University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AT
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOUTH EAST ASIA: A GAP ANALYSIS

by

Treena Louise Casey
____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2018

Copyright 2018. Treena Louise Casey
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING ii

Dedication
To my late husband,
Bob Dunseth,
who would have been so proud
of this journey.
I love and miss him every day.
And in the end
the love you take
is equal to the love you make.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING iii

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Chip Kimball and Dr. Jennifer Sparrow for having the foresight and courage to
invest in bringing the USC doctoral program to our school, and also for having the faith in the entire
cohort of educators to finish the marathon. It has been a long journey of learning and there have been
many times when the road ahead seemed precarious and unnavigable. However, the strength, support and
perseverance of the cohort overcame any thoughts of pulling over to the side. Such tenacity, spirit and
commitment! It has been a privilege to work alongside such giants of colleagues – people always ready to
support one another. To all the USC professors we have had the good fortune to work with, thank you for
your time, expertise, energy and thoughtful application to our international context. I am especially
grateful for the wise counsel of my chair, Dr. Larry Picus, and the advisement and strategy proposed by
Dr. Ruth Chung. It has been a privilege to work with and feel so supported by Dr. Douglas Reeves who is
such a giant in the field. Thank you for serving on my doctoral committee.
Finally, a heartfelt thank-you to friends and family for all your support. I regret you may have felt
temporarily abandoned over the past years! I am greatly looking forward to being more present in your
lives.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE ...................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission ....................................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status .................................................................................... 4
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 4
Organizational Goal............................................................................................................. 6
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ......................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions................................................................... 7
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ..................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 11
Personalized Learning ......................................................................................................... 11
Roles Within a Personalized Learning Environment .................................................. 14
Student role .............................................................................................................. 14
Teacher role ............................................................................................................. 14
School leadership .................................................................................................... 15
Implications for Teacher Practice................................................................................. 15
Implications for Professional Learning ........................................................................ 16
Professional Development/Professional Learning............................................................. 16
Effective Professional Learning ................................................................................... 16
Motivational Factors ..................................................................................................... 17
Importance of teacher engagement ........................................................................ 17
The Learning Process .................................................................................................... 19
Adult learning .......................................................................................................... 21
Self-efficacy ...................................................................................................... 21
Goal-setting ....................................................................................................... 22
Differentiation ............................................................................................................... 23
Choice ............................................................................................................................ 24
Organizational Implications ................................................................................................ 25
School Culture ............................................................................................................... 25
Structural Characteristics .............................................................................................. 26
The Role of Technology ............................................................................................... 26
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING v

Collaboration ................................................................................................................. 27
Professional learning communities ........................................................................ 27
Teacher inquiry ....................................................................................................... 28
Virtual professional networks ....................................................................................... 29
Leadership for Professional Learning .......................................................................... 30
Role of administrators ............................................................................................. 30
Role of teacher leaders and coaches ...................................................................... 31
Global Trends ................................................................................................................ 33
Sustainability ................................................................................................................. 33
Obstacles to Effective Professional Learning .............................................................. 34
Accountability and Monitoring for Student Outcomes ..................................................... 35
Student Outcomes.......................................................................................................... 35
Implementation and Evaluation .................................................................................... 36
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 37

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 39
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions................................................................... 39
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ..................................................................... 40
Assessment of Performance Influences.............................................................................. 42
Knowledge Assessment ................................................................................................ 42
Motivation Assessment ................................................................................................. 43
Organization/Culture Context Assessment .................................................................. 44
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................. 44
Sampling ........................................................................................................................ 44
Recruitment .................................................................................................................... 48
Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 48
Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 49
Survey protocol ....................................................................................................... 49
Data collection ......................................................................................................... 49
Focus Groups ................................................................................................................. 49
Focus group protocol .............................................................................................. 49
Data collection ......................................................................................................... 50
Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 50
Interview protocol ................................................................................................... 50
Data collection ......................................................................................................... 51
Document Analysis ....................................................................................................... 51
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 52
Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................. 52
Role of Researcher............................................................................................................... 52
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................ 55
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 55
Delimitations.................................................................................................................. 56

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................... 57
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 60
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 62
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING vi

Results and Findings............................................................................................................ 63
Assumed and Validated Causes – Knowledge and Skills ........................................... 63
Knowledge Factors – Procedural ........................................................................... 66
Knowledge Factors – Metacognitive ..................................................................... 67
Knowledge Factors – Motivation ........................................................................... 68
Assumed and Validated Causes – Organizational ....................................................... 73
Organizational Factors ............................................................................................ 73
Summary of Gaps Found .............................................................................................. 80
Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................. 80
Motivation ............................................................................................................... 85
Organizational ......................................................................................................... 86
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 87

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION................ 89
Validated Influences ............................................................................................................ 90
Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 91
Leveraging the PLC team structure ....................................................................... 93
Organizational structure – Learner profiles ........................................................... 97
Measuring the effects of professional learning ..................................................... 97
Measuring the effects of professional learning ..................................................... 98
The role of coaching as a solution.......................................................................... 100
Recommendations regarding coach deployment at IASEA ................................. 108
Micro-credentials .................................................................................................... 116
Evaluation – The Kirkpatrick Model ..................................................................... 119
Recommendations for Further Inquiry ............................................................................... 129
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 130

References .................................................................................................................................. 132

Appendices
Appendix A: Request to Participate in a Doctoral Study Professional Learning
Survey ........................................................................................................... 147
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol for the Organizational Element of the Study ........ 152
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ........................................................................................ 155
Appendix D: IASEA Institutional Commitment Rubrics................................................. 157
Appendix E: NSRF Protocol Documents ......................................................................... 163
Appendix F: IASEA Institutional Commitment Rubrics................................................. 169
Appendix G: MCESA Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies .............................................. 170

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING vii

List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal ........ 7

Table 2. Summary of Influences on IASEA Faculty ........................................................... 38

Table 3. Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influences on
IASEA Faculty ........................................................................................................ 45

Table 4. Survey Sample ......................................................................................................... 46

Table 5. Summary of Assumed Causes and Validation Strategy ....................................... 54

Table 6. Summary Sample Data Collection ......................................................................... 62

Table 7. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty –
Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 81

Table 8. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty –
Motivation ............................................................................................................... 83

Table 9. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty –
Organizational ......................................................................................................... 84

Table 10. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty ................. 88

Table 11. Summary of Influences Validated as Barrier ........................................................ 91

Table 12. Summary of Influences Validated as Barrier in Part ............................................ 91

Table 13. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers .......... 92

Table 14. Expected Outcomes, Metrics and Methods ........................................................... 122

Table 15. Outcome, Metric(s), Method(s), and Timing for Assessing Progress – Critical
Behaviors ................................................................................................................. 123

Table 16. Methods, Timing, and Critical Behaviors Supported – Required Drivers for
Achievement of Desired Outcomes ....................................................................... 124

Table 17. Components of Learning for the Program ............................................................. 126

Table 18. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .............................................. 126

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING viii

Table 19. Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument ........................................... 127

Table 20. Program Evaluation Instrument – Focus Group Interview Questions ................. 128

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING ix

List of Figures
Figure 1. Gap Analysis Model ............................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. The Black Boxes of Teacher and Student Learning ............................................. 20

Figure 3. PLC Continuum of Practice.................................................................................... 95

Figure 4. Inquiry at IASEA Adapted to Support Adult Learning ........................................ 100

Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model ....................................................................... 120

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING x

Abstract
International Academy of South East Asia (IASEA) is a preschool - grade 12 independent, non-
profit international school with the vision of being a world leader in education cultivating
exceptional thinkers prepared for the future. The school has determined that personalized
learning is a pathway to the achievement of the vision. A personalized approach results in more
growth for each student, nurturing and challenging in order to maximize potential. Given that
teacher actions are the most significant factor in student achievement, it is critical to examine
professional learning for faculty with the same rationale. The purpose of this study was to
conduct a gap analysis using the Clark And Estes (2008) model to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational (KMO) influences that impact IASEA's ability to effectively
implement personalized professional learning. An outcome of this study is a plan for how
IASEA may best implement personalized learning for its faculty. The study explored barriers to
achieving the goal of implementation and then proposed solutions. The methodological
framework used was that of a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. Data collection to
inform the gaps was in the form of documentation analysis, focus group and individual
interviews, and surveys. The study population consisted of representative faculty and
administrators and the subsequent data analysis sought to validate assumed influences as
knowledge, motivation and organization barriers and inform possible solutions. Proposed
solutions for these barriers included strategic targeted deployment of instructional coaches, tools
for the existing Professional Learning Community (PLC) teams to utilize to measure
effectiveness, and the implementation of a schoolwide system of micro-credentials designed to
support personalized professional learning.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 1

CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
A challenge in education is that of meeting the needs of all students in order to best
prepare them for a full and useful life. As Ken Kay argues, “in the 21
st
Century, every student
needs to be self-directed and self-managed. That’s why the time for ‘personalized learning’ has
finally come” (Kay, 2013). Curtis, Ullman and Zmuda assert that personalized learning is a
sound and effective way to learn, as compared to outdated approaches of learning framed as
transmission, retention and recall. They contend that it allows for deeper learning in an engaging
and relevant environment (Curtis, Ullman & Zmuda, 2015).
A national symposium hosted by the Software & Information Industry Association,
ASCD and CCSSO led to a report that insisted the industrial-age, assembly-line educational
model, based on fixed time, place, curriculum, and pace, is not sufficient for the current
economy. The report spoke to issues of equity, such that every child should be met where he or
she is and helped to achieve his or her potential through a range of resources and strategies as
appropriate. Additionally, a shift in the design of school by leveraging technology such that
educators are able to track and manage the learning pathways of all students and provide a
learning rich environment beyond the four walls of a classroom (Wolf, 2010). Part of the
compelling argument for personalized learning in schools is the relevance factor. “Students feel
connected, engaged, and meaningfully involved when they are addressing relevant issues that
reflect their interests, their passions, and their identities” (Fletcher, 2008, p. 23).
A group of K-12 educators tasked with the responsibility of drafting the road map for
personalized learning at International Academy of South East Asia came up with a succinct
rationale for why personalized learning is important for IASEA. “We believe all students can
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 2

learn at the highest levels. A personalized approach to learning results in more growth for every
student; it nurtures and challenges students to maximize their potential and become lifelong
learners” (Guiding coalition, 2017).
Teachers are the most significant school-based factor in student achievement (Hanushek
& Rivkin, 2006; Hattie, 2009). Marzano emphasizes, if teachers grow in skill each year even in
small increments, their students’ achievement is expected to increase over time as well
(Marzano, 2013). As Burgess (2015) reminded us:
Teachers are the single biggest determinant of student success in our school systems, then
it stands to reason that building their capacity to teach more powerfully, influentially, and
effectively is of the utmost importance...powerful professional learning is the Archimedes
lever that can move any school or district to the highest levels of success. (Burgess, as
cited in Bretzmann, p. 167)
As such it is critical to pay attention to the professional learning needs of the teaching
faculty. This study focused on the International Academy of South East Asia, a description of
which follows.
Organizational Context and Mission
International Academy of South East Asia (IASEA)
1
is an independent, non-profit school
providing educational programs from pre-school through grade 12. The mission of IASEA is to
provide “…each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international
perspective.” IASEA is the world’s largest American-curriculum school outside of the United
States, with a current enrollment of 3,939 students housed on a single campus with an early
learning center, elementary, middle and high school divisions. International Academy of South

1
International Academy of Southeast Asia is a pseudonym used to protect the identity of the organization in this
study. As such, a URL is not provided.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 3

East Asia has developed a preschool through grade 12 curriculum aligned to U.S. standards in all
subjects, including adoption of the Common Core State Standards. Currently, there are 375
teachers and 237 support staff. The IASEA leadership team consists of 24 administrators. Eleven
of these positions are divisional administrators (principals and deputy principals); the remaining
have school-wide responsibilities. The school is financed through tuition and fees.
IASEA functions essentially as its own school district and as such develops professional
learning structures aligned to the needs perceived by the school. This provides it with a great
deal of autonomy as a system, not beholden to a nation or state’s curriculum legislation. The
vision of IASEA is to be “…a world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers
prepared for the future.” Currently, the measurable outcomes of the vision are defined by the
desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs). These are creativity, communication, critical
thinking, collaboration, content knowledge, cultural competence and communication. The
school, by the endorsement of such learning outcomes, is directing the teachers to provide
opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency towards these outcomes. The school’s
vision is supported by three strategic anchors, which include a culture of excellence (every
student learns at high levels), a culture of extraordinary care (every student is known and
advocated for), and a culture of possibilities (every student personalizes their learning). (IASEA
Strategic Focus, 2015).
One of the challenges IASEA is facing right now is that of professional learning focused
on these strategic anchors to ensure optimal outcomes for all students. Once professional
learning experiences are planned, developed and implemented, an additional challenge is in
determining the efficacy of such efforts and monitoring for improved adult and student learning.
With an understanding that as an organization it is vital to sustain the reputation we have for high
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 4

levels of learning, the professional learning systems and structures in place should be maximized
for best value in all respects.
Organizational Performance Status
Currently professional learning structures do not support personalized learning, lack
differentiation and typically do not provide choice options. Professional learning experiences at
International Academy of South East Asia are not differentiated according to teacher expertise in
a particular school goal such as inquiry practices. The faculty are not required to make explicit
links between professional learning and the professional growth evaluation system in place at
IASEA. This problem affects the school’s ability to strengthen every teacher’s practice in order
to optimize student learning results. Teachers are not learning what they need to learn, when they
need to learn it. IASEA has invested in personalizing learning for students. By not implementing
this with the adult learners in the system, it is incongruent with the learning beliefs and principles
in place. This impacts faculty job satisfaction which may then impact faculty retention.
The proposed solution of the creation of a personalized professional learning system,
should produce the desired outcome of engaged and motivated faculty with ‘just right’
professional learning opportunities empowering faculty with agency over their learning,
personalized to their needs and those of their students.
Related Literature
Learning goals are not typically identified or shared between those offering the
professional development and those receiving it. Personalized learning literature would suggest
that professional learning should be differentiated, that choice be a feature and that it is
strategically targeted to learning goals (Reeves, 2002; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008; Wilson &
Berne, 1999).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 5

A problem for teachers and schools has been professional development models and
practices that have not been effective in the improvement of practice (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar,
& Fung, 2008). At International Academy of South East Asia, the goal of personalized learning
is overarching. In order for teachers to feel they are learning themselves how to best support high
levels of learning in their students, then professional development should be personalized to
them, just as it is for students.
Teacher quality has been found to be essential to developing better outcomes for students
however the development of that quality through professional development has often been
criticized (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Gravani, 2007; Hanushek, 2005; Sparks, 2004). Currently
professional development at IASEA does not acknowledge the diverse perspectives, experience,
expertise, readiness and potential for leadership that exists in the faculty body.
This has been further emphasized by Rickabaugh (2016): “The long-term goal of all
learning opportunities should be to support educators in developing the skills necessary to
become self-directed professionals” (p. 100). A personalized approach to professional learning
provides educators experience with personalization in order to better understand how it might
affect students and permits them to build their capacity to support one another as well as student
learners (Rickabaugh).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The mission of the International Academy of South East Asia states that it is committed
to providing each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international
perspective. It’s vision states that the school is “a world leader in education, cultivating
exceptional thinkers, prepared for their futures” (International Academy of South East Asia, n.d).
In light of this it is important for IASEA to have professional learning systems and structures that
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 6

support high levels of learning for faculty to support high levels of learning for students.
Additionally, as an organization it is vital to sustain the reputation we have for high levels of
learning therefore the professional learning systems and structures in place should be maximized
for optimum value. How do we create systemic professional development and yet provide for
personalized learning for each faculty member?
Organizational Performance Goal
The desired organizational performance goal is that by 2020 IASEA will fully
personalize professional learning experiences for faculty in order to impact positively on student
learning. This represents an innovation as the “performance gap” in this goal is 100%. Currently
there is no data to inform a systematic understanding of how individual professional learning
efforts are determined, implemented, and monitored for efficacy.
IASEA will begin to collect data on the impact of personalized professional learning
experiences on student learning. This will be evaluated by the use of effective tools to monitor
the results of professional learning efforts. It is important that the school has developed systems
to measure professional learning outcomes in order for the school to deliver on the DSLOs. In
the absence of such a system, this represents a 100% innovation gap. There is an institutional
need and responsibility to create this platform and develop tools in order to monitor the efficacy
of professional learning experiences. This will help guide future investment and inform decision
making regarding what practices to sustain and nurture.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
The stakeholders at IASEA include teachers, students, parents, and administrators.
Stakeholders most directly involved in contributing to this goal are the leadership team,
specifically the Central Office, the faculty leadership (professional learning community leaders),
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 7

and faculty themselves who will be impacted by professional learning practices. As the group
who would be most impacted by the creation of a system, the primary stakeholder to focus on is
the IASEA faculty. By the end of the 2018 calendar year, the Central Office will have identified,
evaluated and tested possible tools to personalize professional development for faculty. In order
to do this, the knowledge and skills required will need to be identified; the motivation factors
sufficiently established, and an organizational process defined and implemented (see Table 1).
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Vision
To be a world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2020 IASEA will personalize professional learning experiences for faculty in order to
impact positively on student learning.
Stakeholder Goal: Teachers
By the end of the 2018 calendar year, the Central Office will have identified, evaluated and
tested possible tools to personalize professional development for faculty.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that impact the organization’s ability to implement
personalized professional learning. This represents an innovation gap analysis with the outcome
being a plan for how IASEA may best implement personalized learning for the faculty, such that
it reflects personalized learning for the students. A review of the literature was completed to
determine features to be attended to in the study. The current reality was ascertained, and a gap
analysis conducted to determine the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors required
for the stakeholder goal to be achieved. An additional outcome of the study could be a tool that
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 8

could be used by IASEA to evaluate the potential effectiveness of professional learning
endeavors before committing resources to them.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences that were
examined systematically and then focused on actual or validated influences that influenced the
achievement of the stakeholder goal. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all IASEA
stakeholders, for the purposes of this study the stakeholders of focus are the faculty at IASEA.
The following research questions guided this study:
• What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are barriers
to achieving the goal of successfully implementing personalized professional learning
structures for faculty that are differentiated and involve purposeful choice?
• What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study utilized the gap analysis model provided by Clark and Estes (2008). This
model enables root causes of gaps to be examined in the existing professional learning system at
IASEA. These root causes were sorted into the required knowledge and skills in order to
implement a personalized learning model, motivation aspects, and the culture of the
organization. Subsequent to an in-depth examination of the causes, the model offers an
opportunity to identify solutions within the knowledge, motivation, and organization areas. The
solutions can then be applied, and an assessment of the solutions can be performed to determine
whether effective progress is being made and the gap is being closed (Clark & Estes). The
methodological framework is that of a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. Data
collection to inform the gaps were in the form of documentation analysis, focus groups,
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 9

interviews and surveys. The innovation model, which assumes a 100% gap, positions
organizations to achieve goals by proposing changes to existing services to close the gaps and
achieve the organizational goal. The model is illustrated in Figure 1.
Definitions
The following terms were defined for use in this study:
Desired Student Learner Outcomes (DSLOs): IASEA’s 21
st
century learning outcomes consisting
of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration, character, cultural competence
and content knowledge.

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Model
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 10

Personalized learning: Learning that is student-centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and
characterized by competency-based progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning
environments.
Professional learning: The practice of developing pedagogical skills that have been proven to
have strong effects on student achievement.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): A team of educators that meets regularly with the
goal of sharing expertise, working collaboratively to improve teaching skills and the academic
performance of students.
Teacher Agency: The capacity of teachers to act purposefully and constructively to direct their
professional growth and contribute to the growth of their colleagues.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One focuses on introducing the
problem of practice. A review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study is
presented in Chapter Two. Within this chapter key topics are addressed, including: rationale;
knowledge; motivation and organization considerations such as student and teacher roles in a
personalized learning environment; features of effective professional learning; the importance of
voice and choice in learning; the vital roles structures such as the PLC and leadership play;
accountability and sustainability issues; and obstacles. Chapter Three discusses methodology
including the participants, data collection and analysis. The data and results are assessed and
analyzed within Chapter Four. Finally, Chapter Five provides research-based solutions for
closing the perceived innovation gap in addition to recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for those solutions.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 11

CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to examine the current state of professional learning at
IASEA by establishing the knowledge, motivation and organizational causes of barriers to the
implementation of personalized professional learning and develop solutions to these barriers
such that professional learning is effectively differentiated, relevant and impacts professional
practice and student learning positively. This chapter explores the literature on personalized
learning, its features and benefits and then concentrates on professional learning, that of the
educators in the system. These include the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors that must be considered for an effective professional learning system to be in place. It
provides considerations for how barriers to personalized professional learning may be overcome
and suggests solutions. As Reeves (2010) asserted, “we do not need a new theory of effective
professional learning – we need a practical mechanism to turn our ideals into reality.” (p. 23)
Personalized Learning
What personalized learning looks like in a classroom has been described in several
sources (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017; Rickabaugh, 2016). The following elementary example is
typical:
Students are spread throughout the room. Some are huddled together working on a
complex math problem. Several are quietly working on their own – some reading books,
others engrossed in electronic tablets. A small group of students is talking with the
teacher about the next math skill they’ll be learning and how they’ll be able to use it to
solve problems both in and out of the classroom. (Rickabaugh, 2016, p. 83)
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 12

All students are actively engaged. When asked, students describe what they are learning
articulately, how they are learning and what are their next steps. Teachers are conferring and
providing short focused sessions of strategic direct instruction for skill development. At the
middle school, a high level of engagement is maintained with students in a variety of grouping
structures and teachers indicating they manage learning processes rather than classroom
behavior. The teacher's role in such an environment is that of coach and advisor, to students
setting individual learning goals aligned to standards, planning how they will learn and how to
demonstrate said learning. This theme continues to the high school with even more independence
with some students planning and guiding their own learning using standards and criteria to
measure their performance. The teacher's role is mostly in support and co-learning.
This approach to learning and teaching is about "transforming the learning ecosystem we have
inherited from our parents and grandparents to better prepare learners for their futures"
(Rickabaugh, 2016, p. 4).
Definitions of Personalized Learning
Several definitions of personalized learning have been cited in the literature. Rickabaugh
(2016), proposed the following definition of personalized learning:
An approach to learning and instruction that is designed around individual learner
readiness, strengths, needs, and interests. Learners are active participants in setting goals,
planning learning paths, tracking progress, and determining how learning will be
demonstrated. At any given time, learning objectives, content, methods, and pacing are
likely to vary from learner to learner as they pursue proficiency aligned to established
standards. A fully personalized environment moves beyond differentiation and
individualization (para. 3).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 13

Curtis, McTighe and Zmuda (2017) operationally defined personalized learning as
evident when students are provided some opportunities to exercise choice in their exploration of
topics rather than experiencing a totally prescribed curriculum. They elaborated further by
describing self-directed opportunities and choice in the ways students demonstrate achievement
of desired goals. Learning is considered to be possible anywhere and anytime, not limited to
happening in a classroom with a teacher. Further, the teacher’s role manifests as that of a coach,
co-creating learning outcomes, experiences and products of learning with their student (Curtis,
McTighe, & Zmuda, 2017).
The Charleston County School District embarked on a journey to develop a system of
personalized learning that has been defined by allowing students to progress through curriculum,
mastering each standard with the pace of learning adjusted for each student. Learning is designed
to meet students at their “challenge level” and engage the learner through his or her own interests
and experiences (CCSD, 2016).
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has supported the work of implementing
personalized learning across a Silicon Valley and beyond. The foundation has defined it as
seeking to accelerate student learning “…by tailoring the instructional environment - what,
when, how and where students learn – to address the individual needs, skills and interests of each
student” (Baird, Hamilton, Pane, & Steiner, 2015).
With a focus on researching learning, University of Southern California’s Dr. Kenneth
Yates (2017) proffered the following description: “…real personalized learning is finding three
elements that you can’t see in real time: students’ cognitive readiness to learn, their emotional
readiness to learn, and their prior knowledge, which will effect how much cognitive load they
may be under when trying to learn something new” (p. 3).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 14

As asserted by Zmuda, Curtis, and Ullman (2015), IASEA has determined that a
personalized learning environment is able to provide a rich and authentic context within which
students can learn and apply skills with purpose. During the spring semester of 2017, a team
researched the field and a definition and rationale was drafted:
IASEA believes that personalized learning develops leaders, cultivates exceptional
thinkers, and prepares students for their futures. Personalized learning is student-
centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and characterized by competency-based
progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning environments. Students take
ownership of their learning, while also developing meaningful relationships with each
other, teachers, and members of the local and global communities. (International
Academy of South East Asia, personal communication, 2017)
Roles Within a Personalized Learning Environment
Within such an environment the roles of the student, teacher and school leadership are
different from the traditional whereby the teacher is an authoritarian figure leading learning from
the front of the classroom.
Student role. In a personalized learning environment, students are perceived to have
more ownership over their learning meaning voice and choice in what it is they are learning,
when and how evidence of learning may best be demonstrated (Friend, Patrick, Schneider, &
Vander Ark, 2017)
Teacher role. Hargreaves (2006) saw personalized learning as a co-constructed context,
with the teacher’s role being that of an “…active partner in the jointly constructed activity of
learning-and-teaching” (p. 17). This was further described by Friend et al. (2017) as the teachers
managing resources and supporting students as needed, adjusting instruction responsively rather
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 15

as individuals need it rather than detailed lesson plans constructed days in advance. Teachers act
as facilitators and guides of learning rather than directors (Dedoes, Hamilton, & Pasatta, 2017).
Teachers continually adjust their approaches in order to best meet the learning needs of their
current student population, creating opportunities for students to learn anytime and anywhere
(Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Friend et al., 2017; Kallick & Zmuda,
2017).
School leadership. Rickabaugh (2016) contended that school leaders must ensure
flexibility and autonomy to teachers while establishing a clear purpose for learning, aligning
work to standards and expectations, and providing the support necessary for a transition to
personalized professional learning. He argued that this commitment is necessary for a robust
implementation of personalized learning for students. This is consistent with the expressions of
teachers in school districts that have undergone transformation to personalized learning (Foster,
George, Jenkins, Moyer, & Williams, 2016). Hargreaves (2006) posited that it is the leaders who
must redesign schooling to establish and embed a culture of personalization that is grounded in
co-construction. Leaders must create the conditions whereby it is safe for teachers to learn, test
out and acquire new skills (Curtis et al., 2015).
Implications for Teacher Practice
With an emphasis on the teacher as a co-learner in the learning environment, problems
and tasks are co-constructed between teacher and learner (Hargreaves, 2006). This view of
students as partners in their learning progress, sees the role of the teacher as shifting to that of
mentor, coach, guide and fellow learner. This requires a repertoire of pedagogical tools
(Hargreaves, 2006; Rickabaugh, 2016) and use of research-based strategies that engage learners
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 16

and improve performance such as those determined by Marzano (2007), Hattie (2009) and Hall
et al. (2012).
Implications for Professional Learning
With such systematic changes in operations, instructional methods and philosophical
constructs that come with personalized learning, professional learning will need to be responsive
(Twyman, 2014). The process of personalizing professional learning should start with individual
learners in mind, just as it does for students (Rickabaugh, 2016). There is a focus on research
into how students learn best and collaborative teacher inquiry (Friend et al., 2017).
Professional Development/Professional Learning
The term professional development is often seen as synonymous with professional
learning. However, there are connotations as to be “developed” infers a process that is more
passive, one is being “developed” whereas ‘learning’ implies a more constructivist approach
(Labone & Long, 2016). This implies a growth model in which teachers take responsibility for
their learning as part of a life-long process embedded in their everyday experiences and closely
linked to their identities (Guskey, 2000; Labone & Long, 2016).
Effective Professional Learning
In order to ensure students are provided opportunities to develop the more complex and
analytical skills needed to be college and career ready in the 21
st
century, high-quality
professional learning must be emphasized including active teacher inquiry into student learning,
developing pedagogical skills that have been proven to have strong effects on student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, & Richardson, 2009; Hattie, 2009). Labone and Long (2016)
reviewed relevant literature and determined that effective professional learning evidenced six
features: a focus on content and instructional practices informed by awareness of student
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 17

