observed by the
researcher that Teacher A had a better understanding of how to teach each of the four
131
routines she was provided support for but that additional theoretical support may
have been needed in some areas. It was also interesting for the researcher to observe
that unlike the initial Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher A, the
Demonstration Reflection Sheets included learning goals that focused on her
professional growth, rather than on established learning goals for her students.
Additionally, it was recognized by the researcher that Teacher A’s level of self-
efficacy had increased as she self-confirmed her teaching ability while observing the
demonstration of Workshop.
After being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher
A participated in concluding Teacher Observations. During the concluding
observations, Teacher A again completed the Observation Reflection Sheets.
As previously documented on her initial Observation Reflection Sheets,
Teacher A did not emphasize any areas that were particularly challenging for her.
Teacher A also did not address any pacing concerns even though this concern was
shared in her initial Observation Reflection Sheets and during debriefing sessions
with the researcher.
Notes taken by Teacher A on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for Workshop again focused on classroom and behavioral management. Based on
her previously established goals, Teacher A was able to reflect that “most” of her
students were able to: work independently, make good choices, and follow the
established procedure when needing teacher assistance. Teacher A therefore
concluded that her established goals were accomplished, while the researcher
132
concluded that Teacher A had fully conceptualized the purpose and procedure for
Workshop implementation.
Notes taken by Teacher A on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Comprehension Strategies routine demonstrated Teacher A’s theoretical and
implementation growth as she established appropriate learning goals for her students
that were in alignment to the program’s objectives. Teacher A’s reflections
documented that her students were: participating while reading the selection, able to
identify the strategies they were using, and were able to apply the strategies while
reading in order to have a better understanding of the selection. Teacher A
concluded that she would like to continue holding students accountable for their
learning by transferring the learning responsibility to them. Based on these self-
reflections and mastery of her pre-established goals, the researcher concluded that
Teacher A theoretically understood the purpose and procedure of the Comprehension
Strategies routine.
Notes taken by Teacher A on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Handing Off routine demonstrated her theoretical and implementation growth
as she established appropriate learning goals for her students that were in alignment
to the program’s objectives. Teacher A’s reflections documented that her students
were able to share their understanding of the selection with each other, and were able
to follow the procedure and rules. Teacher A concluded that in the future, she would
like to remind the students to look at each other while speaking rather than at her.
Based on these self-reflections and mastery of her pre-established goals, the
133
researcher concluded that Teacher A theoretically understood the purpose and
procedure of the Handing Off routine.
Finally, it was again observed by the researcher that like the baseline
Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher A only established learning goals for the
students and not for herself. Even though this shift in perspectives was suggested by
the researcher, it was not explicitly modeled or practiced. However, this observation
implied to the researcher that Teacher A required additional practice and support in
self-reflection.
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher A’s
Observation Reflection Sheets, pre and post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, that Teacher A was able to transfer theory into practice as she
demonstrated new additions to her teaching repertoire. In conclusion, it was also
interesting for the researcher to note that Teacher A no longer stressed areas of
concern in her concluding Observation Reflection Sheets, informing the researcher
that Teacher A demonstrated an increase in her theoretical and implementation
knowledge. This observation included the fact that Teacher A no longer stressed
pacing as being an issue. It was also apparent to the researcher, that Teacher A was
able to acquire the ability to analyze the theoretical rationales behind particular
instructional components even though they were not documented in her
Demonstration Reflection Sheets. However, it was recognized by the researcher that
Teacher A required additional practice and support in the process of establishing
learning goals that focused on her professional growth, rather than on establishing
134
learning goals for her students. Overall, these steady increments of Teacher A’s
learning were also reflected in the answers she provided during the concluding
interview.
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher A involved a semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher A to discuss the
most useful learning activity she was involved in while participating in IPD.
Teacher A shared that the debriefing sessions that occurred after she had been
observed were the most beneficial aspect of IPD. Teacher A felt that the debriefing
sessions provided her personalized feedback on observable areas of effective
instructional delivery, and on the areas of needed improvement.
Teacher A was then asked to evaluate how her understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher A shared that when she initially evaluated
her understandings, she questioned if what she was doing was effective but after
receiving IPD support, Teacher A felt her instructional delivery had been validated
which allowed her to refocus her attention on why it was important to implement the
instructional routines.
When asked if she agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002), that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teacher’s knowledge to
135
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teacher A both agreed and disagreed.
Teacher A agreed because she felt teachers who were new to the profession or
changing grade levels, needed additional practice before automaticity occurred.
However, Teacher A disagreed because as “an experienced teacher” who taught
OCR for several years, she felt that making modifications to her instruction was an
easy adjustment especially after she understood the theories that supported the
instructional routines. Teacher A felt that the practice of theory application was a
“great experience”.
I tried the different suggestions and after understanding why I needed
to do them or why they were important, I implemented them in my
classroom. I saw the benefits of using them in my classroom and how
my children were able to benefit from applying the theories.
When comparing and contrasting IPD to traditional forms of professional
development, Teacher A explained that professional development was typically
provided based on what the school or principal determined was needed. “They do
not necessarily ask us our opinion of what we believe we need help in”. In contrast,
Teacher A felt that IPD specifically targeted her self-determined needs.
I made it specific to my needs. I was comfortable enough to let you
know what areas I needed help in. I was honest and I didn’t teach
areas that I knew I was really well on. I taught areas where I was
confused or where I wasn’t really sure, so you could give me your
feedback and help me become a better teacher. So IPD was different
because I chose what I needed help with and that’s what I got help in.
Teacher A felt that IPD had changed her teaching practices because it
“validated what I do and it also helped me to refocus”. Teacher A felt she had “been
able to implement a new way of teaching” because she had refocused her teaching
136
objectives to become aligned with the lesson’s objectives. Teacher A further
explained that teachers often get comfortable with a curriculum and therefore pay
less attention to the lesson objectives, and that reflecting with colleagues at the
conclusion of lessons, school years, and test scores, often influenced the cutting of
curriculum components:
So having this experience with IPD, I guess I realized that some of the
things I was leaving out, I should bring them back, and some of the
things that I have been doing you know, keep doing them, keep doing
them every day.
Teacher A also felt that IPD affected her students’ outcomes because her
students were able to better understand what their objectives were, what good readers
do while they read, and what makes them effective students as they became more
aware of their own learning. “Hopefully they’ll use the strategies that I’ve been
taught to teach them in their own learning throughout their lives.”
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet her needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher A responded that “the project in itself, I
thought was very beneficial”. Teacher A shared that she found the process of first
rating their needs, and then being observed in their classrooms was “very helpful and
enlightening because you were able to see, you were able to observe, what exactly
we needed help in, and then you gave use feedback on how well we did, and how
well we met the objectives”. Teacher A further shared that it wasn’t until after the
first debriefing session that she realized her teaching goals were not in alignment to
those of the curriculum. “I had a goal in mind, but it wasn’t necessarily the same
137
goals the TE had. Until you pointed that out, it then made sense to me.” Teacher A
again stressed that the debriefing session were the biggest influence on her learning
because she was able to “stop”, “think”, “reflect”, and “evaluate” her instructional
delivery. Teacher A also felt that the reflection sheets, peer demonstrations, and
observations were all critical components of IPD and suggested that each of the steps
used, remain part of the IPD process.
Teacher A concluded that initially she wasn’t sure if participating in IPD was
a “good idea” as she asked herself “oh, no, what did I get myself into?” Teacher A
was concerned about being observed “but I decided to do it because I wanted
feedback on my own teaching…my goal is for my students to be successful, so I saw
it as an opportunity for me to learn to improve.”
Summary
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher A’s OCR
Needs Assessment, the field notes taken by the researcher during the pre and post
Teacher Observations, Teacher A’s Demonstration and Observation Reflection
Sheets, and in the responses to the concluding interview, that Teacher A was able to
quickly transfer theory into practice as she demonstrated new additions to her
teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the changes documented by Teacher A on her OCR Needs
Assessment, Teacher A’s theoretical understanding and implementation practices of
OCR doubled after participating in IPD. After receiving Individualized Learning
138
Activity support, Teacher A self-assessed a remaining need for theoretical and
implementation support with 5.26% of the routines found in her cumulative language
arts program. Post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher A
noted that her theoretical and implementation knowledge of four routines increased
as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach group to the Challenge group a total
of four times. Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher A’s theoretical and implementation knowledge.
Over the course of IPD, Teacher A demonstrated her ability to quickly
transfer theory into practice even before being provided with Individualized
Learning Activity support. During the initial debriefing session, Teacher A was
provided with suggestions for classroom and behavioral management. During the
second baseline observation, the teacher incorporated those suggestions and later
shared that the suggestions had positively impacted her students’ behavior providing
increased instructional time. Also during the initial debriefing session, Teacher A
was provided with suggestions on why and how to promote student application of
visualization. During the second baseline observation, Teacher A was observed
supporting her students’ use of this comprehension strategy. Additionally, during the
initial debriefing session, Teacher A shared that she had applied suggestions given to
her by the researcher, who had participated as the school’s professional development
provider the previous year, on the application of the Selection Vocabulary routine.
Teacher A ultimately became the expert teacher for this routine, as Teacher A found
the strategies to be effective as evidenced by her students’ ability to discuss and
139
apply them. In essence, these circumstances demonstrated both short and long term
application of teacher transfer.
Teacher A did not list the theoretical rationales of the routines she was
provided support for on her Demonstration Reflection Sheets. However, it was
apparent during the concluding Teacher Observation and was documented on her
OCR Needs Assessment, that Teacher A did understand the theoretical rationales of
these routines.
It was interesting for the researcher to note that Teacher A no longer stressed
areas of concern in her concluding Observation Reflection Sheets and while
debriefing with the researcher during the concluding Teacher Observation. This
informed the researcher that Teacher A demonstrated an increase in her theoretical
and implementation knowledge. This observation included the fact that Teacher A
no longer stressed pacing as being an issue.
The final conclusion drawn by the researcher was that Teacher A’s ability to
engage in self-reflection increased as she was better able to determine her learning
needs on her concluding OCR Needs Assessment. Teacher A also demonstrated her
belief in the importance and power of self-reflection as she asked her students to
engage in a debriefing session at the conclusion of a newly taught routine. However,
it was apparent to the researcher that Teacher A required additional practice and
support in the process of establishing learning goals – for both herself and her
students. As previously noted, Teacher A felt she met her previously established
learning goals but the researcher had to point out to her that they were not in
140
alignment to the curriculum’s established learning goals. Further, Teacher A only
pre-established learning goals for the students and did not establish learning goals
that focused on her professional growth.
During the concluding interview, it was apparent that Teacher A felt that the
reflection sheets, peer demonstrations, and observations were all critical components
of IPD and suggested that each of the steps used, remain part of the IPD process.
However, Teacher A stressed that she mostly appreciated the debriefing sessions that
occurred after being observed because she received personalized feedback. Teacher
A also shared that she appreciated IPD because she was able to structure the process
so that it met her needs rather than having professional development provided based
on administrative decisions.
Case Two: Teacher B
Introduction of Teacher B
Teacher B was a mother of four and was the most senior teacher of the group
being that she had taught a total of 18 years. Teacher B taught both third and fifth
grade for one year and had just recently transferred back into a traditional fourth
grade classroom after teaching vocal and instrumental elementary music for 16
years. Teacher B felt that she was respected by her peers but that she was often
viewed as being someone “new on the block that needed to be assisted.” Teacher B
was the fourth grade representative on the Instructional Leadership Team and
141
therefore decided to participate in this research in order to “learn the Open Court
teaching strategies”.
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
Teacher B – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowledge of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order
to determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation
in IPD.
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher B responded to 19 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 19 of the 24 routines
were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher B responded that she
effectively implemented nine of the instructional routines which placed Teacher B in
the Challenge group nine times. This equated to Teacher B feeling 47.37% fully
competent in her overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
10 of the instructional routines, or 52.63% of her language arts program, Teacher B
noted that she desired theoretical or implementation support which placed her in the
Reteach group a total of 10 times. Teacher B did not note any instructional routines
as needing both theoretical and implementation support (Table 17).
142
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher B again responded to
19 of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines as she determined that 19 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher B responded that she
effectively implemented 17 of the instructional routines placing her in the Challenge
group 17 times. This equated to Teacher B feeling 89.47% fully competent in her
overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language arts program after
being provided with Individualized Learning Activities support. For one
instructional routine, or 5.26% of her language arts program, Teacher B noted that
she still desired theoretical or implementation support which placed Teacher B in the
Reteach group one time. For one instructional routine, or 5.26% of her language arts
program, Teacher B noted that she still desired theoretical and implementation
support which placed Teacher B in the Intervention group one time (Table 17).
As Table 17 illustrates, Teacher B’s self-placement in the Challenge group
almost doubled from nine to 17 – depicting an overall 88.89% increase in her
theoretical and implementation knowledge of her language arts program post
participation in IPD. Teacher B’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from 10
to 1 – depicting a 90% drop in the routines in which Teacher B felt she needed
additional theoretical or implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher
B’s placement in the Intervention group increased from zero to one – demonstrating
that Teacher B desired additional theoretical and implementation support with one of
the routines found in her language arts program after participating in IPD (Table 17).
143
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher B’s self-assessed overall
theoretical understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines
found in her language arts program after participating in IPD.
Table 17
Teacher B – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 9 47.37% 17 89.47% 88.89%
Reteach 10 52.63% 1 5.26% -90%
Intervention 0 0 1 5.26% 100%
144
Table 18 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher B from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher B was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
Table 18
Teacher B – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
As Table 18 illustrates, Teacher B placed herself in two Challenge groups
and five Reteach groups prior to being provided Individualized Learning Activities
support. Post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher B
noted that her theoretical and implementation knowledge of five routines increased
145
as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach group to the Challenge group a total
of five times.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher B’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that Teacher B’s overall program knowledge almost doubled and that the
Individualized Learning Activities supported Teacher B’s theoretical and
implementation knowledge of five specific routines found in her language arts
program. Additionally, the inclusion of Teacher B’s placement in the Intervention
group on the concluding OCR Needs Assessment and not on the baseline OCR
Needs Assessment was considered by the researcher as an increase in Teacher B’s
ability to engage in self reflection in order to better determine her learning needs.
This conclusion was determined by the researcher because that particular routine was
not at all addressed during the IPD process.
Teacher B – Teacher Observations
Field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations, revealed
that Teacher B was placed in a Challenge group three times, a Reteach group five
times, and an Intervention group three times as a total of 11 routines were observed.
Of those 11 routines, seven were applicable to the nine routines chosen for
professional development support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for professional development support, Teacher B
was placed in the Challenge group one time due to her demonstrated ability to
146
effectively implement the routine and to hold discussions that demonstrated her
theoretical understandings. Teacher B became the expert teacher for her peers of this
Writers’ Notebooks routine. For the remaining six routines in which Teacher B was
placed in either the Reteach and/or Intervention groups, Teacher B participated in the
Individualized Learning Activities (Table 19).
Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings because it was apparent by her instructional delivery that she did not
theoretically understand the objectives of the routine. Teacher B had the students
complete a Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart as a means for reviewing a story
rather than as an opportunity for students to preview and continuously monitor their
reading of the story selection. Additionally, the students corrected Teacher B when
she attempted to document the “problems” occurring in the story rather than
documenting the “Problems” the students encountered before, during, and after
reading the text – as designed by the program’s routine.
Teacher B was also placed in the Reteach group for Workshop. During
Workshop, students worked independently while the teacher pulled two large groups
of students (half of the class at a time) to have each group read further along in their
anthology. The researcher recognized that differentiated instruction intended to meet
the individual needs of students did not occur. It was additionally noted that the
teacher assigned the students not working directly with her with the task of copying
down the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart. This task did not meet the
objective of reinforcing or extending student learning of the concepts or standards
147
being taught in the program – as suggested by OCR. These examples caused the
researcher to conclude that theoretical support was needed.
The third time Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group was for the Sound
Spelling Card component of OCR. While conducting the Word Knowledge routine,
it was evident that she and her students frequently and correctly conducted word
analysis. However, Teacher B used incorrect terminology when referencing the
Sound/Spelling Cards and demonstrated a lack of phonetic knowledge needed for
correctly implementing them, thus, Teacher B illustrated a need for implementation
support.
Teacher B was placed in the Intervention group for the Comprehension
Strategies routine. While being observed, the teacher read the story and had the
students echo read after her rather than having the students choral read. There was
no reference to or discussion of any of the comprehension strategies. The teacher
had the students discuss in pairs what they were reading and then had them answer
questions in their journals in order to monitor their comprehension. As with Teacher
A, it was apparent that Teacher B had a difficult time distinguishing between
teaching and assessing comprehension, thus, Teacher B illustrated a need for both
theoretical and implementation support.
Teacher B was also placed in the Intervention groups for the Handing Off and
Selection Vocabulary routines. Teacher B was placed in the Intervention group
because she did not attempt to implement them when prompted by the program, thus,
illustrating a need for both theoretical and implementation support.
148
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
Teacher B fully capitalized on the opportunity to professionally grow. While sharing
a copy of one of her student’s Writer’s Notebook she was able to generate a new
objective or purpose for their inclusion that she had not previously recognized.
Teacher B realized that the fourth and fifth grade teachers in the group were
preparing their students for middle school by teaching them to independently
organize their learning materials.
During the Individualized Learning Activities for the Selection Vocabulary
routine, Teacher B shared that she had seen a teacher conduct the routine on a video.
Teacher B felt that the video portrayed a “perfect teacher and perfect class of
students” but that the video did not help her prepare to teach the routine. Teacher B
felt that after the explicit instruction provided by the demonstration teacher that she
would no longer struggle with this routine. Teacher B also shared that she
appreciated working with teachers who taught primary grade levels because the
explicitness of their demonstration lessons provided support not only for the students
being taught but made the routine clearer for her as a teacher-learner. Additionally,
Teacher B felt that the demonstrated instruction provided by the primary teachers
would also be beneficial to her when working with her struggling students. Based on
these observations, the researcher determined that Teacher B learned a great deal
about how to implement the Selection Vocabulary routine and why it was
incorporated into the language arts program.
149
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher B had been
provided Individualized Learning Activities support with six routines. Field notes
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher A was placed in a
Challenge group two times and a Reteach group four times – as a total of six routines
were observed (Table 19).
Teacher B was placed in the Challenge group for the Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings routine. Teacher B was observed asking the students to generate
“Clues” about the story while browsing the selection. The teacher documented the
page numbers where particular “Clues” were found and posted the names of the
students who made the contributions. The teacher also had the students work in pairs
to generate additional “Clues”. Additionally, the teacher had students predetermine
what “Problems” they might encounter while reading the story and what
“Wonderings” they had about potential story occurrences. As the routine unfolded,
more student participation was observed. It was also observed by the researcher that
the teacher referenced and added to the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart
while the class engaged in reading the story selection. While debriefing, the issue of
pacing was discussed. The researcher shared with the teacher that she could model
writing short-hand notes rather than writing student contributions in complete
sentences. It was also discussed that all three columns could and should be done
simultaneously rather than isolating one column at a time. It was mutually agreed to
by both the researcher and the teacher that with these two suggestions, along with
practice of and comfort with the routine, that the pacing of the instruction would
150
ultimately increase. Based on these observations and the conversation that transpired
during the debriefing session, the researcher determined that Teacher B theoretically
understood why the routine was taught and also understood how the routine should
be implemented. Therefore, Teacher B was placed in the Challenge group.
Teacher B was placed in the Challenge group for the Selection Vocabulary
routine. Teacher B was observed using the provided program transparency and
Routine Card to assist her in implementing the routine. Teacher B introduced to the
students what the vocabulary strategies were, and how and why they were used. As
the students used context clues to help them determine the meaning of a word, the
teacher wrote down the clues in order to assist the students in generating their own
definition. At the conclusion of the vocabulary strategy application, it was apparent
to the researcher that the students were able to understand the meaning of the word.
Even though Teacher B did not complete all of the words found in the lesson, it was
mutually agreed to by both the researcher and the teacher that the instructional
pacing would increase as the teacher and students became comfortable with the
implementation of the routine. During the debriefing session, it was discussed that
due to time constraints in the research process, the teacher had little to no time to
practice the routine after being provided Individualized Learning Activity support.
Based on these constraints, the teacher felt that she was still processing her new
knowledge as she implemented the routine. Teacher B ultimately shared that she
understood how to teach the routine but felt she needed additional unassisted
practice. Based on these observations and the conversation that took place during
151
the debriefing session, the researcher concluded that Teacher B theoretically
understood the routine and effectively implemented the routine even though
additional practice was needed in order to maintain a quicker pace. However, since
the teacher felt that practice was needed and not necessarily additional assistance, it
was ultimately determined that Teacher B would be placed in the Challenge group.
Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for the Sound/Spelling Cards.
During an initial observation of the Sound/Spelling Cards, Teacher B was observed
correctly conducting word analysis but observed frequently using incorrect
terminology when referencing the cards and lacking phonetic knowledge necessary
for their correct implementation. These observations initially placed teacher B in the
Reteach group. While conducting the concluding observations, Teacher B supported
her students as they encoded a challenging word. Teacher B had the students stress
long e and soft c spellings by blending the word but did not have the students
reference the Sound/Spelling Cards when stressing the spellings. This observation
caused the researcher to conclude that Teacher B theoretically understood how and
why the Sound/Spelling Cards were to be used but the researcher determined that
Teacher B required additional support with their implementation.
Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for the Comprehension Strategies
routine. During an initial observation of the Comprehension Strategies routine,
Teacher B was observed reading the story to the students rather than having them
choral read, and there was no reference to, or discussion of, any comprehension
strategies. These observations placed Teacher B in the Intervention group as she was
152
observed as having a difficult time distinguishing between teaching and assessing
comprehension. During the concluding observation, Teacher B did not initially
introduce the strategies being used and did not provide explicit instruction of the
strategies while reading the text. It was observed by the researcher that Teacher B
had the students choral read and stop at each of the provided prompts in order to
apply a comprehension strategy. However, as the teacher modeled the strategy
application, she did not explain to the students what she was doing, nor did she have
the students practice their own application of the strategy. These observations
caused the researcher to conclude that Teacher B theoretically understood the routine
but that additional support was needed for routine implementation. This observation
was also solidified during the debriefing session that occurred after she completed
the lesson. During this time, the teacher concurred that she understood how to teach
the routine but that additional practice was needed. Based on these observations, the
researcher placed her in the Reteach group.
Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for the Handing Off routine.
During an initial observation, Teacher B was placed in the Intervention group for the
Handing Off routine because she did not attempt to implement the routine when
prompted by the program, thus, illustrating a need for both theoretical and
implementation support. During the concluding observation, Teacher B was
observed conducting the Handing Off routine when prompted by the program.
During this routine, the researcher observed the students Hand-Off well and
observed many students contribute to the teacher-facilitated conversation. However,
153
the researcher observed that rules were not pre-established, and that the procedure
and overall expectations were not at all explained to the students. These
observations caused the researcher to conclude that Teacher B theoretically
understood the purpose of the routine but needed additional support with its
implementation.
Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for Workshop. During an initial
observation, Teacher B was placed in the Reteach group for Workshop because
differentiated instruction intended to meet the individual needs of students did not
occur, and because the tasks assigned to students working independently did not
meet the objective of reinforcing or extending student learning of concepts or
standards being taught in the program. These examples caused the researcher to
conclude that theoretical support was needed. During the concluding observation,
Teacher B was observed conducting Workshop. The researcher observed that
Teacher B assigned activities that connected to the objectives being taught in the
program but that the activities assigned were not considered appropriate by the
researcher. For example, the teacher had the students write their spelling words five
times each and copy the Clues, Problem, and Wonderings chart previously
completed during whole group instruction. During the debriefing session, Teacher B
shared that she intended to establish a Listening Area and a Games Area where word
search games would be provided for students to complete. Teacher B also shared
that she understood that the primary objective was for her to pull students in order to
target their specific needs. These observations caused the researcher to conclude that
154
Teacher B now theoretically understood why Workshop was a program component,
but that Teacher B needed additional support in assigning appropriate “Menu” and
small group instruction activities, thus, placing her in the Reteach group. In
hindsight, it was recognized by the researcher that Teacher B should initially have
been placed in the Intervention group rather than the Reteach group in order for
Teacher B to receive implementation support in addition to the theoretical support
she received during the Individualized Learning Activities.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities that
Teacher B struggled with transferring theory into practice. Despite the documented
and significant growth observed for each of the instructional routines, the researcher
concluded that Teacher B would have benefitted from additional and on-going
support to successfully implement her new theoretical understandings. The steady
increments of theoretical knowledge and struggles with implementation were also
reflected in the discussions that occurred during the debriefing sessions, the
reflection sheets completed by Teacher B, and in the answers she provided during
the concluding interview.
155
Table 19
Teacher B – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X
Selection
Vocabulary
X X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
Teacher B – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher B occurred four times.
For the instructional routine, Selection Vocabulary, Teacher B placed herself
in the Challenge group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention group.
After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to define unknown words within
text, it was determined that Teacher B would ultimately be placed in the Reteach
group (Table 20).
156
For the instructional routine, Comprehension Strategies, Teacher B placed
herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention
group. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to comprehend text, it
was determined that Teacher B would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group
(Table 20).
For the instructional routine, Handing Off, Teacher B placed herself in the
Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention group. However,
during a debriefing session the teacher shared that she theoretically understood the
routine but desired support in its implementation. It was therefore mutually
determined that Teacher B would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group (Table
20).
For the instructional routine, Word Analysis, Teacher B placed herself in the
Challenge group while the researcher placed her in the Reteach group. After
reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to analyze words, it was determined
that Teacher B would ultimately be placed in the Challenge group (Table 20).
Table 20
Teacher B – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 2 1
Reteach 2 1 3
Intervention 3
157
Teacher B – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
Observation and Demonstration Reflections Sheets were also used by the
researcher to determine the theoretical and implementation growth of the teacher-
learners. Observation Reflection Sheets were completed by the participants before
and after being provided with Individualized Learning Activities during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations. The Demonstration Reflection Sheets were
completed by the participants while being provided with support during the
Individualized Learning Activities.
It was interesting to note that the baseline Observation Reflection Sheets
completed by Teacher B mentioned that the instructional routine Word Knowledge
was difficult for both her and her students. Teacher B noted that she was having
difficulties “pulling” information from her students but that many of them
“recognized the spelling patterns and meanings of the words quickly”. This finding
was interesting because the teacher had placed herself in the Challenge group on her
baseline OCR Needs Assessment and the researcher had placed Teacher B in the
Challenge group upon conducting classroom observations.
Pacing was a second issue that Teacher B emphasized. Teacher B felt that
“Word Knowledge seemed way too long!” and that “Maybe it is just too long for
them to sit still!”
The third theme that emerged from her reflection sheets was behavioral
management issues. Besides noting that the students had a difficult time sitting still,
the teacher also noted that some students were distracted with objects in their desks.
158
However, Teacher B determined that she was able to regain their attention by
engaging them in the competition of winning table points for group responses.
The fourth theme that emerged on the baseline Observation Reflection Sheets
focused on Teacher B’s theoretical and implementation concerns with the
instructional routine, Clues, Problems, and Wonderings. As the teacher noted, “I
was not completely comfortable using the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart. I
need to understand it better. I think it is a KWL chart!” Teacher B then mentioned
that in the future she would “think through possible responses from the students to be
able to respond and direct the flow of the lesson”.
Finally, it was interesting for the researcher to note that on both of the
baseline Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher B only established learning goals
for the students and not for herself. This was also reflected in her analysis of the
extent to which her goals were met.
While being provided with IPD for six instructional routines, Teacher B
completed six Demonstration Reflection Sheets and attached additional pages of
notes to each. For the first demonstration lesson she participated in, Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings, Teacher B pre-established the following goals: “to
observe the proper way to teach Clues, Problems, and Wonderings”, and to learn
how to teach the routine “fluently”, “timely”, and “efficiently”. Teacher B then drew
a replicated copy of the chart completed during the demonstrated lesson, and
concluded that after seeing the routine taught “well” that she would be able to
“correctly” conduct the lesson in her classroom. These observations caused the
159
researcher to conclude, that like Teacher A, Teacher B was more attentive to the
implementation procedure rather than the theoretical rationales supporting the
routine. Many of the words Teacher B used in her reflections informed the
researcher that she began participating in the Individualized Learning Activities with
the belief that there were only two ways to teach the routines – correctly and
incorrectly. However, during the debriefing session for this routine, it seemed that
Teacher B recognized that various degrees of instantiation occurred during the
instructional delivery of the routine. This observation was ratified by the researcher
when Teacher B noted on her reflection sheet that she would initially use the chart as
it was demonstrated, but would later provide students with their own blank copy to
independently use as suggested by one of her peers.
Teacher B’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the Comprehension
Strategies routine showed that she had pre-established the goal of learning how to
“demonstrate”, “model”, and “teach” her students how to read and understand what
they are reading. Teacher B again wrote the procedure used by the demonstrating
teacher during the lesson. While then reflecting on her own instruction, Teacher B
noted, “I ask questions, monitor, clarify, and summarize, but I don’t clearly define
these strategies”. This reflection caused the researcher to conclude that additional
implementation support was needed because it was evident that Teacher B
understood why comprehension strategies were used by good readers but her notes
only reflected on her implementation of the strategies rather than being concerned
with transferring the responsibility of strategy usage to her students. Teacher B
160
concluded that she would “focus on only one or two strategies at a time” and would
“clearly explain what we are doing so my students will understand what they are
doing!” Based on these notes, the researcher determined that Teacher B was again
more focused on how to implement the routine rather than on why it should be
implemented. Additionally, based on Teacher B’s concluding thoughts and goals,
the researcher determined that this same thought pattern might be reflected in
Teacher B’s future instruction. The researcher wondered if Teacher B would clearly
explain what comprehension strategies the class was applying, but neglect to also
include why the strategies were being applied. Based on these noted observations,
the researcher concluded that Teacher B needed additional theoretical and
implementation support.
The third routine Teacher B was provided Individualized Learning Activities
support for was Handing Off. Her pre-established goal was to “have a full
understanding of how to use Handing Off to engage students in a discussion”.
Teacher B again took some notes on how the routine was introduced to the class and
then reflected that she had not implemented the routine in a similar manner and had
instead provided her students with “a limited amount of time to have peer
discussions”. Teacher B concluded that she had “100% improvement!” and would
now be able to incorporate this routine. Teacher B did note that she would like to
see more of Handing Off but it was difficult for the researcher to determine if that
was written before or after the in-class demonstration and/or before or after the
debriefing session in which the researcher provided a video-clip of Handing Off.
161
Based on these noted observations, the researcher again concluded that Teacher B
understood how the routine was implemented but may not have grasped the routine’s
primary purpose and/or objectives.
Teacher B was also provided Individualized Learning Activity support for the
routine Selection Vocabulary. Teacher B wished to “learn to use teaching strategies
to teach vocabulary”. Teacher B then wrote explicit notes on how the expert teacher
taught the routine. While reflecting on her own classroom instruction, Teacher B
noted that she introduced the words, talked about their meanings, and had the
students look up the words in the glossary, but that she did not stress vocabulary
strategies. At the conclusion of her reflection sheet, Teacher B determined that she
would have the students “find the meanings of words by asking them to identify the
strategy they used”. The researcher determined that Teacher B had a major
theoretical shift while observing and reflecting on the demonstrated lesson. It was
apparent to the researcher that the teacher planned to move her instruction from
supplying word meanings to the students, to having the students use vocabulary
strategies to determine their own meanings of words. Based on this theoretical shift,
and the detailed notes taken on how the routine was implemented, the researcher did
not feel that any additional theoretical and/or implementation support would be
needed.
The fifth routine Teacher B was provided support for was Workshop.
Teacher B had hoped to observe how the expert teacher managed his classroom so
that he was able to work with targeted students. Teacher B concluded that she
162
observed many useful strategies which included pre-established rules, a “Menu” of
activities that students were to independently complete while the teacher worked
with small groups, and a debriefing session in which students self-assessed their own
learning and behavior. Even though it was obvious, based on her pre-established
goal, that Teacher B theoretically understood that Workshop was a time to work with
“targeted students”, no additional notes were taken as to why this routine was
endorsed by the program or on how to target students in order to meet their needs.
Based on this lack of inclusions, the researcher concluded that Teacher B may need
additional theoretical and implementation support.
The final routine Teacher B was provided support for was Sound/Spelling
Cards. Teacher B pre-determined that she wanted to become familiar with the
Sound/Spelling Cards and to learn how to teach the sounds, letters, and spellings.
While reflecting on her own classroom instruction, Teacher B determined that she
did not “sound out words this clearly and specifically”. Teacher B concluded that
she would use the Sound/Spelling Cards “quickly but regularly”. Based on these
noted reflections, the researcher concluded that Teacher B theoretically understood
that Sound/Spelling Cards were used to decode words, but did not recognize that
they were also used for encoding purposes. It was not apparent to the researcher that
Teacher B understood how to use them to instructionally support her students with
either decoding or encoding, so the researcher determined that additional theoretical
and/or implementation support may be needed.
163
After being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher
B participated in concluding Teacher Observations. During the concluding
observations, Teacher B again completed Observation Reflection Sheets.
Notes taken by Teacher B on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
focused on establishing self-learning goals. “My goal for this experience is to use
the strategies I observed during the demonstration lesson. I plan to work towards
becoming fluent in my presentation and teaching by using these strategies.” Despite
the fact that Teacher B did not explicitly define specific learning goals for herself,
the researcher recognized that Teacher B had theoretically shifted her pre-established
learning goals from being focused on student behaviors to focusing on her own
professional growth.
