Celebration
of Learning: Staff Experiences Implementing Teacher Professional Growth Plans
A Study of
Implementation Challenges, Effective Supports, and Influence on Teacher
Development*
A research report prepared
by Dr. Tara J. Fenwick and Anne Smulders, M.Ed.
January, 2001
(also available if PDF
format)
Dr. Tara J. Fenwick
Anne Smulders
Department of Educational Policy Studies
Ed North 7-133M
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5
Tel: (780) 492-4879
Fax: (780) 492-2024
Email: tara.fenwick@ualberta.ca
*funded by CRF – SSHRC Grant #G124110086, University of Alberta Research Grants Office
Teacher
Professional Growth Plans: A Study of Implementation Challenges, Effective
Supports, and Influence on Teacher Development
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview 4
Part A: Implementing Teacher Professional Growth Plans: Perceptions and Experiences of School-Based Administrators 6
Process of TPGP Implementation............. 6
Preparation and
continuous assistance for staff in using TPGPs..... 7
Strong district office
support... 8
Building teacher trust and risk-taking over time.......... 9
Benefits of Teacher Professional Growth Plans
(TPGPs)...... 11
Authenticity and
teacher commitment to development............... 11
Focus and
accountability.......... 12
Collegiality............... 13
Teachers’
self-affirmation............... 14
Administrators’ Continuing Concerns and Issues..................... 14
Linearity of TPGP
process. 15
What counts as a goal?............... 15
Threats to trust and
risk-taking............... 16
Time and resources 17
Part B: Implementing Teacher Professional Growth Plans: Perceptions and Experiences of Teachers and Educational Assistants.. 19
Process of TPGP Implementation........... 19
Learning to trust and
become comfortable............... 20
Goal clarity improves
over time 21
Administrative support
is key......... 22
Benefits of Teacher Professional Growth Plans
(TPGPs)...... 24
Value of written
goal-setting............... 25
Focus.... 26
Increased professional
development activity. 28
Self-affirming 30
Collaboration.......... 31
Accountability for self
and colleagues............... 32
Educators’ Continuing Issues and Concerns with
TPGPs..................... 34
Time concerns 34
Restrictions of a
linear TPGP process. 35
Unclear links between
professional development and practice............... 37
Concern about goal
completion............... 37
Summary: Staff Observations and Suggestions for Implementing Teacher Professional Growth Plans 40
Characteristics of the TPGP Process... 40
Suggestions for TPGP Use..................... 42
Suggestions for Supervisory Facilitation of
the TPGP Process... 43
Dilemmas in the TPGP Process... 44
Conclusion: Importance of Culture..................... 45
Appendix A – Methods of the Study..... 47
Study approvals and overview of methods 47
Interviews and analysis 48
Ethical considerations............ 50
Distribution of the report..... 51
Appendix B – Sample Letters Sent to Wescana Staff 52
Letter sent to district
superintendent after telephone contact....... 52
Letter sent to school
principal after telephone contact....... 54
Letter sent to school
principal after interview.... 56
Appendix C – Ethics Consent Form for Participants 57
Appendix D – Bibliography of Resources Related to Teacher Supervision 58
Teacher Professional Growth Plans: A Study of Implementation
Challenges, Effective Supports, and Influence on Teacher Development
A research report prepared by Dr.
Tara J. Fenwick and Anne Smulders
Department of Educational Policy Studies,
University of Alberta
Teacher self-assessment
through self-managed growth plans is a new policy initiative in Alberta
(Alberta Learning, 1998) requiring all teachers to set goals annually for their
own professional growth, to assess their practice in relation to these goals,
to record and share the goals and assessment with a supervisor, and to plan professional
development based on these reflections. Teacher Professional Growth Plans
(TPGPs) are being implemented differently in different school jurisdictions,
and garnering different responses from teachers and supervisors.
Little empirical research is
yet available to assist Alberta district personnel, school-based supervisors
and teachers in their implementation of TPGPs. Wescana School District[1] offers an ideal context for
such research, as schools in this jurisdiction began implementation at least
one year prior to mandatory provincial implementation. Some Wescana teachers
and principals have by now been working with TPGPs for three years, and are
able to shed light on the challenges of start-up, more and less effective
responses to these challenges, and the benefits and concerns of the TPGP
approach to instructional supervision.
In this pilot project, three
Wescana schools were selected for study: one elementary, one junior high and
one senior high. Further details will be withheld to protect the identity of
the study participants. Four administrators, nine teachers, and two educational
assistants working full-time in these schools, all currently using the TPGPs,
volunteered to be interviewed[2]. The specific objectives of
the pilot project were as follows:
(1) To identify the individual and implementational issues that
affect different professionals’ approaches to and learning through goal-setting
and self-assessment; and
(2) To identify significant
social and cultural dimensions of a teaching/learning community that may be
linked in some relationship to professionals’ learning and self-assessment.
Additionally, the pilot project intended to explore the potential for further research into TPGP implementation in Alberta. Methods of the study, including a description of ethical guidelines, are described in Appendix A.
This
section presents findings from the interviews with four school-based
administrators in Wescana schools. Administrator comments have been organized
into three categories. First are the strategies used by each administrator to
implement the teacher professional growth plans in their school, as well as
their perceptions of the unfolding process of teacher adoption of TPGPs over
the early years. Second are the benefits of TPGPs for teacher growth and their
school’s goals in general, as perceived and reported by administrators. Third
are concerns or issues raised by different administrators. Administrators’
observations regarding more and less effective strategies they adopted to
support teachers and enhance the utility of the TPGPs are woven throughout all
sections.
The three schools are all situated reasonably close
together in a heavily populated suburb. Principals told us their staffs, like
the community, tended to be rather stable and homogenous in characteristics of
teaching experience, ethnicity, socio-economic situation, religion and values.
Because all three schools were in at least the third year of implementing
TPGPs, staffs were past the initial stages of making sense of the new
initiative, and were actively refining and experimenting with the idea of
professional growth plans in various ways.
Two administrators reported that there had been a long
history of goal setting in Wescana school division prior to the implementation
of the Quality Teaching document directive. They attributed a relative ease of
TPGP implementation to this history. Workshops held in schools by the
jurisdiction and Alberta Teachers’ Association were positively described by all
four administrators. All administrators had also held at least one informal workshop
with their own staff to demonstrate alternate templates for a growth plan,
build staff confidence and trust, explain ‘what a goal is’, describe their own
role, and generally assist teachers to get started. All administrators also
shared their own growth plans with their staffs.
Throughout the first two years administrators found
individual staff members sometimes required special assistance. Some
individuals had overly high expectations for themselves, some needed help
clarifying specific manageable goals, some felt “overwhelmed” by the
requirement to set personal goals, some needed frequent “reminders” to get the
thing finished, and some apparently found it difficult to apply meaningful
goal-setting to their work (particularly where this was repetitive or primarily
technical in nature, in the case of certain non-teaching staff).
Administrators talked about “sitting down with” some
individuals and coaching them through the process, sometimes extensively.
Generally in the first year, noted administrators, many teachers were uncertain
about the expectations of the process and the actual content of the plan. Some
were cautious about extending trust. All administrators stressed the need for a
supportive and flexible supervisory response in the first year: “I took just
about anything, as long as they had it written down” explained one.
All administrators had developed deliberate scheduling
strategies to manage the rather difficult time demands of reading each TPGP and
meeting with its writer at the beginning and end of the year. Most blocked out
significant chunks of time for the process. In two schools, principals and
associate principals shared the load.
One school had also implemented mid-year conference
opportunities for teachers to dialogue about their TPGPs, encouraging
collaborative groups to form for this purpose. Teachers could invite whom they
wished as their peer responders, and administrators found that staff reported
the collaborative groups were at least as valuable as the administrator-teacher
conferences.
In another school, the administrative team held June
interviews with each staff member focusing on three questions: What was the
goal? How did it affect your teaching? And, Where are you going with it next
year?
All administrators emphasized the importance of strong
central office support in this district for the TPGP policy and its
implementation. Plentiful information and group dialogue opportunities provided
by the district for administrators were noted as being very helpful.
