Designing Effective Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program - December 1999
Chapter 3
While the authorizing legislation for the Eisenhower program does not specify the structure of supported activities in detail, the language included in the legislation nevertheless has important implications for the structure. In particular, the legislation includes language on both duration and collective participation, two of the three structural features on which we focus. With respect to duration, the legislation includes an intent to support professional development that "is of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting effect on the teacher?s performance in the classroom" (Section 2002(2)(E)). Although the legislation does not specify a required minimum duration, supported activities should be long enough to have "lasting effects."
In addition, the legislation includes language pertaining to the third structural feature-the extent to which activities encourage the collective participation of groups of teachers from the same school, department, or grade level. The legislation stipulates that LEAs should use at least 80 percent of Eisenhower funds for professional development for staff of "individual schools" that "is determined by such teachers and staff" and "to the extent practicable, takes place at the individual school site" (Section 2210(a)(1)(A)(B)). The law also suggests that funds may be used for "professional development for teams of teachers" (Section 2210(b)(3)(A)). These provisions, taken together, appear to encourage activities that are designed for collective participation.
In the paragraphs that follow, we examine the three structural features of Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities in more detail, relying on our data from a nationally representative sample of teachers who participated in Eisenhower-assisted activities during the 1997-98 year. We begin by examining the type or organizational form; we then consider the duration, and then the extent to which supported activities encourage collective participation.
Undoubtedly the most common type or form of professional development, and the form most criticized in the literature, is the "workshop." A workshop is a structured approach to professional development that occurs outside the teacher?s own classroom. It generally involves a leader or leaders with special expertise and participants who attend sessions at scheduled times--often after school, on the weekend, or during the summer (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998, pp. 42-43). Institutes, courses, and conferences are other traditional forms of professional development that share many of the features of workshops, in that they tend to take place outside of the teacher?s school or classroom; they involve a leader or leaders with special expertise, and participants who attend at scheduled times.
While traditional forms of professional development, such as workshops, institutes, courses, and conferences, are quite common, they are widely criticized as being ineffective in providing teachers with sufficient time, activities, and content necessary for increasing teacher?s knowledge and fostering meaningful changes in their classroom practice (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). As a result, there is growing interest in other "reform" types of professional development, such as study groups or mentoring and coaching. These reform types differ from traditional professional development in several respects. In particular, reform activities often take place during the regular school day. In fact, some reform activities, such as mentoring and coaching, take place, at least in part, during the process of classroom instruction or during regularly scheduled teacher planning time. By locating opportunities for professional development as part of a teacher?s regular work day, reform types of professional development may be more likely than traditional forms to make connections with classroom teaching, and they may be easier to sustain over time.
In addition, reform types of activities may be more responsive to how teachers learn (Ball, 1996), and may have more of an influence on changing teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 1995; 1996; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, & Hewson, 1996). Further, Darling-Hammond argues that these activities may be more responsive to teachers? needs and goals:
Some schools have begun to create new models of induction and ongoing professional development for teachers and principals. They feature mentoring for beginners and veterans, peer observation and coaching, local study groups and networks for developing teaching within specific subject matter areas (like the National Writing Project or the Urban Mathematics Collaboratives), teacher academies that offer ongoing seminars and courses of study tied to practice, and school-university partnerships that sponsor collaborative research, interschool visitations, and a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities developed in response to teachers? and principals? felt needs (Darling-Hammond, 1997b, p. 325).
In our survey of teachers, we asked each teacher to describe the specified Eisenhower-assisted activity in which the teacher participated, and, as part of the description, we asked the teacher to specify the type of activity, using the following set of categories:11
The first four types of activities (within-district workshops, courses for college credit, out-of-district workshops, and out-of-district conferences) are traditional in form; the remaining types of activities (teacher study groups, teacher collaborative or networks, committees, mentoring, internships, and resource centers) are reform activities. 12
Exhibit 3.1, below, displays information from the teacher survey on the types of professional development activities supported by Eisenhower funds. The data indicate that most Eisenhower-assisted activities are traditional in form. Overall, 79 percent of teachers participating in district Eisenhower-assisted activities participated in traditional types of activities, including 52 percent in in-district workshops, 4 percent in college courses, 15 percent in out-of-district workshops or institutes, and 8 percent in conferences. Similarly, 74 percent of teachers participating in SAHE-grantee activities participated in traditional types. Some teachers report that the activities in which they participated were reform types, including collaboratives and networks, internships, mentoring, resource centers, committees and task forces, and study groups, but the overall percent of teachers participating in reform activities is relatively small.
