professional learning

March 1, 2022

What if Professional Development Could Be…Fun!?

As has been oft-discussed on this blog, as well as among communities of teachers since time immemorial, professional development (PD) activities are quite frequently dull, irrelevant, time-consuming, and centered around a single expert delivering one-size-fits-all content to a group of workshop attendees. This is not an effective approach to adult learning (or any learning, really), and it’s a poor approach to facilitating meaningful professional development. Higher education instructor Melissa Nicolas (2019) offers some particularly painful examples of poor PD from her own experience, which many educators can probably identify with:

A three-hour lecture on active learning.
An hourlong lecture on how ineffective lecturing is
A session on student engagement citing the fact that most people only retain the first 10 minutes and last 10 minutes of any lecture, delivered via a 60-minute lecture.
A town hall meeting that left precisely two minutes for questions.
A workshop that began with, “Everything I am about to share is in X document, so you can just read that.”

Unfortunately, I would guess that almost all professionals who have engaged in PD, not just teachers, can recall examples of their own underwhelming, ineffective, and passive PD experiences. While instructors at all levels are asked to promote and prioritize social-emotional learning for their students, it is less common for schools to simultaneously invest in fostering a dynamic, supportive staff environment that cultivates the social and emotional competence and capacity of their teachers (CASEL, 2022).

Imagine a world where professionals are actually excited to participate in PD activities. Imagine a world where instructors feel like PD truly supports their cultural and social-emotional learning needs while simultaneously helping them do their jobs better…

https://blog.vantagecircle.com/fun-at-work/

I daresay it’s possible. Thus, in this investigation I’d like to take a moment to explore the lighter side of PD and highlight a few great ideas for making PD fun (that’s right…fun) and engaging for educators in all contexts.

For starters, if a PD initiative is going to be meaningful to the participants, they must have the opportunity to interact with one another and collaborate on authentic, relevant, problem-based activities (Teräs & Kartoğlu, 2017). This means that formal presentations (i.e. lectures) should occupy the smallest portion of time in a PD workshop, and student-centered activities should occupy the largest. If this is the starting place for any kind of PD initiative, there’s no need for a workshop coordinator to feel like they need to prepare anything flashy to ‘wow’ their attendees and trick them into thinking they’re having fun; prioritizing time for engagement and collaboration is the first and most important step. From there, the rest might be icing on the cake.

You’d like some recipe ideas for the icing, you say? Well allow me to share a few tips and tools which promote collaborative, active learning for adults which could potentially ‘ice’ your PD ‘cake’ beautifully.

Introduction/Icebreaker Activities

All good lesson plans have an initial entry point—a hook—that helps students engage with prior learning, share background knowledge, establish social presence, and generally get curious about the content. Adult learning is no different. Why not try incorporating some of these ideas from Ditch That Texbook (2019) to kick off your next PD gathering?

Digital Escape Rooms – Digital escape rooms get participants collaborating immediately over a shared problem/objective in a fun way. The escape room theme can be tied into the learning objectives for the PD, or it can be a stand-alone activity which serves as an example of something to try with students. Here is a link to some free digital escape rooms to offer some initial inspiration.

Use Flipgrid for Short Intro Videos – either some or all PD event attendees can be tapped to create short intro videos which help them introduce themselves to their colleagues. Videos can be shared to the whole group or in small groups. Fun prompts for what to share about (e.g. a hobby or a fun fact) can help colleagues connect with each other in new ways and engage on a social-emotional level.

Use a Google Jamboard, Kahoot, Quizizz, Gimkit, Quizlet, etc. – have participants immediately engaging in a session with a starter quiz, poll, or brainstorm board based on an opening question or theme. This helps activate prior knowledge, but it also serves as an opportunity for instructors to engage with a tool they may want to use in their classrooms.

Gamification

Custom-made Jeopardy games have been used as learning activities in K-12 classrooms for decades, and I’m here to say that they still hold up. When I was a 5^th grade classroom teacher (not all that long ago), Jeopardy review day was a hallowed day…even for kids who had never seen an episode of the actual gameshow. Likewise, I still remember playing Jeopardy when I was a student in my 6^th grade social studies classroom many years ago (and our whole class loved it). This is the power of gamification as a tool for learning. Of course, kids aren’t the only ones who enjoy games.

“…adults love to be playful, take risks, and experiment with new ideas just as much as children do.”
(Schmidt, 2015)

So why not gamify PD for adult learners?

Carl Hooker (2015) offers an example of PD gamification through Interactive Learning Challenges (ILCs). At its core, an ILC “…starts with the concepts of collaborative problem-solving and interactive creativity and adds an element of competition to learning.” An ILC can take place over the course of several days or in one hour, and it can be done with a relatively small group of people or a very large group of several hundred. The challenges themselves can take many different forms, but Hooker (2015) describes one particularly successful activity, a scavenger hunt, which he facilitated in place of of a keynote address during a PD event. In this ILC, the goal was to help a large group of educators better leverage iPad and App use in their classrooms. He created a custom scavenger hunt activity in which educators worked in groups to complete challenges related to the learning objective. “I had the entire group line up and self-identify who was the most or least tech-savvy. After that, I paired and grouped the staff to ensure that each team of four included at least one ‘high tech’ person. The way I designed the challenges, every team member had to…participate in the creation of the final product, regardless of tech skills” (Hooker, 2015).