Interviewees also noted the powerful influence of district office
administrators modeling the use of growth plans, visiting schools staffs to
share their plans and talk about the process. District initiatives to map
themes emerging in the teachers’ plans across the district and create
corresponding professional development opportunities were also described
positively as evidence of district commitment to support teachers’ growth
plans. Two administrators were enthusiastic about the Pacific Institute
personal development program[3] becoming popular
throughout the district, and felt that the core values and approaches of this
program fit effectively with the principles of the TPGPs. Finally,
administrators all emphasized a key dimension to success being the financial
resources made available to each school to pay workshop fees and release time
for development opportunities teachers chose to engage.
All four administrators
explained they’d noticed positive changes in teachers’ goal-setting over the
three years. First, over time teachers seemed to be becoming more confident in
writing goals, and were “personalizing” their goals more to specific dimensions
of their own practice and teaching styles.
Second, more teachers were
aligning their personal goals for growth with school and district initiatives,
and one principal noted that a “common language” was beginning to appear among
the growth plans of a particular staff. Another principal had observed a
natural evolution in the types of staff goals, from a more personal focus at
first to a more curricular, more systemic focus.
Third, most teachers seemed
to have “come on board”, and more were taking the TPGP written plan and action
seriously. One administrator reported that initially there was a wide spectrum
of teacher response to the TPGPs; everything from uncertainty and a small
degree of cynicism to enthusiasm as many teachers welcomed this alternative to
summative evaluation by a supervisor (being observed in the classroom).
Administrators often
attributed these changes to their own restraint of any critique or judgment of
teachers’ first goals and plans. All administrators emphasized the need for
flexibility in accepting all of the growth plans submitted with a fairly wide
range of tolerance. Some administrators admitted to mixed feelings about how to
receive and respond to more personal goals. Is “learning knitting” a reasonable
professional goal? However, administrators all spoke about being sensitive and
careful to provide encouragement and positive reinforcement to staff.
They also noted the
collective “peer pressure”, modeling and information sharing that developed
among staffs over the three years of implementation, which tended to “nudge along”
those who seemed less committed at first to TPGPs. One principal mentioned
using “subliminal” ways of “talking up” the importance and relevance of certain
school goals and system initiatives to teachers’ own growth plans. Another had
teachers examine the Teaching Quality Standards as well as the school and
district goals during the TPGP goal-planning process in September. Then at the
end of the year this administrator asked staff to demonstrate how their
professional growth was related to these standards and goals.
One very positive movement described by administrators was
staff members choosing to work in groups to prepare these plans, usually
according to grades or subject area. This was more pronounced at the elementary
level, and became established gradually among interested staff members - not
imposed through administrative directive, but enhanced by administrative
encouragement.
All four administrators expressed unequivocal enthusiasm about the value of the TPGPs, and their potential for future possibilities. Common benefits cited were (1) greater authenticity and teacher commitment to their own professional development; (2) increased teacher focus and accountability for their own development; (3) increased collegiality; and (4) teachers’ self-affirmation.
After a few “glitches” and uncertainties in the TPGP
start-up process, administrators described a growing authenticity of the plans,
ownership of teachers for professional growth and increasing level of
empowerment and professionalism. Several told stories about particular teachers
“blossoming” as they set and found themselves actually achieving learning
goals.
The “old” system of teacher evaluation (observation and
conferencing) was described as “a bit artificial” by all four administrators.
One explained that the teacher growth plans helped support a strong divisional
commitment to a “culture” of professional development, described as “push,
support and assist”. One administrator explained she still supervises by
walking around, observing closely student and teacher activity in classrooms
and throughout the school. Another explained that the TPGP process allows her
to be more selective with her supervisory time; especially to assist teachers
in need.
Although administrators varied in the amount of direction
they gave to teachers for TPGPs (i.e. one asking teachers to write a personal
goal, a school goal and a district goal), all emphasized their support for
staff risk-taking and creativity in designing personally meaningful TPGPs.
A
key dimension in all three schools appeared to be an existing growth-oriented
culture. All principals mentioned extensive resources, both time and finances,
dedicated in their schools to support professional development activities. All
described staff relationships which were largely collegial, mutually supportive
and in some schools, unusually close and collaborative. All gave evidence of
values enacted in the culture of their schools focused on continuous learning,
caring, children’s well-being, and a positive work environment. The only real
change brought by TPGPs to these schools was often to formalize and recognize a
system already in place of teachers identifying areas for growth and pursuing
development activities on an ongoing basis.
One referred to staff plans now allowing greater insight into the struggles of teachers’ practice, “what areas of curriculum they are getting bogged down in” -- and therefore greater opportunity to assist. The requirement to write goals at the beginning of the year met with varying response, although all four supported the requirement for teachers to create a focus for their practice. One stressed the personal accountability that goal-setting creates: “When it’s written down, you begin to relate everything that happens to that goal”. Teachers now take more responsibility for their own professional development, the administrator explained; they do much more “conscious planning” for their growth, and more thinking around questions such as, “How will I know when I get there? What will it look like?” Another mentioned the value of personal ‘targets’: “I don’t think goals should be rigid, but I don’t like things loosey-goosey”.
All four described some collaboration happening among some
teachers in preparing their goals (“but some teachers you have to nudge a
bit”), in ways that indicated their desire for greater staff collaboration.
However, as one noted, “The TPGP process as it stands doesn’t encourage
collaboration -- you’d have to modify it”. At the high school level some
teachers in same-subject areas met to compare TPGP in the planning process.
Beyond that, many teachers chose, as professional development activities,
coaching their colleagues (for example, to integrate technology into their
classes).
In one school the administrative team had decided to
formally incorporate teacher collaboration in preparing and reviewing the
plans. Staff were invited to meet in small groups for the ‘supervision’ part of
the TPGPs - reviewing the growth plan and the teacher’s progress during the
school year. Most teachers chose this option and said they found it a rare
opportunity for concentrated dialogue about professional practice (“deep talk”,
the assistant principal called it), a rewarding and creative learning
experience. The principals believed that staff had gradually become committed
to a process of ongoing development with its stops, starts, sudden breakthroughs,
back and forth rhythms, and continual clarification, which was the most
important outcome of the TPGP initiative.
All administrators, as well as many teachers, referred
positively to the fact the teacher professional growth plans stress competence
and growth rather than deficits and judgment. As one teacher put it, “Here’s
how I am skilled and getting more skilled”. The TPGP process is structured so
that end-of-year discussions with teachers about their growth plans tend to
highlight their accomplishments, positive changes, and affirming incidents
throughout the year that otherwise might be forgotten.
Administrators all described ways they enhanced the
self-affirmatory nature of TPGPS. . One explained a strategy of encouraging
staff to write goals as an affirmation: “I am…” Another principal found that
TPGPs stimulated, for some teachers, such deep reflection that she was
considering introducing to her staff an option to create a portfolio. Three
administrators discussed an overarching system objective of increasing teacher
wellness and the balance of work and personal life. TPGPs, they felt, supported
this objective by their inherent self-affirming potential.
The issues or concerns expressed
by principals centered on two dimensions of teacher professional growth plans.
First was the potential rigidity, and linearity of the planning process. Some
suggested that pre-determined goals and measurable outcomes were not consistent
with the fluidity of teaching practice and teacher growth. Second was a concern
that teachers need to become comfortable and confident in developing and sharing
their goals.
Two administrators referred to their own discomfort with
the linear planning process, explaining their belief that important knowledge
related to practice is often emergent, and very difficult to articulate early
in the year. One said, “We administrators are not good at living with ‘messy’
for awhile; we want closure and solutions, we want to clean up the mess.”
Another explained that goals are more fluid and on-going than the one-year TPGP
process of plan-action-measure allows. This administrator explained that the
“somewhat linear” nature of TPGPs created certain stress for those staff
concerned about meeting their goals each year.
A third pointed out that “Some goals just aren’t set-able
in September” and mentioned discomfort with the focus on observable indicators
and formal educational strategies for growth (most teachers tended to indicate
intents to attend workshops, conferences, and read resources to fulfill their
growth goals). This administrator planned to offer a portfolio option (“it’s
more a living document”) for teachers who preferred this to a TPGP. Portfolios,
this person felt, would encourage more reflective writing, more affirmation,
and more focus on the process of growth rather than fixed goals and concrete
outcomes.
