Examining How Learner-Centered Professional Development ...

The Journal of Educational Research, 104:120–130, 2011 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-067 online DOI:10.1080/00220671003636737

Examining How Learner-Centered Professional Development Influences Teachers’ Espoused and Enacted Practices DREW POLLY University of North Carolina at Charlotte

ABSTRACT. Prior professional development studies have identified discrepancies between what teachers’ report (espoused practices) and demonstrate (enacted practices) during classroom teaching. This has proven particularly evident in studies examining classroom implementation of standardsbased practices such as learner-centered instruction. The authors examined the enacted and espoused practices of 2 elementary school teachers during a yearlong professional development project focusing on supporting implementation of learner-centered pedagogies in their classrooms. The convergence of video analysis of classroom teaching evidence and teacher interviews confirm little alignment between participants’ espoused and enacted practices. However, enacted teaching practices became increasingly consistent with learner-centered professional development practices when adopting a project activity or coplanning the lesson with an experienced professional developer. Implications for the design and research of learner-centered professional development are provided. Keywords: classroom research, enacted practices, espoused practices, mathematics education, professional development, video-based research

E

ducational reforms call for the design of learning environments that situate learning in authentic tasks and require students to pose questions, identify problem-solving strategies, gather information, and produce meaningful artifacts of knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Donovan & Bransford, 2005; McCombs, 2003). In essence, these reforms call for a paradigm shift towards learner-centered instruction. The American Psychological Associations’ LearnerCentered Principles (APA Work Group, 1997), which were elaborated for K–12 learners (McCombs, 2003), provide the empirical basis for designing learner-centered environments for both students and adults. A recent meta-analysis indicates that principles of learner-centered instruction may im-

MICHAEL J. HANNAFIN University of Georgia

prove student learning in areas that have been problematic for many years (Cornelius-White, 2007). Despite espousing learner-centered classroom teaching practices, teachers often employed didactic, teachercentered approaches (Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Peterson, 1990; Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996). In some cases, the cognitive demands of learner-centered tasks were oversimplified by providing procedures for students to explicitly follow (Cognitive and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1992; Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003). In some instances, learner-centered instruction featured surface-level components, such as hands-on activities or an authentic context, but the tasks did not extend beyond basic level knowledge (Cohen, 2005; Peterson, Putnam, Vredevoogd, & Reineke, 1992; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005). In order to implement learner-centered pedagogies, teachers need extensive learning opportunities to acquire and internalize relevant knowledge and skills (Borko, 2004; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson 2003) as well as school environments that support the adoption of these instructional practices (Cuban, 1990; Tarr et al., 2008; Westbury, 1973). Empirical evidence is needed to provide insight into teachers’ adoption of instructional practices emphasized during professional development. The purpose of this study was to examine elementary school teachers’ espoused and enacted practices as they participated in a yearlong professional development project to implement learner-centered instruction in their elementary mathematics classrooms. We describe the components and activities provided during learner-centered professional development (LCDP) and report findings of the yearlong implementation. Finally, we discuss disconnections between teachers’ enacted Address correspondence to Drew Polly, Department of Reading and Elementary Education, COED 370, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28213, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

The Journal of Educational Research

and espoused practices and provide implications for the design and research of professional development projects. Framework for Study: Learner-Centered Professional Development Educational researchers (e.g., Borko, 2004; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Briman, & Yoon, 2001; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007) and educational organizations (National Partnership for Educational Accountability in Teaching [NPEAT], 2000; National Staff Development Council [NSDC], 2001) have heralded professional development as the key to successful educational reforms. Paralleling the shift toward learner-centered instruction for K–12 students, empirically based recommendations for LCPD have been advanced (see Kennedy, 1998; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Recently, the Learner-Centered Principles were synthesized with empirical research on teacher learning to derive a set of LCPD principles (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). Specifically, LCPD programs should: • equip teachers to address student learning issues (Heck, Banilower, Weiss, & Rosenberg, 2008); • ensure teacher ownership of their learning experiences (Garet et al., 2001); • promote collaboration among teachers and between teachers and related educational personnel (Glazer & Hannafin, 2006; Hord, 2004); • emphasize comprehensive change processes (Fishman et al., 2003; Orrill, 2001); • develop knowledge and proficiency related to specific pedagogies, content, and the intersection of content and pedagogy (Garet et al., 2001; Heck et al., 2008); and • support reflection on work samples and artifacts from everyday practice (Cohen, 2005; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). Programs that emphasize LCPD components have been empirically linked to both increased enactment of learnercentered instructional practices (Cohen, 2005; Penuel et al., 2007; van Es & Sherin, 2008) and increased teacher efficacy about their preparation to enact learner-centered pedagogies (Garet et al., 2001; Heck et al., 2008). However, significant discrepancies have been reported regarding teachers’ selfreported classroom enactments and the instructional practices emphasized during professional development (CTGV, 1992; Peterson, 1990). We examined the espoused and enacted learner-centered classroom practices of two elementary mathematics teachers as they participated in a yearlong professional development program. Method Research Questions In this study we addressed two questions:

