mjohnsondissertation final nov 2014
TRANSCRIPT
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ASYNCHRONOUS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
by
Margie Teel Johnson
Copyright 2014
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education
University of Phoenix
ii
The Dissertation Committee for Margie Teel Johnson certifies approval of the following
dissertation:
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ASYNCHRONOUS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Committee:
Vicki Purslow, EdD, Chair
Carolyn P. Haas, EdD, Committee Member
Diane Hughes, EdD, Committee Member _________________________ Vicki Purslow _________________________ Carolyn P. Haas _________________________ Diane Hughes _________________________ Jeremy Moreland, PhD Dean, School of Advanced Studies University of Phoenix Date Approved: November 14, 2014
iii
ABSTRACT
E-learning has become an option for delivering teacher professional development for
many school districts in K-12 public education (Killion, 2013). One method of e-
learning is asynchronous professional development, particularly professional
development portals. Portals provide a single entry point for accessing a variety of
resources. The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the
factors influencing the use of My HUB, an asynchronous professional development
portal, and to identify the portal features district teachers perceived as useful for
improving their teaching. Data were collected from three sources: usage data reports, a
questionnaire, and a focus group. Three themes emerged from the data analysis:
knowledge management, collaboration, and accessibility. Teachers acknowledged the
convenience of having resources in one location for collaborating with others and
improving their teaching. However, teachers expressed uncertainty about the purpose of
the portal and the district’s expectations for using it. District administration needs to
develop a clear purpose about how teachers use the portal and a two-way communication
plan.
iv
DEDICATION
Nothing we do can be accomplished alone. I am thankful for my awesome and
loving support system throughout this journey. First, I thank my wonderful husband,
Mark. Without your support and encouragement, this journey would not have even been
a thought in my mind much less a reality. You are my biggest cheerleader not only in
words, but in deeds. I cannot imagine “doing life” with anyone else. I thank my
awesome sons--Samson, Caleb, and Asher. Each of you are unique blessings in my life.
All the nights that I put you to bed to then start writing, you did not complain…..too
much. I am thankful God allowed me to be called your mommy. My final dedication
goes out to my parents, Charles and Rena Teel, who always told me to dream big and to
never quit. They have always been there for me.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have helped me during the dissertation process. Dr. Vicki Purslow,
my mentor, was with me every step of the way. Dr. Vicki was not only knowledgeable,
but persistent. At times when I was struggling with figuring things out and with what to
do next, she provided the encouragement and guidance needed to move forward.
Without her support and motivation, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Also, I was fortunate to have Dr. Carolyn Haas and Dr. Diane Hughes, my committee
members, who provided objective reviews and recommendations of my work to improve
my dissertation. I also acknowledge the study participants in my study. Without your
willingness to participate in the study, no data would have been collected. Therefore, the
dissertation would not have been finished. Finally, I acknowledge my family and friends
who were my moral support throughout the process.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................x
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................2
Statement of Problem .......................................................................................................4
Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................8
Theory of Change ................................................................................................8
Activity Theory ....................................................................................................9
Nature of the Study ..........................................................................................................11
Overview of Research Method ............................................................................12
Overview of Research Design .............................................................................13
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................14
Definition of Terms..........................................................................................................15
Assumptions .....................................................................................................................16
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations .............................................................................16
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................17
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ..................................................................................................19
Historical Background of Teacher Professional Development ........................................20
Federal Role in Teacher Professional Development ............................................22
vii
Methods of Delivery of Teacher Professional Development ...............................25
Theories of Evaluating Teacher Professional Development ................................27
Current Findings ..............................................................................................................30
Efficacy of Workshops ........................................................................................30
Efficacy of Action Research ................................................................................32
Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching ....................................36
Summary of the Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching .........47
Efficacy of Online Teacher Professional Development .......................................48
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................57
Summary ..........................................................................................................................58
Chapter 3: Research Methods ......................................................................................................60
Appropriateness of Research Method ..............................................................................60
Appropriateness of Research Design ...............................................................................61
Population and Sample ....................................................................................................62
Informed Consent.............................................................................................................62
Confidentiality .................................................................................................................63
Data Collection ................................................................................................................64
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................66
Dependability and Credibility ..........................................................................................68
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................69
Summary ..........................................................................................................................70
Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of Data .............................................................................72
Epoche..............................................................................................................................72
viii
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................73
My HUB Usage Reports ......................................................................................73
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................75
Synthesis of My HUB Report Data and Questionnaire .......................................77
Focus Group .........................................................................................................78
Findings by Themes .............................................................................................79
Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................87
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................89
Discussion of Findings and Implications .........................................................................89
Theme 1: Knowledge Management .....................................................................90
Theme 2: Collaboration .......................................................................................91
Theme 3: Accessibility ........................................................................................93
Limitations .......................................................................................................................95
Recommendations for School Leaders and Teachers ......................................................95
Suggestions for Future Research .....................................................................................97
Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................98
References ....................................................................................................................................99
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form .........................................................................................129
Appendix B: Premises, Recruitment, and Name Use Permission ...............................................132
Appendix C: Data Access and Use Permission Form ..................................................................135
Appendix D: Non-respondent Memo...........................................................................................137
Appendix E: Focus Group E-mail................................................................................................138
Appendix F: Initial Questionnaire ...............................................................................................139
ix
Appendix G: CVR Participation Email........................................................................................141
Appendix H: Content Validity Ratio (CVR) for each Questionnaire Item .................................142
Appendix I: My HUB Questionnaire ...........................................................................................144
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Learning Forward's Proposed Theory of Change ..............................................9
Figure 2: Engestrom's Activity Theory Model for the My HUB ......................................11
Figure 3: Number of Teachers Accessing My HUB per Month for Study Population
(N=41). .............................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 4: My HUB Teacher Distinct Logins for Study Population (N=41) ..................... 75
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Outcomes of Professional Development Training With and Without Follow-Up
Coaching ........................................................................................................................... 42
Table 2: Types and frequency of Open Code Labels, by Category .................................. 76
Table 3: Axial coding and selective coding chart for open coded labels ......................... 77
Table 4: Major Themes from Coded Responses to My HUB Questionnaire ................... 78
Table 5: Major Themes from Subthemes for Accessibility .............................................. 84
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Educational reformers challenge schools to improve the academic achievement of
all students, especially by closing the achievement gaps among diverse student
populations (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). “At no time in American history is
the possession of skills and education so necessary for individuals’ economic self-
sufficiency and the country’s national competitiveness” (Gatta, 2009, p. 109). While
many factors affect student achievement, the student’s teacher has more effect on student
achievement than any other factor (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Buddin &
Zamarro, 2009).
The quality of instruction students receive in the classroom is the most important
factor in student achievement (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003). When placed with a high
performing teacher, students perform three times higher on student achievement
assessments than their peers (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Transforming schools and
improving education for all students requires equipping every classroom with an effective
teacher (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; National Council on Teacher Quality,
2011; Stronge, 2010), which includes providing teachers with continual access to
professional development (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos,
2009).
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB by district teachers as a professional development
delivery method to improve their teaching. Chapter one includes a review of the
background, problem statement, purpose of the study, significance of the study, and
2
theoretical framework. The chapter will also include the nature of the study, research
questions, definition of terms, assumptions, scope, limitations, delimitations, and a
chapter summary.
Background
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 established federal mandates of
high academic achievement standards for all students in math and reading and for closing
the achievement gap among subgroup populations, including students with disabilities,
English language learners, economically disadvantaged, and ethnic groups (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). “No generation of educators in the history of the
United States has ever been asked to do so much for so many” (DuFour & Marzano,
2011, p. 5). To meet the challenge, school districts need to develop effective teachers in
every classroom by providing continuous access to high-quality professional
development to improve their teaching effectiveness (DuFour & Marzano, 2011;
Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Learning Forward, 2011; National Education Association,
2010). To provide professional development to all teachers with limited resources,
districts must find innovative, cost-effective delivery methods (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Demir, 2010; Killion, 2013).
Limited resources led many organizations to leverage technology to provide
professional development because traditional delivery methods of professional
development cost time and money and provide little or no follow-up (Guskey & Yoon,
2009; Joyce, 2009). Electronically delivered professional development, or e-learning,
provides cost-effective access to professional development (Chen, Huang, & Shih, 2002;
Knowledge Advisors, 2010; Yang & Liu, 2004). Faced with a global, knowledge-based
3
economy, corporations and higher education institutions turned toward e-learning as a
solution for remaining competitive in the late 1990s (Larson-Daugherty & Walker, 2010;
Seraphim, 2010). Because e-learning reduces cost and increases efficiency, e-learning
represented 23.36% of workplace training by the end of 2006 (American Society for
Training & Development, 2011, p. 38). The economic downturn in 2007 resulted in
tightened financial resources for K-12 education (National Bureau of Economic
Research, 2010). Many school districts followed the lead of other organizations by
implementing e-learning strategies as a cost-effective alternative to delivering school-
based professional development for teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
In 2008, a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States began an
initiative to decentralize professional development. Professional development would no
longer be managed by central office administration. The focus of the initiative was for
school administrators and school leadership teams to assess the needs of the school and
develop a professional development plan (Dr. C. Smith, personal communication, July 8,
2008). The role of the central office administration was to facilitate these processes and
provide resources as requested by the school leadership teams to build the schools’
capacity to improve student achievement (Leana, 2011).