Notes taken by Teacher B on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Selection Vocabulary routine determined that she felt that the instructional
pacing moved slowly because she had not been “following the OCR strategies before
today”, but that her introduction of the vocabulary strategies “went well”. Teacher B
also reflected that her “students were able to apply context clues to discover the
meaning of the word, fatal”. Based on these reflections, the researcher determined
that Teacher B was able to reflect on how the instruction occurred. Teacher B was
able to recognize that her instructional pacing needed improvement and she was also
able to ultimately determine that the lesson was successful in supporting her
students’ learning. Due to the success in Teacher B’s ability to self-reflect, as well
as, support her students’ application of the vocabulary strategies, the researcher
164
concluded that Teacher B theoretically understood the purpose of the Selection
Vocabulary routine and concurred that she was able to successfully implement her
instruction.
Notes taken by Teacher B on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings routine concluded that Teacher B felt this
lesson component “also went well” and that she was convinced that she would be
able to increase the pacing of this routine in the future. Teacher B also noted
suggestions given to her by the researcher and determined that she would not isolate
each column of the chart in the future, but would rather allow her students to provide
“Clues”, “Problems”, and “Wonderings” simultaneously. Based on these
observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher B’s reflections did not fully
capitalize on her theoretical knowledge but did demonstrate her ability to implement
the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings routine as Teacher B reflected on her previous
instruction, and generated future goals for herself.
Notes taken by Teacher B on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Comprehension Strategies routine concluded that Teacher B was primarily
concerned with the pacing of the lesson. Teacher B noted that she thought the
routine went “pretty well” but that she ran out of time and did not complete the
lesson. Teacher B concluded that her instructional pacing would improve as she
became more fluid with the routine. Because there were no reflections on the
purpose for this routine or reflections on how the routine was delivered, or could
165
have been taught, the researcher determined that Teacher B may have benefitted
from additional theoretical and implementation support.
Notes taken by Teacher B on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Handing Off routine demonstrated Teacher B’s theoretical and
implementation knowledge. While concluding on the outcomes of this routine,
Teacher B determined that her students were able to take ownership of the story
discussion while applying their knowledge about the text. The researcher therefore
concluded that Teacher B theoretically understood some of the routines’ objectives,
and was able to demonstrate her knowledge of the routine’s procedure.
Teacher B did not reflect on her implementation of Workshop or her usage of
the Sound/Spelling Cards. But, Teacher B concluded her reflection sheet by noting,
“I believe I demonstrated to the best of my ability how well I was able to process the
strategies which were demonstrated last week. I’m sure these will improve with
practice”.
Based on the overall reflections contributed by Teacher B, one could
conclude from her self-documented growth, pre and post participation in the
Individualized Learning Activities that Teacher B was able to transfer some level of
theory into practice and was also able to increase her ability to self-reflect. On the
concluding Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher B no longer reflected on routines
that were “challenging” or “uncomfortable” to her as she had noted on the initial
Observation Reflection Sheets, rather, Teacher B stressed that pacing was her
primary concern which she concluded would ultimately subside with additional
166
practice. Behavioral and classroom management issues were no longer addressed in
the concluding Observation Reflection Sheets. Additionally, Teacher B shifted her
perspective while engaging in the reflection process by establishing learning goals
that focused on her professional growth rather than on only establishing learning
goals for her students.
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher B involved a semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher B to discuss the
most useful learning activity she was involved in while participating in IPD.
Teacher B shared that the debriefing discussions and the opportunities to observe
other teachers were the most beneficial components of IPD because “seeing the
strategies taught effectively by teachers who were well-practiced at it was very
useful to me”.
Teacher B was then asked to evaluate how her understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher B shared that for a few routines, she
initially “had no idea of how to do them whatsoever” and that other routines were
“flawed”, “choppy”, and “more time consuming than they should have been”.
Teacher B felt that after receiving feedback from the researcher, and then seeing the
167
routine demonstrated by an expert teacher, she was able to practice and improve her
routine implementation.
When asked if she agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002), that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teacher’s knowledge to
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teach B “absolutely agreed”. Teacher B
shared that with just a few attempts at implementing her new knowledge she had
seen major improvements but thought that “as long as I continue to be aware and
reflect to see if I’m missing any components” she would improve her instructional
delivery.
When asked to compare and contrast IPD to traditional forms of professional
development, Teacher B explained that during their district trainings, they were
congregated with groups of teachers from all grade levels.
However the levels are so varied. The needs for the different grade
levels, and even among the grade levels at the different schools, are so
varied, that personally, I found that it’s been difficult to draw from
those trainings the actual strategies, techniques, ideas, and
information that I need.
Teacher B shared that this professional development format was “somewhat
frustrating”. Teacher B shared that she tried to take notes but by being removed
from her classroom and students, she had a difficult time targeting the useful
components to then implement those into her own classroom. She found the format
of this type of professional development to be “disjointed” and shared that
“…application was where it broke down for me”. In contrast, Teacher B felt that the
“personal consultations” of IPD provided personalized feedback and opportunities
168
for her to ask questions and observe demonstrated lessons prior to applying the
theories into her own classroom. Teacher B felt that after engaging in this process,
the application of the theories into her own classroom “made sense and worked”.
Additionally, Teacher B thought that in contrast to the district trainings, working
with various grade levels during IPD was “useful”. While at district trainings
Teacher B would have preferred to discuss “specific concepts, ideas, and
expectancies for my grade level” but that working with various grade levels during
IPD allowed her the opportunity to see how OCR was conducted in the primary
grades. With this insight, Teacher B shared that she was better able to understand
the foundation that had been laid for her students and understood how to apply
similar instruction for her students that need additional learning support. Prior to the
interview, Teacher B also shared with the researcher that working with the primary
teachers was beneficial for her as a teacher-learner because she was able to observe
the primary teachers explicitly teach routines to their students – this explicitness
helped her to better understand how and why the routine was taught.
Teacher B felt that IPD had changed her teaching practices. Teacher B
shared that she had been through OCR training but that since she had been teaching
music classes, she was “very rusty at best”. The process of IPD supported Teacher B
in realizing that she was “guiding” her students’ reading and “doing the work for
them” rather than teaching them how to read:
169
This process has helped me to become a better teacher – to move and
keep my pacing going to allow my students to learn more, and be
more stimulated and not to go into their tuning out state of boredom –
which many students will do when they’ve just had to wait too long
for something.
Teacher B also thought that her new teaching practices had affected her
students’ outcomes because her students were better able to retain the meanings of
words:
…instead of me just telling them [the meaning of the word], and
having them repeat it back to me and forgetting it later, now they are
actually having to discover it on their own. They’re taking ownership
of it. So, in theory, having the students discover the information is
much better than having me present it and try to have them memorize
it and it works. I’ve seen it even in the last two days improve their
ability to remember what the words mean.
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet her needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher B responded that she would have preferred “a
different timeframe – say earlier in the year. All these things that I’m just now
putting into affect in January how much better would my students have done if I had
put them back into affect say in September or October?”
Teacher B concluded that initially she was “not all that eager” to participate
in IPD. “…it’s not comfortable to admit to people that I really don’t know how to do
this or that when it’s something that everyone around you seems to understand”.
Based on Teacher B’s concluding response, IPD supported her in the process of self-
reflection and provided her with an in-house resource in order to meet her specific
needs:
170
I found that just having another person in the room, another person to
reflect on what I was doing, what the students were doing, and what
we both needed was extremely helpful. Instead of me going to an
outside source that doesn’t have any idea of what I’m doing, you saw
exactly what I’m doing. You were able to able to offer useful and
helpful feedback that was specific to my needs.
Summary
Over the course of IPD, Teacher B demonstrated her willingness and ability
to learn. It had been 16 years since Teacher B had been in a traditional classroom, so
Teacher B was “uncomfortable”, yet eager to brush up on her ability to deliver
content knowledge in the area of language arts. One could conclude from the
documented growth on Teacher B’s OCR Needs Assessment, the field notes taken by
the researcher during the pre and post Teacher Observations, Teacher B’s
Demonstration and Reflection Sheets, and in Teacher B’s responses during the
concluding interview, that Teacher B was able to transfer some theories into practice
as she demonstrated new additions to her teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the changes documented by Teacher B on her OCR Needs
Assessment, Teacher B’s theoretical understanding and implementation practices of
OCR nearly doubled after participating in IPD. After receiving Individualized
Learning Activity support, Teacher B self-assessed a remaining need for theoretical
and/or implementation support with 10.52% of the routines found in her cumulative
language arts program. Post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities,
Teacher B noted that her theoretical and implementation knowledge of five routines
increased as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach group to the Challenge
171
group a total of five times. Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD
successfully supported Teacher B’s theoretical and implementation knowledge.
Most of the Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets completed by
Teacher B, as well as, the field notes completed by the researcher during the Teacher
Observations, recognized Teacher B’s emphasis on routine implementation rather
than theoretical rationales. As previously mentioned, Teacher B stressed that there
was a right vs. wrong way to implement the routines early on in the process. This
theme seemed to transpose over most of the IPD process as her energy was devoted
to understanding the “right” way to implement the routines rather than on trying to
understand their purpose. By not understanding the overall objectives of the
routines, it was evident that Teacher B often struggled with transferring theory into
practice, or delivering her instruction. In this case, the researcher felt that if Teacher
B better theoretically understood why a routine was being taught, she would have
had an easier time implementing the instruction without being overly concerned if
what she was doing was “right” or “wrong”. In this case, Teacher B seemed to feel
that there was only one mean, to one end, rather than, multiple means, to one end.
Most of the concluding Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher
B, as well as, the field notes completed by the researcher during the Teacher
Observations and debriefing sessions, illustrated that Teacher B required additional
assisted and unassisted practice with some of the routines after she received
Individualized Learning Activity support. As previously noted, the researcher
determined that Teacher B needed additional theoretical support in order to better
172
support her instructional implementation. Also, both the researcher and teacher felt
that with practice the pacing of her instructional delivery would increase. It was also
noted that due to the time constraints in the research process, Teacher B had little to
no time to practice the routines after being provided with Individualized Learning
Activity support, so Teacher B felt that she was still processing her new knowledge.
Teacher B was able to increase her ability to self-reflect. On the baseline
Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher B only pre-established learning goals for her
students. However, the researcher recognized that Teacher B shifted her pre-
established learning goals from being focused on student behaviors to being focused
on her professional growth on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet. Also,
notes taken on Teacher B’s concluding Observation Reflection Sheet illustrated her
ability to reflect on how the instruction occurred. Teacher B was able to recognize
that her instructional pacing needed improvement and she was also able to determine
that her lesson successfully supported her students’ learning.
During the concluding interview, it was apparent that Teacher B appreciated
the debriefing discussions and opportunities to observe her peers. Teacher B shared
that after receiving feedback from the researcher and then seeing the routines
demonstrated by her peers, she was able to improve her instructional delivery.
Teacher B found this personalization of IPD to be more effective in promoting her
teaching abilities than other professional development formats which typically
removed her from her classroom and students, and made her theoretical application
“disjointed”. Teacher B was initially hesitant to join IPD because she was forced to
173
“admit” her weaknesses in order receive appropriate support. However, based on the
professional growth Teacher B experienced while participating in IPD, she wished
she would have been provided the same support earlier in the school year.
Case Three: Teacher C
Introduction of Teacher C
Teacher C was very enthusiastic and excited to join this research project.
Since the researcher had previously been the school’s professional development
provider, a relationship built on mutual respect and professional learning had been
established during a time in which Teacher C faced professional challenges. Teacher
C expressed to the researcher that the last few years of teaching were difficult for her
as she had been teaching newcomers for a long time and “some took that as evidence
that I didn’t know what I was doing”. Teacher C felt that she was well liked by her
peers and continuously strived to achieve positive relationships with her colleagues.
Teacher C had been teaching for a total of 13 years and taught second grade
Sustained English Immersion (SEI) for two years. Prior to teaching second grade,
Teacher C taught a combined third through fifth grade newcomer class, and a
combined first and second grade bilingual class. Teacher C was the union site
representative. Teacher C had a passion for chess which she taught and played in
tournaments, and was a member of the United States Chess Federation.
Teacher C shared that she joined this research project because of the positive
experiences she previously had with the researcher and because she “wanted to learn
174
as much as she could about Open Court and anything else that might make my
teaching effective and benefit my students in the process.” However, Teacher C felt
there were two circumstances that might negatively affect her ability to fully
capitalize on the IPD experience. First, Teacher C was concerned because some of
the participants involved in the research project played roles in the professional
challenges she had faced. And second, Teacher C felt that “there are so many things
that get in the way of conducting Open Court in the way that we are supposed
to…cutting through our valuable reading time…and it’s challenging to do Open
Court as it was designed.”
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
Teacher C – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowledge of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order
to determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation
in IPD.
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher C responded to 21 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 21 of the 24 routines
were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher C responded that she
effectively implemented 10 of the instructional routines which placed Teacher C in
175
the Challenge group 10 times. This equated to Teacher C feeling 47.62% fully
competent in her overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
11 of the instructional routines, or 52.38% of her language arts program, Teacher C
noted that she desired theoretical or implementation support which placed her in the
Reteach group 11 times. Teacher C did not note any instructional routines as
needing both theoretical and implementation support (Table 21).
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher C again responded to
21 of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines as she determined that 21 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher C responded that she
effectively implemented 19 of the instructional routines placing her in the Challenge
group 19 times. This equated to Teacher C feeling 90.48% fully competent in her
overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language arts program after
being provided with IPD. For one instructional routine, or 4.76% of her language
arts program, Teacher C noted that she still desired theoretical or implementation
support placing her in the Reteach group one time. For one instructional routine, or
4.76% of her language arts program, Teacher C noted that she still desired theoretical
and implementation support placing her in the Intervention group one time (Table
21).
As Table 21 illustrates, Teacher C’s self-placement in the Challenge group
increased from 10 to 19 – depicting an overall 90% increase in her theoretical and
implementation knowledge of her language arts program after participating in IPD.
176
Teacher C’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from 11 to one – depicting a
90% drop in the routines in which Teacher C felt she needed either theoretical or
implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher C’s placement in the
Intervention group increased from zero to one – demonstrating that Teacher C
desired additional theoretical and implementation support with 4.76% of her
language arts program after participating in IPD.
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher C’s self-assessed overall
theoretical understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines
found in her language arts program after participating in IPD.
177
Table 21
Teacher C – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 10 47.62% 19 90.48% 90%
Reteach 11 52.38% 1 4.76% -90.91%
Intervention 0 0 1 4.76% 100%
Table 22 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher C from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher C was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
Table 22
Teacher C – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation X X
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
178
As Table 22 illustrates, Teacher C placed herself in three Challenge groups
and six Reteach groups prior to being provided Individualized Learning Activities
support. Post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher C
noted that her theoretical and implementation knowledge of six routines increased as
she re-categorized herself from the Reteach group to the Challenge group a total of
six times.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher C’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that her overall program knowledge almost doubled and that the
Individualized Learning Activities supported Teacher C’s theoretical and
implementation knowledge of six specific routines found in her language arts
program.
Teacher C – Teacher Observations
Field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations, revealed
that Teacher C was placed in a Challenge group seven times, a Reteach group five
times, and an Intervention group two times as a total of 14 routines were observed.
Of those 14 routines, nine were applicable to the nine routines chosen for
professional development support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for professional development support, Teacher C
was placed in the Challenge group four times due to her demonstrated ability to
effectively implement the routine and to hold discussions that demonstrated her
179
theoretical understandings. Teacher C became the expert teacher for her peers of the
Dictation routine. Of the remaining five routines, Teacher C was placed in the
Reteach group three times, and the Intervention group two times. For the five
routines in which Teacher C was placed in either the Reteach and/or Intervention
groups, Teacher C participated in the Individualized Learning Activities (Table 23).
Teacher C was placed in the Reteach group for the routine Decodable Books.
Although the students were able to successfully choral read the book and the teacher
reminded the students to read the book three more times at home for fluency
practice, the researcher recognized that the routine endorsed by OCR was not used
which implied that implementation support was needed. Additionally, it was noted
in the researcher’s field notes that the teacher distributed the incorrect book for the
lesson. When asked about this concern, the teacher informed the researcher that the
class was behind in the reading of their Decodable Books. Since the objectives, or
sound/spelling correspondences emphasized in the book being used differed from the
objectives or sound/spellings correspondences emphasized in the progressive, or
lesson scaffold, it was apparent that theoretical support was also needed.
Teacher C was placed in the Reteach group for Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings. Although the teacher had not necessarily followed the routine for
Clues, Problems, and Wonderings, she met most of the objectives in her
modifications. The primary objective that had not been met was following through
with the chart during and after reading. Teacher C only had the students generate a
180
Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart prior to reading. It was this misalignment
that cause theoretical and implementation concerns for the researcher.
Teacher C was also placed in the Reteach group for Writers’ Notebooks. It
was evident during our discussions that Teacher C theoretically understood why
Writers’ Notebooks were used but had not implemented them in her classroom.
There were two routines where Teacher C was placed in the Intervention
group – Comprehension Strategies and Handing Off. Teacher C was placed in the
Intervention group for both of these routines because of their lack of inclusion in her
lessons.
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
Teacher C capitalized on many different types of opportunities for both personal and
professional growth. It was observed by the researcher that Teacher C had her
classroom, teaching materials, and students all well prepared since many of the
demonstrated lessons were conducted in her classroom. Teacher C shared that she
was very appreciative that the researcher had chosen her classroom as the primary
destination site for the demonstrated lessons. Teacher C felt that this was “…a big
compliment because nothing like this has ever been done in my classroom”.
Additional field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities
documented that Teacher C was pleased with the learning that occurred by the
observing teacher, the compliments that were given to her on her explicit instruction,
and by the request for copies of her created instructional materials. By being the
181
expert teacher, it was apparent that Teacher C was able to demonstrate to her peer
that she can be an effective teacher despite any previous doubts.
While debriefing on the Individualized Learning Activity for the Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings routine, Teacher C shared her modifications of the
routine with the rest of the participants. These modifications promoted the transfer
of responsibility of the routine’s implementation from the teacher to the students.
This recommendation was given to her by an outside professional development
provider but the modifications themselves were considered appropriate by the
participants because they still met the overall objectives of the routine. This
discussion led the researcher to believe that the participants had increased their
theoretical understandings of the routine and demonstrated Teacher C’s ability to
transfer theory into practice.
While debriefing on the Individualized Learning Activity for the Handing Off
routine, Teacher C shared that she had been “way off mark” with her implementation
of the routine. Teacher C shared that while observing the demonstrated lesson, she
recognized that her students enjoyed the routine, that it solidified their
comprehension of the story, and that she thought it would be “doable”.
After being presented with multiple demonstrated lessons, Teacher C shared
with the researcher that she felt IPD was meeting her needs. Teacher C shared that
the initial trainings the staff received from OCR consultants were effective in
initially teaching her the program, but that the follow-up trainings conducted by
district personnel had become centered on listening to teacher complaints.
182
According to Teacher C, because of these complaints, much of the training sessions
had become dedicated to modifying the program. Therefore, Teacher C felt that the
structure of the focused Individualized Learning Activities was “bringing her back to
providing fidelity to the program”.
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher C had been
provided Individualized Learning Activity support with five routines. Field notes
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher C was placed in a
Challenge group three times and a Reteach group two times – as a total of five
routines were observed (Table 23).
Teacher C was placed in the Challenge group for the Decodable Books
routine. Teacher C was observed posting and reviewing the high frequency words
and she emphasized the sound/spelling correspondences used in the story prior to
reading the decodable book. The teacher then had the students browse the story in
order to make predictions. Teacher C then continued to follow the OCR routine as
she had the students read the first page silently, then had the students read the page
aloud. While choral reading, the teacher had the students find the high frequency
words and stressed spelling patterns. At the conclusion of the story, Teacher C had
the students summarize the story while using academic language. Based on these
observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher C understood how the routine
was intended to be implemented. It was also evident to the researcher that Teacher C
theoretically understood why the routine is taught based on the appropriate
183
extensions she applied while implementing the routine. Therefore, Teacher C was
placed in the Challenge group.
Teacher C was also placed in the Challenge group for the Clues, Problems,
and Wonderings routine. Since it was determined during the Individualized
Learning Activities that the modifications of Clues, Problems, and Wonderings that
Teacher C made were considered appropriate as they were in alignment with the
program’s objectives, and because Teacher C now understood that the chart is also
used while reading, it was mutually agreed that Teacher C would not again be
observed conducting this routine and that she would be placed in the Challenge
group.
Teacher C was also placed in the Challenge group for the Handing Off
routine. When Teacher C began Handing Off, she initiated a discussion that
emphasized the comprehension skill cause and effect. Teacher C began the
conversation with this emphasis because the story they had read stressed this
particular skill. However, the discussion then became teacher-led because the
concept of cause and effect was at the students’ instructional level. It was then
suggested by the researcher, who participated as the professional development
provider, that she stop and begin the routine again. Once the Handing Off routine
started a second time, with the teacher providing an alternative prompt, the students
shared appropriate thoughts and questions regarding the story’s content with their
peers. Teacher C was observed letting go of the responsibility to direct the
conversation. Teacher C reminded the students to look at each other rather than at
184
her while speaking to their peers. The students used a variety of sentence frames that
were provided by the teacher as they became more comfortable with the routine. At
the conclusion of the Handing Off session, Teacher C debriefed with the students on
how the session went. While debriefing with the researcher on this routine, Teacher
C shared that she “literally had chills” while listening to her students share in the
discussion and that she was “very pleased with their participation”. Based on these
observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher C theoretically understood the
purpose of the routine and was ultimately able to effectively implement the routine,
placing her in the Challenge group. It was also apparent to the researcher that
Teacher C was beginning to recognize the importance and power of self-reflection as
she asked her students to engage in a debriefing session at the conclusion of the
routine. However, the researcher recognized that Teacher C did not engage in self
monitoring while implementing the initial Handing Off routine in order to make
appropriate adjustments in her instructional delivery – as these adjustments were
prompted by the researcher.
Teacher C was placed in the Reteach group for the Comprehension Strategies
routine. While being observed during her concluding observation, Teacher C
reviewed the focused strategy for the lesson and began reading the selection by
reviewing the program provided Focus Question. While the students read chorally,
the teacher had the class stop to apply the comprehension strategy Monitor and
Clarify. Together, the class reread a sentence, and applied context clues and
apposition to determine the meaning of the word glistened. Even though the
185
researcher recognized that the pacing of the routine would increase as the strategies
became frequently taught, the researcher recognized that Teacher C was not very
explicit in her instruction. It was observed by the researcher that Teacher C
theoretically understood the objective of the routine but the researcher determined
that additional practice and support in the routine’s implementation was needed,
thus, placing Teacher C in the Reteach group.
Teacher C was placed in the Reteach group for Writers’ Notebooks. While
having a discussion with the researcher, Teacher C shared that she wanted to
incorporate the notebooks because she felt that they would be ideal for on-going
spelling and word lists. Teacher C stated that she might start incorporating the
notebooks at the beginning of a new unit but overall felt it was too late in the year to
begin the new process. Teacher C shared that when she did include them, she would
use multiple sets of stapled paper. Based on this conversation, the researcher
determined that the teacher theoretically understood the procedure for implementing
the notebooks but that additional implementation support may have been needed,
thus, Teacher C was placed in the Reteach group.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, that
Teacher C was mostly able to transfer theory into practice. Despite the documented
and significant growth for each of the instructional routines, the researcher
concluded that Teacher C would have benefited from additional and on-going
support to successfully implement all of her new theoretical understandings. The
186
steady increments of theoretical knowledge and implementation struggles were also
reflected in the discussions that occurred during the debriefing sessions, the
reflection sheets completed by Teacher C, and in the answers she provided during
the concluding interview.
Table 23
Teacher C – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation X
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X
Workshop X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X
187
Teacher C – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher C occurred six times.
For the instructional routines Dictation and Word Analysis, Teacher C placed
herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Challenge group.
After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to encode words, it was
determined that Teacher C would ultimately be placed in the Challenge group (Table
24).
For the instructional routines, Comprehension Strategies and Handing Off,
Teacher C placed herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the
Intervention group. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to
comprehend text, it was determined that Teacher C would ultimately be placed in the
Reteach group (Table 24).
For the instructional routines, Clues, Problems, and Wonderings and
Concept/Question Board, Teacher C placed herself in the Challenge group while the
researcher placed her in the Reteach group. After debriefing with Teacher C, it was
determined that Teacher C theoretically understood the routines but needed
additional instructional support. Therefore, it was mutually decided that Teacher C
would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group for both routines (Table 24).
188
Table 24
Teacher C – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 2 2 2
Reteach 4 2 4
Intervention 2
Teacher C – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
Observation and Demonstration Reflections Sheets were also used by the
researcher to determine the theoretical and implementation growth of the teacher-
learners. Observation Reflection Sheets were completed by the participants before
and after being provided with Individualized Learning Activities during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations. The Demonstration Reflection Sheets were
completed by the participants while being provided with support during the
Individualized Learning Activities.
The baseline Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher C showed
that she had pre-established fairly broad learning goals for both herself and her
students. The reflection sheets also showed that after conducting her lessons, she
established more specific learning goals for herself. For example, prior to
conducting her observed lesson, Teacher C wanted to be able to “…communicate
each of the objectives clearly enough for student participation and comprehension of
them”. But when Teacher C reflected on things she would consider changing in the
189
future, Teacher C created specific goals, “Make a running list of context clues. Then
look at the list, make own definition before looking at glossary.”
Pacing was a second issue that Teacher C noted on her Observation
Reflection Sheets. For example, one pre-established goal she set for herself was
“…pacing the lesson so that I can get all the main points covered.”
The third theme that emerged from her reflection sheets was student
engagement. Overall, the teacher felt that her students were engaged, that they
communicated well with one another, and that they participated in classroom
discussions.
The final theme that emerged, were areas of concern where Teacher C
requested additional support. It was noted by the researcher that the teacher wanted
additional implementation support with reading the Decodable Books and the Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings routines.
While being provided with IPD for five instructional routines, Teacher C
took notes on the Demonstration Reflection Sheets. For the routine, Decodable
Books, Teacher C pre-established the goal of “gaining skills for procedures of
Decodables that will make this activity more effective for future lessons”. Teacher C
then wrote her observations of the procedure used during the demonstrated lesson
and determined that she would incorporate browsing of the story, a review of the
pertinent Sound/Spelling Cards, and would stop to clarify key words used in the
selection. Teacher C reflected on her own teaching by noting the differences that
occurred between the demonstrated lesson and how she implemented the routine.
190
Teacher C noted that the Decodable Book routine was used to teach browsing and
high frequency words but did not note the additional objectives – to solidify student
application of decoding words that are spelled with emphasized sound/spelling
patterns, and fluency. Based on these notes, the researcher determined that Teacher
C met her pre-established goal of learning additional skills for the procedure of
Decodable Books but that additional theoretical support may have been needed.
During the Individualized Learning Activity for Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings, Teacher C determined that the routine was used while “browsing to
assess comprehension and prior knowledge”. Based on this reflection, the researcher
determined that Teacher C may have needed additional theoretical and
implementation support. The researcher came to this conclusion because even
though the routine can be used to informally to assess students’ prior knowledge, the
routine should be done before, during, and after reading a selection to assist, rather
than assess comprehension. During the debriefing session, Teacher C “…found out
that some of the procedures can be extended to the next level - from teacher
facilitating note taking to facilitating students as facilitators.” Based on these notes,
the researcher concluded that Teacher C intended to facilitate the students in
generating, or writing the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings chart rather than being
the note taker herself. The researcher determined that this modification was
appropriate as long as the primary objectives were met.
While participating in the Individualized Learning Activity for
Comprehension Strategies, Teacher C concluded that the routine was used to
191
increase comprehension, model thinking, and to help students understand the use and
purpose of the strategies. Based on these notes, the researcher concluded that
Teacher C had a better theoretical understanding on why this routine was taught.
Teacher C also took notes on how the routine was implemented and reflected on the
differences between the demonstrated lesson and her own teaching. Based on this
reflection, Teacher C concluded that she “discussed the selection page per page” but
that she did not model her thinking or application of the strategies. This conceptual
understanding, based on Teacher C’s reflection of her own teaching, concluded to
the researcher that the teacher intended to appropriately implement this routine.
Other than the pre-established goal of acquiring Handing Off strategies to
better implement the routine, and a concluding goal to implement the routine,
Teacher C did not take any additional notes during the Individualized Learning
Activity for the Handing Off routine. It was therefore difficult for the researcher to
conclude whether or not Teacher C theoretically understood the routine and/or the
routine’s implementation procedure.
Teacher C only wrote one concluding note at the end of the Individualized
Learning Activity for Writers’ Notebooks. Teacher C concluded that “It might be
hard to do this at this time of the year. Although, being responsible and classroom
management seems to be a good idea.” Based on Teacher C’s concluding thought,
the researcher determined that Teacher C relatively understood some of the
objectives for the routine, but questioned to what extent it would be implemented.
192
Based on the overall review of Teacher C’s Demonstration Reflection Sheets,
the researcher concluded that Teacher C may have needed additional assistance with
four out of five of the routines in which she was provided support.
After being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher
C participated in concluding Teacher Observations. During the concluding
observations, Teacher C again completed the Observation Reflection Sheets.
Notes taken by Teacher C on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet
for the Decodable Book and Handing Off routines were again based on very broad
goals that emphasized teacher learning or professional growth rather than on student
learning. The goal pre-established by Teacher C was to model the routines “as
demonstrated by her colleagues and support provider”.
Teacher C reflected that the Decodable Book routine went well. Teacher C
felt that she effectively introduced and reviewed the relevant high frequency words
and Sound/Spelling Cards, and promoted fluency practice through choral and
independent reading. Teacher C also reflected that the Handing Off routine “went
well”. Teacher C felt that she internalized the routine as she was able to observe her
students be independent learners. Overall, Teacher C concluded that her goals
during this observation went “beyond my expectations”. Teacher C noted that
during Handing Off her students independently discussed the selection with little
influence even though it took much effort for her to become an observer and
facilitator of the discussion. Teacher C also concluded that she “became more secure
about the routines in which I am fully capable of conducting”. Even though specific
193
goals were not generated, the researcher concluded that Teacher C theoretically
understood the purpose and implementation procedures for both the Handing Off and
Decodable Book routines. It was additionally noted by the researcher that Teacher
C’s level of self-efficacy had increased as she became more “secure” or confident in
her teaching abilities.
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher C’s
Observation Reflection Sheet pre and post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, that Teacher C was able to transfer theory into practice as she
demonstrated new additions to her teaching repertoire. It was also concluded that
Teacher C was able to establish learning goals that focused on her professional
growth, rather than on only establishing learning goals for her students. However, it
was recognized that these learning goals tended to be very broad in nature and
additional practice and support in generating more specific goals may have been
needed. Additionally, the researcher recognized that pacing was a concern that was
only documented on Teacher C’s Observation Reflection Sheets prior to receiving
Individualized Learning Activities support and was no longer addressed as a concern
on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheets. These steady increments of
Teacher C’s learning were also reflected in the answers she provided during the
concluding interviews.
194
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher C involved a semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher C to discuss the
most useful learning activity she was involved in while participating in IPD.
Teacher C responded that she appreciated observing the demonstrated lessons,
participating in the follow-up discussions, and being provided with direct feedback
on her own lessons – all within the context of her own classroom. Teacher C thought
this format was more beneficial to her than previous professional development
training sessions which required her to be away from the classroom. She also
thought this format was more supportive than reading the manual “I mean you can
only take it home and read it so many times”. Within this context, Teacher C felt it
was “useful to get feedback from teachers who were actually doing it [OCR] and had
been doing it for quite a while”. Teacher C felt that it was “helpful” to be working
with her peers within the context of an actual classroom rather than “far away from
the classroom” in order to transfer theory into practice. Teacher C also felt that the
instantaneous feedback provided by the researcher during and after her instructional
delivery was “very useful because then I remember it for the next time”.
Teacher C was then asked to evaluate how her understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher C shared that prior to participating in IPD
she was “insecure” and questioned her teaching abilities, but after participating in
195
IPD, she felt surer of herself and stated that if her teaching were to be “criticized” in
the future, she could “defend my methods in Open Court”. Teacher C described her
increased level of self-efficacy as “invigorating”.
Teacher C shared that she observed her teaching become more effective as
she engaged in the process of implementing theory into her instructional practice.
Teacher C reflected that the routine, as prescribed by OCR, had “more of a
systematic method to it”, which engaged her students better than her interpretation of
the routine’s implementation.
When asked if she agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002), that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teacher’s knowledge to
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teacher C agreed. Teacher C felt that she
needed some time to “explore” the routines as they were prescribed, by practicing
them in her classroom and by collaborating with her peers.
When asked to compare and contrast IPD to traditional forms of professional
development, Teacher C felt that teachers tended to share “a lot of negative
comments” while attending district trainings. Teacher C felt that the district
trainings were “so boring…you’re just sitting there so it’s almost like survival to try
to concentrate.” In contrast, Teacher C felt that the participants of IPD wanted to be
a part of the process. Teacher C also felt that the in-house support was beneficial
because it was contextualized to her class and that her students’ presence reminded
her of the reasons why she was learning to professionally grow. “Whereas when
they take you to meetings, a lot of times it’s your vacation, so you’re thinking of
196
your vacation. And the kids are far away, so the reasoning for being there is
removed”. Teacher C then shared an analogy to demonstrate the differences of IPD
to traditional forms of professional development. Teacher C compared traditional
forms of professional development to teaching struggling students with direct
instruction from a teacher’s desk or chalkboard. In contrast, Teacher C compared
IPD to teaching struggling students by redirecting their thoughts, providing them
manipulatives and instantaneous feedback, targeting their needs, and providing small
group instruction. “…that’s what I mean, when you help a child like that, you’re
targeting their needs right there and then – and this is what this [IPD] does”.