EXHIBIT 3.1
Percent of Teachers Reporting Participation in Traditional and Reform Types of Eisenhower-assisted Professional Development Activities (District n=775, SAHE Grantee n=244)13
|
Source: Mail Survey of Teachers Participating in Eisenhower supported Professional Development Activities, 1998 |
About 22 percent of teachers participating in district activities and 26 percent of teachers participating in SAHE-grantee activities are in reform types of activities, including collaboratives and networks, mentoring, and study groups. The percent of teachers in such activities appears to have risen since the previous evaluation of the Eisenhower program, conducted in 1988-89 (Knapp et al., 1991). Nevertheless, workshops and other traditional forms continue to be the predominate types of professional development supported with Eisenhower funds.14 In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, we explore some of the reasons for the continued reliance on traditional types of learning opportunities.
The type of an activity may set the context for many other features of the activity?s structure and substance. Because reform activities such as study groups and mentoring often take place during the regular school day, they may enable activities of longer duration than traditional activities; and they may make it easier to encourage the collective participation of groups of teachers from the same school or department. Given the potential importance of activity type as a key structural feature, we contrast traditional and reform activities in reporting our results throughout the chapter.
Almost all of the recent literature on teacher learning and professional development calls for professional development that is sustained over time. The duration of professional development activities is expected to be important for two reasons. First, longer activities are more likely to provide an opportunity for in-depth discussion of mathematics and science content, student conceptions and misconceptions, and pedagogical strategies. Second, activities that extend over time are more likely to allow teachers to try out new practices in the classroom and obtain feedback on their teaching.
Project Science, an Eisenhower-assisted professional development activity in Middle City, Wisconsin, illustrates an activity that extends throughout a full year. The goal of Project Science is to involve teams of teachers from different schools in establishing the capacity to develop and administer performance assessments. The project included an institute in the summer, as well as two-hour monthly meetings over the school year, from September until May. In addition, during the year, school networking sessions focused on curriculum and learning issues and on the development of assessment instruments. During these meetings, teachers shared progress, difficulties, ideas, issues, and needs.
To develop a national estimate of the duration of professional development supported by the Eisenhower program, we included items on our Teacher Activity Survey asking about two aspects of duration: the total number of contact hours spent in the professional development activity, including all components of the activity that were held during the one-year period from July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998; and the span or period of time, in days, weeks, and months, over which the activity was spread.15 Exhibit 3.2 displays our results for contact hours. The results indicate that Eisenhower-assisted activities vary widely in the amount of time involved.
In the graph, each dot represents one teacher. If only one teacher in our sample attended an activity of a particular duration (e.g., 140 hours), the teacher appears as a single dot. If more than one teacher in our sample attended an activity of a particular duration (e.g., 20 hours), the teachers are displayed in a horizontal line. The length of the line is proportional to the number of teachers. For example, the graph indicates that more district teachers attended activities lasting 20 hours than lasting 30 hours.
The number appearing on the right of each distribution is the average number of hours of instruction for that particular group of teachers. Overall, district activities last an average of 25 hours. SAHE-grantee activities last considerably longer than district activities. The average length of SAHE-grantee activities is 51 hours--nearly twice as long as district activities.
![[Data not available]](/inits/teachers/eisenhower/exhibits/exhibit3.2.gif)
|
Source: Mail Survey of Teachers Participating in Eisenhower supported Professional Development Activities, 1998. |
While district activities tend to be shorter than SAHE-grantee activities, our results indicate that the median duration of district Eisenhower-assisted activities has approximately doubled since the last evaluation of the program was conducted in 1988-89. According to the 1988-89 evaluation, in the median district, activities supported by Eisenhower funds lasted an average of 6 hours, which is less than half of the current median of 15 hours. 16
As expected, at least for districts, reform activities last longer than traditional types: the average length of reform activities is 35 hours, compared with 23 hours for traditional activities. For SAHE grantees, however, there is essentially no difference in length between traditional and reform types. In part, this may reflect the fact that many traditional SAHE-grantee activities are college courses, and college courses, at a minimum, generally last at least three hours a week for ten weeks. But courses do not fully account for the substantial length of traditional SAHE-grantee activities; workshops offered by grantees tend to be longer than those offered by districts.