To support school-based professional development, the school system began
investigating online professional development delivery methods. In January 2014, the
school system launched My HUB, an asynchronous professional development delivery
portal provided for teachers in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United
States (K. McKinney, personal communication, April 2013). Teachers use the portal to
register for synchronous events (face-to-face workshops and webinars) and to access
4
asynchronous materials (online courses, instructional materials, classroom videos,
lectures, podcasts, webinars, and self-directed courses). To assist teachers in improving
instruction, all portal resources correlate with the state’s teacher evaluation program. The
correlation allows professional development resources to be recommended to teachers
based on their evaluation results to help them improve their teaching effectiveness (K.
McKinney, personal communication, October 30, 2012).
Statement of Problem
Teachers need to improve the academic achievement of all students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002) by improving the quality of instruction in their
classrooms (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003). To support teachers in improving teaching
effectiveness, school districts must focus on providing teachers access to high-quality
professional development (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010;
National Education Association, 2010). The economic downturn limited the resources
available and challenged districts to leverage technology for providing professional
development (Killion, 2013).
The general problem is students need access to high performing teachers to make
significant academic achievement gains each year and to close the achievement gaps (Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Buddin & Zamarro, 2009; Hattie, 2009). Research
showed that professional development increases teachers’ abilities to provide high-
quality instruction (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009), which may result in reduced gaps in
student achievement. The specific problem is teachers need access to high-quality
professional development for the improvement and refinement of teaching to increase
5
teacher effectiveness (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Killion,
2011).
A large, urban school system in the southeastern United States created My HUB
to provide teachers with access to high-quality professional development. The single-
location descriptive case study included data from My HUB usage data reports, a
questionnaire, and a focus group. Because the portal was a new implementation, it
remained unknown how teachers were using the portal. Data were collected from My
HUB usage reports provided by the program director, through a questionnaire
adminstered to teachers, and through a follow-up focus group with teachers.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers
perceived as useful for improving their teaching. Implementing an evidence-based
program provides “an opportunity to learn more about the program itself and the
conditions under which it can be used with fidelity and good effect” (Fixsen, Naoom,
Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005, p. 17). From the study, the school system learned
more about the portal and recommendations for improving its implementation so teachers
continue to improve their teaching effectiveness.
The identification of common themes and patterns teachers perceived about My
HUB as a professional development delivery method was facilitated through a qualitative
descriptive case study. The participants represented a middle school with grades five
through eight. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect perception data. The
focus group was to triangulate the usage report and questionnaire data. The multiple data
6
sources provided qualitative data, which was suitable for a qualitative descriptive case
study (Yin, 2009).
A qualitative approach was the best choice for the study because it allowed the
researcher to explore, compare, and assess teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about My
HUB as a professional development delivery method. The qualitative method included
data from three sources: portal usage reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group with
teachers that documented their perceptions of My HUB. Coding and descriptive analysis
was used for data analysis to identify common patterns and themes.
A case study approach was the best choice for the study because the portal was
studied within its context, which was important to building an explanation about how and
why the portal was used by teachers. Yin (2009) posited that case studies are the
preferred method when answering how and why questions about a contemporary event
because data from a variety of sources, including having the persons involved respond to
a questionnaire, are collected. A descriptive case study allowed for a complete
description of the phenomenon within its context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011), which
included 41 fifth through eighth grade teachers from a large, urban school system in the
southeastern United States, representing one middle school.
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study to students is that students need a high-quality
education to remain competitive in a global economy and increase their quality of life.
Students who have high-quality teachers, coupled with measurable gains in achievement,
increase their wage earnings at the age of 28 by approximately $25,000 per year (Chetty,
Friedman, & Rockoff, 2012). To improve schools and positively affect students’ lives,
7
teacher effectiveness must be increased (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Professional
development for teachers is critical in helping students achieve high academic standards
(Colbert, Brown, Choi, & Thomas, 2008). The results of the study contribute to the body
of knowledge about teacher professional development.
Teaching is complex with teachers facing new challenges each year, particularly
with an increase in the diversity of student populations (Garcia, 2012). Educational
administrators can support teachers facing these challenges by providing professional
development to help teachers improve their teaching skills and effectiveness (Mizell,
2010). When teachers feel administrative support, their sense of job satisfaction
increases. Professional development is a promising strategy “for retaining effective
teaching staff” (Mello, 2008, p. 40).
To provide assistance in school improvement, instructional leaders must be
empowered to make evidence-based decisions about different delivery methods for
teacher professional development (Fullan, 2007). The significance to leaders and society
is that the results of the study revealed if teachers perceive online professional
development as an effective alternative to traditional delivery methods. Online
professional development allows teachers access to more professional development
options in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Professional development aligned to
teachers’ professional development needs may increase their teaching effectiveness and
student learning.
The significance of the study also has implications for society. Teacher quality is
“very significantly and positively correlated with student outcomes” (Darling-
Hammonds, 1999, p. 29), including choosing not to drop out. When students drop out of
8
high school, the nation’s economy is affected adversely. Researchers from the Alliance
for Excellent Education (2011) reported that approximately $154 billion is lost by the
nation because high school dropouts have lower incomes.
Another implication for society is the annual cost of teacher attrition. Half of the
teachers entering the professional leave within the first five years. Attrition costs $2.2
billion annually in the United States (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014, p. 3). The
results of the study may have major implications for improving teacher quality,
decreasing the dropout rate, decreasing teacher attrition rates, and improving the nation’s
economy.
Theoretical Framework
To examine the implementation of My HUB as a professional development tool,
the study was grounded in two theories: the theory of change and activity theory.
Teacher professional development is a complex process, particularly when delivered
online. Both theories have a direct application to the processes of an asynchronous
professional development delivery system.
Theory of Change
A theory of change is useful when examining complex processes, such as teacher
professional development, because the early and intermediate changes that occur are
documented. A theory of change is used to identify a long-term goal, but according to
the theory, intermediate steps must occur to reach that goal (Anderson, 2005).
Developing an explicit theory of change for professional development allows one to
specify the change to occur and “serves as a planning tool, an implementation tool, a
monitoring tool, and a tool for evaluating the program’s success” (Killion, 2003, p. 17).
9
The theory of change used to ground the study was derived from Learning
Forward, an international professional learning organization, in its document Standards
for Professional Learning. The premise of the work involved seven standards that
represent the latest research and practice for professional development; it also included a
theory of change needed for effective professional learning (see Figure 1). Researchers
from Learning Forward posited that effective professional development begins with
standards-based professional learning, which leads to changes in the educators’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Once the educator’s practice changes, student results
change. A researcher needs to consider these elements when investigating professional
development (Learning Forward, 2011).
Activity Theory
Engestrom (2001) used the activity theory model to explain the social world
created by networked activity through the analysis of interactions and behaviors. The
framework reflected the interaction of the actor, object, and community of an activity by
Figure 1: Learning Forward's proposed theory of change. Adapted from "Quick Reference Guide Standards for Professional Learning,” by Learning Forward, 2011. © Learning Forward. Used with permission.
10
explaining the tools, rules, and division of labor involved in an activity (Kim, Chaudhury,
& Rao, 2002). Activity theory, as a framework for identifying and analyzing the
components of the activity, particularly how people interact with their environment, was
used to conceptualize e-learning (Mwanza, 2001; Nardi, 2001).
My HUB for professional development was a complex process with several
activities interacting. Using Engestrom’s activity theory model, the specific activities
being investigated in the study were represented in Figure 2. The tool was the portal.
The subjects included teachers from a large, urban school system in the southeastern
United States at a selected middle school. The object was to increase teachers’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions and to change teaching practice resulting in increased
student achievement. The portal allowed teachers to self-select resources and offered
recommendations for professional development based on individual teacher evaluations
and professional growth plans. The community was the district and the teacher’s
respective school. The division of labor was twofold—the district staff provided and
approves resources within the portal, and teachers accessed the resources.
11
Figure 2: Engestrom's Activity Theory Model for the My HUB. Adapted from "Where Theory Meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory Based Methodology to Guide Computer System Design," by D. Mwanza, 2001, INTERACT 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 9-13 July 2001, Tokyo, Japan. Copyright 2001 by D. Mwanza. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/11804/1/Daisy_Japan_Interact_2001.pdf. Adapted with permission.