Teacher C felt that IPD had changed her teaching practices and affected her
students’ outcomes. Teacher C felt that she was now aware of the program’s
objectives and more aware of her students “…and what they’re doing, and what I
need to see from them when I’m teaching them”.
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet her needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher C shared that she would have preferred the
process to have continued. Teacher C noted that she would have liked the
opportunity to engage in additional demonstration lessons with her peers after they
had practiced and refined the routines and/or to focus on additional routines not
previously covered in the Individualized Learning Activities. Teacher C shared that
she planned to independently continue the IPD process by first practicing the
routines, and then asking the same research participants to observe her.
197
Teacher C concluded that she was “one of the first ones that volunteered for
this [research process] because I had little snags”. Teacher C was excited to
volunteer because she wanted to collaborate with her peers within the context of an
actual classroom. “Whereas when somebody takes you to a room and they tell you,
it’s so much different to transfer the knowledge.” In conclusion, Teacher C
appreciated the “camaraderie” that occurred between her and the researcher. Teacher
C felt “respected”, and even when “corrected”, she never felt “criticized”.
I felt like a student who was eager to please. I’ve never had that
feeling since elementary school. I felt like a student and I was really
willing to learn because this in a way is going to really help my
students.
Summary
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher C’s OCR
Needs Assessment, the field notes taken by the researcher during the pre and post
Teacher Observations, Teacher C’s Demonstration and Reflection Sheets, and in
Teacher C’s responses to the concluding interview, that Teacher C was able to
transfer most of her theoretical understandings into practice as she demonstrated new
additions to her teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the changes self-documented by Teacher C on her OCR
Needs Assessment, Teacher C’s theoretical understanding and implementation
practices of OCR nearly doubled after participating in IPD. After receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher C self-assessed a remaining need
198
for theoretical and/or implementation support with 9.52% of the routines found in
her cumulative language arts program. Post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, Teacher C noted that her theoretical and implementation
knowledge of six routines increased as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach
group to the Challenge group a total of six times. It was also recognized by the
researcher that Teacher C noted pacing as a concern on her initial Observation
Reflection Sheet prior to receiving Individualized Learning Activity support but did
not address pacing as a concern on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheet.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully supported
Teacher C’s theoretical and implementation knowledge.
As documented on the field notes taken by the researcher during the
concluding Teacher Observation of Teacher C, the researcher determined that
Teacher C was mostly able to transfer theory into practice. Despite the documented
and significant growth for each routine, the researcher concluded that Teacher C
would have benefited from additional and on-going support to successfully
implement all of her new theoretical understandings.
Teacher C demonstrated her ability to self reflect as she was able to pre-
establish broad learning goals for both herself and her students, and establish specific
learning goals for herself after delivering her lessons. Teacher C was able to analyze
her instructional delivery in comparison to the instructional delivery presented
during the demonstrated lessons and while conducting her own lessons. It was also
apparent to the researcher, that Teacher C recognized the importance and power of
199
self-reflection as she asked her students to engage in a debriefing session at the
conclusion of a lesson. However, the researcher recognized that Teacher C did not
engage in self monitoring while implementing the Handing Off routine in order to
make appropriate adjustments in her instructional delivery.
It seemed evident that Teacher C’s level of self efficacy also increased while
participating in IPD. Based on Teacher C’s concluding Observation Reflection
Sheet, the researcher noted that she became more “secure” or confident in her
teaching abilities. Teacher C’s Demonstration Reflection Sheets also illustrated that
she appreciated the compliments given to her on her explicit instruction, and also
appreciated being requested for copies of her created instructional materials. By
being the expert teacher, it was apparent that Teacher C appreciated being able to
demonstrate to her peer that she was an effective teacher despite any preconceived
doubts. Teacher C also felt that the researcher complimented her by housing many
of the demonstration lessons in her classroom. Additionally, during the concluding
interview, Teacher C shared that she began the research project feeling “insecure”
but after participating in IPD she felt “invigorated” by both her increased level of
confidence in her teaching abilities and by the fact that she could theoretically defend
her instructional methods.
During the concluding interview it was apparent that Teacher C found that
collaboration, instantaneous feedback, and working in an actual classroom, assisted
her in the process of theory application. She also shared that she would have
preferred the facilitated IPD process to continue but she planed to independently
200
continue the process by having her peers observe her after she felt she had refined
the routines.
Case Four: Teacher D
Introduction of Teacher D
Teacher D had been teaching first grade for a total of nine years and was
currently the grade-level Lead Teacher. Teacher D was viewed by her peers and
administrators as being a very conscientious, easy-going, and capable teacher.
Teacher D was teaching a bilingual class and used Foro abierto para la lectura,
which was the parallel program to Open Court Reading. Since the researcher was
not bilingual, when a translator was not available the teacher observations relied
heavily upon visual cues and debriefing conversations with Teacher D in order to
clarify any questions or confusions had by the researcher. Since Teacher D had a
Primary Academy classroom, much of her time was spent teaching the phonics
components of Foro abierto para la lectura in a setting similar to Workshop.
Teacher D had an instructional aid that worked with half of the class while the
teacher worked with the remainder of the students – both groups were focused on
targeted student needs. After the groups finished working with both the instructional
aid and the teacher, the remainder of the instructional time was focused on
comprehension in a whole group setting. Teacher D shared with the researcher that
she agreed to participate in this research, “To better my instruction and
201
understanding of Open Court. I am always looking for better ways to assist my
students”.
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
Teacher D – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowledge of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order
to determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation
in IPD.
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher D responded to 22 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 22 of the 24 routines
were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher D responded that she
effectively implemented six of the instructional routines which placed Teacher D in
the Challenge group six times. This equated to Teacher D feeling 27.27% fully
competent in her overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
14 of the instructional routines, or 63.64% of her language arts program, Teacher D
noted that she desired theoretical or implementation support which placed her in the
Reteach group 14 times. For two of the instructional routines, or 9.09% of her
language arts program, Teacher D noted that she desired both theoretical and
202
implementation support which placed her in the Intervention group two times (Table
25).
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher D again responded to
22 of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 22 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher D responded that she
effectively implemented 17 of the instructional routines placing her in the Challenge
group 17 times. This equated to Teacher D feeling 77.27% fully competent in her
overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language arts program after
being provided with IPD. For five of the instructional routines, or 22.73% of her
language arts program, Teacher D noted that she still desired theoretical or
implementation support placing her in the Reteach group five times. Teacher D
noted that there were not any instructional routines needing both theoretical and
implementation support (Table 25).
As Table 25 illustrates, Teacher D’s self-placement in the Challenge group
increased from six to 17 – depicting an overall 183.33% increase in her theoretical
and implementation knowledge of her language arts program after participating in
IPD. Teacher D’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from 14 to five –
depicting a 64.29% drop in the routines in which Teacher D felt she needed either
theoretical or implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher D’s
placement in the Intervention group dropped from two to zero – demonstrating that
Teacher D no longer desired additional theoretical and implementation support with
203
any of the instructional routines found in her language arts program after
participating in IPD.
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher D’s self-assessed theoretical
understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines found in her
language arts program after participating in IPD.
Table 25
Teacher D – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 6 27.27% 17 77.27% 183.33%
Reteach 14 63.64% 5 22.73% -64.29%
Intervention 2 9.09% 0 0 -100%
Table 26 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher D from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher D was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
204
Table 26
Teacher D – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation X X
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
As Table 26 illustrates, Teacher D placed herself in two Challenge groups,
six Reteach groups, and one Intervention group prior to being provided
Individualized Learning Activities support. Post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, Teacher D noted that her theoretical and implementation
knowledge of seven routines increased as she re-categorized herself from the
Reteach and Intervention groups to the Challenge group a total of seven times.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher D’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that her overall program knowledge almost tripled and that the Individualized
205
Learning Activities supported Teacher D’s theoretical and implementation
knowledge of seven specific routines found in her language arts program.
Teacher D – Teacher Observations
Field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations, revealed
that Teacher D was placed in a Challenge group eight times, a Reteach group two
times, and an Intervention group three times as a total of 13 routines were observed.
Of those 13 routines, nine were applicable to the nine routines chosen for
professional development support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for professional development support, Teacher D
was placed in the Challenge group four times due to her demonstrated ability to
effectively implement the routine and to hold discussions that demonstrated her
theoretical understandings. Teacher D became the expert teacher for her peers of the
Clues, Problems, and Wonderings, and Comprehension Strategies routines. For the
remaining five routines in which Teacher D was placed in either the Reteach and/or
Intervention groups, Teacher D participated in the Individualized Learning Activities
(Table 27).
Teacher D was placed in the Reteach group for the instructional routine,
Dictation. As the teacher correctly implemented the Whole Word Dictation routine,
it was recognized by the researcher that many students were incorrectly spelling
most of the words. While engaged in this routine neither the teacher nor the students
referenced the Sound/Spelling Cards for encoding support. It was therefore
206
suggested by the researcher that the teacher monitor student progress to determine if
the Sounds-in-Sequence Dictation routine should be used. Even though the teacher
mentioned during the debriefing session that she was familiar with the Sounds-in-
Sequence Dictation routine, since the researcher did not observe this instructional
transition occur, the researcher determined that, at minimum, theoretical support was
needed. Therefore, Teacher D was placed in the Reteach group for the Dictation
routine.
Teacher D was placed in the Reteach group for the instructional routine,
Decodable Books. Theoretically, it was apparent that the teacher understood two of
the primary objectives of the routine as she had the students locate and highlight the
introduced high frequency words and emphasized sound/spelling correspondences.
However, instructionally the teacher did not follow the routine as endorsed by OCR
which would have provided additional fluency practice. Since this was observed by
the researcher and because Teacher D documented that she wanted additional
support with both Decodable Books and fluency on her OCR Needs Assessment, it
was determined by the researcher that she would be placed in the Reteach group.
The researcher initially placed Teacher D in the baseline Intervention group
for the Comprehension Strategies routine. Despite the fact that Teacher D created
drawings, presented visuals, used the internet to clarify story content, and stopped
periodically to ask comprehension questions, the researcher recognized that there
was no initial discussion or on-going explicit instruction of the strategies. During the
debriefing session of this initial observation, the researcher verbally provided
207
Teacher D with theoretical and implementation information. During the second
initial observation, the researcher observed Teacher D introduce three
comprehension strategies to the students prior to reading the story, model, or apply
them as a “think aloud” while reading the story, and reviewed their purposes after
reading the story. Due to these significant changes in the observable theoretical
understandings and implementation practices of Teacher D, the researcher then
placed her in the concluding cell Challenge group for Comprehension Strategies and
requested that she demonstrate this routine for her peers.
Teacher D was placed in the Intervention group for Writers’ Notebooks.
Unlike the other four teachers who had some theoretical understanding of Writers’
Notebooks, it was shared during a debriefing session that Teacher D was unaware of
this program component. This observation was support by Teacher D’s OCR Needs
Assessment in which she documented that she was not familiar with this
instructional routine.
Teacher D was also placed in the Intervention group for Handing Off. Since
the teacher was observed asking comprehension questions at the conclusion of
reading their story in a teacher-led question and answer format, it was apparent to the
researcher that both theoretical and implementation support was needed to support
the teacher in facilitating a student-driven discussion of the text. Therefore, Teacher
D was placed in the Intervention group for the Handing Off routine.
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
Teacher D put much of her efforts into taking notes while observing her peers
208
present their demonstrated lessons. Not only did Teacher D fill out the
Demonstration Reflection Sheets but Teacher D also wrote additional notes which
included a “To-Do List” on separate pieces of paper. This observation informed the
researcher that Teacher D had intentions to make theoretical and implementation
changes in her classroom.
During a debriefing session of the demonstrated Dictation routine, Teacher D
requested a copy of the instructional materials created and used by her peer during
the lesson. She was also very quick to give compliments to the expert teacher on her
instructional delivery. Teacher D shared that the demonstrated lesson helped her to
recognize the importance of assisting students with segmenting individual phonemes,
in order to spell each individual sound with the use of explicit instruction of the
Sound/Spelling Cards. Teacher D also shared that she was impressed with how the
expert teacher incorporated kinesthetic and visual support for her students. These
observations led the researcher to two conclusions. First, the researcher felt that
Teacher D capitalized on the opportunity to learn from a peer that she may have
previously thought was an ineffective teacher. Second, based on the feedback
provided to her peer, it was apparent that Teacher D was able to differentiate
between the instruction she was providing her students and the instruction she
observed, in order to theoretically understand the purpose and implementation
procedure of the routine.
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher D had been
provided Individualized Learning Activity support with four routines. Field notes
209
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher D was placed in a
Challenge group five times – as a total of five routines were observed (Table 27).
As previously noted, Teacher D was placed in the Challenge group for the
Comprehension Strategies routine during her second set of initial observations.
Because Teacher D was able to demonstrate significant changes in her observable
theoretical understandings and implementation practices after only being provided by
the researcher with verbal support, the researcher placed her in the concluding cell
Challenge group for Comprehension Strategies and requested that she demonstrate
this routine for her peers.
Teacher D was placed in the Challenge group for the Dictation routine.
Before beginning the lesson, Teacher D reviewed the sound/spelling correspondence
being taught in the lesson by referencing them to the appropriate Sound/Spelling
Cards. After telling the students which word they were to encode, Teacher D helped
the students count the number of phonemes heard in the word. Teacher D then
pointed to the applicable Sound/Spelling Cards. After the students wrote the words
and the teacher provided the correct spellings the students were asked to proofread
their work. Based on these observations, Teacher D showed an increase in student
support by assisting them in the process of sound segmentation in order to correctly
spell the sounds using the spellings posted on the Sound/Spelling Cards. As
observed by the researcher, the students had better success in accurately spelling the
words. While debriefing on this routine, Teacher D shared that she learned a lot
from the peer-provided demonstration lesson and felt her students were more
210
successful in encoding words since she had begun to “see the flow of the routine”.
The instructional changes demonstrated by Teacher D informed the researcher that
Teacher D theoretically understood the purpose and procedure of the Dictation
routine which placed her in the Challenge group.
Teacher D was placed in the Challenge group for the Decodable Book
routine. Prior to reading the story, the teacher informed the students that there were
no new high frequency words introduced in the story. The teacher then had the
students read the title and browse the story to make predications. As prescribed by
the program routine, the teacher had the students read a page silently, then had the
class chorally read the page aloud. While reading, the teacher provided quick
definitions and/or visuals to clarify particularly challenging words and story content.
Even though the researcher suggested to the teacher that she should have the students
use academic language while referencing the text, and that she should blend
challenging words with the students, the researcher felt that Teacher D theoretically
understood how and why the routine was taught. While debriefing on this routine,
Teacher D shared that she had practiced the Decodable routine as prescribed and felt
that its objectives were visible in her students’ outcomes. Teacher D felt that her
students were showing gradual reading improvement as more students participated
during the choral read. These instructional changes demonstrated by Teacher D
informed the researcher that Teacher D theoretically understood the purpose and
procedure of the Decodable Books which placed her in the Challenge group.
211
Teacher D was placed in the Challenge group for the Handing Off routine.
While introducing the routine to the students, Teacher D explicitly reviewed the rules
and modeled her expectations. Teacher D informed the students that her role was to
facilitate their discussion. The students then participated in Handing Off to share
their favorite part of the story. During the debriefing session for this routine, it was
recognized that even though the teacher had introduced the routine, she had not
informed the students of the purpose or objectives for the lesson component. It was
also observed by the researcher, that the teacher used the materials supplied to the
participants during the Individualized Learning Activities. Based on these
observations, the researcher suggested to Teacher D that she provide her students
with the lesson’s objectives in the future, and concluded that Teacher D theoretically
understood why the routine was implemented and efficiently demonstrated her
ability to deliver the routine. Therefore, Teacher D was placed in the Challenge
group for Handing Off.
Teacher D was placed in the Challenge group for Writers’ Notebooks. While
conducting a debriefing discussion, Teacher D shared that she had the students use a
“reading notebook” to organize their: high frequency word list, typed versions of the
Big Book stories, and copies of the words used during Blending lessons for
additional reading and writing practice. Teacher D then shared that she planned to
incorporate additional sections that were more closely aligned to the learning
objectives of the Writers’ Notebooks. Based on this conversation, it was recognized
by the researcher that Teacher D theoretically understood the purpose and
212
instructional procedure of the notebooks therefore placing her in the Challenge
group.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities that
Teacher D was quickly able to transfer theory into practice with her demonstrated
additions to her teaching repertoire. These steady increments of learning are also
reflected in the reflection sheets completed by Teacher D and in the answers she
provided to the interview questions.
Table 27
Teacher D – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation X X
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X
Workshop X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X
213
Teacher D – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher D occurred five times.
For the instructional routine, Clues, Problems, and Wonderings, Teacher D
placed herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Challenge
group. However, while debriefing, Teacher D shared that she placed herself in the
Reteach group only because she was looking for confirmation of her level of
instruction. It was therefore mutually decided that she would ultimately be placed in
the Challenge group (Table 28).
For the instructional routine, Selection Vocabulary, Teacher D placed herself
in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Challenge group.
However, while debriefing, Teacher D shared that she was comfortable with the
implementation of the routine at that particular point in the program but requested
support in the future when the program routine transitioned. It was therefore
mutually decided, that at that point, she would be placed in the Challenge group
(Table 28).
For the instructional routine Comprehension Strategies, Teacher D placed
herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention
group. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to comprehend text, it
214
was determined that Teacher D would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group
(Table 28).
For the instructional routine, Comprehension Skills, Teacher D placed herself
in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Challenge group. After
reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to apply story content knowledge, it
was determined that Teacher D would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group
(Table 28).
For the instructional routine, Handing Off, Teacher D placed herself in the
Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Intervention group. While
debriefing, Teacher D shared her theoretical understandings of the routine but shared
that she needed support with its implementation. It was therefore agreed upon that
she would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group (Table 28).
Table 28
Teacher D – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 3 2
Reteach 5 3
Intervention 2
215
Teacher D – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
Observation and Demonstration Reflections Sheets were also used by the
researcher to determine the theoretical and implementation growth of the teacher-
learners. Observation Reflection Sheets were completed by the participants before
and after being provided with Individualized Learning Activities during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations. The Demonstration Reflection Sheets were
completed by the participants while they were provided support during the
Individualized Learning Activities.
It was challenging for the researcher to obtain initial and concluding
Observation Reflection Sheets from Teacher D. The inclusion and overall usage of
these Observation Reflection Sheets were described while recruiting the participants,
and many requests were made for their collection. The researcher was only able to
collect initial Observation Reflection Sheets from this participant.
The baseline Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher D showed
that she had pre-established three goals for herself. Her first goal was to obtain
feedback from the researcher, as the professional development support provider, as
to whether or not she was “properly implementing strategies as supported by OCR
theories”. Second, Teacher D wanted to focus on the comprehension strategies being
taught in the lesson. The third goal Teacher D generated was to promote student
understanding of the selected vocabulary words.
While reflecting on her lessons, Teacher D determined that her students were
engaged and followed the routines as previously taught to them. Teacher D then
216
established specific learning goals for herself based on her reflections of the lesson
to: use the Sound/Spelling Cards while having the students decode text,
accommodate all readers while reading the Decodable Book, continue emphasizing
the taught vocabulary, make the process of modeling comprehension strategies her
own rather than reading the teacher-supported prompts, and emphasize
comprehension strategy usage, their thought process, and their purpose with her
students.
The concluding thoughts documented by Teacher D were very insightful and
demonstrated her ability to self-asses and reflect on her goals and teaching abilities.
Teacher D reflected that she was not teaching to the level of her students’ needs and
that she needed to be more explicit in her instruction. Teacher D felt she needed to
“internalize and revisit” the routines found in OCR to ensure that her students were
successful and to ensure that she was “aware of the purpose behind the theory of
each lesson”. Teacher D noted that she wanted to “look for my objective as the
teacher, and not only at the students’”. This goal was established because Teacher D
came to the following realization “I was doing some things more out of habit,
without internalizing and analyzing students’ needs”.
Based on this set of baseline Observation Reflection Sheets, Teacher D was
able to analyze her professional-growth needs as determined by the needs of her
students. Teacher D demonstrated her willingness to professionally grow as she pre-
established the goal of learning how the routines she taught in her language arts
program connected to the theoretical construct of the program. Teacher D also
217
recognized her need to analyze lesson objectives through two lenses – objectives
established for her as the teacher-learner and objectives established for her student-
learners.
While being provided with IPD for four instructional routines, Teacher D
completed the Demonstration Reflection Sheets. During the Individualized Learning
Activity for the Dictation routine, Teacher D wrote notes that demonstrated an
increase in her theoretical understandings, and knowledge on how the routine should
be implemented. Teacher D also attached a copy of the materials she borrowed from
the demonstrating expert teacher, as well as, documented additional, appropriate
extension ideas for the routine. When reflecting on the differences between how she
delivered the routine in her own classroom in comparison to how the demonstrating
teacher delivered the lesson, Teacher D concluded that her instruction was “not as
guided”. Teachers D therefore determined that she would reference the
Sound/Spelling Cards, assist the students in segmenting the sounds, and would
provide visual and kinesthetic support for her students while they encoded words.
Based on the notes written on Teacher D’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet, the
researcher concluded that Teacher D had obtained the theoretical knowledge and
implementation procedural knowledge necessary for effective implementation of the
routine.
During the Individualized Learning Activity for the Decodable Book routine,
Teacher D wrote notes that demonstrated an increase in her theoretical
understandings and knowledge of how the routine was intended to be implemented.
218
Teacher D wrote notes on how and why the routine was implemented, and noted
appropriate extension activities for this routine. When reflecting on the differences
between how she delivered the routine in her own classroom in comparison to how
the demonstrating teacher delivered the lesson, Teacher D noted that she only used
choral reading rather than independent, choral, and partner reading as prescribed by
the routine. Teacher D also noted that: she did not have the students apply any of the
comprehension strategies while reading the story, she did not stop to blend
challenging words, and she did not supply easy, or student friendly definitions of
unknown words. Teachers D therefore determined that she would incorporate these
same strategies. For each of these strategies, Teacher D also noted the purpose or
rationale as to why she would incorporate them. “Time” was noted as the only
question Teacher D listed. The researcher concluded that this note meant that
Teacher D was concerned about the amount of time it would take to implement the
routine as prescribed. However, based on the notes written on Teacher D’s
Demonstration Reflection Sheet, the researcher concluded that Teacher D had
obtained the theoretical and procedural knowledge necessary for effective
implementation of this routine.
During the Individualized Learning Activity for the Handing Off routine,
Teacher D wrote notes that demonstrated an increase in her theoretical
understandings and knowledge of how the routine was intended to be implemented.
Teacher D took detailed notes on how the routine was demonstrated and listed seven
purposes for why the routine was taught. When reflecting on the differences
219
between how she delivered the routine in her own classroom in comparison to how
the demonstrating teacher delivered the lesson, Teacher D noted that she had not
provided students an opportunity to express their ideas in a guided setting. Teacher
D therefore determined that she would now incorporate the routine as prescribed.
Based on the notes written on Teacher D’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet, the
researcher concluded that Teacher D had obtained the theoretical and procedural
knowledge necessary for effective implementation of the routine.
During the Individualized Learning Activity for the Writers’ Notebook
routine, Teacher D wrote notes that demonstrated an increase in her theoretical
understandings and knowledge of how the routine was intended to be implemented.
Teacher D took detailed and accurate notes on how and why the routine was
implemented. Since Teacher D did not reflect on the differences between how she
delivered the routine in her own classroom in comparison to how the expert teacher
incorporated it into her lesson, the researcher determined that Teacher D had not
been incorporating this program component. However, based on the notes written on
Teacher D’s Demonstration Reflection Sheet, the researcher concluded that Teacher
D had obtained the theoretical knowledge and implementation procedural knowledge
necessary for effective implementation of Writers’ Notebooks.
Overall, it was interesting to note that on Teacher D’s Demonstration
Reflection Sheet, she did not list any pre-established learning goals but frequently
concluded that her goals had been “greatly accomplished” during the Individualized
220
Learning Activities. The researcher further concluded that when Teacher D did
engage in the process of reflection, her learning outcomes were significant.
Based on the overall review of Teacher D’s Observation and Demonstration
Reflection Sheets, the researcher concluded that Teacher D was a quick learner as
she demonstrated an increase in both her theoretical and implementation knowledge
as was necessary for effective implementation of each of the five routines in which
she was provided support.
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher D involved the semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher D to discuss the
most useful learning activity she was involved in while participating in IPD.
Teacher D shared that observing her peers conduct the demonstration lessons
solidified her understandings of the routines and provided her another perspective on
how the lessons could be effectively implemented. Teacher D thought that working
with other teachers across grade levels was:
… very effective because not only did it help me see where my
students were coming from and what they needed to learn, but it also
helped me to understand the holistic approach of the program. And
where some things were not specific to my grade, I could see where
different strands of what I do help future grades.
221
Teacher D also shared that by being the “challenge teacher” she was able to reflect
on her own teaching to see what she was doing effectively by being provided with
positive feedback.
Teacher D was then asked to evaluate how her understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher D explained that her understandings had
“greatly changed and improved because I was able to get an individualized approach
and assistance on the program strategies and objectives, and also a hands-on teaching
experience”.
When asked if she agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002), that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teacher’s knowledge to
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teacher D agreed:
I think you sharpen your teaching skills and with each lesson you
deliver, you provide your students with even more support. At the
end, I think rather than applying what you learned [exactly] as you
learned it, you apply the theory of what you learned within your own
teaching style and become a master at what you were supposed to do.
When asked to discuss the difference between traditional professional
development and IPD, Teacher D explained that the individualized assistance of IPD
“was much more beneficial to me because it suited my needs, obviously”. Teacher
D felt that IPD helped her to hone in on the specifics of what her students “…were
supposed to be learning…it was as if I had a professor or a counselor guiding me
through each section, so it was greatly beneficial”. Teacher D also shared that
previous workshops she attended focused on the instructional delivery of the
routines, whereas IPD provided her the theory and student learning objectives behind
222
the routines. “This allowed me to internalize, digest and focus my teaching in order
to better assist my students”. Teacher D also felt that IPD provided the opportunity
to “directly apply” her new learning in the classroom. When participating in
traditional professional development, Teacher D felt that the holistic approach
typically used, didn’t support her theory application, and since the content being
delivered was not always applicable to her, she often “lost interest”.
Teacher D also felt that IPD affected her students’ outcomes because it
directly changed her teaching practices. “Now I am explicitly teaching things that I
was not doing in the past. Now the purpose of what I was teaching and the theory
behind that has been reiterated and put into practicum. I’m immediately seeing
positive results in my students.” Teacher D described her previous instructional
delivery of OCR as “robotic” or “routined” due to the number of years she had been
teaching the program. But since IPD, Teacher D explained that she was
“consciously shifting”, “changing” and “adjusting” her instruction in order to meet
her students’ needs.
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet her needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher D shared that she would have liked IPD to
have occurred during the program’s initial adoption, and within a larger context.
Teacher D felt that “…some teachers are masters in certain areas and don’t need to
spend endless hours and weeks on a generic introduction to the program.” Teacher
D further explained by providing the following analogy, “like when a child already
knows how to do something, they lose interest, and it gives you the setback or
223
mindset that you don’t wanna be listening to this”. Teacher D thought that if IPD
would have occurred, then teachers would have had a “more positive take and we
would have actually learned from each other and from the program”. Teacher D felt
teachers were “overburdened” with the amount of information provided during the
initial training of OCR so much of the information was not applied. Teacher D
shared that even though her idea of IPD implementation might “not be cost
efficient”, she thought that it could be used across the district. Teacher D’s idea was
for all teachers to complete a Needs Assessment and for the on-site Reading Coaches
to conduct the teacher observations and student data analysis to ultimately submit to
the district. Based on this information, the district could have teachers placed in the
Challenge group provide demonstration lessons to peers from various schools.
Teacher D thought this process would “scaffold teachers’ needs accordingly” as they
would have the opportunity to see the theories in practice. “You know, a week each
year of theory doesn’t have the same impact as a day of theory with support and
practice, I think.”
Teacher D concluded that IPD “…was a very positive experience. I was able
to directly apply every single thing that I learned into my teaching and therefore
benefit my students.” Teacher D felt that it was a “very easy transition between the
theory and the practicum” and was done in a way that was not “overwhelming” or
“threatening”.
224
Summary
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher D’s OCR
Needs Assessment, the field notes taken by the researcher during the pre and post
Teacher Observations, Teacher D’s Demonstration and Observation Reflection
Sheets, and in Teacher D’s responses to the concluding interview, that Teacher D
was able to quickly transfer her theoretical understandings into practice as she
demonstrated new additions to her teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the self-documented changes made by Teacher D on her
OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher D’s theoretical understanding and implementation
practices of OCR nearly tripled after participating in IPD. After receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher D self-assessed a remaining need
for theoretical and/or implementation support with 22.73% of the routines found in
her cumulative language arts program. Post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, Teacher D noted that her theoretical and implementation
knowledge of seven routines increased as she re-categorized herself from the
Reteach and Intervention groups to the Challenge group a total of seven times.
As documented on the field notes taken by the researcher during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations of Teacher D, the researcher determined that
Teacher D was able to quickly transfer theory into practice. For example, during the
first baseline Teacher Observation, Teacher D was placed in the Intervention group
for the Comprehension Strategies routine, and received verbal, theoretical and
implementation support during the debriefing session. However, during the second
225
baseline Teacher Observation, Teacher D demonstrated significant changes in her
observable theoretical understandings and implementation practices of this routine.
Teacher D was then placed in the Challenge group and was requested to become the
expert teacher for this routine. Additionally, during the concluding Teacher
Observations, Teacher D was observed theoretically understanding the purposes and
procedures for each of the routines that she had been provided Individualized
Learning Activity support, which ultimately placed her in the concluding Teacher
Observation, Challenge group for those routines.
It was difficult for the researcher to obtain reflection sheets from Teacher D.
However, the researcher concluded that when Teacher D did engage in the process of
reflection, her learning outcomes were significant. Teacher D was able to analyze
her professional needs as determined by the needs of her students. Teacher D
recognized her need to analyze lesson objectives through two lenses – objectives
established for her as the teacher-learner, and objectives established for her student
learners. As documented on the notes taken by Teacher D on her Demonstration
Reflection Sheets, Teacher D capitalized on the Individualized Learning Activities.
Teacher D learned from a peer that she previously thought was an ineffective
teacher, and used the support activities to reflect on her own teaching practices in
comparison to those she observed. Teacher D was also frequently observed noting
her new understandings of the purposes and procedures for routine implementation
on her Demonstration Reflection Sheets.
226
During the concluding interview, it was apparent that Teacher D found that
the demonstration lessons conducted by her peers were the most beneficial
component of the IPD process. Teacher D felt that the demonstrated lessons
solidified her theoretical understandings of the routines, and provided her different
perspectives on how the routines could be effectively implemented. In essence,
Teacher D felt that the demonstration lessons and concluding Teacher Observations
offered her the opportunity to “directly apply” her new learning. Teacher D
contrasted this IPD process to traditional professional development by stating that
the previously provided professional development only involved a “holistic”
approach to the instructional routine implementation of the program but did not
discuss or support the theories and student learning objectives behind the routines.
She also shared that she felt “overburdened” with the amount of information
provided during the week-long trainings, so much of the information became lost and
not applied. “You know, a week each year of theory doesn’t have the same impact
as a day of theory with support and practice.” Because Teacher D felt that IPD had
“suited” her needs, changed her teaching practices, and positively affected her
students outcomes, Teacher D concluded that she would like to see IPD done across
the entire district.
Case Five: Teacher E
Introduction of Teacher E
227
Teacher E had been teaching fifth grade for 15 years – with the exception of
two semesters in which he served as an Assistant Principal. Teacher E believed he
was viewed by his colleagues as being “like Jim Halpert on ‘The Office’” which may
be why he responded that he decided to participate in this research because “it
sounded like fun”. Teacher E was the Grade-Level Chair and had coached the girls’
high school basketball team for 10 years.
In the midst of conducting this research, Teacher E was forced to move his
classroom because of campus construction. Due to many of his materials being
packed during this move, Teacher E was concerned with the establishment of his
classroom environment and felt that the lack of instructional materials affected his
overall ability to deliver his instruction while the researcher conducted the classroom
observations.
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
Teacher E – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowledge of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order
to determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation
in IPD.
228
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher E responded to 17 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as he determined that 17 of the 24 routines were
applicable to the grade level he taught. Teacher E responded that he effectively
implemented 12 of the instructional routines which placed Teacher E in the
Challenge group 12 times. This equated to Teacher E feeling 70.59% fully
competent in his overall understandings and instructional delivery of his language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
four of the instructional routines, or 23.53% of his language arts program, Teacher E
noted that he desired theoretical or implementation support which placed him in the
Reteach group four times. For one of the instructional routines, or 5.88% of his
language arts program, Teacher E noted that he desired both theoretical and
implementation support (Table 29).
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher E again responded to
17 of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines as he determined that 17 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level he taught. Teacher E responded that he
effectively implemented 16 of the instructional routines placing him in the Challenge
group 16 times. This equated to Teacher E feeling 94.12% fully competent in his
overall understandings and instructional delivery of his language arts program after
being provided with IPD. For one of the instructional routines, or 5.88% of his
language arts program, Teacher E noted that he still desired theoretical or
implementation support which placed him in the Reteach group one time. Teacher E
229
did not note any instructional routines as needing both theoretical and
implementation support (Table 29).
As Table 29 illustrates, Teacher E’s self-placement in the Challenge group
increased from 12 to 16 – depicting an overall 33.33% increase in his theoretical and
implementation knowledge of his language arts program after participating in IPD.