thinking; participant driven, embedded in teaching; experiential modelling; feedback;
collaborative practices; sustained over time and coherence between teachers’ knowledge and
beliefs and that of the school system policies.
The current review was further supported by the findings of a research study regarding
the state of professional learning in Canada which included supportive and engaged leadership in
the list (Campbell et al., 2016). Reeves (2010) acknowledged, “We know what effective
professional learning looks like. It is intensive and sustained, it is directly relevant to the needs of
teachers and students, and it provides opportunities for application, practice, reflection, and
reinforcement” (p. 23).
Motivational Factors
In addition to knowledge, in order to achieve a goal, it is necessary to have the motivation
to do so. Clark and Estes (2008) acclaimed, “…motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and
tells us how much effort to spend” (p. 80). Active choice, persistence and mental effort are
indices for motivation and may serve as lenses to illustrate motivation problems (Clark & Estes).
Active choice involves the active pursuit of a goal, which may or may not be self-selected.
Persistence involves continuing to pay attention to a goal, particularly in the face of distractions.
Mental effort involves an optimal degree of challenge such that mental effort to succeed is
required but not so much as to undermine confidence (Clark & Estes). The development of
motivational beliefs is influenced through interaction with others, in social contexts (Rueda,
2011). This has implications for both individual learning but also that within the collaborative
construct of the PLC at IASEA.
Importance of teacher engagement. Furrer and Skinner (2003) defined engagement as
“…active, goal-directed, flexible, constructive, persistent, focused interactions with the social
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 18

and physical environments” (p. 149). This incorporates both behavioral and affective dimensions
(Rueda, 2011). As Rueda contended learning and motivation are linked, and it is important that
engagement is directed towards, meaningful, relevant and worthwhile goals. Once these goals
have been established, engagement is critical to the achievement of those goals (Rueda).
Findings from a research synthesis conducted by Timperley (2008), an analysis of ninety-seven
studies of professional development from the United States, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom, Canada and Israel, indicated that an important factor influencing the likelihood
of professional learning activities influencing positively on outcomes for students is “…the
extent to which those outcomes form the rationale for, and ongoing focus of, teacher
engagement” (p. 8). Essentially, teachers must understand the links between pedagogical
approaches, student responses to such approaches and what is actually learned.
Riley (2017) described four key elements of engagement: (1) autonomy – the amount of
power one has to determine what and how instructional decisions are made; (2) competence –
when one has the necessary skills to perform a task; (3) relatedness – development of high-
quality relationships; and (4) relevance – is there a belief that the learning will be meaningful to
oneself. Tomlinson (2017) discussed the need for teachers to understand the ‘why’ of a course of
action before they can determine the “what”. This purpose then motivates people to contribute to
the vision and establishes a moral imperative.
Ambrose et al. (2010) asked us to consider teacher motivation to learn about teaching.
How will efforts be made to sustain interest in the improvement of teaching over the long term?
It is stressed that efficiency is a priority for teachers and time investment needs to pay off. The
authors suggested that developing mastery in teaching is a learning process and requires practice
and regular formative feedback with a focus on clear goals. They contended that teachers learn
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 19

most efficiently when skills are targeted that most need development. Subsequently, deliberate,
focused practice is undertaken, and feedback is sorted in order for refinements to be made. This
finding was supported by Wilson and Berne (1999) in an examination of research on
contemporary professional development: “…teacher learning ought not to be bound and
delivered but rather activated” (p.194). Teachers should be seen as inquirers, with direct
application of learning to better student outcomes. Like students, teachers have prior learning
experiences and bring different conceptual and social resources to the learning experience
(Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008).
The Learning Process
There is evidence that learning begins with attention (Rickabaugh, 2016). Questions
regarding why will this learning be important to us and, therefore, worthy of attention? What is
the relevance and connection to what is already known? Sinatra (2000) described the learning
process as autonomous, active and self-constructed. People learn to pay attention to stimuli that
is perceived to hold meaning or relevance for the learner. This has implications for the
development of professional learning opportunities in schools.
Mayer (2011) provided a definition of learning that guides the subsequent discussion.
“Learning is a change in knowledge attributable to experience” (p. 14). As a goal of learning,
knowledge can be considered by type. Declarative knowledge is the knowledge of facts and
concepts that can be stated or declared. It is the “what”. Procedural knowledge is knowing how
and when to apply various procedures, methods, theories, styles or approaches (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive processes involve self-regulation and reflecting on when to
use the appropriate learning process to improve learning (Mayer, 2011). Knowing “what” is a
very different kind of knowledge than knowing “how” or “when”; however, both are needed in
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 20

order to have an understanding of application and transfer. Application of metacognitive
processes ensures thinking builds on itself, connections are made, and reflective thinking
engaged. Issues with the faculty’s declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge that may
contribute to the gap will be determined, along with how such problems may be validated.
Principle-based solutions will be presented as strategies to help achieve the goal. When teachers
enhance their knowledge to craft techniques that are evidence-based, student learning is
enhanced (Timperley, 2008).
How teachers interpret and use the available understandings and skills is also complex.
Teachers have prior learning experiences and bring different conceptual and social resources to
any learning experience. To make a difference to student learning, the content of what teachers
learn needs to result in changes in their practice, as it is teaching practice which influences the
learning opportunities for students (Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). This is illustrated in the
Black Boxes of Teacher and Student Learning (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Black Boxes of Teacher and Student Learning (Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008)
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 21

Adult learning. Learning to improve one's teaching is an iterative process. One of
constant progressive refinement, adjusting to the changing parameters of classes and
demographics. Learning principles apply directly to the process of learning about teaching
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Bransford et al., 2000). Adult learning is fundamentally similar to that of
students. Thus, it is important to establish goals for learning, opportunities to apply learning in
context, feedback on learning, and ensure opportunities for continued support in a collaborative
setting. In addition, the development of capacity to evaluate successful transfer of learning on
student achievement (Bransford et al., 2000).
Bretzmann (2015) suggested that adult learning characteristics include “…goal oriented,
hands-on, practical, needs stimulation or action, socially constructed, self-directed, naturally
curious, experienced” (p. 73). Butler et al. (2004) contended that teachers are to be supported to
self-regulate their learning as they revise and reflect on teaching. Through engagement in co-
construction of instructional practices designed for effectiveness, there is buy-in on the part of
the teacher who is motivated to achieve previously established goals (Bretzmann, 2015; Butler et
al., 2004; Timperley, 2008). Ultimately, success of the adult learning experience for teachers
should be defined in terms of the impact changed practice has on valued student outcomes
(Timperley, 2008).
Self-efficacy. Bandura (1986) described self-efficacy as “…people’s judgements of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances” (p. 391). Bandura theorized that, although successes raise efficacy and failure can
lower it, once a strong sense of efficacy has been developed, a failure may not have much
impact. Teachers need to see themselves as agents for change in their own learning and that of
their students (Timperley et al., 2009). Importantly, collective teacher efficacy has been seen to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 22

have a high effect size (d=1.57), the number one factor influencing student achievement as
reported by Hattie (2016) based on a meta-analysis conducted by Eell (2011).
When learners view themselves as capable of overcoming learning challenges, they're
more likely to take learning risks and to persist when facing work that becomes increasingly
challenging (Bandura, 1986; Dweck, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Such learners have a strong sense of
efficacy and tend to focus on poor strategy or effort rather than a perceived lack of competence
or ability when unsuccessful (Dweck, 2008). When efficacy is high, teachers show greater
persistence and are more likely to try new teaching approaches. This was summed up by
Timperley and Alton-Lee (2008, p. 353):
Teachers also needed to be working in situations where the organizational conditions
provided for collective, evidence-informed inquiry with ongoing opportunities to improve
pedagogical content and assessment knowledge…continued engagement was motivated
by teachers’ and leaders’ continuing to take responsibility for identified problems with
student outcomes together with the belief they had the capability to solve them. (p. 340)
Goal setting. Goals and plans that are part of a professional learner profile should
determine starting points for professional learning experiences (Rickabaugh, 2016). One’s sense
of self-efficacy plays a role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges (Bandura et al.,
1992). As members of a PLC, teachers set goals for student learning and direct their energies to
achieve those goals typically over the course of a semester or year (Dufour, 2004). Burbank and
Kauchak’s (2003) investigations into effective collaboration concluded that “…effective teaming
is highly dependent upon common project goals among team members” (p. 513).
An extensive review of professional development by Wilson and Berne (1999) identified
that learning goals typically were not identified or shared between those delivering the
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 23

professional development and those receiving it. Similarly, Timperley et al. (2009) found that
several studies evidencing no or low impact on outcomes for students were based on the premise
that there was a set of desirable teaching behaviors that should be implemented in the absence of
a specific problem to solve or goal to achieve. With clear, measurable goals, educators can be
supported in their learning in a variety of places and under a wide range of circumstances (Spady
& Marshall, 1991; Treadwell, 2017).
Differentiation
During a scan of innovative practices undertaken by the Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership (AITSL), wherein fifty organizations were analyzed for features of
professional learning and subsequent performance, differentiated opportunities for professional
learning was an overarching theme (Goddard et al., 2014). An evaluation study investigating
how teacher leadership can support professional development found that as teachers have
different levels of experience and expertise, it is necessary to provide professional learning
experiences that truly personalize learning (Taylor et al., 2011). These findings were further
supported by those of a study of the state of professional learning in Canada (Campbell et al.,
2016). The study suggested that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to professional learning
and teachers must be engaged in “…multiple opportunities for professional learning and inquiry
with differentiation for their professional needs” (p. 3).
Bretzmann (2015) concurred: “…wherever teachers start, the process should honor it” (p.
14). He suggested the provision of a range of starting points first, as people don’t know what
they don’t know, especially when it comes to an innovative practice. It takes encouragement to
identify what they and their students need and then support to get it: “…we cannot and should
not, paint our whole staff with broad brush strokes” (p. 15). Providing teachers options to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 24

individualize their learning motivates them to think deeply and critically about their practice
(Bretzmann, 2015; Goddard et al., 2014).
Choice
Learner voice and choice in what, when, and how professional learning takes place is a
critical feature of effective professional learning (Goddard et al., 2014; Merriam, 2001; Darling-
Hammond, 2009; Howland & Wedman, 2004; Rickabaugh, 2015; Taylor et al., 2009; Wells,
2014). Self-determination where teachers feel empowered to make decisions about their own
learning can “lower their defensive barriers broaden their educational horizons, give them a
sense of pride, ownership and responsibility” (Dutt, as cited in Wells, 2014, p. 489). The design
of the learning experience, while needing to pay attention to axioms of learning theory, also
needs to allow for personal learning preferences such as online versus face to face as appropriate.
(AITSL, 2014).
Design features associated with agency of the individual in the choice and design of the
professional learning experience was a key feature of innovative organizations. Just as for
students, adult individuals and groups learn differently therefore professional learning designs
need to be adapted to suit (Goddard et al., 2014). In a study focused on fourteen Catholic High
Schools in midwestern United States regarding professional learning efficacy, the number one
recommendation was for teachers to be asked what they needed to improve student learning and
those suggestions subsequently used to inform professional development experiences (Lucilio,
2009).
Educators differ in their learning needs just as students do. If educators are to value
personalized learning experiences for their students, they must be able to experience it for their
own learning in order to realize the benefits. Thus, the provision of professional learning
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 25

experiences that are responsive to need, customized to learning needs and readiness levels and
available in a variety of formats such as large group, small group, independent, virtual
(Rickabaugh, 2016). With the provision of real, significant, and authentic choices for learners in
the content, environment and strategies employed, Rickabaugh argued that greater commitment
to learning is built. This builds on a study conducted by Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCinto, and
Turner (2004) in which learners became increasingly savvy about choice and the associated
consequences. Kohn (1993) also posited that learners are more likely to take responsibility for
and commit to personally made choices as opposed to those made for them. Stefanou et al.
(2004) noted that, when choices are made regarding learning approaches and strategies and how
learning is demonstrated, learning is increased, and retention is greater.
Organizational Implications
School Culture
Tomlinson (2017) noted that schools are complex systems. Thus, a shift in practice will
require effort and energy and may be seen as a distraction. Learning about teaching when one is
immersed in it requires a school climate that values efforts to improve teaching. Such a climate
where risk taking is valued can be pivotal to the success and sustainability of individual
improvement efforts (Ambrose et. al., 2010). In order for improved outcomes, there needs to be a
“culture of vibrant teacher discourse … and a commitment from all teachers to engage in
activities designed to continually improve their teaching effectiveness” (Cole, 2004, p. 8).
Culture is also specific to the organization’s environment (Schein, 2011). As noted by Clark and
Estes (2008), “Organizational culture inevitably filters and affects all attempts to improve
performance, and successful performance improvement will depend on taking the specific
organizational culture into account” (p. 103).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 26

Culture is a powerful influence in the success or failure of improvement efforts.
International Academy of South East Asia is known for its drive, achievement orientation, and
has a global reputation as a highly successful school. Thus, there are explicit and implicit
attitudes and ways of thinking that can manifest in a sense of “overload” and initiative fatigue
(IASEA Climate Survey, 2017).
Structural Characteristics
Organizational structures, policies, and practices can influence whether performance
goals are met (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, it is important to both understand and align these
features such that they do not hinder the success of these goals.
Bretzmann (2015) suggested the use of a Professional Learning Profile for every teacher
that is comprised of four core areas: strengths, needs, interests, and constraints. The profile
should be developed in conjunction with data from observations and feedback as well as self-
reflection. The Canadian research study contended that collaborative school-based teams are
critical to the success of professional learning (Campbell et al., 2016) which was further
reinforced by Labone and Long (2016) in their case study of an Australian Catholic school
system. Provision and purposeful allocation of time in order for teachers to commit to high
quality and high impact professional learning is critical, both in the short term weekly experience
and cumulative, sustained professional learning (Campbell et al., 2016; Labone & Long, 2016;
Rickabaugh, 2016).
The Role of Technology
Just as technology can leverage personal learning for students in successful ways such as
facilitating ongoing dialogue, questioning, information sharing and problem solving among
learners, it can do so for adult learners in the form of personal learning networks and anytime,
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 27

anywhere learning facility (Curtis et al., 2015; Howland & Wedman, 2004; Owen, 2014;
Rickabaugh, 2016). Such networks are opportunities for educators to explore teaching resources
and consult colleagues in a virtual environment (Rickabaugh, 2016). In an evaluation study of a
Virtual Professional Development Model (VPLD) trialed over a year in New Zealand with ten
educators located across the country, several findings resulted. Composed of several surveys and
interviews, the resulting findings included the teachers involved demonstrating a move towards
becoming more reflective practitioners, increased engagement through experimenting with
different approaches and garnering timely feedback, up skilling and associated improvement in
confidence (Owen, 2010).
Digital badging, also known as micro-credentialing, are online representations of learning
experiences. They are relatively recent tool that may be used to both incentivize learning and
document it (Gamrat et al., 2014). Such a system personalizes professional learning as teachers
set goals and select professional learning experiences that help support those goals. A study
focusing on data from 36 teachers using a badging system suggested there is value in utilizing
digital badging systems in the professional learning context (Gamrat et al.).
Collaboration
Key findings of multiple studies and meta-analyses suggested that collaborative
approaches to professional learning ultimately serve to promote high levels of student learning
(Butler et al., 2004; Campbell et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Hattie, 2008).
Professional learning communities. This is a broad term; studies have been included
that sought to define it in terms of meeting these criteria: reflective dialogue, deprivatization of
practice, cooperative practices, collective responsibility, and focus on student learning.
“Opportunities for teachers to lead their own learning, and that of their colleagues, can benefit
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 28

individual and collective professional learning and support changed in practices to benefit
student learning” (Campbell et al., 2016, p. 7). This finding resonates with those of other meta-
analysis studies, such as Lomos et al. (2001) whose work concentrated on secondary schools and
revealed a relationship between professional community and student achievement that is positive
and significant. In addition, results from a synthesis of five case studies by Hord (1997) indicated
that working as a member of a PLC has a strong impact on teachers’ practice, particularly self-
efficacy, planning and implementation of high quality lessons and sense of professionalism. A
leading proponent of PLCs as a tool for educators, Dufour (2007) summed up the potential of
professional learning communities as constructs for transformative school improvement:
A school staff must focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on
matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the kind of results that fuel
continual improvement. When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these
principles, their collective ability to help all students learn inevitably will rise. (p. 7)
The PLC provides an environment where teachers “own” their work, build sustained
relationships with colleagues and seek to continuously improve their knowledge and skills
mirroring the classroom community that exemplifies personalized learning (Curtis et al., 2015).
Being a professional learning community is a foundational organizing concept to the
structural composition of International Academy of South East Asia (IASEA) as a learning
institution. The school believes in building teacher capacity through collective inquiry into
student learning through collaborative teams, PLCs (IASEA Strategic Focus, 2016). There are
approximately 60 PLC teams within the International Academy of South East Asia.
Teacher inquiry. A feature of PLCs is the practice of a cycle of continuous improvement
where student learning data is examined to determine where students are struggling, teachers
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 29

engage in learning to best meet those student needs, new strategies are applied and reflections
made on student learning as a result (Campbell et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009;
Dufour, 2007; Parr & Timperley, 2010; Timperley et al., 2009; Wells, 2014). Identifying teacher
learning needs asks teachers to reflect on how approaches and strategies have contributed to the
current state of student achievement, and then determine the knowledge and skills required to
promote improved achievement. It is critical that teachers see themselves as agents of change in
both student learning and their own (Timperley et al., 2009). Merritt (2003) advocated for the
value of research as a primary practice for teachers, the need for a culture of inquiry in schools
as part of teachers’ daily work.
The importance of focus to the inquiry process is emphasized in Timperley and Alton-
Lee’s (2008) research which looked at 97 empirical studies. Timperley and Alton-Lee found
little evidence to support the notion that providing teachers with time and resources is effective
in promoting teacher learning that results in positive outcomes for students. Rather, by
interpreting assessment information and seeking to engage existing beliefs within a collaborative
context, changes were integrated into practice and improved student learning resulted (Timperley
& Alton-Lee, 2008).
Virtual professional networks. The ability to access on online professional learning
community means that collaboration can take place regardless of physical location and time zone
(Campbell et al., 2016). One particular evaluation study of a Virtual Professional Development
Model (VPLD) trialed over a year in New Zealand with ten educators located across the country,
provided teachers the opportunity to develop at their own pace, in a supportive environment
(Owen, 2010). Teachers who had previously felt isolated in their own communities were able to
access a “meaningful community of professional practitioners” (p. 69).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 30

In reflections during a study of virtual PLC’s by McConnell et al. (2013), the facilitators
reported that the type of discussions in the Virtual PLC groups was very similar to the discourse
that takes place in face-to-face groups. The promise of videoconferencing as a tool to foster
professional learning communities lies in providing easier access to colleagues and facilitators.
This potential to provide timely PD for teachers is especially valuable for teachers who are
isolated in their schools, such as schools in remote or rural areas, and individuals who are the
only teacher for a specific subject in their school (Campbell et al., 2016; McConnell et al., 2013;
Owen, 2010).
Leadership for Professional Learning
The organizational conditions required for collective, evidence-informed inquiry where
there are sustained opportunities for the improvement of instructional practices include
engagement by teachers and leaders in taking responsibility for improved student outcomes
(Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008).
Role of administrators. It is important that leaders are actively involved in professional
learning and there is evidence to suggest that three roles are critical to support teachers in their
learning (Timperley, 2008). They included the establishment of a realistic vision, one that is
focused on student learning outcomes, leading learning through managing teacher engagement in
the process, and organizing learning opportunities (Timperley). As Buckingham and Coffman
(1999) contended, relationships, particularly with leaders, are one of the greatest predictors of
employee performance, satisfaction and ultimately, turnover.
Rickabaugh (2016) posited that school leaders must ensure flexibility and autonomy to
teachers while establishing a clear purpose for learning, aligning work to standards and
expectations, and providing the support necessary for a transition to personalized professional
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 31

learning. This commitment is necessary for a robust implementation of personalized learning for
students (Rickabaugh).
In a study by Cardno and Youngs (2013) that focused on the perceptions of 300
experienced New Zealand principals, many reported that implementing inquiry projects of their
own created opportunities to improve teaching and learning conditions and linked their projects
to faculty professional learning. This finding supported Darling-Hammond and Richardson’s
(2009) assertion that a school improvement context for leadership development has the potential
to provide opportunities for the wider faculty. In a synthesis on leadership by Robinson and
Rowe (2008), one of the highest effect sizes was associated with leaders promoting and
participating in teacher professional learning as a leader and learner.
Role of teacher leaders and coaches. Evidence from the state of educators’ professional
learning in Canada report indicated that middle level leaders defined as department chairs,
instructional coaches, and team leaders require support for their own professional learning,
particularly that of facilitation, as well as being instrumental in the support of faculty learning
(Campbell et al., 2016). Facilitator expertise was seen as vital to the outcomes of a study
conducted with 302 schools in New Zealand where facilitation was seen as equivalent to change
manager. As such, there was a need for skills to evaluate current circumstances and challenge
practices that may be impeding progress towards desired goals, then to support the introduction
of more effective practice (Timperley & Parr, 2010).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) identified school-based coaching programs as a
promising strategy for professional development. In these programs “…administrators identify
well-regarded veteran educators and assign them to provide ongoing guidance, advice and
mentoring to a group or groups of teachers to help them improve their instruction” (p. 11).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 32

Coaching is a form of professional development that can bring out the best in people, uncover
strengths and skills, build effective teams, cultivate compassion, and build emotionally resilient
educators (Aguilar, 2013). Coaches are those teacher leaders closest to the action. They may
work with small groups of individual teachers to embed new learning gained in other forms of
professional learning. Coaches may model strategies, co-teach, plan collaboratively, provide
feedback, and arrange peer observations to support PLC and individual faculty action research
(Bowgren, 2009).
Teacher quality is an important variable affecting student achievement (Hattie, 2014;
Knight, 2009). Coaching is a strategy that may impact teacher attitudes, practices, and efficacy -
all of which positively impact student learning (Knight, 2009). Strong instructional leadership is
often mentioned as one of the components without which significant improvement in student
achievement cannot be attained or sustained.
One of the common challenges faced by principals today is an overwhelming amount of
often unplanned urgent tasks (e.g., safety and welfare) that they are responsible for in a given
day. Spending a great deal of time focusing on such tasks takes time from instructional
leadership and the foundation for learning is no longer supported because the teachers and staff
and the principal are not equally focused on supporting both the urgent and the important tasks.
A coach can help address the gap when principals who are busy with all the other demands of the
position cannot or do not go into the classrooms. Coaches can identify areas of need and serve as
a professional learning resource for addressing concerns and weaknesses throughout the
building. They can encourage the principal to be more active in the instructional leadership role
and facilitate faculty efforts to serve as coaches as well (Spaulding & Smith, 2012).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 33

Global Trends
Findings from a comprehensive horizon scan of fifty organizations focused on
professional learning design commissioned by the Australian Institute for teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL), indicate there are commonalities across industry and education regarding
effective practices however how organizations combined features of learning design made them
unique (AITSL, 2014). Trends noted include: (a) integration (professional learning, performance
and development were closely connected and embedded within an organization’s culture, e.g.,
Professional Learning Communities); (b) immersive (intense experiences that challenge beliefs
and values and change practice, e.g., simulations and boot camps); (c) design-led (disciplined,
problem-solving processes that require understanding of and engagement with users, e.g., using a
design thinking model to engage the views and experiences of users); (d) market-led (providers
stimulate demand and grow the market for new services, e.g., schools developing a brand
identity); and (e) open (ideas and resources are freely exchanged in online environments, e.g.,
blogs and forums) (Goddard et al., 2014).
Sustainability
Energy from the system required for the changes necessary for both personalized learning
for students and personalized learning for the adults includes ensuring professional learning
opportunities are what people need. This will require energy, stamina, focus, creativity,
flexibility, and learning from the organization (Rickabaugh, 2016). This requires substantive
commitment on the part of the institution to ‘stay the course’ and commit resources to the effort
(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). “Sustained improvement depends on teachers
developing professional, self-regulatory inquiry skills so that they can collect relevant evidence,
use it to inquire into the effectiveness of their teaching, and make continuing adjustments to their
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 34

practice” (Timperley, 2008, p. 24). Sustained professional learning with between 30 and 100
hours of time over six to 12 months has been identified as effective (Campbell et al., 2016;
Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Wells, 2014).
Obstacles to Effective Professional Learning
There are misconceptions regarding professional learning that may prove to be obstacles
when seeking to implement effective personalized professional learning. These include the
notions that professional development is delivered by an expert, is a training event or activity, is
delivered beyond the school, is expensive and time consuming, is disruptive to teaching and
finally that is actually results in improved teaching and learning (Cole, 2004; Murray, 2014,
Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). The appropriate structures, such as time and relevant
opportunities, need to be in place to support personalized learning (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009). “Structure tends not to be a strong driver of change but failing to address it at the correct
time can slow and even cripple change efforts” (Rickabaugh, 2016, p.52). Roberts (1998)
contended that teachers may fail to see that they have not changed a practice, as they have
interpreted input in such a way as to fit it into an existing belief framework (Roberts, 1998;
Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). Teachers may also feel that they are veteran, self-assured in their
repertoire and as such do not need to improve or change in any way (Mohamed, 2008).
Additionally, a fear of failure may lead to a lack of desire to attempt new techniques, particularly
if one feels they are a successful teacher (Mohamed, 2008).
A key finding of the BES synthesis has been that teachers need to have time and
opportunity to engage with key ideas and integrate those ideas into a coherent theory of practice.
The authors reiterated changing teaching practice in ways that have a significant impact on
improving student outcomes is not easy. Situations where policy and organizational contexts
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 35

routinely shift priorities to the next new initiative, with little understanding or evaluation of how
current practice is impacting on desired outcomes for students, undermine the sustainability of
changes already being implemented. Innovation should be carefully balanced with consolidation
if professional learning experiences are to impact positively on student outcomes (Timperley et
al., 2008).
Accountability and Monitoring for Student Outcomes
Student Outcomes
In order to evaluate effectiveness, the transfer of learning needs to be evident. Such
evidence would include improved practices that have resulted in improved student learning
outcomes. With evidence such as observations and student learning data, leaders can consider
how students are responding to change in instructional practices to understand what is having an
effect and what additional learning is next (Rickabaugh, 2016). “Professional learning
experiences that focus on the links between particular teaching activities and valued student
outcomes are associated with positive impacts on those outcomes (Timperley, 2008).
Unfortunately, in a search of 11,000 studies on professional development over 40 years,
Timperley et al. (2009) found that of only 100 included systematic attention to student outcomes
(Timperley et al., 2008). Thus, Timperley suggested that teachers ask themselves: “Where am I
going?” “How am I doing”, and “Where to next?” in relation to effectiveness of practice vis-à-
vis student learning and learning progressions. An essential part of the teacher inquiry cycle is an
emphasis on results, “what has been the impact of our practice?” (Timperley et al., 2009; Wells,
2014).
Additionally, research discussed by Timperley, Annan, & Robinson (2009) noted that the
establishment of a teaching-learning- achievement link is central to a professional learning
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 36

process. Teachers need to be able to interpret achievement data in terms of their implications for
their own teaching in ways that required a much deeper level of analysis than typically engaged
in. Attending to the link between professional learning and student outcomes is important for
another reason. Nuthall (2004) explained:
The professional knowledge base that is most needed to improve the quality of teaching
and teacher education is knowledge about the ways in which classroom activities,
including teaching, affect the changes taking place in the minds of students...This is not
all that teachers need to know, but it is at the core of what they need to know and what
should be included in teacher education and professional development programs. (p. 295)
Like students, teachers have prior learning experiences and bring different conceptual
biases and social assets that are influenced by their cultural backgrounds to their learning
experiences. Outcomes-linked evidence on effective professional learning presents challenges to
researchers and teacher educators relative to the approach taken to knowledge building and the
provision of professional development. It is appropriate to reflect on the moral purpose of
education move research and development forward in the field of professional development and
teacher knowledge. Timperley and Alton-Lee (2008) posited that schools ultimately are intended
to educate students, not teachers purporting that outcomes for students must be used as the
criteria for effectiveness of various improvement efforts.
Implementation and Evaluation
Earley and Porritt (2014) argued that the principles and processes of impact evaluation
are better determined prior to the implementation of any professional development experience. A
clear baseline needs to be established and evidence gathering conducted when evaluating
professional development. One instrument of evaluation that has been utilized across multiple
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 37

industries for several decades was developed by Kirkpatrick (1993, 2016) which identifies
impact based on four levels: reactions; learning; behavior, and outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Guskey (2002) proposed that one reverses these levels such that impact on
students appears first, then practices needed to achieve these outcomes followed by required
supports from the organization, specific knowledge and skills required and then what training do
people need to gain these skills and/or knowledge (Guskey as cited in Early & Porritt, 2014).
Summary
This study reviewed current literature concerning personalized learning, professional
learning and the implications of one for the other. The goal of the review was to examine
knowledge, motivation and organization considerations including student and teacher roles in a
personalized learning environment, conditions necessary for effective professional learning, the
influence of voice and choice in how and what one learns, how structures such as the PLC and
leadership influence student learning outcomes and accountability, and obstacles that may hinder
progress. An overall outcome was the strong need for explicit connection to the improvement of
teacher practice influencing improved student learning outcomes. If teachers can be guided and
mentored in their own continual professional learning there is a strong possibility that the overall
learning experience for students can be strengthened (Owen, 2010). It is incumbent on
International Academy of South East Asia to minimize constraints to such processes.
The stakeholder of focus for this study is the IASEA teaching faculty. A summary of
influences and assumed needs is presented in Table 2. A proposed process for validating these
influences is discussed in Chapter 3.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 38

