How teachers learn—making teacher professional development through education technology effective

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session (English)

Proposal

Teaching is the single-most important ingredient among school-related factors in its impact on student learning; teacher quality matters (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Government and donor-funded education quality improvement programs allocate significant resources to teacher professional development to promote student-centered instruction. Much research has focused on how to ensure that training programs result in teachers using new instructional practices in their classrooms. Lortie (1975) and Menlo and Low (1988) observed that good teachers are intrinsically motivated to change teaching behaviors when they see their students achieving desired learning outcomes. Guskey’s model of teacher development (2002) addresses teacher motivation through a scaffolded process that recognizes the teacher as an adult learner who uses experience to test and weigh the value of what s/he is learning and makes choices about whether to apply it (Piper and Spratt, 2017). Popova, Evans, and Arancibia (2016) suggest that effective training programs focus “… on ‘concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation and reflection’ instead of abstract teaching concepts.” Many teacher professional development programs are now structured to support teachers at critical points where teachers decide to assimilate new knowledge and apply it. Typically, the teacher is provided information and methods with guided practice in face-to-face training, returns to the classroom with lessons plans and “how-to” guidance, receives site-based coaching, and--armed with assessment tools--evaluates the effect of these efforts on student learning. Ideally, positive student performance further motivates the teacher to adapt and sustain better instructional practices. This model has been reinforced with embedded opportunities for teacher exchange to strengthen skills and encourage attitudinal change.

The demand for sustained teacher training/support and advances in education technology have expanded concurrently. ICT-based solutions have been used in multiple ways to support instructional improvement—to deliver new information, facilitate teacher exchange, and offer coaching support. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which provide instruction in selected subjects to unlimited numbers of participants via the internet, have been employed to respond to teacher professional development needs. Allowing participants to learn in place, MOOCs offer advantages in a world where there are increasing challenges to and resource constraints on teacher professional development: education reforms require teacher acceptance and mastery of new curricula and instructional methods, teacher shortages have pulled unqualified teachers into the classroom, qualified teacher trainers are unavailable, and teacher mobility is limited by conflict, non-permissive environments, geographic distance or hazardous conditions. MOOCs can offer high quality coursework, self-paced learning, accommodation of teacher schedules, and elimination of the disadvantages of cascade-based training.

However, assessments of on-line instruction as a learning tool for adult learners in the education context have produced mixed results. Early evidence that online instruction is equivalent to traditional methods (Russell, 2001) is countered by more recent and nuanced findings that learner performance was lower in on-line courses, if not combined with a face-to-face components and “mindset” interventions (J-Pal, 2019). Studies examining the effectiveness of MOOCs for teacher training have found that while participants experience gains in declarative knowledge, they show little improvement in more complex levels of understanding. Participants reported a lack of motivation to fully engage in the course due to busy schedules, lack of extrinsic rewards, and the absence of personal accountability (Lebec & Luft, 2007). Teacher satisfaction and completion of on-line professional development courses has been linked to content transferability, discussion opportunities, adequate compensation, and knowledgeable facilitators, among others (Reeves and Padulla, 2011).

This panel will bring together designers and deliverers of MOOCs providing teacher professional development in low-resource settings to explore how they structure their programs to suit learner needs and the environment, reflect effective participatory, experiential—Gusksey-esque—training models, and incorporate best practices emerging from the growing body of MOOC research and their own experiences. The panelists will describe their programs, the development, implementation and assessment issues they face, and how they address teacher motivation, completion, engagement, mastery and application. The panelists will respond to the following questions:
•How do teachers learn through technology and what makes it effective?
•What should an effective MOOC program look like?
•How to ensure accessibility in low band-width, low resource settings?
•What are best practice design considerations, parameters and restrictions?
•What are the most effective models?
•What is an effective design process?
•What are management and support considerations?
•How to ensure participation, completion, content mastery, and application of concepts?
•How to assess mastery and application of knowledge and create feedback loops for program improvement?

Darling-Hammond, L. 1999. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: a Review of State Policy Evidence. Seattle, WA. University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching, 8(3), 381-391.

J-PAL Evidence Review. 2019. “Will Technology Transform Education for the Better?” Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab.

Lebec, M., & Luft, J. (2007). A mixed methods analysis of learning in online teacher professional development: A case report. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 554-574.

Lortie, D. (1975). School Teacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975).

Menlo and Guat Tin Low, A Comparison of the Sources of Enthusiasm in Teaching Across Five Countries, Paper presented at the Society for Cross Cultural Research Annual Meeting, Texas, USA (1988).

Piper, B. & Spratt, J. (2017). Cambodia Teacher Professional Development Policy Options Brief. Prepared for USAID/Asia Bureau and USAID/Cambodia, Contract No. AID-OAA-TO-16-00017 Number: REQ-ASIA-16-00017. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI.

Popova, A., Evans, D., & Arancibia, V. (2016). Training Teachers on the Job: What Works and How to measure It. Policy Research Working Paper; No. 7834. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank.

Reeves, T.D., & Pedulla, J. (2011). Predictors of Teacher Satisfaction with On-line Professional Development: Evidence for USA’s e-learning for Educators Initiative. Professional Development in Education.

Russel, T.L., 2001. The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center.

Sub Unit

• General Pool

Chair

• Karen Tietjen, Creative Associates International

Individual Presentations

• Teachers reflecting and making changes: Massive courses and small but significant steps - Kara Angela McBride, World Learning, Inc.

• How to reach and teach educators in low resource settings - Amy Nunamaker, FHI360

• Designing accessible online learning for diverse educators in Jordan, Iraq, and the United States - Sarah Huey Bever, IREX

• Designing and Evaluating an Arabic Language MOOC for Teacher Training from a Neuroscience Perspective -- The case of Morocco - Mariam Britel Swift, US Agency for International Development (USAID); Linda Wafi, Creative Associates International; Iman Elhaddouzi, Creative Associates International

Discussant

• Penelope Bender, BurdaEducation