All administrators referred
to teachers’ initial and varying degrees of discomfort both in writing and
sharing their goals. Principals found themselves meeting with teachers to help
them work through questions such as these: What’s a goal, and what’s an action
strategy? What’s a manageable, realistic goal for one year? What’s an
acceptable goal, to the administrator, for professional growth? What if I don’t
achieve it?
The issue of staff members including personal goals in
professional growth plans raised different concerns for different
administrators. All felt that wellness was important, that staff not be
overwhelmed by teaching demands and lose “the delicate balance between work and
home life.” Some felt that TPGPs should reflect this balance; one believed
personal goals had a place but not on TPGPs. One administrator was thinking
though a situation where one staff member had apparently written goals that did
not pertain to her current position, but to creating a new career direction.
Another was concerned about some teachers writing “unrealistic” TPGP goals that
created additional pressure for themselves. Two administrators wondered, At
what point does a supervisor question or criticize a goal?
However, all four administrators
emphasized the importance of accepting all teacher goals: “We’re giving lots
of freedom here . . .I’ve had to really lower my standards, but if I start
rejecting [the goals] if they’re scrawly or I don’t agree with them, it turns
[the teachers] off.” Teachers sometimes wrote what principals thought were
large unmanageable goals, or “trivial” goals, or unmeasurable goals, or goals
with what a principal might believe have questionable connection to teaching
practice. Two administrators admitted feeling some personal dilemma about
how to interpret their teachers’ goals, what criteria to bring to this interpretation,
and ultimately how to respond.
Two principals stressed the
importance of issues of trust and risk. One explained a belief that TPGPs do
not promote risk-taking “because everything you put down has to be measured, so
teachers stress out -- what if I don’t achieve it this year?” Believing that TPGPs may actually reinforce
a deficit model of teaching, this administrator was more enthusiastic about the
possibilities offered by portfolios.
Another noted the vulnerability
involved in sharing one’s goals with a colleague or supervisor, and explained
a personal story “as a confident administrator with twenty-five years’ experience.”
When the supervisor was changed, this administrator apparently changed the
personal TPGP goals, believing that the new supervisor would bring a particular
bias to judging those goals. “Trust is key, and it’s a difficult balance even
in a district that is so supportive”. This administrator went on to note that
the kind of reflection people do is related to their age and career stage:
an administrator needs to meet people “where they’re at”.
Most administrators
described the time factor as an enormous challenge for everyone involved. One
person said, “If done well, growth plans are more time consuming for everyone
than summative evaluation”. Administrators’ own strategies to manage the time
crunch are explained in an earlier section.
Other time concerns
mentioned by administrators included teachers’ difficulty in finding the time
to document and write down the things that happen over the year that are
related to their growth plans. As one principal noted, “Teachers don’t have
time to give themselves credit for all that they are doing.” Sometimes the most
important growth doesn’t get captured in writing. This is partly because not
all teachers may have language to articulate their learning experiences in
practice, and partly because for some teachers the “writing part” is simply the
“what you have to do” part - the least important part of the professional
learning and growing process.
Time allowed for noticeable
changes in teaching practice in the long-term is also important. One principal
explained, “You have these wonderful plans, but they need support . . . Implementing
new ideas is difficult. You need time to practice, in a safe place . . .
there’s a dip in what it looks like. And just the daily grind keeps you from
doing new things. . . A teacher wants to incorporate new activities or
technology -- well, she has to find all these new things, decide which works
and which doesn’t. That takes all kinds of time.”
For the majority of participants, the teacher
professional growth plan was an evolving document that provided positive direction
for professional development. For most, the process took some getting used
to. Staff needed time to learn to trust, become comfortable, and develop clear
goals. Most emphasized the importance of administrative support. However for
some, goal-setting was nothing new. One special education teacher, for example,
explained that annual goal-setting for her teaching was a required part of
her practice long before the TPGP policy was implemented. Other teachers referred
to a personal habit of annual goal-setting, or pointed out that all good teachers
must be goal-oriented to plan their units and lessons.
Several staff agreed that the first year
was a testing of the waters, and over time they learned to trust the process.
One teacher described her fear at the beginning:
When
we first started, it was really a risk. What if I write something down and it's
not worded properly? Is somebody going
to think that I'm not a very good writer? You have to be able to trust the
people that are going to see that growth plan that they're not going to be
making judgements on you. When I first started, I never would have said to
somebody "Would you like to see my growth plan?”
A teacher who has become a promoter of
TPGPs over time explained there was some staff uncertainty and resistance at
first. She was new to the school, and her words demonstrate the importance of
attending to individual teachers’ stage of development:
I was still trying to get my own feet in the Special Education system and I think sometimes the goals in the beginning are just to survive. In time you know how to pick out what your priorities were and how to actually accomplish them. It did cause a lot of discussion, a lot of hemming and hawing at first. When we started there were big goals. I thought, just another piece of paper work. I've got too much to do now.
Staff often mentioned the patient support
and understanding of their administrators. One explained that in her school,
she found it helpful to have interviews with the supervisor both in January
(small group or one-on-one to discuss ways of achieving goals) and at the end
of the year. One man described the importance of administrators understanding
teacher change. In his own case, a significant influence on his teaching was a
week-long conference:
It took me a year to
begin implementing those things, and another year before we started to share
those ideas. It’s a long process. And I think the longer you teach, the longer
it takes to shift ideas and look at things in a different way.
Teachers often described how their goals
became more clear and refined over time. In the first year of writing goals,
They
were so general that it was almost difficult to tell whether they were really
successful or not.
One explained that when she
started, she had a long list of detailed goals. After a school-based workshop
from the Alberta Teachers’ Association, she combined and focused the list into
broader goals, and attended more to the details of her action plan for
fulfilling her development objectives. Another explained,
The first year I put
in way too much of what I thought I would do and I ended up in the end doing
things that I never planned to do. The first year was overwhelming.
Almost all staff interviewees commented
positively about the psychological support they received from their
supervisors, mostly in offering positive reinforcement.
He
was supportive in that he thought they were really good, professional growth
plans - that they were right on and he also would say "In other words,
this is what you need..." and I'd say yes. And that really helped, that was very supportive. And I know that if I needed help I could go
to our administrators and say "You know, this isn't working out and in fact
it's worse than it was before, what can I do?" And they would offer strategies or something that I could add. If
I had no reinforcement I might sometimes wonder if I'm in a vacuum and if this
is the right thing.
In some cases (administrative personnel)
leaders modeled their own growth plans for staff, or gave latitude in what was
acceptable the first time through. Other examples of support described
positively were staff meeting time provided for discussion, and supervisors
giving positive comments about their plans. Some interviewees’ comments
indicated that supervisors need to be very open-minded and understanding of
different approaches to TPGPs:
My
principal knows me very well. From the first day she showed up here and we had
our first locking of the horns, until today, she knows pretty well where I
stand, what I feel, what my goals are, what my aims are. I showed her my growth
plans and she just looked at me and I just smiled at her. She knew what I was
thinking and I've told her what I thought about them - last year’s. This year
I'm very proud because there's a tremendous need there [to become involved in a
particular development program], but I would have done it without the growth
plans. She's the one who encouraged me to take [it]. She thought, not that I
needed it or anything, but to give me a better perspective on some of the
things that I've done, how to handle things that I've done. I have a very open
relationship with our principal so I'm lucky that way. When we sit down to discuss growth plans,
she knows my goals are the kids.
Staff also overwhelmingly praised the
school and district learning opportunities and financial support available to
them to implement the growth activities they devised for themselves. Many
positively noted the time in their schools that had been devoted to TPGPs.
About half described the importance to them of their administrator showing
active interest in what they were doing: “He’ll come in, he’ll take a look at
my displays, he’ll ask me what I’m doing – he would find out what’s going on
and what people are teaching regardless of what’s in their professional growth
plans.” Individual consulting opportunity appeared to be plentiful. An
educational assistant explained,
I was given consulting time with two other assistants that work with the same kinds of kids, opportunity to talk with each other. We were all given – not mentors as such - but somebody that we needed to share this with when it was done
However some teachers pointed out the
need for staff members to be proactive by requesting assistance. Some felt more
communication was needed to inform staff about available jurisdictional
support.
