Chapter 2: Effective professional development - What we now know: Effective professional development - What we now know

Guskey (2002) noted that "although the process of teacher change through professional development is complex, it is not haphazard" (p. 389), and there is a process through which teacher change occurs. There are many factors that affect the design of effective PD programs. This review of literature focused on some of the theoretical models used to explain teacher change, the contextual factors that impact teacher behaviors and curricular change, and the role of continuous professional development in changing teaching practices and learning outcomes. These factors are considerations in designing effective PD programs for physical educators in the future. Even though the processes of PD have been evaluated over time, it is rare to find systematic research that examines what teachers learned and how what they learned impacted their practice. It is disappointing though hardly surprising to know that many teachers did not perceive a lot of the PD they received as beneficial to their growth as teachers. Providing quality PD is a complicated process. Teacher learning is fragmented and almost totally voluntary. There are few systems in place to allow teachers to build a coherent set of PD experiences. In reality, teachers patch together a diverse curriculum of PD opportunities in odd and assorted ways. Some pursue any opportunity to learn with passion whereas others attend workshops when mandated by the school principal. Another challenge for professional development providers lies in the poor reputation of traditional in-service. Teachers have little respect for 1- or 2-hour workshops when outside experts make little effort to discuss how the content might be applied to their specific teaching contexts. With a growing interest in PD, there have been many criticisms of traditional notions of PD. Some of the longstanding assumptions have been challenged. These include the assumption that only outside experts can provide PD for teachers. Most outside experts have little knowledge of local contexts and many are not viewed as credible with teachers in the school. For a long time, PD was about providing time to "upgrade" teachers in national curriculum initiatives. Teachers were "in-serviced" in new content and/or instructional strategies. In this scenario almost 80% of the funding would be devoted to preparing and delivering the curricular or instructions initiative and 20% to support structures to help teachers implement the initiatives in their teaching contexts (Lieberman & Miller, 1979). As a result, too few teachers bought into the ideas and little of substance changed in the teaching over time. Indeed teachers' knowledge of the context, of the subject matter, and of students was not only not valued, but was also considered a barrier to successful implementation of the curriculum project. Additional new types of PD experiences have emerged, such as teacher book clubs (Florio, 1994) and auto-ethnographic writing (Armour & Fernandez Balboa, 2001) but little is known about what is learned by teachers and their students from these experiences. Providers are also challenged by the "agenda-setting dilemma" of PD. There is the tension in knowing how to balance the focus of the PD between the Monday morning content focus and a theoretical/philosophical focus on the topics. It is a constant negotiation between what the clients expect and the educational goals of the PD provider. One also has to balance attention to a priority on content (subject matter of focus), the teaching learning process, and how best to deliver and assess content, as well as the personal development of the teacher as professional educator. Finally, the intellectual rigor of the PD initiative must be balanced with some teachers' expectations for practical relevance. High-quality PD must address the needs of teachers and the contexts of their teaching lives while providing challenging and intellectually stimulating work that drives their thinking and critiquing what and why they teach and deliver physical education as they do. None of these challenges are easy to overcome. Once registered for PD, providers must engage teachers in meaningful ways that can help them shift their thinking and their practice to ensure better-quality physical education teaching and programming for the children and youth they serve. There are several challenges to providing such quality PD. These include • Creating opportunities where physical education teachers move beyond politeness to substantive talk about their own teaching practices and ideas and a willingness to engage in critical discussion about these ideas with peers. • Ensuring that teachers' knowledge of the subject matter, of teaching and learning, and of their students is shared and valued. • Designing PD experiences where teachers can admit deficits without being considered deficient. • Addressing what teachers say and cataloguing what they do in practice. In order to design more-effective PD programs, the above challenges must be addressed during planning and implementation of programs. It is hoped these new PD approaches will result in better PD experiences for physical education teachers and better physical education programs for students.