Nature of the Study
A qualitative descriptive case study was suitable for the research study based on
the identified problem and the focus of the study. The problem was teachers need access
to cost-effective, high-quality professional development to improve their teaching
effectiveness (Killion, 2011). The focus of the study was on the central phenomenon of
teacher use of My HUB as a professional development delivery method.
An objective of the qualitative descriptive case study was to understand factors
influencing the use of the portal by participating teachers as a professional development
12
delivery method. A qualitative study permitted an understanding of the portal’s use in
the organization and a comprehension of the teachers’ experiences with the portal. The
study was limited to a set of unique conditions within one middle school with grades 5
through 8 in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States.
Overview of Research Method
Qualitative research involves studying a phenomenon within its context and
interpreting the perceptions people have about the phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
Teachers’ experiences with a new professional development portal are multidimensional
and required in-depth exploration best accomplished through a qualitative research
design. The intention of the qualitative design is the collection of in-depth, information-
rich data providing an extensive understanding of a bounded system (Turner, 2010). The
data may inform future decision-making about the implementation of the portal.
To collect data about the experiences of participants, qualitative research allows
for the selection of a nonrandom, purposeful sample (Merriam, 2009). Selected
participants provided details about their feelings and attitudes toward using My HUB as a
professional development delivery method. Participants had the opportunity to express
personal biases and concerns about using the portal. Qualitative research allowed for an
inductive approach that may inform the development of a theory (Merriam, 2009) about
the use of the portal.
A qualitative approach was more appropriate than quantitative research because
the objective was to explore the usage of a professional development delivery portal in a
unique setting. Both qualitative and quantitative research studies include the collection
and analysis of data. Unlike quantitative research that focuses on the identification of
13
variables and statistical procedures, qualitative research allowed for contextualized data
(Merriam, 2009), which provided a deeper understanding of specific situations as
experienced by participants.
Overview of Research Design
A descriptive case study approach was the best design for exploring the usage of
My HUB. Case studies are the preferred research strategy when exploratory research
questions are being asked about a phenomenon and allow an in-depth investigation within
the real-life context (Yin, 2009). The portal was investigated in its context.
Three types of case studies exist: descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. A
descriptive case study was used in the study. A descriptive case study involves
investigating an intervention in its real-life context (Yin, 2009) and attempting to provide
a complete account of the phenomenon in its context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The
research questions aimed at answering how and why questions to determine the worth of
My HUB to the organization. A descriptive case study design was the most appropriate
choice for addressing the research questions in the study.
An explanatory case study involves the examination of the effect of a program
(Morra & Friedlander, n.d.). Researchers begin the study with an accurate description of
the case. After considering alternative explanations, a theory about causation is
developed (Harder, 2010). This approach was not suitable for the research study because
causation was not being investigated.
An exploratory case study involves beginning data collection without defined
research questions. Researchers begin the study with a broad scope, which may lead to
alternative study design approaches being used throughout the study (Yin, 2009).
14
Because clearly defined research questions and theoretical frameworks guided the study,
an exploratory approach was not appropriate for the study.
Other research designs, such as phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded
theory, were deemed inappropriate for the study. The objective of a phenomenological
design is to understand lived experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The research
questions about how and why teachers are using the portal cannot be answered with data
about their lived experiences. In an ethnography, a researcher studies the culture of
people (Falzon, 2012). The goal of the study was not to understand the culture of
teachers, but the use of the portal. The purpose of a grounded theory design is to
“construct a theory ‘grounded’ in the data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 2). While systematic data
collection and analysis approaches were used for the study, no theory was constructed.
Research Questions
The development of the study was guided by one central research question and
two sub questions.
CRQ 1. How might participating teachers use My HUB to help improve their
teaching, if at all?
SQ 1. Why does the use of My HUB vary among teachers, if at all?
SQ2. How can My HUB be improved, if at all, as a professional development
tool?
The research questions were designed to obtain insight into the use of the portal
by teachers as a professional development tool. The data may be used to guide further
implementation of the portal throughout the district. Other educational institutions and
15
teachers may decide to explore the possibility of developing an asynchronous
professional development delivery system.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used throughout the study.
Asynchronous professional development: Professional development accessed at
any time (Rosenberg, 2001).
Collaboration: The coordination of people and resources within an organization
that can improve organizational performance by fostering creativity and integration
around specific problems (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
E-learning: Internet technologies used to deliver resources for enhancing
knowledge and performance (Rosenberg, 2001).
Knowledge Management: Technology system used for the dissemination of
resources and information throughout the organization (Amir & Parvar, 2014).
My HUB: The asynchronous professional development delivery portal provided
for teachers in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States (K.
McKinney, April 2013).
Portal: Online website that provides a single entry point for accessing a variety
of resources (Hartmann, 2012). Advanced portals also provide differentiated access to
resources based on a teacher’s role in the organization and tracks the individual’s usage
of the resources within the portal (Ethridge, Hadden, & Smith, 2000; Morrison, Buckley,
& Coppo, 1999).
16
Assumptions
Four assumptions supported the study. The first assumption was the participants
are using My HUB for asynchronous professional development. The usage data reported
from the portal reflected the number and types of resources viewed by the participating
school. Second, the sample population was representative of the selected school. The
participants represented perspectives and experiences that may be representative of
teachers at the school but may not be generalizable to teachers in the entire district.
Third, the teachers wanted to participate in the study. Participation in the study by
teachers to share their perspectives about the portal was voluntary. Finally, participating
teachers responded honestly and completely to the questionnaire and focus group
questions.
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations
The study population included 41 fifth through eighth grade teachers from one
middle school in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States. Of the
41 teachers, a minimum convenience sample of 21 teachers was included. Participating
teachers responded to questions that reflected their perspectives about and experiences
with My HUB.
The study had two limitations. The first limitation was that of the honesty of the
participants’ responses to the initial questionnaire and subsequent focus group.
Responding honestly to questions about professional development may have been
difficult for teachers. Teachers may not have felt comfortable responding to questions
about how much - or how little - they use the portal. Reassurances of anonymity helped
foster truthfulness. If subjects feared scrutiny or repercussions, their perspectives and
17
experiences may not have emerged. The My HUB usage reports confirmed My HUB
usage by teachers, but not the answers to the other questionnaire questions. A second
limitation was the generalizability of the study. Although the sample size was sufficient
for a qualitative study, it limited the generalizability of the study. The sample data may
not be representative of other schools.
The study had three delimitations. The intent of the study was to collect opinions
from invited participants working for one middle school in a large, urban school system
in the southeastern United States. The small sample size and the focus on the specific
school system limited the amount of data collected and the generalizability of the study.
Limiting the data collection period to three months helped ensure that the process was not
extended beyond the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
Chapter Summary
To improve classroom practice, teachers need continuous access to high-quality
professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Demir, 2010; DuFour & Marzano,
2011). Because of budgetary constraints, K-12 organizations are adopting e-learning for
professional development solutions. A large, urban school system in the southeastern
United States implemented My HUB, an asynchronous professional development
delivery portal, to support teachers in improving classroom practice.
Studying teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of My HUB may inform the
continued implementation of My HUB as a means of delivering professional
development. Chapter two includes a comprehensive literature review of the historical
background and current research of teacher professional development. Chapter two will
18
also include a discussion of various delivery methods of teacher professional
development.
19
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
In the knowledge economy of the 21st century, an organization’s best investment
is in building the capacity of its people (de la Fuente & Ciccone, 2003). Building
capacity requires continual professional development, so employees can learn new
information and skills (Cambell, 2004). In education, teacher professional development
is a priority for educational reform (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Desimone,
2009), which has led to much research in the field. A review of the research was
necessary to investigate the usage of My HUB as a professional development tool. The
specific topics reviewed in chapter two include the historical background, the federal role
in education, methods of professional development delivery, and theories of evaluating
teacher professional development. The chapter concludes with current findings, which
include the efficacy of various delivery methods in teacher professional development,
including online teacher professional development.
Scholarly, academic, and professional resources were reviewed. Searches in the
EBSCOhost, ERIC, and ProQuest databases resulted in more than a thousand articles. To
supplement the search, Google Scholar was used. The search terms and strings used to
conduct the literature search included teacher professional development, e-learning,
efficacy in professional development, online teacher professional development, job-
embedded professional development, and asynchronous learning. Additional search
terms included training practices, portals, distance learning, high-quality professional
development, workshops, action research, coaching, and effective teacher professional
development. A total of 148 articles were reviewed for chapter two.