Most important, Wescana staff all
emphasized the importance of their administrators accepting what they had
written, without critical judgment, and encouraging teachers to develop goals
they chose for themselves. This positive support helped create the trust
necessary for people to engage seriously with the goal-setting process. One
teacher who had conducted TPGP workshops in other schools (not part of this
study) found that these key dimensions of mutual trust and administrative
support were often lacking:
My main concern was that a lot of teachers
felt they could not trust the people who were supposed to be looking at their
growth plans to be fair. For teachers it's a big risk and there should be
more support happening in terms of administration . . . The other thing was
in some schools I found that administrators wanted growth plans to suit their
way of thinking rather than saying to the teacher, “Here are all these different
formats. You choose what you feel most comfortable with and then bring them
to me and we'll talk about it.”
All participants indicated that they saw
value in the professional growth plans. Several commented that the TPGP process
was less stressful and more useful than the summative format of teacher evaluation
(classroom observation and conferences) used in the past. Others enjoyed the
increased amount of feedback they felt they were receiving (from supervisors)
on their accomplishments in learning and development. Nearly every staff participant
in the study said that they now approached professional development differently
than they had before having to write a plan.
Goal setting generally was
considered to be an activity that increased insight into one’s own teaching,
and one’s commitment towards professional development focused on a particular
area. Teachers indicated that the TPGP process itself helped them define a
personal vision for their practice, and a sense of clear direction. A few said
that their own goal setting experiences with TPGPs led them to introduce the
same activity with their students. However, as one enthusiastic teacher
cautioned, not everyone is a natural goal-setter. Although goal-setting had
always been a part of her working style, she noted that some other teachers
seemed to prefer a more emergent, day-to-day approach.
One teacher explained that
for her, goal-setting revitalized her teaching and reduced stress: “It’s easy
to get burned out in this profession.” She also emphasized the importance of
celebrating the achievement of each of her goals. Another looked forward to a
quiet time she now gives herself every year to review the past year’s activity
and craft personal benchmarks for the coming year.
The
writing down of goals seemed to be a rather powerful act for many educators, a
way to “rethink your thoughts and clarify them”. One teacher explained “because
it’s written down in black and white, it’s something I can refer to and make
further reflections.” Some believed the writing of a plan increased its
permanence. Several returned to their plans frequently throughout the year to
review them. One teacher explained:
You look at it throughout the year every
couple of months and keep it close at hand . . .if for example I had a really bad day with the assistants and
I say gee, I'm not accomplishing much, I'll remember my goal [improve communication
skills] - so then I might open it up and say oh yeah, I'm supposed to do all
these things . . .I haven't been doing
them lately.
Many reported that they had
experienced increased focus and commitment, with a clearer sense of direction
in their teaching, professional reading, and conferences: “It helps you
prioritize, focus on what’s most important for these kids.” A department head
explained, “You’re building something and you have a sense of vision. Without
that, you’re kind of wandering.” But whereas a school mission statement
involves many person-hours and often ends up meaning relatively little for each
individual, one’s own TPGP goals take only a few minutes and “gives meaning and
a sense of purpose to what you’re doing.”
One described the TPGP as a
continual barometer, showing how what was happening on a daily basis in their
classroom was “on the right track.” Another explained that the plan acted like
an anchor:
The more and more busy and more frazzled you get, you can go back and say, wait a minute now, let me check if all this stuff I'm doing related to the goals that I've set for myself. Maybe I need to leave [a project] for awhile and come back to the plan, look at where I'm supposed to be going.
A few teachers referred to
the almost infinite number of areas in which one feels pressure to grow and
develop skill as a teacher, and the hundreds of resources and activities
available for growth. TPGP seem to help navigate these choices. One man
explained that there was no longer any type of “dabbling” in professional
development for him – he found the TPGP process helped him be more specific and
focused, both in engaging particular learning activities and applying them to
his practice. Similarly, another teacher described how the TPGP helped her focus
whenever she had choices:
It's nice to have a written down plan because then when you go to plan
your PD activities, when I go to a convention, I want to choose some sessions
that are going to help me to implement my growth plan or when I look at displays
I'm going to be focusing and seeing what kind of materials and resources are
out there that can help me achieve my growth plan.
Process and time are
important for teachers to focus their goals. One described the evolution over
two years of a goal she was particularly committed to and still working on:
This one is basically the same as last year and that's about
delegating...being a more efficient administrator. I've never taken any administration or supervision courses and I
just find some years very challenging working in such close quarters with so
many assistants, and dealing with difficulties that might arise in working with
them so closely, that I find I have to go to my administrator for advice or
whatever. So this is how the goal reads:
“I would like to delegate more effectively in order to become a more
efficient administrator.” It deals with clear directions, expectations of
duties of the assistants, resources required, how I'm going to do this. I've
got these little things to remind myself I'm going to do it. I’m learning to
use better communication techniques - I've gone to a friend for help, who is a
real proponent of this ____ approach about praising and explaining and offering
constructive criticism more effectively. I have a lot of difficulty with
that. So I find this is a really good
goal and it's coming along nicely. It's
more refined than it was last year, but it's basically the same and it's going
better.
Her
story shows the importance of flexibility in goal timelines, and the nature
of the process of development: it is certainly not linear, and what begins
as one particular goal can blossom or shift in different ways. One educational
assistant had found that after she identified a focus for her TPGP (in visually
impaired students, directly related to her educational work), she began to
take courses in the area. Now she is pursuing entrance to a Master’s program
to further develop this focus.
Several teachers mentioned
that the amount of professional development they were doing had increased
substantially since constructing their first growth plan. Others described their development
activities to be more “proactive, intrinsic and exciting” since the introduction
of TPGPs. One person said “It could be coincidental, but my desire has
increased for professional development since there are so many more
opportunities and reason to apply it”. In two schools, teachers commented upon
a general increased level of professional development interest and informal
activity among their peers. One explained:
I think there's more of an element of collegiality and people realize that everybody is working to improve. People are committed to growing. In this school, we do a lot of team work kind of things, so when I sit down with people who have similar goals, all of us are working on multiple intelligences. So if somebody brings a book in, it's “ You said you were on this so do you want to look at this book?” Or “Gee, I was reading this and I thought you might enjoy it because I know you're working on the same kind of theme.” There's more collegiality, there's more team work and I believe there's more professionalism.
An educational assistant
described gaining more confidence to attend workshops, and a sense of purpose
and integration in what she was learning:
I think I'm not as apprehensive about going to workshops and I found over time that this [TPGP] confirms what I do on a daily basis. The confirmation is important to me.
One teacher who was actively
creating new units integrating social studies, political science, global
education, art, and literature, seemed to have discovered a new energy in her
teaching:
Professional development used to mean, for me, going to the teacher conferences. And now I'm just...I'm involved in my own professional growth and I'm finding that invigorating and exciting and I'm glad that someone pushed me in that direction!
She described how her
practice seemed to have become transformed, as she discovered new resources,
made contacts with new organizations, and worked from the students’ energy as
they became excited about global issues: “Once you start getting involved that
way and opening your eyes and seeing what's out there and what the
possibilities are, of course you get more excited about it. I'm doing more in
terms of professional growth and in terms of creating very diverse and
different lesson plans than I ever was before.”
All but one participant described the
TPGP as an affirming process. One teacher described how growth plans had
expanded her sense of the possibilities for her own growth. Another “felt good”
that she had experienced lots of support and was given lots of space for
risk-taking. Some mentioned it was positive for them to see their colleagues
grow in confidence and professionalism. Most referred negatively to the “old
way of teacher evaluation, kind of one shot once in awhile”. In contrast, the
TPGPs allow one to “be treated as a professional”, creating one’s own goals and
choosing when to seek help and for what. A major source of affirmation and
confidence-building for many was the written evidence of accomplishment. As one
secondary teacher explained:
I think you can get lost in your everyday stuff and not realize how much you do accomplish in a year . . . .Especially with the special education students, success is often very small and it takes an extreme length of time before you see a real change. To be able to sit back in June and just kind of reflect on your year. Knowing that because the program was there you're able to pick out five kids that you suspect wouldn't have made it through, are now being successful. Looking at the program now being refunded for a second year, knowing it is a program that there's a need for, and that it's been established gives a sense of accomplishment. It gives you some concrete examples of what you have completed.
