Improved Conceptualization of Professional Learning: Lessons From Formative Assessment Research

• In Event: A Multifaceted Perspective on Current Approaches for High-Quality Teacher Professional Development

Abstract

Purpose. Our goal for this conceptual paper is to learn from the formative assessment literature to identify dimensions of teacher professional learning (PL) potentially critical for understanding effectiveness, but which have not yet been integrated explicitly into PL frameworks.

Theoretical Framework. Our work is grounded in previous work that developed effective PL frameworks (e.g., Desimone, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kennedy, 2016). We build on this work to identify additional features to be considered as part of a core framework, which will help us understand the success and failure of PL.

Methods and Data. We critically analyzed the formative assessment literature, to identify key ideas that apply to teacher PL. We chose this area because of considerable evidence that formative assessment practices improve student learning (e.g., Graham et al., 2015; Kingston & Nash, 2011; Klute et al, 2017), typically yielding improvements in student achievement between .4 and .7 of a standard deviation (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
Results. We identify three critical ideas with potential to improve our understanding of PL. The first is the student role. Does the approach taught in PL require students to take an active role in their own learning, or rely solely on the teacher? Scholars of formative assessment say that improvement is likely only when the learner engages actively (Boekaerts, 2006; Cohen et al., 2011), and understands how to improve (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shepard et al., 2018). PL typically emphasizes the teacher role, while formative assessment often includes an active role for students, which may explain the effectiveness of certain interventions.
The second is the prescriptiveness and complexity of the PL’s target. How much invention and creativity are required of the teacher? PL can vary from providing a step-by-step approach (e.g., Piasta et al., 2010) to complex applications of strategies (Penuel et al., 2011); but this is often not considered in the interpretation of effects (e.g., Lynch et al., 2019). The formative assessment literature describes the complexity involved in teachers responding and adapting formative assessment data (Lesh et al., 2003; Wiliams et al., 2004). We think the dimension of complexity may help explain the relative success or failure of PL.
The third dimension is the theory of instruction (Wayne et al., 2008). Is PL effectiveness due to teachers’ use of a specific instructional regime known to be effective for student learning (theory of instruction) or to teachers’ using strategies that respond to particular student needs (individualistic approach)? Formative assessment research points out that often results are due to idiosyncratic teacher implementation (Wiliams, 2004; Yin, 2005). The PL literature is often either unclear about the theory of change or not explicit about whether the PL is focused on a theory of instruction or individualistic approaches.

Scholarly Significance. We hope that the ideas we have identified will push our thinking forward in terms of conceptualizing dimensions of teacher learning in ways that inform the development of PL to best support teachers and ultimately, students.

Authors

• Laura M. Desimone, University of Delaware

• Joshua Wilson, University of Delaware