20
Historical Background of Teacher Professional Development
In the 1830s, politicians in the Massachusetts Commonwealth determined
teachers needed more training to provide quality instruction (Williams, 1937). At the
time, Horace Mann, known as the Father of American Education, laid the groundwork for
the American public school system. While leading the movement, Mann believed that
teachers instructing American students were not prepared (Sarason, 1990; Williams). In
preparation for teaching careers, some individuals attended an academy. Other teachers
had no education beyond the district schools they had attended (Williams). In response
to the lack of well-qualified teachers, Mann and other reformers created Teacher
Institutes, which were professional development opportunities that brought
underqualified teachers together to listen to lectures about new ideas in education. The
popularity of Teacher Institutes spread throughout the United States and remained the
primary model for teacher professional development until the 1930s (Richey, 1957).
By the 1930s, 32 states required teachers to complete college-level coursework.
Based upon a 1933 national survey of teachers, “three-fourths of teachers had attended
college two or more years” (Richey, 1957, p. 43). Because the purpose of Teacher
Institutes was to train underqualified teachers, Teacher Institutes became obsolete, and
other forms of professional development emerged, including teacher reading circles,
summer school, and extended college courses (Frazier, 1935).
In the 1950s and 1960s, inservices became the dominant method for providing
teacher professional development. Inservices usually occurred during a day when
students were not in the building (Killion, 2010). The teachers would gather in a central
location and listen to an expert present new ideas or current trends (Bellanca, 2009). The
21
assumption behind inservices was, “If experts tell teachers what they need to know,
teachers will be able to put the knowledge into practice” (Killion, p. 6).
In the 1970s, inservices, shaped by district office staff and principals, became
known as staff development (Killion, 2010). The assumption was that effective teachers
learned what administrators wanted them to learn (Killion). Few concerted efforts of
staff development existed because of the lack of funding and low priority given to staff
development (McLaughlin, 1991; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). Growing concerns
about the effectiveness of staff development arose among researchers and educators, but
consensus grew that staff development had a critical role in school improvement (Sparks
& Loucks-Horsley).
In the 1980s, teachers had more choices for staff development (Killion, 2010),
which were based on a deficit model (Lieberman & Miller, 1999). The assumption of the
model was that because teachers lacked the knowledge and skills needed to improve
student achievement, outside experts needed to teach teachers how to improve student
learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Fullan, 2007; Lieberman &
McLaughlin, 1990). While teachers may have learned new information during the staff
development workshops, they received little feedback or follow-up upon returning to
school, and very little implementation occurred (Bean & Morewood, 2007; Guskey,
2000).
In the 1990s, educational reformers became concerned about the preparedness of
students for the 21st century and agreed that professional development must be at the
center of reforming education (U.S. Department of Education [DOE], 1995). Staff
development became known as professional development when the focus became the
22
implementation of standards-based instruction. Teachers needed to learn a variety of
instructional strategies to help all students meet standards (Killion, 2010). Instead of the
central office personnel making decisions for schools, school personnel became the
decision makers regarding student learning.
Federal Role in Teacher Professional Development
In early American education, teacher professional development was not a focus of
federal legislation (McLaughlin, 1991). Various social, political, and educational
influences led to teacher professional development legislation beginning with the 1981
formation of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). Educational
policy changes and technological advances began to influence teacher professional
development during the late 20th century.
In 1981, the NCEE was formed, and members were charged with conducting a
thorough investigation of the current state of the American education system. After 18
months of investigating U.S. students’ achievement on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and
national assessments, the NCEE released A Nation at Risk (National Commission of
Excellence in Education, 1983). A Nation at Risk resulted in the initiation of major
educational reform in America, which focused on improving schools by moving toward a
national standards-based curriculum and student achievement testing system (Jorgensen
& Hoffman, 2003). A critical finding of A Nation at Risk was that many teachers did not
have the knowledge, skills, and training necessary to educate children effectively,
particularly in math and science. A corollary finding was a recommendation for more
time devoted to teacher professional development (National Commission of Excellence in
Education).
23
One year after the release of A Nation at Risk, the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mathematics and Science Education Act passed as a legislative response. The act
earmarked $90,100,000 of federal funding for improving teachers’ knowledge and skills
and quality of instruction in math and science throughout the United States (U.S. DOE,
1995). The federal government distributed the funds to state educational agencies for
distribution to the states’ local educational agencies. Besides supporting mathematics
and science professional development and instruction, another benefit of the Eisenhower
Program was professional development research (Koppich, 2000).
In 1994, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act was
reauthorized as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). IASA expanded
the scope and purpose of the program beyond mathematics and science professional
development (Koppich, 2000). The new Eisenhower program provided funding for all
core academic subject area teachers to receive professional development. The goal was
to provide students with a high-quality education that prepares them for the next century
(Koppich).
In the 1990s, most teacher professional development “typically consisted of short,
stand-alone workshops on topics selected by schools and districts (often without
consulting teachers), along with college or university course taking” (Choy, Chen, &
Bugarin, 2006, p. 1). Researchers began questioning the effectiveness of traditional
professional development in meeting the academic needs of students (Corcoran, 1995;
Miller, 1995; Sprinthall, Reiman, & Theis-Sprinthall, 1996). In response to the research,
the U.S. DOE (1996) published Achieving the Goals: Goal 4 to support the
implementation of high-quality professional development. The recommendation posited
24
that teachers needed professional development that was job-embedded, collaborative, and
sustainable through continuous access (U.S. DOE, 1996).
Despite Achieving the Goals, student performance did not improve, resulting in
additional professional development research (U.S. DOE, 2002b). The research had
major policy implications on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which
included new federal mandates of educational reform (Altwerger et al., 2004). Based
upon the legislation, state educational leaders were required to create academic standards
in reading and mathematics that students must meet. State educational leaders were also
required to calculate a school’s Average Yearly Progress using standardized tests scores
with disaggregated data by subgroups, including students with disabilities, English
language learners, economically disadvantaged, and ethnic groups (U.S. DOE, 2002b).
Tying federal funding to the reform efforts helped ensure that state educational officials
implemented NCLB because failure to do so would result in a loss of federal funding
(Tozer, Violas, & Senese, 2002).
NCLB required teachers to participate in high-quality professional development
(U.S. DOE, 2002a). To facilitate high-quality professional development throughout the
country, the U.S. DOE released a non-regulatory guidance document in 2002. The
document synthesized current teacher professional development research studies to
define effective professional development activities. The U.S. DOE (2002a) defined
effective professional development as “high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-
focused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the
teacher's performance in the classroom” (p. 87). Effective professional development was
not described as one-day workshops or short-term conferences. Although high-quality
25
professional development was a requirement of NCLB, the lack of funding prohibited its
implementation.
Methods of Delivery of Teacher Professional Development
“Ninety-nine percent of public school teachers and 96 percent of private school
teachers” (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47) reported participating in different types of
professional development. Workshops and conferences were the most popular method of
professional development delivery with 94.8% of teachers participating (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009, p. 19). During workshops or conferences, teachers sit and listen
to external experts (Darling-Hammond et al.; Fullan, 2007).
The second most popular delivery method for teacher professional development,
at 46% (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47), was participation in research either individually or
collaboratively on a topic of interest. The delivery method included a variety of activities
and allowed teachers to promote their own learning. A teacher may read professional
publications or conduct action research (Joyce & Calhoun, 2010). Action research
involves using a disciplined inquiry approach of identifying a problem, gathering and
analyzing data, and trying a solution, with the intended outcome of improving
instructional practice (Hine, 2013).
Based upon the results of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Choy et al.
(2006) grouped mentoring, peer observation, and coaching together and reported that
42% of teachers had participated in these types of professional development (p. 47).
Many teachers reported receiving little or no feedback throughout their careers. One
common benefit of mentoring, peer observation, and coaching was feedback. Feedback
26
allowed teachers to analyze and reflect upon instruction and improve upon it (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
Differences among these types of professional development existed. Mentoring
focused on supporting new teachers where the mentor is an expert teacher and expected
to support the mentee’s development as a teacher (McNulty & Fox, 2010). Peer
observations and coaching are not limited to new teachers. Peer observations occurred
when one teacher visits another teacher’s classroom to provide feedback and assistance
(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Coaches focused on improving student
achievement by helping teachers improve instructional skills and knowledge (Joyce &
Calhoun, 2010).
“Thirty-four percent of teachers surveyed had made observational visits to other
schools” (Choy et al., 2006, p. 47). Observational visits to other schools are similar to
peer observations. The observations allowed educators from one school to visit teachers’
classroom in another school. The purpose of the observational visits was twofold: to
provide feedback to the school being observed and to learn new strategies to implement
(Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).
Higher education institutions offered university courses. Teachers take university
courses for two reasons. One reason was for certification purposes; the other reason was
to keep current in the teaching field. In 1999-2000, 30% of teachers took a course
because of recertification or advanced certification, and 23% of teachers took a course to
stay current in their field (Choy et al., 2006).