121

• To what extent (and how) do teachers enact the practices emphasized in a LCPD during their mathematics teaching? • How do teachers’ enactments of the practices emphasized during LCPD compare with their espoused and intended practices? Overview of Professional Development Project During this study, teachers participated in Technology Integration in Mathematics (TIM), a yearlong professional development project funded by a statewide Teacher Quality initiative in the United States. Over the course of the workshop, 24 participants engaged in a total of 48 contact hours focusing on learner-centered mathematics content, research-based pedagogies, and mathematics-related technologies: 24 hr during the month preceding the school year and 24 hr of follow-up activities during the year. As summarized in Table 1, TIM focused on several LCDP components. The goal of the TIM project was to improve student learning by supporting teachers’ enactment of specific instructional practices including use of alternative algorithms, rich mathematical tasks, fostering students’ mathematical communication, multiple representations of mathematical concepts, integrating technology in meaningful ways, and posing high-level questions. During workshops, project staff modeled learner-centered instruction while teachers participated as learners. Teachers also explored various resources (manipulatives and technology) and discussed how to use them in their own classroom. During the school year, project staff scaffolded teachers’ instruction by coplanning two lessons; teachers e-mailed a proposed lesson and corresponding state standards to project personnel who provided feedback and suggestions. In some classrooms, project staff further scaffolded teachers’ work by teaching model lessons in participants’ classrooms to demonstrate learner-centered pedagogies with teachers’ actual students. Lastly, teachers were encouraged, but not required, to adopt and implement tasks developed and demonstrated during the workshop in their classroom. Participant Selection and Profiles While teachers received stipends and release time to attend and participate, all 24 workshop teachers reported apprehension about participating in the TIM professional development project due to multiple, often competing priorities in their school. For example, mandated district-wide professional development for reading required that teachers miss 10 days of classroom time during the year. Because the goal of the study to examine the extent to which teachers’ enacted and espoused practices align during LCDP participation, we purposefully sought (Patton, 2002) motivated teachers who were willing to apply the workshop pedagogies in their classroom. Previous researchers have suggested that the alignment between teachers’ espoused and enacted

122

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 1. Alignment of TIM to Learner-Centered Professional Development (LCPD) LCPD characteristic

Description

Components of the TIM Project

Student-focused

Professional development should focus on analyzing the gap between (a) goals and standards for student learning and actual student performance and (b) prepare teachers to bridge that gap.

•Teachers used video and written cases to deepen their understanding of students’ mathematical thinking. •Teachers coplanned with project staff and implemented technology-rich mathematical tasks that address the state mathematics curriculum and their students’ needs.

Reflective

Professional development should allow teachers to reflect on evidence of their teaching: (a) student work samples and (b) artifacts from their own teaching.

•Teachers used the Video Analysis Tool (VAT) to videotape their own instruction •Teachers watched video of their own teaching and responded to reflection questions posed by the project staff.

Teacher-owned

Professional development should involve teachers in selecting the content of professional development programs and, if possible, give teachers choices about learning activities.

•Teachers planned and implemented mathematical tasks on topics of their choice. These tasks addressed the state mathematics standards as well as their students’ needs.

Content and theory-laden

Professional development should provide opportunities to understand the theory underlying the knowledge and skills being learned.

•Teachers worked with video and written cases to deepen their understanding of mathematical concepts as well as their students’ mathematical thinking. •Teachers participated as learners in model technology-rich mathematical tasks during workshops. These tasks will also allow teachers to learn mathematics in an investigative manner, which they will be encouraged to use in their own classroom.

Collaborative

Professional development should allow teachers to collaboratively solve problems and develop the problem-solving skills needed to teach effectively.

•Teachers participated in professional development with other teachers from their school. •Teachers were encouraged to coplan and collaborate with other teachers from their building with the integration of technology-rich mathematical tasks. •The project staff worked with teachers throughout the year to provide resources, coplan with teachers and support teachers’ implementation of mathematical tasks that the teachers chose to integrate in their classroom.

Comprehensive

Professional development should be connected to a comprehensive change process focused on improving student learning.