One way to assess the adequacy of the number of contact hours of professional development provided by typical Eisenhower-assisted activities is to compare our results with the hours provided in widely known exemplary professional development activities in mathematics and science. One frequently cited professional development program is Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), which focuses on improving teachers? understanding of student learning in elementary arithmetic (Carpenter et al., 1989). The basis of the intervention is an 80-hour summer institute, with modest year-long follow-up. Fennema et al. (1996) have conducted a number of careful studies that show that the program has had a substantial positive influence on participating teachers? teaching practices and on student achievement as measured on tests of mathematical reasoning and problem solving. In a recent study of exemplary professional development activities in the sciences supported by NSF, ED, and other federal agencies, the activities involved lasted from a few days to eight weeks (Carey and Frechtling, 1997). Other studies include Cobb et al. (1991) and Wood and Sellers (1996), who show positive effects on student achievement in mathematical reasoning, based on a professional development activity lasting about 150 hours; and the Ohio State Systemic Initiative (Project Discovery), which produced positive changes in teaching practice, based on an intensive six-week (240 hours) summer program (Supovitz, 1996).
Many SAHE-grantee professional development activities have a duration (in hours) comparable to CGI, and this suggests that, at least potentially, these activities are sufficiently intensive to help teachers achieve worthwhile change in teaching practice. Typically, most district Eisenhower-assisted activities are substantially shorter than exemplary activities in mathematics and science.
In addition to asking about the hours of professional development provided, we also asked about the span of the activity, or the period over which the sessions or components of the activity were spread. Although hours and span are correlated, they measure different aspects of duration, both of which are important in providing teachers with sufficient opportunities for in-depth study, interaction, and reflection.
The results, displayed in Exhibit 3.3, show that some Eisenhower-assisted activities take place over a one-day period, while others extend over a period longer than one month and some extend six months or more. The data indicate that, overall, about 27 percent of teachers in district Eisenhower-assisted activities report a span more than one month, while 56 percent of teachers in IHE activities report a span more than one month. As anticipated, there is a substantial difference in span between traditional and reform types. For districts, 23 percent of teachers in traditional activities report that these activities last more than a month, while 41 percent of reform activities exceed one month. Similarly, for IHE/NPOs, 55 percent of teachers in traditional activities report that they last longer than a month, while 73 percent of teachers in reform activities report that they exceed one month.
Many Eisenhower-assisted activities take place over a very short span of time. Overall, 56 percent of district activities span a period of less than one week (less than a day through four days) and 19 percent of SAHE-grantee activities span a period of less than one week.
|
Source: Mail Survey of Teachers Participating in Eisenhower supported Professional Development Activities, 1998. |
There is a growing interest in professional development that is designed for groups of teachers from the same school, department, or grade level. Although professional development designed for groups of teachers is sometimes thought to reinforce the status quo, it also has a number of potential advantages. First, teachers who work together are more likely to have the opportunity to discuss concepts, skills, and problems that arise during their professional development experiences. Second, teachers who are from the same school, department, or grade are likely to share common curriculum materials, course offerings, and assessment requirements. By engaging in joint professional development, they may be able to integrate what they learn with other aspects of their instructional context.
Finally, by focusing on a group of teachers from the same school, professional development may help sustain changes in practice over time, as some teachers leave the school?s teaching force and other new teachers join the faculty. Professional development may help contribute to a shared professional culture, in which teachers in a school or teachers who teach the same grade or subject develop a common understanding of instructional goals, methods, problems, and solutions. (See, for example, Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993.) Collective participation in the same activity can provide a forum for debate and improving understanding, which increases teachers? capacity to grow (Ball, 1996).
Knapp, in a 1997 review of the effects of systemic reform in mathematics and science, gives particular attention to the importance of viewing change in classroom teaching as a problem of organizational as well as individual learning:
Where and how does individual learning about challenging science instruction, for example, get deposited in organizational routines? How does a culture supportive of science instruction take root in a school and sustain itself beyond the original cast of characters who helped set in motion a shift in organizational culture? (p. 258)
Little research is available on the effects of collective approaches to professional development, but there is some evidence that it can be effective in changing teaching practice. Newmann and associates, in a study of 24 "restructuring schools," note that, in the more successful schools:
Professional development tended to be focused on groups of teachers within the school or the faculty as a whole. Making use of internal as well as external expertise, staff development activities took advantage of local skills and sharing of effective practice. Including internal experts as staff developers reinforced teachers? sense of commitment to their school?s goals (Newmann et al., 1996).
Maple City, Ohio, one of our case-study districts, illustrates an Eisenhower-assisted activity that encouraged collective participation similar in form to the learning opportunities Newmann et al. describe. The district offers several subject-specific, half- to full-day Eisenhower-assisted inservices by grade level. The inservices are led by the math and science coordinators or by someone outside the district. At the inservices, teachers share information and instructional practices, review instructional materials, and engage in activities to improve their skills. They are hands-on and support an integrated approach to instruction, including an emphasis on bridging instruction across contiguous grade levels. Teacher-Leaders help teachers implement new practices by serving as mentors in their classrooms. They plan with them, team-teach, and gather necessary supplies. In addition, the district provides teachers with time during the school day to get together and discuss what works and what does not.