The final delivery method of professional development identified by SASS was
teacher networks. Teachers learning together to change teaching practices and increase
27
student learning formed teacher networks (Gilford, 1996). On a 1999-2000 survey,
teacher networks were “organized by an outside agency or available through the Internet”
(Choy et al., 2006, p. 47), and 25% of teachers had joined a network.
Theories of Evaluating Teacher Professional Development
A satisfaction survey administered at the end of a professional development
activity was the only evaluation for professional development for many years (Guskey,
2000; Killion, 2006). Professional development evaluation models focus on collecting
data about teacher changes in cognition, beliefs, and practice, and student achievement
(Guskey; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Killion). This section includes Guskey’s five levels of
evaluation, Killion’s evaluation framework, and Desimone’s core conceptual framework.
Guskey’s five levels of evaluation. Guskey (2000) proposes using five levels of
evaluation for professional development. The first level of evaluation focuses on
participants’ reactions. This evaluation is the most common and simplest form. Data
collection regarding participants’ reactions occurs in two ways. At the end of the
activity, a questionnaire eliciting participants’ views of the activity’s content, process,
and context is administered. Another data collection format is “the use of personal
learning logs or reflective journals” (Guskey, p. 105). The format allows participants to
record narrative reflections regarding the professional development activity.
The second level of evaluation involves gathering evidence of participants’
learning acquired as a result of the professional development experience. The level
measures “the knowledge, skills, and perhaps attitudes that the participant gained”
(Guskey, 2000, p. 83). No standardized measure for the level exists. The most common
forms are a competency assessment at the end of the workshop and personal reflection.
28
The critical factor in measuring the participant’s learning is to identify learning goals for
the professional development prior to the professional development experience (Guskey).
The third level’s focus shifts from the individual to the organization. While
participants can make gains in levels one and two, these gains become minimal if
sufficient organizational support does not exist (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997). Level three
focuses “on organizational characteristics and attributes necessary for success” (Guskey,
2000, p. 84). Gathering data for the level is difficult and requires analysis of various
district and school records, including policies and meeting minutes (Guskey).
The focus of level four returns to the participant by measuring the implementation
of information learned from the professional development activity. Using clear indicators
of implementation, data collection may include questionnaires, structured interviews,
classroom observations, personal reflections, or journals. Gathering this level of
evaluation does not occur at the immediate completion of the professional development
activity. Time must elapse before collecting the data (Guskey, 2000).
Guskey’s final level of evaluation is level five and focuses on student learning
outcomes (Guskey, 2000). Multiple measures of student learning are essential for the
level (Joyce, 1993). Student assessment results, portfolio evaluations, teacher interviews
about student learning, and student standardized assessment scores are examples of data
used for measuring level five outcomes (Guskey).
Killion’s evaluation framework. Killion’s evaluation framework expands upon
Guskey’s five levels of evaluation by advocating for the thorough planning of the
professional development evaluation before implementation. The first step to the
framework is defining the professional development goals and objectives. A goal defines
29
the desired purpose of the professional development and expected outcomes. An
objective refers to the desired changes expected from the professional development.
Instead of using evaluations at five levels as proposed by Guskey, goal setting before the
implementation of the professional development determines the level of evaluation
conducted (Killion, 2008).
The next step in evaluating professional development requires the establishment
of a theory of change. The theory of change outlines the sequence of events that should
occur to obtain the desired results. Other benefits for developing a theory of change
include creating a common language for all the stakeholders, minimizing the number of
implementation issues, and providing a framework for ongoing assessment of the
program (Killion, 2008).
The final step of Killion’s evaluation framework is creating a logic model for
professional development. “A logic model includes the theory of change and outlines the
program resources, or inputs, and the actions, or strategies, program designers plan to use
to produce the results (theory of change), and the outputs each action produces” (Killion,
2008, p. 46). A logic model applies the theory of change to the specific professional
development initiative. A critical component of a logic model is the identification of
initial and intermediate outcomes. These outcomes serve as benchmarks for the
professional development program and help assess progress toward the program’s goal
and make adjustments as necessary (Killion).
Desimone’s core conceptual framework. Desimone (2009) synthesized
professional development research studies to propose a core conceptual framework for
evaluating professional development. The foundations for the framework are the core
30
and critical features of professional development. The core features of high-quality
professional development emerged from research and include collective participation,
active learning, content focus, duration, and coherence (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, &
Freeman, 2005; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007; Penuel et al., 2007). With these core
features in place, Desimone proposed an operational theory of change where the
intermediate steps to the outcome of student achievement are increased teacher
knowledge and skills, teacher change in attitudes and beliefs, and teacher change in
instruction. Using the core conceptual framework, the quality of professional
development studies is elevated and helps advance the field (Desimone).
Current Findings
Improving teacher quality and effectiveness throughout the United States are a
high priority (Obama, 2009). With the increasing demands of accountability and
decreasing educational budgets, questions about the effectiveness of professional
development emerged, and more research in the area has been conducted (Killion, 2013).
This section explored the efficacy of teacher professional development delivery methods
identified by the Schools and Staffing Survey, including workshops, action research,
mentoring, peer observation, coaching, and online teacher professional development.
Efficacy of Workshops
The most popular teacher professional development delivery method is
workshops (Choy et al., 2006). Traditionally, administrators plan a workshop with little
or no teacher input (Reeves, 2010; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). During the session,
external experts deliver information while teachers sit and listen with few opportunities
for collaboration and hands-on activities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Fogarty & Pete,
31
2009; Reeves). Upon returning to their classrooms, teachers have workshop handouts
and notes, but continue to work in isolation without support or feedback about
implementing the change in their practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).
While some educators find workshops a waste of time and unrelated to their
professional practice (Nieto, 2009), workshops are not always ineffective (Van Keer &
Verhaeghe, 2005; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Educators can
increase their knowledge and skills, change instructional practice, and increase student
achievement (Reeves, 2010; Yoon et al.). Researchers recognize workshops that extend
the duration, occur at the school, and actively engage educators can lead to positive
results (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2013; Garet et al., 2001; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010).
Institutes, a workshop with an extended duration, are effective for helping
teachers improve their practice and student achievement (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Twenty
science teachers attending a weeklong summer workshop, or institute, demonstrated
positive results in teacher knowledge and skills (Ramlo, 2012). The mixed-method
research study explored the teacher’s understanding of force and motion concepts using
pre- and post-testing. All participants but one, who scored 100% on the pre-test,
demonstrated statistically significant gains in knowledge of forces and motion (Ramlo).
Another study supported workshops with extended duration. A quantitative
research study, which divided the 255 participants from 26 states into three treatment
groups based on the type of professional development method: one to three-hour
conference presentations; workshops lasting between four and 14 hours; and an institute
lasting up to 60 hours (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Participants completed a self-rating survey
to report the usefulness of the assigned professional development method in their
32
classrooms. Researchers found positive results on teacher classroom practice as the
duration of the professional development increased (Dunst & Raab), which supported an
earlier meta-analysis study reporting that “more than 14 hours of professional
development showed a positive and significant effect on student achievement” (Yoon et
al., 2007, p. 3).
Educators rated on-site workshops as more beneficial than off-site conferences
and workshops (Dunst & Raab, 2010). Student populations differ from school to school.
On-site workshops addressed specific learning needs of their students and allowed time
for educators to focus on improving instruction at their school (Robinson, 2010).
Effective workshops engage participants and model classroom strategies (Garet et
al., 2001). The Enhancing Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation (ESP) project
was a series of professional development workshops created to help 19 secondary
mathematics teachers engage students in “cognitively challenging mathematical
activities” (Boston, 2013, p. 9). During the workshops, teachers participated in a
practice-based approach, whereby facilitators modeled instructional strategies by having
teachers participate in hands-on activities (Boston). A mixed-method study of the ESP
project found significant increases in teachers’ knowledge and skills and observed
changes in instructional practice (Boston).
Efficacy of Action Research
Teachers participating in the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) identified
individual and collaborative research, or action research, as the second most popular
delivery method for teacher professional development (Choy et al., 2006). Action
research involves using a systematic inquiry approach of identifying a problem, gathering
33
and analyzing data, and trying a solution with the intended outcome of improving
instructional practice (Ferrance, 2000; Hine, 2013). Teachers use action research either
individually or collaboratively to move from theory to solving local educational practice
issues (Ferrance; Geyer, 2008; Robinson, 2010), such as addressing specific learning
needs (Robinson) and investigating the effects of new methods on student learning
(Hine).