A few teachers mentioned the need to move
beyond the goal-writing into action. One man described how a teacher may need
help to create opportunities to apply new learning in practice. His example was
a goal to integrate technology, which fell flat until he had the resources and
curriculum to actually use the new learning:
Now I can actually see that I can use it, my enthusiasm and my desire to do it has increased. That’s better in the sense that I'm actually applying this. If I had learned all this stuff before and didn't have access to apply it - my skills at it would be rustier, it would take me twice as long and maybe the frustration builds.
Another man who described himself as “neutral”
about TPGPs felt that while growth plans offered good guidelines, portfolios
offered a more thoughtful and accurate way to demonstrate commitment and growth
The benefit of collaboration opened by
the TPGP process was generally viewed as positive, but with some conditions.
Most felt it was useful to share and receive feedback from others. They even
felt that the plans provided a foundation for discussion and affirmed them as
individuals. Collaboration was described as desirable if everyone was
demonstrating a personal level of commitment to their own growth. However, time
constraints apparently often prevented the level of collaboration some
educators would have liked.
Trust was considered
essential, but a delicate balance. Some preferred to choose their dialogue
partners. Some felt collaboration was only worthwhile with colleagues in
similar teaching positions to their own (grade and/or subject area).
Individual work style
affected attitudes towards collaboration. While one teacher stated
“Collaboration is essential, because we work as a team for the students”,
another said, “Collaboration isn’t necessary for me, but it might be fun”.
There was a marked difference in attitudes to collaboration between divisions.
The most frequent and in-depth dialogue about teaching practice was reported at
the elementary level, and less in-depth collaboration at the senior high school
level.
Seeing one’s practice as
part of the larger system was described by three participants. One, an
educational assistant, explained that the TPGP process helps one realize . . .
. . . that you're sort
of not working in a vacuum here, that there is a big picture and you're part
of that. It’s important not to come to work everyday and put one foot ahead
of the other. I think you really have to look at the big picture, that direction.
About three-quarters of the
respondents felt that the expectation to prepare a professional growth plan was
a natural responsibility. TPGPs were considered just “part of being a
professional”. Staff said they “found it meaningful” and “made it into a
choice”. Some felt that TPGPs made
their colleagues more accountable: “It gives those that need it, a little
push.” Other comments indicated that TPGPs simply gave form and accountability
to what should be an ongoing process for all educators:
I’d question what was wrong if someone didn’t want to make and fulfill a growth plan. Can you be the same person you were twenty years ago and be a professional in the classroom, would you not feel out of place?
I know there's a professional obligation [to do TPGPs] but teachers who
care about their students and are honest teachers, don't need a growth plan.
Some however, like this
person, found that the written goals enhanced her own sense of responsibility
and self-motivation to continue working on an area:
I have this growth plan, I know it's written down, so it really is a commitment. I mean, nobody is going to come to me and say "My gosh, you didn't finish that growth plan, do you feel you're as good a teacher as you should be?" But . . .I pull out that growth plan and I look and it helps me to say ok, I've kind of not been focusing on this area for awhile. I need to go back in my planning and maybe do some more of these activities or go back to check that I'm on the right path.
Overall,
many believed that they were more committed, involved and aware of their own
professional development because of constructing a professional growth plan. Most
reported that their goals had become more specific and realistic since the
completion of their first growth plan. Writing the plan down, most said, helped
them focus and commit to developing a clearly defined area of their teaching.
Some compared TPGPs to traditional supervision relying on periodic classroom
observation, which was disliked for several reasons including a perception that
it emphasized minimum performance. All but one teacher who discussed this
comparison considered TPGPs superior:
I think this is a
much better way. It gets us out there,
it keeps us developing, changing so that we're not just sort of getting into a
rut.
However, a few teachers still
desired the continuation of some kind of supervision through classroom observation
format, perhaps modified from the formal approach of clinical supervision:
“a little more informal kind of pop-ins for 10 or 20 minutes, that’s good
too.”
Educators
voiced some strong individual issues with teacher professional growth plans,
and suggestions for how to make the process better fit their own needs and
situation. These have been organized into four sections below: time concerns,
restrictions of a linear TPGP process, unclear links between professional
development and practice, and some concerns about goal completion.
As with most educational
initiatives, time was a concern for almost all of the participants. As one
junior high teacher explained, “Very, very busy days. By 3:00 we're all exhausted.”
A few respondents said they
found it hard not to think of the plan as “one more thing to do”. Some put
personal time aside to complete the TPGP because they said they needed a
reflective space: one explained it was impossible to create meaningful goals
amidst the “hot action” of other school responsibilities. Several expressed a
wish for time to revisit the plan throughout the school year, or at least at
the midpoint. One person felt restricted by timelines. He said he understood
the need for them, but said “sometimes great ideas hit you after you’ve handed
it in, then I must decide whether to stick with it or alter it.”
Only
two people said that time was of no concern to them in relation to any part of
the professional growth plans. As one explained, time is a matter of attitude:
It's not a time consuming
process, it's ongoing. It's a way
of being as opposed to being time consumptive. Sitting down and doing your
goals takes an hour or two, summing them up and the end of the year takes
an hour or two, and you live through them through the year.
Time challenges include the
TPGP schedule itself. Some educators disliked the one-year structure of TPGPs:
formulating goals in September and completing “actions” by June. One who felt
“boxed in” by the TPGPs talked about the ongoing fluid nature of learning in
teaching. Another teacher explained that there were too many unknowns and
sudden changes in his daily activity to write “goals” at the beginning of the
year: “I can’t sit down and say, well, this is what I’m going to work on: I
would much rather see a growth plan after you do it – this is what I have done,
not what I think I’m going to do.”
To write up a growth plan ahead of time in September, you're anxious about
getting back to school, you're anxious to see what class you have, how you're
going to do this....you're not going to do a growth plan, you don't care about
growth plans.
Some participants stressed
that their plan must be fluid and able to be a work in progress, not written in
stone and inflexible. Several had experienced how unforeseen circumstances
influenced the “success” of their plan. One, while endorsing the importance of
goal-setting, wondered whether so much time spent crafting written goals for
the TPGP actually fixed them, and inhibited “the spontaneity” of following
opportunities as they arise: “some of the best stuff comes out of that.”
One person described the
TPGP as a “catch-22” situation for him. He felt that there was “an inherent
judgement process going on for what you did and did not write and for what may
or may not have been accomplished in relation to the plan.” Another declared
that writing a plan at the beginning of the year was too restrictive for her:
an approach emphasizing reflection at the end of the year about what emerged,
such as a through a journal or portfolio, would be her preference. One
participant stressed a need for more honesty in the process, so teachers might
write what they want rather than what (this teacher felt) administrators want
to hear.
Some teachers struggled with
whether to set clear goals and boundaries to govern their professional development,
or follow opportunities as they emerged: “There are so many nifty things to
do, how do you keep it under control so that you're not pushing yourself too
much?” One explained that a superintendent had suggested the former approach,
for the sake of teacher wellness. However, this teacher wondered whether teaching
life was so fluid and opportunities so difficult to anticipate that written
goals somehow did not do justice to the actual process of evolving growth.
A few people raised concerns about the meaning and
purpose of the TPGP focus on the teacher’s learning. Several stressed the need
for honesty and indicated that a plan must be meaningful to its writer. One,
for example, wondered about the point of focusing on goals that tended to lean
towards professional development in formal education settings:
I can go and take a
Masters degree, how's that going to help my students? I could go today and
take a ____ (particular) course. It’s not going to help those kids one bit.
All it's going to do is probably end up having me leave my students. That's
not what I'm there for. I'm there for the kids.
He emphasized the greater importance to his practice
of other, professionally-related projects and activities he was involved in –
but the TPGP process encouraged commitment to concrete courses and skill
development workshops that, in his experience, did not transfer well to
classroom practice
....you can take behavior
modification, you can take all this...that's great. But the harsh reality
is, when you're in front of the kids, you've got to make a split second decision,
to help them learn those skills.