•All of the teachers work in the same school district. •The professional development supported two statewide initiatives: improving student achievement in mathematics at the elementary grades, and preparing teachers to use more task-based activities to teach the new Georgia Performance Standards.

practices was greater for teachers that expressed interest in trying new pedagogies, so we solicited participants that expressed an interest in the emphasized pedagogies, provided a personal rationale for participation, and expressed the intent to use the workshop practices in their classrooms. During an interest survey administered at the beginning of the project, two participants reported both intention to and in-

terest in enacting the learner-centered pedagogies in their classrooms. Both participants taught in the same high-poverty, urban elementary school situated in a midsized city in the southeastern United States. At the time of the study, 95% of the school’s 365 students qualified for free or reducedprice lunch. The demographics of the student body included

The Journal of Educational Research

African-American (79%), Caucasian (19%), and Hispanic or Asian (2%). Student achievement on the statewide endof-grade mathematics test was significantly below the state average and slightly below the average for the school district. Shantel was completing her 13th year as a Grade 5 teacher. Teachers in Grades 3–5 routinely sought Shantel’s guidance for lesson ideas, resources, or approaches to dealing with their own students. She taught three mathematics classes each day: two of her classes included at-grade-level students, whereas her third class included students identified for the Early Intervention Program (EIS), for students performing a minimum of one grade below their expected performance level. Observations were conducted in all three of Shantel’s classes. Shantel chose to participate in TIM to improve her teaching. She had access to technology, but reported feeling uncomfortable using computers and other resources in her classroom. Keisha, a Grade 4 teacher, had 6 years of prior teaching experience, four in her present grade level assignment. Keisha taught one mathematics class daily to her own students. Keisha chose to participate in TIM because she sought to move beyond a traditional teaching style. She repeatedly mentioned her desire to be trendy and not be old-fashioned in her instruction. In her school, Keisha served as an informal Grade 4 teacher-leader and was the grade-level resource for ideas related to mathematics, science, and technology use.

123

model lessons, lesson planning) and documented these observations via field notes and memos immediately following each workshop (Bogden & Biklen, 2003). Interviews. Numerous interviews were conducted to gather information about participants’ espoused practices as well as the goals of the professional development. Interviews with project staff took place following the initial 18 hr of workshops and prior to the beginning of the school year. The staff member discussed how he expected the six emphasized pedagogies to be enacted in participants’ classrooms. This interview lasted approximately 20 min. A baseline teacher interview was collected during the first day of professional development. During the interview, participants discussed previous instructional strategies and their goals for the project. This interview lasted approximately 30 min. After each observation, a postobservation interview was conducted. Postobservation interviews lasted approximately 10 min and allowed participants’ to describe their espoused instructional practices. Questions focused on participants’ espoused instructional practices and the extent to which they enacted pedagogies covered during workshops. The end-of-study interview took place as the TIM professional development project neared completion. Participants reflected on their teaching during the year, discussed their perceived growth in learner-centered instructional practices, and identified barriers they encountered during the project. This interview lasted approximately 30 min.

Data Sources Data from observations and video recordings of teachers’ mathematics classrooms and professional development meetings were collected and analyzed. To assess the relationship between teachers’ enacted and espoused practices, we also collected and analyzed data from classroom observations and teacher interviews throughout the year. Table 2 summarizes the calendar of observations and the nature of the activity observed for both participants. Observations of classrooms. Drew Polly observed Shantel’s and Keisha’s mathematics teaching on days they reported (via e-mail or face-to-face conversation) their intent to enact instructional practices emphasized during the professional development. During each lesson, a camera and a wireless microphone were used to record the implementation. Field notes were also recorded to document students’ actions. Field notes were typed and memos were generated for each observation immediately after the observation. Observations of professional development. Observations were made during the first 42 hr of the 48–hr workshop. Polly recorded field notes to document the instructional practices the project staff discussed or demonstrated during the workshops. He also observed participants’ activities and discussions during the workshop’s activities (e.g., cases,

Instruments and Procedures Video analysis. The Video Analysis Tool (VAT), used to analyze teaching practices in a series of prior studies (see Hannafin, Shepherd, & Polly, 2009; Rich & Hannafin, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b; Shepherd & Hannafin, 2008, 2009, in press; West, Rich, Shepherd, Recesso, & Hannafin, 2009). VAT uses lenses to isolate specific attributes of teaching practice. Using VAT, a rater identifies specific instances where particular practices occur, annotates and otherwise annotates the practice(s), and rates observed practice using defined criteria. See http://vat2.uga.edu/Login.do for a detailed description and demonstration. The TIM lenses used to identify and analyze learnercentered teaching in this study are shown in Table 3. The lenses were synthesized from studies that have examined the extent to which observed practices align to those emphasized during professional development (Fennema et al., 1996; Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004). The TIMTeacher lens was revised prior to the study based on feedback from the project coordinator, an expert in learner-centered instruction who assessed alignment with learner-centered teaching, a mathematics educator-authority in professional development, and two instructional technologists with expertise in qualitative data analysis. The lens was also refined following after pilot observations in participants’ classrooms.