Table 2. Summary of Influences on IASEA Faculty
Assumed Needs of Successful Faculty Research Literature
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Teachers know the curriculum standards and learning expectations for
their courses/classes such that they can assist students to set learning
goals based on individual learner readiness, strengths, needs and interests.
• Teachers know the importance of goal setting and its significance with
student achievement.
• Teachers know the tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional
learning.
• Teachers know to align their professional learning to the needs of their
students.
Curtis, McTighe & Zmuda,
2017; Rickabaugh, 2016;
Reeves, 2010
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Teachers understand how to manage personalized student learning
processes and strategies through actions such as providing a variety of
grouping structures; advising and coaching students; and creating flexible
learning environments.
• Teachers use tools to collect and analyze evidence about how improved
practice impacts student learning.
• Teachers know how to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC.
Friend et al., 2017;
Hargreaves, 2006; Hattie,
2009; Kallick & Zmuda, 2017;
Rickabaugh, 2016; IASEA,
2017; Timperley, 2006;
Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008;
Timperley et al., 2008
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Teachers reflect on learning progress towards established goals, using
evidence.
Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda,
2011; Timperley & Alton-Lee,
2008; Timperley et al., 2008
Motivation
• Teachers value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of their professional
learning experiences.
• Teachers believe that they are empowered to inquire into their own
practice as agents of change in order to achieve established goals.
• Teachers have confidence in their ability to determine relevant and
professional learning experiences designed to strengthen their
pedagogical practice in order to target defined student learning needs.
• Teachers have confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC to engage
in collaborative inquiry to positively impact student achievement.
Bandura, 1986; Bretzmann,
2015; Butler et al., 2004;
Dweck, 2008; Ferlazzo, 2017;
Furrer & Skinner, 2003;
Goddard et al., 2014; Hattie,
2016; Kohn, 1993; Timperley,
2008; Tomlinson, 2017;
Wilson & Berne, 1999
Organizational
• Teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively communicated and
acted upon.
• IASEA has structures in place, including time and opportunity, to support
differentiated professional learning experiences for all teachers, routinely.
• The culture of the school values constructive risk taking, rich diverse
viewpoints, and adult learning.
• The school has structures in place to support collaborative approaches to
professional learning within and beyond the PLC.
• School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively engaged in
supporting and facilitating the professional learning goals of teachers.
Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008;
Bretzmann, 2015; Campbell,
et al., 2016; Curtis et al., 2015;
Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009; Dufour, 2007; Goddard
et al., 2014; Hord, 1997;
Knight, 2009; Lucilio, 2009;
Owen, 2010; Rickabaugh,
2015; Timperley et al., 2008
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 39

CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to ensure that IASEA has an effective
personalized professional learning system in place. At the current time professional learning
experiences lack differentiation or choice and the efficacy of such efforts are not effectively
monitored for improved adult and student learning. With an understanding that as an
organization it is vital to sustain the reputation we have for high levels of learning, the
professional learning systems and structures in place should be maximized for best value in all
respects.
This gap analysis first created a list of possible or assumed causes of the problem and
then examined those causes systematically by focusing on actual or validated causes. While a
complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders of
focus for this study were the International Academy of South East Asia faculty and selected
administrators.
Guiding the gap analysis were the following research questions that focused on
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes and solutions for teachers:
• What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are barriers
to achieving the goal of successfully implementing personalized professional learning
structures for faculty that are differentiated and involve purposeful choice?
• What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 40

Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The gap analysis model provides research-based guidelines to identify causes of
performance gaps and develop appropriate solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is especially suited
to serve educational organizations as it is designed to solve “…real-world problems, whether in a
classroom, school, or district” (Rueda, 2011, p. 73). The gap analysis process as modified by
Rueda, helps the school-based researcher identify organizational goals, analyze the
organization’s performance, and identify and subsequently validate the causes of performance
gaps in order to inform and design solutions that will result in performance improvement and
goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). From the identified organizational goals,
the gap analysis method examines stakeholder performance goals to ensure these goals are
concrete, challenging and current (Clark & Estes, 2008).
For the purposes of this study, the gap analysis determined assumed causes of the
performance gap based on the researcher’s knowledge of the organization (IASEA) and the
related literature. Validation of those assumed causes took place through faculty focus groups,
faculty survey, personal interviews with administrators, literature review and document analysis.
Solutions based on research were then recommended and evaluated comprehensively. The next
step was to create measures to monitor the effectiveness of the recommended solutions (Rueda,
2011). The implementation and evaluation process was informed by the Kirkpatrick model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The first step in the gap analysis method is to define the broad organizational goals that
drive the organization (Clark & Estes 2008). While the goals are stated in broad terms they also
need to have enough specificity to guide the organization’s daily functioning. Second,
stakeholder goals are developed which relate directly to the organizational goal. The gap analysis
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 41

method explores stakeholder goals by analyzing the gap in performance whilst considering the
change that is necessary to achieve the organization and stakeholder goals.
In the gap analysis there are three factors that affect organizational performance:
knowledge, motivation and organization. Categorizing performance problems into one of these
three groups will enable organizations to identify the specific problems affecting stakeholders
while remaining within the context of the overarching performance goal of the organization.
From that step assumed causes of the gaps are identified. These causes are framed as knowledge,
motivation or organizational factors. Subsequently the root causes of the identified gaps are
validated in order for solutions to be identified. Once possible solutions have been identified they
are then implemented. Finally, the implemented solutions are evaluated for effectiveness. This
final step in the gap analysis process – evaluation – was enhanced in this study using
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four levels of training evaluation.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) builds upon the
original Kirkpatrick four level model of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This
backwards-by-design model suggests that evaluation plans begin with the goals of the
organization and then work backwards, with the identification of the “leading indicators” that
bridge from the completion of recommended solutions to the organization’s goals. Next,
outcomes of the solutions that focus on assessing behavior on the job are identified, then
indicators of learning during the implementation are identified and, finally, indicators of
satisfaction with the implementation are identified. The Kirkpatricks recommended when doing
this sequence to keep the focus on what is most important. By designing the implementation and
evaluation plan this way, the researcher is asked to consider connections between the immediate
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 42

solutions and the larger goal, and may be better positioned to solicit “sign on” (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) from the organization as a whole to ensure success.
Assessment of Performance Influences
The gap analysis model emphasizes the construction of measurable performance goals
and then uses research to validate the causes of gaps that exist between actual levels of
performance and the organizational and stakeholder goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Attention is paid to the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors as possible
causes for the gap, and then investigates and validates or discounts hypothesized causes for the
problem (Rueda, 2011). Strategies for investigating included data gathering tools such as
interviews and surveys in addition to literature research as presented in Chapter 2. The following
is a discussion of the assumed needs and influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organization for IASEA to personalize professional learning for teachers in order to impact
positively on student learning.
Knowledge Assessment
The literature revealed eight possible knowledge influences. Two of these, teachers know
the tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional learning, and teachers know the
curriculum standards and learning expectations for their courses/classes such that they can assist
students to set learning goals based on individual learner readiness, strengths, needs and
interests, represent factual knowledge. The second part of the last influence is also procedural in
nature. This was assessed through focus group questions where participants were asked to
describe both tools used to inform their own individual and PLC professional learning efficacy.
Conceptual knowledge was another possible knowledge influence in two areas: Teachers know
the importance of goal setting and its significance with student achievement and, teachers know
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 43

to align their professional learning to the needs of their students. These were assessed through
both short answer survey items and focus group questions.
Two of the possible knowledge influences are procedural knowledge. The first,
successful teachers understand how to manage personalized student learning processes and
strategies through actions such as providing a variety of grouping structures; advising and
coaching students; and creating flexible learning environments were assessed through survey and
focus group questions. Documents from PLC meetings were analyzed to assess whether teachers
used tools to collect and analyze evidence about how improved practice impacts student learning
and, if teachers knew how to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC.
The final possible knowledge influence is metacognitive knowledge; teachers reflect on
learning progress towards established goals, using evidence. This was assessed through focus
group questions and interview questions during the administrator interviews.
Motivation Assessment
Four possible motivational influences were revealed in the literature; two regarding
expectancy value and two regarding self-efficacy. The first two assumed influences regarding
expectancy value are that teachers value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of their professional
learning experiences, and that teachers believe that they are empowered to inquire into their own
practice as agents of change in order to achieve established goals. These were both assessed
through survey and focus group questions.
Both self-efficacy assumed influences on motivation were assessed through survey items:
teachers have confidence in their ability to determine relevant and professional learning
experiences designed to strengthen their pedagogical practice in order to target defined student
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 44

learning needs, and teachers have confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC to engage in
collaborative inquiry to positively impact student achievement.
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
The research literature revealed five possible organizational influences. Assessment for
these influences included document analysis (including past surveys), survey questions, focus
group discussion items and administrator interview questions. These influences include: (a)
teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively communicated and acted upon; (b) IASEA
has structures in place, including time and opportunity, to support differentiated professional
learning experiences for all teachers, routinely; (c) the culture of the school values constructive
risk taking, rich diverse viewpoints, and adult learning; (d) the school has structures in place to
support collaborative approaches to professional learning within and beyond the PLC; and (e)
school leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively engaged in supporting and facilitating
the professional learning goals of teachers. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted: “…even workers
with adequate knowledge, skills, and top motivation will not succeed to close performance gaps
and achieve business goals when faced with inefficient work processes” (p. 104). A summary of
the assumed influences and strategies used to assess them is provided in Table 3.
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
Sampling
The stakeholders of focus for this study were the International Academy of South East
Asia faculty. In order to effectively validate the assumed causes of knowledge, motivation and
organizational culture issues, samples were selected from two of the stakeholder groups. For the
stakeholder of focus, the faculty, two samples were identified. Both were purposeful random
stratified samples of teachers from preschool through grade twelve. This is based on the
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 45

Table 3. Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influences on IASEA
Faculty

Assumed Needs of Successful Faculty Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Teachers know the curriculum standards and learning expectations for their
courses/classes such that they can assist students to set learning goals based on
individual learner readiness, strengths, needs and interests.
• Teachers know the importance of goal setting and its significance with student
achievement.
• Teachers know the tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional
learning.
• Teachers know to align their professional learning to the needs of their
students.
Survey (short answer)
Document Analysis e.g.
PLC agendas
Focus Groups
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Teachers understand how to manage personalized student learning processes
and strategies through actions such as providing a variety of grouping
structures; advising and coaching students; and creating flexible learning
environments.
• Teachers use tools to collect and analyze evidence about how improved
practice impacts student learning.
• Teachers know how to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC.
Focus Groups
Document Analysis
Survey
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Teachers reflect on learning progress towards established goals, using
evidence.
Focus Groups
Administrator Interviews
Motivation
• Teachers value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of their professional learning
experiences.
• Teachers believe that they are empowered to inquire into their own practice as
agents of change in order to achieve established goals.
• Teachers have confidence in their ability to determine relevant and
professional learning experiences designed to strengthen their pedagogical
practice in order to target defined student learning needs.
• Teachers have confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC to engage in
collaborative inquiry to positively impact student achievement.
Survey
Focus Groups
Organizational
• Teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively communicated and acted
upon.
• IASEA has structures in place, including time and opportunity, to support
differentiated professional learning experiences for all teachers, routinely.
• The culture of the school values constructive risk taking, rich diverse
viewpoints, and adult learning.
• The school has structures in place to support collaborative approaches to
professional learning within and beyond the PLC.
• School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively engaged in supporting
and facilitating the professional learning goals of teachers.
Document Analysis
(including past surveys)
Survey
Focus Groups
Administrator Interviews

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 46

assumption that “the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore
must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96).
A sampling spreadsheet tool was used to randomly select faculty based on the following
criterion to ensure representation:
Criterion 1. Length of tenure at IASEA
Criterion 2. Division
Criterion 3. Grade level taught
The selection criteria helped to ensure “maximum variation sampling” as described by Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) in order to represent the widest possible range of faculty within these
characteristics criterion. This is important as the results of this study have implications for all
faculty at IASEA. A single-stage sampling design was established as appropriate since the
researcher has direct access to the names of the stakeholders involved. Using a sample size
calculator from surveysystem.com and information suggested by Creswell (2014), the following
sample was defined for the survey deployed (see Table 4).
Table 4. Survey Sample
Participants Sample Statistics

Faculty Population

367

Confidence level

95%

Confidence interval +/– 4%

Sample size

107

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 47

The purpose for this sample was to survey for self-reported data on motivational factors
in a way that would be anonymous to the researcher. The instrument was deployed through
Qualtrics, which is a web based online survey instrument (www.qualtrics.com).
Additionally, five focus group sessions were conducted, each formed from a different
faculty sample, comprising of a total of thirty members, as considered optimal by Krueger and
Casey, (2009). A goal for this method of data collection was interactive discussion through
which data were generated, as it is socially constructed and therefore different to an interview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A question set was developed in order to explore current perceptions
about existing professional learning processes and included aspirational questions to inform
future state. Krueger and Casey (2009) advised regarding the use of a structured question set:
“…a general rule is to maintain as much consistency as possible throughout the series of focus
groups because it is in comparison and contrast that themes and patterns emerge from the data”
(p. 60). There is inconsistent agreement in the literature regarding the number of focus groups
needed to adequately represent the full faculty (Carlsen & Glenton, 2011).
Given the deployment of a survey to a wider sample of faculty, focus groups, additional
interviews of administrators as well as document analysis of recent historical perceptive data, it
was considered that there was sufficient triangulation of the data to inform causes and ultimately
solutions. Each data collection method revealed different aspects of empirical current reality.
Patton (1999) suggests that multiple methods of data collection and analysis provide more “grist
for the research mill” (p. 1,192). Studies that use only one method are more vulnerable to errors
linked to that particular method (e.g., loaded interview questions, biased or untrue responses)
than are studies that use multiple methods in which different types of data provide validity
checks. Patton (2002) cautioned that it is a misconception to posit that the goal of triangulation is
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 48

to arrive at consistency across data sources or approaches; as in fact, such inconsistencies may be
likely given the relative strengths of different approaches. In Patton’s view, these inconsistencies
should not be seen as diluting the evidence, rather as an opportunity to uncover deeper meaning
in the data.
In addition to the faculty sample, interviews were conducted with a representation from
the administrative team stakeholder group, one administrator per division and one from the
Central Office. It was felt that due to their experiences with supervising faculty and leading
professional learning to varying degrees, their input was significant and necessary.
Recruitment
Participants from the faculty were recruited by invitation and sample emails (see
Appendix A). Initially, the survey was deployed and then focus groups were selected from a
separate sample. A focus group protocol was designed (see Appendix B) and executed. At the
time of recruitment, teachers were informed that the researcher will be deploying an anonymous
survey and their input would inform professional learning at IASEA. Subsequent to this, an
email was sent to a smaller sample of faculty inviting them to consider participating as a member
of several focus group opportunities that the researcher convened with the goal of informing
professional learning practices at IASEA.
Data Collection
Once the sample population was selected, four data collection instruments were used: (1)
Surveys, (2) Focus Groups, (3) Interviews, and (4) Document Analysis. Use of four data
collection instruments ensures triangulation of data for purposes of trustworthiness and to
minimize validity threats (Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002). Permission was sought from the
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 49

University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) before data collection
began, and the study was given IRB approval.
Surveys
Survey protocol. The rationale for the structure of the survey protocol was to provide for
a higher degree of faculty input and enhance the information gathered in the focus group sessions
(see Appendix C). The introduction to the survey outlined the purpose of the study and gave
definitions of personalized learning and professional learning identical to those followed in the
interviews and focus group sessions. The introduction assured respondents there were no right or
wrong answers and to answer each question as best they could. A suggested time frame of 15-20
minutes was also given. The survey was conducted through Qualtrics.com.
Data collection. Confidentiality of participants within the survey was assured through an
online anonymous data collection website application. The strategy for the random stratified
sample was for a representative sample from across the school; consequently, the invite was only
sent to this sample. The data collection approach for the survey was to email a link to each
sample member to the online survey application directly from Qualtrics.com.
Focus Groups
Focus Group Protocol. The focus group sessions with faculty were conducted using a
modified “fishbowl” protocol. This strategy involved the invited faculty members to sit in a
round table configuration. One member volunteered as facilitator which entailed reading the
questions one by one and considering when there has been sufficient discussion to move on to
the next question. This member was briefed by the researcher prior to the commencement of the
group session and then the researcher left the location. The protocol directed the group to
actively participate in responding to the question and any person in the group was able to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 50

participate in the discussion as they felt comfortable. This strategy is useful when wanting to
create an atmosphere of structured, socially constructed dialog. The researcher did not facilitate
the conversation, and was not present in the room, in order to potentially provide for more candid
responses from the faculty members (see Appendix B).
Data collection. Five focus group sessions were conducted, each consisted of a range of
4-8 faculty members. Each focus group session lasted 50-60 minutes and were scheduled at a
time convenient to each group’s participants. The participants selected the scheduled focus group
they were able to attend given their time commitments. One member from each focus group was
asked in advance to facilitate and provided instructions for doing so. All focus group
conversations were recorded using the Motiv app software application and permission to do so
was obtained during the invitation process. Following each focus group session, the researcher
transcribed the interview with assistance from Datagain Inc. and used these records to inform the
data analysis. All focus group sessions were recorded on a smart phone using the Motiv
application, and subsequently uploaded into transcribing software. They were then cleaned and
coded for data analysis.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The interview protocol followed a combination of a semi-structured
and unstructured format as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The interview was semi-
structured in that specific data came from the administrator interviewees and most of the
interview was guided by a list of questions (see Appendix C). The interview was unstructured in
that there were open-ended questions and follow on questions based on the responses of each
interviewee. The researcher was the interviewer as there is a collegial relationship established
and no perceived threat or risk associated with any response. The interview protocol began with
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 51

a rationale for the interview and included an introduction to the study in order to provide the
administrator with sufficient information to understand the importance of the study and their
contributions to the data set.
Data collection: The four interviews with administrators, deputy principals and a director
from the central office, were conducted individually at a convenient time for the interviewee.
Each interview lasted approximately 50 minutes. Permission was sought to audio record and to
take notes during the interview. Following each interview, the researcher transcribed the
interview and used these records to inform the data analysis. All interviews were recorded on a
smart phone using the Voice Recorder application, uploaded into Speechmatics transcribing
software and then cleaned and coded for data analysis.
Document Analysis
The analysis of several documents was important to this review in order to triangulate
data. Professional learning policies and experiences, both school initiated and individually
initiated, provided examples of the documentation analyzed for evidence of information
informing the perceptive data from faculty. This analysis also included information about how
and why professional learning experiences have occurred in the last three years at International
Academy of South East Asia. In addition, a previous survey administered to a third of the faculty
in early 2017 was analyzed for information of perceived importance to the study. Another
previous survey, the IASEA climate survey outcomes from April 2017 were analyzed for
information regarding the culture that currently manifests. Permission for use of both sets of
survey results was sought from the deputy superintendent.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 52

Data Analysis
Different strategies were used to analyze interview, focus group, survey, and document
data. Interviews were transcribed and coded according to the knowledge, motivation and
organizational categories. Survey data were collated and compared with the interview and focus
group data to identify trends and outliers. The document analysis provided further information in
order to triangulate the interview, focus group, and survey data and to help to check the
validation of the assumed causes. Use of the existing survey data from the Professional Learning
survey and the IASEA Climate survey section on trust proved useful for validating the assumed
influences on knowledge, motivation and organization and provided an external and historical
data source to provide context. All the data types, interview, survey, focus groups and document
analysis, helped to validate and inform possible solutions for the knowledge, motivation and
organization influences (see Table 5).
Trustworthiness
An important aspect of the research is ensuring the collected data are trustworthy. Three
steps were implemented as ascribed by Maxwell (2013), Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Patton
(2002): (1) triangulation of data between surveys; interviews, focus group conversations, and
document analysis; (2) assurance of anonymity (survey) and confidentiality (survey, interviews
and focus groups); and (3) member checks.
Role of Researcher
As the author is an executive director with schoolwide responsibilities, it is imperative for
accurate, candid and trustworthy data collection that teachers do not feel threatened by an
administrator conducting this type of research study. The researcher’s role in this gap analysis
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 53

was to conduct a problem-solving investigation in order to improve the organization’s
performance in an area of
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 54

Table 5. Summary of Assumed Causes and Validation Strategy
Causes Survey
Focus
Groups
Document
Analysis
Interviews
Assumed Knowledge Causes (Successful teachers know)
• Curriculum standards and learning expectations for their
courses/classes such that they can assist students to set
learning goals based on individual learner readiness,
strengths, needs and interests.
• The importance of goal setting and its significance with
student achievement.
• Tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional
learning.
• Teachers know to align their professional learning to the
needs of their students.

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

• How to manage personalized student learning processes
and strategies through actions such as providing a variety
of grouping structures; advising and coaching students;
and creating flexible learning environments.
• How to use tools to collect and analyze evidence about
how improved practice impacts student learning.
• How to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC.
• To reflect on learning progress towards established goals,
using evidence.

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Assumed Motivation Causes (Successful teachers:)
• Value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of their professional
learning experiences.
• Believe that they are empowered to inquire into their own
practice as agents of change in order to achieve
established goals.
• Are confident in their ability to determine relevant
professional learning experiences designed to strengthen
their pedagogical practice in order to target defined
student learning needs.
• Are confident in their collective efficacy as a PLC to
engage in collaborative inquiry to positively impact
student achievement.
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Assumed Organizational Causes
• Teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively
communicated and acted upon.
• IASEA has structures in place, including time and
opportunity, to support differentiated professional
learning experiences for all teachers, routinely.
• The culture of the school values constructive risk taking,
rich diverse viewpoints, and adult learning.
• The school has structures in place to support collaborative
approaches to professional learning within and beyond
the PLC.
• School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively
engaged in supporting and facilitating the professional
learning goals of teachers.

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 55

strategic importance to the school – personalized professional learning. These findings are
directly impactful to the ongoing work of the researcher, in that the researcher is responsible for
the oversight of professional learning at IASEA. Although not directly anticipating any issue in
the data collection process in relation to her position, in order to ensure there was no “personal”
bias in either questions or answers, the focus groups were conducted using a fishbowl protocol
(see Appendix B). Researcher facilitated interviews were conducted with four members of the
administrative team, as it was assumed that there would be appropriate candor in the responses.
Ultimately the study focused on a system, rather than a person, or personal endeavor.
To help faculty understand the researcher’s role as an investigator seeking to improve an
aspect of the school’s operations, the following steps were undertaken. The researcher:
• Ensured that steps are in place to preserve the anonymity of all participants in the
findings
• Asked members of the school’s Human Resources team to define the random stratified
samples used for survey and focus groups
• Ensured the voluntary nature of participation in the researcher’s doctoral dissertation
study and that the right to not participate in the project was clearly understood
• Ensured confidentiality of information, identity and data
• Obtained permission from the deputy superintendent to use documentation or data that
was produced for other institutional purposes.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
A limitation of this study was its restriction to a sample of the faculty population at one
international school. The sample size of 107 participants for the survey, and 30 for the focus
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 56

groups, indicated that the results of this study are not generalizable to other schools. The
representative sampling used was inherently by design, representative, rather than the total
faculty responding. However, the overall findings may be of use to like schools. An additional
limitation of this study is that it was conducted over a six-month period. Therefore, there was
insufficient time to implement potential solutions and monitor for their effectiveness using the
Kirkpatrick model.
Delimitations
A delimitation of this study was the location of the school and the specific demographics.
All participants came from the same organization – International Academy of South East Asia,
therefore caution is recommended when generalizing the results of this study to other settings.
However, the results and implications of this gap analysis will potentially be of interest to other
international schools that are seeking to develop effective professional learning practices.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 57

CHAPTER FOUR:
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that impact the organization’s ability to implement
personalized professional learning. This represents an innovation gap analysis with the outcome
being a plan for how International Academy of South-East Asia (IASEA) may best implement
personalized learning for the faculty, such that it reflects personalized learning for the students.
IASEA functions as an autonomous entity much like a school district and as such
develops professional learning structures aligned to the needs perceived by the school. It is
accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and provides higher
level Advanced Placement College Board courses to students in the High School. Both of these
factors influence professional learning experiences; however, the school is not beholden to a
nation or state’s curriculum legislative demands. The vision of IASEA is to be “a world leader in
education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future.” The outcomes of the vision
are defined by the desired student learning outcomes, (DSLOs). These are creativity,
communication, critical thinking, collaboration, content knowledge, cultural competence and
communication. The school, by the endorsement of such learning outcomes, directs teachers to
ensure opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency toward these outcomes through the
curriculum. The school’s vision is supported by three strategic anchors; a culture of excellence
(every student learns at high levels), a culture of extraordinary care (every student is known and
advocated for), and a culture of possibilities (every student personalizes their learning). (IASEA
Strategic Focus, 2015). The school has also defined ‘personalized learning:
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 58

IASEA believes that personalized learning develops leaders, cultivates exceptional
thinkers, and prepares students for their futures. Personalized learning is student-
centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and characterized by competency-based
progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning environments. Students take
ownership of their learning, developing skills for deep learning and application of that
learning, while developing personal connections with each other, teachers, and others in
the community. (IASEA Guiding Coalition, 2018)
One of the challenges IASEA has currently faced is that of professional learning focused
on the strategic anchors (a culture of excellence, extraordinary care, and of possibilities) to
ensure optimal outcomes for all students. The school’s adult learning structures do not
necessarily align with or reflect the definition of personalized learning established by the school.
Zmuda, Curtis, and Ullman (2017) argued personalized learning allows for deeper, more lasting
learning in an engaging and relevant environment. Bretzmann (2015) added that the provision of
options for teachers to customize their learning motivates them to think deeply and critically
about their craft. The overall outcome is an explicit connection to the improvement of teacher
practice influencing improved student learning outcomes.
Once professional learning experiences are planned, developed and implemented, the
school faces an additional challenge of determining the efficacy of such efforts and monitoring
for improved adult and student learning. As an organization it is essential to sustain a reputation
for high levels of learning across the system, ensuring the professional learning systems and
structures in place are optimized for best value in all respects, as the institution embarks on an
ambitious plan to personalize learning for students.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 59

IASEA is investing in personalizing learning for students. In order to be consistent with
the learning beliefs and principles this entails, the same tenets must be implemented with the
adult learners in the system.
This chapter describes the current reality of professional learning as it measures up
against the tenets of personalized learning, determined through the analysis of existing
documentation, administrator interviews, schoolwide focus groups and a schoolwide survey. The
outcomes this professional learning analysis will help inform a solution for the creation of a
personalized professional learning system, producing the desired outcome of engaged and
motivated faculty with relevant professional learning opportunities empowered with agency over
their learning, personalized to their needs and those of their students.
A review of the literature determining features to successfully implement personalized
professional learning was completed. The current situation at the school was examined through
the multiple data points described above and a gap analysis was conducted to determine the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors required for the stakeholder goal of
personalized professional learning to be achieved at IASEA. This is described in chapter 5.
The analysis began with the generation of a list of possible or assumed influences from
the literature that were then examined systematically to confirm actual or validated influences
that impact the achievement of the stakeholder goal. While a complete gap analysis would focus
on all IASEA stakeholders, for the purposes of this study the stakeholders of focus are the
faculty at IASEA.
At the current time, the school was concerned that professional learning experiences
lacked differentiation or choice, and the efficacy of such efforts were not effectively monitored
for improved adult and student learning. This chapter presents the data collected through four
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 60

instruments: (1) Survey of faculty; (2) Focus Groups from faculty; (3) Interviews with
administrator; and (4) Document Analysis.
Research Question One focused on determining the knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational causes that exist as barriers to achieving the goal of successfully
implementing personalized professional learning structures for faculty that are differentiated and
involve purposeful choice. Research Question Two then sought to identify potential solutions to
such barriers. In the gap analysis there are three factors that affect organizational performance:
knowledge, motivation and organization. The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008)
was used to help identify what barriers currently exist and which factors are of greatest influence
in order to inform possible solutions. Once such solutions have been identified they may then
implemented and subsequently evaluated for effectiveness. First, a description is provided of the
participants in the study, followed by a discussion of the results.
Participants
Data in this gap analysis study were collected through interviews, a survey, and existing
documents. The stakeholders of focus for this study were the International Academy of South
East Asia faculty. In order to effectively validate the assumed causes of knowledge, motivation
and organizational culture issues, samples were selected from two of the stakeholder groups.
Two random stratified samples from a purposive group (the IASEA faculty), were identified,
both samples of teachers from preschool through grade twelve. For the survey sample, a sample
size calculator from surveysystem.com and information suggested by Creswell (2014) was
utilized and a survey deployed to 107 teachers. A survey introduction email outlined the purpose
of the study and gave definitions of personalized learning and professional learning identical to
those followed in the interviews and focus group sessions. The introduction assured respondents
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 61

there were no right or wrong answers and to answer each question as best they could. A
suggested time frame of 15-20 minutes was also provided. The survey included forced response
questions and follow up short answer narratives. The survey was conducted through
Qualtrics.com. A total of 55 responses were received representing a 61% return rate.
Documentation consisting of professional learning policies and experiences were
reviewed as examples of documentation that helped inform the perceptive data from faculty.
Additionally, a previous survey administered to a third of the faculty in early 2017 was analyzed
for information of perceived importance to the study. Another previous survey, the IASEA
climate survey outcomes from April 2017, was analyzed for information regarding
organizational culture.
Five focus group sessions were also conducted, each formed from a different faculty
sample, comprising of a total of thirty members. One member from each focus group was asked
in advance to facilitate and provided instructions for doing so. This represented a modified
version of a ‘fish bowl’ protocol whereby rather than the researcher sitting in the room listening,
for the purposes of anonymity the recording software served this role. The focus group member
facilitated the process by asking the focus group the provided questions and determining
appropriate pacing.
In addition to the faculty sample, interviews were conducted with a representative sample
from the administrative team stakeholder group, one administrator per division and one from the
Central Office, four in total. The researcher coded the transcriptions from the interviews, focus
groups and survey narrative comments, and cleaned the data by removing any identifiers such as
names. After coding, themes were established and are discussed below through the KMO
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 62