Teacher E’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from four to one – depicting a
75% drop in the routines in which Teacher E felt he needed either theoretical or
implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher E’s placement in the
Intervention group dropped from one to zero – depicting a 100% drop in the routines
in which Teacher E felt he needed both theoretical and implementation support after
participating in IPD.
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher E’s self-assessed overall
theoretical understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines
found in his language arts program after participating in IPD.
230
Table 29
Teacher E – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 12 70.59% 16 94.12% 33.33%
Reteach 4 23.53% 1 5.88% -75%
Intervention 1 5.88% 0 0 -100%
Table 30 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher E from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher E was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
231
Table 30
Teacher E – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
As Table 30 illustrates, Teacher E placed himself in two Challenge groups,
two Reteach groups, and one Intervention group prior to being provided
Individualized Learning Activities support. Post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, Teacher E noted that his theoretical and implementation
knowledge of two routines increased as he re-categorized himself from the Reteach
group to the Challenge group a total of two times. Post participation in the
Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher E noted that his theoretical knowledge of
one routine, Sound/Spelling Cards, increased but that he still desired implementation
232
support with the routine as he re-categorized himself from the Intervention group to
the Reteach group.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher E’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that his overall program knowledge increased and that the Individualized
Learning Activities supported Teacher E’s theoretical and implementation
knowledge of two specific routines, and supported his theoretical understandings of
one routine found in his language arts program.
Teacher E – Teacher Observations
Baseline teacher observations were challenging for the researcher to conduct
because Teacher E was in the midst of moving his classroom. Additionally, during
the first classroom visit, the students were engaged in a writing proficiency test. Due
to these extraneous circumstances, the number of routines observed was limited.
However, while students were engaged in their writing proficiency, the teacher and
researcher used that time to theoretically discuss the use of the Sound/Spelling
Cards. The teacher shared that he probably should have placed himself in the
Intervention group on his OCR Needs Assessment rather than the Reteach group
because he had never been trained on how to use them and therefore did not
implement them in his classroom. The researcher therefore re-categorized him to the
Intervention group on the OCR Needs Assessment.
233
Additional field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations,
revealed that Teacher E was placed in a Challenge group three times, a Reteach
group two times, and an Intervention group three times as a total of eight routines
were observed. Of those eight routines, five were applicable to the nine routines
chosen for professional development support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for professional development support, Teacher E
was placed in the Challenge group one time due his demonstrated ability to
effectively implement the routine and to hold discussions that demonstrated his
theoretical understandings. Teacher E became the expert teacher for his peers of this
Workshop routine. For the remaining four routines in which Teacher E was placed
in either the Reteach and/or Intervention groups, Teacher E participated in the
Individualized Learning Activities (Table 31).
Teacher E was placed in the Reteach group for the instructional routine,
Writers’ Notebooks. In essence, the teacher was observed having students work on
individual components, or sections similar to those found in a Writer’s Notebook
(such as a journal and running list of vocabulary words) but did not have all sections
being implemented. Therefore, the researcher determined that Teacher E was in
need of additional theoretical and implementation support.
Teacher E was placed in the Intervention group for the instructional routine,
Comprehension Strategies. While conducting an initial observation, the researcher
observed Teacher E using the program’s read-aloud story to successfully introduce a
new unit on Heritage. Teacher E was observed supporting student comprehension
234
through the use of technology, by clarifying words, inferences, and similes used in
the text, and by providing personal stories and examples that were relevant to the
students’ lives and culture in order to assist students in making meaning of the text.
However, as with many other teachers in this research, Teacher E neglected to teach
the comprehension strategies. In this observation, the teacher internally applied the
comprehension strategies himself and shared his findings with the students but did
not teach, or verbalize the process. During the debriefing session, the researcher
shared with the teacher the importance of this process and it was discussed that he
would participate in the Individualized Learning Activities for this routine.
Teacher E was also placed in the Intervention group for Handing Off. After
the read-aloud story was completed, the researcher observed the teacher use a Power
Point presentation to list multiple higher-ordered thinking questions (provided by the
program) that the students were to discuss among themselves. When asked during
the debriefing if what the researcher observed was a typical Handing Off session, the
teacher shared that he was not aware of how to teach Handing Off. Due to the
response given by Teacher E and since the researcher observed Handing Off as a
typical teacher-led discussion based on a question and answer dialogue, the
researcher placed Teacher E in the Intervention group to provide him both theoretical
and implementation support.
While speaking with Teacher E, he informed the researcher that he should
have placed himself in the Intervention group on his OCR Needs Assessment for the
Sound/Spelling Cards routine because as an intermediate grade-level teacher, he was
235
never trained on how or why to use them and therefore they were not incorporated
into his lessons. Teacher E and the researcher discussed their theory and application
procedures but Teacher E was placed in the Intervention group in the Teacher
Observation column, in order to receive additional support from a peer who taught at
the primary grade-level.
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
as the expert teacher for Workshop, Teacher E was very excited and thorough with
his demonstration lesson. While his students were independently working, Teacher
E invited the observing participants to walk around his room, ask his students
questions, and observe his small group instruction. Teacher E also provided his
peers with many teacher tips, and shared literature and website suggestions that
would support them with their implementation of Workshop.
During many of the Individualized Learning Activity debriefing sessions,
Teacher E participated in the discussions by adding his insights and conclusions as to
why certain routines were taught. While debriefing on the Sound/Spelling Card
routine, Teacher E realized that his Sound/Spelling Card display was ineffectively
supporting his students. Teacher E also shared that he was concerned that behavioral
management might be an issue with his students when they participated in the
Handing Off routine. He therefore shared that he might begin introducing the
routine in small groups and build upon those groups in order to maintain positive
student behavior. Based on these observations, the researcher concluded that
Teacher E’s theoretical knowledge of the routines he was provided support for had
236
increased and that he intended to implement the routines as prescribed but with
appropriate modifications in order to meet the needs of his student-learners.
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher E had been
provided Individualized Learning Activity support with four routines. Field notes
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher E was placed in a
Challenge group four times – as a total of four routines were observed (Table 31).
Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group for the Comprehension
Strategies routine. While conducting the concluding observation, the researcher
observed Teacher E use a Power Point presentation to define the comprehension
strategies for the students and shared that these were strategies that he personally
used as a “good reader”. Teacher E was observed balancing the process of
scaffolding student responsibility. For example, while applying the visualizing
comprehension strategy, Teacher E released the responsibility of the strategy’s
application to the students. However, Teacher E provided more modeling support
when other strategies like monitoring and clarifying were used. While debriefing on
this routine, Teacher E shared that he was beginning to use the same strategy
application procedures while the students read in other content areas and he felt that
“modeling the strategy was helping the students”. Based on these observations, the
researcher concluded that Teacher E theoretically understood why the
Comprehension Strategies routine was taught, and that he effectively implemented
the strategies in his lesson. Teacher E was therefore placed in the Challenge group.
237
Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group for the Handing Off routine. At
the beginning of the routine, Teacher E shared the routine’s objectives and
procedures with the students. Teacher E then posted and explained the rules. While
engaging in the Handing Off routine, the students were observed generating deep and
meaningful comments about the text. However, at times it was difficult to hear
many of the contributions that were made due to students using a quiet voice. In
response to this concern, Teacher E made an extension to the previously posted rules
which encouraged students to speak with a louder voice. While debriefing on this
routine, Teacher E shared that he thought the pacing of the routine and the voice
levels of his students would improve as the students became comfortable with the
routine. Additionally, the researcher observed that Teacher E was able to reflect on
the lesson as it was occurring in order to make an appropriate instructional
adjustment. However, it was also noted by the researcher that Teacher E did not
have the students engage in their own self-reflection by having them debrief on how
they thought the process went. Based on these observations, the researcher
determined that Teacher E theoretically understood why the routine was taught and
demonstrated effective implementation, placing him in the Challenge group, but the
researcher recognized that his students may have benefited from engaging in the
process of self-reflection.
Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group for the Writers’ Notebook
routine. While holding a conversation on Writers’ Notebooks, Teacher E shared that
he planned to have his students use spelling, vocabulary, and writing sections in their
238
notebooks and that file folders would be used to store the students’ writing process
pieces. Teacher E also shared the he had been managing these materials for the
students but now realized that it should be the students’ responsibility. Based on this
conversation, the researcher determined that Teacher E theoretically understood why
Writers’ Notebooks were used and had effective plans to incorporate them into his
classroom, therefore Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group.
Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group for the Sound/Spellings Card
routine. The researcher recognized that Teacher E had hung his Sound/Spelling
Cards in a more appropriate place in order to better support his students’ use of the
cards. Teacher E conducted a self-created lesson in order to review the
Sound/Spelling Cards with his students and to demonstrate how they can be used to
support them in encoding and decoding words. Teacher E then had the students
work together, in order to spell words that were frequently challenging to them.
Teacher E used correct terminology when referencing the Sound/Spelling Cards and
stressed to the students, that at opportune times that they might independently use the
cards. Based on these observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher E
theoretically understood why and how the Sound/Spelling Cards were used to
support student learning, thus, Teacher E was placed in the Challenge group.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities that
Teacher E was able to quickly transfer theory into practice with his demonstrated
additions to his teaching repertoire. These steady increments of learning were also
239
reflected on Teacher E’s Demonstration Reflection Sheets and in Teacher E’s
responses to the interview questions.
Table 31
Teacher E – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation
Decodable
Books
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
Workshop X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
Teacher E – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher E occurred four times.
For the instructional routine Sound/Spelling Cards, Teacher E placed himself
in the Reteach group while the researcher placed him in the Intervention group.
240
However, during a debriefing session, Teacher E shared that he should have placed
himself in the Intervention group on his OCR Needs Assessment because he was
unaware of how to use them. Therefore, student assessments were not observed as it
was mutually determined that Teacher E would be placed in the Intervention group
(Table 32).
Similarly, for the Concept/Question Board, Teacher E placed himself in the
Challenge group while the researcher placed him in the Reteach group. However,
during a debriefing session, Teacher E shared that he should have placed himself in
the Reteach group because he required additional implementation support.
Therefore, student assessments were not observed as it was mutually determined that
Teacher E would be placed in the Reteach group (Table 32).
For the instructional routine Comprehension Strategies, Teacher E placed
himself in the Challenge group while the researcher placed him in the Intervention
group. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to comprehend text, it
was determined that Teacher E would ultimately be placed in the Reteach group
(Table 32).
For the instructional routine, Handing Off, Teacher E placed himself in the
Reteach group while the researcher placed him in the Intervention group. After the
teacher shared that he understood why Handing Off was used, but was unaware of
how to teach the routine, it was mutually determined that Teacher E would
ultimately be placed in the Reteach group (Table 32).
241
Table 32
Teacher E – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 2
Reteach 2 1 3
Intervention 3 1
Teacher E – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
It was difficult for the researcher to obtain baseline Observation Reflection
Sheets from Teacher E. The inclusion and overall usage of these reflection sheets
were described when the participants were initially recruited and many requests were
made for their collection but the researcher was only able to collect one baseline
Observation Reflection Sheet. However, Teacher E did submit Demonstration
Reflection Sheets while participating in the Individualized Learning Activities.
One baseline Observation Reflection Sheet was completed by Teacher E and
collected by the researcher. This reflection sheet showed that Teacher E had pre-
established one goal for himself – to prepare students for the Heritage unit. This
goal was broadly set being that the teacher taught three different routines that
included multiple learning and teaching objectives. Post lesson delivery, Teacher E
reflected that he thought the technology aspect of his lesson was effective. Per the
debriefing session, Teacher E noted on his reflection sheet that he would incorporate
242
the Concept/Question Board into his lessons more frequently and would model his
thinking process more directly.
While being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support for four
instructional routines, Teacher E completed one Demonstration Reflection Sheet per
routine. The first Individualized Learning Activity Teacher E participated in was
Comprehension Strategies. Teacher E noted that he was interested in learning how
to teach and model the comprehension strategies more explicitly. Teacher E did not
take notes on the demonstrated lesson but concluded that he would now review the
comprehension strategies before reading the story, and would use the cues provided
in the Teacher’s Guide while reading the story. The researcher was unsure when in
the Individualized Learning Activity process that Teacher E asked, “How quickly do
we release the responsibility?” and “How do we know when?” because both of these
questions were addressed during the debriefing session. The researcher was also
unsure as to whether or not Teacher E obtained this information but simply did not
document his findings. Based on this observation, the researcher concluded that
additional implementation support may have been necessary. Teacher E did not note
any rationales as to why this routine was implemented in the program, which
concluded to the researcher that additional theoretical support may have also been
needed.
During the Individualized Learning Activity for Handing Off, Teacher E pre-
established the goal of learning how to use the Handing Off routine in his classroom.
Teacher E wrote a few notes on how the routine was implemented during the
243
demonstrated lesson and noted that “the whole thing” was different from what he did
in his classroom. Teacher E did not write any notes on why the routine was endorsed
by the program but Teacher E concluded that he would “be able to implement these
strategies tomorrow”. The researcher was unsure when in the Individualized
Learning Activity process that Teacher E asked, “How can we keep the pace fast
enough for more student engagement?” because this question was addressed during
the debriefing session. The researcher was also unsure as to whether or not Teacher
E obtained this information but simply did not document his findings. Based on
these observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher E was confident in his
ability to implement this routine but the researcher was unsure as to whether or not
he theoretically understood why it was endorsed by the program.
Teacher E also participated in the Individualized Learning Activity for
Writers’ Notebooks. The limited notes written on Teacher E’s Demonstration
Reflection Sheet concluded that he was interested in learning about how to use the
notebooks, that he would prefer his students to use file folders rather than a three-
ringed binder, and noted that the purpose of the notebooks was to promote student
organization. Based on these three notes, the researcher concluded that Teacher E
had some theoretical and implementation knowledge but due to the limited amount
of notes taken, it was difficult for the researcher to determine the depth of this
knowledge and therefore could not determine if additional theoretical and/or
implementation support was needed.
244
During the Individualized Learning Activity conducted for the
Sound/Spelling Cards, Teacher E noted that he was interested in learning how to use
the cards because he had not yet incorporated them in his classroom instruction.
After observing the demonstrated lesson, Teacher E concluded that he would
“actually use these to help students with their spelling” and that he would therefore
hang the cards in his classroom so that they were student accessible. Due to the
limited amount of notes taken, it was difficult for the researcher to determine the
depth of Teacher E’s knowledge and therefore could not determine if additional
theoretical and/or implementation support was needed.
Based on the overall review of Teacher E’s limited notes documented on
his one initial Observation Reflection Sheet and Demonstration Reflection Sheets,
the researcher concluded that Teacher E may have needed additional theoretical
and/or implementation support for each of the routines in which he was provided
support.
After being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher
E participated in concluding Teacher Observations. However, during the concluding
Teacher Observations, Teacher E did not complete any of the Observation Reflection
Sheets.
245
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher E involved a semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher E to discuss the
most useful learning activity he was involved in while participating in IPD. Teacher
E shared that he thought the personal observations were useful but that the most
helpful component of IPD was “actually being able to debrief and speak with other
teachers, not just the expert teacher but other teachers going thought the same thing”.
Teacher E was then asked to evaluate how his understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher E shared that he thought it had “gotten
better” because he had been omitting instructional routines in his lessons but now felt
that they were “more familiar” to him based on changes in his theoretical
understandings. Teacher E illustrated his changed understandings with the following
example:
The comprehension strategies theories, putting those into use in the
classroom made it a little more clear as to what the actual goal was,
long term, rather than just, well they prompted me to do something
here – going through the motions type thing. But it’s a lot clearer as
to what the finished product of the student is supposed to look like.
Further, Teacher E shared that with his new understandings, he would be able to
better support his remedial students. Based on training assumptions, Teacher E felt
that upper-grade teachers believed that their students would:
246
…come to us…knowing…systematic EL, systematic phonics, and
phonemic awareness. And now, knowing the theory behind that – for
the first time probably in my whole career and I have been teaching
15 years, is going to be helpful when I have kids that are having gaps
and missing instruction.
When asked if he agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002), that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teacher’s knowledge to
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teacher E thought that “it could take less, for
sure”. Teacher E believed that teacher motivation was one of the primary factors
that determined teacher learning during trainings:
It’s a matter of how quickly after you’ve learned the theory you put it
into practice, and how much you buy into it to begin with. If you
don’t have buy-in, you can practice it a hundred times and you’re not
going to learn it, or it’s not going to be something that you internalize.
When asked to compare and contrast IPD to traditional forms of professional
development, Teacher E explained that IPD was “definitely more useful”. Teacher E
felt that the one-week mandatory district trainings were “pretty much useless”
because they were conducted during the summer and teachers did not actually teach
the program for two months following the training. Teacher E further shared that he
found IPD to be “interesting” as it was based on teachers’ self-assessments. “When I
see a need for myself to learn something then that’s when I actually pay better
attention.”
Teacher E felt that he thought the IPD process would ultimately change his
teaching practices but that his teaching practices had not yet changed because he
hadn’t fully digested all of the information. However, Teacher E shared that he was
247
“excited” and “curious” to see “how much deeper” his students’ understandings
would be and how it would affect their weekly test scores. Teacher E was confident
that student outcomes would be affected because:
Anytime there is better instruction, I think student outcomes improve.
I think that not just going through the motions of some of the
procedures that we’re told we have to do but actually knowing why
we’re doing things will make a big difference in the instruction.
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet his needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher E shared a few suggestions. One concern
Teacher E had with the IPD process was that he felt the process was too short.
Teacher E shared that he would have preferred longer teacher observations, a longer
amount of time to focus on the instructional routines by studying one per week in
order to gain a “deeper understanding”, and would have preferred longer
professional collaboration time with his peers. Further, even though Teacher E
appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with teachers from other grade levels
because “that was something we never get to do”, he would have also appreciated
viewing demonstration lessons from “grade level colleagues either at this school site
or another school site”.
Teacher E concluded that IPD was “a positive experience overall”. He
thought the IPD process “was well thought out” and “ran smoothly” despite him
changing classrooms and being on vacation. Teacher E concluded with this final
reflection:
I think I learned a lot. Whether it’s Open Court that we’re doing in
the future or not, I think it is stuff that will transfer to other skill sets.
248
Like I told you, I used the comprehension strategies in an expository
text during science and social studies.
Summary
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher E’s OCR
Needs Assessment, the field notes taken by the researcher during the pre and post
Teacher Observations, Teacher E’s Demonstration Reflection Sheets, and in Teacher
E’s responses to the concluding interview, that Teacher E was able to transfer his
theoretical understandings into practice as he demonstrated new additions to his
teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the self-documented changes made by Teacher E on his
OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher E’s theoretical understanding and implementation
practices of OCR increased 33.33% after participating in IPD. After receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher E self-assessed a remaining need
for theoretical and/or implementation support with 5.88% of the routines found in his
cumulative language arts program. Post participation in the Individualized Learning
Activities, Teacher E noted that his theoretical and implementation knowledge of
two routines increased and his theoretical knowledge of one routine increased, as he
re-categorized himself from the Reteach group to the Challenge group two times, and
from the Intervention group to the Reteach group one time.
As documented by the field notes taken by the researcher during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations of Teacher E, the researcher determined that
Teacher E was able to transfer theory into practice. Not only was Teacher E re-
categorized from the Reteach and Intervention groups to the Challenge group four
249
times by the researcher, but he was also able to transfer his new teaching strategies
into other content areas. Teacher E was documented as having his students apply
their reading comprehension strategies while reading outside their specified language
arts time.
While completing his Demonstration Reflection Sheets, Teacher E did not
take very thorough or detailed notes. This fact oftentimes made it challenging for the
researcher to determine if additional theoretical and/or implementation support was
needed.
It seemed evident that Teacher E did not capitalize on the IPD experience as
an opportunity to learn how to self-reflect, or as an opportunity to grow from his
personalized reflections as it was difficult for the researcher to obtain reflection
sheets from Teacher E. For example, even though Teacher E was not fully confident
of his level of learning during the IPD process, it was evident that he had
significantly grown based on his concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher
Observations, Demonstration Reflection Sheets, and in his interview responses.
During the interview, Teacher E shared his new abilities to: incorporate routines that
were previously omitted, better assist his remedial students, understand the theories
behind his instruction, implement improved instructional routines, and transfer his
knowledge skill set to other content areas. Based on this information, by
participating in IPD Teacher E demonstrated professional growth and may have
better recognized his gains had he involved himself in the reflective components of
IPD.
250
Not only did Teacher E not frequently engage in the process of self-
reflection, but he was also observed not engaging his students in the process of self-
reflection. However, Teacher E was frequently observed reflecting on the needs of
his classroom, to make appropriate modifications to the program’s routines, in order
to meet his students’ needs. As documented on the field notes taken by the
researcher during the baseline and concluding Teacher Observations, Teacher E was
frequently observed incorporating the use of technology, outside literature, and
culturally relevant teaching strategies into his personalization of the program’s
instructional routines. Additionally, when Teacher E reflected on his use of the
Sound/Spelling Cards, he determined that they were not appropriately hung in his
classroom and therefore, changed their location in order to be visually and physically
accessible for his students. Teacher E also noted during the concluding interview,
that he would be able to use the Sound/Spelling Cards to better support his struggling
students. Further, when reflecting on the demonstrated Handing Off routine,
Teacher E determined that due to the large number of students in his class, that he
would introduce the routine in small groups in order to maintain behavioral
management. Teacher E was also observed balancing the level of responsibility he
transferred to his students, by reflecting on his lesson while engaged in the delivery
of his instruction. This observation occurred when Teacher E modeled and/or had
the students apply the comprehension strategies, and when Teacher E made
modifications to the Handing Off rules in order to increase the quality of his
students’ participation.
251
During the concluding interview, it was apparent that Teacher E found that
the personal observations were useful, but that the most effective component of IPD
was collaborating with his peers. Teacher E felt that the one-week mandatory
trainings offered by the district were “useless” because too much time lapsed
between learning the theories and having the opportunity to apply them. When
reflecting on the process of IPD, Teacher E shared that he appreciated each of the
components of IPD but wished that a longer amount of time had been dedicated to
the: teacher observations, Individualized Learning Activities, and professional
collaborations. Teacher E also shared that he would have enjoyed working with
other participants from the same grade level either at his school site or at another
school site.
Case Six: Teacher F
Introduction of Teacher F
Teacher F taught OCR in first grade for a total of seven years. Teacher F had
not taught any other grade levels, but had participated as a Teacher Leader Cadre,
Professional Development Provider, Grade-Level Chair, member of the STAR
Review Panel, and Mentor Teacher. Teacher F was well-respected by her peers who
viewed her as a very competent teacher. Teacher F shared that she decided to
participate in this research project in order to improve her teaching practices.
Findings from the Teacher Matrix
252
Teacher F – OCR Needs Assessment
The first column of the Teacher Matrix, OCR Needs Assessment, was
developed using an ordinal scale of close-ended responses. This needs assessment
asked the participants to consider their theoretical understandings and
implementation knowlege of each of the 24 instructional routines in OCR, in order to
determine their areas and levels of needed support prior to and post participation in
IPD.
For the baseline OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher F responded to 22 of the
24 listed OCR instructional routines, as she determined that 22 of the 24 routines
were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher F responded that she
effectively implemented five of the instructional routines which placed Teacher F in
the Challenge group five times. This equated to Teacher F feeling 22.73% fully
competent in her overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language
arts program prior to receiving any theoretical and/or implementation support. For
17 of the instructional routines, or 77.27% of her language arts program, Teacher F
noted that she desired theoretical or implementation support which placed her in the
Reteach group 17 times. Teacher F did not note any instructional routines as needing
both theoretical and implementation support (Table 33).
For the concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher F again responded to 22
of the 24 listed OCR instructional routines as she determined that 22 of the 24
routines were applicable to the grade level she taught. Teacher F responded that she
effectively implemented 14 of the instructional routines placing her in the Challenge
253
group 14 times. This equated to Teacher F feeling 63.67% fully competent in her
overall understandings and instructional delivery of her language arts program after
being provided with IPD. For eight of the instructional routines, or 36.36% of her
language arts program, Teacher F noted that she still desired theoretical or
implementation support placing her in the Reteach group eight times. Teacher F
noted that there were not any instructional routines needing both theoretical and
implementation support (Table 33).
As Table 33 illustrates, Teacher F’s self-placement in the Challenge group
increased from 5 to 14 – depicting an overall 180% increase in her theoretical and
implementation knowledge of her language arts program after participating in IPD.
Teacher F’s placement in the Reteach group dropped from 17 to eight – depicting a
52.94% drop in the routines in which Teacher F felt she needed either theoretical or
implementation support after participating in IPD. Teacher F again noted that there
were not any instructional routines needing both theoretical and implementation
support.
Overall, the differences in the baseline and concluding OCR Needs
Assessments, demonstrated a significant rise in Teacher F’s self-assessed theoretical
understandings and implementation practices of the cumulative routines found in her
language arts program after participating in IPD.
Table 33
Teacher F – Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment
254
Baseline
Responses
Baseline
Averages
Concluding
Responses
Concluding
Averages
Growth from
Baseline to
Concluding
Responses
Challenge 5 22.73% 14 63.67% 180%
Reteach 17 77.27% 8 36.36% -52.94%
Intervention 0 0 0 0 0
Table 34 depicts the comparison of the baseline and concluding selections of
Teacher F from the OCR Needs Assessments. Each selection is correlated to only
the specific instructional routines in which Teacher F was included in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
Table 34
Teacher F – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding OCR Needs Assessment per
IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Selections
Baseline
Reteach
Selections
Baseline
Intervention
Selections
Concluding
Challenge
Selections
Concluding
Reteach
Selections
Concluding
Intervention
Selections
Dictation
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
Workshop
Sound Spelling
Cards
X X
255
As Table 34 illustrates, Teacher F placed herself in one Challenge group and
five Reteach groups prior to being provided Individualized Learning Activities
support. Post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities, Teacher F
noted that her theoretical and implementation knowledge of five routines increased
as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach group to the Challenge group a total
of five times.
Based on these self-reported findings, the process of IPD successfully
supported Teacher F’s theoretical and implementation knowledge. These findings
depict that her overall program knowledge almost tripled and that the Individualized
Learning Activities supported Teacher D’s theoretical and implementation
knowledge of five specific routines found in her language arts program.
Teacher F – Teacher Observations
Field notes taken during the two initial, or baseline observations, revealed
that Teacher F was placed in a Challenge group 10 times, a Reteach group four
times, and an Intervention group two times as a total of 16 routines were observed.
Of those 16 routines, seven were applicable to the nine routines chosen for
professional development support (Appendix B).
Of the nine routines chosen for professional development support, Teacher F
was placed in the Challenge group two times due her demonstrated ability to
effectively implement the routine and to hold discussions that demonstrated her
256
theoretical understandings. Teacher F became the expert teacher for her peers for the
Sound/Spelling Cards. For the remaining five routines in which Teacher F was
placed in either the Reteach and/or Intervention groups, Teacher F participated in the
Individualized Learning Activities (Table 35).
Teacher F was placed in the Reteach group for the instructional routine,
Decodable Books. Theoretically, it was apparent that the teacher understood two of
the primary objectives of the routine as she had her students locate and highlight the
introduced high frequency words and emphasized sound/spelling correspondences
used in the book. However, instructionally the teacher did not follow the routine as
endorsed by OCR which would have provided additional fluency and blending
practice. Since this was observed by the researcher and because Teacher F shared
during discussions with the researcher and on her OCR Needs Assessment that she
wanted additional support with Decodable Books, their pacing, and their use with
fluency practice, it was determined by the researcher that she would be placed in the
Reteach group.
Teacher F was placed in the Reteach group for Writers’ Notebooks. It was
evident during discussions with the researcher that she theoretically understood why
Writers’ Notebooks were used but had not implemented them in her classroom.
Teacher F was also placed in the Reteach group for Workshop. On her OCR
Needs Assessment Teacher F placed herself in the Challenge group for Workshop
but during one of the researcher’s initial visits, she requested that the researcher
return to observe this routine. It was apparent that Teacher F theoretically
257
understood this routine as she had: appropriate “Menu” items of “Must Do” and
“May Do” activities posted, pulled small groups to reinforce blending and dictation
objectives, and utilized program materials to reinforce the content being taught.
However, many of the students were unsure of their independent responsibilities and
were subsequently off task and noisy during this time, thus, illustrating teacher need
for implementation support. For example, upon questioning, one student informed
the researcher that there could be four students at every work station while another
student thought two students were allowed. Additionally, many students did not
adhere to the posted “Menu” and instead were coloring in coloring books, doing
puzzles, working on math games, and playing with a magnetic picture board – all of
which did not extend and/or reinforce the objectives being taught in the core
program. During a debriefing session, Teacher F shared that it took a significant
amount of time to prepare materials for students to work with during Workshop, so
appropriate activities that were practical and relevant were suggested by the
researcher. The researcher also provided suggestions for establishing classroom and
behavioral management procedures during Workshop.
During the initial observations, the researcher placed Teacher F in the
Intervention group for the Comprehension Strategies routine. Teacher F supported
student comprehension by: presenting a poster representative of the story content,
having the students visualize content from the story, connecting information learned
in the story to a previously read story, and stopping periodically to have students
“think, pair, share”. However, even though the teacher reinforced student
258
comprehension, the researcher recognized that there was no initial discussion or on-
going explicit instruction of the comprehension strategies – illustrating a need for
both theoretical and implementation support.
Handing Off was also recognized by the researcher as needing both
theoretical and implementation support. Due to its lack of inclusion in the delivery
of Teacher F’s instruction, she was placed in the Intervention group.
Field notes taken during the Individualized Learning Activities revealed that
Teacher F contributed to the collaborative debriefing sessions but was not always as
verbal as many of the other participants. Teacher F did however share that she
appreciated first viewing a demonstrated lesson that provided explicit instruction on
how to introduce the routine Handing Off and then viewing a video lesson on how
Handing Off could, or should ultimately look. Teacher F shared that both lessons
demonstrated to her the process of implementing the routine. Teacher F also felt that
Handing Off would be a “pleasurable” experience for her students and that she
foresaw the routine as an opportunity for her students to solidify their comprehension
of stories. Based on these reflections, the researcher determined that Teacher F
understood both how and why the Handing Off routine was taught.
The final or concluding observations took place after Teacher F had been
provided Individualized Learning Activity support with six routines. Field notes
taken during the concluding observations revealed that Teacher F was placed in a
Challenge group six times – as a total of six routines were observed (Table 35).
259
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for the Decodable Book
routine. Teacher F began the routine by having the students find the emphasized
high frequency words and spelling patterns taught in the lesson. Together, the
teacher and students conducted a “picture walk” to make predictions about the story.
As suggested by the prescribed routine, Teacher F had the students first read quietly
and then chorally aloud. While the students read quietly, Teacher F worked with
individual students. While reading aloud, the teacher recognized and shared which
sound/spelling correspondences had not yet been taught that were being used in the
story. She therefore had the students stop reading to blend those words. During the
debriefing session, Teacher F shared that the Routine Cards provided to the
participants by the researcher were helpful in supporting her instructional delivery.
Few suggestions were made by the researcher to encourage the use of academic
language but overall it was apparent to the researcher that Teacher F theoretically
understood the purpose of the routine and correctly followed its prescribed
procedure. Teacher F was therefore placed in the Challenge group for the Decodable
Book routine.
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for the Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings routine. The teacher was observed introducing the routine to the
students by defining “Clues”, “Problems”, and “Wonderings”. Teacher F facilitated
the procedure by writing down the students’ names and their contributions while
asking them why they thought their clues were appropriate. Teacher F also pointed
out to the students that as readers, they each had their own set of reading “Problems”
260
or challenges. The teacher was observed continuously working with the Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings chart while the story was being read. While debriefing,
Teacher F shared that she was concerned about pacing since there had been a lot of
student participation. Pacing suggestions were provided to Teacher F from the
researcher but ultimately, it was determined that Teacher F was fully capable of
sharing her theoretical knowledge and demonstrating her ability to effectively
implement the routine. Teacher F was therefore placed in the Challenge group for
the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings routine.
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for the Comprehension
Strategies routine. Teacher F began the lesson by having the students use the Table
of Contents to locate the story, and by reading the Title Page and Focus Questions.
When prompted to do so by the program, Teacher F stopped to discuss the strategies
being applied (i.e. visualizing and summarizing). During this discussion, Teacher F
defined, modeled, and asked the students to apply the strategies. Teacher F was also
observed having the students conduct a “think, pair, and share” session to discuss
what they visualized as they read the story. While debriefing on this routine,
Teacher F shared that she felt she was re-teaching the strategies every time the lesson
occurred and that the students were not mastering the objectives. Teacher F was also
concerned that it took more time to read the book when stopping to discuss strategy
application. Pacing suggestions were provided to Teacher F from the researcher but
ultimately, it was determined that Teacher F was fully capable of sharing her
theoretical knowledge and demonstrating her ability to effectively implement the
261
routine. Teacher F was therefore placed in the Challenge group for the
Comprehension Strategies routine.
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for the Handing Off routine.
While being observed, Teacher F introduced the routine objectives and rules, she had
the students sit in a circle on the floor, and she provided sentence frames to support
student participation. During the discussion, students took turns making at least one
contribution to the discussion. The teacher meanwhile facilitated the discussion as a
participant of the conversation. During the debriefing session for this routine, it was
suggested by the researcher that the students be allowed to bring their books and any
other relevant materials to the floor to support their discussion contributions.
Otherwise, it was recognized by the researcher that Teacher F theoretically
understood why the routine was implemented and effectively delivered appropriate
instruction therefore placing her into the Challenge group.