124

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 2. Schedule of observations Sept. Class Shantel EIP OGL-1 OGL-2 Keisha

29–30

Oct. 14

21

DA

Nov. 28

9

18

14

INC INC

INC INC

INC

IC

DA IC

Dec.

IC

INC CC

19

INC

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

19

16

16–17

22

IC IC

INC

CNC CNC

CNC

DA

IC

CC

Notes. EIP = Early Intervention Program (students performing at least a year below grade level); OGL = on grade level (students performing higher than a year below grade level); DA = direct adoption; CC = coplanned and based on the professional development’s mathematics content; CNC = coplanned and not based on the professional development’s mathematics content; IC = independently planned and based on the professional development’s mathematics content; INC = independently planned and not based on the professional development’s mathematics content.

Analyzing enacted practices. Enacted practices were observable teaching events that participants demonstrated during teaching. Videos of participants’ enactment were viewed a minimum of twice and analyzed for each learner-centered teaching attribute demonstrated using the TIM continuum of practice. The first viewing focused on identifying the lesson goals and the instructional practices enacted. During the second viewing, VAT was used to mark up each video.

FIGURE 1. Screen capture of the Video Analysis Tool (VAT).

Figure 1 is a screen capture of the VAT tool and lens used in this study. The left side identifies the video clip being presented along with subclips and brief annotations and TIM lens codes. The right side of the screen shows where subclips were annotated with memos and the specific lens used to identify TIM instructional practices. Subclips were created to identify instances where the six learner-centered practices emphasized during the project

The Journal of Educational Research

125

TABLE 3. VAT lens used to assess TIM-related teacher practices The teacher . . .

Practice Use of algorithms

0 = does not provide an algorithm or provide activities where students generalize or develop an algorithm 1 = provides an algorithm for students to use without discussing why the algorithm works 2 = provides an algorithm for students to use with the opportunity to see why it works 3 = provides mathematical tasks in which students explore the tasks and students identify an algorithm

Mathematical tasks

0 = does not provide opportunities for students to work on mathematical tasks 1 = provides opportunities for students to work on tasks that do not use resources (e.g., manipulatives or technology) and involve completing a procedure given by the teacher 2 = provides opportunities for students to work on tasks in which students use appropriate resources and follow a procedure given by the teacher 3 = provides opportunities for students to work on tasks in which students use appropriate materials, choose their own approach and provide a solution

Asking questions that elicit student thinking

0 = does not ask questions

Students’ mathematical communication

0 = does not provide opportunities for students to communicate their mathematical thinking

Representations of mathematical concepts

0 = does not provide representations of mathematical concepts

Integration of technology

0 = does not use technology in their mathematics classroom 1 = uses technology to tell information to their students (PowerPoint, projector) 2 = provides opportunities for students to use technology as an activity in mathematics that is used to enhance students’ computational skills 3 = provides opportunities for students to engage in an activity where the teacher uses technology and the activity involves solving problems and tasks with the assistance of the technology (e.g., teacher modeling how to use a spreadsheet to graph data, using virtual manipulatives); provides opportunities for students to use technology to develop their mathematical knowledge and/or problem-solving skills

1 = asks questions that elicit only a mathematical answer or definition 2 = asks questions and follow-up questions that probe more deeply at students’ mathematical ideas and thinking facilitates by asking questions and encouraging students to ask questions about other students’ mathematical thinking 3 = allows students to ask either other questions about mathematical ideas or students’ mathematical thinking

1 = provides opportunities for students to provide an answer to the teacher or classmates 2 = provides opportunities for students to share answers and their mathematical thinking with the teacher 3 = provides opportunities for students to communicate their mathematical thinking with one another and facilitates student-to-student communication

1 = provides teacher-generated representations of mathematical concepts which the student uses to solve an investigation 2 = provides opportunities for students to generate their own representation of mathematical concepts 3 = provides opportunities for students to generate multiple representations of mathematical concepts

were observed. Drew Polly also noted instances during which teachers did not pose learner-centered questions, although they had the opportunity to do so. Separate subclips were created for each of the instructional practices. In some cases, teachers’ questions and student communication were coded simultaneously, as the questions posed impacted the extent to which students’ communicated their thinking. Each time Polly created a subclip, the corresponding pedagogy was

coded using the TIM lens and annotated using a memo to describe the practice. These subclips were stored in the VAT for later analysis. Once each video was divided into clips and marked, the codes were then entered into a spreadsheet and the frequency for each rating was tallied for each instructional practice. After tallying and calculating percentages, Polly identified clips that demonstrated the specific teaching attributes prevalent

126

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 4. Frequency of enacted task types posed and questions posed by lesson type Enacted task types Level 3 Origin of tasks Lessons directly adopted from workshops Coplanned lessons Independently planned lesson related to professional development content Independently planned lesson not related to professional development content Totals