Researchers identified benefits of action research, including data-driven change
focused on student learning, teacher self-reflection, a collaborative culture, and the
empowerment of teachers, to reduce the achievement gap that exists in education (Bersh,
Benton, Lewis, & McKenzie-Parrales, 2012; Cullen, Akerson, & Hanson, 2010; Hahs-
Vaughn & Yanowitz, 2009; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011). A case study of three teachers
using action research to improve the literacy skills of at-risk students in Florida
demonstrated the use of data to focus of student learning. Each teacher collected and
analyzed data for their different research topics to inform their instructional decisions for
literacy instruction. Based upon the results of the study, teachers’ classroom practices
improved (Bersh et al.). A quasi-experimental study of grade-level action research
teams, using data to focus on student learning, also demonstrated greater student
achievement gains than teachers in comparable schools (Saunders, Goldenberg, &
Gallimore, 2009).
Action research encourages teachers to reflect upon their professional practice, to
use research to find solutions, and to make changes in their practice to improve their
teaching and student achievement (Herr & Anderson, 2008; Hahs-Vaughn & Yanowitz,
2009). Researchers conducting a six-year case study of German chemistry teachers
34
found that developing self-reflection skills takes time. In year one, self-reflection was
limited. Teachers were reluctant to express their opinions and primarily tried out
practices recommended by university researchers. By year three, teachers began
implementing their own initiatives. After self-reflection through participation in action
research, many teachers initiated changes in their instructional practices to improve their
practice (Atay, 2008; Eilks & Markic, 2011).
Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) noted, “School culture matters” (p. 52). In the late
1980s, a researcher conducted a mixed-method case study of 78 elementary schools in
Tennessee to explore school culture. Using student reading and math achievement scores
for three consecutive years, schools were divided into two types: low achieving and high
achieving. Rosenholtz (1991) found schools with higher student achievement fostered a
culture of collaboration.
Teachers participating in action research collaborate with others (Butler &
Schnellert, 2012; Eilks & Markic, 2011). A qualitative case study of 18 English teachers
explored teachers’ attitudes toward action research. For six weeks, teachers recorded
information about their experiences in a journal. Using coding to identify themes in the
teachers’ journals, teachers shared that collaborating with others helped them reflect upon
their own practices, find solutions to problems, and renewed their enthusiasm about
teaching (Atay, 2008). Action research allows teachers to support one another, which
helps reduce teacher isolation and teacher attrition (Hord & Hirsch, 2009; Louis &
Wahlstrom, 2011).
Another study investigating the link between action research and school culture
was an exploratory case study. In the study, only three schools in the United States met
35
the criteria for participants. Site visits were conducted to gather data from faculty,
administrators, university liaisons, and archival documents (Berger, Boles, & Troen,
2005). Data analysis identified six central findings that require schools to balance two
sides of implementing school-wide action research, which were referred to as paradoxes:
1. Paradox #1: it must be mandated; it cannot be mandated
2. Paradox #2: it must be championed by a strong principal; it cannot be owned
by the principal
3. Paradox #3: there must be an outside actor; the outside actor is questionable
4. Paradox #4: teachers must learn research skills; teachers must trust their own
knowledge so as not to be overwhelmed by the things they need to learn
5. Paradox #5: teachers’ teaching changes profoundly; teachers say their
research confirms things they already knew
6. Paradox #6: for it to work as a whole school reform, teacher research must be
woven into the fabric of the school culture; teacher research is contrary to the
culture of schools. (Berger, Boles, & Troen, pp. 100-102)
While action research has the potential to be an effective professional
development delivery method, implementing action research has its challenges. A
qualitative study collected data over a three-year period from a total of 34 teachers.
Grounded theory and axial coding data analysis revealed the challenges faced by
participants when engaging in action research: time, teacher readiness, and process
(Goodnough, 2008).
In the qualitative study, all participants identified time as a challenge
(Goodnough, 2008). Time embedded within the workday allows teachers to engage in
36
the process of action research (Salleh, 2006). Without enough time, teachers have
difficulty changing instructional practices (Guskey, 2000). Administrators demonstrated
support for action research when common planning time was provided for teachers
(Goodnough).
Over one-half of the participants identified teacher readiness as a challenge
(Goodnough, 2008). Because most teachers are not researchers, identifying an area of
focus and formulating a research question was difficult (Goodnough; Hine, 2013).
Participants also identified data analysis and interpretation as a struggle (Goodnough).
Pre-planning prior to the implementation of action research helps teachers become ready.
The final challenge was the lack of process. Teachers need to know the logistics
of the action research, including the collaborative structures, action research structures,
timelines, and strategies for minimizing disruptions (Goodnough, 2008). Addressing
these challenges at the beginning of the year helped action research teams maximize their
time and yield better results (Butler & Schnellert, 2012).
Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching
Mentoring, peer observation, and coaching, which were grouped together on the
1999-2000 SASS, were identified by teachers as the third most common professional
development delivery method (Choy et al., 2006). In 2003-2004, the researchers grouped
mentoring and coaching together, but reported peer observations separate, on the SASS.
Of the teachers participating in the survey, 46% reported involvement in mentoring and
coaching and 63% reported involvement in peer observations (Darling-Hammond, Wei,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). This section includes the similarities and
37
differences among mentoring, peer observation, and coaching and a summary of their
efficacy as a professional development delivery method.
Mentoring. Upon entering the profession, “new teachers are expected to assume
the same job responsibilities as skilled teachers who have years of experience” (Kent et
al., 2012, p. 2). Researchers reported approximately 50% of new teachers leave the
profession within the first five years (Ingersoll, 2012; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). One
strategy for reducing attrition is mentoring (Cook, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Kent
et al.). Mentoring pairs a new teacher with an experienced teacher to provide support,
facilitate collaboration, and promote professional growth (Berry, Daughtrey, & Weider,
2010; Cook).
Researchers conducted an experimental study including 17 districts with 418
elementary schools and 1,009 eligible new teachers and randomly assigned participants to
either the treatment group or the control group. New teachers in the treatment group
received mentoring from trained mentors. The outcomes used to measure the
effectiveness of the mentoring program included teacher satisfaction with program,
classroom practices, and student achievement. The study resulted in no statistically
significant effect on any of the outcomes except for one area. In the third year, data
revealed “a positive and statistically significant impact on student achievement”
(Glazerman et al., 2010, p. xxv).
A descriptive research study examining the perceptions of new teachers regarding
the availability and quality of mentoring added information to the Glazerman et al. study.
Survey results from 97 participants indicated that 78.5% participated in mentoring (Cook,
38
2012). Mentees reported the positive aspects of mentoring, which include mentor
availability, feedback, collaboration, and support (Cook).
Some mentoring programs lack formal structure and focus (Kent et al., 2012).
Cook (2012) noted some mentees reported negative responses to mentoring, including a
lack of support from their mentor, ineffective communication, unavailability of mentor,
and unfamiliarity of the mentor with their content area. The most successful mentoring
programs trained mentors and provided structures for interactions between the mentor
and mentee (Cook; Kent et al.).
The positive results of mentoring research studies has led to the implementation
of statewide mentoring programs. In North Carolina, a requirement for new teachers is to
work with a mentor during the first two years of teaching. Researchers, using chi-square
analysis, analyzed data from the Teaching Working Conditions survey of 8,828 teachers
(Parker, Ndoye, & Imig, 2009). The factors examined by researchers included the
association among mentor matching, amount of support, and novice teachers’ intentions
to stay in the field. The study found statistically significant relationships between a new
teacher’s intention to remain in the profession and being matched with a mentor teaching
on the same grade level, the degree of assistance provided, and the frequency of
assistance provided (Parker, Ndoye, & Imig).
Another statewide mentoring program, the Alabama Teacher Mentoring Program
(ATM), provided formal structures, including mentor selection criteria, mentor
professional development, a stipend for the mentor, and formal meeting expectations. A
mixed method study of ATM demonstrated that the majority of first-year teachers
reported feeling supported and encouraged by their mentor. Based upon the survey data,
39
“less than two percent of Alabama’s first-year teachers indicated that they did not intend
to return” (Kent et al., 2012, p. 7) compared to 10% of the national average.
Even though research studies of mentoring programs have demonstrated benefits
for supporting new teachers, challenges can arise. One challenge is the fidelity of
implementation. Mentoring programs may provide formalized structures for supporting
new teachers, but the level of implementation may vary between districts and schools
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Kent et al., 2012; Mullen, 2011). Effectively matching
mentees and mentors is another challenge (Cook, 2012). Personality conflicts between
mentor and mentee and the inaccessibility of a mentor within the school can hinder the
process. The final challenge is the logistics for documenting and paying mentors for their
work (Kent et al.) as funding is often limited.