Table 6 provides a description and annotation of the different samples. The data
collection process took place during October and November 2017. The participants included 30
focus group members, 4 administrator interviews. There was a total of 55 returned surveys from
those who agreed to participate in the study.
Table 6. Summary Sample Data Collection

Data Collection Mode Role Participants Length
Focus Groups Faculty FG1 (5 participants)
FG2 (4 participants)
FG3 (8 participants)
FG4 (7 participants)
FG5 (6 participants)
60-70 minutes
Interviews Administration A1, A2, A3, A4 40-50 minutes
Survey Faculty 55 20-30 minutes

Data Analysis
Different strategies were used to analyze interview, focus group, survey, and document
data. Interviews were transcribed and coded according to the knowledge, motivation and
organizational categories. Survey data was collated and compared with the interview and focus
group data to identify trends and outliers. Additionally, a transcription service (Datagain, Inc.)
was used for the focus group recordings. Use of this service countered any potential interviewer
analysis bias as the participants’ identities and perspectives remained anonymous to the
researcher. The document analysis provided further information that was used to triangulate the
interview, focus group and survey data, and validate the assumed causes. The existing survey
data from the Professional Learning survey and the IASEA Climate survey section on trust
proved useful for validating the assumed influences on knowledge, motivation and organization,
and providing an external and historical data source for context. All the data types—interview,
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 63

survey, focus groups, and document analysis—helped to inform possible solutions for the
knowledge, motivation and organization influences.
Results and Findings
This section presents the research findings related to the results for Research Question
One: What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are barriers
to achieving the goal of successfully implementing personalized professional learning structures
for faculty that are differentiated and involve purposeful choice? The section is organized
according to the categories of knowledge and skills, motivation and organization, and provides a
synthesis of key findings. The outcomes are a determination of which assumed causes detailed in
Chapter 3 and appearing in Table 7, 8 and 9, have been validated as current obstacles through the
data collection process. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings from the research
results, which will be further discussed in Chapter 5.
The next subsections discuss the findings for Assumed and Validated Causes for each
factor and the corresponding tables are placed in a group at the end of these discussions—Table
7 (Knowledge and Skills), Table 8 (Motivation), and Table 9 (Organizational) are placed in a
group at the end of these discussions.
Assumed and Validated Causes – Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge Factors – Declarative
Course/class standards defined and goal setting. As stressed by multiple researchers,
learning should be strategically targeted to goals. Teachers and schools should ask the question,
How will this experience improve instructional practices to then support high levels of learning
for students? (Reeves, 2002; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008; Wilson & Berne, 1999) This
assumed need was validated as evidenced by 95% of survey respondents and every focus group
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 64

indicating they had identified standards in place and learning targets defined for the courses and
classes they teach. Comments from focus groups concurred that having well defined curriculum
standards in place led to relevant and meaningful student learning goals being developed, for
example:
[Standards] “…help us to assist them [students] in setting goals because we have very
clear content and process standards and so we can refer to something for them to look at,
they can very easily evaluate themselves against those standards, because they are very
clearly laid out.” (Focus Group #4).

Fifty responses out of 55 in the survey administered indicated there were processes in place for
students to establish and monitor learning goals. Comments from the open-ended portion of the
survey included the following:
“I use learning progressions to clearly define what students need to be able to do if they
are performing at grade level. I highlight specific next steps for students in each subject
area. Students also self-reflect and determine their own best next steps.”

Two comments noted a lack of such structures, and a desire for this to be part of classroom
practice.
Knowledge of tools available. There was little evidence to suggest that teachers knew
of, or could recall, using tools to monitor the efficacy of professional learning experiences. There
was evidence the protocols were used to determine student learning and then develop
intervention strategies in some PLC meeting agendas as well as focus group conversation. Focus
Group #3 participants described use of an online collaborative tool and sentence prompts to
guide PLC discussion of student learning results. What was missing was a link to any kind of
teacher inquiry or teacher learning that would need to take place. Administrator comments
confirmed a lack of attention to these resources:
Administrator A4 shared, “When there is a [teacher] goal it is not necessarily attached to
a pedagogical practice that they want to grow in themselves.” The conversation in the focus
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 65

groups reinforced a struggle to find anything tangible to relate and began talking about what
might be strategic solutions. “Data could be used to direct professional learning.” (Focus Group
#2) Survey respondents described the challenge of time when it came to deepening practice such
that it made an impact on student learning, “We discuss strategies based on student data, but I
feel like we could go more in depth. We could learn more about instructional strategies, plan full
lessons together, then study what works and doesn’t” (Survey respondent). Thus, there is an
evidenced need for tools to align goals and determine personalized adult learning.
Flexible learning environments. The information evidenced from the focus group
conversations illustrated differences between divisions and PLCs in their approach to managing
personalized student learning processes and strategies. Participants spoke about not limiting
learning to grade-level standards and differentiated assessment products. Certain courses,
particularly in the High School are exploring ways to empower students with agency regarding
their learning goals. Comments ranged from that of an Early Learning Center teacher who
shared: “We personalize everything we do. We talk a lot about ‘why limit a child?’ So they can
count 1–10, maybe they can count to 1000!” (Focus Group #4) to: “Students in High School
have choice in the courses they select but there’s a lot of work to be done in truly personalizing
beyond the choice of book or topic in an essay” (Focus Group #4). This gap in knowledge was
only partially validated and, therefore, provides direction for solutions focused in this area.
Aligning professional learning to student needs. Timperley (2006) cautioned educators
to use evidence when determining professional learning efforts to improve teaching quality;
otherwise, there is a risk that the craft knowledge gained may not benefit students. The findings
indicated there appeared to be a variety of reasons behind professional learning choices, with
student needs driving many but not all of those decisions. Many comments in the focus groups
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 66

mentioned areas teachers were interested in, felt they wanted to improve, or were perceived as
directly relevant to what they were teaching. Additionally, the strategic direction of the school
influenced decisions. The notion of intentionally and explicitly aligning professional learning to
students needs was only mentioned in a handful of comments. The comments included: “In a
perfect world I’m selecting professional development that is really for the benefit of my students
and that’s really the only reason to be doing it in my mind” (Focus Group #5). A theme that
emerged from focus group responses was the perception that professional learning only
happened when teachers went off site or when consultants came to the school and teachers were
released to work with them.
Knowledge Factors – Procedural
Tools to evidence improved practice leading to student learning. The use of feedback
mechanisms as being critical to inform subsequent learning has been well researched (Campbell
et al., 2016; Hattie, 2009; Labone & Long, 2016; Reeves, 2010). Tools to determine the efficacy
professional learning efforts should, therefore, be in place. At IASEA, PLC agendas and
comments from some of the focus groups indicated that there was little evidence of the use of
tools to inform teachers about how a shift in their instructional practices led to an improvement
in student learning. Some courses had designed feedback surveys for students which provided
perceptive data which may have led to reflection on pedagogical practices; however, most of the
feedback solicited was based on curriculum learning targets. This area is one to develop and
strengthen.
PLC collaborative inquiry. Recent research findings by Hattie (2016) revealed the
power of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement, with an effect size of 1.57. Hattie
used effect size to show the relative impact of each factor. An effect size of 0.4 is regarded as
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 67

average or typical, meaning that this factor of collective teacher efficacy is nearly five times
more likely to influence positively on student outcomes. Survey data indicated that 58% of the
respondents always or frequently engaged in professional learning activities with their PLC
colleagues. An additional 33% indicated they occasionally participated. Ninety percent indicated
they valued PLC collaborative inquiry, even when there was limited implementation. These
results contrasted with focus group conversation, wherein responses seemed to depend on the
degree to which PLC meetings focused on a teacher as researcher/inquirer stance and overall
PLC efficacy.
Knowledge Factors – Metacognitive
Reflection on progress towards established goals. Rickabaugh (2016) posited that
goals should determine the starting point for professional learning endeavors. Dufour (2004)
further contended that, as members of a PLC team, teacher energy should be directed towards
setting professional goals regarding student learning that is evidence based.
During the interviews with divisional and central office administrators, feedback on goals
was often specific to the work of the PLC rather than the individual. One division administrator
shared that the majority of feedback to faculty was based on walkthrough observations regarding
divisional goals. “We agree on a focus for walkthrough observations for example this semester it
has been what assessment practices are and what pedagogical strategies they’re using around
target-method-match” (Administrator A3).
There was a wide range in responses regarding the consistency of PLC reflection time
spent on student learning data and subsequent goal setting. Other than the Early Learning Center,
systems “…do not focus on a ‘teacher goal’ for growth; rather, a PLC goal…and, when there is a
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 68

goal, it is not necessarily attached to a pedagogical practice that they want to grow in
themselves” (Administrator A4).
Focus groups spoke of a few PLCs collecting quantitative evidence to gauge the impact
of interventions; however, it was not directly linked to teacher goal setting. A comment from one
participant reflects the majority of comments regarding the need for reflection: “PLC time is
around really planning to be data driven and having to sift through the data. I don’t know that we
ever stop and reflect on are we going to give ourselves feedback on how this is actually going?”
(Focus Group #1)
The findings suggest that reflection time is required. This pause creates the opportunity to
ponder: “How do we provide for the exploration and implementation of practices such that we
can monitor impact on student learning?”
Knowledge Factors – Motivation
Choice in professional learning experiences. A broad base of research supports learner
voice and choice in all aspects of professional learning (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Goddard et
al., 2014; Howland & Wedman, 2004; Merriam, 2001; Rickabaugh, 2015; Taylor et al., 2009;
Wells, 2014). Designing learning that takes into account the agency of the individual in the
choice and design of the professional learning experience is a key feature of innovative
organizations. Adult individuals and groups learn differently therefore professional learning
designs need to reflect this (Goddard et al., 2014).
There was strong evidence from survey, focus group and administrator interview data to
support teachers valuing choice in the “what” and “how” of their professional learning
experiences as indicated in Table 7. Eighty percent of respondents felt they were confident to a
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 69

great extent in their ability to determine appropriate professional learning experiences; 18% felt
somewhat confident. Comments representative of this perception included:
“I also identify additional areas of study that I feel would best support my practice and
learning outside of work. My decisions about what I want to learn are informed by the
perspectives of my team members and leaders, my own understanding of how I can
improve individually, and my areas of passion and interest.” (Survey respondent)

Thirty-three percent of survey respondents indicated they had choice to a great extent in
determining what they wanted to learn whilst forty-seven percent indicated to a somewhat extent.
The comments indicated that, while there is choice and support for use of individual professional
development funds (IPD), there are also mandated professional learning experiences. Thus, these
figures represent perceptions regarding both.
Teachers also valued a range of current professional learning opportunities. Perceptions
ranged from 98% of faculty valuing their Individual Professional Development (IPD) fund
consisting of USD650 per year cumulative for up to four years. Ninety percent of respondents
valued PLC collaborative inquiry; 95% valued offsite professional learning experiences; 91%
valued external consultant expertise; 71% value instructional and technology coaches to a great
or somewhat extent; with the lowest value rating being indicated by 67% of the faculty valuing
internal professional learning experiences such as faculty meetings and in-service days.
Comments regarding this relatively low rating coalesced around a lack of differentiated
opportunities when internal experiences were mandated.
Focus group participants also appreciated choices currently part of the system, also
noting the requirement for a clear connection to the school’s strategic plan and the existing
institutional commitments. (see Appendix D) When describing the quality of the professional
learning experienced onsite, there was appreciation for the caliber of external consultant
contracted,
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 70

“They [the school] bring in top notch people…like the experts, they’re able to bring the
really big names to the school to do work with us or to present the leading experts, which
is amazing to have that close contact with these very knowledgeable, very skilled
people.” (Focus Group #2)

A factor that contributed to dissatisfaction was the resentment of directed or “blanket”
professional learning where there was a “one size fits all” structure. It was perceived as
ineffective. This frustration is evidenced in this comment, “when we are mandated to go to
something so that we’re all on the same page and I still don’t feel after that we’re on the same
page” (Focus Group #5).
Administrator interviews revealed that divisional leaders seek input from the middle level
leaders and internal survey data to inform professional learning experiences, both for internal
designs and the engagement of external consultants. Administrator A3 indicated that this
feedback led to attempts to differentiate experiences, as there was a wide divergence in the needs
of PLC teams. One administrator (A4) speculated there was apathy towards onsite learning
opportunities. A tendency to “go with the flow” rather than being proactive about needs. There
was also a concern about the lack of student learning needs driving the professional learning
experience. “Students are students and teachers are teachers and they haven’t quite figured out
that, you know, it’s a symbiotic relationship that we have.” (Administrator A4) There was an
acknowledgement that the school needs to personalize learning for faculty to a greater extent
than it was currently. “You [teacher] may have something in your pedagogical toolkit that you
want to grow, it may be quite different to somebody else” (Administrator A1). Overall, the
findings suggested that choice is a powerful motivating factor at IASEA and is highly valued by
the faculty.
Faculty empowered as agents of change. Alton-Lee and Timperley (2008) contended
that organizations should provide the environment whereby there are opportunities for educators
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 71

to “…take responsibility for identified problems with student outcomes together with the belief
they have the capability to solve them.” With a strong sense of efficacy, teachers show
persistence and are more likely to attempt promising instructional approaches (Dweck, 2008).
The findings revealed there was a high level of engagement in professional learning to support
learning goals as a PLC team with survey results indicating 58% of faculty frequently, and 33%
occasionally engaging in inquiry with their colleagues vis-à-vis goals. Eighty-two percent of
faculty felt supported to take risks in their learning as a commitment to change and improvement,
29% felt supported to a great extent to take risks in their learning as a commitment to change and
improvement, and 53% felt somewhat supported. There was an understanding that in order to
learn and grow as an educator, one has to step out of one’s comfort zone and an
acknowledgement that this can be difficult. One survey respondent remarked:
“I feel that my team has a collective understanding that learning to be a better teacher
involves trial and error, risk taking and team reflection. We know that learning never
ends and it is best done collectively. Our desire to improve practices is based on a growth
mindset; we improve by trying new things and learning from our mistakes.” (Survey
respondent)

There was an overall perception in the survey data that as faculty at IASEA one must be
prepared to take risks as part of building a culture of possibilities. “We have so many initiatives
that we have to take risks. I think if we are seen not taking risks or implementing new initiative,
it would be seen as not being a team player.” The data indicated that faculty view themselves as
learners and seek out opportunities to grow themselves professionally and are supported in this
outreach.
Ability to determine relevant experiences specific to student learning needs. Survey
results indicated that teachers have confidence in their ability to select professional learning
experiences strengthening pedagogical practice in order to target student learning needs. Eighty
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 72

percent of respondents felt they were confident to a great extent in their ability to determine
appropriate professional learning experiences whereas 18% felt somewhat confident. This
confidence is reflected in comments by respondents with statements such as, “There are many
opportunities made available at IASEA. When learning about the various avenues for growth and
learning, I reflect upon an area of need that I see in my instructional practice that ties into what
my students need” (Survey Respondent). This sentiment was echoed in focus group conversation
with participants expressing satisfaction with learning that has direct application to classroom
practice and provides experiences that lead to them being more effective teachers. Student need
featured prominently in the discussion: “[I want] to stretch my learning, improve some of my
understanding to help me students learn” (Focus Group #5).
There was a diverse range of responses for how teachers feel they learn best. Responses
in survey data and focus group discussions included “sit and get” keynote presentations, working
with instructional coaches, informal modeling of lessons in classroom lab type situations, and
engagement with book studies. There was interest in online learning with the advantages of
autonomous pacing: “I really like that model because I get to be in the driver’s seat. I get to
decide when I want to do it and how much of it I want to do at any time” (Focus Group #2).
Overall, faculty indicated strong confidence in their ability to select professional learning and a
desire for quality, targeted professional development provided in a variety of formats.
Collective efficacy as a PLC. The PLC teams organizational structure at IASEA is well
established and every teacher is a member of at least one team. Survey and focus group data
revealed that teachers had confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC team to engage in
collaborative inquiry in order to positively impact student achievement. Ninety percent of survey
respondents valued PLC collaborative inquiry with many comments indicating an inability to get
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 73

to collaborative inquiry in the time allotted for PLCs to meet. Fifty-five percent valued it to a
great extent whereas 35% to a somewhat extent. One respondent who commented positively,
exemplified the sentiment of the group: “I consider all our time developing, reflecting,
calibrating and sharing across PLCs as professional learning” (Survey Respondent). Another
stated:
“…this constant sharing is for survival, yet it also spurs and feeds out learning. We stay
in contact with experts in our field as well as outside of it in order to innovate, learn, and
hone our work. We read literature together on developing practices in the field.” (Survey
Respondent)

The importance of trust and the integrity of the PLC team was a theme that dominated
both survey responses and focus group conversations. The PLC team construct was seen as a
fundamental structure to facilitate learning for team members. Challenges faced by PLC teams
included finding time for reflecting on what practices worked to improve student learning and
feeling bound by assessment moderation during designated PLC times. “We have had little time
for professional learning together beyond this. PLC time is busy and full on with curriculum,
assessments and RTI” (Survey respondent).
This also indicated a need for understanding the role of teacher inquiry into practice as
being a fundamental part of the PLC cycle. A focus group participant commented:
“Our PLC time is around really planning to be data driven and having to sift through the
data – I don’t know that we ever stop and reflect on are we going to give ourselves
feedback on how this is actually going?” (Focus Group #1)

Assumed and Validated Causes – Organizational
Organizational Factors
Professional learning needs effectively communicated and acted upon. Document
analysis, which included recent survey data (from 2016), in-service day agendas, faculty meeting
agendas and consultant feedback data indicated that the school has developed methods of
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 74

systemically soliciting feedback from faculty on professional learning experiences, in as much as
this information can “feed forward” to subsequent experiences. Administrator interviews
indicated that feedback from PLC team leaders informs internal professional learning
experiences and provides information for coaches and central office administrators to act on.
There was a consistent sentiment regarding PLC teams being divergent in their needs and a
desire to differentiate to a greater extent than what is currently occurring. There was an
acknowledgement that it is challenging to “meet people where they are at and provide the right
kinds of choices” (Administrator A2).
The existing Professional Growth and Excellence (PGE), a structure that serves as the
school’s evaluation system, was not consistently seen as a vehicle for professional learning
conversations. Although focus groups conversations clearly indicated administrators were
perceived as being open to conversations about particular professional learning requests: “…to
the credit of the institution, every time I’ve chased something I felt was interesting, I’ve been
supported in that” (Focus Group #1). There was also a prevalence of comments such as: “It
would be interesting to be asked as part of our PGE what we felt our personal professional
learning needs were. I don’t recall the last time I was asked, what do you need to push your
practice?” (Focus Group #2) Although the school has implemented some feedback mechanisms,
there is definitely room for improvement and faculty have a number of suggestions for the
communication of their professional learning needs.
Supportive structure for differentiated experiences. Through the analysis of internal
documents such as in-service day schedules, onsite consultant schedules and professional
learning event calendars, there are regular opportunities, and indeed mandates, for all faculty to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 75

participate. The degree to which these experiences are differentiated however is evidenced as
falling short.
Focus groups indicated frustration at the lack of differentiated opportunities and focused
time as PLC teams to learn together about practices they perceived as being important and
relevant. This was further supported by the survey results which indicated that only 11% faculty
valued structured internal professional learning opportunities to a great extent, 56% to a
somewhat extent and the remaining, and 33% of faculty expressed dissatisfaction.
A survey respondent noted, “Staff meetings shouldn’t be a repeat of PD that we’ve
already participated in.” Others focused on the lack of differentiation: “[We need] more
differentiation of things like faculty meetings, curriculum days and PD Mondays. One size does
not fit all. We often don’t have time to reflect on and implement our professional learning in our
PLC [team].” There was also disgruntlement with the perceived lack of relevance of internal
professional learning experiences for specialist teachers and counselors. This was illustrated in a
comment from a survey respondent who noted, “PD Mondays, in-service days and visiting
consultants are largely beneficial to core academic teachers…specialists do not often benefit
from these…it’s tough for specialists to be fully engaged and invested.”
School culture. Ambrose et al. (2010) discussed the importance of climate whereby
success and sustainability of improvement efforts occur as a result of valuing risk taking. A
school’s climate must value efforts to improve teaching, and structures in place should foster
these efforts (Tomlinson, 2017). The majority of participant comments in the focus groups
indicated that the school values and supports constructive risk taking. This culture is viewed as a
relatively recent phenomenon, and inherent to growing and learning as an organization. Survey
data evidenced 29% of respondents felt they were encouraged to a great extent whereas 53% felt
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 76

encouraged to a somewhat extent to take risks in their learning. For those respondents the
associated comments indicated support from colleagues and/or administrators and an
understanding that a commitment to change and improvement will involve a degree of risk. As
expressed by a high school respondent, “Our very existence as a program pushed the status quo
and thus involved certain risk. That culture has stayed with us. We are comfortable in the place
of discomfort” (Survey Respondent).
The PLC team construct was seen as providing a “safe” environment for faculty to learn
about and seek feedback from engagement in new practices. “Our PLC team has worked very
hard to build trust and this has helped us to step outside our comfort zones in teaching.” (Survey
Respondent)
There was also caution noted in the focus group conversations: “[The] school encourages
us to be innovative, but there’s a concern about parents being not so accepting of risk taking”
(Focus Group #4). There was a sense of risk taking needing to “pay off” as expressed by this
focus group participant:
“I feel like as long as we have the research to back up why we’re doing something
experimental, then I feel like we do have kind of a license to try new things here, but it’s
calculated…it needs to work in the end.” (Focus Group #5)

Other comments suggested that, despite administrative support, there was a reticence on
the part of some faculty members to take risks and that this was an area for attention. It was
posed that this may be due to a concern about scores dropping in some of the academic learning
measures and how might the school mitigate against this.
Administrator interviews revealed the difficulty of nurturing a culture of risk taking when
there are cultural factors and organizational barriers such as high academic achievement
expectations and a “fail adverse” environment. The interviewees concurred that communication
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 77

should be routine and regular regarding approval and support for risk taking and teachers as
researchers:
“[We] constantly communicate that it’s ok to take risks and it’s ok to fail. We applaud
people for trying and failing and learning. We model as administrators being vulnerable
and making mistakes. We own up to it at faculty meetings and say “here’s your warm
feedback and cool feedback. You nailed it. We missed this and we know that and we’ll
do better.” (Administrator A3)

Structures to support collaborative approaches within and beyond PLC teams.
Document analysis validated that PLC team time is typically highly collaborative and focused on
the four questions of PLC. What has been noted as being challenging is providing time for
learning as expressed by this focus group participant: “[It’s a] constant challenge of feeling like
the machine doesn’t allow for the space for reflection that is necessary” (Focus Group #1). The
facilitation of the PLC team is also a factor as described by this participant, “I think sometimes in
PLC’s we just talk about the work and not experience it, and so we’re not coming from a place of
authenticity as much as we could” (Focus Group #1).
Beyond the PLC team construct, informal conversations with colleagues were valued.
Comments included a desire to visit classrooms: “I would love to be able to do that with my
colleagues because then I could learn from them as well and use what we already have here as a
learning opportunity” (Focus Group #4).
This collegial expertise and development of networks where teachers feel supported in
their learning featured in survey comments was expressed by this respondent:
“I value working on collaborative teams outside of the PLC who are generally interested
in similar stuff. Though this is informal, I learn a ton from my colleagues (including
Admin) on practice, strategy and policy that I feel has a positive effect on my work with
students. The networks I can tap into around any question/issue around my job is
amazing at SAS - I consider this some of the best PD we have.” (Survey Respondent)
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 78

Administrators interviewed expressed solidarity in their commitment to ensuring
professional learning was regular, ongoing and relevant. “We support by providing the resources,
whether it’s time, place, materials, expert, in order to grow in the work” (Administrator A3).
The same administrator also described a change in how professional learning was being viewed
in their division: “A shift has happened in that more teams are asking for time to work together,
or to observe each other rather than go off as individuals to an outside experience”
(Administrator A3). The administrator attributed the PLC team implementation as being causal
to this.
School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches’ engagement. The engagement of school
leaders, teacher leaders and coaches, both instructional and technology was seen as critical in
supporting and facilitating the professional learning goals of teachers. There was evidence in the
document analysis and survey analysis that the school had provided high levels of support for
teacher leadership development and for teacher leader involvement in prioritized initiative
development. This comment from a survey respondent represents responses of another: “I make
professional learning choices based on what the needs are for my team, as a department leader,
and also my own personal interests. The two often mutually support each other.”
Teacher leaders attend professional learning onsite with their teams, administrators attend
as they can dependent of schedule priorities. Professional learning rosters noted that there has
been a significant effort to ensure administrator representation at all professional learning
experiences that are provided for faculty. Survey responses indicated that 27% of faculty valued
instructional and technology coaches to a great extent, 44% to a somewhat extent, 22% very
little, and 7% not at all.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 79

A survey respondent described the support provided as: “Working with an instructional
coach is incredibly helpful for me. I feel that my instructional coach really supports my growth
as a teacher.” (Survey Respondent)
Teachers appreciated both the budget and the approval process involved in supporting
individual professional learning requests. This sentiment was reflected by 80% of survey
respondents who indicated the Individual Professional Development (IPD) fund is highly valued
whereas the remainder of respondents said that it was somewhat valued. Dissatisfaction with the
amount provided to individual faculty each year was expressed in one of the focus group
conversations. Additionally, an appreciation for administrators looking to support by tapping into
funding sources beyond IPD for faculty was also expressed:
“I applied for a conference this summer, it was a really kind of cool moment when I
applied – I applied for the money … then I ended up kind of not getting it and there was
this whole email chain created – and admin was bouncing around emails, ‘Hey, who’s got
the money for this? Hey, this looks cool, who’s got the money for this?’ It went to like
five different administrators, there was this really kind of like human moment on this
email chain where people were seeing the value and genuinely trying to find me the
money because they thought it was worthwhile. Like that’s never happened to me at a
school, so I think maybe our administration probably needs a little bit of credit for
working to find those resources for us.” (Focus Group #1)

Focus groups described aspects of current practices that they found value in, such as the
access to resources, financial, time related and human. Comments included: “We do have choice
and resources, I mean there are a lot of schools that don’t have either of those. We get release
time and, you know, and a budget.” This sentiment was extended by another participant:
“Yeah. I appreciate that they bring people on site. I love that throughout the year there’s
opportunities of people on the calendar that are going to come, you don’t need to go
chase down the opportunity, that it’s made available to you.” (Focus Group #1)

Finding ways to plan and communicate professional learning happening within PLC
teams as individuals was seen as challenging. Time constraints were perceived as a major factor
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 80

and the lack of some kind of structured accountability featured in comments. Administrator
interviews revealed an attention to PLC team conversations to inform potential professional
learning experiences: “We support by providing the resources, whether it’s time, place,
materials, expert, in order to grow in the work. We just need enough advance notice to make it
happen” (Administrator A1). Table 9 provides a summary of assumed organizational influences.
Summary of Gaps Found
Knowledge and Skills
The analysis of data from the survey instrument, focus group transcripts, administrator
interviews and document analysis supported the following assumed knowledge and skills needs
of the faculty and therefore are acknowledged as barriers to personalizing professional learning.
Knowledge and use of tools to monitor efficacy of learning. There was little evidence
to suggest that faculty used or understood the purpose of tools to monitor the efficacy of
professional learning. There is evidence that PLC teams are collecting student learning evidence
and providing interventions where necessary but not linking that to a change in instructional
practice or inquiry regarding possible strategies as a PLC team. This is an area for which a
solution will need to be identified.
Alignment of professional learning to student need. Although this factor was partially
validated as a barrier, given its importance as the driver for professional learning, it is seen as
requiring strengthening. This is particularly critical given the definition of professional learning
which requires a direct correlation between improved pedagogy and improved student learning.
Engagement in collaborative inquiry. Although the survey data suggest that faculty
value collaborative inquiry within their PLC teams (55% to a great extent and 35% somewhat),
the reality of teams actually engaging in this did not reflect these high numbers (24% always
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 81

Table 7. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty – Knowledge
Assumed Needs of Successful Faculty Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Teachers know the curriculum
standards and learning expectations
for their courses/classes such that
they can assist students to set
learning goals based on individual
learner readiness, strengths, needs
and interests.