Tasks Posed n

%

Level 2 n

Types of questions posed

Level 1

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

%

n

%

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

3

1

33.33 2

66.67

0

0.00

84

8

9.52

54

64.29

22

26.19

9 11

6 2

66.67 3 18.18 3

33.33 27.27

0 6

0.00 54.54

113 159

27 27

23.89 16.98

65 93

57.52 58.49

21 39

18.58 24.53

14

0

0.00 8

57.13

6

42.87

226

35

15.49 124

54.87

67

29.65

37

9

582

97

336

16

12

149

Note. Tasks: Level 1 = tasks enacted with no resources (manipulatives or technology) in a teacher-directed manner; Level 2 = tasks enacted with resources in a teacher-directed manner; Level 3 = tasks enacted with resources in which students choose the processes to complete the tasks. Questions: Level 1 = questions asked students to provide an answer or definition from students; Level 2 = questions asked students to explain their processes of completing a task; Level 3 = questions asked students to justify their process or explain their mathematical thinking.

during the enactments. The field notes were used to corroborate or refute the findings from the analysis of video. Reliability of the analysis of video data was strengthened by peer raters with expertise in mathematics education or professional development. Each video was reviewed by at least one peer reviewer. In instances in which Polly and the peer reviewer did not agree on the rating, they met and discussed their assessments until they reached consensus. Analyzing espoused practices. Espoused practices included pedagogies participants reported that they enacted during their classroom teaching, and represented the general selfperceptions as a teacher. Data from the interviews (i.e., baseline, postobservation, and end of study) were used as the main data sources for identifying espoused practices. These interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim into Microsoft Word and then copied into a spreadsheet. Although data were coded to identify specific instructional practices in the TIM lens, coding was not limited to only those practices. Initially, top-level codes were used to analyze interview data. During analysis, subcodes were created within the top-level codes using excerpts and memos corresponding to the interview. Next, the codes and excerpts were used to generate data-based assertions about the participants’ intended and espoused practices according to the TIM lens. Secondary sources (field notes from classroom observations) were used to triangulate these assertions.

Results Teachers’ Espoused Practices Did Not Match Their Enacted Practices. The analysis of teachers’ enacted practices (video and field notes) revealed a lack of alignment between teachers’ observed practices and those emphasized during workshops. Differences between espoused and enacted practices were influenced by task type, type of support provided, and questioning strategies employed. Table 4 summarizes the frequencies and percents for enacted task types and questions posed by the teacher-participants. During data analysis, researchers examined all filters in the LCPD lens. However, the types of enacted tasks and the questions posed were targeted for analysis and disseminating findings since these were the two primary foci of the professional development project. Enacted task types. During the project, participants enacted 37 different task types. A task type was defined as a mathematical problem that required the students to apply mathematical content related to but different from other tasks within the same lesson. For example, a lesson in which students solved both multiplication and division computational problems included two types of tasks. In total, 43.24% of the task types were teacher directed and were supported through the use of resources, such as manipulatives and technology. Another 43.24% involved resource use, but were teacher directed, whereas only 13.62% tasks embodied

The Journal of Educational Research

learner-centered components and aligned to the pedagogies emphasized in the project. During the five learner-centered task types, the participants provided resources (e.g., handson manipulatives or technology) and allowed students to make decisions about what resources to use and how to complete the task. The 16 teacher-directed tasks that involved hands-on activities included the use of resources used manipulatives and technologies that were emphasized during workshops. However, the didactic use of these resources did not align the goals of the professional development. Consistent with the learner-centered pedagogy emphasized during the workshop, during Keisha’s first lesson following 24 hr of professional development her students used concrete objects to complete geometry puzzles. Unlike during professional development sessions where project staff modeled approaches to implement the technique and scaffolded the experience; however, Keisha’s students immediately began working. Student behavior indicated uncertainty about what to do, and they repeatedly went off task throughout the lesson. Also, juxtaposed to the workshop experience, Keisha did not guide students’ understanding by discussing strategies and key concepts. During her postobservation interview Keisha commented, “The lesson was effective, because students were able to use hands-on materials and explore.” However, Keisha was cognizant of ways to improve the lesson in the future. When prompted about how she would modify the lesson next time, Keisha reported, “If I were to [teach the lesson again] we would be making the same one as I made it on the overhead, and then after that task then I think I would have let them choose their own picture.” Although there was a disconnection between Keisha’s espoused practices (that she enacted pedagogies emphasized during the professional development) and her enacted practices, Keisha was able to describe how she would change her instruction next time to more closely align with the professional development emphasized practices. Directing versus guiding students. During the enactment of teacher-directed, hands-on tasks, both teachers focused on teaching algorithms in a manner that deemphasized students’ opportunity to discover and explore concepts using hands-on activities before learning procedures for calculations. Shantel, for example, while teaching a lesson about division, allowed her students to use blocks to make equal groups of objects. However, instead of focusing on how to use the manipulatives and reasoning, Shantel encouraged students to follow the associated algorithms. In her postobservation interview, Shantel reported that while she felt more comfortable teaching the concept without hands-on activities, she used manipulatives to align with the pedagogies emphasized during workshops. She continued by saying, “[I]t helped my lower-performing students to

