Assignment 6

77 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Professional Development that Changes Teaching and Improves Learning Amy A. Germuth

EvalWorks

ach year school districts invest financial resources in professional development for their educators.

Beyond the cost, educators spend countless hours in workshops, training, webinars, and other learning

environments intended to enhance and deepen their knowledge and skills to increase student success. Too often

the return on this investment is minimal in learning transfer for educators or measurable academic gains for

students and maximum in participant dissatisfaction. Substantial research in effective professional development

models exists. When applied to professional development, measurable change in the learning process occurs.

In 2015 WakeEd Partnership and Wake County Public School System (WCPSS), North Carolina’s largest

school system, applied that research to the design of an engaging, results-oriented professional development

opportunity for elementary and secondary educators - SummerSTEM. WakeEd Partnership is an education non-

profit (501c3) that exists to inform, mobilize and engage the business community in support of strong public schools

in Wake County. During its 35-year history WakeEd has differentiated itself as an organization dedicated to

supporting educators through professional development and resources. SummerSTEM is a hands-on professional

development experience that addresses the needs of educators - adult learners - and brings real-world lessons to the

classroom. As part of SummerSTEM, teachers receive seven days of professional development (five in the summer

and two in the fall) in project-based learning following the Buck Institute for Education Gold Standard model.

Additionally, they are immersed in STEM businesses and industries to experience work processes and workforce

development needs. Teachers, who participate as teams of two, remain focused on integrating the components of

PBL with lessons learned from their immersion, as they create Project-Based Learning (PBL) units and transform

their classroom culture. Throughout the experience they are coached by current WCPSS teachers. SummerSTEM

culminates in STEMposium, a public event in which teachers and their students share their PBL outcomes.

Effective Professional Development

Effective teaching, defined as "instruction that enables a wide range of students to learn" (Darling-

Hammond, 2012), is the strongest school-level determinant of student achievement (Hanushek, 2011; Leithwood et

al., 2004; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Teacher professional

development that supports effective teaching practices is therefore critically important for improving student

learning. Despite this, most professional development programs experienced by teachers involve traditional

workshops (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009), which rarely change teachers’ practice and have no positive effect on

student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007; Bush, 1984).

Research on teacher professional development reveals that while teachers may learn new practices, they

rarely apply them to their work. This is often due to lack of support during the implementation stage, including lack

of encouragement and guidance when implementing new approaches in the classroom. Thus, professional

development must be structured in such a manner that it inspires teachers to change their practice. Research into

effective professional development, defined as professional development that changes teachers’ practice, reveals

the following:

E

https: / /do i .org/10.46767/kfp.2016-0025

78 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Teachers desire professional development that supports their autonomy, mastery, and purpose. For

professional development to be effective, it must be based on research findings about theories of motivation and

learning. In his seminal book Drive (2009) Daniel Pink identified the three main drivers that cause persons to strive to

do their best work: autonomy (the desire to direct one’s own life), mastery (the urge to continually improve at

something that matters), and purpose (the desire to do what we do in the service of something larger than

ourselves).

Ongoing, embedded professional development is needed to ensure learning transfer to practice. Research

has shown that only ten percent of teachers can transfer a new skill to actual practice when no additional support is

provided. In comparison, embedded support for implementation can result in over 90% of teachers transferring the

skills they developed to their practice (Bush, 1984; Truesdale, 2003). Additional research reveals that coaching is one

way to successfully change teacher practice (Showers, 1984; Slinger, 2004; Knight 2007; Batt, 2009; Stephens et al.,

2007; Knight and Cornett, 2009), including modeling by coaches before teachers attempt implementation (Roy, 2005;

Goldberg, 2002; Rice, 2001; Black, 1998; Licklider, 1997).

It takes time for teachers to become comfortable enough with new skills to use them with their students.

Studies show that effective professional development programs require anywhere from 30 to 80 hours of

instruction, practice, and coaching before teachers master new skills (French, 1997; Banilower, 2002; Joyce &

Showers, 2002; Yoon et al., 2007). One-shot or fragmented workshops lasting 14 hours or less show no statistically

significant effect on student learning (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).