Many staff expressed concern
about fulfillment of goals. Although three participants were not particularly
worried about goal completion, most others commented about trying their best to
fulfill their planned growth activities by June. In fact for some, the
experience of having written down and shared a goal, then finding oneself
unable to achieve it at the end of the school year, was somewhat distressing:
“You feel unsuccessful.”
Participants posed some
interesting questions in this area: Did I really fail if my goal wasn’t
completed? What is a deadline really for if I don’t strive to meet it? Is a
goal ever completely finished? A few people suggested that celebration of
overall progress, or movement in the direction of progress, would be helpful -
rather than waiting for completion of particular goals. One person who was very
serious about goal completion said he found it to motivating when others
recognized his accomplishments. Others, however, remarked that giving verbal
reports at staff meetings made them feel uncomfortable or that the uneasiness
initially was attributed to not understanding the process.
Several commented that
unforeseen circumstances arise and things don’t always go the way a teacher
plans. One teacher found it helpful when her administrator directed her “not to
overload myself” and to “give something up”. Another had experienced growth
activities that were not on his original growth plan, and wondered how these
figured into the planning process. An educational assistant explained that the
unpredictable, dynamic nature of the work teaching children militated against a
cut-and-dried goal-planning process:
It's not one of those things that you can wake up one day and say, "I'm there" just because the kids are all at different levels emotionally. So yeah, it's something that we're always working on.
Some teachers suggested that more dialogue
about factors preventing a teacher from finishing a goal would be helpful.
One found that the in-depth reflection she worked through, analyzing why she
had not achieved a particular goal, was a useful growth experience itself.
It is evident that
perceptions of teachers, administrators, and educational assistants regarding
TPGPs are remarkably similar. Comments about challenges in implementation and
effective responses to these, benefits of TPGPs and issues of concern echo the
same themes.
To conclude this report we have chosen to
present lists of observations and suggestions offered by the Wescana teachers,
educational assistants and administrators interviewed for this study. Most
of the themes developed throughout this report are embedded in these lists.
These comments sometimes represent individual suggestions and sometimes a
theme echoed by several individuals. The items on these lists do not necessarily
represent a consensus of opinion among staff.
According to certain Wescana staff, the
process supporting the Teacher Professional Growth Plan at the school level
should acknowledge that:
·
The
growth plan process, for many teachers, is self-affirming and builds
confidence;
·
Many
staff appreciate supervisors that celebrate their successes in taking steps
towards or achieving goals;
·
Many
staff appreciate the TPGP opportunity to focus
their professional development;
·
Many
staff appreciate a formal midpoint revisiting of goals;
·
Some
teachers become overwhelmed with large goals: some need encouragement to
prioritize or break large goals into smaller bench marks;
·
Genuine
growth experiences are sometimes hard to identify and track: they are fleeting
classroom moments, or activities occurring outside the classroom;
·
Some
staff are anxious about “what counts as a goal”, and afraid to put down
something in September against which they will be “measured” in June;
·
Staff
trust varies with the individuals and supervisors involved, and influences how
much vulnerability a staff member is willing to reveal in the TPGP process;
·
A
growth plan is often enacted very differently than anticipated;
·
Sharing
goals with colleagues seems to encourage staff motivation and commitment in the
TPGP process;
·
Goals
are evolutionary: no goal can be accurately envisioned and no goal is ever
completely finished;
·
Teachers’
priorities, pressures and work activity shift in unpredictable ways, affecting
their growth and progress towards planned goals;
·
Teachers’
career stage influences the kind of goals they want to pursue and their general
priority on professional development; and
·
The TPGP process
can increase both confidence about one’s teaching accomplishments, and guilt
that one isn’t accomplishing enough.
According to certain Wescana staff, a
Teacher Professional Growth Plan should:
·
strike
a balance between personal goals, personal professional growth areas, and
school vision;
·
include
genuinely honest reflections;
·
be
considered a priority in staff activity in the school;
·
be
very specific and focused on one or two teaching areas;
·
be
revisited throughout the school year;
·
be
linked to what goes on in the classroom: “The plan is living and breathing
through the students”; and
·
include a running
record of growth plan accomplishments from year to year.
According to certain Wescana staff,
administrators can support and enable the Teacher Professional Growth Plan
process by:
·
trusting
teachers to formulate the goals that are most meaningful and appropriate for
them at their particular stage of development;
·
giving
wide latitude to teachers to design creative and personally meaningful goals;
·
helping
staff formulate goals that reflect their biggest concerns about their teaching
practice;
·
helping
staff view these goals as fluid, tentative, starting points – not prescriptive
‘bottom lines’ fixed in stone;
·
sharing
the administrator’s own growth plan and talking about its uncertainties and
process;
·
providing
time at staff meetings at the year’s beginning and mid point for staff to
dialogue about their goals, their growth challenges, and their meanings of
success;
·
placing
more emphasis on the “doing” and interpretation of the “doing”, than on the
“writing” of the plan;
·
encouraging
staff to keep their own professional goals close at hand and revisit them
frequently;
·
helping
teachers talk through why something doesn’t get done (i.e. time demands,
shifting priorities, etc.);
·
working
through common TPGP issues and questions with staff (see ‘Dilemmas’ below); and
·
helping teachers
see the growth plan as a living document that develops over the long term.
For certain Wescana staff, questions and
issues related to implementing Teacher Professional Growth Plans continue at
teacher and school-based administrator levels. These have not been generally
voiced as perplexing or debilitating, just questions that some staff are
working through. Jurisdictional guidance may be helpful in some of these
issues:
·
Do
TPGPs have to integrate both school and district goals? (The 1998 provincial
policy doesn’t suggest this).
·
Should
the TPGP clearly impact students?
·
Are
personal goals not directly related to one’s classroom practice, such as
learning knitting or Tai Chi, valid for a professional growth plan? (Where
should the line be drawn defining ‘unacceptable’ goals?)
·
Are
goals that capture what is already one’s professional obligation (i.e.
implementing a new curriculum) valid for a professional growth plan?
·
How
many goals should “carry over”, and for how many years?
·
How
does one account for accomplishments in the TPGP? (What are ‘valid’
indicators?)
·
How
does one capture, in a growth plan, those small but important incidents
occurring through the year?
·
How
can the TPGP process become more collaborative, and less individualized?
·
What
about forming group goals in which each individual takes a part?
·
How can we avoid
the TPGP tendency to focus on professional development as “doing” something
(i.e. attending workshops)?
An important overarching
theme that struck us throughout this research was the remarkable level of
support available to teachers for professional growth in all three schools we
studied in the Wescana district. Financial support for development activities
was plentiful. Emotional and psychological support for teachers to adjust to
the TPGPs was evident in all schools. School time dedicated to reflective
dialogue and workshops, and peer support for a positive and growth-oriented
school community was also evident in schools. Administrators’ sensitivity and
response to individual teacher needs was reported by all staff members
interviewed. Active administrative initiative to encourage more teacher
collaboration and deeper levels of reflective practice was noted by all. It was
apparent that at all district levels, administrative commitment to teachers’
learning and well-being was unconditional.
Patience was evident in many
administrators’ stories, even those of frustration related to TPGPs. Also
evident was a general understanding that teacher knowledge does not develop in
a linear, controllable process, but is unpredictable, individual, sometimes
difficult and emotionally messy. Finally, administrators generally demonstrated
trust in their staff to “find their way” in creating growth plans that are
professional, thoughtful, and genuinely supportive of improved practice.
We believe that what appears
to be a resulting culture of continuous
learning , above all, has been key to successful implementation of teacher
professional growth plans in this district.