127

use hands-on activities, but I think it confused my stronger students.” Throughout the study, Shantel repeatedly commented that the professional development pedagogies were beneficial to her weaker students, but either had little impact or were confusing to her higher-performing students who would have benefited by just learning a procedure to use. Keisha, on the other hand, reported that these pedagogies benefited all of her students. During interviews, both teacher-participants consistently reported the importance of posing learner-centered tasks, using manipulatives, and asking high-level questions about students’ mathematical thinking. However, although both teachers implemented tasks that included manipulatives, they also provided students with explicit directions on how to complete the task. They believed that their lessons were aligned to the professional development because students used manipulatives, technology, or were completing tasks based on real-world scenarios. However, the didactic nature of implementation was not consistent with their espoused practices or the intended professional development practices. Questioning strategies. In nearly all of the observed lessons both teacher-participants posed questions that required students to only give an answer. In limited cases, questions elicited an explanation of students’ problem solving processes, and in even fewer cases students were asked to justify their process or explain their mathematical thinking. During workshops, project staff repeatedly modeled techniques to pose higher level questions and help students make sense of the mathematics embedded in the lessons. However, observations indicated very little carryover from the workshops into participants’ practice. In Shantel’s first lesson, project staff taught the lesson to model the learner-centered approaches with her classes of on-grade-level students. When she subsequently taught the lesson to her other group of on-grade level students, Shantel posed 19 questions and the researcher noted 13 instances where questions would have been appropriate but were not posed. Overall, 28 of the 32 questions or opportunities were classified as low-level questions: four questions asked students to justify their approach. On the following day while teaching the same lesson to her below-grade-level EIP students, she posed 16 questions but there were only two instances in which she did not pose questions when opportunities arose. None of these questions, however, required that students go beyond simple answers or low-level summations of their problem-solving strategies. After teaching both lessons Shantel reported that she “focused on answering higher-level questions like the [project staff] . . . seeing [the project staff] model a lesson allowed me to pose good questions to my students.” Shantel espoused that she posed learner-centered questions appropriately and as modeled but video analysis indicated otherwise.

128

Alignment Between the Target Professional Development Pedagogies and Participants’ Enacted Practices Improved Through Scaffolded Implementations Lessons adopted directly from professional development activities or coplanned with the professional developer typically included higher level tasks and demonstrated learner-centered pedagogies more effectively than lessons that participants’ planned independently. Of the 37 enacted task types, nine provided students with resources to complete the tasks in a learner-centered manner (level 3 tasks). Seven of these nine tasks were either coplanned by a professional developer (five task types) or directly adopted from a workshop (two task types). Further, all 12 of the enacted tasks were teacher directed and did not involve the use of resources (level 1 tasks); each lesson was independently planned by participants. The level of support provided during planning also influenced the questions posed during implementation. During lessons that were initially coplanned with the professional developer, 23.89% of the teacher’s questions required students to justify their reasoning or explain their mathematical thinking (level 3 questions). Overall, teacher-participants posed 81.41% questions that either asked students to explain their mathematical thinking (level 3 questions) or explain how they determined their answer (level 2 questions). The majority of level 2 and level 3 questions were evident in lessons that were independently planned and related to concepts covered during workshops (75.47%), whereas lessons directly adopted from workshops included 73.81% level 2 and level 3 questions. In contrast, the fewest level 2 and level 3 questions were evident in lessons that were both independently planned and unrelated to concepts covered during workshops (70.36%). During Keisha’s coplanned lesson she allowed students to use materials and determine their own process to determine the area and perimeter of rectangular objects in the classroom. This lesson was also the first time that Keisha asked higher level questions about her students’ thinking; three of Keisha’s questions (9.67%) focused on students’ reasons for choosing specific strategies. During her postobservation interview, Keisha recognized that students were more engaged and developed problemsolving skills more effectively that she during lessons she had implemented previously. Keisha reported that “planning with [project staff] allowed me to think at a higher level . . . coplanning made me broaden my train of thought and made me think ahead about some things.” Keisha’s coplanned lesson was vastly different from her independently planned lessons, where students used resources, but spent the entire lesson practicing their computational skills or following explicit instructions about how to solve specific problems. Shantel’s scaffolded lesson occurred early in the study after watching a project staff member teach the exact lesson to her other class of students. Similar to the lesson that the project staff member taught, all of the tasks were contextualized in