Developing content knowledge is particularly important in STEM professional development. Particularly for

math and science professional development programs, research indicates that to improve student learning most

teachers need to acquire math and science content knowledge as well as pedagogical techniques specific to the

STEM content area. (Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2008; Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Miratrix, 2012).

Effective professional learning communities support teacher collaboration and changes practice. Structured

and focused professional learning communities that support teacher collaboration and risk-taking change teacher

practice and increase student achievement (Dunne et al., 2000; Rosenholtz, 1989; Louis & Marks, 1998; Little, 1982).

Student success has also been shown to be higher in schools with strong professional communities where collective

responsibility, collaboration, and collegiality among teachers are fostered (Little, 1982; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995;

Louis et al., 1996; Vescio et al., 2008). Research on teacher collaboration has shown that teachers who collaborate

with colleagues are more effective, have higher student achievement (Kraft & Papay, 2014), and are more willing to

adopt new practices (Granovetter & Soong, 1983). In addition, teachers improve at greater rates when they work in

schools where collaboration is the norm (Ronfeldt et al., 2015).

Administrator support is key to teachers’ willingness to change their practices. School administrators are

second only to teachers in their effect on student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004). Their influence can come in

the form of instructional leadership, expectations of codes of conduct and climate, and support (verbal, written,

financial) for change. Teachers whose administrators support their efforts apply new skills and strategies more

frequently than teachers whose administrators do not provide such support. (Showers & Joyce, 1996).

Additionally, many of these tenets are included in Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning:

• Learning Communities: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all

79 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

students occurs within learning communities committed to continuous improvement, collective

responsibility, and goal alignment.

• Leadership: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students requires

skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create support systems for professional learning.

• Implementation:  Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students

applies research on change and sustains implementation of professional learning for long-term change.

SummerSTEM: By Design

In a survey of SummerSTEM participants (66 out of 193 for a 33% response rate) from the past two years,

98% reported that they would recommend SummerSTEM to their colleagues. This endorsement is because

SummerSTEM represents professional development that is designed with the teacher -- the adult learner -- in mind.

Participants come to SummerSTEM in teams of two, representing various disciplines and roles within the school.

They must have the foundational skills necessary for effective collaboration. The application process sets the tone

for the program’s rigor and expectations. The participants must not only receive their principal’s endorsement, but

must also sign an agreement that outlines the program’s requirements: a) attend each of the seven days of the

program, b) develop a Project-Based Learning unit, c) present the unit and its impact at the year-end culminating

event (STEMposium), and d) share the SummerSTEM and PBL experience with colleagues in at least two formats.

Educators are compensated for their time and their work, including stipends for participating in the summer

workshop and payment for curriculum development.

SummerSTEM balances structure with learner autonomy throughout the program. Once accepted into the

program, teams rank the career clusters they wish to explore. Learner choice is embedded and evident from the

start. Career clusters reflect the STEM industries of the host organizations.

SummerSTEM’s unique design is apparent from the first day. Participants come to the workshop as teams

that have been endorsed by their principals. Their SummerSTEM coaches, who have contacted them prior to the

first day, meet with them to create a kind of “advisory group” that will be their anchor placement throughout the

eight days of the program. This coach, a master teacher from WCPSS, has successfully implemented PBL and

coached others to do the same. The coaches guide participants throughout the program; since they are colleagues

and teacher leaders, they cultivate authenticity and credibility with the teachers.

On Day 1 of SummerSTEM, teachers self-identify their level of PBL design skill: novice, proficient, or

advanced. This creates opportunities for all learners to develop mastery in new areas. Teachers do not have to

participate in this portion of the program with their teammate. SummerSTEM coaches facilitate leveled PBL

workshops throughout the week when participants are not immersed in a STEM industry experience, a total of 2.5

days of professional development.

In the novice session, the coach’s approach combines inquiry with didactic instruction to teach the essential

project design elements of the Buck Institute Gold-Standard PBL process: Challenging Problem or Question;

Sustained Inquiry; Authenticity; Student Voice and Choice; Reflection; Critique and Revision; and Public Product. The

goal is for novices to understand the PBL components at a knowledge level. They will apply this knowledge as they

continue their work with their teammate during the school year. The proficient workshop builds on the PBL

framework, with focus on specific challenge areas, like classroom culture, the “messy middle,” developing

collaborative teams, project and process management, and other topics that are sourced from the participants’ level

of understanding and experience with PBL. The goal is for participants to improve areas of their practice that have

80 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

challenged them in prior PBL experiences. The coach provides didactic instruction and one-to-one support based on

areas of need. Finally, the advanced session functions as a seminar, with participants sharing problems of practice in

their work with PBL that the “community of learners” who are present explore with them. At this level, the coach

functions as a facilitator for the group. Throughout the week, participants may alter their perceived skill level with

PBL and move between the differentiated groups.