The study proposal was funded in January,
2000 by the University of Alberta Research Grants Office
[4]
, then approved by the Faculty of Education
Associate Dean of Research. Following approval by Wescana Associate Superintendent
Mr. Doug Sime, administrators at the three schools suggested by Mr. Sime were
contacted by letter (see Appendix B) and telephone. When permission was received
from the four individual school-based administrators, staff volunteers for
the study at each school were contacted (often via email) to arrange interviews
at a time and place selected by each participant. The researcher Dr. Tara
Fenwick and a graduate research assistant, Anne Smulders, both of the Department
of Educational Policy Studies, conducted one-on-one open-ended semi-structured
interviews with each study participant, including four administrators, nine
teachers and two educational assistants. Ethical guidelines for educational
research regulated by the University of Alberta were followed strictly, as
described in a later section. All schools participating in the study were
provided with verbal and written material describing the purpose and nature
of the study, all Wescana staff participants provided their written consent
permitting use of their comments in this study, and all were provided telephone
and email contact information for both researchers.
Administrators were interviewed first,
and asked to describe the process of implementing Teacher Professional Growth
Plans in their school. These included administrators working in high school,
junior high school, and elementary school levels. Administrators were asked to
explain their process of implementing TPGPS, comment on challenges of
implementation and more or less effective responses to these challenges, the
benefits of TPGPs (compared to conventional supervision methods) and any
concerns they had about TPGPs. Administrators also provided demographic
information about the school, as well as a description of the school’s culture,
staff, and their leadership approach as these dimensions related to the
implementation of TPGPs.
Staff participants for the study were
recruited at the school level. Administrators agreed to provide information
about this study to their staff who were using TPGPs, and invite interested
staff members to volunteer to be interviewed. Volunteer school staff members
submitted their names to their administrator, who shared these names with the
researchers. In all, three high school teachers, three junior high teachers,
three elementary teachers and two educational assistants (one at the elementary
level and one at the junior high level) volunteered to be interviewed. The
group included seven women and two men.
The researchers contacted these people
via email or telephone to arrange an interview time and place convenient to
each participant. Teachers and teacher assistants were interviewed in personal
reflective conversations that lasted approximately 30-45 minutes. These
interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed by a specially trained research
transcriptionist. Teachers and teacher assistants were asked the following
questions (wording varied given the open-ended and emergent nature of the
conversational interviews):
1.
Describe
the way teacher professional growth plans (TPGPs) were introduced to you in
this school.
2.
What were
your first experiences using the TPGPs? (critical incidents)
3.
What have
been your most recent experiences using the TPGPs? (critical incidents)
4.
What
challenges, if any, have you experienced in implementing the TPGPs?
5.
What
benefits have you realized personally and professionally from working with the
TPGPs?
6.
What forms
of support, assistance, and resources have been most helpful to you in the TPGP
process?
Transcripts were analysed using
interpretive techniques of qualitative data content analysis following Ely
(1991). All real names and identifying characteristics were removed to protect
participants’ identity. Categories were coded and themes within these
categories sought from the data. The researchers worked separately to identify
themes, then analysed their findings comparatively. These themes were shared
with research participants in the form of a draft report of thematic findings
sent to each participant, allowing them opportunity to add, modify or delete
any information related to their involvement in the study, for any reason.
Participants were asked to validate the ‘truth’ of the themes, according to
their own perceptions and experiences of implementing TPGPs.
The report was duly revised following the
suggestions of participating school staff members.
This study was governed by the ethical guidelines
for educational research stipulated by the University of Alberta. All participants
gave written informed consent for their interviews to be tape recorded, transcribed,
and excerpts included in a report (see Appendix C). Strict confidentiality
of participants’ identity has been maintained as much as possible, through
the removal of real names and identifying characteristics from the final report.
No deception was used and the researchers have endeavored to ensure that no
harm has come to the participants as a result of their involvement in this
project. All raw data (tapes, transcripts and notes) connected with this project
are kept secure throughout its duration and will be destroyed after a period
of five years unless participants give permission for their further use. Participants
were given the right to withdraw from the study at any time for any purpose.
No one chose to exercise this option.
Following receipt of the approval of this
report by the Wescana school district, and their permission to circulate the
report, the report will be made available to the general public, placed in
the H.T. Coutts library at the Faculty of Education, and placed in the Barnett
House library of the Alberta Teachers’ Association.
Department
of Educational Policy Studies
[Date]
[Name]
[School
District]
[Address]
Dear
______:
I
am writing to follow up our telephone conversation today discussing the
possibility of my conducting research in ____________________ School in your
district. This letter provides some information about the nature of the
research project and the procedures.
The
study is a pilot project entitled: “TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLANS:
RELATIONS BETWEEN SELF-ASSESSMENT, SOCIAL-CULTURAL COMMUNITY, and
PROFESSIONALS’ LEARNING”.
The project explores, through staff dialogue in
small groups and individual interviews, the knowledge in a professional
community that is generated through the implementation of Teacher Professional
Growth Plans (TPGP). The research objectives are as follows:
(1) To identify the individual and implementational
issues that affect different professionals’ approaches to and learning through
goal setting and self-assessment;
(2) To identify significant social and cultural
dimensions of a teaching/learning community that may be linked in some
relationship to professionals’ learning and self-assessment;
(3) To develop and test a method of inquiry that
will allow examination of the relations among these dimensions;
(4) To
determine the feasibility of using this method over an extended period in K-12
schools.
The findings of the research will be restricted to
use in scholarly articles and presentations.
A report will be made available to the staff.
Myself and a graduate student research assistant,
working with the school principal or administrative designate and
representative staff, hope to plan and deliver a workshop in the school
designed to assist staff to complete the Teacher Professional Growth Plan
process for the school year 1999-2000. Part of the workshop will include small
group discussion around issues and strategies of self-assessment related to the
Teacher Professional Growth Plans. A follow-up discussion to the workshop will
be held for interested teachers, and one 60-minute personal interview held with
each teacher willing to be interviewed.
Participation of each individual staff member in
this project is voluntary, and any participant will be have the right to
withdraw from the research at any time. All staff participants will be advised
of the nature, purposes, and uses of the research. All interviews and small
group discussions will be tape-recorded and transcribed. All data will be kept confidential
and participants’ names will be protected through the use of pseudonyms. All
tapes and notes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the research h.
If these terms are acceptable to you, please sign
below, return one copy in the enclosed stamped envelope, and keep a copy for
your records.
I understand the terms of this research project and
find them acceptable.
_________________________________ _____________________
Signed Date
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Tara J. Fenwick
Principal Researcher
Department
of Educational Policy Studies
[Date]
[Name]
[School
District]
[Address]
Dear
______:
I
am writing to follow up our telephone conversation today discussing the
possibility of my conducting research in your school. This letter provides some
information about the nature of the research project and the procedures.
The
study is a pilot project entitled: “TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLANS:
RELATIONS BETWEEN SELF-ASSESSMENT, SOCIAL-CULTURAL COMMUNITY, and
PROFESSIONALS’ LEARNING”.
The project explores, through staff dialogue in
small groups and individual interviews, the knowledge in a professional
community that is generated through the implementation of Teacher Professional
Growth Plans (TPGP). The research objectives are as follows:
(1) To identify the individual and implementational
issues that affect different professionals’ approaches to and learning through
goal setting and self-assessment;
(2) To identify significant social and cultural
dimensions of a teaching/learning community that may be linked in some
relationship to professionals’ learning and self-assessment;
(3) To develop and test a method of inquiry that
will allow examination of the relations among these dimensions;
(4)
To determine the feasibility of using this method over an extended period in
K-12 schools.
Myself and a graduate student research assistant,
working with the school principal or administrative designate and
representative staff, propose to plan and deliver a workshop in the school
designed to assist staff to complete the Teacher Professional Growth Plan
process for the school year 1999-2000. This workshop will be planned with staff
so that it addresses your school’s development interests and goals as much as
possible. Part of the workshop will include small group discussion around
issues and strategies of self-assessment related to the Teacher Professional
Growth Plans. A follow-up discussion to the workshop will be held for
interested teachers, and one 60-minute personal interview held with each
teacher willing to be interviewed. We also hope to interview you or an
administrative designate about your responses to the new Teacher Supervision
policy, and your experiences with its implementation.
Participation
of each individual staff member in this project is voluntary, and any
participant will be have the right to withdraw from the research at any time.
All staff participants will be advised of the nature, purposes, and uses of the
research. All interviews and small group discussions will be tape-recorded and
transcribed. All data will be kept confidential and participants’ names will be
protected through the use of pseudonyms. All tapes and notes will be destroyed
at the conclusion of the research h.