Survey Q1 – Likert scale
Focus Groups Q2
53% of survey respondents and every focus group indicated they have
standards in place and learning targets defined for the courses and
classes they teach. 42% indicated standards and learning targets are
in progress. (Science and Social Studies)

Validated as a barrier - No
• Teachers know the importance of
goal setting and its significance with
student achievement.

Survey Q2 – Descriptive response
Focus Groups Q2

50/55 survey responses indicated there were processes in place for
students to establish and monitor learning goals.
Every focus group indicated positively regarding explicit goal setting
practices.

Validated as a barrier – No

• Teachers know the tools available to
monitor the efficacy of professional
learning.

Document Analysis e.g. PLC agendas
Focus Groups Q5
Administrator Interviews Q2

Little evidence of knowledge regarding tools to monitor efficacy of
professional learning.

Validated as barrier – Yes

• Teachers know how to manage
personalized student learning
processes and strategies through
actions such as providing a variety
of grouping structures; advising and
coaching students; and creating
flexible learning environments.
•

Focus Groups Q8
Range of opportunities expressed.

Validated as a barrier - Partially

• Teachers know to align their
professional learning to the needs of
their students.

Focus Groups Q1; Q4
There appeared to be a variety of reasons behind professional
learning choices – with student needs driving many but not all of
those decisions.

Validated as a barrier– Partially

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 82

Table 7. (Continued).
Assumed Needs of Successful Faculty Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Teachers use tools to collect and
analyze evidence about how
improved practice impacts student
learning.

Document Analysis
Focus Groups Q 2
Only one participant mentioned specific tool in use by PLC team.
Student assessment data are collected and some intervention data is
collected but little evidence of a relationship to teacher practice.

Validated as a barrier – Yes

• Teachers know how to engage in
collaborative inquiry with their
PLC.
Survey Q8; Q11
24% indicated that they always engage and 35% frequently engage as
a PLC in professional learning; 33% indicated occasionally.
55% of respondents valued PLC collaborative inquiry to a great
extent with 35% valuing collaborative inquiry somewhat; 9% valued
it very little and 2% not at all

Focus Groups Q5
Few comments regarding the efficacy of the PLC.

Validated as a barrier- Partially

Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Teachers reflect on learning
progress towards established goals,
using evidence.
Focus Groups Q4 and Q5
Majority of comments speak positively about learning progress. Do
not speak about evidence-based measurement.
Comments regarding lack of a reflective experience to monitor
impact.

Administrator Interviews Q1; Q2
Varied depending on PLC and division. A3 spoke of focused feedback
which led to teacher reflection.
In the ES teachers document evidence towards PLC goals with direct
links to presentations with data on student learning outcomes.

Validated as a barrier – Partially

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 83

Table 8. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty – Motivation
Assumed Needs Validation Strategies
• Teachers value choice
in the ‘what’ and
‘how’ of their
professional learning
experiences.

Survey Q3; Q10 – Q15
33% of respondents indicated they had choice to a great extent in determining what
they wanted to learn; 47% indicated to a somewhat extent.
67% - 95% valued a range of current professional learning opportunities.

Focus Groups Q9; Q12; Q13
Responses indicated positively for choice in the “what” and the “how” and
indicated they wanted greater choice.

Administrator Interviews Q4; Q5
Teacher feedback indicates the value of choice. Concern that choice may mean
initiatives are not prioritized.

Validated as a current barrier – Partially

• Teachers believe that
they are empowered
to inquire into their
own practice as
agents of change in
order to achieve
established goals.

Survey Q3; Q6, Q8
Overall a high level of engagement in professional learning to support learning
goals as a PLC (24% always engage; 35% frequently engage; 33% occasionally
engage)
29% feel supported to a great extent to take risks in their learning as a commitment
to change and improvement; 53% feel somewhat supported

Focus Groups
Comments are positive, particularly felt supported by administrators.

Validated as a barrier – No

• Teachers have
confidence in their
ability to determine
relevant professional
learning experiences
designed to
strengthen their
pedagogical practice
in order to target
defined student
learning needs.

Survey Q3; Q5; Q10 – 15
80% of respondents felt they were confident to a great extent in their ability to
determine appropriate professional learning experiences; 18% felt somewhat
confident.
There is a diverse range of responses for how teachers feel they learn best.

Focus Groups Q1; Q6; Q7
Participants indicated strong confidence in their ability to select professional
learning.

Validated as a barrier – No

• Teachers have
confidence in their
collective efficacy as
a PLC to engage in
collaborative inquiry
to positively impact
student achievement.
Survey Q8; Q11
Overall a high level of value in professional learning to support learning goals as a
PLC (55% to a great extent; 35% to a somewhat extent;
Many comments indicated an inability to get to collaborative inquiry in the time
allotted for PLCs to meet.
24% always engage as a PLC in professional learning; 35% frequently engage;
33% occasionally engage.

Focus Groups Q1; Q7; Q13
Comments depended on how collaborative the PLC is.
Overall confidence – high.

Validated as a barrier - Partially

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 84

Table 9. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty – Organizational
Assumed Needs Validation Strategies
• Teachers’
professional
learning needs
are effectively
communicated
and acted upon.

Document Analysis (including past surveys)
In-service day agendas; faculty meeting agendas; consultant feedback

Administrator Interviews Q4; Q5
Range of responses. Feedback utilized.
Focus Groups Q11
Support for teacher requests but lack of direct communication regarding professional learning in
the PGE (Professional Growth and Excellence) process.

Validated as a barrier – Partially
• IASEA has
structures in
place, including
time and
opportunity, to
support
differentiated
professional
learning
experiences for
all teachers,
routinely.
Document Analysis
In-service day schedules; onsite consultant schedules; professional learning event calendars.

Focus Groups Q13
Frustration at lack of differentiated opportunities onsite; not enough PLC time

Survey Q13
11% faculty valued structured internal professional learning opportunities to a great extent; 56%
to a somewhat extent;
33% faculty expressed dissatisfaction

Validated as a barrier- Yes

• The culture of
the school values
constructive risk
taking, rich
diverse
viewpoints, and
adult learning.

Focus Groups Q10; Q12
Majority of participant comments indicated school values and supports constructive risk taking.
Majority of participant comments indicated the abundant professional learning opportunities.

Administrator Interviews Q6
Challenge when organizational barriers exist. Constant communication regarding approval and
support for risk taking and teachers as researchers.

Validated as a barrier - No
• The school has
structures in
place to support
collaborative
approaches to
professional
learning within
and beyond the
PLC.

Document Analysis
Focus Groups Q3; Q14
PLCs engaged in action research; participants expressed desire for greater opportunities to learn
from colleagues

Administrator Interviews Q7
Commitment to supporting structures for professional learning through the PLC process, faculty
in-service, coaches and other resources

Validated as a barrier - No

• School leaders,
teacher leaders
and coaches are
actively engaged
in supporting and
facilitating the
professional
learning goals of
teachers.
Survey Q3; Q12; Q13; Q14; Q15
Supported through budget and approval to participate in PL. 80% of respondents valued IPD
funds
27% valued instructional and technology coaches to a great extent; 44% to a somewhat extent;
22% very little and 7% not at all.

Focus Groups Q11; Q13;
Supported however comments indicated lack of communication regarding individual and PLC
PL goals.

Administrator Interviews Q7
Commitment to ensure PL is regular, ongoing and relevant. Well resourced.

Validated as a barrier - Yes

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 85

engaging and 35% frequently engaging). Moreover, the focus groups struggled to talk about
examples of this happening within their PLC teams. The data suggested this is partially validated
as an obstacle and, as such, solutions should be identified.
Reflection on progress towards established goals. The data analyzed suggest that
although in the PLC SMART goal process in some divisions student learning goals were
reflected upon, this was not personalized and did not relate to specific professional learning
experiences undergone by PLC teams or individuals. Reflection overall was seen as desirable
with time often seen as a barrier for this to be accomplished. This is, therefore, validated as a
barrier and solutions will be explored.
Motivation
The analysis of data from the survey instrument, focus group transcripts, administrator
interviews and document analysis supported the assumed motivational needs of the faculty and
therefore are acknowledged as barriers to personalizing professional learning.
Value in the “what” and “how” of professional learning experiences. The data
analyzed suggest that faculty value choice and that there are a wide range of delivery ‘modes’
that are desired by faculty. There was acknowledgement that the school provides choice
currently but that is dependent on school division and one’s individual professional learning
budget. There is a concern from administrators that greater choice may mean less attention to
important school initiatives. These issues need to be addressed and professional learning
opportunities differentiated therefore this factor is seen as a barrier and solutions sought.
Confidence in collective efficacy as a PLC team. The data analysis suggests that there
is overall a high value places on collaborative inquiry as a PLC team however it also indicates
that PLC teams have not been able to achieve this due to such barriers as time and the degree of
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 86

trust and collaborative skills within the PLC team. As described in the knowledge factor, the
motivation is there and creative solutions to how this might be strengthened should be proposed.
Organizational
The analysis of data from the survey instrument, focus group transcripts, administrator
interviews and document analysis supported the following assumed organizational factors as
needs of the faculty and therefore are acknowledged as barriers to personalizing professional
learning.
Professional learning needs communicated and acted upon. The data analysis
indicates that this is an area where the school can improve. Some divisions appear to be more
‘feedback hungry’ than others and use this feedback to inform subsequent internal professional
learning sessions. Survey and interview data suggest that faculty voice in what they learn is not
routinely sought and there are currently limited vehicles to do so. A more explicit link to the
PGE is noted and this may form part of a solution for this barrier.
Lack of supportive structures for differentiated experiences. The data analysis
supports this factor as a barrier. Currently there is dissatisfaction with the lack of differentiated
professional learning experiences routinely accessible to faculty. This is an area for which
solutions should be developed.
Engagement by leaders and coaches in support and facilitation of learning goals.
Although the data analysis suggests that faculty appreciate the budget and general approval for
external professional learning, there was a range of support for other sources of learning such as
internal onsite opportunities and coaching support. Additionally, the lack of attention to personal
and PLC team goals that required learning of some kind on the part of the teacher and/or PLC
team was a dissatisfier. Time constraints and a venue for sharing out such that there was
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 87

accountability for learning were seen as challenges. This is, therefore, determined as an obstacle
and solutions will be developed.
Summary
Through the analysis of all data points, the assumed influences and whether or not they
were validated as obstacles to personalized professional learning were determined. A summary
of the validated assumed needs and non-validated assumed needs is provided in Table 10. There
were a number of assumed needs wherein the data indicated that the needs of successful faculty
are being met currently (six areas across the KMO framework). There are also a number of
assumed needs where the data indicated that the needs of successful faculty are partially
validated as barriers, (seven areas across the KMO framework). A total of four assumed needs of
successful faculty were validated by the data as being barriers to the implementation of
personalized professional learning at IASEA. These findings informed the solutions to barriers
that are proposed in Chapter 5.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 88

Table 10. Summary of Results for the Assumed Influences on IASEA Faculty
Assumed Needs of Successful Faculty
Validated as a
barrier
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Teachers know the curriculum standards and learning expectations for their
courses/classes such that they can assist students to set learning goals based on individual
learner readiness, strengths, needs and interests.
No

• Teachers know the importance of goal setting and its significance with student
achievement.
No

• Teachers know the tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional learning.
Yes
• Teachers know how to manage personalized student learning processes and strategies
through actions such as providing a variety of grouping structures; advising and coaching
students; and creating flexible learning environments.
Partial

• Teachers know to align their professional learning to the needs of their students. Partial
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Teachers use tools to collect and analyze evidence about how improved practice impacts
student learning.
Yes

• Teachers know how to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC. Partial
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Teachers reflect on learning progress towards established goals, using evidence.
Partial
Motivation
• Teachers value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of their professional learning experiences.
Partial
• Teachers believe that they are empowered to inquire into their own practice as agents of
change in order to achieve established goals.
No

• Teachers have confidence in their ability to determine relevant professional learning
experiences designed to strengthen their pedagogical practice in order to target defined
student learning needs.
No
• Teachers have confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC to engage in collaborative
inquiry to positively impact student achievement.
Partial

Organizational
• Teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively communicated and acted upon.
Partial
• The culture of the school values constructive risk taking, rich diverse viewpoints, and
adult learning.
No

• The school has structures in place to support collaborative approaches to professional
learning within and beyond the PLC.
No

• School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively engaged in supporting and
facilitating the professional learning goals of teachers.

Yes

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 89

CHAPTER FIVE:
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
Drawing on the research of Donaldson (2008) and Guskey (1999, 2000), Drago-
Severson, Blum-Stefano, and Asghar (2016) reminded education administrators and teachers:
“While the spotlight of public opinion shines brightly on students’ educational experiences and
outcomes, it is a significant and often overlooked fact that intentionally supporting the learning
and growth of adults throughout the system has a direct and positive influence on student
achievement” (para. 3). As we focus on what effective professional development should include
in an era of personalized learning for students at IASEA, we must emphasize the practices that
provide for personalization for the adult learners in the system. Rickabaugh (2016) argued, “If
we want educators to value personalized learning experiences for students, they must experience
the benefits of it in their own learning” (p. 99). In other words, we must provide professional
learning that is timely, customized to learning needs and readiness, and available in a variety of
formats. Through the literature review it was established that the principles that underlie
effective learning for educators are consistent with those for students. Additionally, professional
learning experiences should focus on collective efficacy, offer voice and choice, meet educators
where they are and support them in developing the skills necessary to grow as self-directed
educators. School leaders should establish clear purposes for learning, aligning to standards and
expectations and provide support for the system (Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda, 2017).
This chapter summarizes the assumed needs of the faculty in order to better provide a
personalized learning system at IASEA, a large international school. The chapter also describes
the assumptions that were validated as obstacles in this study and proposes appropriate solutions
to the KMO barriers identified in the findings regarding IASEA. Recommendations for practice
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 90

are also made that IASEA might implement to personalize professional learning as a system. In
addition, a proposed evaluation plan based on the work of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) is
presented to provide guidance for implementing the proposed solutions and monitoring progress
towards achieving positive outcomes.
Research Question One focused on determining the knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational causes that exist as barriers to achieving the goal of successfully
implementing personalized professional learning structures for faculty that are differentiated and
involve purposeful choice. Comprehensive descriptions of these barriers were presented in the
findings in Chpater 4. Question Two sought to identify potential solutions to such barriers.
Qualitative study methods were used to gather data from a purposeful sampling of
administrators and faculty at IASEA. A survey was conducted, and fifty-five faculty responses
comprised of both Likert scale and open responses were received. Four administrators, one from
each of the three school divisions and one central office administrator, participated in semi-
structured interviews. Additionally, thirty teachers participated in focus group interviews. The
interviews were transcribed and coded for themes related to knowledge, motivation and
organizational categories. Existing documentation in the form of previous survey data collected
during 2016 as part of a professional learning review process and a school climate survey were
also reviewed and analyzed for additional insight and evidence. Moreover, sample documents
from PLC team meetings were also analyzed for insight into possible knowledge influences.
Validated Influences
The data collected during this study “validated” or “validated in part” several of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences as barriers to personalized professional
learning at IASEA. Table 11 and 12 provide a list of the KMO influences that were validated as
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 91

Table 11. Summary of Influences Validated as Barriers
Category Validated as Barrier
Knowledge – Declarative Teachers know the tools available to monitor the efficacy of professional
learning.
Knowledge – Procedural Teachers use tools to collect and analyze evidence about how improved
practice impacts student learning.
Organization – Structure IASEA has structures in place, including time and opportunity, to
support differentiated professional learning experiences for all teachers,
routinely.
Organization – Culture School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are actively engaged in
supporting and facilitating the professional learning goals of teachers.

Table 12. Summary of Influences Validated as Barriers in Part
Category Validated as Barrier in Part
Knowledge – Declarative Teachers know how to manage personalized student learning processes
and strategies through actions such as providing a variety of grouping
structures; advising and coaching students; and creating flexible learning
environments.
Teachers know to align their professional learning to the needs of their
students.
Knowledge – Procedural Teachers know how to engage in collaborative inquiry with their PLC.
Knowledge – Metacognitive Teachers reflect on learning progress towards established goals, using
evidence.
Motivation – Active Teachers value choice in the “what” and “how” of their professional
learning experiences.
Motivation – Confidence Teachers have confidence in their collective efficacy as a PLC to engage
in collaborative inquiry to positively impact student achievement.
Organization – Structures Teachers’ professional learning needs are effectively communicated and
acted upon.

barriers to personalized professional learning through survey and interview responses as well as
document analysis, and the KMO influences that were “validated in part”, respectively.
Solutions
Research Question Two: What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational solutions for barriers to achieving the goal of successfully implementing
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 92

personalized professional learning structures for faculty that are differentiated and involve
purposeful choice? Table 13 provides an organization of the barriers and partial barriers, and the
proposed solutions. Each solution is described, and implementation strategies are offered to
address multiple barriers and/or partial barriers.
Table 13. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers
Validated Barriers and Partly Validated
Barriers
Proposed Solutions
Validated Barriers
Knowledge – Declarative
Teachers know the tools available to monitor the
efficacy of professional learning.
Tools determined and deployed by central office and
instructional coaches for PLC teams
Teachers know to align their professional
learning to the needs of their students.
The implementation of micro –credentials to support
personalized professional learning.
Knowledge – Procedural
Teachers use tools to collect and analyze
evidence about how improved practice impacts
student learning
The implementation of micro –credentials to support
personalized professional learning.
Teachers know how to engage in collaborative
inquiry with their PLC.
Leveraging the PLC team structure.
Knowledge – Metacognitive
Teachers reflect on learning progress towards
established goals, using evidence.
Instructional Coaching for PLC teams (priority) and
individuals (where necessary).
Motivation – Confidence
Teachers have confidence in their collective
efficacy as a PLC to engage in collaborative
inquiry to positively impact student
achievement.
Leveraging the PLC structure
Organization – Structures
IASEA has structures in place, including time
and opportunity, to support differentiated
professional learning experiences for all
teachers, routinely.
Development of faculty Learner Profiles.
The implementation of micro –credentials to support
personalized professional learning.

Organization – Culture
School leaders, teacher leaders and coaches are
actively engaged in supporting and facilitating
the professional learning goals of teachers.
Instructional Coaching for PLC teams (priority) and
individuals (where necessary).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 93

Table 13. (Continued).
Validated Barriers and Partly Validated
Barriers
Proposed Solutions
Partially Validated Barriers
Knowledge – Declarative
Teachers know how to manage personalized
student learning processes and strategies
through actions such as providing a variety of
grouping structures; advising and coaching
students; and creating flexible learning
environments
The implementation of micro-credentials to support
personalized professional learning
Knowledge – Metacognitive
Teachers reflect on learning progress towards
established goals, using evidence,

Motivation – Active
Teachers value choice in the ‘what’ and ‘how’
of their professional learning experiences.

Organization – Structures
IASEA has structures in place, including time
and opportunity, to support differentiated
professional learning experiences for all
teachers, routinely.

Teachers’ professional learning needs are
effectively communicated and acted upon.

Leveraging the PLC team structure
Research on leadership and teacher learning compellingly supports the view that teacher
collaboration is critical to building internal capacity, improving instructional practices and
therefore positively influencing student outcomes in schools (Severson et al., 2018).
Drago-Severson et al. (2018) cautioned: “A one-size-fits-all approach will not work when
leading, teaching, mentoring, coaching, goal setting or working to support adults’ professional
improvement” (p. 42), and then proffered a key developmental point regarding the entry point for
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 94

adult learners: “We need to differentiate the kinds of supports and challenges we offer adults …
in order to support internal capacity building” (p. 42).
IASEA has invested significantly over several years in the implementation of
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). This steady and steadfast implementation has
resulted in a highly collaborative culture school wide with every faculty member part of a PLC
team that focuses primarily on student learning (IASEA Climate Survey, 2017). Systemic
monitoring of the efficacy of the PLC teams is in place and this data provides evidence that the
“culture” of PLC vis-à-vis the duFour model is well-established. The PLC team structure can
then be leveraged as a solid foundation for collaborative inquiry and associated professional
learning. The PLC team may decide to focus on a goal that they share in common or that results
from their examination of student learning data. A tenant of this work would be members of the
team should all be learning, building their skills, increasing their knowledge and strengthening
capacity to support their teaching practices. As a foundational structure, the PLC team construct
can be utilized to promote teacher inquiry into their practice, and for members to give and
receive feedback on their learning.
Tools for PLC teams. Knowledge and use of specific tools for PLC teams to use to
inquire into the efficacy of their practice are seen through the data analysis as an area to
strengthen. A potential self-assessment tool developed by Clifton, Bryan, and Harrison (2017,
cited in Killion & Harrison, 2017) is illustrated in Figure 3, and may be adapted by PLC teams to
suit specific goals they may have regarding collective teacher learning needs to best impact
evidenced student learning needs. Teams may self-assess the functioning of their team and their
impact on student outcomes. A suggested use is for each teacher team member to complete a
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 95

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 96

Source: Self-assessment tool developed by Clifton, Bryan, and Harrison (2017).
Figure 3. PLC Continuum of Practice
self-assessment of his/her own individual PLC contributions and work by circling one number
from 1 (low) to 6 (high) that best represents an assessment of current work in relation to each
criterion. The accomplished level is a goal. Upon each team member completing the self -
assessment, the team can then discuss each row and the rating each team member gave and why.
A next step is to reach agreement on where the team may position themselves as a team. They
may then identify strengths and gaps by criterion and generate a list of next actions whereby the
whole team agrees to create an action plan to progress towards the “accomplished” level (Killion
& Harrison, 2017).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 97

There are many and varied tools that PLC teams may use to engage with others to
determine how instructional strategies they are employing may be impacting student learning.
An organization that has a long record of designing and testing protocols for teams to work with
is the National School Reform Faculty (www.nsrfharmony.org). Sample protocols are included
in Appendix E:
• Inquiry Circles: A protocol for professional inquiry;
• Data Analysis protocol: Designed to collaboratively construct meaning around data;
• Considering Evidence protocol: Where a PLC member brings a question s/he is (or they
are) working on, and then presents the evidence that relates to this question, responding
to structured prompts;
• A Change in Practice protocol: A structure for analyzing the process team members have
used to make changes in their practice, and for inquiring into that practice. It provides a
structure to think systematically about the questions and data used to inform those
changes;
• ATLAS Looking at Data protocol: Designed to have team members describe, interpret
and determine implications for practice as a result of the analysis; and
• What? So what? Now what? A protocol to provide a context for feedback on an area of
growth or challenge.
Organizational structure – Learner profiles
The school must have a commitment to specific actions for improving practice and
documenting how these actions are building capacity across the system (Rickabaugh, 2016). A
potential solution for a structure that IASEA may implement to support differentiated learning
experiences for faculty could be a ‘databank’ where faculty skills and capacities are profiled such
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 98

that the capacity of the organization is known and can be leveraged across the system. This
would provide essential information in order to best differentiate and tap into the expertise of the
current faculty. Rickabaugh suggested that “…a fully personalized school culture promises to
offer the stimulation, nurturing, mutual support, and professional identity” (p. 102).
Educators in a personalized ecosystem would have an individual learning profile that
aligns with the evaluation system. At IASEA this could be the faculty evaluation process. Such a
profile may include self-assessments according to defined rubrics aligned with the IASEA
Institutional Commitments. Additionally, digital badges for micro-credentials earned in growth
areas as defined by the aforementioned rubrics and an area of interest or growth as designed by
the faculty member. Micro-credentials, their features, and proposed utility are described later in
this chapter.
Measuring the effects of professional learning
Rather than the historical measurements of attendance at sessions, clock hours or
feedback surveys, a more rigorous approach to measuring the efficacy of the experiences should
be adopted. This would involve the provision of opportunities for teachers to demonstrate new
knowledge and skills in an applied sense and evidence the impact of their practice on student
learning outcomes. This may also incorporate teaching others, as PLC colleagues or other
faculty, writing blog posts or articles, or creating short videos illustrating the learning and
subsequent outcomes.
Tools for a Personalized Professional Learning Framework. Feedback and “feed
forward” mechanisms should form part of a professional learning system. Included in this would
be a process for identifying professional learning needs as defined by the faculty. As the school
launches an ambitious plan for personalizing learning for its students, what are the capacity
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 99

building experiences that should be designed as part of a comprehensive professional learning
system? How will these experiences be differentiated for faculty such that all will be engaged in
relevant and appropriate growth? How might the school build on the current structures and
leverage them to better personalize professional learning?
It is proposed that a key group of faculty be identified to initially design a professional
learning cycle that is driven by needs and readiness. This design should be flexibly structured
such that faculty may determine the “how” of their learning experience however consistent
elements would be the commitment to alignment to a learning goal, such as an Institutional
Commitment, and evidence of learning as a result of the experience and the associated student
learning data.
Rickabaugh (2016) would caution that professional goals should be focused and limited.
Notably he suggests “a single compelling and challenging goal might be enough, depending on
its scope and potential impact” (p.108). This goal/s should come from the teacher’s self-
assessment of their areas of growth as identified from the Institutional Commitments and/or
standards they are working with students to achieve. As part of the process, an action plan for
achieving each goal would be developed, defining resources necessary and milestones identified
where progress would be determined. Figure 4 illustrates how an existing model of inquiry used
by the school to support inquiry pedagogy for student learning, may be adapted for use with
adult learners in the system. The solutions subsequently proposed may be implemented in all
areas of the swimming pool metaphor, depending on the particular circumstance.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 100