Professional learning, pedagogy, child development, classroom culture, are the standard areas for educator

professional development. SummerSTEM’s industry immersion experience brings the unexpected to the program.

Each team participates in 2.5 days of STEM immersion. Host business/organization sites structure their immersion

with the PBL cycle in mind. They integrate information about their core business, workforce development, and talent

pipeline needs with hands-on engagement, thus providing teachers with experience in problem simulation and

professional processes essential to the site’s daily operations. Teachers engage with diverse employees, who are

subject matter experts, from across the business, gaining insight into the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and aptitudes

students need.

In addition to the industry immersion experience, educators spend a half-day in a community college class

that aligns with the career cluster. This experience serves many purposes, including broadening educators’

understanding of the value and resources of technical post-secondary programs. Educators benefit from exploring

the certificate, diploma, and degree programs of high-need career areas. The immersion also provides teachers with

an opportunity to do the work that is required in these applied STEM fields. This demonstrates to teachers the need

for all students to understand math and science and to develop the essential skills of collaboration, critical thinking,

communication, and creativity.

Embedded in the two and half days of professional development participants are provided blocks of time to

work with their school teams to process and synthesize their pedagogical growth as well as the “nuggets” gained

from their immersion experience. Their coaches, who have participated with them in the industry immersion,

support their leap from immersion to PBL unit development. The coach’s goal for each team is the successful design

and implementation of a PBL unit that may be submitted to the school district’s curriculum warehouse for use by all

WCPSS educators.

The SummerSTEM five-day experience serves as a launch for teachers’ development of a PBL unit. During

the academic year, the coach supports their efforts. Essential to teachers’ success is the addition of two professional

development days, spaced one month apart, during the first semester of the school year. These days re-ignite

educators’ passion for PBL, provide additional learning opportunities, and, most importantly, include dedicated time

for them to continue developing their PBL unit. Educators can experiment with their PBL unit while receiving

coaching; they are encouraged to review and revise their work to best support student proficiency and learning

transfer, key components for impactful professional development.

SummerSTEM culminates in STEMposium, a public display of the impact of the immersion experience and

the integration of teachers’ PBL units with their classes. Educator and student representatives meet with colleagues

and community leaders and provide them testimony about the program’s effectiveness. Students are the real

evidence of SummerSTEM’s impact and, most frequently, it is the students who act as spokespersons for

SummerSTEM’s success.

Teachers devote 65–75 hours to the SummerSTEM learning process. The combination of differentiated

instruction, coaching, and engaging experiences along with the requirements of presenting a high-impact unit lead

81 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

to the sustained interest, engagement, and enthusiasm necessary for successful professional development. Thus,

actual learning transfer occurs.

SummerSTEM and Best Practices in Professional Development

The table below outlines best practices in teacher professional development as identified through research and

explains where SummerSTEM reflects these best practices.

Best Practices SummerSTEM

Supports teachers’ autonomy,

mastery, and purpose

● Provides teachers with the opportunity to develop PBLs on a

topic of interest to them and with the support of a STEM host.

Incorporates active learning

● Teachers immerse in STEM businesses and community

college simulations as they work in pairs to develop materials,

videos, etc. related to their PBL.

Uses models of effective practice

● PBL is a dynamic student-centered instructional approach

whereby students gain deeper knowledge through exploring real-

world problems.

Provides coaching and expert

support

● Select colleagues who have graduated from SummerSTEM

lead the professional development and provide ongoing support as

coaches.

Offers feedback and reflection

● Teachers are provided time to reflect on how to improve their

PBL to ensure greater student learning. Coaches offer guidance

throughout the process.

Is ongoing and embedded ● Teachers spend five days in the summer and two days in the

fall working with coaches on their PBLs.