To assess the prevalence of collective participation in Eisenhower-assisted activities, we asked each teacher in our national sample to indicate whether the activity in which the teacher participated was designed for all teachers in a school or set of schools, or all teachers in the teacher?s department or grade level.17 The results, displayed in Exhibit 3.4, show that about 20 percent of teachers in district Eisenhower activities report that the activity was designed for all teachers in a department or grade level, and 19 percent report that the activity was for all teachers in a school. Fewer teachers in SAHE-grantee activities report either form of collective participation: seven percent indicate that their activity was designed for all teachers in a school, and 11 percent for all teachers in a department or grade level.
![[Data not available]](/inits/teachers/eisenhower/exhibits/exhibit3.4.gif)
|
Source: Mail Survey of Teachers Participating in Eisenhower supported Professional Development Activities, 1998. |
Because reform activities frequently occur during the school day, and often involve work in the classroom, we had anticipated that reform activities would be more likely to be designed to promote collective participation than traditional forms. Our data, however, show no difference between traditional and reform activities in collective participation, for either districts or IHE/NPOs. This result is consistent with data from some of our case sites. In several sites with mentors and coaches, for example, the mentors moved across schools to work with individual teachers. We also observed study groups whose membership crossed school and department boundaries.
By and large, most Eisenhower-assisted activities are designed for teachers as individuals. This pattern is consistent with other data on professional development, which shows that collective participation is relatively uncommon--indeed, less common overall than our data indicate is the case for Eisenhower-assisted activities. For example, according to Shields, Marsh, and Adelman (1998), very few State Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) have focused their professional development efforts on whole schools or departments, and those that did focused on just a few sites. As Shields, Marsh, and Adelman argue, one reason for this may be the resources required: providing sustained, intensive professional development for all teachers in a school may require more resources than are available. Programs thus face a tradeoff between providing longer-term professional development for some teachers, or focusing on whole schools.18
Overall, our data from a national sample of teachers who have attended Eisenhower-assisted activities show that most teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted activities are in activities that are traditional in form, although about 20 percent of teachers in district activities and one-quarter of teachers in SAHE-grantee activities are in reform types, such as study groups and mentoring. In addition, our data indicate that Eisenhower-assisted activities supported through the SAHE component of the program are substantially longer in duration than activities supported under the district component of the program. Finally, most Eisenhower-assisted activities are focused on individual teachers, although about 20 percent of teachers in district activities report that activities are focused on whole schools or departments.
|
Indicator 3.2 Sustained Professional Development. By 1998, 35 percent of teachers participating in district-level Eisenhower-assisted activities will participate in activities that are a component of professional development that extends over the school year; by 2000, over 50 percent will. |
In summary, then, on average, SAHE-grantee activities appear to share more of the structural features associated with high-quality professional development than do district activities. District activities on the average are shorter, but the average duration has increased substantially since the last evaluation was conducted. In the following section, we turn to the core features of the experiences that take place during Eisenhower-assisted activities.
12 The survey included a final category, "other organized forms of professional development," and asked the teacher to describe the form. We reclassified all responses in to one of the 10 forms listed.
13 Due to missing data caused by teacher non-response to particular survey questions, the number of teacher responses varies across survey items.
14 The reported results concern the percent of teachers in reform activities. The percent of Eisenhower funds spent on reform activities may be higher, if reform activities cost more per teacher than traditional activities.
15 Teachers who completed their surveys before the end of the 1997-98 school year were asked to estimate the number of additional hours the activity would last during the remaining months on the school year.
16 The 1988-89 evaluation collected data on duration from districts rather than teachers, so a comparison of results from the 1988-89 and the current evaluation should be interpreted as providing an indication of the general magnitude of the change rather than a precise numerical estimate. See Knapp et al. (1991, p. 109)
17 Teachers were also given the following options: teachers as individuals, teachers as representatives of their departments, grade level, or schools, and other configuration. Teachers could check all that applied.
18 One exception to this general pattern may be found in the recently established NSF Local Systemic Change program, which incorporate a requirement that all elementary teachers in the target area participate in at least 100 hours of professional development, and all secondary teachers participate in at least 130 hours (Weiss et al., 1998).
19 The Indicator requires that activities "are a component of professional development that extends over the school year." It is possible that some short-term Eisenhower activities are linked to other activities, and these "sequences" of activities extend over the school year. If so, the percent of Eisenhower-assisted activities extending more than six months may understate the percent of activities that "are a component of professional development that extends over the school year."
 [Chapter 3 - Teachers' Experiences in Eisenhower-Assisted Professional Development Activities] |
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon} |
 [Core Features] |