Source: IASEA Student Inquiry Toolkit (2017) Actual URL protected for anonymity
Figure 4. Inquiry at IASEA Adapted to Support Adult Learning
The role of coaching as a solution
A core component of effective professional learning is onsite, classroom-based support
that personalizes learning such that it has maximum impact on student success, (Killion &
Harrison, 2017). A recent meta-analysis by Kraft, Blazar and Hogan (2017) pooled results from
across 44 causal studies of teacher coaching and found large positive effects on teacher
instruction and smaller positive effects on achievement. The effects on instruction and
achievement compared favourably when contrasted with the larger body of literature on teacher
professional development (Yoon et al., 2007, as cited in Kraft et al., 2017), as well as most other
school-based interventions (Fryer, 2016, as cited in Kraft et al., 2017).
Coaching is an essential asset to the professional learning support system at IASEA.
Currently, a team of instructional coaches exists as a significant resource in the school. A
professional learning strategy to deploy this team for maximum effect as part of the solutions is
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 101

described. Coaching is a strategy that may strengthen teaching and student learning and can
serve to build a culture of collaboration within a school that can positively impact student
outcomes (Killion & Harris, 2017). A report from the Lastinger Center at the University of
Florida, and the Learning Forward and Public Impact organizations (2016) stated:
Research has shown that instruction can change and students can benefit from effective
coaching of their teachers. Several comparison-group studies have found that teachers
who experience high-quality coaching are more likely to enact new teaching practices
and apply them more appropriately than teachers who engage in more traditional
professional learning, such as workshops and conferences. (p. 6)
Killion and Harris (2017) contended that the overarching purpose of coaching is to
increase student success which is dependent upon quality teaching. They developed a coaching
theory of change which is included in this discussion as it is pivotal to the roles and
responsibilities that shape the proposed solution of effective coaching at IASEA. “Schools and
school systems improve when coaches share leadership within the school, focus professional
learning on the school’s goals, and increase collaboration among teachers” (Killion & Harrison,
2017, p. 13). Coaches attend to a culture of collective responsibility by facilitating conversations
designed to promote inquiry, problem solve, and reflect, facilitating opportunities for learning,
modeling examining one’s own practice and engaging in continuous and focused improvement
(Killion, 2012).
Clear roles for coaches. In order to be effective, coaching must have defined purpose
and goals, clear roles to guide the work, and exist within culture of continuous improvement.
Creasy and Paterson (2005) asserted that the practice of coaching “improves a whole school or
department, personalizing professional learning for staff, promoting self-directed professional
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 102

learning, creating a learning-centred professional dialogue, and building capacity for leadership”
(p. 20). Killion (2009) described the non-existence of a clear role infrastructure for coaches as
leading to surface level ineffectual work as opposed to deep, meaningful work, termed “coaching
light” rather than “coaching heavy.” Killion and Harrison (2017) further contended that the
success of a coaching program within a school depends on “smart, precise decisions about the
function and roles of coaches early in the design process and then revisiting those decisions
continuously throughout implementation” (p. 22). Identifying roles provides coaches clarity
regarding a diverse range of responsibilities enabling the setting of priorities and lead to more
impactful results on teaching and learning. A description of each role a coach may perform and
its relevance to the IASEA setting is also provided in the following discussion:
Resource Provider. With the wealth of accessible resources available to teachers, a
function of the ‘resource provider’ role is to curate resources that are of high quality, aligned
with the curriculum and learning needs of their students. In the context of a PLC team culture,
coaches may facilitate discussion on resources thereby supporting implementation and “freeing
up” teachers to concentrate on the learning process. By keeping abreast of current research-based
practices, the resource provider may serve faculty by synthesizing such research and customizing
it to the needs of a particular teacher and/or PLC team to best support their students.
“Implementing the principle of gradual release is an important skill in this role. Coaches need to
maintain the parts of this role that affect classroom practice and student learning because they are
essential to improving the culture of the school” (Killion & Harrison, 2017, p. 37).
Data Coach. In this role a coach serves to help teachers identify, analyze and interpret
data such that it may be used to make informed decisions about next steps in their students’
learning. Collaborative inquiry through data dialogues is essential to the use of data and the PLC
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 103

team construct should be foundational to this dialogue. By incorporating clear data protocols, a
shared understanding of the effective use of data to improve teacher and student learning is
facilitated (Lipton & Wells, 2017). Coaches may ask potentially difficult decisions about the data
and facilitate hard conversations to push past scenarios that might be labeled “admiring the
problem – rather, “what might be possible to improve these results” (p. 46). As teachers’
capacities strengthen in this process, or with PLC teams that are already high performing in this
area, the coach should assume a different role to support teacher and student learning.
Instructional Specialist. In this role the coach is affecting the planning and
implementation of instruction to increase student learning. This work would be informed by the
IASEA learning principles—research-based practices that have been developed to establish
consistency and high quality in a personalized learning environment (IASEA Learning
Principles, 2017). As instructional specialists, coaches help guide teachers to select and
subsequently implement appropriate instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of all
students. Sweeney, (2010) emphasized that “…by changing the focus from fixing teachers to
improving student learning, the coaching paradigm can take on new meaning for us all” (p. 23).
Further, Killion and Harris (2017) contended, “Modeling willingness to be a risk taker reinforces
that all professionals engage in continuous learning to refine and expand their practice” p. 54.
Curriculum Specialist. As a curriculum specialist a coach may guide teachers to become
sophisticated users of both available curriculum and developers of their own classroom
curriculum. College and career ready content standards stress the authentic application of
learning across disciplines and a coach’s role in this is to support teachers to integrate content
from multiple disciplines to ensure student learning experiences are meaningful and relevant.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 104

Serving as a curriculum specialist is most appropriate when a new curriculum or program is
being implemented.
Classroom Supporter. This role is to influence teacher practice and the implementation
of new strategies so that student learning increases. Includes modeling teaching, co-teaching or
observing and reflecting on teaching—all in real time with students. Killion and Harrison (2017)
contended that this capacity is potentially the most impactful of all regarding the roles coaches
may serve.
A variety of coaching models such as Cognitive Coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002)
have well defined structures for reflection conversations. These are designed to support coaches
in leading teachers to higher levels of self-understanding, analysis and practice. A potential
hurdle for coaches in this role is in supporting teachers to view the process as a support rather
than a “deficiency intervention”.
Learning Facilitator. This role refers to structured professional learning experiences
facilitated by the coach for teachers. Some examples of professional learning experiences include
action research, classroom walkthroughs, examining student work, lesson study, workshop and
book studies. As a learning facilitator, the coach may work with an individual or PLC team or
group of interested teachers that have self-selected to participate. The goal in this role is to
engage teachers in building their professional knowledge, skills and practices. As professional
learning experts, well grounded in effective adult learning practices, coaches may leverage
growth in teacher practice and student learning through the careful planning and coordination of
professional learning experiences that meet the needs of the teachers they work with. As the
coach knows teachers well, they might facilitate learning walks such that teachers might learn
from one another.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 105

Vella (2014), an authority on adult learning, recommended the following principles:
immediacy, respect, relevance, safety, engagement and inclusion. Coaches as learning facilitators
have the opportunity to scaffold learning over time, which is much preferable to “event” based
professional development such as on a scheduled in-service day.
Mentor. As mentors, coaches can provide psychological support for teachers new to the
profession or new to IASEA. Part of this role is helping to see that new teachers have the
resources and information they need to be successful. Have a mentor helps new teachers to
acculturate more quickly and develop a sense of belonging. In this role it is important for the
coach to develop teacher capacity rather than give strategies and fix problems. As a PLC model
school much of this role is subsumed by the PLC team colleagues and typically falls to the PLC
team lead, as such the coach may support this position rather than directly act as mentor.
School Leader. Fullan and Knight (2011) asserted that “Next to the principal, coaches are
the most crucial change agent in a school” (p. 50). As leaders, coaches commit to building a
culture of continuous improvement and supporting the goals of the school. Coaches may lead out
on initiatives, help initiate change and work with principals to influence a culture of
collaboration (Les Foltos, 2015).
School administrators may depend on coaches to work with and facilitate teacher teams
and whole faculties and as such they need to be able to draw from a range of facilitation and
meeting management tools. The principal-coach relationship is one where trust is vital and the
focus on the school improvement agenda sustained.
Catalyst for Change. In this role a coach seeks to effect improvement by “leading from
behind,” asking questions that are designed to stimulate thinking and encouraging educators to
think outside of the box. Garmston and Wellman (2016) noted these coaches hold an inquiry
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 106

perspective rather than an advocacy-oriented belief system. They use strategies such as the think-
aloud, a metacognitive strategy that helps to bring to a public setting an examination and
challenge of the status quo.
Using a positive approach requires the use of questions that seek to foster capability and
motivation. Examples include; What is working? How do we know? What is the evidence? What
isn’t working? How do we know? What are we going to do to change it? (Oakley & Krug, 1991)
Learner. Coaches are learning leaders and as such are models for continuous
improvement and can influence others significantly (Mizell, 2004). Mizell (2004) further
contended that as coaches model learning behaviors, it impacts teachers’ attitudes and behaviors.
It is, therefore, important to invest in ongoing learning opportunities for coaches. This will
involve staying current in the myriad aspects of effective instructional and coaching practices.
Killion (2015) posited when coaches have the opportunities to engage in learning and feedback
with other coaches, they are able to develop new knowledge that can then be applied in their own
practice.
Coach expertise. Lipton and Wellman (2007) proposed three approaches coaches may
choose, consulting, collaborating and mediating. Mediating involves facilitating metacognition
and reflection. Collaboration involves working alongside to develop and create ideas or products.
Consulting involves serving as an expert, providing solutions, teaching techniques or advising.
In order to strengthen teacher practice and behaviors in order to achieve improved student
success, a coach must determine which approach is appropriate in a given circumstance. Killion
and Harrison (2017) cautioned coaches to avoid a default mode of consulting, as this can
diminish the opportunity for capacity building in educators. The use of coaches’ time is
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 107

particularly critical as this determines how high-leverage their impact is on improving student
learning (Killion, 2009).
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 108

Recommendations regarding coach deployment at IASEA
As a system it is important that IASEA determines how coaches are best deployed on a
day-to-day basis such that they are focused on results for teachers and students. This has been
emphasized by Killion (2009): “If any provider of the coaching program-the school, district or
the coach –is unclear about the intended results of coaching, then coaches will struggle to keep a
laser-like focus on doing what matters” (p.22).
Killion and Harrison (2017) contended that when a coaching program is districtwide the
best decision regarding the prioritization of role is made by district leadership and takes into
account the culture, district goals and history of change. IASEA should determine the priorities
of the instructional coaches across the system such that they are most effectively deployed to
support PLC teams and the school’s strategic plan.
Killion and Harrison (2017) revealed that, in most coaching programs, three to five of the
coaching roles are prioritized such that the coaches can focus appropriately. A district may set
parameters in percentages for instance directing coaches to spend 50% of their time as classroom
supporter, 25% of their time as data coach and 25% of their time as instructional specialist. There
are many factors that go into this and it may change from semester to semester based on school
context and calendar. At IASEA this would involve the principals and central office
administrators, analysing the needs of the faculty in light of the goals of personalizing learning
for all. This work will involve establishing parameters that could include percentages of time
coaches work directly with PLC teams and in individual classrooms, alongside other coaching
services. Making decisions about what coaches do daily, based on such parameters leads to
clarity, efficiency and alignment with goals.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 109

Team versus individual. Where coaches are able to work with individuals, one might
say the coaching is truly personalized and services can be uniquely adapted to align with a
teacher’s learning and instructional style. The down side to this for a school the size of IASEA
where the coach/teacher ratio is high, is that fewer teachers are affected over time (Killion &
Harrison, 2017). When a coach is able to work with a team, such as a PLC team, there can be a
sense of collective engagement and an in-built capacity is built for when the coach is not present.
Killion and Harrison proposed that a blend of approaches is the best design. Examples of the
kinds of experiences best done in teams include: working on curriculum, creating common
assessments, and lesson study. Then coaches may provide individual teacher support in the
implementation and development of what was learned in the classroom. Use of an “authentic
coaching schedule” whereby time allocation, task and role are specified brings clarity and helps
ensure high-leverage services are dominant.
Team Coaching. Killion, Harrison, Bryan, and Clifton (2012) suggested that the speed of
change may be accelerated work with teams of teachers. By working with teams, coaches are
able to help refine practice and focus work on student outcomes for grade levels or departments
rather than an individual classroom.
Coach roles within a team. Killion and Harrison (2017) proposed that there are three
main roles for a coach to serve with a team:
1. Facilitator: As a facilitator of a process the coach may help ensure the focus is on the
right work—that which is learning focused. Coaches may have the greatest influence on
shaping processes (Aguilar, 2016). The role of facilitation is to support the team in
reaching its goals. As such, the coach does less talking and can lead the team in the
formation of working agreements and in the use of protocols to guide the team’s work
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 110

ensuring action-oriented steps are taken to reach their goal. How decisions will be made
is also a process a coach may facilitate, along with tools to assist in the team goals such
as protocols for looking at student work, engaging in team professional learning, and data
analysis. The coach may act as an internal (also contributing content and process ideas)
or an external facilitator (one focused entirely on process).
2. Member: As a PLC team member a coach may contribute by bringing ideas to the table
such as professional learning resources.
3. Expert: In this role, the coach assists teams as an expert, helping to refine collaborative
practice or initiate a process or conversation structure. This role may be leveraged to
teach communication skills, reflection processes and bringing resources that may be
related to the team’s learning goals. A coach may also support PLC team leaders who
may facilitate meetings and therefore provide training and resources to those leaders.
Thus, in each role coaches are poised to make a direct impact on the efficacy of PLC teams.
Sweeney (2011) advised schools transition from coaching individual teachers on
instructional strategies, skills or curricula to an alternative vision of coaching collaborative teams
around the implementation of proven practices that impact student learning. “By focusing
coaching on specific goals for student learning, rather than on changing or fixing teachers, a
coach can navigate directly towards a measurable impact and increased student achievement.”
(Sweeney, 2011, p. 23).
Many and Maffoni (2016) stressed that an approach that emphasizes coaching
collaborative teams incorporates a rubric or continuum to define the specific practices teams
must engage in to improve teaching and learning. Teachers are involved in determining the
content (which should be evidence informed), coaches will work on, but this reflects the
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 111

consensus of the team and the coaching is delivered collectively to teachers in their teams. Team
orientated coaching is learning-centric, grounded in collaborative team structures, and supported
by a proven model of school improvement (PLCs). This approach is strategically oriented and
measures of effectiveness are based on the results of assessments of student learning. This kind
of coaching supports the PLC process by building the capacity of collaborative teacher teams to
improve student learning.
When there is an emphasis on coaching teams, coaches can strengthen a grade level or
department’s collaborative culture by delivering a set of shared experiences focused on common
instructional strategies, designed to generate specific learning outcomes to a whole team at the
same time. Coaching collaborative teams towards improving their PLC practices will have a
more significant impact than coaching individual teachers around a discreet set of instructional
strategies (Many & Maffoni, 2016)
Relationships. The relationship between coaches, teachers and administrators is likely the
most important factor contributing to the success of coaching as a practice in the school (Neufeld
& Roper, 2003). Coaches must be supported by principals and advocate for the kind of
instructional leadership the coach is able to contribute. As a coach is able to contribute
personalized and team-based supports in order to meet challenges to student success, building
stronger communities of practice (Killion & Harrison, 2017).
Barriers. There are potential barriers to the work of coaches being successful at helping
teachers learn such that student learning outcomes are affected positively. These include lack of
clarity around the role of the coach, teachers’ reluctance to be coached, and assignment to non-
coaching duties (The University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning, Learning Forward, &
Public Impact, 2016). Killion et al. (2016) contended principals are best positioned to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 112

communicate the concept of coaching to faculty as support for continuous professional learning
and an important resource for all.
Expectations for engagement. Additional barriers include clarification of expectations
for teachers’ engagement with coaches. Killion and Harrison (2017) asserted that all teachers are
included in coaching. To do otherwise would contribute to a lack of collective responsibility. As
the varied roles have described, teachers have multiple options for receiving support which may
be one-to-one or within a team. Coaching is a powerful vehicle for continuous improvement,
therefore it should be accessible to all.
Coach/principal agreements. How a coach will priortize their time and the roles
performed should be determined such that the coaches are clear about the expectations. These
agreements can include how it will be determined who coaches work with, how will all teachers
have access to services, what are the greatest student needs, and how might the coach support the
school’s strategic initiatives. Questions such as the following should prove helpful:
• What process do we establish to help teachers access coach services?
• What is the most effective way for me to spend most of my time?
• What evidence will be collected to assess effectiveness and impact?
Expectations around results. Expected results regarding a coach’s work may be
described in terms of process and results goals. Process goals describe how the coach will work
and with whom, whereas results describe what the outcome of the work will be as a result of the
coaching experience. Questions such as the following should prove helpful:
• How will the effectiveness of the coaching work be measured?
• How will data be collected from teachers about what is working and what needs revising
in relation to coaching?
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 113

• What are the school’s improvement goals as related to the work of the coach?
• What are the short and long-term timelines?
• How will coaches and principals make decisions about coaching priorities and when will
meetings to monitor this be held?
Agreements with teachers. Agreements with teachers may be informal and more job
embedded that those made with principals. Factors such as the particular situation, the coach’s
relationship with a team and what a coaching cycle might look like will determine the use of the
following questions:
• What are the desired results we are wanting?
• What will be the learning focus of our work together?
• What role will I best serve as (facilitator; expert; team member; resource provider)
Reflection and assessment. Coaches, as reflective practitioners have a responsibility to
assess their own work and use such data to inform continuous improvement (Killion &
Harrision, 2017). A coaching program is broad as it encompasses the practice of coaches,
teachers, administrators, the program design and is impacted by resources, structures and culture.
Killion and Harrison suggested the following steps for coach performance assessment:
• Analysis of multiple forms of data to identify strengths and areas of growth (ongoing)
• Establishment of short and long-term goals for growth that include indicators for success
• Development of an action plan, with timelines and benchmarks, to achieve goals
• Collect and subsequently analyze data, reflecting on progress and determine next steps.
Analysis of data. Coaches may use data about student outcomes, teacher practices and
the school system itself. Perception data can inform a coach’s next steps when is comes to
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 114

cultivating relationships. Review of student learning data and data regarding the contribution of
the coach to schoolwide goals helps to focus areas for future priority.
Goal setting. Both long-range and short-term goals should be focused on the impact of
coaching on teacher practice and student learning. While long-range goals are often broad based
and may focus on student achievement in specific areas, short-term goals are typically milestones
along the way to the long-range goals and inform a coach’s actions with teachers. Goal
development can be directly aligned with the coaching roles and the standards for professional
learning stated by the Learning Forward organization in their seven standards for professional
learning (see Appendix F).
Action Plan. After consideration of appropriate goals, a coach can draft an action plan
with specific actions to take. This will then influence the coach’s schedule and focus. A
determination can then be made regarding what data is to be collected to assess progress towards
these goals.
Data analysis for efficacy. In order for coaches to assess progress towards goals, a range
of data collection methods may be employed. These include short, to the point surveys may be
deployed to teachers to provide perceptive data. Coaches may log their work and reflect on this
in order to see how well they are able to hold true to the intended priorities. Killion and Harrison
(2017) suggested to ask the following reflective questions:
• What can be learned from these data?
• What do the data suggest are actions to continue/stop/adapt?
• What do the data suggest are ways to increase the effectiveness of actions taken to
achieve short and long-term goals?
• What adjustments to practice are necessary?
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 115

• How will it be known if the adjustments are effective?
Coaching and school culture. Coaching may contribute to a strong and productive
school culture, one grounded in collaborative practice and supportive behaviors. When there is
recognition from teachers that the role of the coach is one of a partner working with them to
refine professional practice and focused on student results, coaching is seen as an essential
resource. Within the context of IASEA’s PLC teams, coaches can very intentionally act in
supportive ways to build trusting relationships, model vulnerability and a willingness to try new
strategies. They are positioned to invite dialogue around practice and lead out on protocols
designed to identify challenges and celebrations of improving teacher practice and improving
student outcomes (Barkley, 2005). By maintaining a belief in the strengths of team, and in
positive intent, coaches can be influential in focusing action on solutions focused engagement.
Part of a learning system. It is proposed that coaches form a vital part of the
professional learning system at IASEA and as such should be optimally leveraged for success—
both for teachers and students. As a form of professional learning that may be highly
personalized, Hirsh, Psencik, and Brown (2014) noted that a coach’s potential to impact student
success depends on their capacity to impact the quality of instruction. It is important that coaches
seek ways to link them both and help teachers to see that link too by engaging them in reflective
conversations that lead to planning for the use of evidence-based practices.
Coach deployment considerations and challenges at IASEA
Beyond what has been previously described, there are contextual conditions at IASEA
that should be explored in order for the coaching resources to be deployed most effectively. The
coaching literature is adamant about coaches working with all teachers in a school. It is
suggested that school leadership should be mindful not to only supporting those teachers who are
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 116

struggling or who are new to the school. Given the size of IASEA, it is proposed that coaches
work mostly with PLC teams in order to support the learning of all teachers. Clear delineation of
job expectations and how teachers may request access to coach support should be defined. It is
suggested that principals and coaches define work for a semester and that this is communicated
clearly to all relevant stakeholders.
Further, evaluation of the coaching program should be conducted using data from multiple
sources. The use of tools to do this can be adapted from existing resources and organizations,
such as Learning Forward, and should be utilized.
Micro-credentials
Micro-credentials are a form of professional learning that is able to target areas of need
and interest specific to an individual, a PLC team, and school. A relatively recent phenomena,
micro-credentialing is developed by an agent or organization such as Digital Promise, providing
an extensive range of digital professional learning experiences which upon satisfactory
completion may earn badges that reside in a digital portfolio managed by the individual educator.
A defined learning experience, each micro-credential is focused on an aspect of teaching and
learning. Such micro-credentials are grounded in research and are competency-based recognition
for professional learning. As a personalized learning design, micro-credentials enable educators
to focus on a particular skill related to their pedagogical practice, student needs, or school wide
goals.
Features of micro-credentials include being on-demand, the requirements for successfully
completion and the submission of evidence is online, shareable, and personalized. Learners have
voice and choice in what credentials they want to pursue and can create their own education
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 117

“playlists”. Additionally, multiple micro-credentials developed around a particular concept or set
of skills may be completed by an educator, this is known as a “stack”.
The credential promotes learning by doing; educators apply their learnings in their
practice, collect evidence of student outcomes, and demonstrate their competence (Ryerse,
2017). The following professional learning opportunities align with the goals of effective
professional learning:
1. Personalized and self-directed
2. Focused on the needs of educators, students and schools
3. Competency based, and
4. Job embedded and practical.
Authentic evidence of change in practice as a result of the learning experience is required
in order for the micro-credential to be ‘earned’ and subsequently “badged”. This is an
incentivized way to add to one’s personal professional learner profile. There is also the
opportunity to attain a University credit through the successful completion of many micro-
credentials. The “badge” attained is documented digitally and interfaces with current networking
platforms such as Linked In and Facebook. IASEA may consider further incentivizing by
compensating teachers for the attainment of a credential. This kind of system has been
successfully implemented in districts in the United States such as the Kettle Moraine school
district. Districts within the United States who have implemented a process whereby their school
faculties can earn digital badges through the completion of micro credentials are sharing
positively about the results of implementation efforts (Deklotz, 2016).
Implementation. Micro-credential learning has the capacity to meet the needs of
individuals but also PLC teams, should they be focused around a collective goal, connected to a
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 118

student learning need. Team members may choose to achieve particular competencies with their
PLC team and then submit individual examples of their own work for review. This is the same
kind of accountability inherent in the standards-based system for students at IASEA.
The faculty evaluation system at IASEA uses the organization’s Institutional
Commitments (ICs) as a framework for teacher growth. The proposal to incorporate micro–
credentials into the professional learning system would see each IC aligned to ‘stacks’ of micro-
credentials that align with an area selected by a teacher as one they want to strengthen. An actual
micro-credential with a focus on developing expertise in inquiry practices is provided in
Appendix G.
Micro-credentials are awarded for evidence of competence rather than the way learning
has occurred. Each micro-credential requires active engagement and how that manifests depends
on the particular micro-credential. The school should monitor micro-credential learning and
gather feedback from faculty as to how they perceive the process is helping them gain
competency and impacting student learning. Feedback can also be solicited on the use of time,
‘user-friendliness’ of the system, and how useful the feedback is from the issuer reviewing
committee. Additionally, the school can run reports of the types of micro-credentials selected by
faculty and this may inform other professional learning opportunities provided to faculty. The
school may elect to ask faculty to justify their choice of micro-credential whereby they are asked
a series of questions, such as:
• What process did I use to ensure my learning choice was informed by data?
• What are the data telling me are my students’ critical needs that I can address through my
professional learning?
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 119

• How will I know the competency I develop will make a difference for both my students
and me? How will I assess progress along the way?
• What area of the Institutional Commitments is this competence meeting?
• What resources will help me to sustain my learning as I gain competence in this area?
• How will my colleagues and coaches play a role in offering input and feedback as I
practice new skills and strategies?
The school will need to provide implementation support in the form of initial micro-
credential orientation and selection. Information regarding how micro-credentials may support
faculty within the existing professional learning system will also be necessary. Additionally,
guidance from coaches, colleagues, central office and other leaders may be utilized to offer
guidance for practice before a faculty member submits evidence for the achievement of a
particular micro-credential. Should the school choose to align itself with Digital Promise, an
additional consideration is that currently micro-credentials and subsequent badging once
achieved is free. Therefore, it is not necessary for the school to fund this innovation although it is
unknown how long this situation will be in existence and, as such, a contingency for any future
cost should be planned for accordingly. A proposed model for use by IASEA for implementation
and evaluation is proposed as follows.
Evaluation – The Kirkpatrick Model

The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) builds upon the
original Kirkpatrick four level model of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) (see Figure
5). This backwards-by-design model suggests that evaluation plans begin with the goals of the
organization and then work backwards, with the identification of “leading indicators” that bridge
from the completion of recommended solutions to the organization’s goals. Next, outcomes of
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 120

Source: Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model
the solutions that focus on assessing critical behaviors on the job are identified, followed by the
identification of indicators of learning during the implementation, and finally, indicators of
satisfaction with the implementation process are identified. The Kirkpatricks recommended this
sequence to keep a focus on what is most important—results. By designing the implementation
and evaluation plan this way, the researcher is asked to consider connections between the
immediate solutions and the larger goal and may be better positioned to solicit “sign on”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick) from the organization as a whole to ensure success.
The proposed solutions of the provision of tools for PLC teams to use, targeted
instructional coaching, and the implementation of micro-credentials should lead to the desired
outcome of engaged and motivated faculty with “just right” professional learning opportunities.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 121

Thus, empowering faculty with agency over their learning, personalized to their needs and those
of their students. Energy from the system required for the changes necessary for both
personalized learning for students and personalized learning for the adults includes ensuring
professional learning opportunities are what people need. These experiences should be relevant,
timely and challenging. This effort will require energy, stamina, focus, creativity and flexibility
within the organization (Rickabaugh, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators. In order to progress towards the goal of a
professional learning system with structures that support personalized learning for faculty, there
are leading indicators that feed back to the organization information indicating whether or not
critical behaviors are on track to achieve the desired results (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
These include faculty selecting professional learning that best matches their needs in order to
meet those of their students and satisfaction with a system that empowers them to identify and
experience the learning required. Additionally, attaining these outcomes will help position
IASEA to attract and retain high quality faculty, with a rationale for including a high degree of
satisfaction with professional learning. Table 14 provides the outcome, metrics and method(s)
suggested to determine success towards those goals, along with methods to collect evidence.
Level 3: Critical behaviors. For the implementation of micro-credentials, faculty
members for preS–12 will be invited to be part of a “soft start” pilot group, as individual faculty
are the stakeholders of focus. The first critical behavior is the selection of appropriate, specific
professional learning as an individual using the Digital Promise platform that aligns with their
learning plan and current performance. The second critical behavior is the ability to demonstrate
how the selected professional learning experiences positively impacted student learning in their

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 122

Table 14. Expected Outcomes, Metrics and Methods
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
● Increase in Faculty satisfaction
with professional learning at
IASEA.
● Satisfaction levels.
● Faculty turnover statistics.

● Climate Survey.
● Faculty retention data from HR.
● Satisfactory completion of pilot
for micro-credentials such that
there may be full implementation
across the system

● % of teachers completing and
earning micro-credentials
● Feedback indicator
● Solicit data from individual
faculty
● Reflection data. (Self reported)
● Badges attained

● The development of a
professional learning system
that is differentiated;
incorporates faculty feedback
and provides choice.

● System feedback data points. ● Feedback solicited from from
surveys and focus groups.
● Increase in personalization of
learning.

● % of Faculty who participate in
a range of professional learning
options as best matches their
needs and those of their
students (Anytime, anywhere
with anyone flexibility).

● Feedback solicited from from
surveys and focus groups.
● Increase, once fully implemented,
in faculty engagement and
satisfaction with the
personalization of professional
learning.
● % of faculty indicating
satisfaction with the
personalization experience.
● Number of faculty indicating
that their Individual
professional learning needs
have been met.
● Surveys and focus groups;
interviews
● Self-report; observations of
learned practices;
● Faculty learner profiles.

classrooms. Experts in the field evaluate the evidence submitted by individual faculty members
to determine if the educator will be awarded the micro-credential and subsequently achieve the
micro-credential “badge” assuring accountability. Table 15 provides specific metrics, methods
and timing for each of these outcome behaviors.
Required drivers. In the New World Kirkpatrick model there are required drivers
consisting of processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage or reward performance of
the critical behaviors described above. These drivers can be critical to accomplishing applied
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 123

Table 15. Outcome, Metric(s), Method(s), and Timing for Assessing Progress – Critical
Behaviors

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
1 ● Navigating the digital
learning platform and
selecting specific
individual professional
learning micro-
credentials to match
learning needs and
interests.
● 100% of pilot group
faculty engaged in
individual professional
growth learning
experiences using digital
platform.
● Faculty (pilot group)
satisfaction with micro-
credential learning
experiences.
● Executive Director of
Professional Learning
monitors individual
professional learning
experiences on digital
platform.
● Faculty Survey –
perceptive data
● Focus group interviews.
● 1st: one month
post pilot
implementation
● Subsequently upon
notification of
micro-credential
achievement.
● Once per semester.
2 ● Faculty can identify a
professional
development
opportunity that aligns
with their students’
needs and their own
professional growth
plan.
● Faculty would identify a
goal for professional
development and link that
goal to an Institutional
Commitment or PLC team
goal.
● Documentation of goal
and targeted micro-
credential professional
learning experience.
● At goal setting -
beginning of year
and subsequently
once per semester.
3 ● Ability to demonstrate
how the selected
professional learning
experiences (micro-
credentials) positively
impacted student
learning in their
classrooms.