Provides time for teachers to

develop new skills

● Across the seven months/ 56+ hours of formal support,

teachers learn how to develop and implement effective PBLs.

Develops teachers’ content

knowledge

● Teachers’ immersions with STEM organizations support new

learning and skill development.

Supports learning communities /

teacher collaboration ● Teachers work in pairs as part of a larger learning community.

Is supported by administrators

● As part of the application to Summer STEM, administrators

submit a Principal’s Endorsement, in which they commit to

providing time for teacher collaboration and coverage for

professional development. In addition, administrators create

opportunities for teachers to share their SummerSTEM experience

and PBL with faculty through Professional Learning Teams (PLTs)

and teacher-led professional development.

82 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Participants reported that SummerSTEM’s design positively contributed to their overall experience. Over

90% of participants reported that supplemental professional days and participating as a school team positively

affected their experience and 79% indicated that receiving coaching positively affected their experience. As one

teacher reported, “Time is always a limited resource in the world of teaching. Having that time set aside for us to

devote to our PBL units was awesome. Also, being able to come together with the other SummerSTEM members

was helpful because we were able to share our ideas and utilize each other.” Another explained, “I think that one of

the issues with PD for teachers is that there is never any built-in time to reflect, ask questions, get feedback, or start

implementing what you learned. SummerSTEM was amazing because it included time to work on your unit, time

with coaches to ask questions or get clarification, and time to talk with other teachers/groups to get feedback and

other opinions. I think the extra days were a part of making this so successful!” Summarily, teachers know their

content and they “make the leap” from their SummerSTEM experience to their classroom, their colleagues, and

their schools.

A review of SummerSTEM’s design further reveals that it supports a variety of essential teaching standards

linked to Standard IV of North Carolina’s Teacher Evaluation Rubric (a copy of which is included in the Appendix).

Standard IV: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Their Students includes the following subcomponents:

● Teachers know the ways in which learning takes place, and they know the appropriate levels of

intellectual, physical, social, and emotional development of their students.

● Teachers plan instruction appropriate for their students.

● Teachers use a variety of instructional methods.

● Teachers integrate and utilize technology in their instruction.

● Teachers help students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

● Teachers help students work in teams and develop leadership qualities.

● Teachers communicate effectively.

● Teachers use a variety of methods to assess student learning.

SummerSTEM supports appropriate instructional planning using a variety of methods and incorporating

technology under the framework of Project-Based Learning. Students’ critical thinking, problem-solving skill, and

leadership skills are developed through Project-Based Learning as they collaborate to answer the overarching

question. As part of SummerSTEM, teachers develop plans for formative and summative assessments of students’

understanding and learning and use these data to review and improve their PBL lessons.

83 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Evaluation of SummerSTEM

To evaluate SummerSTEM, EvalWorks, a local firm with experience evaluating national/federal, state, and

local STEM initiatives conducted surveys, focus groups, and teacher and student interviews to understand impacts.

Evaluation questions were designed to determine teacher development in the four levels of professional

impact identified by Kirkpatrick (1994): Reaction (how participants perceive the professional development), Learning

(the extent to which professional development has improved knowledge and/or skills), Behavior (the extent to which

those who received the professional development have changed their behavior because of what they learned in the

professional development), and Results (the impact of participants’ behavioral changes due to the professional

development). Using this model as a framework, the evaluation of SummerSTEM sought to understand the degree

to which participants believed that the professional development was relevant, meaningful, useful, and worthwhile;

the degree to which participants learned how to develop and implement PBL units (or improve their development

and implementation of PBL units); the degree to which participants developed and implemented PBL units or other

activities/methods they learned related to PBLs in the interim; and the impact of implementation of PBL units on

students’ engagement, understanding, and achievement.

The evaluation utilized a mixed-methods concurrent design, giving equal priority to both quantitative and

qualitative methods (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). A mixed-methods approach to conducting

evaluation is different from using multiple methods or a combination of methods in that data from one type of

method (quantitative or qualitative) is merged, connected, or embedded with data from the other type of method

(Creswell & Clark, 2006). The study’s quantitative and qualitative methods occur simultaneously and are assigned

equal weighting in the interpretation of findings.

