Features of Effective Professional Development
Research-based recommended content, contexts, and approaches to professional development have been proposed (Wei, et al., 2009) and codified in the National Staff Development Council Standards for Staff Development (2001). Key recommendations are:
- Focus on teaching and learning
- Emphasis on specific content and learners
- Sustained, intense and collaborative experiences, including with peers, mentors, and coaches
- Access to or development of teaching materials (learning designs)
- Integration with curriculum, assessment and standards
- Learning embedded in the context of practice
- Cycles of active learning and reflection
Rationale for Online Professional Development
Online professional development (OLPD) addresses the problem of increased demands on decreasing teacher time (Chen, Chen, & Tsai, 2009; Dede, 2006; Russell, Kleiman, Carey, & Douglas, 2009) as it expands the professional communities of participants, thus reducing their isolation and increasing potential for innovation (Johnson, 2011).
High-quality, job-embedded OLPD programs take multiple forms embodying:
- community building and sustainability
- ongoing, facilitated support
- application of learning
- reflection on outcomes
OLPD programs that emphasize interactions among educators, application to practice, and cycles of reflection are programs that epitomize the Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2009). The table below shows the alignment between the Seven Principles and the affordances of OLPD communities.
Table. Principles for Communities of Practice in OLPD
|Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice||Affordances of OLPD communities|
|1. Design for evolution||Build on existing networks in schools and professional organizations|
|2. Dialogue between inside and outside perspectives||Welcome and invite new members and guests|
|3. Differentiated levels of participation||Scaffold members to refine and explore their roles, including sustained and occasional participants|
|4. Public and private community spaces||Include forums and members-only project or special interest spaces, as well as open spaces|
|5. Focus on value||Emphasize effective practice in the form of student learning|
|6. Balance of familiarity and excitement||Establish norms and expectations; encourage celebrations and opportunities|
|7. Rhythm for the community||Arrange special events|
Effective Applications for Online Professional Development
In recent years, online PD has been used successfully to meet specific needs in a range of contexts. Both the literature base and practice support the use of online PD for the following goals.
- Mentoring novice teachers (Dalgarno & Colgan, 2007).
- Online courses and workshops for discrete knowledge and skill acquisition (Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006).
- Online professional learning community (Sessums, 2009).
- Inquiry into effective teaching practice (Dana & Silva, 2010).
Among the most promising and relevant forms of online PD are Connected Learning Communities, which include
- professional learning communities (PLCs),
- personal learning networks (PLNs),
- communities of practice (CoPs).
Successful examples of Connected Learning Communities are:
- The Educator’s PLN, edupln.ning.com;
- The Global Education Collaborative, globaleducation.ning.com
- Facebook EdChat, www.facebook.com/EdChatPLN
- Edcamp Wiki, http://edcamp.wikispaces.com
- The Nerdy Teacher, www.thenerdyteacher.com;
- Blogging About the Web 2.0 Connected Classroom, http://web20classroom.blogspot.com;
- Teacher Reboot Camp, http://teacherbootcamp.edublogs.org
An emerging platform for professional development that is designed for learner differentiation is the Massively Open Online Course (MOOC), developed in the mid-2000s to open access to US higher education to the global audience, especially learners who were not enrolled in a degree program, by offering free course materials and experiences without credit or entry requirements (Liyanagunawardena, T; Adams, A; Williams, S., 2013). Hundreds of MOOCs for millions of learners have been offered under a range of models around the world, as shown in the table below.
Table. MOOC delivery models
|Public college or universityPrivate or profit college or universityProfessional associationK-12 education authorityFor-profit education providerTechnology corporation
|PublicStudents enrolled at sponsor institutionTarget audience, such as a profession or interest group||By providerBy sponsor or advertisersBy students seeking a credential (certificate, badge)By students seeking credit|
Likewise, the learner experiences vary in MOOCs.
- Course lengths range from a few weeks to a year, or self-paced
- Learner engagement may center on receptive activity such as using video lectures and other media, and reading ebooks; moderate episodic productive engagements such as brief computer-scored knowledge assessments or lower-order responses in forums; or intensive productive interactions such as sustained discussions, projects, and media creation
- Feedback to learners may be automated, peer-to-peer, or from instructors; often differential feedback depends on whether students pay fees or take the course for credit
- Pedagogical approaches include cMOOC, Downes’ learner-centered Connectivist type driven by human networks (Pence, 2013); xMOOC, a instructor/content-centered commercial and automated type driven by data (Pence); MOORC, Cavanaugh’s discovery-centered open research community driven by knowledge generation
Because the purposes of MOOCs vary and learners self-identify, they are designed to prioritize access rather than success. Therefore completion rates have been quite low. Critics see this situation as a disadvantage and focus on the cost/completer as a reason to discourage providers and learners from participating (Morris, 2013). Proponents see the large discrepancy between starters and finishers as evidence that the mission has been accomplished because a great many participants have experienced at least part of a course that otherwise would not be available to them, and most participants complete some learning (Morris). In a MOOC, the learners decide what and how much to learn. Their goals are individual and often do not have complete correspondence with course objectives.