● Data demonstrating
improved student learning
in an area previously
identified. (Target area for
intervention)
● Pre and post intervention
data sets.
● 1st. 60 days post
implementation.
● Subsequently once
per semester.

learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that active execution and monitoring of
these drivers can be the biggest indicator of success for any initiative. They suggest investing the
time to build a complete yet realistic “required drivers” plan to support and hold accountable
those who need to perform the critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The proposed motivation and organizational influences that may be necessary to drive the
achievement of the desired outcomes of a personalized professional learning micro-credential
system are described in Table 16. They include ensuring alignment to the current growth and
appraisal system, frequent check-ins with relevant administrators and celebrations of progress.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 124

Table 16. Methods, Timing, and Critical Behaviors Supported – Required Drivers for
Achievement of Desired Outcomes

Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
Professional Learning Platform - faculty as
part of the Professional Growth system
(faculty appraisal system)
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Modules developed for orientation to
professional learning at IASEA. These will
need to be developed by the Central Office in
order for the pilot group to access and use.
Anytime, anywhere access. 1
Faculty invited to participate in Interviews
with Exec. Dir. of Prof. Learning and
Principal to set goals and monitor progress.
At beginning and mid way
point and end points of
professional learning goal.
1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Feedback received after PL events in order to
feed forward into future opportunities
After each event - schoolwide
and divisional.
2
Rewarding
Professional learning experiences are linked
and contribute to appraisal system.
As professional learning
experiences occur.
2, 3
Individual faculty members earn a micro-
credential and are awarded the badge to add to
digital portfolio.

As professional learning
experiences are completed and
awarded by issuer.
1, 2, 3

Monitoring. A working group, led by the Central Office, will meet to determine how best
to support an individual Professional Learning Profile to be operationalized for each faculty
member. Once this driver is created, a communication plan needs to be in place in order for a
representative sample of preS–12 faculty to be requested to participate on a voluntary basis as a
‘pilot group’ to trial the new system. After this has occurred, monitoring of faculty engagement
and feedback from them on the ‘user-friendliness’ of the system can be solicited. With the
system and processes for the personalized learning platform in place, it will require buy in,
commitment and ongoing support from the SAS leadership team.
Level 2: Learning goals. Following completion of the training sessions, which will be a
hybrid of in person and virtual, the faculty pilot group will be able to:

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 125

1. Function in the digital professional learning platform in order to select micro-credentials
and know the options available to them.
2. Identify an appropriate micro-credential.
3. Assess their own level of expertise, skill, and confidence in the chosen area.
Program. The professional learning system at SAS will be redesigned to meet the needs
of every faculty member, (personalized professional learning). Faculty will need to learn how to
navigate the platform used to facilitate this system. A pilot group consisting of preS–12 faculty
members will trial the system created and provide feedback to inform a full faculty
implementation. The focus is on designing a professional learning system that meets the needs of
every faculty member and ultimately improves student learning. The orientation program has the
capacity to be blended, consisting of e-learning modules and face-to-face options. It is suggested
that the pilot study should take over the course of a semester with regular monitoring and
feedback sessions. After one semester, the system should be ready for roll out with the full
faculty.
Components of learning. Table 17 illustrates the different components of learning
perceived as necessary to support the pilot group to become confident when using the learning
platform. Practice may inspire commitment to a self-chosen professional learning experience,
setting each faculty member up for success.
Level 1: Reaction. Bretzmann (2015) cautioned adult learning experiences should be
goal oriented, hands-on, and practical, recognizing adults need stimulation or action, are social
learners, self-directed, naturally curious, and are experienced. Feedback must be solicited from
pilot group participants to ascertain if these conditions have been met and inform subsequent
training. Table 18 illustrates the components to measure reactions to the program.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 126

Table 17. Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge
Know the purpose, vocabulary and structure of the
learning platform. This will take place in an email briefing
and handbook available on the internal google drive.

Prior to the orientation training through prior
communication.
Skills
Select appropriate modules from personalized learning
system.

During the platform orientation training.
Attitude
Value the role of choice in the process.

After the course
Confidence
Confidence in their ability to select relevant professional
learning experiences.
Confidence with operating in a digital environment.

After the course.
Commitment
Commitment to gathering data from observations and
feedback as well as self reflection. Use of video as a self
reflection tool.

After the course.

Table 18. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Engagement in individual learning experiences.
Reaction indicators (simple icon-based Likert
scale)
Observation during orientation sessions - used to
inform subsequent trainings.
Directly after completion of training
experience.
Relevance
Feedback survey Immediately following the training.

Focus group meeting After completion of first micro-credential
(where questions are explored based on
data from feedback survey).
Customer Satisfaction
Focus group meeting After completion of first micro-credential
(where questions are explored based on
data from feedback survey).
Course evaluation Immediately following the course.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 127

Evaluation Tools. Effective training provides relevant knowledge and skills for the
participants and instills confidence in their ability to apply them on the job (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is important to avoid the kind of professional development approaches that
Sparks (2004) highlighted:
For far too many teachers in the United States, staff development is a demeaning, mind
numbing experience as they passively “sit and get.” That staff development is often
mandatory in nature...and evaluated by “happiness scales.” As one observer put it, “I
hope I die during an in-service session because the transition between life and death
would be so subtle.” (p. 247)
Immediately following program orientation implementation. There will be an evaluation
survey instrument constructed to provide feedback on the training and inform subsequent
iterations. Items on the survey will be learner-centered rather than trainer-centered, as this
provides a comfortable way for participants to critique an experience and optimizes the
likelihood of honest feedback (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Information will be gathered
regarding the initial training, timing, style and format. An example is provided in Table 19.
Table 19. Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument.
Survey items
Scale
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I found the learner platform easy to use.
I found the icons useful visual representations.
I was able to select micro-credentials easily.
I would prefer to experience this orientation training face-to-face.
I preferred to experience this training virtually.
I was able to confidently select a MC that I felt will meet my needs.
Please provide your suggestions for how this orientation might be
improved.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 128

Delayed some time after program implementation. Approximately six weeks after the
initial survey, the pilot group will be brought together and interviewed to gain further
information about the impact of the program and inform the design for full faculty
implementation. This orientation instrument should be refined based on the feedback from the
initial survey; however, it would consist of questions designed to gather feedback from each
level of the evaluation. The instrument will be facilitated by assembling the pilot group
participants into pairs or trios, providing the questions and recording the ensuing conversations.
This small group discussion should create the conditions for open, honest and detailed responses.
An example of a program instrument is provided in Table 20.
Table 20. Program Evaluation Instrument – Focus Group Interview Questions
Question
1. Overall, how satisfied with the initial training on the learning platform were you?
2. What features of the micro-credential site have you found most useful? Least useful?
3. Were you able to select a professional learning micro-credential experience that was relevant for
you?
4. How did the learning experience meet your expectations? How did it not?
5. What, if anything, did you appreciate about the ability to select your own professional learning
experience?
6. How important is the micro-credentialing (badging) feature to you?
7. How has this learning impacted your practice? Your PLC’s practice? How do you know?
8. How has this learning impacted student learning? How do you know?

Data Analysis and Reporting. There will be points throughout the pilot study where
data will be gathered. Based on the evidence provided in the surveys and focus group interviews
a report will be crafted and presented to the leadership team. It is important when looking at data
to consider using a protocol such as “what, so what, now what” (see Appendix E–6) in order to
inform future processes and progress towards the goals.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 129

Model Summary. The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a framework to unpack a
problem as translated into an organizational goal. By determining the steps to take in the form of
the critical behaviors needed and the required drivers to ensure success in those behaviors, a plan
may be created that targets specific learning experiences needed to support the stakeholder goal
and ultimately the organizational goal. If what was learned translates into improved performance
then it is possible for better organizational results to be achieved (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). This represents training effectiveness, value on investment, and satisfaction of a diligent
process that incorporated feedback and provided for iteration in order to lead to a greater
likelihood of a successful rollout for personalized professional learning with the full faculty.
Recommendations for Further Inquiry
Coaching is a relatively young and innovative professional learning construct (Killion &
Harrison, 2017). A potential future direction for coaching at IASEA includes serving in a role to
help develop teacher leadership. They could facilitate professional learning for leaders, model
practice and coach teacher leaders as they try out new skills. This kind of a role sees coaches
contributing to a culture of distributed leadership at IASEA.
The potential to consider the attainment of micro-credentials as a way to earn salary
increments is an area for further investigation. The achievement of micro-credentials may also
qualify faculty for additional leadership roles. The school may also curate stacks of particular
micro-credentials around themes that are a focus for the school such as personalized learning,
growth mindset and deep learning. Additionally, the school may design and create its own micro-
credentials to align with teaching and learning priorities, and badge them accordingly when
teachers achieve them, potentially leading to a school certification of some kind.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 130

Conclusion
This study examined the current state of professional learning at International Academy
of South East Asia by determining the knowledge, motivation and organizational causes of
barriers to the implementation of personalized professional learning utilizing gap analysis
methodology (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study included the development of solutions to these
barriers with the intention of facilitating the provision of professional learning that is effectively
differentiated, relevant, and impacts professional practice and student learning positively.
This gap analysis model enabled root causes of gaps to be examined in the existing
professional learning system at IASEA. These root causes were sorted into the required
knowledge and skills in order to implement a personalized learning model, motivation aspects,
and the culture of the organization. Subsequent to an in-depth examination of the causes, the
model provided an opportunity to identify solutions within the knowledge, motivation, and
organization areas. The methodological framework was that of a qualitative case study with
descriptive statistics. Data collection to inform the gaps was in the form of documentation
analysis, focus groups, interviews and surveys.
The desired organizational performance goal is that by 2020 IASEA will fully
personalize professional learning experiences for faculty in order to impact positively on student
learning. By the end of the 2018 calendar year, the Central Office will have identified, evaluated
and tested possible tools to personalize professional development for faculty. In order to do this,
the knowledge and skills required will need to be identified; the motivation factors sufficiently
established, and an organizational process defined and implemented.
High-quality professional learning must be emphasized, comprising active teacher
inquiry into student learning and the development of pedagogical skills proven to have strong
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 131

effects on student achievement in order to ensure students are provided opportunities to develop
the more complex and analytical skills needed to be college and career ready in the 21
st
century
(Darling-Hammond, & Richardson, 2009; Hattie, 2009). The process of personalizing
professional learning should start with individual faculty learners in mind, just as it does for
students (Rickabaugh, 2016). IASEA is appropriately positioned to strengthen the current well-
resourced professional learning system. Through consideration and subsequent implementation
of the proposed solutions to identified barriers and partial barriers, the school will strengthen the
teacher learning/improved student outcomes connection and provide support for faculty to
engage and lead in the criteria listed in the school’s Institutional Commitments (see Appendix
D), fulfilling its vision—that of world leaders, creating exemplary thinkers who are prepared for
their futures.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 132

References
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform
schools. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Albert, B. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Goddard, C., Hannon, V., Peterson, A.,
& Temperley, J. (2014). Global trends in professional learning and performance and
development: Some implications and ideas for the Australian education system.
Bandura, A. (1991). Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality. American Psychologist, 46(2),
157-162.
Barkley, S. G. (2005). Quality teaching in a culture of coaching. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2017). A Working Definition of Personalized Learning
[Brochure].
Blum, J., Asghar, A., & Drago-Severson, E. (2013). Learning and leading for growth: Preparing
school leaders to build capacity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bowgen, L., & Sever, K. (2009). Differentiated professional development in a professional
learning community. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 133

Bransford, J., & National, R. C. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bretzmann, J. (2015). Personalized PD: flipping your professional development.
BretzmannGroup, LLC.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development:
Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499-
514.
Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement
using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 105.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(5), 435-455.
Cardno, C., & Youngs, H. (2013). Leadership development for experienced New Zealand
principals: Perceptions of effectiveness. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 41(3), 256-271.
Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C. (2011). What about N? A methodological study of sample-size
reporting in focus group studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, p. 26.
http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-26
Charleston County School District. (2016). CCSD Personalized Learning [Brochure]. Charlston,
SC.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 134

Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub., Inc.
Creasy, J., & Paterson, F. Leading Coaching in Schools. 2005. Nottingham: National College for
School Leadership. United Kingdom.
Daniels, K. Flipped PD. Retrieved April, 2nd, 2017, from http://www.flippedpd.org/
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Deklotz, P. F. (2016, November). The energizing impact of micro-credentials in Kettle Moraine.
School Administrator, 73(10), 22. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.
libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A471849358/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=328
460ca
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2018). Leading change together: Developing
educator capacity within schools and systems. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 135

DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth
considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal, 39(1),
4-8.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House
Digital, Inc.
Dweck, C. (2014). Teachers’ mindsets: Every student has something to teach me. Educational
Horizons, 93(2), 10-14.
Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2014). Evaluating the impact of professional development: The need for
a student-focused approach. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 112-129.
Eells, R. J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and
student achievement. Doctoral dissertation. Loyola University, Chicago, IL.
Fletcher, A. (2008). Giving students ownership of learning: The architecture of ownership.
Education Leadership, 66(3), 23-29.
Foltos, L. (2015). Principals boost coaching's impact. JSD,36(1), 48-51.
Foster, E., George, M., Jenkins, S., Moyer, J., Williams, M. (2016). The Shifting Paradigm of
Teaching: Personalized Learning According to Teachers. Available at
https://knowledgeworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/teacher-conditions.pdf
Frontier, T., & Rickabaugh, J. (2014). Five levers to improve learning: How to prioritize for
powerful results in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50-
53.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 136

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic
engagement and performance. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 148.
Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning:
An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development
program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136-1148.
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing
collaborative groups. (3
rd
ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gulamhussein, Allison. (2014). What will it take to change? Teaching the teachers: Effective
professional development in an era of high stakes accountability. Educational
Leadership, 71(8), 8.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development
to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. Handbook of the Economics of
Education, 2, 1,051-1,078.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2006). A new shape for schooling. Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
https://www.tsatrust.org.uk/about/about-us/
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 137

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2014). Effect size list: 195 Influences related to achievement. Retrieved May 02, 2017,
from http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-
achievement/
Herold, B. (2017, February). Personalized Learning and the Internet of Things: Q&A [Web log
post]
Hirsh, S., Psencik, K., & Brown, F. (2014). Becoming a learning system. Oxford, OH: Learning
Forward.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Journal of
Education,163(2), 163-172.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development.
Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing
technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239.
Illeris, K. (2004). A model for learning in working life. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8),
431-441.
Iqbal A Al Shammari. (2011). Anywhere anytime personalized professional development for
teachers: Kuwait perspective. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4(8), 55.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 138

Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Roberts-Hull, K., & Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher
professional learning in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on
Education and the Economy.
Jensen, E., & Nickelsen, L. (2008). Deeper learning: 7 powerful strategies for in-depth and
longer-lasting learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals
of school renewal (3
rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of
mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Killion, J. (2009). Coaching roles, responsibilities, and reach. In J. Knight, (ed.), Coaching:
Approaches and perspectives (pp.7-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Killion, J. (2012). Coaching in the K-12 context. In The SAGE handbook of mentoring and
coaching in education, (pp. 273-295). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Killion, J. (2015). The feedback process: Transforming feedback for professional learning.
Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2017). Taking the lead new roles for teachers and school-based
coaches (2
nd
ed.). Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Killion, J., Harrison, C., Bryan, C., & Clifton, H. (2012). Coaching matters. Oxford, OH:
Learning Forward.
King, M. B. (2002). Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18(3), 243-257.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 139

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development. https://www.td.org/
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 75(1), 8-20.
Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:
Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(1), 98-106.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2016). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and
achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Chicago, IL: Review of
Educational Research.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labone, E., & Long, J. (2016). Features of effective professional learning: A case study of the
implementation of a system-based professional learning model. Professional
Development in Education, 42(1), 54-77.
Lee, C. B. (2013). Examining intentional knowing among secondary school students: Through
the lens of metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 79-90.
Lucilio, L. (2009). What secondary teachers need in professional development. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 13(1), 53.
Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student
achievement: A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2),
121-148.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 140

Many, T., & Maffoni, M. (2016). Coaching 2.0. TEPSA News,8-9.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference: A new model
for teacher growth and student achievement. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers: A
case study of professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2),
159-179.
Mayer, R. E., 1947. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn &
Bacon.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., Eberhardt, J., Koehler, M. J., & Lundeberg, M. A. (2013/2012).
Virtual professional learning communities: Teachers’ perceptions of virtual versus face-
to-face professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3),
267-277.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Merritt, L., 2003. Embedding research as core practice for teachers: a model for whole school
teacher learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 141

Mizell, H. (2004, August 5). Pioneers for professional learning. Speech presented at NSDC
School-based Staff Developer Learning Community; Dallas, TX.
Mohamed, N. (2008). I have been doing things this way for so many years – Why should I
change? Exploring teachers’ resistance to professional learning. New Zealand Studies in
Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 19-35.
Murray, J. A. (2014). Designing and implementing effective professional learning. Thousand
Oaks, California: Corwin.
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why
research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review,
74(3), 273-306.
Oakley, E., & Krug, D. (1991). Enlightening leadership: Getting to the heart of change. New
York, NY: Fireside.
Owen, H. (2011). Personalised, contextualised, professional learning development: Putting it into
practice. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(1), 61-74.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Multiple “black boxes”: Inquiry into learning within a
professional development project. Improving Schools, 13(2), 158-171.
Pasatta, J., Hamilton, E., & DeDoes, S. (2017). A Personalized-Learning Toolbox for Teachers.
Educational Leadership,74(6), 64-67.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Penguin
Group, Inc.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 142

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual
change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
Protocols. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocols/
Qualtrics. (2018, March 26). Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com/support/research-
resources/cite-reference-qualtrics-research/
Reeves, D. B., (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria,
Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rickabaugh, J. (2016). Tapping the power of personalized learning: A roadmap for school
leaders. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Riley, B. (2017). Personalization vs. how people learn. Educational Leadership,74(6), 68-72.
Roberts, J. (2016). Language teacher education. New, York: Routledge.
Ryerse, M. (2017). Competency-Based Micro-credentials are Transforming Professional
Learning. Retrieved from http://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/11/micro-credentials-
transforming-professional-learning/
Shindler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching on teacher efficacy of student
achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 452-460.
Spaulding, D. T., & Smith, G. M. (2012). Instructional coaches and the instructional leadership
team: A guide for school-building improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robinson, V. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The leadership of the improvement teaching and
learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian
Journal of Education, 51(3), 247-262.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 143

Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
IASEA strategic focus. Retrieved from https://www.IASEA.edu.sg/page.cfm?p=357
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-
4), 207-231.
Sinatra, G. (2000). From passive to active to intentional: Changing conceptions of the learner.
GM Sinatra (Chair), what does it Mean to be an Intentional Learner.
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The "warming trend" in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul
R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107-115.
Sisson, J. H. (2009). Making sense of competing constructs of teacher as professional. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 23(3), 351-366.
Slaten Biehn, M. E. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of a personalized, pedagogy-based
technology professional development model in teacher preparation programs. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education.
Washington, D.C: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sparks, D. (2004). Focusing staff development on improving the learning of all students.
Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement, 3, 245-255.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 144

Spencer, L. (2014). Transforming schools from traditional to personalized. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy
in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of
Adult Education, 43(1), 28.
Sturgis, C. (2015). Implementing competency education in K-12 systems: Insights from local
leaders. Competency Works Issue Brief. International Association for K-12 Online
Learning.
Sweeney, D. (2011). Student centered coaching: A guide for K-8 coaches and principals.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Taylor, M., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., & Kinsella, P. (2011). Teacher professional leadership in
support of teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1),
85-94.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Educational practices
series. International Academy of Education: Bureau of Education, Brussels Belgium &
Perth, Australia. http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/smec/iae
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative
policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of
Research in Education, 32(1), 328-369. doi:10.3102/0091732X07308968
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacher professional learning and
development. Belley, France: Imprimerie Nouvelle Gonnet.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 145

Timperley, H. S., Annan, B., & Robinson, V. M. (2009). Successful approaches to innovation
that have impacted on student learning in New Zealand. In Reforming learning (pp. 345-
364). Springer-Netherlands.
Timperley, H. S., Parr, J. M., & Bertanees, C. (2009). Promoting professional inquiry for
improved outcomes for students in New Zealand. Professional Development in
Education, 35(2), 227-245.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). Let’s celebrate personalization but not too fast. Educational
Leadership,74(6).
The University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning, Learning Forward, & Public Impact.
(2016). Coaching for impact: Six pillars to create coaching roles that achieve their
potential to improve teaching and learning. Gainesville: University of Florida Lastinger
Center; Oxford, OH: Learning Forward; and Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. Retrieved
from www.learningforward.org/ coaching-for-impact/
Vella, J. (2014). On teaching and learning: Putting the principles and practices of dialogue
education into action. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wells, M. (2014). Elements of effective and sustainable professional learning. Professional
Development in Education, 40(3), 488-504. doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.838691
Williams, M., Moyer, J., & Jenkins, S. (2014). District conditions for scale: A practical guide to
scaling personalized learning. Available at https://knowledgeworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/district-conditions-scale.pdf.pdf
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173-209.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 146

Wolfe, R. E., & Poon, J. D. (2015). Educator competencies for personalized, learner-centered
teaching. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future & the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Wolff, S. J. (2002). Design features for project-based learning. [Scholarly project]. Retrieved
June 1, 2018, from http://www.designshare.com/Research/Wolff/vWolff_
DesignShare_3_7_02.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. doi:10.2307/1163261
Zmuda, A., Ullman, D., & Curtis, G. (2015). Learning personalized: The evolution of the
contemporary classroom New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 147

Appendix A:
Request to Participate in a Doctoral Study Professional Learning Survey

Dear faculty member,
For the USC EdD program here at SAS I am conducting research as part of my dissertation study. My
research focuses on how we might personalize professional learning at SAS to better differentiate
opportunities and strategically target it to learning goals. You are being asked to participate in an
anonymous survey, through Qualtrics that seeks to learn more about your needs and desires for
professional learning at SAS. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on professional learning at SAS. It should
not take longer than 20 minutes to complete.
For the purposes of this survey the following term will be used as defined below:
Professional learning: The practice of developing pedagogical skills that have been proven to have strong
effects on student achievement.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 148

Survey items:
Q1 In which division do you currently teach?
o Elementary (ELC - 5) (1)
o Middle (2)
o High (3)

Q2 To what extent do you feel that you have clear curriculum standards in place for your courses/classes?
o Standards in place and learning targets defined (1)
o Standards in place and learning targets in progress (2)
o Standards in draft (3)
o Standards not yet determined (4)

Q3 How do you assist students to set learning goals?

Q4 To what extent do you feel that you have choice in determining what YOU want to learn?
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

Q5 If you responded positively, please describe you how you make those decisions.

Q6 How do you learn best?

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 149

Q7 To what extent do you feel that you are encouraged to take risks in your learning?
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)
Q8 If you answered positively, please describe how you are encouraged to take risks in your learning.

Q9 To what extent does your PLC engage in professional learning?
o Always (1)
o Frequently (2)
o Occasionally (3)
o Rarely (4)
o Never (5)

Q10 If you answered positively, please describe how your PLC engages in professional learning.

Q11 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
Individual Professional Development fund
▢ To a great extent (1)
▢ Somewhat (2)
▢ Very little (3)
▢ Not at all (4)

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 150

Q12 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
PLC collaborative inquiry
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

Q13 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
Instructional and technology coaches
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

Q14 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
Internal professional learning such as faculty meetings, PD Mondays and Inservice days
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

Q15 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
Visiting consultant experts
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 151

Q16 To what extent do you value the following professional learning practices at SAS?
Offsite professional learning
o To a great extent (1)
o Somewhat (2)
o Very little (3)
o Not at all (4)

Q17 Please describe any additional aspects of professional learning practices you value at SAS.

Q18 What aspects of the current professional learning practices at SAS would you like to see changed?

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 152

Appendix B:
Focus Group Protocol for the Organizational Element of the Study

Request to participate in doctoral study professional learning focus group
Dear faculty member,
For the USC EdD program here at SAS I am conducting research as part of my dissertation study. My
work focuses how we might personalize professional learning at SAS to better differentiate opportunities
and strategically target it to learning goals. I am writing to ask that you participate in a focus group
meeting to give me input and evidence for my study. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on professional
learning at SAS. The time commitment is 45-60 minutes and I will work to find a time to suit your
schedule.
Please know that you will remain anonymous for the purposes of the research, names will not be used. I
will designate a facilitator from the group to present the questions and will not conduct the session
myself. The session will be recorded, in order to be transcribed at a later date.

Best regards,
Treena Casey

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 153

Focus Group Protocol for use by facilitator

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group discussion. Your thoughts and ideas are
greatly valued and will be used to inform Treena’s study in how we might personalize professional
learning at SAS.
Today I will read each question aloud and after there has been enough conversation, will move to
the next question. We will keep to our time limit of 60 minutes. The session is recorded so that it can be
transcribed later, please know that you will not be identified and all recording will only be used for this
research. Responding to any question is entirely optional.

For the purposes of this survey the following terms will be used as defined below:
• Personalized learning: Learning that is student-centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and
characterized by competency-based progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning
environments.
• Professional learning: The practice of developing pedagogical skills that have been proven to
have strong effects on student achievement.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 154

(K M) Question 1: How do you decide what professional learning to engage in?
(K) Question 2: To what extent do you have clear curriculum standards in place for your
courses/classes?
How does this help you to assist students to set learning goals?
What do you consider when helping to set those goals?
(K) Question 3: What goals have you set recently that involve professional learning?
(K) Question 4: How do you know if you have met your goals? What evidence do you use?
(K) Question 5: Do you use any tools to help you to know how effective professional learning
has been? Does your PLC?

(M) Question 6: How do you prefer to learn? (May give examples if needed. Online; workshop;
during PLC inquiry etc.)

(K) Question 7: How do you personalize learning for the students in your class? (Refer to
definition)

(M) Question 8: Do you have choice in determining what you want to learn? How do you make
those decisions?

(O) Question 10: Are you encouraged to take risks in your learning? How?
(O) Question 11: What ideas do you have for communicating your professional learning needs?
(M) Question 12: What aspects of current professional learning practices at SAS do you value
most?

(M O) Question 13: What aspects of the current professional learning practices at SAS do you
find most challenging?

(M) Question 14: If you could wave a magic wand and make something happen immediately
what is the one thing you’d like to see happen in regard to professional learning? (Whip around.)

(If any time is left) Is there anything else you would like to share regarding personalizing
professional learning at SAS?

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 155

Appendix C:
Interview Protocol

Request to participate in doctoral study professional learning focus group

Dear ___ (administrator)
As part of my doctoral dissertation work with USC, I am researching how we might personalize
professional learning at IASEA to better differentiate opportunities for faculty and strategically target
professional learning to faculty and student learning goals. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on
professional learning at IASEA and would like to set up a time to have a conversation with you to gain
your perspective. Please know that you will remain anonymous for the purposes of the research, names
will not be used.

Thank you,
Treena

Interview Guide:
For the purposes of our interview I will be using the following terms as defined below:
• Personalized learning: Learning that is student-centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and
characterized by competency-based progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning
environments.
• Professional learning: The practice of developing pedagogical skills that have been proven to
have strong effects on student achievement.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 156

(K) Question 1: With the teachers you work with, how do you give performance feedback? What
evidence do you use to inform that feedback?

(K) Question 2: In your view of the teachers that you work with, how do they reflect on progress towards
their goals? What evidence do they use to inform that?

(M) Question 3: How do teachers select professional learning experiences?
(M) Question 4: What input do teachers have in the professional learning opportunities offered at your
division?

(M O) Question 5: How do teachers communicate their professional learning needs? (Both the ‘what’ and
the ‘how’)

(O) Question 6: How do you help teachers take risks in their current practice, challenge the status quo and
test out new skills?

(O) Question 7: In what ways do you support professional learning in your division?
(M) Question 8: What excites you about personalizing professional learning?
(M) Question 9: What concerns you about personalizing professional learning?