SummerSTEM: Teacher Impacts

At the conclusion of SummerSTEM, participants are asked to indicate the degree of impact their

SummerSTEM experience had on such areas as instruction, collaboration with colleagues, views about themselves

as teachers and teacher leaders, and the degree to which they have assumed new responsibilities. They also rate the

changes they have seen among their students. Ratings are on a 5-point scale as follows: Very Small, Small,

Moderate, Large, and Very Large. Two years of data have been collected thus far.

The percentage of SummerSTEM participants that reported that SummerSTEM had changed their

instruction and increased their collaboration to a large or very large degree was 83% and 79%, respectively.

Participants also reported that their business immersion experience and the program’s coaching helped

them identify new ways to strengthen their role as facilitator, thus engaging more students and supporting them to

take responsibility for their own learning. As one teacher shared, “This PBL unit opened a door for our 3rd graders

and one was offered a scholarship to attend a summer camp at the Arboretum. This student comes from a low-

income family and would not have been able to attend without this program. PBL and SummerSTEM has taught

teachers to network and take advantage of what the community has to offer. This experience may change this child's

84 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

whole future for the better. “

Comments by educators on SummerSTEM’s impact include the following:

“The information presented at SummerSTEM empowered me with processes, procedures, and

protocol to effectively lead my students and team through PBL creation and implementation.”

“SummerSTEM has motivated me to empower a global approach and leadership skills with my

students. It has also inspired me as an educator to motivate others in my profession!”

“I cannot stress enough how this experience was truly amazing and cannot wait until next year to

see what my students come up with. My students owned this experience and as their teacher I was

humbled by their actions. Please continue projects like this because it makes the content relevant

and the students are actively engaged.”

“I have written a grant to help with other PBL opportunities within the school. I have also worked to

get other teachers in our school to try PBL or participate in more PBL professional development.”

“SummerSTEM empowered me to be a teacher that is willing to take risks for her students. Giving

students creative freedom and choice in a project, instead of the traditional teacher-leads-

everything, allowed them to grow in a way I didn't realize was possible.”

“I now have knowledge of the types of jobs available to my students and the skills needed to

perform them. I make links to my kids ALL the time now. Even though they are elementary

students, I try to plant the seed for possible jobs for the future based on their talents and interests.”

“Many other teachers in our school have inquired about PBL experiences. Several have asked to

attend next year's SummerSTEM training.”

97% of teachers indicated that participation in SummerSTEM largely or very largely increased their

view of themselves as a teacher leader, 88% indicated that they had taken on new responsibilities, and 85%

indicated that SummerSTEM had positively affected their view of teaching to a large or very large degree.

For over half of participants, SummerSTEM had a large or very large positive effect on their decision to

remain in teaching.

Following are several exemplary comments:

“I really enjoyed the process of it all. With the students, teachers, community and specialists and

anyone else that was involved. It just shows that this profession is ever changing and ever growing

85 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

which just makes me want to stick around to see what will happen next!”

“Sometimes as the years go by, you wonder if you really make a difference in our students’ lives.

This experience validates why we do what we do. I know I make a difference as a teacher and hope

to continue to inspire on a daily basis.”

“Knowing that companies are willing to volunteer time and resources to my classroom helps me

believe that what I'm doing is important.”

“SummerSTEM helped me to see the "bigger picture" that lies before our students in terms of their

future. I now better understand that I need to plan and facilitate tasks that allow students to build

soft skills to use in their future professional lives.”

“I have enjoyed the freedom of choice my students have to explore the world around them. They

feel more confident about their learning and I feel like more like a facilitator and less like the only

decision maker in the classroom.”

SummerSTEM: Student Impacts

Over three-quarters of SummerSTEM participants reported that SummerSTEM had a large or very large

impact on students’ learning, engagement, collaboration, and leadership, with over 90% indicating that it had a large

or very large impact on the degree to which their students took ownership of their learning.