The Journal of Educational Research

everyday life and posed in a way that allowed students to use hands-on activities to support task completion. However, Shantel did not ask higher level questions about students’ mathematical thinking, as the project staff had done during the model lesson. When Shantel posed questions, she did not examine students’ rationale to justify their strategies. While highly scaffolded lessons included more learnercentered tasks, both teacher-participants modified lessons in didactic, teacher-centered ways during implementation. Keisha wrapped up her scaffolded lesson by providing students with the algorithms, followed by 10 computational problems. Meanwhile, Shantel’s scaffolded lesson focused more on the algorithm rather than on what students learned while exploring ways to use manipulatives to solve the tasks. In both cases, participants’ questions focused primarily on what students did rather than facilitating students’ explanation about why they employed specific processes. Discussion In this study we examined teachers’ enacted practices and their espoused practices during and following LCPD. Using video analysis and interviews, little alignment was evident between the pedagogies emphasized during professional development and teachers’ classroom practices. Further, disconnects were evident between teachers’ instructional practices and their espoused practices. Participant interviews indicated that teachers perceived their instruction as embodying learner-centered instruction, although video analyses proved otherwise. However, classroom implementations that were scaffolded extensively by directly adopting a workshop activity demonstrated more and higher quality learner-centered characteristics and greater alignment among workshop focus, teachers’ espoused practices, and actual classroom practices. Misalignment was evident between the pedagogies emphasized during learner-centered professional development, participants’ espoused practices, and their enacted practices. Previously, researchers (e.g., CTGV, 1992; Orrill, 2001; Peterson, 1990; Polly & Ausband, 2009) have attributed differences among teachers’ espoused practices (what they thought they did) and their enactment (what they were observed doing) and the professional development instructional practices to differing beliefs of what constitutes effective teaching. Prior studies have found that teachers tend to only implement pedagogies that align with their own beliefs (Ertmer, 2005; Fennema et al., 1996; Philipp, 2007). In most instances, school environments do not adequately support the adoption of reform-based instructional practices (Cuban, 1990; Westbury, 1973). Several alternative explanations for the lack of alignment warrant consideration. Prior researchers report that while teachers’ espoused they were implementing learner-centered instruction, researchers observed didactic teaching in their classrooms (CTGV, 1992; Peterson, 1990; Schneider et al., 2005; Stein et al., 1996). In the present study, most enacted

The Journal of Educational Research

task types included hands-on activities; however, teachers did not use hands-on activities as modeled by project staff. Keisha and Shantel tended to use hands-on activities in a teacher-directed manner. For example, teachers may interpret and tacitly adapt the pedagogies emphasized during professional development when they return to their classrooms. Alternatively, teachers may focus on hands-on activities and question posing without evaluating their learnercentered or directed nature. Both pedagogies were observed during enactments, but may represent a hybridization of professional development learning that differed fundamentally from the strategies and activities modeled and discussed during workshops. Another barrier to implementing learner-centered pedagogies may be the school environments (see, for example, Heck et al., 2008; Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Hord, 2004; Tarr et al., 2008). Westbury (1973) identified large class sizes, increases in high-need students, declines in student motivation, and pressures to maintain classroom order as sustaining didactic teaching strategies. Westbury concluded that although professional development can support teachers’ implementation, durable changes in classroom practices are unlikely until such barriers are addressed. Both participants were involved in a large-scale reading initiative at their school that required ongoing professional opportunities for literacy instruction. Also, although district leadership supported the professional development project, the participants’ principal supported mathematics teaching only when there were direct correlations on achievement tests, and had not explicitly supported the work of the grant. Findings from this study suggest that implementation of learner-centered practices can be improved by providing ongoing support. Classroom implementation was best aligned with professional development pedagogies and enacted practices when directly adopted or coplanned with project staff. Ongoing support may serve to both scaffold the transition from professional development to the classroom and support the conceptual change associated with both learning about and implementing learner-centered pedagogies. Various professional development studies have documented that classroom-based support facilitates enactment of emphasized pedagogies (Cohen, 2005; Heck et al., 2008; Polly, 2008). This study also supports Vygotsky’s (1987) conception of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as applied to teaching. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) described ZPD as teaching as assisted performance, where teacher learning is supported by more capable individuals. During Stage I within the ZPD, assistance is provided by more capable others through modeling, coaching and other methods of scaffolding performance, whereas during Stage II learners become increasingly selfsupported and able to carry out the task without assistance from others. Because the task is not yet automatic, Stage III focuses on internalization where assistance from a more capable can paradoxically hinder performance. Stage IV involves the recursive process back through the ZPD, during which learners have to frequently modify their actions based on the environmental surroundings and context.