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 157

Appendix D:
IASEA Institutional Commitment Rubrics

PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING
COMMUNITIES
Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Participation,
Norms and
Agreements
Teacher is a member
of an active PLC and
contributes to the
group. Teacher knows
established norms and
is aware of
agreements made in
PLC meetings.
Teacher actively and
positively contributes to their
PLC, and actively assists their
teammates to refine
instruction. Teacher holds
self-accountable for following
norms as well as following
agreements and decisions
made in their PLC.
Teacher assists with PLC
facilitation and/or is the PLC
leader. Teacher initiates strategies
to increase the contributions and
participation of team members.
Teacher enforces norms and
holds self and peers accountable
to norms and PLC
agreements/decisions.
Professional
Learning
Teacher participates in
PLC learning
opportunities.
Teacher engages in PLC
learning experiences,
contributes to ongoing PLC
learning opportunities, and
applies learning to their
classroom/practice. Teacher
seeks out opportunities for
professional development to
enhance the practice of their
team.
Teacher leads PLC training for
their peers and leads the
application of learning across
classrooms of PLC members.
PLC Essential
Questions
Teacher knows the
four questions and
considers them in
planning and
discussions.
Teacher engages in
conversations based upon the
4 questions in planning and
delivering units, and uses
data to guide individual
instructional practice.
Teacher leads the unit
development and refinement as
well as differentiated instructional
practices based upon the 4
questions.
Collective Inquiry Teacher participates in
discussions about
classroom/professiona
l practice with
colleagues. Teacher
demonstrates
openness to new
ideas and strategies
from colleagues.
Teacher initiates discussions
about classroom/professional
practice with colleagues and
implements and revises
practice as a result of PLC
discussions and/or
agreements. Teacher
contributes ideas, shares their
work and evidence of learning
with peers, collaborates with
colleagues.
Teacher leads and facilitates
collective inquiry and exploration of
potential improvements to practice
that attains the same outcomes for
students’ skills and learning.
Teacher fosters an environment
that allows for the free sharing of
ideas and collaboration of team
members. Teacher conducts
systematic action research and
seeks out quality professional
development opportunities for their
team.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 158

GREAT
TEACHING
Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Student
Relationships
Teacher recognizes the
value of understanding
students’ cultural
heritage, skills, interests,
and special needs and
displays this knowledge
for the class as a whole.
Teacher engages in
positive social
interactions with
students.
Teacher demonstrates
thorough understanding of
students’ cultural heritage,
skills, interests, and special
needs and uses this
knowledge to plan effective
grouping strategies and
instruction. Teacher nurtures
positive relationships with
students.
Teacher demonstrates extensive
understanding of students’ cultural
heritage, skills, interests and special
needs, and applies this knowledge
in planning learning experiences for
groups and individual students.
Teacher leverages relationships
with students to enhance student
academic growth and social well
being. Teacher models techniques
to foster strong student/teacher
relationships for their peers.
Flexibility and
Responsiveness

Teacher accepts
responsibility for the
success of all students,
and has an established
repertoire of instructional
strategies to draw on.
Teacher makes
adjustments to lesson or
assessment for the full
class to accommodate
different learning styles
and interests.
Teacher persists in seeking
approaches for students who
have difficulty learning and
for those who have already
demonstrated mastery,
drawing on a broad
repertoire of research-based
strategies. Based on
evidence, teacher
collaborates with others to
make adjustments for
individuals, small groups,
and whole class as needed.
The teacher assists colleagues to
differentiate their instruction by
modeling best practices, being
observed by peers, and bringing
research-based strategies for
differentiation to their team. They
collaborate with others to develop
and refine differentiated lessons
and units.
Teacher as
Facilitator
Classroom is
predominantly teacher-
directed.

The classroom’s structure
and protocols promotes
higher-level thinking, and
provides adequate time and
support for all students to
process new learning.
Teacher serves as facilitator
more often than not.

The teacher serves as a facilitator
to a student-centered learning
process and assists colleagues in
creating and sustaining a student-
centered learning environment in
their classroom. Teacher models
structures and protocols that
promote student-centered learning
for their colleagues.
Use of Time /
Space
Teacher adheres to the
specified schedule and
spends instructional time
effectively. Classroom
layout and decor points
to the learning taking
place in the room and is
teacher-produced.

Teacher appropriately
maximizes classroom time
each and every day.
Classroom layout and decor
enhances and reflects the
learning taking place in the
room and it is student-
produced (teacher curates
student work).
Teacher models and shares
effective strategies that maximize
classroom time and adds value to
daily learning for students. Student
voice is evident in the decor and
layout of the teaching space, eg,
teacher effectively curates student
work in the classroom and guides
peers in the curation of student
work.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 159

CURRICULUM Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Curriculum
Creation and
Delivery
Teacher delivers
units of study
aligned to the SAS
curriculum during
the course of the
year. Teacher uses
approved and
agreed upon
resources.
Teacher collaborates with
their PLC to implement the
units of study in a consistent
manner, as well as to make
improvements to delivered
instruction. Teacher is a
critical consumer of
approved and agreed upon
resources, supplementing
and adjusting use of these
resources to ensure learning
targets are met.
Teacher leads collaborative efforts with
colleagues to develop, implement,
analyze, and refine curriculum and units
of study and their delivery in the
classroom. Teacher is engaged in
curriculum review and research to
determine appropriate resources to be
used. Teacher identifies gaps with the
curriculum and seeks out resources and
gains PLC approval to apply them to
augment current resources.
Clear Outcomes
for Student
Learning
Teacher knows and
can identify the
standards and
outcomes for each
unit.
Teacher knows and can
identify the specific learning
targets associated with the
standards and outcomes.
Instruction is tightly focused
on learning targets. Students
know and can identify
learning targets.
Teacher leads colleagues in unit
development and implementation.
Learning targets drive instruction and
assessments within a unit.
Knowledge of
Pedagogy

Teacher’s
pedagogical
knowledge
represents basic
understanding of
current research-
based pedagogical
knowledge.
Teacher’s instructional
practices reflect current
research-based pedagogical
knowledge.
Teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy is
extensive, showing evidence of a
continuing search for improved practice.
Teacher regularly shares pedagogical
discoveries with their peers.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 160

EVIDENCE
OF
LEARNING
Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Common
Assessments
Teacher collaborates with their
colleagues to create and
implement common
assessments aligned to the SAS
curriculum. Teacher uses
common assessments.
Teacher actively contributes
thoughts, refinements, and
approaches to discussions
about common assessments
in their PLC. Teacher
implements common
assessments with fidelity
and reviews assessment
data with colleagues post-
assessment to inform their
practice and enhance
student learning.
Teacher leads their colleagues
in the creation, refinement, and
implementation of formative
and summative common
assessments. Leads others in
the use of quality, innovative
assessment tools and
practices.
Balanced
Assessment
Practice
Teacher uses a balance of
formative and summative
assessments in their classroom.
Assessments “as” and “for”
learning align to assessments
“of” learning.

Teacher is able to
demonstrate consistent use
of balanced assessments
and engages in collaborative
discussions to improve
assessment practice.
Teacher monitors progress
of student groups based on
assessment “as” and “for”
data and subsequent
instruction is adapted and
modified based on
assessment results.
Teacher leads the
implementation of innovative
assessments among their
colleagues and provides
training to peers about best
assessment practices. Teacher
monitors progress of individual
students based on assessment
“as”, “of” and “for” data and
subsequent instruction is
adapted and modified based on
assessment results.
Use of Data Teacher collects evidence of
student learning from multiple
sources. Teacher participates in
PLC conversations to analyze
group data. Teacher collects
student data as directed and
participates in PLC conversation
to analyze group data.
Teacher collects student
data and discusses data
with colleagues to
collaboratively identify
differentiation for groups of
students (high, medium,
low).
Teacher shares strategies and
leads discussions about using
student data with peers to
improve teaching and student
learning. Teacher models the
use of student assessment data
to drive differentiation for each
individual student.
Standards-
Based
Grading and
Reporting
Teacher knows SAS standards-
based grading and reporting
policies and they apply those
policies in their classroom
practice.

Teacher is using standards
based grading and reporting
practices that have a
positive impact on student
learning and which are
consistent with SAS grading
and reporting policies.
Students are aware of the
learning targets for grading
and reporting.
Teacher helps colleagues
develop and implement
processes to communicate
standards based grading
components and learning
targets to students and parents.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 161

TECHNOLOGY Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Effective Use of
Technology in
Professional
Duties

Teacher is proficient
in use of SAS
platforms and can
use technology
effectively to
collaborate and
communicate with
colleagues, students,
and parents.
Teacher demonstrates
proficient and integrated use
of SAS platforms as part of
their collaboration and
communication with
colleagues, students, and
parents. Teacher explores
and shares new methods to
enhance how they use
technology to maximize their
workflow.

Teacher supports professional learning
of colleagues about how to improve
their collaborative and communicative
efforts using technology. Teacher
models effective use of technology to
their peers and readily shares
strategies and techniques to help
others make more efficient and more
innovative use of technology in their
daily work.
Providing Digital-
Age Learning
Experiences and
Assessments
Teacher incorporates
digital-age learning
experiences and
assessments as
outlined by their PLC
using the provided
technology platforms
and software.

Teacher collaborates with
colleagues to discover ways
in which to meaningfully
integrate technology into
instruction and learning.
Teacher seeks out creative
and meaningful ways to
leverage technology to
enhance learning.
Teacher models exploring and
implementing new technologies to
enhance student learning. Teacher
trains colleagues in the use of
technology in their classrooms and
provides assistance to peers as they
innovate and explore.
Digital Citizenship
and Responsibility
Teacher promotes
digital citizenship
practices with their
students and follows
the digital citizenship
program.
Teacher proactively instructs
students on digital
citizenship. Teacher holds
self and students accountable
to be good digital citizens and
follows up with students’
digital citizenship habits.
Teacher models digital-age work and
learning among colleagues and for
students, and coaches peers on
strategies to best promote digital
citizenship.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 162

HEALTHY
CULTURE
Aware Engage and Apply Lead
Contributing
to School
Culture
Teacher attends in
school events within
their scope of duties.
Teacher demonstrates
ongoing contributions to
a healthy school culture.
Teacher supports the
school’s strategic
direction.
Teacher participates in school
events, working committees,
curriculum development,
student activities, and/or
projects beyond the scope of
duties. Teacher collaborates
with peers and students.
Teacher promotes the
school’s strategic direction.
Teacher assumes leadership in school
events, activities and projects. Teacher
leads implementation of the school’s
strategic direction.

Interpersonal
Relationships
Teacher’s relationships
with colleagues are
respectful. Teacher is
respectful in interactions
with colleagues,
students, parents and
the public. Teacher
addresses concerns
through appropriate
channels.

Teacher’s relationships with
colleagues are supportive and
cooperative. Teacher displays
high standards of honesty,
integrity and confidentiality in
interactions with colleagues,
students, parents and the
public. When conflicts arise,
the teacher actively seeks
resolution to the problem,
conflict, or concern.
Teacher takes a leadership role in
sustaining a collaborative culture in their
team(s). Teacher models the highest
standards of honesty, integrity, and
confidentiality, assuming leadership with
colleagues. Teacher actively redirects
peers with concerns to “go to the
source” rather than airing problems with
third parties. Teacher facilitates conflict
resolution.
Flexibility and
Adaptability
Teacher understands
the need for flexibility
and adaptability in the
change process.
Teacher implements
changes required by the
strategic direction of the
school.
Teacher embraces the
strategic direction of the
school and positively
implements changes.
Teacher shows leadership in their
flexibility, adjusting to changes and
adopting innovations in practice. They
assist peers with making adjustments to
support the change(s) that support the
strategic direction of the school.

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 163

Appendix E:
NSRF Protocols
Appendix E-1. NSRF Inquiry Circles Protocol

Bisplinghof, B. (n.d.). Inquiry Circles: A Protocol for Professional Inquiry. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from
https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/inquiry_circles.pdf
Protocols are most po werful and effecti v e w hen used within an ongoing professional learning community suc h as a Critical F riends Group
®
and facilitated
b y a skilled coac h. T o learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coac hes, please visit the National Sc hool
Reform F aculty website at www .nsrfharmon y .org.
Nati o nal
Sc hoo l
Refo rm
F acu lty
Harmon y
Education
Center
www .nsrfharmon y .org
Inquiry Cir cles
A Protocol for Professional Inquiry
Dev eloped b y Betty Bisplinghoff.
Ov er all Purpose: T o gener ate robust inquiry questions that can lead our w ork in support of teac hers and
students as po werful learners.
Supporting Goals:
• T o place inquiry at the heart of our w ork
• T o support reflecti v e pr actice
• T o encour age the dev elopment of an evidence-based, positi v e narr ati v e culture
• T o build on the good
• T o dev elop a vision-based professional v oice
T he title of the protocol, Inquiry Cir cles , w as c hosen for sev er al reasons:
1. T o highlight the c yclical nature of inquiry – questions lead to more questions
2. T o denote the continuous connections of understanding that inquiry can support
3. T o present a method for supporting inquiry that asks people to cir cle-up and share their stories of
hope and promise
* T he protocol ma y be used as an agenda for a da y in the design of a CFG Institute.
Phase 1 – Storytelling
Approximately 1 hour
Indi vidually
1. Written Rememberings (15 minutes)

In beginning this phase, it ma y be helpful to remember the wisdom of Madeline Grumet (1978),
So if telling a story requires gi ving oneself a w a y , then we are obligated to devise a method of
recei ving stories that mediates between the self that tells, the self that is told, and the self that
listens: A method that returns a story to the teller that is both hers and not hers, that contains her
self in good compan y . (p.323)
P articipants ha v e time to write in their journals – to be alone with their thoughts and memories. It ma y
be helpful to ad vise participants to begin b y listing recollections about good things in their w ork and
then to c hoose one item on that list to explore in more detail through dr a wing or writing. T he follo wing
prompts are offered as w a ys to nudge this kind of thinking:
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 164

E-2: NSRF Data Analysis Protocol

Data Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DataAnalysis.pdf
© 2015, NSRF
®
. Permission is granted to copy for use in classrooms or in meetings including Critical Friends Group
®
meetings. For other use, please call
the NSRF office at 812-330-2702 or email nsrf@nsrfharmony.org. Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional
learning community facilitated by an NSRF-certified CFG
®
coach. To learn more about professional learning communities and trainings for new or
experienced coaches, please visit the National School Reform Faculty
®
website at www.nsrfharmony.org.
Data Analysis Protocol
NSRF ,
®
Spring 2015
Purpose — Discussions around data can make people feel “on the spot” or exposed, either for themselves,
their students, or their profession. The use of a structured dialogue format provides an effective technique
for managing the discussion and maintaining its focus. This protocol allows participants to look at data with
new eyes, and ends with possible implications, next steps, and strategies.
Selecting data to share — Choose data sets or artifacts that do not lead to a single, “obvious” conclusion,
to encourage the most productive conversations. The data you choose should have enough information pres-
ent so that people have some context, but not so much information that individuals will feel overloaded or
that assumptions and judgments will be triggered. People can comfortably look at a page or two of data. If
you need to review more data, schedule multiple, separate sessions with significant breaks to avoid “data
fatigue.”
Group size — Up to 15
Preparation — Preconference with the presenters to review the data sample to ensure that it is appropri-
ate (see above). At meeting time, coach brings a timer, presenter brings sufficient copies of the data for all
participants, and all participants bring writing materials.
Possible pitfalls — Steps 4-6 should be conducted in rounds. In round 4, remind participants to literally share
only what they see, without judgments or speculations.
Prerequisites — Giving and Receiving Feedback
Steps:
1. Setup — (5 min.) Explain that the purpose of the protocol is to look at a particular set of data with
new eyes. Participants will be given only limited information about the data, intentionally, to avoid
influencing the interpretation of the data. The participants are instructed to act as “data detectives”
searching for any relevant clues as to what the data represents, what they might mean, and what im-
plications might arise for the individuals or groups being reviewed. The group’s job is to collaboratively
construct meaning around the data as they go through the steps. If participants want more context,
assure them that they will be able to add value even without more context since the point is to learn
specifically from the data at hand.
Lastly, participants are told that as they examine the data, they should keep in mind that they will be
asked to share in three rounds:
• What you actually see
• What you think the data sample means. Participants are asked to think broadly and creatively.
Assume that the data set, no matter how confusing, makes sense to people.
• What you believe the implications of that data set are (suggestions & next steps).
2. Present — (2 min.) The presenter gives a very brief statement (one sentence) defining the data, taking
care to avoid revealing any conclusions already drawn. They then distribute copies of the data.
Data Analysis Protocol page 1 of 2
Facilitation Difficulty: 50 min. Up to 15
P
Preconference
in advance
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 165

E-3: NSRF Considering Evidence Protocol

Project Zero. (n.d.). Considering Evidence. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/considering_evidence_0.pdf
Protocols are most po werful and effecti v e w hen used within an ongoing professional learning community suc h as a Critical F riends Group
®
and facilitated
b y a skilled coac h. T o learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coac hes, please visit the National Sc hool
Reform F aculty website at www .nsrfharmon y .org.
Nati o nal
Sc hoo l
Refo rm
F acu lty
Harmon y
Education
Center
www .nsrfharmon y .org
Considering Evidence Protocol
Dev eloped as part of Project Zero’ s Evidence Project, Harv ard Gr aduate Sc hool of Education — adapted
with permission.
Roles
Presenter
F acilitator w ho also participates
Group Members
T ime
Approximately 25 minutes for eac h presentation of evidence.
1. Presenter reminds the group of the question s/he is (or they are) w orking on, and then presents the
evidence that relates to this question, responding to the follo wing three prompts:
• What did y ou bring?
• Wh y did y ou bring it?
• What does it sa y in relation to the question?
2. T he group asks the presenter just a few clarifying questions.
3. T he group then discusses w hat they heard. T hey talk further about w hat this evidence tells them about
the question, r aising additional interpretations. T hey pose probing/reflecti v e questions and they talk
about w hat other evidence they w ould find helpful in considering this question. T he presenter listens
and takes notes, but does not participate in the discussion.
4. T he presenter reflects bac k to the group w hat s/he heard that w as particularly interesting, and if there is
time, engages the group in further con v ersation about next steps.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 166

E-4: NSRF Change in Practice Protocol

Thompson-Grove, G. (n.d.). A Change In Practice. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/change_practice_0.pdf
Protocols are most po werful and effecti v e w hen used within an ongoing professional learning community suc h as a Critical F riends Group
®
and facilitated
b y a skilled coac h. T o learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coac hes, please visit the National Sc hool
Reform F aculty website at www .nsrfharmon y .org.
Nati o nal
Sc hoo l
Refo rm
F acu lty
Harmon y
Education
Center
www .nsrfharmon y .org
Dev eloped b y Gene T hompson-Gro v e.
T he purpose of this protocol is to pro vide a structure for analyzing the process participants ha v e used to
make c hanges in their pr actice, and for linking that process to Inquiry . T his protocol highlights the c hanges
educators constantly make in their pr actice, and gi v es them a w a y to think more systematically about
the questions and data they use to inform those c hanges. K ey to this protocol is the discussion in step 4,
w hen the group talks in suc h a w a y that they broaden the presenter’ s thinking about ho w s/he gener ally
approac hes making c hanges in his or her pr actice.
Roles
• A facilitator (w ho also participates) should be assigned for eac h round. T he facilitator’ s role is to keep
the con v ersation mo ving through eac h phase and to facilitate the final con v ersation. T he facilitator
should also keep time.
• T he presenter shares his or her writing about a c hange s/he has made in his or her pr actice. T his
becomes the text for professional learning within the group.
• Groups of three seem to w ork well for this process, as it allo ws ev ery group member to present, and the
con v ersation builds and deepens. If, ho wev er , a presenter prefers to hear multiple perspecti v es, a group
of four or fiv e could be used.
T ime
Approximately 75 minutes for triads.
Process
1. Writing (10 minutes)
Eac h member of the group writes about a c hange he has made in his pr actice, with as muc h detail as
he can muster (see prompts, belo w). T his writing should tell only w hat happened, like a snapshot. T he
writing should be crisp and succinct, but it should be clear that the group’ s discussion will be about
w hat happened, not about the quality of the writing.

Describe a significant c hange y ou ha v e made in y our pr actice:
• What were y ou teac hing/doing?
• What c hange did y ou make?
• Wh y did y ou think y ou should make a c hange? Ho w did y ou kno w y ou should be doing something
differently? W as there a question that led to the c hange?
• Ho w did y ou decide w hat to do? W as there data or evidence of some sort that made y ou think y ou
should make a c hange?
• Ho w did y ou kno w w hether the c hange w as successful/w as w orking?
• Who else pla y ed a role?
• No w , w hat are y ou w ondering about?
A Change in Pr actice
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 167

E-5: NSRF ATLAS Looking at Data

Leahy, D. (n.d.). ATLAS Looking at Data. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/atlas_looking_data_0.pdf

Protocols are most po werful and effecti v e w hen used within an ongoing professional learning community suc h as a Critical F riends Group
®
and facilitated
b y a skilled coac h. T o learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coac hes, please visit the National Sc hool
Reform F aculty website at www .nsrfharmon y .org.
Nati o nal
Sc hoo l
Refo rm
F acu lty
Harmon y
Education
Center
www .nsrfharmon y .org
A TLAS
Looking at Data
Learning from Data is a tool to guide groups of teac hers disco v ering w hat students, educators, and the
public understands and ho w they are thinking. T he tool, dev eloped b y Eric Buc ho v ec k y , is based in part on
the w ork of the Leadership for Urban Mathematics Project and of the Assessment Communities of T eac hers
Project. T he tool also dr a ws on the w ork of Stev e Seidel and Ev angeline Harris-Stefanakis of Project Zero at
Harv ard Uni v ersity . Revised No v ember 2000 b y Gene T hompson-Gro v e for NSRF . Revised A ugust 2004 for
Looking at Data b y Dianne Leah y .
Selecting Data to Share
Data is the centerpiece of the group discussion. T he follo wing guidelines can help in selecting data or
artifacts that will promote the most interesting and producti v e group discussions. Data or artifacts that do
not lead to a single conclusion gener ally lead to ric h con v ersations.
Sharing and Discussion of Data
Discussions of some forms of data sometimes make people feel “on the spot” or exposed, either for
themselv es, for their students or for their profession. T he use of a structured dialogue format pro vides an
effecti v e tec hnique for managing the discussion and maintaining its focus.
A structured dialogue format is a w a y of organizing a group con v ersation b y clearly defining w ho should
be talking w hen and about w hat. While at first it ma y seem rigid and artificial, a clearly defined structure
frees the group to focus its attention on w hat is most important. In gener al, structured dialogue formats
allot specified times for the group to discuss v arious aspects of the w ork.
1. Getting Started
• T he facilitator reminds the group of the norms.
Note: Eac h of the next four steps should be about 10 minutes in length. It is sometimes helpful for the
facilitator to take notes.
• T he educator pro viding the data set gi v es a v ery brief statement of the data and a v oids explaining w hat
s/he concludes about the data if the data belongs to the group r ather than the presenter .

2. Describing the Data (10 Minutes)
• T he facilitator asks: “What do y ou see?”
• During this period the group gathers as muc h information as possible from the data.
• Group members describe w hat they see in data, a v oiding judgments about quality or interpretations. It
is helpful to identify w here the observ ation is being made—e.g., “On page one in the second column,
third ro w . . . “
• If judgments or interpretations do arise, the facilitator should ask the person to describe the evidence on
w hic h they are based.
• It ma y be useful to list the group’ s observ ations on c hart paper . If interpretations come up, they can be
listed in another column for later discussion during Step 3.
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 168

E-6: NSRF Connect to Work and Share Feedback Protocol

Thompson-Grove, G. (n.d.). What? Now what? So what? Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/what_so_what_0.pdf
For additional resources - http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/
DSC contact information – rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu or (213)740-8099

Protocols are most po werful and effecti v e w hen used within an ongoing professional learning community suc h as a Critical F riends Group
®
and facilitated
b y a skilled coac h. T o learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coac hes, please visit the National Sc hool
Reform F aculty website at www .nsrfharmon y .org.
Nati o nal
Sc hoo l
Refo rm
F acu lty
Harmon y
Education
Center
www .nsrfharmon y .org
T his protocol allo ws participants to quic kly connect one another to their w ork, w hile at the same time
allo wing them to get useful feedbac k from one another .
Introduction
T here is an o v er all introduction of protocol goals, norms, and agenda. T he group is then di vided into
groups of 3 or 4, eac h with a designated participant/facilitator , w ho also participates.
Small Group Acti vity — completed in groups of 3 or 4
P articipants ha v e a segment of time dev oted to examining an area of gro wth or c hallenge in their w ork.
F acilitators gently but firmly keep the group focused on task and mindful of time.
Step 1 (5 minutes)
P articipants indi vidually outline a current c hallenge or success related to their w ork.
T hey ans wer tw o questions:
WHA T? (What did I do? What am I w orking on?) and
SO WHA T ? (Wh y is this important to me?).
[optional] T alking points are briefly recorded on the top half of a sheet of newsprint b y eac h participant.
Step 2 (15 minutes per person)
Indi vidual Presentations (total of approximately 15 minutes per person)
a. F irst presenter explains w hat they’ v e written to their group. P articipants take notes/write questions.
b. Group asks tw o or three clarifying questions (only).
c. P a r t i c i p a n t s r e fl e c t b a c k : “ W h a t w e h e a r y o u s a y i n g i s … ” a n d “ W h y t h i s s e e m s i m p o r t a n t t o y o u i s … . ”
d. P articipants reflect bac k: “What we w onder about is…” or “T he questions this r aises for me are…” or
“What this means to me is…” — along with an y other focused discussion the group decides to ha v e
– i.e., “Ho w could this presenter learn about this question?” “What could this presenter bring to a
group of colleagues as a w a y to learn more about w hat is important to him or her?”
e. Presenter silently considers next steps; some groups ma y decide to hear a couple of minutes of
reflection out loud b y the presenter .
f. Repeat for eac h participant
Step 3 NO W WHA T? (5 minutes)
Eac h participant either writes silently of completes the bottom half of their o wn newsprint c hart with some
possible next steps, listed as NO W WHA T?
What? So What? No w What?
Gene T hompson-Gro v e, National Sc hool Reform F aculty , 2004
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 169

Appendix F:
Standards for Professional Learning

Source: Learning Forward. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/standards/

PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 170

Appendix G.
MCESA Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies

MCESA. (n.d.). Inquiry Based Teaching Strategies. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from
https://bloomboard.com/microcredential/view/028e5080-f84b-47ad-9ade-d955dbddb7a3

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
1

Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies
The instructor uses inquiry-based teaching strategies effectively to facilitate learning

Key Method
The instructor uses inquiry-based teaching strategies to facilitate participant learning. This includes asking
questions that elicit prior knowledge and move thinking forward, and facilitating discourse that allows
participants to learn through discussion.

Method Components
The intention of this competency is to examine ways in which the instructor uses inquiry-based teaching
strategies such as questioning and discourse to move learning forward. Although some direct instruction may
be present during the session, this competency focuses specifically on moments when inquiry is solicited.

Components for Demonstrating Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies
A. Designs questions to guide participant inquiry
- Identifies points in the instructional sequence where inquiry is appropriate
- Composes questions to guide inquiry
- Anticipates the learning trajectory for each key idea and plans questions to help move participants
forward in uncovering these

B. Implements the inquiry process
- Launches learning sequence in a way that leads to inquiry strategies
- Asks questions to guide discovery of key ideas
- Observes participants and uses questions to move their thinking forward toward understanding
key ideas

C. Ensures learning goals are met
- Compares planned questions with asked questions
- Adjusts interactions to ensure learning takes place
- Articulates evidence of participant learning

Supporting Research
§ Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.)

§ Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and
Abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf

§ Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional
Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract International Academy of South East Asia (IASEA) is a preschool - grade 12 independent, non-profit international school with the vision of being a world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future. The school has determined that personalized learning is a pathway to the achievement of the vision. A personalized approach results in more growth for each student, nurturing and challenging in order to maximize potential. Given that teacher actions are the most significant factor in student achievement, it is critical to examine professional learning for faculty with the same rationale. The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis using the Clark And Estes (2008) model to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences that impact IASEA's ability to effectively implement personalized professional learning. An outcome of this study is a plan for how IASEA may best implement personalized learning for its faculty. The study explored barriers to achieving the goal of implementation and then proposed solutions. The methodological framework used was that of a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. Data collection to inform the gaps was in the form of documentation analysis, focus group and individual interviews, and surveys. The study population consisted of representative faculty and administrators and the subsequent data analysis sought to validate assumed influences as knowledge, motivation and organization barriers and inform possible solutions. Proposed solutions for these barriers included strategic targeted deployment of instructional coaches, tools for the existing Professional Learning Community (PLC) teams to utilize to measure effectiveness, and the implementation of a schoolwide system of micro-credentials designed to support personalized professional learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

The candor to live in ongoing educational innovation

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

A gap analysis of the community school: an evaluation of the implementation of self-directed learning

PDF

Moving from great to greater: Math growth in high achieving elementary schools - A gap analysis

PDF

Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of professional learning communities at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis

PDF

Harnessing Genius Hour school-wide: examining teachers' perceptions of the implementation of personalized inquiry across an international middle school

PDF

Bringing youth development full circle: exploring limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for youth development professionals

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Casey, Treena Louise (author)

Core Title Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/01/2018

Defense Date 08/01/2018

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

Tag gap analysis,international school,OAI-PMH Harvest,personalized learning,professional development,professional learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Reeves, Douglas (committee member)

Creator Email caseynis@yahoo.com,treenaca@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-47617

Unique identifier UC11671391

Identifier etd-CaseyTreen-6600.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-47617 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CaseyTreen-6600.pdf

Dmrecord 47617

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Casey, Treena Louise

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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