Participants cited the following as evidence for their agreement to the above statements:

● Student projects /products resulting from PBL (91%)

● Student oral presentations demonstrating deeper understanding of core objectives and content

(67%)

● Student or class completion of assignments (65%)

● Student performance on teacher-made assessments, including formative and summative

assessments (58%)

● Student performance on standardized assessments (20%)

SummerSTEM: A Model for Effective Teacher Professional Development

“I thoroughly enjoyed my SummerSTEM experience. The coaches who helped were extremely

supportive. The program was SUPER organized and well thought out. I enjoyed the support of the

community / business and being able to experience a day in the life of a scientist, etc.--a field trip

86 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

for teachers! Mostly, I appreciate that I was able to apply what I had learned to my teaching!”

The structure of SummerSTEM (differentiated professional development, team collaboration time, use of

PBL coaches) is critical to its success. The time for collaboration and reflection, especially the professional

development days during the school year, was highly valued. SummerSTEM participants used the business

immersion as a catalyst for developing appropriate and effective PBL units, and for understanding the knowledge,

skills, and behaviors employers are seeking in potential employees.

“SummerSTEM was a fantastic experience. Networking with the professionals at the various

businesses and learning about the Scrum project management style has broadened my knowledge

about current real-life opportunities. It has transformed the way that I introduce, implement, and

manage student projects. It was also refreshing and rejuvenating for me personally, which

translates to putting more excitement and energy into my craft.”

As a result of developing their PBL units, teachers increased their collaboration with others and changed

their classroom practices. Many participants indicated that they saw themselves increasingly as teacher leaders,

which led them to take on new responsibilities and roles, and positively affected not only their view of teaching, but

also, for over half of the participants, their decision to remain teaching. The PBL units benefitted students by

increasing their opportunities to collaborate and lead, and, as a result, encouraging them to assume greater

ownership of their learning. Taken together, findings are that SummerSTEM is a model for effective teacher

professional development that positively impacts students by changing teachers’ practices and mindsets.

“Thank you for this career changing experience. I have completely revived my instructional

methods and have a renewed passion for a job that I already loved.”

REFERENCES

Banilower, E. (2002). Results of the 2001-2002 study of the impact of the local systemic change initiative on student

achievement in science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Batt, E. G. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered

instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (2010), 997-1005.

Black, S. (1998). Money and the art of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 19 (2), 14-17.

Bush, R.N. (1984). Effective staff development in making schools more effective. Proceedings of three state

conferences. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research

designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social

sciences (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., & Richardson, N. (2009). Professional learning in the learning

profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH: National

Staff Development Council.

87 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching.

Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

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. Stanford, CA:

National Staff Development Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends: Teachers helping to improve student learning. Phi Delta

Kappa International Research Bulletin (CEDR) (28), 9-12.

French, V.W. (1997). Teachers must be learners, too: Professional development and national teaching standards.

NASSP Bulletin, 81 (585), 38-44.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001, Winter). What makes professional development

effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-

945.

Goldberg, M.F. (2002). 15 school questions and discussion: From class size, standards, and school safety to

leadership and more. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Scarecrow Education.

Granovetter, M. & Soong, R. (1983). Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical

Sociology 9 (3), 165-179.

Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.

Hanushek, E.A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality (PDF). Economics of Education Review, 30, 466-

479.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40 (1), 4-10.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Knight, J. & Cornett, J. (2009). Studying the impact of instructional coaching. Lawrence, KS: Kansas Coaching Project

for the Center on Research on Learning.

Kraft, M.A. & Papay, J.P. (2004). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development?

Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Effectiveness and Policy Analysis 36

(4), 476-500.

Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Learning Forward.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S.E., and Wahlstrom, K. L. (2004). Review of research: How leadership

influences student learning. University of Minnesota and University of Toronto.

Licklider, B.L. (1997). Breaking ranks: Changing the in-service institution. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (585), 9- 22.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American

Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

88 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives in reforming urban

schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student

experience in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106 (4), 532-575.

Newman, F. & Wehlage, G. (1997). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the

Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Document Service, Wisconsin Center for

Educational Research.

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., and Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? (PDF). Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.

Pink, Daniel H. (2009) Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books, New York, New York.

Rice, J.K. (2001). Fiscal implications of new directions in teacher professional development. School Business Affairs,

67 (4), 19-24.

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and

student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475-514.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

Roy, P. (2005). A fresh look at follow-up. Retrieved from http://www.nscd.org/library/publications/ results/res2-

05roy.cfm.

Showers, B. (1984). Peer coaching: A strategy for facilitating transfer of training. Eugene, OR: Centre for Educational

Policy and Management.