129

Consistent with Tharp and Gallimore’s (2008) construct of assisted performance, both teachers’ tasks were enacted at a high level when directly adopted from workshops, model lessons, and coplanning experiences with project staff. However, the pedagogies evident during task enactment (e.g., teachers’ questions) were not as well aligned. During enacted task types, both teacher-participants were in Stage I and benefitted from coplanning to enact high-level task types. In a few instances, there was evidence of both participants moving towards Stage II; a few independently planned lessons related to workshop content included level two tasks. In terms of questioning, however, both participants remained in Stage I. The process of coplanning lessons proved more beneficial than simply adopting and implementing standard workshop lessons. This could be due to facilitator’s suggestions to include high-level questions during the lesson planning process. Research on questioning during learner-centered instruction indicates that teachers’ ability to pose higher level questions requires considerable knowledge about content, how students learn, and how to best meet students’ individual needs (van Es & Sherin, 2008). Extensive classroom support, such as providing model lessons and opportunities to coteach with project staff, might facilitate further the enactment of emphasized pedagogies and progression through the ZPD.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Drs. Janette Hill, Chandra Orrill, Denise Mewborn, and Thomas Reeves for their guidance with this research study. This study was part of a professional development project funded by the Georgia Department of Education’s Improving Teacher Quality Grants Program. REFERENCES APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learnercentered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: Author. Bogden, R. R., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th. ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315. Cohen, S. (2005). Teachers’ professional development and the elementary mathematics classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cornelius-White, J. D. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

130 Fennema, L., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, M., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teachers and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Briman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179–193. Hannafin, M. J., Shepherd, C. E., & Polly, D. (2009). Video assessment of classroom teaching practices: Lessons learned, problems and issues. Educational Technology, 50, 32–37. Heck, D. J., Banilower, E. R., Weiss, I. R., & Rosenberg, S. L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 113–152. Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167. Hord, S.M. (2004). Learning together leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. Oxford, OH: Teachers College Press. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C, & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 81–116. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Retrieved from http:// www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/nise/Publications/Research Monographs/ vol13.pdf Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K–12 education in the context of current educational reform. Theory into Practice, 42, 163–167. National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching. (2000). Revisioning professional development: What learner-centered professional development looks like. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/npeat213.pdf National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm. Orrill, C. H. (2001). Building learner-centered classrooms: A professional development framework for supporting critical thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 15–34. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921– 958. Peterson, P. L. (1990). Doing more of the same: Cathy Swift. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 261–280. Peterson, P. L., Putnam, R. T., Vredevoogd, J., & Reineke, J. W. (1992). Profiles of practice: Elementary school teachers’ views of their mathematics teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 17, 471–488. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Polly, D. (2008, October). Supporting standards-based mathematics in elementary classrooms. Presentation given at the Annual Conference of the School Science and Mathematics Association, Raleigh, NC. Polly, D., & Ausband L. (2009). Developing higher order thinking skills through WebQuests. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 29–34. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Technology’s role in revisioning learner-centered professional development. Article to appear in Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 557–571.

The Journal of Educational Research Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008a). Capturing and assessing evidence of student teacher inquiry: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1426–1440. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008b). Decisions and reasons: Examining preservice teachers’ decision making through video self-analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20, 62–94. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009a). Making instructional decisions visible: The use of video evidence to assess preservice teachers’ practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 128–145. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009b). Video annotation tools: Technologies for assessing and improving preservice teachers’ instructional decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reformbased science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Education, 42, 283–312. Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Beyond recollection: Reexamining preservice teacher practices using structured evidence, analysis, and reflection. Journal of Technology and Teacher in Education, 17, 229–251. Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press). Supporting preservice teacher inquiry through electronic portfolio scaffolds. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Examining preservice teacher inquiry through video-based, formative assessment electronic portfolios. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(1), 63–69. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488. Tarr, J., Reys, R., Reys, B., Ch´avez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 39, 247–280. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Learning to notice in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. West, R., Rich, P., Shepherd, C., Recesso, A., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Supporting induction teachers’ development using performance-based video evidence. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17, 369–391. Westbury, I. (1973). Conventional classrooms, open classrooms and the technology of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 5(1), 99–121. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & 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. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

AUTHORS NOTE Drew Polly is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Reading and Elementary Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research agenda focuses on designing and examining the influence of learner-centered professional development on teachers’ instructional practices in the areas of elementary mathematics and technology integration. Michael J. Hannafin is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia, where he directs the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory. His research is at the intersection of psychology, technology and education, where he develops and validates frameworks for technologyenhanced, student-centered teaching and learning.