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for the Writers’ Notebook
routine. While discussing this component of OCR, Teacher F shared that she
intended to incorporate the notebooks as prescribed but also had appropriate ideas on
how to extend its purpose to include additional writing components. Teacher F
shared that she planned to have the students use small pocket folders to organize
their information. Based on this discussion, it was evident to the researcher that
Teacher F theoretically understood why Writers’ Notebooks were used and had
appropriate intentions for their incorporation which therefore placed Teacher F in the
Challenge group.
262
Teacher F was placed in the Challenge group for Workshop. During this
time, each student was observed as having their own “White Workshop Folder”.
Within this folder were: phonics pages, writing pieces, a high frequency word list,
and a picture dictionary. Teacher F began the procedure by reviewing an appropriate
“Menu” of “Must Do” and “May Do” activities. The teacher reminded the students
of the general rules and expectations, and reminded the students of what they were
allowed to do at each “May Do” area. The teacher then began to pull small groups
of students to provide differentiated instruction based on the students’ targeted
needs. It was evident that the time and effort Teacher F put into explicitly reviewing
the procedure and expectations of Workshop, effectively supported student
management as they were observed working appropriately while completing their
independent work. Due to these observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher
F theoretically understood the purposes behind Workshop and concluded that
Teacher F effectively implemented Workshop in her classroom which therefore
placed Teacher F in the Challenge group.
One could conclude from the documented growth of the observations
conducted pre and post participation in the Individualized Learning Activities that
Teacher F was quickly able to transfer theory into practice with her demonstrated
additions to her teaching repertoire. These steady increments of learning are also
reflected in the reflection sheets completed by Teacher F and in the answers she
provided to the interview questions.
263
Table 35
Teacher F – Comparison of Baseline and Concluding Teacher Observations per IPD
Instructional
Routine
Baseline
Challenge
Placement
Baseline
Reteach
Placement
Baseline
Intervention
Placement
Concluding
Challenge
Placement
Concluding
Reteach
Placement
Concluding
Intervention
Placement
Dictation
Decodable
Books
X X
Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
X
Comprehension
Strategies
X X
Handing Off X X
Writers’
Notebooks
X X
Selection
Vocabulary
X
Workshop X X
Sound Spelling
Cards
X
264
Teacher F – On-Going Student Assessments
Student assessments were used only when conflicts arose on the Teacher
Matrix among the OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns to
ultimately determine teacher placement. This discrepancy in categorical teacher
placement for Teacher F occurred eight times.
Teacher F placed herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her
in the Challenge group for the instructional routines: Phonemic Awareness, High
Frequency Word Bank, Selection Vocabulary, Writing, and Selection Vocabulary
Word Walls. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability levels, it was
determined that Teacher F would ultimately be placed in the Challenge group (Table
36).
For the Comprehension Strategies and Handing Off instructional routines,
Teacher F placed herself in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the
Intervention group. After reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to
comprehend text, it was determined that Teacher F would ultimately be placed in the
Reteach group (Table 36).
For the Comprehension Skills instructional routine, Teacher F placed herself
in the Reteach group while the researcher placed her in the Challenge group. After
reviewing the students’ test scores and ability to apply the knowledge they learned
from the text, it was determined that Teacher F would ultimately be placed in the
Reteach group (Table 36).
265
Table 36
Teacher F – On-Going Student Assessments
OCR Needs
Assessment
Teacher
Observations
On-Going Student
Assessments
Challenge 6 5
Reteach 8 3
Intervention 2
Teacher F – Themes from the Observation and Demonstration Reflection Sheets
Observation and Demonstration Reflections Sheets were also used by the
researcher to determine the theoretical and implementation growth of the teacher-
learners. Observation Reflection Sheets were completed by the participants before
and after being provided with Individualized Learning Activities during the baseline
and concluding Teacher Observations. The Demonstration Reflection Sheets were
completed by the participants while being provided with support during the
Individualized Learning Activities.
It was challenging for the researcher to obtain baseline and concluding
Observation Reflection Sheets from Teacher F. The inclusion and overall usage of
the Observation Reflection Sheets were described when the participants were
initially recruited. Many requests were made for their collection. Ultimately, the
researcher was able to obtain both the baseline and concluding Observation
Reflection Sheets from this participant at the conclusion of the IPD process.
266
The baseline Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher F showed
that she had pre-established mostly learning goals for her students but professional
learning goals were seldom established for herself. The reflection sheets also
showed that after conducting her lessons, Teacher F established specific goals for
herself. For example, Teacher F’s pre-established goals for Workshop were for the
students to work independently, to generate activities to support students in
reviewing the skills taught in the daily lesson, and for her to provide intervention
support in a small group setting. After the Workshop lesson, Teacher F determined
that in the future she would “review the rules for Workshop”, “prepare more
appropriate activities for students to complete independently”, and that she would
“fix the Listening Center”. Based on this observation, the researcher concluded that
Teacher F may have needed additional support and practice with pre-establishing
professional learning goals for herself as a teacher-learner.
A second theme that emerged from Teacher F’s baseline Observation
Reflection Sheets was that Teacher F was cognizant of her students’ individual needs
while conducting whole group instruction. For example, Teacher F noted that
“80%” of the class met the Sound/Spelling Card objectives, while “two students
needed additional practice with the Sound/Spelling Cards and blending strategies”.
Teacher F also established future goals based on differentiating her instruction – “I
could do a preview with those low students. I could review [the Sound/Spelling
Cards] during Workshop and in a small group setting”.
267
The third theme that emerged from Teacher F’s baseline Observation
Reflection Sheets was that Teacher F had pacing concerns. While reflecting on the
comprehension activities taught, Teacher F noted that, “Time management for this
section is an issue” and posed the question of “How do I implement all of the Red
Section in 30 minutes?”
The final theme that emerged from Teacher F’s baseline Observation
Reflection Sheets was that Teacher F wrote notes that reflected full and complete
theoretical and implementation knowledge for each routine. However, the researcher
recognized that Teacher F did not complete and/or submit her baseline Observation
Reflection Sheets until after she had been provided with Individualized Learning
Activity support. It was therefore difficult for the researcher to determine what
theoretical and implementation knowledge Teacher F had prior to participating in the
Individualized Learning Activities and what knowledge was acquired while
participating in the Individualized Learning Activities.
While being provided with IPD for five instructional routines, Teacher F
completed five Demonstration Reflection Sheets. During the first Individualized
Learning Activity for Decodable Books, Teacher F wrote detailed and accurate notes
on how and why the routine was implemented. Teacher F did not post any pre-
established or follow-up goals. Teacher F wrote two questions, “How long?” and
“Practice Books?” on her reflection sheet. Teacher F answered the first question by
writing that the Practice Books could be used as homework and for small group
instruction but did not answer how long the routine should take to be implemented.
268
So even though Teacher F had written detailed and accurate notes on how and why
the routine was taught, the researcher concluded that additional implementation
support with pacing was needed.
Teacher F completed a Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings routine. Again Teacher F thoroughly wrote detailed and
accurate notes on how and why the routine was implemented. Even though Teacher
F did not post any pre-established or follow-up goals, she concluded that she learned
how to use the routine to facilitate her students’ reading comprehension.
Teacher F completed a Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the
Comprehension Strategies routine by thoroughly and accurately writing notes on
how and why the routine was implemented. Teacher F did not post any pre-
established or follow-up goals. Teacher F posted two questions, “independent
reading?” and “Why do we teach and use three strategies at a time?” Based on these
unanswered questions, the researcher concluded that Teacher F may have needed
additional theoretical and implementation support.
Teacher F completed a Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the Handing Off
routine by thoroughly and accurately writing notes on how and why the routine was
implemented. Teacher F did not post any pre-established or follow-up goals.
Teacher F posted two questions, “how long?” and “begin with small group first?”
The researcher was unsure when in the Individualized Learning Activity process that
Teacher F asked those questions because both of the questions were addressed
during the debriefing session. The researcher was also unsure as to whether or not
269
Teacher F obtained this information but simply did not document her findings.
Based on these observations, the researcher concluded that Teacher F may have
needed additional implementation support.
Teacher F completed a Demonstration Reflection Sheet for the Writers’
Notebook component of the program by thoroughly and accurately writing notes on
how and why the routine was implemented. Teacher F did not post any pre-
established or follow-up goals but wrote that she had “learned great ideas on
organizing students’ writing which helps me focus more on writing”. The researcher
was interested in this finding because the primary objective of the Writers’
Notebooks was not for supporting the writing process. However, additional notes
written by Teacher F illustrated that her modification or personalization of the
notebooks were appropriate, thus concluding to the researcher, that Teacher F
theoretically understood how and why the routine was taught.
The final Demonstration Reflection Sheet completed by Teacher F was on
Workshop. Again, Teacher F wrote thorough and accurate notes on how and why
Workshop was implemented. Teacher F did not post any pre-established or follow-
up goals but concluded that she “learned about new routines for Workshop and
possible small group instruction content”. Based on the documented notes written by
Teacher F, the researcher concluded that she theoretically understood how and why
the routine was implemented.
Overall, the Demonstration Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher F were
thorough, accurate, and detailed in documenting how and why all of the routines
270
were taught. Yet, it did seem that Teacher F had some additional questions that were
not addressed during the Individualized Learning Activities. However, the
researcher was confident that Teacher F theoretically understood the purposes and
implementation procedures for each of the routines she was provided support.
After being provided with Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher
F participated in concluding Teacher Observations. During the concluding
observations, Teacher F again completed the Observation Reflection Sheets.
Notes taken by Teacher F on her concluding Observation Reflection Sheets
were similar in nature to her baseline Observation Reflection Sheets. Like the
baseline Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher F, the concluding
Observation Reflection Sheets showed that she had pre-established mostly learning
goals for her students but professional learning goals were seldom established for
herself. The reflection sheets also showed that after conducting her lessons, Teacher
F established specific goals for herself. For example, Teacher F’s pre-established
goals for Workshop were the same as they had previously been, for the students to
work independently, to generate activities to support students in reviewing the skills
taught in the daily lesson, and for her to provide intervention support in a small
group setting. After the Workshop lesson, Teacher F determined that in the future
she would “fix the listening center, incorporate writing journals, and establish a
routine in order to determine how much students accomplished during Workshop
time”. Based on this observation, the researcher concluded that Teacher F may have
needed additional support in and practice with pre-establishing professional learning
271
goals for herself as a teacher-learner even though her concluding goals were
continuously monitored and updated based on her new reflections.
On the concluding Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher F,
she demonstrated her ability to be cognizant of her students’ individual needs.
Teacher F noted that while engaged in the Decodable Book routine, she worked with
struggling students while the class independently read. Based on these reflections,
the researcher concluded that Teacher F was able to reflect on the effectiveness of
her lesson while delivering her instruction in order to make instructional adjustments
to meet the individual needs of her students.
Pacing continued to be a concern for Teacher F. Teacher F noted that “time
management is an issue” while conducting the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings
routine and the Comprehension Strategies routine. In addition to her pacing
concerns, classroom management was highlighted on her concluding Observation
Reflection Sheets. Teacher F felt that she needed to “organize her materials in a
more productive format” during Workshop and that she needed to “work on the
management of distributing the decodables” while engaged in the Decodable Book
routine. Based on these observations, the researcher concluded that additional
implementation support for the Clues, Problems, and Wonderings routine and the
Comprehension Strategies routine may have been needed. And again, the researcher
also concluded that Teacher F was able to monitor and adjust her future goals based
on her on-going reflections of her instructional delivery.
272
Overall, both the baseline and concluding Observation Reflection Sheets
completed by Teacher F demonstrated her theoretical and implementation knowledge
of the routines. However, as previously mentioned, the researcher recognized that
Teacher F did not complete and/or submit her baseline Observation Reflection
Sheets until after she had been provided with Individualized Learning Activity
support. It was therefore difficult for the researcher to determine what theoretical
and implementation knowledge Teacher F had prior to participating in the
Individualized Learning Activities and what knowledge was acquired while
participating in the Individualized Learning Activities. Also, because of the delay in
Teacher F’s completion and submission of the reflection sheets it was also difficult
for the researcher to determine if or how there had been a change in Teacher F’s
ability to self-reflect.
One could concluded from the documented growth on Teacher F’s
Observation Reflection Sheets pre and post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, that Teacher F was able to transfer theory into practice as she
was devoted to incorporating her theoretical and implementation knowledge.
However, it was apparent to the researcher that Teacher F required additional
practice and support in the on-going process of self-reflection and in the process of
pre-establishing learning goals that focused on her professional growth rather than on
only establishing learning goals for her students. Overall, the documented
knowledge base of Teacher F was also reflected in the answers she provided during
the concluding interviews.
273
Findings from the Semi-Structured Interviews
The last data source to complete the case for Teacher F involved the semi-
structured interview. This interview served as a culmination to the study with
targeted questions on the experience as a whole.
To frame the interview itself, the researcher asked Teacher F to discuss the
most useful learning activity she was involved in while participating in IPD.
Teacher F’s response was “I definitely learned from the demonstration lessons
because I’m a visual learner”. Teacher F thought that after seeing the demonstrated
lessons, she was then able to determine her level of learning while implementing the
routine herself. Teacher F found this particular process supportive of her reflective
thinking as she shared that she typically had “a hard time reflecting what I’m
learning and I do a lot better when I have constructive criticism”.
Teacher F was then asked to evaluate how her understandings of OCR had
changed over the course of IPD. Teacher F shared that she began this process
understanding how to implement each of the instructional routines but that “it helped
to know why we were doing them and what the purpose is behind each one…in order
to make it more appropriate to my specific class”.
When asked if she agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002) that it may take at least 30 applications of a skill for a teachers’ knowledge to
fully transfer to classroom instruction, Teacher F “disagreed, because you can do it
30 times but you may be doing it wrong”. Teacher F therefore suggested that
continuous demonstration and observation support be provided.
274
When asked to compare and contrast IPD to traditional forms of professional
development, Teacher F explained that trainings for OCR are:
…a whole week of learning and you get so much information, so
many great ideas, but no time to implement them. So most of the
time, most of those things are not implemented. So for me, that was
too much information in a very short time to be able to do what they
expect you to do.
In contrast, Teacher F explained that IPD focused on “what I really wanted to change
and it gave me the opportunity to change it and have somebody give me feedback on
how it went. I think that was more beneficial.”
Teacher F felt that IPD had changed her teaching practices as she felt she had
“mastered” the routines and felt “confident” with her implementation and theoretical
knowledge. Due to this mastery, Teacher F foresaw IPD affecting her students’
outcomes.
I wish we had a before and after picture, because it really changed the
dynamics in my classroom. Kids are now thinking about what we’re
learning and how we’re learning it, and to me, that is proof enough
that my understanding has improved.
When asked how IPD could have been better designed to meet her needs as
an educator and adult learner, Teacher F responded that even though “it was really
good”, she would have preferred to have the opportunity to collaborate with a
colleague prior to conducting their own classroom instruction. Teacher F felt that it
would have been easier to reflect with a peer rather than by herself “because
reflecting with yourself is just saying what you know and that’s really not
reflecting”.
275
Teacher F concluded that IPD was “a very positive experience” because she
“learned a lot” and was able to “focus” on what she “needed help with”. “The
individualized professional development was exactly what I was looking for as far as
implementing the strategies and routines.” Teacher F concluded by stating that she
was “appreciative” and asked if she could contact the researcher in the future if she
needed any additional help.
Summary
One could conclude from the documented growth on Teacher F’s OCR Needs
Assessment, the field notes taken by the researcher during the pre and post Teacher
Observations, Teacher F’s Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, and in
Teacher F’s responses to the concluding interview, that Teacher F was able to
quickly transfer her theoretical understandings into practice as she demonstrated new
additions to her teaching repertoire.
As illustrated by the self-documented changes made by Teacher F on her
OCR Needs Assessment, Teacher F’s theoretical understanding and implementation
practices of OCR nearly tripled after participating in IPD. After receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support, Teacher F self-assessed a remaining need
for theoretical and/or implementation support with 36.36% of the routines found in
her cumulative language arts program. Post participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities, Teacher F noted that her theoretical and implementation
276
knowledge of five routines increased as she re-categorized herself from the Reteach
and Intervention groups to the Challenge group a total of five times.
It was difficult for the researcher to collect baseline and concluding
Observation Reflection Sheets from Teacher F. It was not until after the IPD process
that Teacher F submitted her reflection sheets. Based on these reflection sheets,
Teacher F documented thorough and accurate notes, which demonstrated her full and
complete, theoretical and implementation understandings. However, since Teacher F
did not submit her sheets until after she was provided with Individualized Learning
Activity support, it was difficult for the researcher to determine what theoretical and
implementation knowledge Teacher F had prior to participation in the Individualized
Learning Activities. It was also therefore difficult for the researcher to determine if
or to what extent there had been changes in Teacher F’s ability to self-reflect.
The researcher concluded that Teacher F needed additional support pre-
establishing professional learning goals for herself as a teacher-learner. Baseline
Observation Reflection Sheets completed by Teacher F showed that she had pre-
established mostly learning goals for her students but professional learning goals
were seldom established for her. However, after conducting her lessons, Teacher F
established specific follow-up goals for herself. It was also documented by the
researcher that her concluding goals were regularly monitored and updated based on
new and contributing reflections. Even though Teacher F did not pre-establish
learning goals for herself, Teacher F was able to reflect on the effectiveness of her
lessons while delivering her instruction in order to make instructional adjustments to
277
meet the needs of her students. For example, while engaged in the Decodable Book
routine, Teacher F worked with struggling students while they read independently.
Teacher F was also able to reflect on the effectiveness of her lessons after delivering
her instruction in order to make instructional adjustments to meet the needs of her
students. For example, on her baseline Observation Reflection Sheet, Teacher F
noted that 80% of her students met the lesson objectives but she highlighted two
students who needed additional support. Future goals established by Teacher F
reflected the differentiated support she intended to implement in order to support her
students.
Discrepancies between the teacher and researcher placements on the initial
Teacher Matrix occurred most often in the case of Teacher F. Upon the analysis of
this case, it was apparent that Teacher F initially had a higher level of concern for her
levels of theoretical knowledge and implementation practices than did the researcher.
The overall analysis of her students’ test scores and demonstrative abilities more
often confirmed the researcher’s observations. This finding may have implied that
the teacher sought confirmation of her abilities from an outside source. Additionally,
the challenge the researcher faced in obtaining reflection sheets from Teacher F
could also have been representative of the teacher not taking the time to reflect on
the positive outcomes of her instructional delivery. This demonstrated lack of ability
to establish clear goals and identify success indicators, determined that Teacher F
needed additional support engaging in the process of being a self-directed learner.
This finding was confirmed by Teacher F during the interview as she shared that it
278
would have been beneficial for her to have additional support while engaging in her
self-reflections both before and after her instructional delivery. She particularly
thought it would have been helpful to receive this support from a colleague with
similar needs and questions.
As documented on the baseline and concluding Teacher Observations,
Observation Reflection Sheets, and during the debriefing sessions, Teacher F was
frequently concerned with the pacing of her instructional delivery. Teacher F shared
that she was concerned with the pacing of her Clues, Problems and Wonderings
instruction because of the significant amount of student participation. Teacher F was
also concerned that it took longer to read stories while implementing the
Comprehension Strategies routine. During one of the debriefing sessions, Teacher F
shared with the researcher that she often ran out of time to teach much of the
comprehension components because she spent a significant amount of time on the
phonics section of the program. Additionally, Teacher F was concerned that it was
taking her a significant amount of time to prepare Workshop materials.
During the interview, Teacher F shared that the most effective component of
IPD was being able to observe the demonstrated lessons and then being able to
implement the routines in her own classroom with provided feedback from the
researcher. Teacher F found this particular process supportive of her reflective
thinking. Teacher F shared that she began the IPD process understanding how to
implement the instructional routines but learned why they were being implemented.
Teacher F found this component of IPD to be beneficial as she was then better able
279
to make the routines more appropriate to her specific class. Teacher F thought this
process was also more beneficial than the week-long training session typical of OCR
professional development. Teacher F shared that she thought that during these
training sessions, she was given too much information in a short period of time. She
also thought that without the opportunity to immediately implement her new
knowledge, much of the information did not transfer to her teaching skills. In
conclusion, Teacher F felt “confident” that she had “mastered” the routines in which
she was provided support and that her new understandings had changed the
dynamics of her classroom.
Cross-Case Analysis
There were a number of similar findings that emerged from the data sources,
which were common among all six teachers who participated in this project. These
commonalities provided data for answering the research questions posed in this study
and are presented in two themes: Professional Development and Teacher Learning
and Theoretical and Instructional Changes.
Professional Development and Teacher Learning
• All teachers felt that an individualized approach to professional development
effectively influenced their teaching practices as documented by their OCR
Needs Assessment and in the answers provided during the semi-structured
interviews.
280
• All teachers felt that IPD effectively supported their individual needs as
documented by their OCR Needs Assessment and in the answers provided
during the semi-structured interviews.
• Individualization of professional development based on teacher ability and
interest was an important influence for planning the Individualized Learning
Activities.
• All teachers noted an increase in their theoretical understandings of the
instructional routines taught in their language arts program as documented on
their OCR Needs Assessment.
• All teachers noted an increase in their ability to implement the instructional
routines as prescribed by OCR as documented on their OCR Needs
Assessment.
• All teachers noted an increase in their usage of the instructional routines
taught in their language arts program as documented on their OCR Needs
Assessment.
• None of the teachers referenced student data to determine their own teacher-
learning needs.
• Based on the original high need of program support required by all teachers,
and the fact that the teachers were in their seventh year of program
implementation, it was determined by the researcher that OCR was a
complex program despite being prescriptive and skills-based.
281
• For all teachers, not one routine required only theoretical support – in which
a teacher effectively implemented the routine without fully understanding its
rationale and/or objective. Teachers were either documented as theoretically
understanding the routine but needing support with its implementation and/or
theoretically teachers did not understand the routine and also needed
implementation support.
• All six teachers focused their attention on learning both the theoretical
purposes and implementation procedures for the instructional routines.
• Despite whether or not teacher growth occurred, the Teacher Matrix proved
to be successful in targeting teachers’ on-going needs and areas of strength.
• When teachers were not placed in the Challenge group, it was recognized by
the researcher that additional and/or different forms of intervention or
Individualized Learning Activities were needed but attributed the Teacher
Matrix in recognizing the on-going needs.
Theoretical and Instructional Changes
• On average, teachers felt they needed theoretical and/or implementation
support with 56% of their language arts program prior to participating in IPD.
On average, teachers felt they had a remaining need for theoretical and/or
implementation support with 15% of their language arts program after
receiving IPD.
282
• Based on the OCR Needs Assessment, the average growth of OCR program
knowledge for teachers was 112%.
• Most teachers almost doubled, if not tripled their theoretical understandings
and implementation knowledge of the routines found in their language arts
program as documented on their OCR Needs Assessment.
• All teachers increased in their categorical placement by at least one category
in both their OCR Needs Assessment and Teacher Observation columns and
most teachers completed the IPD process in the Challenge group after
receiving Individualized Learning Activity Support.
• All teachers felt they were able to demonstrate their new theoretical and
implementation knowledge through the instructional delivery they provided
their students.
• All six teachers shared that their theoretical understandings supported their
instructional delivery of the program’s routines.
• All teachers applied their learning in their classrooms, albeit with ranging
levels of success.
• All teachers theoretically understood the instructional routines after being
provided with Individualized Learning Activity support as noted on their
OCR Needs Assessment.
• All teachers theoretically understood the instructional routines after being
provided with Individualized Learning Activity support as observed by the
researcher.
283
• All teachers initially had difficulties distinguishing between monitoring and
teaching comprehension but at the conclusion of IPD, all teachers
theoretically understood why the comprehension strategies were taught.
• All teachers initially had difficulties implementing the Comprehension
Strategies routine, but at the conclusion of IPD, all teachers were able to
model the strategies for their students, albeit with ranging levels of success.
• All teachers initially had difficulties theoretically understanding the purpose
of the Handing Off routine but at the conclusion of IPD all teachers
theoretically understood why the routine was taught.
• All teachers were not initially implementing the Handing Off routine, but at
the conclusion of IPD, all teachers were able to instructionally deliver the
routine, albeit with ranging levels of success.
• All teachers did not always conceptualize the primary objective of the
routines being demonstrated.
• All teachers felt that the changes that occurred in their theoretical
understandings and instructional practices would have positive impact on
their students’ outcomes.
There were also a number of significant findings that emerged from the data
sources, but were not common among all six teachers who participated in this
project. These themes emerged over the course of the project, but did not necessarily
permeate across the findings for each participant. However, these findings also
284
provided data for answering the research questions posed in this study and are
presented using the same two themes: Professional Development and Teacher
Learning and Theoretical and Instructional Changes.
Professional Development and Teacher Learning
• Other than the exception of Teacher B (who was removed from a traditional
classroom for 16 years), teachers in the primary grades initially noted a
higher level of need. The researcher concluded that this need was due to the
fact that teachers of OCR are expected to teach more routines in the primary
grades and is therefore more demanding of professional expertise.
• Four out of six teachers were more successful with transferring theory into
their classroom practices.
• Two out of six teachers needed additional practice and on-going support
beyond the scope of the provided support in this research to effectively
implement particular routines.
• Two out of six teachers primarily focused their learning on the
implementation procedures rather than the theoretical purposes of the
instructional routines.
• Three out of six teachers were more thorough in writing their reflection
sheets. It was concluded by the researcher that teachers are not accustomed
to conducting formal reflections of their lessons.
285
• Three teachers disagreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002) as they felt it did not take 30 applications of a skill before the skill
was internalized.
• Three teachers agreed with the research conducted by Joyce and Showers
(2002) as they felt it took 30 or more applications of a skill before the skill
would be internalized.
• Four out of six teachers shared that the debriefing sessions were a critical and
effective component of IPD.
• Five out of six teachers shared that the demonstrated lessons were a critical
and effective component of IPD.
• Two out of six teachers shared that the Teacher Observations were a critical
and effective component of IPD.
• One teacher shared that being the expert teacher was a critical and effective
component of IPD.
• Four out of six teachers thought that traditional professional development
was not applicable to their needs.
• Three out of six teachers shared that they had a difficult time admitting their
needs during traditional professional development.
• Five out of six teachers felt that traditional professional development was
ineffective because it was out of context – away from their classroom and
students.
286
• Four out of six teachers felt that traditional professional development
provided too much information.
• Five out of six teachers felt that traditional professional development
provided little to no transfer of theoretical and implementation knowledge to
their classrooms.
• One out of six teachers felt that traditional professional development did not
provide theoretical rationales.
• Two out of six teachers suggested that IPD be provided earlier – in the year
and during initial adoptions.
• Two out of six teachers suggested that the process of IPD be longer in
duration.
• Two out of six teachers suggested that IPD be used in a larger context –
across the district and include participants from the same grade-level.
Theoretical and Instructional Changes
• Five out of six teachers were able to effectively implement all of the
instructional routines they were provided Individualized Learning Activity
support for, as noted on their OCR Needs Assessment.
• Four out of six teachers were able to effectively implement all of the
instructional routines after receiving Individualized Learning Activity
support, as observed by the researcher.
287
• Two of the six teachers primarily focused on learning the routines’
procedures rather than their theoretical purposes while participating in the
Individualized Learning Activities.
• Two of the six teachers who primarily focused on learning the routines’
procedures rather than their theoretical purposes were the same two teachers
who were not always placed in the Challenge group after receiving
Individualized Learning Activity support.
• Five out of six teachers shared or demonstrated instructional pacing concerns
prior to receiving Individualized Learning Activity support.
• Two out of six teachers shared or demonstrated instructional pacing concerns
after receiving Individualized Learning Activity support.
• Two out of six teachers were observed effectively implementing a routine
after only being provided with theoretical support and without being provided
with any implementation support.
• Three out of six teachers demonstrated their ability to transfer their new
knowledge or skill set to other content areas.
• Four out of six teachers were observed making appropriate modifications of
the instructional routines in order to meet their students’ individual needs.
Summary of Findings
This study was led by two major research questions: what changes occur in
the instructional practices of the OCR instructional routines when elementary
288
teachers participate in Individualized Professional Development? And, what
changes occur in the theoretical understandings of the OCR instructional routines
when elementary teachers participate in Individualized Professional Development?
The responses to these questions were directly correlated to teachers’ responses to
the individualized model of professional development and based on whether or not
theoretical and/or implementation knowledge transferred to their teaching practices.
1. What changes occur in the instructional practices of the OCR instructional
routines when elementary teachers participate in Individualized Professional
Development?
The triangulation of data confirmed that all six teachers were able to
demonstrate an increase in their ability to not only implement the instructional
routines endorsed by OCR but to also implement the instructional routines as
prescribed by OCR into their classrooms. However, data documented that effective
implementation occurred at different rates and in varying degrees of complexity.
The most organic evidences of this implementation were the cumulative 18 Teacher
Observations of 115 instructional routines conducted by the researcher and
participant responses to the questions asked during the semi-structured interviews.
Based on the field notes collected by the researcher, two participants were
observed demonstrating instructional changes during the baseline Teacher
Observations, while two participants were observed implementing the routines at the
conclusion of IPD but still struggled to maintain appropriate pacing with their
instructional delivery. At the conclusion of the project, during the semi-structured
289
interviews, three participants self-determined that they had “mastered” the
instructional implementation of the routines, while three participants self-determined
that they would have appreciated additional time to practice their skills.
2. What changes occur in the theoretical understandings of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in Individualized
Professional Development?
The triangulation of the data confirmed that all teachers were able to apply
their theoretical understandings learned during the Individualized Learning Activities
to the classroom setting. However, data documented that being able to implement
theoretical understandings of the instructional routines occurred at different rates and
in varying degrees of complexity. The most organic evidences of this
implementation were the field notes collected by the researcher, and participant
responses to the questions asked during the semi-structured interviews.
Based on the field notes collected by the researcher, two participants were
observed demonstrating changes in their theoretical understandings during the
baseline Teacher Observations, while one participant was observed demonstrating
changes in her theoretical understandings during the Individualized Learning
Activities, and three participants were observed as needing additional time to process
some of their new theoretical understandings at the conclusion of IPD. At the
conclusion of the project, during the semi-structured interviews, three participants
shared that they theoretically understood the instructional routines which made it
possible for them to better deliver and differentiate their classroom instruction, while
290
three participants shared that they would have appreciated additional time to process
their new understandings.
As the four month project unfolded, subsidiary questions emerged during the
data collection that illuminated additional findings from the study:
• What role does teacher cognitive ability/developmental stages play into
the design and success of professional development?
• Does teacher reflection deepen teachers’ understandings and learning?
• How does increased collaboration among teachers affect the
implementation of new knowledge?
The findings to the subsidiary questions which emerged during the data collection
are noted, and are categorized using the same two themes: Professional Development
and Teacher Learning and Theoretical and Instructional Changes. These findings
are followed by the supporting data source(s).
Professional Development and Teacher Learning
• IPD was favored over “traditional” models of professional development
(debriefing sessions, and semi-structured interviews).
• Participants’ learning and understanding of the routine’s found in OCR
increased as they were provided support based on their individual needs
(baseline and concluding OCR Needs Assessment, Demonstration and
Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher observations, and semi-structured
interviews).
291
• Professional development should be individualized based on the readiness
and interests of adult learners (teacher observations, Demonstration and
Observation Reflection Sheets, debriefing sessions, and semi-structured
interviews).
• Participants preferred to “learn by doing” their new instructional strategies
(Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher observations, and semi-structured
interviews).
• Three teachers routinely submitted their reflection sheets, two teachers
submitted most of their reflection sheets after the IPD process, and one
teacher submitted one Observation Reflection Sheet (Observation Reflection
Sheets).
• Two teachers primarily focused on documenting the implementation
procedures of the instructional routines, rather than their theoretical purposes
(Demonstration Reflection Sheets).
• Three teachers were ultimately able to pre-establish self-learning goals
(Observation Reflection Sheets).
• Of the five teachers who submitted their reflection sheets, two teachers pre-
established teacher-learning goals, one teacher shifted her pre-established
learning goals from student to teacher-learning goals, and two teachers only
pre-established student-learning goals (Observation Reflection Sheets).
292
• Two teachers did not establish self-learning goals before and after
participating in the Individualized Learning Activities (Demonstration
Reflection Sheets).
• Five teachers were observed reflecting on their instructional delivery while it
occurred (Observation Reflection Sheets and teacher observations).
• All teachers were observed reflecting on their instructional delivery after it
occurred (Observation Reflection Sheets and teacher observations).
• All teachers demonstrated an increased ability to engage in self-reflection as
they were better able to determine their learning needs (OCR Needs
Assessment, Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, and semi-
structured interviews).
• Three teachers re-categorized themselves from the Reteach to the
Intervention group after participating in IPD which demonstrated their ability
to self-reflect and determine needs (OCR Needs Assessment).
• Reflection effectively supported the theoretical understandings of the
participants (Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher
observations, and semi-structured interviews).
• The reflection process was cited by five teachers as being a critical element
of adult learning (semi-structured interviews).
• All teachers shared that teacher collaboration positively affected their
learning and promoted closer professional bonds with their peers
(Demonstration Reflection Sheets and semi-structured interviews).
293
• All teachers shared that they appreciated working with peers who taught
various grade levels (Demonstration Reflection Sheets and semi-structured
interviews).
• Collaboration effectively supported the theoretical understandings of the
participants (Demonstration Reflection Sheets, field notes, and semi-
structured interviews).
• Two out of six teachers shared that the collaboration sessions were a critical
and effective component of IPD (semi-structured interviews).
• One out of six teachers suggested that IPD provide teacher collaboration
sessions prior to conducting lessons in order to support the reflection process
and to pre-establish teacher-learning goals (semi-structured interviews).
Theoretical and Instructional Changes
• Positive student outcomes occurred based on teachers’ learning (Observation
Reflection Sheets, debriefing sessions, teacher observations, and semi-
structured interviews).