Peer observation. People in many occupations, including business, law, and
medicine, learn more about their respective field by observing practitioners (Richards &
Farrell, 2005; Sullivan, Buckle, Nicky & Atkinson, 2012). Peer observation in education
occurs when one teacher, regardless of the teacher’s experience level, visits another
teacher’s classroom. The purposes of peer observations include gaining an understanding
of a particular aspect of teaching (Richards & Farrell) and providing feedback and
assistance (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
The benefits of peer observations include learning new ideas from others;
receiving and providing constructive feedback; fostering self-reflection; and encouraging
collaboration (Chamberlain, D’Artrey, & Rowe, 2011; Hirsch, 2011; Richards & Farrell,
2005). By observing a peer, a teacher may learn a new idea or way of handling a
situation (Richards & Farrell). A study of a teaching faculty development program
40
incorporating peer observations found that teachers valued feedback from their peers.
One teacher reported, “One very rarely gets feedback—positive or negative--on teaching,
so it was an interesting and worthwhile experience” (Sullivan et al., 2012, p. 4). Regular
peer observation feedback can lead to more self-reflection upon teaching and improve
teacher effectiveness (Shortland, 2010; Sullivan et al.). In a qualitative study of eight
teachers’ experiences with peer observation, one teacher explained that observing another
teacher’s classroom provided time for self-reflecting upon teaching practices, which led
to changes in the classroom (Hirsch, 2011).
Although teacher isolation continues to exist (Fullan, 2010), peer observation
encourages collaboration (Chamberlain et al., 2011; Hirsch, 2011). In a quantitative
study, 32 teachers completed the School Professional Staff as Learning Community
(SPSaLC) survey to determine if peer observations encouraged collaboration within the
school. The two-tailed t-test results indicated a statistically significant increase in
teachers’ perceptions of collaboration within the school after the implementation of peer
observations (Doyle, 2012).
While peer observation as a professional development delivery method has its
benefits, it also has challenges. One challenge is the perception of peer observations.
Often, teachers perceive observations as evaluations (Hirsch, 2011; Richardson, 2000).
For peer observation to be effective, teachers must not perceive it as an evaluation.
Instead, peer observation is a professional development delivery method for helping
improve teacher effectiveness (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2008).
Another challenge is the logistics of peer observation. Teachers need allocated
time to participate in peer observations (Richards & Farrell, 2005). All participants in a
41
qualitative study of peer observation mentioned time as an issue. One math teacher
reported “that her largest challenge was setting up the observation, and then not being
available to attend” (Hirsch, 2011, p. 93). Another logistics issue was the lack of
structure. A mixed-method study of peer observation at the university level found that
peer observations lacked structure, which led to disengagement by faculty members
(Chamberlain et al., 2011). Even when a formal peer observation structure was in place,
based upon the findings of a qualitative study, faculty lacked understanding of the roles
and processes. The recommendation of the study was for more training for teachers prior
to implementing peer observation as a professional development delivery method
(Salvador, 2012).
Coaching. Teachers need to learn to transfer newly gained knowledge and skills
into practice (Nolan & Hoover, 2008). In 2002, a meta-analysis of 200 research studies
compared the relationship among the training components included in the professional
development and the attainment of knowledge, skill demonstration, and use in the
classroom in terms of the percent of teachers (see Table 1). The highest transference, a
95% implementation rate in all three outcome categories, occurred when teachers
participated in training but also received follow-up coaching in the classroom (Joyce &
Showers, 2002, p. 78).
42
Table 1: Outcomes of Professional Development Training With and Without Follow-Up
Coaching
Professional Development
Outcomes: Percent of teachers who demonstrate knowledge, demonstrate new skill in a training setting, and use new skills in the
classroom Training Components
Knowledge Skill Demonstration Use in the Classroom
Theory & Discussion
10%
5%
0%
Demonstration in Training
30%
20%
0%
Practice & Feedback in Training
60%
60%
5%
Coaching in the Classroom
95%
95%
95%
Note: Coaching. Adapted from Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.), by B. Joyce & B. Showers, 2002, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Copyright 2002 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Adapted with permission.
Researchers define coaching as “an expert (e.g. university faculty, or supervisor,
lead teacher, skilled peer) providing individualized support to teachers after an initial
training occurs” (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010, p. 280). Teachers of all experience
levels and life experience may participate in coaching as it addresses adult learning needs
(Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010) by recognizing that “adult learners are both autonomous
and collaborative” (Gordon, 2004, p. 20). Trying out a new teaching idea can be difficult
for teachers because they are changing their practice (Apte, 2009). Coaching provides
teachers emotional and psychological support to implement change in their practice
(Apte; McLaughlin, 2012; Scott et al., 2012).
43
Two models of coaching exist: supervisory coaching and side-by-side coaching.
The similarity between both coaching models is the focus on improving teacher
effectiveness and increasing student achievement (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Kretlow &
Bartholomew; Shidler & Fedor, 2010). Supervisory coaching is not for evaluation
purposes. The focus of supervisory coaching is to provide teachers feedback about the
implementation of a technique learned in a prior training (Kretlow, Cooke, & Wood,
2012). During training, teachers learn a new technique. Coaching provides
encouragement for implementing the new technique into the classrooms. After a period,
a supervisory coach observes the teacher to record “the presence or absence of particular
instructional techniques the teacher was instructed to use in the initial training” (Kretlow
& Bartholomew, 2010, p. 281). After the observation, the coach provides non-evaluative
feedback to the teacher about the implementation of the technique. Teachers use the
feedback to adjust their practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew; Shidler & Fedor, 2010).
Side-by-side coaching provides not only feedback about the implementation of a
strategy but also ongoing support to the teacher. During side-by-side coaching, the coach
plays an active role during the lesson. The coach models the new technique and provides
the teacher with practice opportunities with ongoing, immediate feedback provided
(Cooke et al., 2012; Kretlow & Bartholomew). Experimental investigations of side-by-
side coaching show an improved rate of technique acquisition (Kohler, Kerry, Shearer, &
Good, 1997), an increase in a teacher’s implementation accuracy of the technique (Cooke
et al.), and a sustained use of the technique (O’Reilly & Renzaglia, 1992).
Effective professional development “occurs on site, as close in proximity as
possible to the very classrooms where it is to be employed” (Shidler, 2009, p. 454). On-
44
site coaching provides critical feedback and reinforcement to support teachers in
transferring newly gained knowledge and skills into the classroom (McCombs & Marsh,
2009; Shidler). Results of a meta-analysis indicate that after an initial training, coaching
provided ongoing on-site support and led to increased fidelity in implementation of the
practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).
Because coaching occurs on-site, a critical component of successful coaching
programs is administrator support (McCombs & Marsh, 2009; Scott, Cortina, & Carlisle,
2012). Principals are instrumental in defining the coach’s role and responsibility
(McCombs & Marsh) and in encouraging teachers to participate in coaching (Nolan &
Hoover, 2008). Principals need to be knowledgeable and involved in the implementation
of coaching (Reeves, 2010; Scott, Cortina, Carlisle, 2012) either by collaborating
regularly with coaches (Sumner, 2011) or by depending upon the coach to provide
instructional support to teachers (Shulman, Sullivan, & Glanz, 2008).
A benefit of effective coaching should be improved student achievement (Kretlow
& Bartholomew, 2010; McCombs & Marsh, 2009). A longitudinal study of 360
children’s achievement data from 12 classrooms investigated the comparison between the
hours of coaching in the classroom with student achievement. A significant correlation
emerged in year one. The study also revealed four components of effective coaching
including “(1) instructing for specific content, (2) modeling techniques, (3) observing
teacher practices, and (4) consulting for reflection” (Shilder, 2009, p. 453). Coaches
helped teachers move theory into practice by demonstrating lessons, providing teacher
practice time, and providing feedback (Shidler). Coaches focus on improving student
45
achievement by helping teachers improve instructional skills and knowledge (Joyce &
Calhoun, 2010).
Another study reported mixed results on the effects of coaching on teacher
knowledge, practice, and student achievement. The Early Reading Professional
Development Interventions study was a randomized, quantitative study that included 270
second-grade teachers from six different districts representing 90 elementary schools.
Researchers divided the selected schools into three treatment groups. Treatment A
teachers participated in eight teacher institute and seminar days on topics relevant to
second grade reading instruction. Treatment B teachers not only received the eight
teacher institute and seminar days but also approximately 60 hours of coaching.
Treatment C teachers comprised the control group and received approximately 13 hours
of professional development offered by the district. The outcomes were measured by
teachers’ knowledge about reading instruction, teachers’ use of research-based
instructional practices, and students’ reading achievement. The study found no
statistically significant effects on any outcome (Garet et al., 2008).
Three hypotheses explain the lack of statistical significance demonstrated in the
Early Reading Professional Development Interventions study. The first hypothesis is
mobility. Conducting research in a school setting results in the researcher not being able
to control the environment. Therefore, 17% of students and 33% of teachers entered the
study after the professional development began. The second hypothesis is misalignment.