Slinger, J. L. (2004). Cognitive coaching: Impact on student and influence on teachers. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 65 (7), 2567.

Stephens, D., Morgan, D., Donnelly, A., DeFord, D., Young, J. Seaman, M., et al. (2007). The South Carolina reading

Initiative: NCTE’s reading initiative as a statewide staff development project. Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Truesdale, W. T. (2003). The implementation of peer coaching on the transferability of staff development to

classroom practice in two selected Chicago public elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International,

64 (11), 3923.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities

on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W-Y., Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher

professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

89 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

Appendix A

Standard IV: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Their Students

Teachers know the ways in which learning takes place, and they know the appropriate levels of intellectual, physical, social, and emotional development of their students.

Teachers know how students think and learn. Teachers understand the influences that affect individual student learning (development, culture, language proficiency, etc.) and differentiate their instruction accordingly. Teachers keep abreast of evolving research about student learning. They adapt resources to address the strengths and weaknesses of their students.

• Know how students think and learn • Understand the influences on student learning and differentiate instruction • Keep abreast of evolving research • Adapt resources to address the strengths and weaknesses of students

Teachers plan instruction appropriate for their students.

Teachers collaborate with their colleagues and use a variety of data sources for short- and long-range planning based on the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. These plans reflect an understanding of how students learn. Teachers engage students in the learning process. They understand that instructional plans must be constantly monitored and modified to enhance learning. Teachers make the curriculum responsive to cultural diversity and to individual learning needs.

• Collaborate with colleagues • Use data for short- and long-range planning • Engage students in the learning process § Monitor and modify plans to enhance student learning • Respond to cultural diversity and learning needs of students

Teachers use a variety of instructional methods.

Teachers choose the methods and techniques that are most effective in meeting the needs of their students as they strive to eliminate achievement gaps. Teachers employ a wide range of techniques including information and communication technology, learning styles, and differentiated instruction.

• Choose methods and materials as they strive to eliminate achievement gaps • Employ a wide range of techniques using information and communication technology, learning styles, and

differentiated instruction

Teachers integrate and utilize technology in their instruction.

Teachers know when and how to use technology to maximize student learning. Teachers help students use technology to learn content, think critically, solve problems, discern reliability, use information, communicate, innovate, and collaborate.

• Know appropriate use • Help students use technology to learn content, think critically, solve problems, discern reliability, use

information, communicate, innovate, and collaborate

Teachers help students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Teachers encourage students to ask questions, think creatively, develop and test innovative ideas, synthesize knowledge and draw conclusions. They help students exercise and communicate sound reasoning; understand connections; make complex choices; and frame, analyze, and solve problems.

Teachers help students work in teams and develop leadership qualities.

Teachers teach the importance of cooperation and collaboration. They organize learning teams in order to help students define roles, strengthen social ties, improve communication and collaborative skills, interact with people from different cultures and backgrounds, and develop leadership qualities.

● Teach the importance of cooperation and collaboration.

90 Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) Vol. 2 Issue 1 December 2018

● Organize learning teams in order to help students define roles, strengthen social ties, improve communication and collaborative skills, interact with people from different cultures and backgrounds, and develop leadership qualities

Teachers communicate effectively.

Teachers communicate in ways that are clearly understood by their students. They are perceptive listeners and are able to communicate with students in a variety of ways even when language is a barrier. Teachers help students articulate thoughts and ideas clearly and effectively.

● Communicate clearly with students in a variety of ways ● Assist students in articulating thoughts and ideas clearly and effectively

Teachers use a variety of methods to assess what each student has learned.

Teachers use multiple indicators, including formative and summative assessments, to evaluate student progress and growth as they strive to eliminate achievement gaps. Teachers provide opportunities, methods, feedback, and tools for students to assess themselves and each other. Teachers use 21st century assessment systems to inform instruction and demonstrate evidence of students’ 21st century knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions.

● Use multiple indicators, both formative and summative, to evaluate student progress ● Provide opportunities for self-assessment § Use assessment systems to inform instruction and demonstrate

evidence of students’ 21st century knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions. About the Author Amy A. Germuth leads EvalWorks which evaluates STEM and other education projects.