• Self-reflection effectively supported the theoretical understandings of the
participants as demonstrated by changes in their instructional delivery
(Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher observations, debriefing sessions,
and semi-structured interviews).
• Self-reflection effectively supported the participants’ instructional knowledge
of routine implementation as demonstrated by changes in their instructional
294
delivery (Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher observations, debriefing
sessions, and semi-structured interviews).
• Collaboration effectively supported the theoretical understandings of the
participants as demonstrated by changes in their instructional delivery
(Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher observations,
field notes, debriefing sessions, and semi-structured interviews).
• Collaboration effectively supported the participants’ instructional knowledge
of routine implementation as demonstrated by changes in their instructional
delivery (Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, teacher
observations, field notes, debriefing sessions, and semi-structured
interviews).
Conclusion
The success of this research project stemmed from the dedication and effort
of six participants. The data revealed that even though each participant experienced
different levels of success, all participants were committed to their professional
growth in order to promote their students’ outcomes. These participants volunteered
their time and were willing to enhance their own learning and experiment with, in
some cases, foreign concepts of instruction.
Chapter Five discusses the findings presented in this chapter as correlated to
the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Implications for future practice, policy, and
further research are also discussed.
295
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings
Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings presented in chapter four. This chapter
has seven sections:
1. Summary of findings: The findings of this study are reported in relation to
the research questions.
2. Discussion of the findings: This section connects major findings of the study
to the research literature discussed in chapter two in relation to professional
development, adult learning, and IPD as reflective of this study’s research
questions.
3. Limitations of the study: The reliability and validity of the findings are
discussed as well as the impediments experienced during the study.
4. Implications for practice: Findings from this study suggest changes in
traditional professional development practices.
5. Implications for policy: Findings from this study suggests policy changes at
the federal, state, and local levels.
6. Implications for future research: This section addresses possibilities for
additional research on the subject of professional development based on the
findings from this study.
7. Conclusion: In this section, the researcher reflects on this project and its
findings.
296
Summary of Findings
A detailed summary of the findings was discussed in chapter four. The
research questions were derived from the literature reviewed in order to find
evidence that an individualized approach to professional development would lead
teachers to learn new theoretical and implementation practices. This summary is
based on the overarching question what is the overall effectiveness of Individualized
Professional Development as a theoretical model? and is broken down by two
underlining questions:
1. What changes occur in the instructional practices of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in
Individualized Professional Development?
As a result of participation in IPD, all participants were able to document
changes in their instructional practices of the OCR instructional routines. The data
from the baseline and concluding Teacher Matrix, as well as, the concluding semi-
structured interviews at the end of this project showed increased learning for all
participants.
The data also revealed that teacher learning and subsequent teacher
implementation and internalization of their delivery of the instructional routines were
not consistent among the participants. Each teacher experienced their own
individual learning outcomes as the project unfolded over the four month period. At
the conclusion of this project, four participants out of six, were observed being able
to fully implement all of the instructional routines after receiving support, while two
297
participants were observed being able to implement the instructional routines but
struggled to maintain appropriate pacing with their instructional delivery. At the
conclusion of this project, all six participants self-determined that they no longer
needed implementation assistance with the instructional routines after receiving
support but three participants shared that they needed additional time to practice their
skills.
2. What changes occur in the theoretical understandings of the OCR
instructional routines when elementary teachers participate in
Individualized Professional Development?
Each of the six participants were able to provide evidence through their
reflection sheets, teacher observations, and by the responses they provided during the
semi-structured interviews, that their theoretical understandings of the OCR
instructional routines had changed their practices and improved their instructional
delivery as a result of IPD.
The data also revealed that teachers’ learning and subsequent teacher
implementation and internalization of their theoretical understandings of the
instructional routines were not consistent among the participants. Each teacher
experienced their own individual learning outcomes as the project unfolded over the
four month period. At the conclusion of this project, three participants out of six,
were observed being able to fully implement their theoretical understandings of the
instructional routines after receiving support, while three participants were observed
being able to implement the instructional routines but struggled to process some of
298
their new theoretical knowledge. At the conclusion of the project, all six participants
self-determined that they no longer needed theoretical support with the instructional
routines they were already provided support for, but three participants shared that
they needed additional time to process their new understandings.
Discussion of Findings
This research focused on teacher learning through an individualized
professional development model. This major shift of IPD included an individualized
professional development model of discussion and theory related directly to their
practice, sacrosanct time for written reflection, collaboration for the development of
theoretical and instructional knowledge, and documented growth through teacher
self-assessments, teacher observations, and informal feedback from the researcher.
This research not only reflected current research on professional development
as summarized in chapter two, but also research surrounding reflection, adult
learning, and other topics germane to the complexities of teaching.
The Purpose of Effective Professional Development
Current research determined that teacher quality had the greatest effect on
student learning and was the most influential factor for promoting student success
(Darling-Hammond, 2001, 2002; Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998;
and Sanders & Rivers, 1996). The summary of this literature determined that when
considering all factors within our direct control, nothing mattered more than the
299
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a teacher – nothing impacted student learning as
directly or powerfully as a “quality teacher”. Additionally, these studies clearly
determined that the academic success of students were significantly influenced by
teachers’ access to and participation in quality professional development activities
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey, 2002; Akiba, et al., 2007; Izumi et al., 2002).
With these findings in mind, IPD recognized the need for effective teachers
whose efficiency was contributed to by quality professional development. In this
particular setting, the researcher was aware that the participants of this study were
mandated to teach Open Court Reading (OCR) as their core language arts program,
and their particular school site was chosen because the school was in their fifth year
of Program Improvement. When initially self-assessed, teachers, on average, felt
they needed theoretical and/or implementation support with 56% of their language
arts program. Based on this high need of program support, and the fact that teachers
were in their seventh year of program implementation, it was determined that OCR
was a complex program despite being prescriptive and skills-based. Therefore, the
researcher determined that in order to promote the academic success of students at
Markham Elementary, these teachers needed access to and participation in quality
professional development activities.
The Problems with Traditional Professional Development
Although researched findings demonstrated the need for effective teachers,
and the ability for professional development to influence teacher effectiveness, there
300
was much dissatisfaction in the research with current practices of teacher
professional development. Despite the general acceptance that professional
development was essential for improving education, it was also determined that
professional development was frequently limited to occasional conferences or
workshops that were attended by reluctant teachers who were mandated to attend.
These workshops were presented by content area specialists or by outside consultants
who did not provide teachers with follow-up support and only offered short-term
services which were market-driven and menu-oriented (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Dawson, 1978; Guskey, 2002, 2003; Little, 1989). A review of the professional
development literature produced substantial criticism of these “drive-by workshops”,
for failing to have lasting effects, and for leaving teachers feeling unprepared for the
classroom (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Clair, 1998; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Dawson, 1978; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991; Guskey, 2003).
It was additionally noted that because professional development activities
were often imposed, they did not take into account the teachers’ perspective of
classroom reality, and they simply considered teachers to be passive receivers of
knowledge and information rather than creators of educational ideology. For these
reasons, researchers determined that teacher in-services tended to be ignored and
therefore generated little permanent effect on teachers (Dawson, 1978; Flores, Tefft-
Cousins, & Diaz, 1991, Little, 1989). Further, it was noted that professional
development activities offered little opportunity for participants to become involved
301
in conversations due to the district-level control over professional development
priorities and practices (Dawson, 1978; Little, 1989).
The research findings in this project concurred with previously conducted
research – traditional professional development is ineffective. During the concluding
semi-structured interviews, teachers were asked to analyze the differences between
traditional professional development and IPD. All teachers shared that they were
mandated to attend one-week trainings held during the summer months and that the
trainings did not include any contextualized follow-up support. Most teachers felt
that this professional development format provided too much information in a short
period of time, thus, little to no transfer of theoretical or implementation knowledge
occurred. As one teacher shared, “Application was where it broke down for me”.
It was also shared by most teachers that the training agenda, were typically
predetermined by their principal and/or district administrators and did not consider
their input or particular needs. As one teacher noted, “They do not necessarily ask us
our opinion of what we believe we need help in”.
The context of these traditional professional development trainings also
proved to be troublesome. Some teachers shared that it was often difficult to admit
areas of professional need in a large group setting among strangers, and that it was
difficult to be removed from their schools, own classrooms, and students. Because
their specific and personalized needs were not met, most teachers felt that the
information provided was “irrelevant” and “uninteresting”. Many of the adjectives
used by the teachers to describe traditional professional development trainings
302
included: “boring”, “disjointed”, “negative”, “useless”, “not applicable”,
“overburdening” and “uninteresting”. As one teacher shared, “you’re just sitting
there so it’s almost like survival to try to concentrate”.
Meeting the Challenge – Creating Effective Professional Development
When synthesized, the findings of the literature reviewed in chapter two
concluded that strategies for authentic teacher professional development endeavors
needed to include systematic, long-range, on-going, and on-site support that was
relevant to the content students were held accountable for learning, while being
embedded in the contextual reality of school life. The literature in the review most
notably claimed that professional development endeavors must: (a) focus on
organizational and individual specified needs to increase the level of teacher skills,
knowledge, self-efficacy, and motivation (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000; and Judith
Little, 1989), (b) be relevant to the context of the classroom (Putnam & Borko,
2006), (c) provide teachers the opportunity to provide input in shared decision-
making (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), and (d) promote opportunities for
self-reflection and collaboration while receiving on-going external support (Clair,
1998; Flores, Tefft-Cousins, and Diaz, 1991 and Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon,
1998). Further, researchers determined that professional development endeavors that
utilized a multiple component design which combined: the presentation of theory,
demonstration of the strategy with shared pedagogical reasoning, initial practice,
opportunities for reflection, feedback regarding teacher efforts, and additional
303
workshops for exploring issues as they emerged were more effective than
information delivered through a traditional transmissive approach (Izumi et al. 2002;
Joyce & Showers, 1987, 2002; Loughran and Berry, 2004; and Putnam & Borko,
2006).
In its creation, IPD recognized research regarding the inadequacies of
traditional professional development and was therefore philosophically based on
suggested reform professional development endeavors that reflected learning
behaviors of teacher-learners. IPD was aligned to the findings of the research
conducted and described in chapter two. The findings from these contributing
scholars of emerging forms of professional development were confirmed as this
project data supported that all participants made significant gains in their theoretical
and implementation knowledge and that all participants preferred learning with the
IPD model rather than traditional forms of professional development.
IPD focused on organizational and individually specified needs to increase
the level of teacher skills, knowledge, self-efficacy, and motivation. As previously
noted, Markham Elementary School was in year five of Program Improvement, and
struggled to meet their learning goals in the content area of language arts, thus,
determining an organizational need. By using the Teacher Matrix, specific learning
needs for each teacher was established through the use of teacher observations, a
self-assessment, and student data. Based on this triangulation of data, specific areas
of need were documented for each individual teacher in terms of their theoretical
understandings and implementation practices of each of the instructional routines
304
found in their language arts program. At the conclusion of this project, it was
evident that by specifically targeting the individual needs of teachers, their skills,
knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation levels increased. During the semi-
structured interviews, all teachers concurred. As one teacher stated:
My understanding of OCR has greatly changed and improved because
I was able to get an individualized approach, hands-on teaching
experience, and assistance with the program strategies and objectives.
I was able to directly apply every single thing that I learned into my
teaching and therefore benefit my students. It was a very easy
transition between the theory and the practicum.
IPD was contextually relevant to the participants’ classrooms and students.
Teacher Observations were conducted in their own classrooms as were most of the
Individualized Learning Activities and debriefing sessions. At the conclusion of this
project, the researcher determined that the context used was essential for promoting
the success of the teachers’ theoretical and implementation knowledge. During the
semi-structured interviews, all six teachers concurred that they appreciated this
proximity and found it influenced their learning. As one teacher shared, “For the
professional development we have, they send us away. This was actually done in my
classroom, so it was very useful.”
IPD provided teachers the opportunity to provide input in shared decision-
making. A Teacher Matrix which included data from teacher observations, student
assessments, and teacher input based on their self-assessed needs, was used to
influence the creation of the Individualized Learning Activities. At the conclusion of
this project, it was apparent that all three categories of the Teacher Matrix were
305
necessary to pinpoint the exact individual needs of each teacher, and all six teachers
shared during the semi-structured interviews, that they appreciated the opportunity to
influence the learning objectives of the Individualized Learning Activities. As one
teacher noted:
I made it specific to my needs. I was comfortable enough to let you
know what areas I needed help in. I was honest and I didn’t teach
areas that I knew I was really well on. I taught areas where I was
confused or where I wasn’t really sure, so you could give me your
feedback and help me become a better teacher. So IPD was different
because I chose what I needed help with and that’s what I got help in.
IPD provided teachers opportunities for self-reflection while receiving on-
going external support. The participants were asked to complete Demonstration and
Observation Reflection Sheets before and after each professional development
session. This did not guarantee however, that the entries were completed or were
highly reflective despite having listed questions intended to prompt such reflections.
It was difficult for the researcher to obtain reflection sheets from Teachers D, E, and
F. This led the researcher to believe that these particular teachers were not in the
habit of formally reflecting on their own teaching practices. Even though the
researcher determined that the range of commitment, ability to reflect, and learning
outcomes from the reflections varied, some teachers shared during the semi-
structured interviews, that the opportunity to reflect influenced their learning. As
one teacher shared, “…the reflection part of it was beneficial…” IPD provided
teachers opportunities for collaboration while receiving on-going external support.
Collaboration occurred in two separate formats, between the researcher and the
306
individual teachers and among all of the participants. At the conclusion of this
project, field notes completed by the researcher determined that both forms of
collaboration were essential components of IPD as they supported teachers’
acquisition of theoretical and implementation knowledge. During the semi-
structured interviews, all six participants shared that they appreciated the
personalized feedback they received from the researcher after being observed. As
one teacher shared:
I found that just having another person in the room, another person to
reflect on what I was doing, what the students were doing, and what
we both needed was extremely helpful. Instead of me going to an
outside source that didn’t have any idea of what I was doing, you saw
exactly what I was doing. You were able to offer useful and helpful
feedback that was specific to my needs.
Also, at the conclusion of this project, all six teachers shared during the semi-
structured interviews, that they appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with their
peers. As one teacher noted:
The most useful learning activity of IPD was when I observed other
teachers, and then the reflection and discussion afterwards. I was able
to see how other teachers used OCR. So it was very useful to get
feedback from teachers who were actually doing it [OCR], and had
been doing it for quite awhile for clarification.
Additionally, at the conclusion of this project, all six teachers shared during the
semi-structured interviews, that they appreciated the opportunity to work and
collaborate with peers from various grade levels. However, one teacher noted that he
would have preferred to also collaborate with peers from his own grade level:
307
The demonstrations were very useful but the most helpful was being
able to debrief and speak with other teachers. Not just the expert
teacher, but other teachers going through the same thing. The
collaboration was definitely helpful across the grade levels – that is
something that we never get to do. But, it would have been nice to
have seen the routines also in my grade level. One of the questions I
had was about Handing Off with more than 35 kids and the teacher
that gave me advice has never seen more than 20 in her class. It was
kind of like, really, I have twice as many kids as you, so you’re
almost not credible. You’ve never seen this many kids in a classroom
in your whole career and you’re giving me advice?
IPD utilized a multiple component design. Teachers were asked to determine
the theoretical rationales supporting the instructional routines taught in OCR through
peer collaboration. Individualized Learning Activities were established to explore
issues or needs as they emerged on the Teacher Matrix. Teachers were provided
with demonstrated lessons. Each participant had the opportunity to be an “expert
teacher” to demonstrate an instructional routine for their peers, which subsequently
provided opportunities for collaborative reflection and feedback regarding their
efforts. Teachers then had the opportunity to practice their routines during the
teacher observations which subsequently provided opportunities for individualized
reflection and feedback regarding their efforts. As determined by the growth of
teachers’ theoretical and implementation knowledge, the multiple component design
of IPD proved to be effective. This conclusion was drawn by the researcher as
teachers were observed increasing their theoretical and implementation knowledge of
OCR while engaged in different components of IPD, thus, the multiple component
design effectively reached each individual based on their learning preferences and
styles. At the conclusion of this project, all six teachers shared during the semi-
308
structured interviews, that they appreciated various components of the IPD design.
As one teacher shared, “By becoming the expert teacher, I was able to reflect on my
own teaching and see what I was doing effectively and I got some positive
feedback.” While a second teacher shared:
I definitely learned from the demonstration lessons because I am a
visual learner. I have to see it in order to really understand it and then
the implementation was really helpful because then I could see how
much I took out of it. I have a hard time reflecting on what I’m
learning; I do a lot better when I have constructive criticism.
A New Method – Individualized Professional Development
As discussed in chapter two, adult learners or teachers participating in
professional development are just as diverse as the students they teach and therefore
researchers determined that professional developers need to respond to this diversity
accordingly by differentiating their staff development methods (Elmore, 2002; and
Hertberg & Brighton, 2005). Researchers also recommended the use of dialogue and
discourse as components of professional development in order to provide the
stimulus for teachers to change their educational practice (Cohen & Ball, in press;
Elmore, 2002a; and Lemlech & Kaplan, 1990). Therefore, the theoretical
framework, or cognitive coaching model developed by Costa and Garmston (1994,
2002) was used as the grounding foundation of IPD.
As previously noted, IPD used a multiple component design to acknowledge
the variance of learning readiness and learning styles within a mixed-ability context,
and then adjusted its instructional delivery accordingly. And similar to the cognitive
309
coaching model, IPD was posited as a non-judgmental, mediation process that
involved reflecting, and/or problem-solving conversations that supported teacher
interaction. As previously noted, this interactive process was mostly successful, in
developing communication skills that required teachers to think about their teaching
decisions through self-evaluation. In sum, there were many findings from this
research that supported IPD’s theoretical rationale as influenced by cognitive
coaching. First, teacher learning increased, as teachers engaged and transformed
their thought through constructed and posed questions. Second, due to established
and maintained trust, teachers were comfortable admitting their areas of need and
comfortable enough to engage in the learning process. Third, teacher learning
occurred when teachers were intellectually engaged in non-judgmental response
behaviors during the debriefing sessions of their own lessons and while debriefing
after the demonstrated lessons. Fourth, teacher learning occurred when established
and maintained rapport existed between the researcher and the participants, as well
as, when it existed among the participants themselves. And fifth, teacher learning
occurred when they were encouraged to become self-managed, self-monitored, and
self-modifying. Although each of these findings concurred that components of
cognitive coaching did increase teacher learning, as previously noted, the frequency
and levels of self-reflection, thus, frequency and levels of teacher learning, varied
among each of the participants.
One component of IPD that was not directly influenced by cognitive
coaching, but the findings of this research determined that it should have been, was
310
allowing the participants to pre-plan their lessons and generate their pre-established
learning goals in a collaborative setting. Based on the researcher’s field notes, and
analysis of the completed Demonstration and Observation Reflection Sheets, it was
determined that this component of cognitive coaching should have been embedded
into IPD in order to support teachers in the reflection process. This finding was also
voiced by one teacher during a concluding interview:
I think it would have been nice to talk to somebody who was going
through the same problems. For example, if me and one of my
colleagues wanted to know more about decoding we could sit down
and reflect together about what we were going to teach and reflect
before our lesson. It is easier to reflect with someone else because
reflecting with yourself is just saying what you know and that’s really
not reflecting.
Limitations of the Study
As with all scholarly studies, this study had limitations. The small sample of
teachers used in an urban setting prevented the researcher from making specific
generalizations from the data.
The researcher understood that a totally unbiased qualitative study with
precise valid data is almost impossible (Merriam, 1998; Airasian & Gay, 2000).
Additionally, for the previous two years, the researcher was the professional
development provider at Markham Elementary School. During that time, the
researcher worked closely with the participants involved, and had a knowledge base
of their teaching capabilities and styles. Further, response bias may have influenced
some of the participants to answer the interview questions based on what they
311
thought the researcher wanted to hear. However, the researcher took several
measures to address the issues of researcher and participant biases as suggested by
Airasian and Gay (2000):
• Make a concerted effort to obtain participant trust and comfort.
• Recognize one's own biases and preferences and be honest with oneself to
seek them out.
• Allow participants to review field notes and tape recordings.
• Use verbatim accounts whenever possible.
• Examine closely any unusual results; ignoring outliers may represent a bias.
• Triangulation of data (p.225).
An additional limitation of this research was time constraints. One goal of
IPD was to be continuous and on-going. The Teacher Matrix used in this process
only demonstrated the initial steps of the IPD process. The ultimate goal is for IPD
to continuously monitor teacher change and growth in order to continually provide
different avenues of professional development support in order to essentially place
every teacher in the Challenge group for every instructional routine. Additionally,
due to time constraints, concluding Teacher Observations were conducted for only
the routines that were provided professional development support, and it was
therefore assumed that the teachers placed in the baseline Challenge groups remained
at that caliber of theoretical and instructional implementation levels.
During this study, the researcher encountered three impediments. The
process of obtaining district IRB approval took three months rather than two weeks
312
due to a reorganization of personnel at the district office. In the middle of the study,
teachers were on winter break for three weeks. Throughout the process, two teachers
were in transition, as they needed to move their classrooms due to on-site
construction. These impediments may have impacted teacher learning and may have
impacted the overall implementation of IPD.
Implications for Practice
This project shifted traditional models of professional development to an
individualized model. This model focused on teacher-directed learning, teacher
facilitated discussion, and teacher analysis of their own learning. This model also
suggested that an individualized approach to professional development involve
several necessary components: theory-based instruction, multiple components of
learning methods, a triangulation of methods to determine the specific needs of
teachers, teacher input, and time allocated for reflection and collaboration.
The participants enjoyed the sustainability of IPD as they determined that
they would independently continue components of IPD as their needs had been
recognized and correlating expert teachers had been determined. It was therefore
apparent, that teachers needed to be involved in a sustained project that not only
interested them but also specifically targeted their learning needs. IPD respected
adult learning as the conduit for increased student achievement as teacher learning,
and subsequently student learning, became the central focus of school improvement.
313
This study also raised the question of whether professional development
should be individualized for adult-learners in the same way that instruction is
differentiated for student-learners. The idea of an interest inventory, or the OCR
Needs Assessment used for IPD was not a new concept. For years, professional
development planners have used this data gathering method. However, this study
suggested deeper individualization by providing various or multiple component
teacher-learning methods that were directly aligned to those assessed needs.
One way to individualize professional development is to require teachers to
participate in training that is appropriate for their learning level and experience.
Although this may appear to provide an appropriate setting for teacher-learning, as
revealed in the findings, this does not ensure the desired outcome of teacher learning
and/or teacher transfer.
A second way to individualize professional development is through
reflection. The importance and power of teacher reflection and collaboration cannot
be overlooked. The participants in this study affirmed that teacher reflection was a
key component in their learning even though it was not always done, or done in
depth. However, the institutionalization of reflective practice provides the structure
needed for a learning community. The findings in this study suggest that teacher
collaboration is vital, and that teachers should be given designated times before and
after participating in professional development experiences in order to reflect.
Although some may argue that this is an individual's preference, as demonstrated by
those who did not complete the reflection sheets, time should therefore be allotted
314
and not required. It may also be suggested that on-going, open-ended journals rather
than the researcher-provided reflection sheets be used in order to prompt
participation and/or higher levels of self-reflections.
During this study, teachers were engaged in conversations that promoted
collegiality and collaboration. The participants shared that they benefited from
working with their peers to analyze their own understandings, and to provide and
receive feedback regarding the implementation of the demonstrated lessons. Prior to
participation in this project, collaboration was done among their grade level peers
and focused on "splitting up the work" rather than learning from each other. This
case study, like many others, illuminated the power of collaboration to influence
teacher growth, and due to this growth, the teachers shared that they were motivated
to continue collaborating after IPD ceased. Therefore, this study confirmed the
social nature of adult learning.
It became evident that Behaviorist learning theory benefitted the transfer of
data and information from the researcher to the teacher-learners and the suitability of
this theory was reinforced by the teachers’ movement on the Teacher Matrix. The
Constructivist learning theory better suited implementation support as this study also
emphasized the importance of teachers learning by doing within an appropriate
context. This again underscored the importance of professional development to be
focused on what is applicable to the needs of teachers.
315
Implications for Policy
Findings from this study, suggest implications for policy at the federal, state,
and local levels. Professional development has been and continues to be a driving
force with the reform and accountability movements in education. Embedded in the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act of 2001, are specific criteria defining professional
development as "High Quality". To determine its quality level, the standard of
"scientifically-based research" is used. When adhering to this federal standard, most
would classify traditional professional development as inadequate or not of “high
quality”. This study however, suggests that an individualized professional
development approach is of higher quality than traditional methods for teacher
learning.
At the state level, professional development is seen as a vehicle for re-
licensure. Teachers collect their Professional Development Points (PDP), and are re-
licensed with very little accountability. However, collecting points to submit to the
state department of education for review can hardly be defined as evidence towards
school, teacher, and student improvement. This study revealed that teacher learning
and transfer takes place when teachers are motivated to improve their teaching
practices, school, and student achievement.
At the local level, school boards need to support individualized professional
development methods. The Superintendent of Schools should educate the school
board of the importance and implications of this practice. The Superintendent must
explicitly communicate the expectation for learning throughout the professional
316
development implementation with support and input from principals and teachers. It
is also important for local administrators to be cognizant of the feelings of teachers,
which can affect their learning outcomes. As concluded in chapter two and as
concurred by the findings of this project, teachers oftentimes are uncomfortable
sharing that they lack knowledge and/or skills – especially when being
“congregated” with teachers from multiple schools. However, the participants of this
study revealed that they felt comfortable participating in IPD. The researcher
concluded that IPD was non-threatening. The OCR Needs Assessment was privately
completed by each individual participant, the observations and debriefing sessions
were conducted with only the researcher, each teacher was asked to demonstrate a
lesson to their peers, and the Individualized Learning Activities included only
teachers with the same or similar needs. Furthermore, it has been recognized that the
participants in this research already had a foundation of OCR understanding that had
been presented to them during district trainings making IPD possible. It is therefore
recommended, as suggested by Putnam & Borko (2006), that multiple contexts for
professional development be used. This model should use summer workshops in
order to initially introduce theoretical and research-based ideas with on-going IPD
support during the school year as teachers attempt to integrate theoretical ideas into
their own classroom practice. Furthermore, school cultures need to be safe
environments where teachers are able to take risks in the classroom and learn from
their experiences.
317
Implications for Future Research
Additional research is recommended in order to confirm the findings of this
case study. A continued investigation on the impact that IPD has on adult learning
could contribute to improved teaching and learning practices. Therefore, the
following recommendations are made:
1. A longitudinal study is recommended to investigate the correlation
between IPD and increased student achievement.
2. The IPD process should be researched to monitor long-term change in
teacher practices, or Challenge placement, to determine if a change in
teacher understandings and/or beliefs has sustained over time.
3. Although this study found that IPD documented teacher learning which
transferred to the classroom, the IPD process should be researched to
determine if Challenge status’ is maintained after monitoring pressure is
released (Warren & Rosebery, 2001).
4. Based on the successful outcomes of IPD, additional research should be
conducted to determine if IPD can be used within a larger context –
among multiple schools and/or across a school district.
5. Based on the successful outcomes of IPD, additional research should be
conducted to determine if IPD can be transferred to other standard-based
curriculums that are also prescriptive in nature.
6. While many researchers and practicing teachers acknowledge
differentiated instruction as a compelling and effectual means of
318
restructuring the traditional classroom to teach students of diverse
abilities, interests, and learning profiles, this philosophical ideal is lacking
in empirical validation when considering teacher-learners.
Conclusion
Education reforms and standards-based education expect teachers to teach all
students in accordance to state adopted standards and expect teachers to ensure
student passage of both state and federal high stakes tests. In order for these
expectations to be fulfilled, teachers must be provided professional development
opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for meeting the demands
of school accountability.
As evidenced by the findings in this study, traditional methods of
professional development are no longer able to effectively equip teachers with the
knowledge and skills necessary for meeting those demands. We owe it to children
and to our teachers, to provide learning experiences that are meaningful and relevant.
While conducting this research, it was also evident to the researcher that it
takes a village to make IPD and professional growth happen. In this case study, the
principal played a vital role in providing: class coverage for teachers, technology
equipment for learning activities, and meeting places for debriefing sessions to
occur. The front office personnel was dedicated to ensuring that the preliminary and
concluding observations and learning activities occurred as scheduled and delivered
materials from the researcher to the participants. Support staff personnel made their
319
schedules available so they could cover participant classes while the teachers
collaborated. To make change happen “buy-in” at multiple levels within the learning
community of Markham Elementary was needed.
The researcher is indebted to the staff at Markham Elementary School. The
teacher participants were hard working, reflective, and desired personal growth in
order to improve for their students. This study was completed because of the
professionalism of these six wonderful individuals.
320
References
Airasian, P. & Gay, L.R. (2000). Educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Akiba, M, LeTendre, G.K., & Scribner, J.P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity
gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, Vol.
36, No. 7. pp. 369-387.
Ball, D. L. (2004). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: What do we think
we know and what do we need to learn? Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500-508.
Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (in press). Developing practice, developing practitioners:
Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L.D. Hammond
& G. Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership. 57(8), 28-33.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the
Learning Sciences. (2) 141-178.
Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: persistent questions in a promising approach.
TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 465-492.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching Teacher Education in Changing
Times: Politics and Paradigms in M. Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner, Eds.
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and
teacher education (Pp. 37-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship:
Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick
(eds.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Costa, A. L, & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for
renaissance schools. Norwood, MA. Christopher Gordon Publishing.
321
Costa, A. L, & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for
renaissance schools. Norwood, MA. Christopher Gordon Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cruickshank, D., & Metcalf, K. (1990). Training within teacher preparation. In
W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook for research in teacher education (pp.469-
497). New York: Macmillan.
Cunningham, P. and Allington, r. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read
and write. Boston: Pearson. Chapter 1.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review
of state policy evidence.” Retrieved February 10, 2008 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the
evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 23(1), 55-77.
Darling-Hammond, L., (2002). Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequality
in california’s public schools. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute for
Democracy, Education, & Access (IDEA).
Dawson, A. J. (1978). Criteria for the creation of in-service education programs.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, Vol. 3, No.
1. pp. 49-60.
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: McGraw -Hill.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002).
Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: results from a
three-year longitutdinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
24(2), 81-112.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P.L., & McCarthey, S.J. (1996). Restructuring in the
classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
322
Fenstermacher, G.D., (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge
in research on teaching. In L.D. Hammond (ed.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Ferguson, R.F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why
money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 2, 465-498.
Flores, B., Tefft-Cousins, P., & Diaz, E. (1991). Transforming deficit myths about
learning, language, and culture. Language Arts, 68 (5), 369-379.
Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluation professional development.
Educational leadership, March, 46-51.
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice. 8(3/4), 381-391.
Guskey, T. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional
development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin 87(637), 4-20.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivken, S. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Working paper No. 6691. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Haycock, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don’t
we act like it? Education Trust Thinking K-16, 8 (1) 1-3.
Hertberg, H.L., & Brighton, C.M. (2005). Room to improve. National Staff
Development Council. 26(4), 42-47.
Hill, H. C. (1989). Professional development standards and practices in elementary
school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal. 104(3), 215-231.
Hoffman, J. and Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next
millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your
granddaughter’s teacher should. Retrieved July 8, 2008 from
http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2000-01/art-online-00-01.html.
Hollins, E.R. (1993). Assessing teacher competence for diverse populations. Theory
into Practice, Assessing Tomorrow's Teachers. Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 93-99.
323
Izumi, L. T., Coburn, K. G., & Cox, M. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty,
high-performing schools in California. San Francisco: Pacific Research
Institute.
Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Bennett, (1987). Synthesis of research on staff
development: a framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis.
Educational Leadership. 77-87.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Understanding comprehensive reform. Northwest
Educational Laboratory. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from
http://www/serve.org/UCR/UCRComp.Three.html.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lemlech, J. K., & Kaplan, S. N., (1990). Learning to talk about teaching: collegiality
in clinical teacher education. Action in Teacher Education. Vol. XII, No. 1,
pp. 13-19.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 591-596.
Little, J.W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers’ professional development
opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11(2), 165-179.
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modeling by teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(2), 193-203.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. New York:
Routledge Publishers.
Marsden, J. (2007). The effectiveness of job-embedded professional development: A
study of six first grade teachers. Ed.D dissertation, Department of Education
Administration and Higher Education, Boston College, Ann Arbor, MI.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Newmann, F.M., King, B.M., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: lessons from urban elementary schools. American
Journal of Education. 108(4), 259-299.
324
Ormrod, J.E. (2006) Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. 5
th
Edition.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Merrill.
Putnam, R. T., Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher,
29(1), 4-15.
Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy assessment and
instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 311-332.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996, November). Cumulative and Residual Effects of
Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. Retrieved February 1,
2008, from University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
Center site: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=3048
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4-14.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Thousand, CA: Sage.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiated instruction: can it work? The School
Administrator. 56, 6-11.
Warren, B. & Rosebery, A. (2001). Teaching science to at-risk students: Teacher
research communities as a context for professional development and school
reform. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE).
Retrieved June 1, 2008, from
http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/sd/4.1_final.html
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of learning to
teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68, 130-178.
Wilson, S. M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
Wright, P.S., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in education. 11, 57-67.
325
Yin, Robert K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social
Research Methods, Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
326
Appendix A: Table of Research Journals
Author Participants; method
of gathering data
Study Focus Results
The Purpose of Effective Professional Development
Akiba,
LeTendre,
& Scribner,
(2007)
compared 46 countries, using data
from the 2003 Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), which measures trends in
students’ mathematics and science
achievement
To determine the
importance of investing in
teacher quality for
improving national
achievement
Although the national level of
teacher quality in the United States
was similar to the international
average, the United States had the
fourth largest opportunity gap, the
difference between the students of
high and low SES in their access to
qualified teachers.