The findings of the research will be restricted to
use in scholarly articles and presentations.
A report will be made available to the staff.
If these terms are acceptable to you, please sign
below, return one copy in the enclosed stamped envelope, and keep a copy for
your records.
I understand the terms of this research project and
find them acceptable.
_________________________________ _____________________
Signed Date
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Tara J. Fenwick
Principal Researcher
Department
of Educational Policy Studies
[Date]
[Name]
[School
District]
[Address]
Dear
______:
Thank you so much for meeting
with Anne Smulders and I to discuss Teacher Professional Growth Plans. We
appreciated the time you gave us to describe in detail the process of implementation
in your school, the benefits and issues you’ve encountered, and the role and
tasks of the administrative team in this process. We found that your comments
shed a good deal of insight for us, and we certainly went away feeling very
positive about the growth potential of teacher dialogue centered on these
plans.
We will be contacting you later
by telephone to set up individual meetings with the staff members you recommend
as potential interviewees for our further study. If you like we can send a
message by e-mail for you to forward to these staff members – whatever is
most convenient for you.
Thank you again for all the rich
information, and for allowing us access to your staff for this exploratory
research.
Sincerely,
Tara Fenwick
Assistant
Professor,
Department
of Educational Policy Studies
I, ______________________________________________________, agree to participate in a research project exploring my experiences in the implementation of teacher professional growth plans.
I agree to be interviewed by Dr. Tara Fenwick and/or Anne Smulders, M.Ed.under the following conditions:
1. I have the right to withdraw from the project at any time for any reason. If I choose to do so, the information I provide will be returned to me and not used in the project.
2. I agree to a single interview of approximately 30- 45 minutes, that will be tape-recorded.
3. I understand that the interview will be transcribed and analyzed.
4. My identity will be kept confidential and a pseudonym used in the final research report. All identifying characteristics will be removed that link me to the report.
5. The researchers will endeavor to ensure that no harm will come to me through my participation in this project.
I agree to these conditions:
Signed_________________________________________
Date___________________________________________
Researcher
Signed_________________________________________
Date___________________________________________
For further information regarding the purpose and methods of this project, feel free to contact either of the following:
Dr. Tara J. Fenwick, University of Alberta or Anne Smulders, University of Alberta
Telephone (780) 492-4879
Email tara.fenwick@ualberta.ca
Alberta Learning. (1998). Teacher
growth, supervision and evaluation, January 26 (Policy 2.1.5). Edmonton,
Alberta: Alberta Learning.
Bosetti, L. (1996). Teacher
evaluation as pedagogic opportunity: A case for portfolio assessment. The
Canadian Administrator, 35 (8), 1-12.
Burron, K. (1994).
Professional empowerment. AND Grant, L. Building a vision of greatness. C.A.P.
(Canadian Association of Principals) Journal, 4 (1) 16-21.
Chauvin, S.W., & Eleser,
C.B. (1995-96). Lessons learned: Designing and implementing professional
development with faculty. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational
Development, 13 (3), 159-167.
Clandinin, D.J., Kennedy,
M., LaRocque, L. & Pierce, M. (1996). Living the tension: A case study of
teacher stories of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Policy, 11
(2), 169-183.
Ely, M. (1991). Circles
within circles: Doing qualitative research. London:Falmer Press.
Garman, N.B. (1990).
Theories embedded in the events of clinical supervision: A hermeneutic
approach. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5 (3), 201-213.
Gitlin, A. & Smyth, J.
(1990). Toward educative forms of teacher evaluation. Education Theory, 40
(1), 83-94.
Gleave, D. (1997). Bifocals
for teacher development and appraisal. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
12 (3), 269-281.
Goldsberry, L.F. (1984). The
realities of clinical supervision: Polaroid snapshot or Star Wars Movie? Educational Leadership, April 1984,
12-15.
Gordon, B.G. (1992). Making
clinical supervision a reality: Steps toward implementation. NASSP Bulletin,
76 (542), 46-51.
Greene, M.L. (1992). Teacher
supervision as professional development: Does it work? (1992). Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (2), 131-148.
Hazi, H.M. (1994). The
teacher evaluation-supervision dilemma: A case of entanglement and reconcilable
differences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9 (20), 195-216.
Herbert, J.M., &
Tankersley, M. (1993). More and less effective ways to intervene with classroom
teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9 (1), 24-40.
Hyun, E., & Marshall,
J.D. (1996). Inquiry-oriented reflective supervision for developmentally and
culturally appropriate practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11
(20) 127-144.
Isaacson, N., & Bamburg,
J. (1992). Can schools become learning organizations? Educational Leadership,
November 1992, 42-44.
Kellner-Rogers, M. (1998).
Changing the way we change: Lessons from complexity. The Inner Edge
(October-November 1998), 18-22.
Kofman, F., and Senge, P.M.
(1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational
Dynamics, 22 (2), 5-23.
Kurmey, W. (1996). Teachers’
perceptions important for effective supervision. ATA Magazine, 3-8.
Lovell, R.G. (1995). Ethics
and internal evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66,
61-68.
Martin, C. (1993). Hiring
the right person: Techniques for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 77(55),
79-83.
Maynes, B., Knight, D.,
McIntosh, G., & Umpleby, S. (1995). Lessons from exemplary practices of
teacher evaluation. The Canadian Administrator, 34 (7), 1-12.
McBride, M., & Skau,
K.G. (1995). Trust, empowerment, and reflection: Essentials of supervision. Journal
of Curriculum and Supervision, 10 (3), 262-277.
Newman, D.L. (1995). The
future of ethics in evaluation: Developing the dialogue. New Directions for
Program Evaluation, 66, 99-110.
Phelps, P.H. (1993).
Encouraging thoughtful teaching: Another view of the pre-observation
conference. NASSP Bulletin, 77 (551), 46-49.
Phillips, W. & Young, B.
(1997). Just caring? Supervisors talk about working with incompetent teachers.
Journal of Educational Thought, 31 (2), 105-121.
Ralph, E.G.
(1993).Sensitive, sensible practicum supervision: A contextual application in
Saskatchewan. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XXXIX (3),
282-296.
Schon, D.A. (1983). The
reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schubert, W. H. (1992). Our
journeys into teaching: Remembering the past. In W.H. Schubert & W.C. Ayers
(Eds.), Teacher lore: Learning from our own experience (pp.3-10). New
York: Longman.
Sergiovanni, T. J., &
Starratt, R.J. (1998). Providing supervisory leadership (Chapter 11). Supervision:
A redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sergiovanni, T. J., &
Starratt, R.J. (1998). Supervision as moral action (Chapter 4). Supervision:
A redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Siens, C.M., & Ebmeier,
H. (1996). Developmental supervision and the reflective thinking of teachers. Journal
of Curriculum and Supervision, 11 (4), 299-319.
Smyth, J. (1985). Developing
a critical practice of clinical supervision. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
17 (1), 1-15.
Starratt, R.J. (1992).
Perspectives and imperatives after
supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8 (1), 87-94.
Tracy, S.J. (1995). How
historical concepts of supervision relate to supervisory practices today. Clearinghouse,
68 (5), 320-325.
Wheatley, M.
(1997). Good-bye command and control. Leader to Leader (Summer 1997),
21-28.
Wheatley, M. (1998). The
paradox and promise of community. In P.F. Drucker, The Community of the
Future (pp. 00-00). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zahorik, J.A. (1992).
Perspectives and imperatives: Good teaching and supervision. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (4), 393-404.
Zepeda,
S. J. & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At cross-purposes: What do teachers need,
want and get from supervision? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14
(1) 68-87.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] The original study proposal was to
collaboratively plan and conduct an action research project with two
participating school districts, and to use interviews and focus groups with
staff throughout the project to monitor the implementation of TPGPs. The
proposal was designed to target districts just starting to use TPGPs. However,
when the Wescana opportunity appeared, this proposal was modified to fit the
district’s more advanced stage of TPGP implementation.
[3] Several participants in the study mentioned this program, with varying response. Not all were enthusiastic about it.
[4] CRF-SSHRC Research Grant ##G124110086, University of Alberta Research Grants Office.