Therefore, MOOCs are currently suited to some learning goals, as shown in the table below.
|MOOCs are well suited for||MOOCs are less suited for|
|Learners unable to access other education programsInformal learning by individuals seeking new skills or community networksLearners using modules for specific learning that is more structured than using text or other mediaStudents assessing readiness, remediation, or a refresher for a credit courseInstructors expanding their teaching repertoireIndependent exploration of a domain
Institutional marketing or orientation
Public outreach by organizations
Experimenting with content and design due to the large amount of data generated
|Learners in need of structure and feedbackLearning in ill-defined or complex performance-based domainsDeveloping high levels of expertise requiring coaching or mentoringThe full range of experiences that comprise most degree programsExisting communities with specific product goals
For educators, a MOOC is a feasible and valuable model to consider for informal knowledge bases when openness and inclusivity are priorities, but not when acquiring specific objectives by specific audiences are priorities. MOOCs instantiate learning theory, as shown in the table below.
Table. Learning Theory applied to MOOCs
|Learning Theory||Research on Practice|
|M=massive||Social Learning: observational learning (Bandura)||Class sizes optimal at under 20: accommodated using fluid and focused discussion and project groups (Monks & Schmidt, 2011)|
|O=open||Andragogy: choice and differentiation to account for varying experience and goals (Knowles)Expertise: time, practice, and feedback are needed (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer)||Personalized learning and Flexible pathways: afford individualized mastery learning (Gates Foundation; iNACOL)Expanded learning time: efficient online (Liu & Cavanaugh, 2011)Control and Connection: contribute to online learning (Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer & Liu, 2010)|
|O=online||Connectivism: (Seimens)||Effective when well-designed and facilitated: meta-analyses (Cavanaugh, 2001)|
|C=course||Transactional distance: minimized with more interaction, structure and autonomy (Moore)Motivation: enhanced through feedback (Keller)||Attention and Relevance are supported by course designs; Confidence and Satisfaction are supported by experienced instructors. (Carpenter & Cavanaugh, 2012)|
Online Possibilities for Reflective Educators
Online communities, mentors, and tools increasingly support formalized cycles of educator reflection known as action research or teacher inquiry (Dana et al., 2012). Inquiry is the type of job-embedded intensive teacher-directed form of professional development advocated by researchers and professional organizations (Dana et al., 2013). Online or blended teacher inquiry programs include peer mentoring, coaching, sharing of effective practices, and a focus on data from problems of practice. These virtual communities of reflection may occur in discussion forums, learning management systems, or specialized systems for teacher inquiry (Dawson, Cavanaugh, Ritzhaupt, 2012). In such programs, attention must be given to the purposes and health of the community. The Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2010) is useful framework to guide online professional learning so that it balances social presence; cognitive presence; and teaching presence.
Carpenter, J. & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). Increasing Student Motivation through Mentoring Practices. In L. Archambault & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Lessons Learned in Teacher Mentoring: Supporting Educators in K-12 Online Learning Environments. Vienna, VA: iNACOL.
Cavanaugh, C. (2001). The Effectiveness of Interactive Distance Education Technologies in K-12 Learning: A Meta-Analysis, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(1), 73-88.
Chen, Y., Chen, N., & Tsai, C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web-based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education, 53, 1155-1166.
Dalgarno, N., & Colgan, L. (2007). Supporting novice elementary mathematics teachers’ induction in professional communities and providing innovative forms of pedagogical content knowledge development through information and communication technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1051–1065.
Dana, N., Dawson, K., Wolkenhauer, R. & Krell, D. (2013). Pushing the envelope on what is known about professional development: the virtual school experience, Professional Development in Education, 39:2, 240-259.
Dana, N.F., et al., 2012. Virtual educator inquiry: design and implementation of a year-long programme to mentor virtual educators in the action research process. In: K. Kennedy and L. Archambault, eds. Supporting educators in K–12 online learning environments. Vienna, VA: iNACOL, 115–129.
Dana, N. F., & Silva, D. Y. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2012). ARTI: An Online Tool to Support Teacher Action Research for Technology Integration, pp. 375-391. In Hartshorne, C. Heafner, T. & Petty, T. (Eds.) Teacher Education Programs and Online Learning Tools: Innovations in Teacher Preparation. Hershey, PA: Information Age.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E.M. 2009. A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1) pp. 8-19.
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (1–2), 5–9.
Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 159–171.
Johnson, S. (2011). Where good ideas come from: The seven patterns of innovation. London: Penguin.
Liu, F. & Cavanaugh, C. (2011). Online Core Course Success Factors in Virtual School: Factors influencing student academic achievement. International Journal of E-Learning 10(4)43-65.
Liyanagunawardena, T; Adams, A; & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, p. 202-227. SSN 1492-3831. Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. M. (2011). The Impact of Class Size on Outcomes in Higher Education. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1).
Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual High Schools: Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91-104.
Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohort based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 443-466.
Sessums, S. (2009). The Path From Insight To Action: The Case Of An Online Learning Community In Support Of Collaborative Teacher Inquiry. Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0024330/sessums_c.pdf
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., 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://www.nsdc.org/stateproflearning.cfm and at http://www.srnleads.org.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
– See more at: http://researchinreview.inacol.org/page/13/#sthash.znDT7vKB.dpuf