Birman,
Desimone,
Garet, &
Porter,
(2000)
more than 1,000 teachers were
nationally surveyed and the data was
analyzed in relation to studied
literature
A research-based study
was used to determine six
factors with potential for
achieving professional
development results
Reform type activities are more
effective because they are longer in
duration, are content focused, and
provide active learning
opportunities and coherency.
Clair,
(1998)
2 year long study of two teacher study
groups
To illuminate the
complexities of working
with teachers in new ways
regarding the education of
English language learners
Teacher study groups are an
alternative to traditional
professional development structures
in that they provide opportunities
for teachers to explore together
issues of teaching and learning in
linguistically and culturally diverse
schools.
Cochran-
Smith, &
Fries,
(2005)
reports the work of the American
Educational Research Assoc.
(AERA’s) Panel on Research and
Teacher Education
To bring clarity to the
research on teacher
education drawing on the
work of a team of experts in
the field
Politics and paradigms have
influenced changes in teacher
education.
Darling-
Hammond
(2000)
50-states; survey of policies and state
case study analyses
To examine the ways in
which teacher
qualifications and other
school inputs are related to
student academic
achievement across states
Measures of teacher quality in the
context of teacher preparation and
certification are more strongly
related to student achievement than
other kinds of investments such as:
teachers’ education levels, class
size, overall spending on education,
teacher salaries, student poverty
levels, and language status.
Darling-
Hammond
(2001)
Presents additional data on the sub-
sample of teachers previously used to
conduct research and reviews
literature on teacher education and
certification
To critique the
methodological grounding
for the findings of research
conducted by Goldhaber
and Brewer which
suggests that teacher
certification be abandoned
Teachers with more educational
training appear to do better in
producing student achievement.
Darling-
Hammond,
(2002)
summarizes of a series of reports that
have examined the current conditions
in California schools
To investigate the claims
of Williams v. State of
California and consider
possible alternatives for
insuring adequate and
equal opportunities for
learning for all students
There is great inequality in the
access to well-qualified teachers as
evident in the disparities in the
access of California school children.
A coherent, and comprehensive
system aimed at ensuring that every
child has access to a qualified
teacher is needed.
327
Dawson,
(1978)
examination of in-service programs,
and review of research literature
To propose a fresh look at
in-service education
programs
“In-service programs which neglect
to provide for the development of a
sense of commitment to and mutual
support for the activities undertaken
by the participants will not have
long-term effects. In-service
programs have to develop a
psychological sense of community
among participants, and this
requires a commitment by
participants and organizers to a
relatively long-term involvement
with the program.”
Elmore,
(2002)
reviews the Standards for Staff
Development by the National Staff
Development Council (2001);
Helping Teachers Teach Well:
Transforming Professional
Development, a policy brief from the
Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, (1995); and Revising
Professional Development: What
Learner-Centered Professional
Development Looks Like, National
Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching (1999)
Reviews the organizational
and cultural reasons why
school systems are
presently not likely to
make effective use of
professional development
and how professional
development can address
those issues by
incorporating a
“Consensus View”
Determines that a “Consensus
View” recognizes the need for
educators to acquire knowledge and
skills to improve student learning;
how educators come to master that
knowledge; which incentives
encourage people to change their
teaching practices; and what
resources are available to support
the practice of improvement.
Ferguson,
(1991)
900 districts in Texas, in which over
2.4 million students attend school;
examined data
Addresses determinants of
student test scores, factors
that influence which
districts attract the most
effective teachers, and how
and why money matters
Differences in the quality of
schooling account for between one
quarter and one third of the
variation among Texas school
districts in students’ scores on
statewide standardized reading
exams.
Guskey,
(2002)
summarizes current research on
evaluating professional development
5 critical levels of
evaluation are used to
evaluate and improve
professional development
programs
Five levels of evaluation should be
used not only to evaluate
professional development
experiences but should also be used
to plan the professional
development experiences through
“backward planning” in which the
provider begins with student
learning outcomes.
Guskey,
(2002)
current research is used to develop a
model of professional development
Current research is used to
generate the ‘Model of
Teacher Change’ for
creating professional
development that elicits
change in teacher
classroom practices,
attitudes and beliefs, and
in the learning outcomes of
students
Significant change in teachers’
attitudes and beliefs occurs
primarily after they gain evidence of
improvements in student learning
therefore three principles are
essential in planning effective
professional development programs:
recognize that change is a gradual
and difficult process for teachers;
ensure that teachers receive regular
feedback on student learning
progress; and provide continued
follow-up, support, and pressure.
Guskey,
(2003)
thirteen lists that comprise a
representative sample of recently
developed and most popular
professional development
characteristics
Analysis of 13 lists of
effective professional
development
characteristics to
determine whether they
were derived through
similar procedures, frames
of reference, and include
similar characteristics
Due to little agreement among
professional development
researchers or practitioners
regarding the criteria for
effectiveness in professional
development, individual
characteristics vary widely in their
frequency of usage and not one
single characteristic is consistently
named in all lists.
328
Hanushek,
Kain, &
Rivken,
(1998)
partnership with the Texas Education
Agency (TEA); combined sources to
compile extensive data on 200,000
students in 3,000 schools
To disentangle the factors
influencing achievement
There is a negative impact of initial
years of teaching and a positive
impact for smaller class sizes for
low income students in earlier
grades—both in which are relatively
small in comparison to the effects of
overall teacher quality differences.
Haycock, K.
(2004)
multiple cohorts of students; annual
tests in five different subject areas
were measured
Student achievement and
their exposure to
ineffective and effective
teachers were tracked
longitudinally to determine
the value-added
contributions of teachers
90% of low achieving students who
got three effective teachers in a row
passed standardized tests
determining that low achievers
become high achievers with
effective teachers.
Little,
(1989)
30 of California’s school districts
chosen by a probability-
proportionate-to-size procedure on the
basis of student enrollment
Creates a comprehensive
inventory of formal staff
development activity and
costs to reveal the policy
and stance taken by
districts toward teachers
and their professional
development
There is much district-level control
over professional development
priorities which promotes
disconnect between staff
development planning from the life
of the schools and classrooms.
These professional development
opportunities tend to be provided by
specialists who offer short-term
services which are market-driven
and menu-oriented.
Sanders &
Rivers,
(1996)
cohort of students; tracked during
their second to fifth grade school
years using statistical mixed-model
methodologies
To conduct multivariate,
longitudinal analysis of
student achievement
Groups of students with comparable
abilities and initial achievement
levels may have vastly different
academic outcomes as a result of the
sequence of teachers to which they
are assigned.
Shulman,
(1986)
Secondary teachers in California that
have already completed a bachelor’s
degree in the subject to be taught or
has earned a waiver by examination;
followed novice teachers by:
gathering data on the teacher
education program the novice
teachers were enrolled in; regularly
conducting interviews; asking
preparatory teachers to read and
comment on materials related to the
subjects they teach; and observing
their instruction after participating in
a planning interview
To determine qualities that
influence “teaching
effectiveness” by devoting
at least one year of study
on each novice teacher
beginning with their year
of teacher preparation and
following through during
their first year of full-time
teaching
Seven domains of teacher
knowledge are necessary for
teaching effectiveness: knowledge
of subject matter, pedagogical
content knowledge, knowledge of
other content, knowledge of the
curriculum, knowledge of learners,
knowledge of educational aims, and
general pedagogical knowledge.
Wideen,
Mayer-
Smith, &
Moon,
(1998)
93 empirical studies on learning to
teach were reviewed
To establish what is known
about how people learn to
teach and to critique the
quality of the reporting of
relevant research
Supports the findings of others that
many traditional teacher education
programs have little effect upon the
beliefs of beginning teachers but
provides examples of some
successful programs that build upon
the beliefs of pre-service teachers
and feature systematic and
consistent long-term support in a
collaborative setting.
Wright,
Horn, &
Sanders,
(1997)
TCAP scores for five subject areas
and three grade levels from the 1994
and 1995 school years were analyzed
This study examined the
magnitude of teacher
effects on student
achievement while
considering the influences
of intraclassroom
heterogeneity, student
achievement level, and
class size
Teacher effects are dominant factors
affecting student academic gain and
classroom context variables of
heterogeneity among students and
class size have relatively little
influence on academic gain,
therefore, teachers make a
difference.
329
Author Participants; method
of gathering data
Study Focus Results
The Problems with Traditional Professional Development
Birman,
Desimone,
Garet, &
Porter,
(2000)
more than 1,000 teachers were
nationally surveyed and the data was
analyzed in relation to studied
literature
A research-based study
was used to determine six
factors with potential for
achieving professional
development results
Reform type activities are more
effective because they are longer in
duration, are content focused, and
provide active learning opportunities
and coherency.
Clair,
(1998)
2 year long study of two teacher
study groups
To illuminate the
complexities of working
with teachers in new ways
regarding the education of
English language learners
Teacher study groups are an
alternative to traditional professional
development structures in that they
provide opportunities for teachers to
explore together issues of teaching
and learning in linguistically and
culturally diverse schools.
Darling-
Hammond
(2000)
50-states; survey of policies and state
case study analyses
To examine the ways in
which teacher
qualifications and other
school inputs are related to
student academic
achievement across states
Measures of teacher quality in the
context of teacher preparation and
certification are more strongly
related to student achievement than
other kinds of investments such as:
teachers’ education levels, class size,
overall spending on education,
teacher salaries, student poverty
levels, and language status.
Dawson,
(1978)
examination of in-service programs,
and review of research literature
To propose a fresh look at
in-service education
programs
“In-service programs which neglect
to provide for the development of a
sense of commitment to and mutual
support for the activities undertaken
by the participants will not have
long-term effects. In-service
programs have to develop a
psychological sense of community
among participants, and this requires
a commitment by participants and
organizers to a relatively long-term
involvement with the program.”
Elmore,
(2002)
reviews the Standards for Staff
Development by the National Staff
Development Council (2001);
Helping Teachers Teach Well:
Transforming Professional
Development, a policy brief from the
Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, (1995); and Revising
Professional Development: What
Learner-Centered Professional
Development Looks Like, National
Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching (1999)
Reviews the organizational
and cultural reasons why
school systems are
presently not likely to
make effective use of
professional development
and how professional
development can address
those issues by
incorporating a “Consensus
View”
Determines that a “Consensus View”
recognizes the need for educators to
acquire knowledge and skills to
improve student learning; how
educators come to master that
knowledge; which incentives
encourage people to change their
teaching practices; and what
resources are available to support the
practice of improvement.
Flores,
Tefft-
Cousins, &
Diaz,
(1991)
Los Angeles County Case Studies
Project targeted 6 schools committed
to long-term staff development and
curricular shift; case study
To transform the
pedagogical knowledge of
teacher myths and
assumptions
Teachers may rely solely on personal
experiences and may not ignore their
personal prejudices which guide
their instructional practices and
decisions.
Guskey,
(2002)
summarizes current research on
evaluating professional development
5 critical levels of
evaluation are used to
evaluate and improve
professional development
programs
Five levels of evaluation should be
used not only to evaluate
professional development
experiences but should also be used
to plan the professional development
experiences through “backward
planning” in which the provider
begins with student learning
outcomes.
330
Guskey,
(2002)
current research is used to develop a
model of professional development
Current research is used to
generate the ‘Model of
Teacher Change’ for
creating professional
development that elicits
change in teacher
classroom practices,
attitudes and beliefs, and in
the learning outcomes of
students
Significant change in teachers’
attitudes and beliefs occurs primarily
after they gain evidence of
improvements in student learning
therefore three principles are
essential in planning effective
professional development programs:
recognize that change is a gradual
and difficult process for teachers;
ensure that teachers receive regular
feedback on student learning
progress; and provide continued
follow-up, support, and pressure.
Guskey,
(2003)
thirteen lists that comprise a
representative sample of recently
developed and most popular
professional development
characteristics
Analysis of 13 lists of
effective professional
development
characteristics to determine
whether they were derived
through similar procedures,
frames of reference, and
include similar
characteristics
Due to little agreement among
professional development
researchers or practitioners regarding
the criteria for effectiveness in
professional development, individual
characteristics vary widely in their
frequency of usage and not one
single characteristic is consistently
named in all lists.
Little,
(1989)
30 of California’s school districts
chosen by a probability-
proportionate-to-size procedure on
the basis of student enrollment
Creates a comprehensive
inventory of formal staff
development activity and
costs to reveal the policy
and stance taken by
districts toward teachers
and their professional
development
There is much district-level control
over professional development
priorities which promotes disconnect
between staff development planning
from the life of the schools and
classrooms. These professional
development opportunities tend to be
provided by specialists who offer
short-term services which are
market-driven and menu-oriented.
Wideen,
Mayer-
Smith, &
Moon,
(1998)
93 empirical studies on learning to
teach were reviewed
To establish what is known
about how people learn to
teach and to critique the
quality of the reporting of
relevant research
Supports the findings of others that
many traditional teacher education
programs have little effect upon the
beliefs of beginning teachers but
provides examples of some
successful programs that build upon
the beliefs of pre-service teachers
and feature systematic and consistent
long-term support in a collaborative
setting.
Author Participants; method
of gathering data
Study Focus Results
Teacher Learning and Effective Professional Development
Ball, (1996) Review of related literature To address four questions: 1)
What do we think we
currently know about how
teachers learn? 2) What do we
know about the thing to be
learned? 3) What do we know
about teachers and what they
bring to learning about
teaching? 4) What don't we
know about teaching and
teacher learning and how
could we go about learning
more?
Reform type activities should
allow for discovery learning
through teacher critique and
inquiry
331
Birman,
Desimone,
Garet, & Porter,
(2000)
more than 1,000 teachers were
nationally surveyed and the data
was analyzed in relation to
studied literature
A research-based study was
used to determine six factors
with potential for achieving
professional development
results
Reform type activities are more
effective because they are longer
in duration, are content focused,
and provide active learning
opportunities and coherency.
Clair, (1998) 2 year long study of two teacher
study groups
To illuminate the
complexities of working with
teachers in new ways
regarding the education of
English language learners
Teacher study groups are an
alternative to traditional
professional development
structures in that they provide
opportunities for teachers to
explore together issues of
teaching and learning in
linguistically and culturally
diverse schools.
Collins, Brown,
& Newman,
(1989)
analyzes three success models of
apprenticeship and conducts a
review of related literature
To analyze the ability for
apprenticeships to assist in the
development of cognitive and
metacognitive skills
Proposes a general framework for
the design of learning
environments where content,
pedagogical methods, the
sequencing of learning activities
and the sociology of learning is
taught.
Dawson, (1978) examination of in-service
programs, and review of research
literature
To propose a fresh look at in-
service education programs
“In-service programs which
neglect to provide for the
development of a sense of
commitment to and mutual
support for the activities
undertaken by the participants
will not have long-term effects.
In-service programs have to
develop a psychological sense of
community among participants,
and this requires a commitment
by participants and organizers to a
relatively long-term involvement
with the program.”
Elmore, (2002) reviews the Standards for Staff
Development by the National
Staff Development Council
(2001); Helping Teachers Teach
Well: Transforming Professional
Development, a policy brief from
the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, (1995);
and Revising Professional
Development: What Learner-
Centered Professional
Development Looks Like,
National Partnership for
Excellence and Accountability in
Teaching (1999)
Reviews the organizational
and cultural reasons why
school systems are presently
not likely to make effective
use of professional
development and how
professional development can
address those issues by
incorporating a “Consensus
View”
Determines that a “Consensus
View” recognizes the need for
educators to acquire knowledge
and skills to improve student
learning; how educators come to
master that knowledge; which
incentives encourage people to
change their teaching practices;
and what resources are available
to support the practice of
improvement.
Fenstermacher,
(1994)
Review of research To examine the
epistemological aspects of a
number of different research
programs the purport to be
about teacher knowledge
Concludes that the critical
objective of teacher knowledge
research is for teachers to know
what they know rather than for
researchers to know what teachers
know
Flores, Tefft-
Cousins, &
Diaz, (1991)
Los Angeles County Case
Studies Project targeted 6 schools
committed to long-term staff
development and curricular shift;
case study
To transform the pedagogical
knowledge of teacher myths
and assumptions
Teachers may rely solely on
personal experiences and may not
ignore their personal prejudices
which guide their instructional
practices and decisions.
332
Guskey, (2002) current research is used to
develop a model of professional
development
Current research is used to
generate the ‘Model of
Teacher Change’ for creating
professional development that
elicits change in teacher
classroom practices, attitudes
and beliefs, and in the
learning outcomes of students
Significant change in teachers’
attitudes and beliefs occurs
primarily after they gain evidence
of improvements in student
learning therefore three principles
are essential in planning effective
professional development
programs: recognize that change
is a gradual and difficult process
for teachers; ensure that teachers
receive regular feedback on
student learning progress; and
provide continued follow-up,
support, and pressure.
Guskey, (2003) thirteen lists that comprise a
representative sample of recently
developed and most popular
professional development
characteristics
Analysis of 13 lists of
effective professional
development characteristics to
determine whether they were
derived through similar
procedures, frames of
reference, and include similar
characteristics
Due to little agreement among
professional development
researchers or practitioners
regarding the criteria for
effectiveness in professional
development, individual
characteristics vary widely in their
frequency of usage and not one
single characteristic is
consistently named in all lists.
Hoffman &
Pearson, (2000)
synthesis of the findings from
existing research
to answer the following:
1) Is teacher preparation
effective?
2) What do we know about
training teachers of
reading?
3) What do we know about
teaching teachers of
reading?
4) What will it be –
training or teaching
teachers of reading?
5) What should our
research agenda for
reading teacher
education look like?
• Teacher education practices
or programs have a broad
positive impact.
• Training is an incomplete
and insufficient construct for
teacher preparation as it
does not help teachers
confront the complexities
and contradictions of
teaching.
• Training should be situated
within a broader vision of
teaching and teacher
learning.
• There are many important
aspects of teaching that can
only be nurtured through
reflective, discursive, and
dialogical strategies and
experiences.
Hollins, (1993) analyzed research literature and
studied teachers from an urban
California school district who
were selected on the basis that
they were able to design and
deliver instruction that enabled
culturally diverse learners to
meet predetermined objectives
Assess teacher competence
for culturally diverse
populations, identify
examples of seminal studies
that are part of the knowledge
base, and relate competencies
extrapolated from the
research literature
Teachers who are successful in
meeting the needs of their
culturally diverse students have
acquired identifiable
competencies: communication
with diverse learners; knowing
subject and students; reflective
teaching; identifying resources;
creating a supportive context;
developing interpersonal
relationships; and promoting
learner performance.
Izumi, Coburn,
& Cox, (2002)
8 high performing schools with
80-100% free or reduced-price
lunch; qualitative data collection
Role of professional
development in attaining high
achievement
Common factors of 4 essential
elements of professional
development were found.
333
Joyce, Showers,
& Bennett,
(1987)
meta-analysis of literature
findings from 30 years of
research and 200 research studies
To facilitate and assess
cumulative research to locate
findings which are firm
enough to provide hypotheses
for staff development design
to influence teacher transfer
Almost all teachers can transfer
useful information back to their
classrooms when training
includes: presentation of theory,
demonstration of the new
strategy, initial practice in the
workshop, and feedback regarding
their efforts.
Joyce, &
Showers, (2002)
summarizes findings from
previously conducted research
Determines how professional
development transfers into
classroom practice
A multiple component design
(theory, demonstration, practice,
and peer coaching) of staff
development is most effective
when increased knowledge, skills,
classroom transfer, and student
learning are the desired outcomes.
Lemlech, &
Kaplan, (1990)
30 elementary student teachers;
exploratory study that included
the use of: interviews, journals,
direct observations, video and
audio tapes, and questionnaires
that were administered to
students, supervising teachers,
and university coordinators
To develop collegiality
among student teachers for
preparation as practicing
professionals who share their
problems, anxieties, and
exultation with each other as
they talk about teaching
In the collegial relationship,
reflective thinking promoted
reconsideration of the
philosophical underpinnings of
teaching processes and their effect
on teaching and learning behavior
and transferred such
understanding and skills to the
teaching of social studies.
Little, (1989) 30 of California’s school districts
chosen by a probability-
proportionate-to-size procedure
on the basis of student enrollment
Creates a comprehensive
inventory of formal staff
development activity and
costs to reveal the policy and
stance taken by districts
toward teachers and their
professional development
There is much district-level
control over professional
development priorities which
promotes disconnect between
staff development planning from
the life of the schools and
classrooms. These professional
development opportunities tend to
be provided by specialists who
offer short-term services which
are market-driven and menu-
oriented.
Loughran, &
Berry, (2005)
2 teacher educators in the context
of a preservice education
program; self-study
Explores the nature and
development of explicit
modeling
Conceptualizes a pedagogy of
teacher education that is based on
learning from the experience of
“being explicit” while modeling.
Putnam, &
Borko, (2000)
review of related literature Explores new issues about
teacher learning and teacher
education
Considers what the situative
perspective on cognition offers
those seeking to understand and
improve teacher learning by
recognizing the strengths and
limitations of various practices
and settings.
Warren &
Ogonowski,
(1996)
design experiment and
conjecture-driven approach; bi-
weekly teacher researcher
seminars and inquiry practices in
the classroom
To address science learning
and teaching through
examining a practice of
teacher research that
integrates teacher inquiry and
collaboration
It is important to change the habit
of mind in order to change the
habit of practice when supporting
teachers with their
implementation of new
curriculum programs.
Tomlinson,
(2000)
summarizes current research on
differentiated instruction
Determine how to support
teachers in implementing
differentiated instruction
through effective professional
development experiences
Discusses differentiated
instruction for students and how
to create professional
development experiences that
promote teacher transfer through
the use of differentiated
instruction for teachers.
334
Wideen, Mayer-
Smith, & Moon,
(1998)
93 empirical studies on learning
to teach were reviewed
To establish what is known
about how people learn to
teach and to critique the
quality of the reporting of
relevant research
Supports the findings of others
that many traditional teacher
education programs have little
effect upon the beliefs of
beginning teachers but provides
examples of some successful
programs that build upon the
beliefs of pre-service teachers and
feature systematic and consistent
long-term support in a
collaborative setting.
Wilson, &
Berne, (1999)
Describes two exemplary
instances of teacher professional
development
Analyzes how exemplary
professional development
addresses teacher
opportunities to talk about
subject matter, students and
learning, and about teaching
Few projects had not completed
analyses of what professional
knowledge was acquired in their
communities of learners and had
not explicated their theories of
how teachers learn.
Author Participants; method
of gathering data
Study Focus Results
A New Method - Differentiated Professional Development
Akiba,
LeTendre,
& Scribner,
(2007)
compared 46 countries, using data from
the 2003 Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), which measures trends in
students’ mathematics and science
achievement
To determine the
importance of investing
in teacher quality for
improving national
achievement
Although the national level of
teacher quality in the United States
was similar to the international
average, the United States had the
fourth largest opportunity gap, the
difference between the students of
high and low SES in their access
to qualified teachers.
Birman,
Desimone,
Garet, &
Porter,
(2000)
more than 1,000 teachers were nationally
surveyed and the data was analyzed in
relation to studied literature
A research-based study
was used to determine
six factors with potential
for achieving
professional development
results
Reform type activities are more
effective because they are longer
in duration, are content focused,
and provide active learning
opportunities and coherency.
Clair,
(1998)
2 year long study of two teacher study
groups
To illuminate the
complexities of working
with teachers in new
ways regarding the
education of English
language learners
Teacher study groups are an
alternative to traditional
professional development
structures in that they provide
opportunities for teachers to
explore together issues of teaching
and learning in linguistically and
culturally diverse schools.
Darling-
Hammond
(2000)
50-states; survey of policies and state
case study analyses
To examine the ways in
which teacher
qualifications and other
school inputs are related
to student academic
achievement across states
Measures of teacher quality in the
context of teacher preparation and
certification are more strongly
related to student achievement
than other kinds of investments
such as: teachers’ education levels,
class size, overall spending on
education, teacher salaries, student
poverty levels, and language
status.
335
Dawson,
(1978)
examination of in-service programs, and
review of research literature
To propose a fresh look at
in-service education
programs
“In-service programs which
neglect to provide for the
development of a sense of
commitment to and mutual support
for the activities undertaken by the
participants will not have long-
term effects. In-service programs
have to develop a psychological
sense of community among
participants, and this requires a
commitment by participants and
organizers to a relatively long-term
involvement with the program.”
Elmore,
(2002)
reviews the Standards for Staff
Development by the National Staff
Development Council (2001); Helping
Teachers Teach Well: Transforming
Professional Development, a policy brief
from the Consortium for Policy Research
in Education, (1995); and Revising
Professional Development: What
Learner-Centered Professional
Development Looks Like, National
Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching (1999)
Reviews the
organizational and
cultural reasons why
school systems are
presently not likely to
make effective use of
professional development
and how professional
development can address
those issues by
incorporating a
“Consensus View”
Determines that a “Consensus
View” recognizes the need for
educators to acquire knowledge
and skills to improve student
learning; how educators come to
master that knowledge; which
incentives encourage people to
change their teaching practices;
and what resources are available to
support the practice of
improvement.
Guskey,
(2002)
current research is used to develop a
model of professional development
Current research is used
to generate the ‘Model of
Teacher Change’ for
creating professional
development that elicits
change in teacher
classroom practices,
attitudes and beliefs, and
in the learning outcomes
of students
Significant change in teachers’
attitudes and beliefs occurs
primarily after they gain evidence
of improvements in student
learning therefore three principles
are essential in planning effective
professional development
programs: recognize that change is
a gradual and difficult process for
teachers; ensure that teachers
receive regular feedback on
student learning progress; and
provide continued follow-up,
support, and pressure.
Guskey,
(2003)
thirteen lists that comprise a
representative sample of recently
developed and most popular professional
development characteristics
Analysis of 13 lists of
effective professional
development
characteristics to
determine whether they
were derived through
similar procedures,
frames of reference, and
include similar
characteristics
Due to little agreement among
professional development
researchers or practitioners
regarding the criteria for
effectiveness in professional
development, individual
characteristics vary widely in their
frequency of usage and not one
single characteristic is consistently
named in all lists.
Hertberg,
Brighton,
(2005)
75 teachers from nine middle schools
across the United States participated in
monthly coaching sessions, follow-up
classroom observations, and formal
interviews, and shared their journals,
planning documents, and student work
Summarizes the findings
from a five-year study
that used mixed-methods
to investigate factors that
inhibit and support
teachers’ implementation
of differentiated
instruction
Teachers attending staff
development are as diverse as the
students they teach therefore
professional developers need to
respond to this diversity by
differentiating their approach to
staff development.
Izumi,
Coburn, &
Cox, (2002)
8 high performing schools with 80-100%
free or reduced-price lunch; qualitative
data collection
Role of professional
development in attaining
high achievement
Common factors of 4 essential
elements of professional
development were found.
Loughran,
& Berry,
(2005)
2 teacher educators in the context of a
preservice education program; self-study
Explores the nature and
development of explicit
modeling
Conceptualizes a pedagogy of
teacher education that is based on
learning from the experience of
“being explicit” while modeling.
336
Marsden,
(2007)
six teachers; case study that interviewed
teachers after participating in
professional development
Conducts job-embedded
professional
development in the area
of differentiated
instruction for students
All teachers agreed that they
would prefer a differentiated
professional development format
to best facilitate their individual
professional needs.
Newmann,
King, &
Youngs,
(2000)
two-year study of nine urban elementary
schools in the United States where
researchers observed professional
development activities aimed at key
aspects of capacity; interviewed school
staff and representatives from external
providers of professional development;
and collected pertinent
documents/information
Argues that professional
development should
address five aspects of
school capacity:
teachers’ knowledge,
skills, and dispositions;
professional community;
program coherence;
technical resources; and
principal leadership
It is possible for urban, elementary
schools serving low-income
students to organize professional
development to address school
capacity comprehensively through
diverse approaches and a
customized approach – differential
emphases on different dimensions
of capacity dependent upon the
local needs at given points in a
school’s development.
Putnam, &
Borko,
(2000)
review of related literature Explores new issues
about teacher learning
and teacher education
Considers what the situative
perspective on cognition offers
those seeking to understand and
improve teacher learning by
recognizing the strengths and
limitations of various practices and
settings.
Tomlinson,
(2000)
summarizes current research on
differentiated instruction
Determine how to
support teachers in
implementing
differentiated instruction
through effective
professional development
experiences
Discusses differentiated instruction
for students and how to create
professional development
experiences that promote teacher
transfer through the use of
differentiated instruction for
teachers.
*Not considered a journal of primary source
337
Appendix B: Teacher Matrix
Rubric:
Challenge
Teacher exhibits theoretical understanding of program component/routine.
Teacher correctly and consistently implements the program component/routine.
Classroom is established to support the program component/routine.
Reteach
Additional clarification is needed to support the teacher in correctly and
consistently implementing the program component/routine.
Classroom is established to support the program component/routine.
Intervention
Classroom is not established to support the program component/routine.
General
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Classroom Environment
(Organization, Lesson
Preparation, Student
Engagement,
Teacher/Student Rapport,
etc.)
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher F
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Writers’ Notebooks
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher B Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher B Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher D
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher A
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher A
Teacher C
Intervention Teacher D Teacher D
338
Green Band
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Sound/Spelling Cards
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher D
Teacher C
Reteach Teacher B Teacher E Teacher B Teacher B
Intervention Teacher E Teacher E Teacher E
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Phonemic Awareness
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher D
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher F
Teacher D
Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Blending
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher D
Reteach Teacher F
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Dictation
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher C Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher C
Reteach Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher D
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Word Building Game
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher F
Teacher D
Teacher D Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Intervention
339
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Word Knowledge
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Pre/Decodable Books
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher C
Teacher F
Teacher D
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations High Frequency Word Bank
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher C Teacher F Teacher F Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Fluency
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher D
Teacher F
Intervention
340
Red Band
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Clues, Problems,
Wonderings Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher F
Teacher D
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher C
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Selection Vocabulary
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher A
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher D
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher D
Teacher F Teacher B
Intervention Teacher B
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Selection Vocabulary Word
Walls Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher F Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher D
Teacher F
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Comprehension Strategies
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher E
Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Intervention Teacher C
Teacher F
Teacher A
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher D
341
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Comprehension Skills
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher F
Teacher D
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher D
Teacher A
Teacher D Teacher C Teacher F
Teacher D
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Story Crafting
(Kindergarten only) Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge
Reteach
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Handing Off
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher B Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Intervention Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Concept/Question Board
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher D
Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher E
Intervention
342
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Inquiry & Investigation
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher F
Intervention Teacher D Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Blue Band
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Word Analysis
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher C Teacher C
Teacher B
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher F Teacher B
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Writing Process Strategies
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher E
Teacher F
Teacher F
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher D
Teacher D
Intervention
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations English Language
Conventions Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher F
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher E
Teacher C
Teacher A
Teacher D
Intervention
343
Workshop
OCR Needs Assessment Teacher Observations Workshop
Baseline Concluding Baseline Concluding
On-Going
Student
Assessments
Challenge Teacher E
Teacher D
Teacher D
Teacher B
Teacher F
Teacher E
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher C
Teacher E
Teacher D
Teacher E
Teacher F
Teacher A
Reteach Teacher F
Teacher C
Teacher B
Teacher A
Teacher A
Teacher F
Teacher B
Teacher B
Intervention
344
Appendix C: OCR Teacher Rubric
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Level of Performance
Element Intervention Reteach Challenge
Classroom
Environment
1. classroom is not neatly
organized or free of
clutter
2. lesson is beyond 2
weeks of targeted
pacing guide
3. instructional pacing is
not appropriate and
does not hold students’
attention
4. some students are
engaged and
participating
5. Teacher’s Edition is
not used
6. materials are not
prepared or accessible
for instructional use
7. teacher has not pre-
read the lesson and is
not prepared to teach
8. classroom is not
arranged in U-shape
formation or arranged
to facilitate instruction
and discussions
9. floor space is not
utilized for teaching
(grades PreK-1, grades
2-6 when appropriate)
10. routines from Routine
Cards/Appendix are
not in use
1. classroom is neatly
organized
2. lesson is within 2 weeks of
targeted pacing guide
3. instructional pacing is too
slow or fast but holds
students’ attention
4. most students are engaged
and participating
5. Teacher’s Edition is used
but sequence of instruction
is not followed
6. materials are prepared but
not accessible for
instructional use
7. teacher has pre-read the
lesson but is not prepared to
teach
8. classroom is not arranged in
U-shape formation but is
arranged to facilitate
instruction and discussions
9. floor space is seldom used
for teaching (grades PreK-1,
grades 2-6 when
appropriate)
10. routines from Routine
Cards/Appendix are mostly
in use
1. classroom is neatly organized
and free of clutter
2. lesson is on target with pacing
guide
3. instructional pacing is
appropriate and holds students’
attention
4. all students are engaged and
participating
5. Teacher’s Edition is used and
sequence of instruction
followed
6. materials are prepared and
accessible for instructional use
7. teacher has pre-read the lesson
and is prepared to teach
8. classroom is arranged in U-
shape formation and arranged
to facilitate instruction and
discussions
9. floor space is regularly utilized
for teaching (grades P-1,
grades 2-6 when appropriate)
10. routines from Routine
Cards/Appendix are always in
use
Writers’
Notebooks
(Grades 1-6)
1. Writer’s Notebooks
are not established for
each student
2. Writer’s Notebooks
are not in use
1. Writer’s Notebooks are
established for each student
and contains only the
following sections: Personal
Dictionary, Literary
Connections, Response
Journal, Writing Ideas,
Vocabulary, and
Penmanship
2. Writer’s Notebooks are used
when prompted by the
Teacher’s Edition
1. Writer’s Notebooks are
established for each student
and contains at least the
following sections: Personal
Dictionary, Literary
Connections, Response
Journal, Writing Ideas,
Vocabulary, and Penmanship
2. Writer’s Notebooks are used
when prompted by the
Teacher’s Edition, as well as
when facilitated by student
need
345
Domain 2: Green Band Routines
Level of Performance
Element Intervention Reteach Challenge
Sound/Spelling
Cards
1. Sound/Spelling Cards are
posted on the wall where
little instruction takes
place
2. some students have
unobstructed, visual access
to the Sound/Spelling
Cards
3. Sound/Spelling Cards are
flipped without any
introduction (grades P-1)
4. Sound/Spelling Cards are
not flipped with the picture
facing out (grades 2-6)
5. teacher and students know
one of the three
components of the
Sound/Spelling Cards:
name of the card, the
sound the card makes, and
how to spell/write the
sound
6. teacher and students do not
understand or use the color
coding of the
Sound/Spelling Cards
7. teacher and students do not
know how to discriminate
between the different
sound/spellings to
determine the correct
spellings for each word
(grades 1-6)
8. teacher and students do not
use correct terminology
when discussing the
Sound/Spelling Cards
9. teacher refers to the
Sound/Spelling Cards
when prompted during the
lesson
1. Sound/Spelling Cards are
posted on the wall where
some instruction takes
place
2. most students have
unobstructed, visual access
to the Sound/Spelling
Cards
3. Sound/Spelling Cards are
flipped as they are being
informally introduced
(grades P-1)
4. Sound/Spelling Cards
begin flipped with picture
facing out (grades 2-6)
5. teacher and students know
two of the three
components of the
Sound/Spelling Cards:
name of the card, the
sound the card makes, and
how to spell/write the
sound
6. teacher and students
understand the color
coding of the
Sound/Spelling Cards
7. teacher know how to
discriminate between the
different sound/spellings
to determine the correct
spellings for each word
(grades 1-6)
8. teacher uses correct
terminology when
discussing the
Sound/Spelling Cards
9. teacher and students refer
to the Sound/Spelling
Cards when prompted
during the lesson
1. Sound/Spelling Cards are
posted on the wall where
the majority of instruction
takes place
2. all students have
unobstructed, visual access
to the Sound/Spelling
Cards
3. Sound/Spelling Cards are
flipped as they are being
formally introduced
(grades P-1)
4. Sound/Spelling Cards
begin flipped with picture
facing out (grades 2-6)
5. teacher and students know
the three components of
the Sound/Spelling Cards:
name of the card, the
sound the card makes, and
how to spell/write the
sound
6. teacher and students
understand and use the
color coding of the
Sound/Spelling Cards
7. teacher and students know
how to discriminate
between the different
sound/spellings to
determine the correct
spellings for each word
(grades 1-6)
8. teacher and students use
correct terminology when
discussing the
Sound/Spelling Cards
9. teacher and students refer
to the Sound/Spelling
Cards throughout the day
for assistance with
encoding and decoding
words
Phonemic
Awareness
(grades P-1)
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
2. teacher does not use the
puppet to support
instruction
3. oral segmenting, blending,
and sound manipulation
are rarely practiced
4. teacher and students do not
make the correct sound
formations (/t/ vs. /tu/)
1. teacher is familiar with
and attempts to execute the
lesson objective(s)
2. teacher uses the puppet (on
the incorrect hand) to
support instruction
3. oral segmenting, blending,
and sound manipulation
are often practiced
4. teacher makes the correct
sound formations (/t/ vs.