After the activity, participants noted that they loved being engaged with the actual tools they were meant to be using, they valued learning from/with their peers, they felt empowered to try new things in a safe, collaborative space (especially those who identified as least tech-savvy), and…drumroll please…they had fun!

https://sse.tulane.edu/k12-stem/teacher-pd/summer-pd

Other ILC examples might include gameshow-style formats (Family Feud, Amazing Race, trivia, etc), or perhaps a STEM-style design challenge in which participants work in groups to build or create a final product given a clear goal and building constraints (Ditch That Textbook, 2019). These are, once again, activities which educators may choose to replicate or adapt for their own classroom environments.

Also, offering prizes never hurts…

EdCamps

Finally, another option for creating an engaging PD experience is trying an EdCamp format. An EdCamp is an informal, peer-led, collaborative workshop (held either face-to-face or virtually) where educators gather to share stories, experiences, lesson plans, resources, and new ideas with each other, often around a shared theme or learning objective (Schmidt, 2015). EdCamps are usually grassroots “non-conferences” in that there typically isn’t any kind of registration fee, vendors, or keynote speakers; they’re open to everyone, they’re often hosted locally, and sessions are usually led by volunteers (also workshop attendees) who are homegrown experts in their particular fields of interest (Schmidt, 2015). In other words, at an EdCamp, everyone has something to share, and everyone has something to learn.

EdCamps are a way for educators to take ownership in their own learning and simultaneously participate in something immediately relevant to their professional needs/interests. EdCamps honor the rich reservoir of background experiences and professional expertise that all adult learners bring to the table, which is key to effective adult learning. EdCamps help support and expand professional learning networks/communities and provide ‘playful’ learning environments where adult learners can take risks and experiment with new tools and ideas (Schmidt, 2015). No two EdCamps look alike, and there are endless possibilities for how to structure or format an EdCamp, making them particularly accessible, affordable, and customizable options for PD initiatives, no matter what the theme or learning objective(s) might be.

Conclusion

In short, in order to make PD ‘fun’ and engaging, coordinators should look to prioritize time for participant interaction, collaboration on problem-based activities, and opportunities to establish social presence. There are a variety of ways to do this, and introducing games or an EdCamp format are just a couple of options. No artificial gimmicks needed in order for PD to be fun, just an opportunity for professionals to learn from and with each other in a space that encourages exploration and experimentation….and did I mention that prizes never hurt?

References:

CASEL Guide to Schoolwide SEL (2022, March 1). Strengthen Adult SEL. CASEL. https://schoolguide.casel.org/focus-area-2/overview/

Ditch That Textbook (2019, August 16). 12 Engaging Activities to Rock Your Back-to-School PD. Ditch That Textbook. https://ditchthattextbook.com/12-engaging-activities-to-rock-your-back-to-school-pd/

Hooker, C. (2015, February 10). It’s Time to Make Learning Fun Again, Even for Adults. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/make-learning-fun-for-adults-carl-hooker

Nicolas, M. (2019, November 19). Workshops that Work. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/11/19/how-academe-should-improve-its-professional-development-workshops-opinion

Schmidt, P. (2015, March 20). Promoting Playful Learning Through Teacher Networks. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/changemakers-playful-learning-teacher-networks-philipp-schmidt

Teräs, H., & Kartoğlu, Ü. (2017). A grounded theory of professional learning in an authentic online professional development program. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2923

February 2, 2022February 2, 2022

Did It Work!? A Brief Look at Professional Development Evaluation in Higher Education & Beyond

As I continue to dive deeper into the research related to professional development (PD) and adult learning initiatives within higher education, one aspect of PD I’ve yet to explore is the evaluation of PD. In other words, how do we determine if a PD enterprise was successful? Is the learning having an ongoing, meaningful impact in the workplace? Did it make a difference?

In order to answer these questions, we must step back to think about two things: 1) what do we mean by ‘success’ in relation to PD (in other words, what particular indicators should we pay attention to), and 2) how/when should we gather data related to those indicators?

As an entry point to this investigation, Guskey (2002) does an excellent job of pointing our attention to key indicators of effective PD and adult learning, as well as possible ways of gathering data related to those indicators. These indicators (or “levels of evaluation”) are applicable for higher education instructors just as much as they are for K-12 teachers. Accordingly, Five Possible Indicators of PD Effectiveness—as I am referring to them—are summarized below:

Indicator	What’s measured?	How will data be gathered?
Participants’ Reactions	Did participants enjoy the learning experience? Did they trust the expertise of those teaching/leading? Is the learning target perceived as relevant/useful? Was the delivery format appropriate/comfortable?	Exit Questionnaire, informal narrative feedback from attendees
Participants’ Learning	Did participants acquire new knowledge/skills? Did the learning experience meet objectives? Was the learning relevant to current needs?	Participant reflections, portfolios constructed during the learning experience, demonstrations, simulations, etc.
Organization Support/Change	Was the support for the learning public and overt? Were the necessary resources for implementation provided? Were successes recognized/shared? Was the larger organization impacted?	Structured interviews with participants, follow-up meetings or check-ins related to the PD, administrative records, increased access to needed resources for implementation
Participants’ Use of New Knowledge/Skills	Did participants effectively apply the new knowledge/skills? Is the impact ongoing? Were participants’ beliefs changed as a result of the PD?	Surveys, instructor reflections, classroom observations, professional portfolios
Student Learning Outcomes	What was the impact on student academic performance? Are students more confident and/or independent as learners? Did it influence students’ well-being?	Either qualitative (e.g. student interviews, teacher observations) or quantitative (e.g. assignments/assessments) improvements in student output/performance, behaviors, or attitudes

Table adapted from Figure 1.1,”Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation” in Guskey (2002)

It is important to note that these indicators often work on different timelines and will be utilized at different stages in PD evaluation, but they should also be considered in concert with one another as much as possible (Guskey, 2002). For example, data about participants’ reactions to PD can be collected immediately and is an easy first step towards evaluating the effectiveness of PD, but participants’ initial reactions as reflected in an exit survey, for example, certainly won’t paint the whole picture. Student learning outcomes are another indicator to consider, but this indicator will not be able to be measured right away and will require time and follow-up well beyond the initial PD activity or workshop. Furthermore, it can be harmful to place too much evaluative emphasis on any single indicator. If student learning outcomes are the primary measure taken into consideration, this puts unfair pressure on the “performance” aspect of learning (e.g. assessments) and ignores other vital evidence such as changed attitudes or beliefs on the part of the teacher or the role of context and applicability in the learning:

“…local action research projects, led by practitioners in collaboration with community members and framed around issues of authentic social concern, are emerging as a useful framework for supporting authentic professional learning.”
(Webster-Wright, 2009, p.727)

In most instances, PD evaluation may consist entirely of exit surveys or participant reflections shortly after they complete a workshop or learning activity, and very little follow-up (e.g. classroom observations, release time for collaboration using learned skills) occurs into the future (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). This does nothing to ensure that professional learning is truly being integrated in a way that has meaningful, ongoing impact. In fact, in their 2011 study dedicated to evaluating faculty professional development programs in higher education, Ebert-May et al. (2011) found that 89% of faculty who participated in a student-centered learning workshop self-reported making changes to their lecture-based teaching practices. When considered by itself, this feedback might lead some to conclude that the PD initiative was, in fact, effective. However, when these same instructors were observed in action in the months (and years!) following their professional learning workshop, 75% of faculty attendees had in fact made no perceptible changes to their teacher-centered, lecture-based teaching approach, demonstrating “…a clear disconnect between faculty’s perceptions of their teaching and their actual practices” (Ebert-May et al., 2011). Participants’ initial reactions and self-evaluations can’t be considered in isolation. Organizational support, evidence of changed practice, and impact on student learning (both from an academic and ‘well-being’ perspective) must be considered as well. Consequently, we might reasonably conclude that one-off PD workshops with little to no follow-up beyond initial training will hardly ever be “effective.”

It is also worth mentioning here that the need for PD specifically in relation to technology integration has been on the rise over the last two decades, and this need has accelerated even more during the pandemic. In recent years the federal government has invested in a number of initiatives meant to ensure that schools—especially K-12 institutions—keep pace with technology developments (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). These initiatives include training the next generation of teachers to use technology in their classrooms and retraining the current teacher workforce in the use of tech-based instructional tactics (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). With technology integration so often in the forefront of PD initiatives, it begs the question: should tech-centered PD be evaluated differently than other PD enterprises?

I would argue no. In a comprehensive and systematic literature review of how technology use in education has been evaluated in the 21^st century, Lai & Bower (2019) found that the evaluation of learning technology use tends to focus on eight themes or criteria:

Learning outcomes: academic performance, cognitive load, skill development

Affective Elements: motivation, enjoyment, attitudes, beliefs, self-efficacy

Behaviors: participation, interaction, collaboration, self-reflection

Design: course quality, course structure, course content

Technology Elements: accessibility, usefulness, ease of adoption

Pedagogy: teaching quality/credibility, feedback

Presence: social presence, community

Institutional Environment: policy, organizational support, resource provision, learning environment

It seems to me that these eight foci could all easily find their way into the adapted table of indicators I’ve provided above. Perhaps the only nuance to this list is an “extra” focus on the functionality, accessibility, and usefulness of technology tools as they apply to both the learning process and learning objectives. Otherwise, it seems to me that Lai & Bower’s (2019) evaluative themes align quite well with the five indicators of PD effectiveness adapted from Guskey (2002), such that the five indicators might be used to frame PD evaluation in all kinds of settings, including the tech-heavy professional learning occurring in the wake of COVID-19.

References:

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550-558. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/7/550/266257?login=true

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational leadership, 59(6), 45. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=edp_facpub

Lai, J.W.M. & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers in Education 133, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.010

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(4), 575-614.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654307309921

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654308330970