/tu/)
1. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. teacher uses the puppet (on
the correct hand) to
support instruction
3. oral segmenting, blending,
and sound manipulation
are practiced daily
4. teacher and students make
the correct sound
formations (/t/ vs. /tu/)
346
Blending 1. teacher does not follow the
routines for the different
Blending procedures
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. teacher does not use the
appropriate Blending
procedures (i.e. Sound by
Sound, Whole Word, etc.)
4. students do not read the
blending lines for fluency
practice
5. oral language activities are
not completed
6. high frequency sight words
are not pretaught or
underlined in the sentences
7. Blending process is not
used to support students
when decoding
challenging words
1. teacher attempts to
correctly follow the
routines for the different
Blending procedures
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. teacher transitions forward
through the appropriate
Blending procedures (i.e.
Sound by Sound, Whole
Word, etc.)
4. students read the blending
lines for fluency practice
5. oral language activities are
completed
6. high frequency sight
words are pretaught
7. Blending process is used
during the lesson to
support students when
decoding challenging
words
1. teacher correctly follows
the routines for the
different Blending
procedures
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. teacher transitions back
and forth among the
appropriate Blending
procedures (i.e. Sound by
Sound, Whole Word, etc.)
based on student need
4. students reread the
blending lines multiple
times for fluency practice
5. oral language activities are
completed with emphasis
on building vocabulary
and increasing oral
language skills
6. high frequency sight words
are pretaught and
underlined in the sentences
7. Blending process is used
throughout the day to
support students when
decoding challenging
words
Word Building
Game
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for the Word
Building Game
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. materials are not prepared
or accessible for
instructional use
4. teacher does not support
the students with the
spellings of each word
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
not used as a reference tool
6. game is not used as an
instructional tool and is
used as summative
assessment
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for the Word
Building Game
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. materials are prepared for
instructional use
4. teacher supports the
students with the spellings
of some words as needed
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
used as a reference tool by
the teacher
6. game is used as an
instructional tool
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for the Word
Building Game
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. materials are prepared and
accessible for instructional
use
4. teacher supports the
students with the spellings
of each word as needed
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
used as a reference tool by
both the teacher and
students
6. game is used as an
instructional tool and is
used as formative
assessment
347
Dictation 1. teacher does not follow the
routine for the different
Dictation procedures
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. teacher does not support
the students with the
spellings of each word
4. teacher does not use the
appropriate Dictation
procedures (i.e. Sound-in-
Sequence or Whole Word)
based on student need
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
not used as a reference tool
by the teacher or students
6. students are responsible for
the spellings of each word
and do not “walk, talk, or
touch” the Sound/Spelling
Cards as correct spellings
are chosen
7. High Frequency Word
Bank is not referenced by
teacher or students when
sentences are dictated
8. teacher proofreads student
work
9. Dictation is not used as an
instructional tool but is
used as summative
assessment
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for the different
Dictation procedures
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. teacher supports the
students with the spellings
of some words as needed
4. teacher transitions forward
through the appropriate
Dictation procedures (i.e.
Sound-in-Sequence or
Whole Word) based on
student need
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
used as a reference tool by
the teacher
6. teacher “walks, talks, and
touches” the
Sound/Spelling Cards as
correct spellings are
chosen
7. High Frequency Word
Bank is referenced by
teacher when sentences are
dictated
8. students proofread their
own work by erasing and
rewriting the correct
answer to practice the skill
of editing
9. Dictation is used as an
instructional tool
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for the different
Dictation procedures
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. teacher supports the
students with the spellings
of each word as needed
4. teacher transitions back
and forth among the
appropriate Dictation
procedures (i.e. Sound-in-
Sequence or Whole Word)
based on student need
5. Sound/Spelling Cards are
used as a reference tool by
both the teacher and
students
6. teacher and students
“walk, talk, and touch” the
Sound/Spelling Cards as
correct spellings are
chosen
7. High Frequency Word
Bank is referenced by
teacher and students when
sentences are dictated
8. students proofread their
own work using
proofreading cues and
colored writing materials
to document their growth
and practice with the skill
of editing
9. Dictation is used as an
instructional tool and as
formative assessment
Word
Knowledge
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for the Word
Knowledge procedure
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. Word Knowledge is not
used to help consolidate
students’ word attack skills
or knowledge of words
4. teacher reads the words to
the students
5. teacher does not provide
instructional support for
unknown words
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for the Word
Knowledge procedure
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. Word Knowledge is used
to help consolidate
students’ word attack
skills
4. teacher has students blend
all of the words
5. teacher provides formal
vocabulary instruction for
unknown words
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for the Word
Knowledge procedure
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. Word Knowledge is used
to help consolidate
students’ word attack skills
and knowledge of words
4. students read the words
and teacher stops to blend
only those words that are
challenging for the
students
5. teacher provides quick
clarifications of unknown
words
348
Pre/Decodable
Books
(Grades P-2)
(Grades 3-6 if
needed)
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for reading
Pre/Decodable Books
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. books are not prepared
(torn out and stapled)
4. books are not read when
prompted by the Teacher’s
Edition or for fluency
practice
5. books are not read to apply
knowledge of sounds and
spellings or to practice the
Blending procedure while
reading text
6. books are not used to
formally introduce or
review high frequency
sight words
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for reading
Pre/Decodable Books
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. books are prepared (torn
out and stapled) by
students during the lesson
4. books are read when
prompted by the Teacher’s
Edition
5. books are read to apply
knowledge of sounds and
spellings
6. books are used to formally
introduce high frequency
sight words
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for reading
Pre/Decodable Books
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. books are prepared (torn
out and stapled) by teacher
before the lesson begins
4. books are read when
prompted by the Teacher’s
Edition as well as
additional times for
fluency practice
5. books are read to apply
knowledge of sounds and
spellings and to practice
the Blending procedure
while reading text
6. books are used to formally
introduce and review high
frequency sight words
High
Frequency
Word Bank
(Grades P-2)
(Grades 3-6 if
needed)
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
2. some students can see the
words posted in large, bold
print
3. all high frequency words
are “deposited”
4. words are not “withdrawn”
once they can be read and
spelled correctly
1. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
2. most students can see the
words posted in large, bold
print
3. high frequency words are
“deposited” as they are
informally introduced
4. words are “withdrawn”
once they can be read
correctly
1. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. all students can see the
words posted in large, bold
print
3. high frequency words are
“deposited” as they are
formally introduced
through the Pre/Decodable
Books
4. words are“withdrawn”
once they can be read and
spelled correctly
Fluency 1. students’ reading
accuracy, speed, and
intonation are not
monitored
2. fluency practice includes
limited additional
activities such as: reading
aloud to children,
Reader’s Theatre, tape-
assisted reading, partner
reading, mastery of high
frequency sight words,
repeated readings and
reading outside of school
1. students’ reading speed are
frequently monitored
2. fluency practice includes
some additional activities
such as: reading aloud to
children, Reader’s Theatre,
tape-assisted reading,
partner reading, mastery of
high frequency sight
words, repeated readings
and reading outside of
school
1. students’ reading accuracy,
speed, and intonation are
frequently monitored
2. fluency practice includes
many additional activities
such as: reading aloud to
children, Reader’s Theatre,
tape-assisted reading,
partner reading, mastery of
high frequency sight
words, repeated readings
and reading outside of
school
349
Domain 3: Red Band Routines
Level of Performance
Element Intervention Reteach Challenge
Clues,
Problems,
Wonderings
(Grade 1 begins
with Unit 7)
(Grades 2-6)
1. teacher does not follows
the routine for Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. students think about the
text before reading to:
o anticipate what they
will be reading
o recognize potential
story problems
4. students do not actively
think about the text while
reading
5. students think about the
text after reading but do
not address the Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings
6. all three categories are not
continuously or
simultaneously addressed
7. teacher is dictator
8. Wonderings that were not
answered are not posted on
the Concept/Question
Board for future research
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for Clues,
Problems, and Wonderings
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. students think about the
text before reading to:
a. anticipate what they
will be reading
b. recognize potential
problems for the
reader
4. students actively think
about the text while
reading
5. students think about the
text after reading to
answer the Wonderings
6. all three categories are
continuously or
simultaneously addressed
7. teacher is facilitator but
does not contribute to the
Clues, Problems, and
Wonderings
8. Wonderings that were not
answered are posted on the
Concept/Question Board
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. students think about the
text before reading to:
a. activate background
knowledge
b. anticipate what they
will be reading
(Clues)
c. recognize potential
problems for the
reader (Problems)
d. set purposes for
reading
(Wonderings)
4. students actively think
about the text while
reading and continue to
add to the three categories
5. students think about the
text after reading to
discuss if the Clues were
appropriate, how the
Problems were resolved,
and the answers to the
Wonderings
6. all three categories are
continuously and
simultaneously addressed
7. teacher is facilitator and
contributes to the Clues,
Problems, and
Wonderings as a
participant
8. Wonderings that were not
answered are posted on the
Concept/Question Board
for future research
350
Selection
Vocab.
(Grade 1 begins
with Unit 7)
(Grades 2-6)
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for teaching
Selection Vocabulary
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. transparency is not used
4. new terms are being used
during the vocabulary
lesson
5. difficult vocabulary words
are read by the teacher
6. teacher models the usage
of the vocabulary skills but
does not transfer the
responsibility to the
students
7. Selection Vocabulary
words are not reviewed
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for teaching
Selection Vocabulary
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. transparency is used but
not to teach Word
Structure, Apposition, or
Context Clues (WAC)
4. new terms are being used
during the vocabulary
lesson and referenced
within the context of the
story
5. difficult vocabulary words
are read by the students
who can read them
6. teacher models the usage
of the vocabulary skills
and transfers the
responsibility to the
students
7. Selection Vocabulary
words are reviewed by
being placed on the
Selection Vocabulary
Word Wall
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for teaching
Selection Vocabulary
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. transparency is used to
teach Word Structure,
Apposition, and Context
Clues (WAC)
4. new terms are being used
throughout the day while
reading, writing, speaking,
and listening
5. difficult vocabulary words
are blended
6. teacher models the usage
of the vocabulary skills
and students demonstrate
their understandings
7. Selection Vocabulary
words are reviewed by
being placed on the
Selection Vocabulary
Word Wall and by being
written in the students’
Writer’s Notebooks
Selection
Vocab. Word
Walls
(Grade 1 begins
with Unit 7)
(Grades 2-6)
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
2. wall does not post unit
vocabulary terms
3. words are not posted or
formatted
4. Kindergarten and Grade 1
(units 1-6) do not post
their Selection Vocabulary
words
5. wall is not visible so
students can reference
them while reading and
writing
1. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
2. wall begins with all unit
vocabulary terms being
posted
3. words are posted
4. Kindergarten and Grade 1
(units 1-6) post their
Selection Vocabulary
words
5. wall is visible so students
can reference them while
reading
1. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. wall posts unit vocabulary
terms as they are
introduced
3. words are posted and
formatted in accordance to
OCR suggestions (ex. by
parts of speech, picture
dictionary, word origins,
etc.)
4. it is suggested that
Kindergarten and Grade 1
(units 1-6) use picture
dictionaries
5. wall is visible so students
can reference them while
reading and writing
351
Comprehension
Strategies/First
Read
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for teaching
Comprehension Strategies
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. Big Books (grades P-1)
and Student Anthologies
(grades 1-6) are not
organized
4. Comprehension Strategy
Strips are not posted or
utilized
5. strategies from lesson are
not reviewed – how or
why good readers use
them
6. the teacher or tape reads
the story selection for the
first read
7. suggested reading format
prompted by the guide is
not used
(Oral/Choral/Silent)
8. comprehension strategies
are not modeled by the
teacher rather, questions
are asked to monitor
student understanding
9. teacher does not use
prompts to model thinking
aloud of the strategies
10. students are not
encouraged to use any
strategy they need at any
time
11. difficult words are read by
the teacher
12. Comprehension Strategy
Rubrics are not used
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for teaching
Comprehension Strategies
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. Big Books (grades P-1)
and Student Anthologies
(grades 1-6) are organized
4. Comprehension Strategy
Strips are posted
5. strategies from lesson are
reviewed – how good
readers use them
6. unless reading from a Big
Book students read the
selection
7. suggested reading format
prompted by the guide is
used (Oral/Choral/Silent)
8. comprehension strategies
are modeled by the teacher
and the responsibility is
transferred to the students
9. teacher uses prompts to
model thinking aloud of
the strategies – the
prompts are read word for
word
10. students are encouraged to
use any strategy they need
11. difficult words are read by
the students who can read
them
12. Comprehension Strategy
Rubrics are occasionally
used
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for teaching
Comprehension Strategies
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. Big Books (grades P-1)
and Student Anthologies
(grades 1-6) are organized
are prepared for use
4. Comprehension Strategy
Strips are posted and
utilized
5. strategies from lesson are
reviewed – how and why
good readers use them
6. unless reading from a Big
Book students read the
selection – the teacher or
tape is only used as a first
read for Intervention
purposes
7. suggested reading format
prompted by the guide is
used (Oral/Choral/Silent)
8. comprehension strategies
are modeled by the
teacher, the responsibility
is transferred to the
students, and students
demonstrate the ability to
apply the strategies
9. teacher uses prompts to
model thinking aloud of
the strategies – the
prompts are not read word
for word
10. students are encouraged to
use any strategy they need
at any time
11. Blending is used when
students encounter a
challenging word
12. Comprehension Strategy
Rubrics are frequently
used
352
Comprehension
Skills/Second
Read
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for teaching
Comprehension Skills
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. Comprehension Skills are
not taught explicitly
4. story selection is read in
its entirety
5. Comprehension and
Language Arts Skills
Workbook is not used for
additional instruction or
practice
6. transparencies/graphic
organizers are not used
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for teaching
Comprehension Skills
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. Comprehension Skills are
taught to organize content
information from the text
4. story selection is read in
its entirety to apply the
skills
5. Comprehension and
Language Arts Skills
Workbook is used for
additional practice
6. transparencies/graphic
organizers are used for
additional instruction
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for teaching
Comprehension Skills
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. Comprehension Skills are
taught to organize content
information from the text,
and discuss the writing
structure, organization and
purpose
4. story selection is not
necessarily read in its
entirety but focuses on
finding select information
needed to apply the skills
5. Comprehension and
Language Arts Skills
Workbook is used for
additional instruction and
practice
6. transparencies/graphic
organizers are used for
additional instruction and
practice
Story Crafting
(Grade K)
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
2. few of the materials are
used: Teacher Editions,
Leveled Appendix
resources, Read Alouds,
Lion Puppet, Blackline
Masters, Interactive Big
Book Story Lines,
Emotion Icon Stickers,
Transparencies, Thinking
Crowns, Thought Cards,
Finger Puppets, Story
Starter Cards, Willy The
Wisher and other Thinking
Stories (Unit 2)
3. reading and writing
comprehension is not
supported through the
exploration of stories
4. students are not taught
about the structure and
organization of narrative
text
5. stories are not constructed
or retold
6. comprehension strategies
are not practiced
7. students do not practice
oral language or listening
skills
1. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
2. most of the materials are
used: Teacher Editions,
Leveled Appendix
resources, Read Alouds,
Lion Puppet, Blackline
Masters, Interactive Big
Book Story Lines,
Emotion Icon Stickers,
Transparencies, Thinking
Crowns, Thought Cards,
Finger Puppets, Story
Starter Cards, Willy The
Wisher and other Thinking
Stories (Unit 2)
3. reading or writing
comprehension is
supported through the
exploration of stories
4. students are taught about
the structure and
organization of narrative
text
5. stories are constructed or
retold
6. comprehension strategies
are only practiced while
reading the story
selections from the Big
Book
7. students practice oral
language or listening skills
1. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. all materials are used:
Teacher Editions, Leveled
Appendix resources, Read
Alouds, Lion Puppet,
Blackline Masters,
Interactive Big Book Story
Lines, Emotion Icon
Stickers, Transparencies,
Thinking Crowns,
Thought Cards, Finger
Puppets, Story Starter
Cards, Willy The Wisher
and other Thinking Stories
(Unit 2)
3. reading and writing
comprehension is
supported through the
exploration of stories
4. students are taught about
and knowledgeable of the
structure and organization
of narrative text
5. stories are constructed and
retold
6. comprehension strategies
are practiced while
reading the story
selections from the Big
Book as well as while
exploring any additional
stories
7. students’ practice oral
language and listening
skills
353
Handing Off
(Grade 1 begins
with Unit 7)
(Grades 2-6)
1. teacher does not follow the
routine for implementing
Handing Off
2. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objective(s)
3. oral language skills are
practiced
4. text is examined from
teacher’s perspective
5. accountable talk is not
evident
6. teacher acts as dictator and
leads the conversation
7. teacher controls the
discussion and is
responsible for student
learning
8. teacher make connections
and ask questions about
text
9. questions that can not be
immediately answered are
not posted on the
Concept/Question Board
for further research
10. students do not use
reference materials
(anthologies, story maps,
Inquiry Journals, Clues
Problems and
Wonderings) to aid
conversation contribution
11. students do not record
their personal responses to
the story selections in their
Writer’s Notebook or their
Inquiry Journals
1. teacher attempts to follow
the routine for
implementing Handing Off
2. teacher is familiar with the
lesson objective(s)
3. oral language and listening
skills are practiced
4. text is examined from
teacher’s and some
students perspectives
5. accountable talk is
modeled by the teacher
6. teacher acts as dictator and
contributor to the
conversation
7. students are responsible
for their own learning
8. students make connections
or ask questions about text
9. questions that can not be
immediately answered are
posted on the
Concept/Question Board
10. students use few reference
materials (anthologies,
story maps, Inquiry
Journals, Clues Problems
and Wonderings) to aid
conversation contribution
11. students record their
personal responses to the
story selections in their
Writer’s Notebook or their
Inquiry Journals
1. teacher correctly follows
the routine for
implementing Handing
Off
2. teacher is familiar with
and executes the lesson
objective(s)
3. reading comprehension,
and oral language and
listening skills are
practiced
4. text is examined from
teacher’s and most
students’ perspectives
5. accountable talk is
modeled by the teacher
and is demonstrated by
students
6. teacher acts as facilitator
and contributor to the
conversation
7. students control the
discussion and are
responsible for their own
learning
8. students make connections
and ask questions about
text
9. questions that can not be
immediately answered are
posted on the
Concept/Question Board
for further research
10. students use many
reference materials
(anthologies, story maps,
Inquiry Journals, Clues
Problems and
Wonderings) to aid
conversation contribution
11. students record their
personal responses to the
story selections in their
Writer’s Notebook and
their Inquiry Journals
354
Domain 4: Inquiry
Level of Performance
Elements Intervention Reteach Challenge
Concept/Question
Board
1. teacher is not familiar
with the
Concept/Question
Board objective(s)
2. there are no headings
posted
3. is not easily visible or
accessible to students
4. is teacher generated
and displays mostly
teacher contributions
5. multiple perspectives
based on sociocultural
learning is not evident
6. Concepts or Questions
are posted but
Questions are not
attempted to be
answered
7. contributions are
teacher written
8. contributions are not
relevant to the unit
theme presented in
OCR
9. contributor names
and/or initials are not
posted
10. artifacts or realia are
not posted
1. teacher is familiar with the
Concept/Question Board
objective(s)
2. the headings for
“Concepts” and
“Questions” are displayed
3. is easily visible to students
4. is student generated and
displays student
contributions
5. few perspectives based on
sociocultural learning is
evident
6. Concepts and Questions
are posted but Questions
are not attempted to be
answered
7. contributions are student
written but grade level
writing standards are
ignored
8. contributions are story
related
9. contributor names and/or
initials are posted
10. artifacts or realia are
posted
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the
Concept/Question Board
objective(s)
2. unit theme is displayed
along with the headings for
“Concepts” and
“Questions”
3. is easily accessible and
visible to students
4. is student generated and
displays student
contributions and/or
constructed knowledge
5. multiple perspectives based
on sociocultural learning is
evident
6. both Concepts and
Questions are posted and
the Questions are attempted
to be answered
7. contributions are student
written and grade level
writing standards are
evident
8. contributions are theme
related
9. contributor names and/or
initials are posted
10. artifacts or realia are posted
and include captions
explaining correlation
between artifact and unit
theme (or big idea)
Inquiry &
Investigation
1. teacher is not familiar
with the lesson
objectives
2. the research process is
not taught
3. teacher does not
emphasizes project-
based learning
4. the Inquiry and
Investigation process
shows no connection
to the
Concept/Question
Board
5. questions and
problems to be solved
displays little or no
knowledge of
students’ interests
1. pacing is compromised
because teacher strays
from lesson objectives
2. teacher leads the research
process
3. teacher emphasizes
project-based learning
4. questions are derived from
the Concept/Question
Board
5. questions and problems to
be solved recognize
students’ interests but
displays this knowledge
only for the class as a
whole group
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. teacher facilitates the
research process
3. teacher emphasizes project-
based learning to master the
units’ “big ideas”
4. questions are derived from
the Concept/Question Board
and further developed into
researchable problems
5. questions and problems to
be solved recognize
students’ interest and
displays this knowledge for
small groups and/or
individual students
355
Domain 5: Blue Band Routines
Level of Performance
Element Intervention Reteach Challenge
Word
Analysis
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objectives
2. spelling patterns and
strategies are not taught by
teacher
3. vocabulary words are
taught
1. pacing is compromised
because teacher strays from
lesson objectives
2. spelling patterns and
strategies are taught by
teacher
3. vocabulary words are
taught in context
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. spelling patterns and
strategies are taught by
teacher and knowledge
transformation is evident in
student work
3. vocabulary words and
strategies are taught in
context
Writing
Process
Strategies
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objectives
2. the process is used to
familiarize students to the
different forms of writing
3. writing traits are not
emphasized
4. writing is used as a tool for
sharing information and
ideas
5. structures of writing
(sentences, paragraphs and
compositions) are not
taught
6. new vocabulary terms and
other acquired background
knowledge are not
incorporated into students’
writing pieces
7. the writing process is not
used
8. few writing support
materials are used:
dictionaries, thesauruses,
Writer’s Workbook,
Writer’s Notebook, High
Frequency Word Bank,
writing software,
transparencies, and the
Language Arts Big Book
(grades K-1) or Language
Arts Handbooks (grades 2-
6)
9. Writing Folders are not
used for students to store or
access their work-in-
progress
10. Writing Portfolios include
teacher and self selected
work to monitor progress
11. Writing Journals are not
used for informal writing
practice
12. A Writing Area is not
established
13. Teacher Seminars are
established
14. students do not work on
writing during Workshop
1. pacing is compromised
because teacher strays from
lesson objectives
2. the process is used to
familiarize and practice the
different forms of writing
3. the process is used to teach
writing traits: ideas,
organization, word choice,
voice, sentence fluency,
conventions, and
presentation
4. writing is used as a tool for
thinking and sharing
information and ideas
5. structures of writing
(sentences, paragraphs and
compositions) are taught in
isolation
6. newly acquired background
knowledge is incorporated
7. students move forward
through the writing process
8. some writing support
materials are used:
dictionaries, thesauruses,
Writer’s Workbook,
Writer’s Notebook, High
Frequency Word Bank,
writing software,
transparencies, and the
Language Arts Big Book
(grades K-1) or Language
Arts Handbooks (grades 2-
6)
9. Writing Folders are used
for students to store their
work-in-progress
10. Writing Portfolios include
teacher selected work to
monitor student progress
and reflect on growth
11. Writing Journals are used
for occasional informal
writing practice
12. Writing Area houses some
materials to support
students in publishing their
writing pieces (i.e. paper,
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. the process is used to
familiarize, model, and
practice the different forms
of writing
3. students are cognizant of
and incorporate writing
traits: ideas, organization,
word choice, voice,
sentence fluency,
conventions, and
presentation into their
writing pieces
4. writing is used as a tool for
thinking, learning, and
sharing information and
ideas
5. structures of writing
(sentences, paragraphs and
compositions) are taught
within the context of the
process and not in isolation
6. new vocabulary terms and
other acquired background
knowledge are incorporated
7. students transition back and
forth through the writing
process
8. all writing support
materials are used:
dictionaries, thesauruses,
Writer’s Workbook,
Writer’s Notebook, High
Frequency Word Bank,
writing software,
transparencies, and the
Language Arts Big Book
(grades K-1) or Language
Arts Handbooks (grades 2-
6)
9. Writing Folders are used
for students to store and
access their work-in-
progress
10. Writing Portfolios include
teacher and self selected
work to monitor progress
356
15. writing fluency is not
emphasized
16. few different genres of
writing are explicitly taught
17. writing practice, and
feedback are provided
18. editing marks are taught by
the teacher
19. teacher proofreads student
work rather than the
students
canceled stamps, envelopes,
thesaurus, dictionary,
books, magazines,
photographs,
Revising/Editing
Checklists, etc.)
13. Teacher and Student
Seminars are established
14. students occasionally work
on writing during
Workshop
15. writing frequency is
practiced for fluency
16. some different genres of
writing are explicitly taught
17. specific writing examples,
practice, and feedback are
provided
18. editing marks are taught
and modeled by the teacher
19. teacher models how to
proofread but proofreads
student work rather than the
students
and reflect on growth
11. Writing Journals are used
for daily informal writing
practice
12. Writing Area houses many
materials to support
students throughout the
writing process (i.e. paper,
canceled stamps,
envelopes, thesaurus,
dictionary, books,
magazines, photographs,
Revising/Editing
Checklists, etc.)
13. Teacher, Class, and Student
Seminars are established
14. students frequently work on
writing during Workshop
15. high frequency sight words
and writing frequency are
practiced for fluency
16. many different genres of
writing are explicitly taught
17. specific writing examples,
modeled instruction,
practice, and feedback are
provided
18. editing marks are taught
and modeled by the teacher
and used by students
19. teacher models how to
proofread and acts as
facilitator in supporting
students in proofreading
their own work
English
Language
Conventions
1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objectives
2. grammar, usage,
mechanics, penmanship,
listening, speaking, and
viewing are taught by
teacher instruction
1. pacing is compromised
because teacher strays from
lesson objectives
2. grammar, usage,
mechanics, penmanship,
listening, speaking, and
viewing are taught through
the process of: modeling
and guided-practice
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. grammar, usage,
mechanics, penmanship,
listening, speaking, and
viewing are taught through
the process of: modeling,
guided-practice, and
independent practice
357
358
Domain 6: Workshop
Level of Performance
Elements Intervention Reteach Challenge
Workshop 1. teacher is not familiar with
the lesson objectives
2. Workshop is not a part of
the daily routine
3. rules are not established
and/or posted
4. areas are not structured for
classroom/behavioral
management purposes and
an organizational chart is
not posted
5. a menu of Must Do and
May Do activities is not
posted
6. few activities reinforce or
extend content being
taught in OCR and also
include activities from
other content areas that are
not relevant
7. activities do not include
opportunities for project-
based learning (Inquiry
and Investigation)
8. minimally required areas
are not established
9. May Do areas are not
labeled and do not include
activities that are
appropriate
10. materials are not student
accessible or organized
11. teacher does not
differentiate for small
group or individualized
instruction
12. teacher does not use
Challenge, Reteach,
Intervention, and ELL
materials
13. assessments are not used to
drive instruction
14. teacher does not assesses
students, preteach lesson
components, monitors
fluency, etc. to meet
students’ needs
15. debriefing does not occur
at the end of Workshop
sessions
1. pacing is compromised
because teacher strays from
lesson objectives
2. Workshop is done regularly
and is posted on the daily
schedule
3. rules are posted but not
routinely reviewed and/or
enforced
4. an organizational chart is
posted but not used by
students
5. students work from a Menu
of Must Do and May Do
activities but do not follow
the guidelines
6. some activities reinforce or
extend content being taught
in OCR
7. activities include some
opportunities for project-
based learning (Inquiry and
Investigation)
8. minimally required areas are
established (Reading,
Listening, and Writing)
9. May Do areas are labeled and
some activities are
appropriate
10. some materials are student
accessible and organized
11. teachers works with stagnate
groups determined by
students’ needs
12. teacher occasionally uses
Challenge, Reteach,
Intervention, and ELL
materials
13. summative assessments are
used to drive instruction
14. teacher occasionally assesses
students, preteaches lesson
components, monitors
fluency, etc. to meet
students’ needs
15. debriefing occurs at the end
of some Workshop session
1. teacher is familiar with and
executes the lesson
objective(s)
2. Workshop is done daily and
is posted on the daily
schedule
3. rules are posted, routinely
reviewed, and enforced
4. an organizational chart is
posted and used by students
for self-management purposes
(P-2 or as needed)
5. students work from a Menu
of Must Do and May Do
activities – first finishing the
Must Do activities in
sequential order
6. all activities reinforce or
extend content being taught in
OCR including activities
from other content areas
7. activities include many
opportunities for project-
based learning (Inquiry and
Investigation)
8. minimally required areas are
established as well as
additional areas (i.e. Games,
Computer, Inquiry, Phonics,
Fluency, Comprehension,
etc.)
9. May Do areas are labeled and
all activities are appropriate
10. all materials are student
accessible and organized
11. teachers works with flexible
groups determined by
individual students’ needs
12. teacher frequently uses
Challenge, Reteach,
Intervention, and ELL
materials as well as additional
supplemental materials
13. formative and summative
assessments are used to drive
instruction
14. teacher frequently assesses
students, preteaches lesson
components, monitors
fluency, etc. to meet students’
needs
15. debriefing occurs at the end
of each Workshop session
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice
PDF
Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy
PDF
The impact of professional learning community on teacher learning and student achievement: a qualitative approach
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development
PDF
Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation
PDF
Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Professional development and its impact on teacher practice
PDF
An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning
PDF
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science
PDF
Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
PDF
Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program
PDF
No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction
PDF
How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools
PDF
Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China
PDF
Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor
Asset Metadata
Creator
Howland, Brooke Amber
(author)
Core Title
Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
04/10/2009
Defense Date
03/12/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
adult learning,individualized,OAI-PMH Harvest,Open Court Reading,professional development,teacher cognition
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hollins, Etta R. (
committee chair
), Kaplan, Sandra N (
committee member
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
)
Creator Email
baobrien@usc.edu,luv2tchkidz@hotmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2079
Unique identifier
UC1153931
Identifier
etd-Howland-2785 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-211377 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2079 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Howland-2785.pdf
Dmrecord
211377
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Howland, Brooke Amber
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
adult learning
individualized
Open Court Reading
professional development
teacher cognition