The specific knowledge, skills, and practices promoted by the professional development
may not be good predictors of student achievement. For example, the professional
development mainly focused on word-level components while the student achievement
46
test focused on reading comprehension. The third hypothesis is the limited amount of
time involved in the study. Enough time may not have been provided for meaningful
change in student achievement to occur (Garet et al., 2008).
The Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact study reported
similar results as the Early Reading Professional Development Interventions study.
Researchers conducted an experimental study of 195 teachers and 77 schools (Garet et
al., 2010). The treatment group received coaching throughout the two years of the study.
Based upon the results, no statistically significant effect on teacher knowledge and
student achievement was achieved. After further correlational analysis of teacher
knowledge total score and student achievement, a key finding was “that programs
positively affecting teacher knowledge have the potential to increase student
achievement” (Garet et al., 2011, p. 53). The finding supports the theory of change that
increasing teacher knowledge leads to increased student achievement (Garet et al.).
A four-year, quasi-experimental study of literacy coaches yielded different
results. The Literacy Collaborative (LC) was a one-on-one coaching program
implemented as a school reform to improve elementary children’s literacy skills. Using a
value-added model with Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
and Terra Nova results, the study results demonstrated on average 32% more gains by
children in participating schools. A carefully planned coaching program, such as LC, can
result in positive changes in student learning (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2010).
While effective coaching programs provide ongoing, embedded support, some
coaching programs face significant challenges. Time is always a challenge when
providing coaching (Quintis, 2011). Coaches can spend too little or too much time in the
47
classroom (Shidler, 2009). Sometimes non-instructional activities, such as planning and
attending meetings, consumed coaches’ time, which did not allow them to be in the
classroom (Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, & Schock, 2009). If coaches spent too much time
in a classroom, they found themselves owning the classroom (Shidler). Effective coaches
find a balance.
The coach and teacher relationship is complex (Shidler, 2009). Administrators
often select master teachers to become coaches. Researchers caution the use of a master
teacher as a coach because a teacher’s teaching capabilities with students do not always
translate to effective coaching skills (Bruce & Ross, 2008). Coaches need regular
professional development opportunities to develop skills to address adult learning needs
(McCombs & Marsh, 2009), particularly with providing feedback in a supportive,
effective manner (Bruce & Ross).
Summary of the Efficacy of Mentoring, Peer Observation, and Coaching
Teachers reported the trio of mentoring, peer observation, and coaching as the
third most common delivery method for professional development (Choy et al., 2006).
The main variation existing among the three methods is the targeted experience level of
teachers as mentoring focuses on teachers entering the profession (Kent et al., 2012). A
major benefit of the three methods is that formal structures of collegial support are
provided to foster teacher collaboration (Cook, 2012; Hirsch, 2011; McLaughlin, 2012).
As teacher collaboration increases, professional capital increases, and students receive a
high-quality education (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012).
48
Efficacy of Online Teacher Professional Development
“Shrinking budgets, looming standards, and a dizzying array of innovations are
changing the professional learning landscape” (Killion, 2013, p. 10). In the late 1990s,
educators began investigating the use of online platforms to deliver teacher professional
development (Schlarger & Fusco, 2003). Today, several online delivery methods exist,
including online courses, online communities of practice, and portals (Dede, 2006).
Online courses. Early forms of online professional development included online
courses. In the late 1990s, several e-learning programs, such as American Museum of
Natural History Seminars on Science, Master’s in Science Education, and PBS
TeacherLine, offered online courses (Dede, 2006) by using software called a learning
management system (LMS). An LMS allows the delivery of a defined curriculum with
required assignments and assessments in a specific time frame (Killion, 2011). Limited
empirical evidence about the effectiveness of online courses in terms of changing
instructional practice and student achievement exists (Killion) because the evidence is
“often lacking, anecdotal, or based on participant surveys completed immediately after
the professional development experience rather than later, when a better sense of long
term impact is attainable” (Dede, Jass, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Briet, and McCloskey,
2009, p. 9).
To add to the body of research knowledge of online professional development
courses, researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial study to investigate the
effects of online professional development courses of fractions, algebraic thinking, and
measurement on teacher content knowledge, instructional practice, and student
achievement. The study was conducted between January 2007 and June 2009 and
49
included 79 fifth grade teachers. To investigate the effects of online professional
development courses, researchers assigned participants to either the experimental group
or control group. The experimental group received “approximately 100 hours” (Masters
et al., 2012, p. 26) of online professional development. The control group received no
specific professional development but was not restricted from participating in normal
professional development activities. While no statistical difference existed between the
experimental and control group in terms of student mathematics scores, data from the
study did indicate a positive change in teachers’ content knowledge and instructional
practices (Masters et al.).
Researchers also investigated online professional development modules
developed by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction using 2010 Race to the
Top Funds. As of June 30, 2012, 13 online modules existed to support teachers with the
transition to new standards and assessments; therefore, researchers conducted a Phase I
evaluation to determine the immediate outcomes of the online modules. One half of
North Carolina’s K-12 teachers completed an online module. Seventy-six percent agreed
that the modules were easily accessible, and 78% of participants agreed that the modules
were relevant to their needs (Kellogg, Corn, & Booth, 2012). A weakness of the study
was researchers did not investigate the professional development outcomes of teacher
knowledge and skills, instructional practice, and student achievement.
Online communities of practice. While 90% of teachers believe that
collaboration is crucial to improving their practice, most teachers are only able to spend
3% of their day working with other colleagues (Scholastic & The Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2012). Online platforms allow teachers to collaborate by creating
50
asynchronous online communities of practice. Communities of practice “are groups of
people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it
better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006, para. 4). Communities of practice meet
the specific needs of the learner or, in this case, the teacher.
One of the first e-learning programs for teachers was Tapped In, an online
community of practice created by SRI International in 1997. Leaders of Tapped In
provided educators with an online platform to extend professional development beyond
courses and workshops. The premise of Tapped In was to create a worldwide community
of practice for educators (Schlarger & Fusco, 2003) that supported the implementation of
“effective, classroom-centered learning activities” (SRI International, 2010, para. 2).
Researchers investigated Tapped In by having members participate in a
quantitative survey. The purpose of the survey was to learn more about the Tapped In
community members and “how their experiences in Tapped In have affected their
professional lives” (Fusco, Gehlback, & Schlager, 2000, p. 2). The results of the survey
data posited that participation in an e-learning interaction helped decrease teacher
isolation and positively influenced a teacher’s instructional practice. Researchers also
identified barriers faced when trying to participate in the Tapped In community, which
were lack of time; technological difficulties including logging-in, navigation, and
software commands; and lack of administrative support (Fusco et al.).
A case study of Tapped In engaged users to obtain feedback about the design of
the online environment with the goal of sustainability. Data collected from 1997 to 2006
included field notes, surveys, activity logs, interviews, documentation, archival records,
and physical artifacts. Because of the participatory design of the case study, designers
51
introduced different interventions throughout the study to investigate the success of
enhancing and sustaining the Tapped In community (Farooq, Schank, Harris, Fusco, &
Schlager, 2007). Three key design strategies emerged from the research. First, the online
platform needed to increase not only social capital among online community but also
feedback to the designers. As social capital increased among users and designers, the
community grew. The second design strategy focused on providing multiple online
gathering places for users to interact. Multiple gathering places can exist within an
online platform, including chat rooms, list servs, blogs, virtual worlds, or a combination
of the spaces. The final design strategy allowed leaders to emerge within the community.
Tapped In empowered users to create communities and become the leaders of the
community. In 2006, Tapped In “had about 20,000 members and approximately 1,200 to
1,500 member logins a day” (Farooq et al., 2007, p. 6).
Other research of online communities of practice identified the characteristics of
member participation. The most active role in an online community was the facilitator.
Facilitators, often a self-appointed role, organized the community and provided the norms
of interaction (Koh & Kim, 2004). Online communities with facilitators experienced less
attrition (McLean, 2013).
The remaining participants in an online community of practice constituted two
groups: active participants and lurkers. Active participants engaged in the online
community by “posting, sharing and adapting, applying and improving, reflecting and
sharing their reflections, collaborating and assisting others” (Taylor, 2008, p. 185).
Lurkers are non-active participants in an online community. Lurkers learned from others
in the online community, but did not share information with others (Preece, 2000).
52
Online communities of practice benefit the members. The first benefit is online
communities offer a flexible, economical, and convenient venue for delivering
professional development (Keown, 2009). Another benefit is peer support. Sharing ideas
among the community is important for generating new ideas (Gray, 2004). New ideas
help teachers adapt to the continuous changes they face (Grossman, Wineburg, &
Woolworth, 2001). The final benefit is the development of professional capital
(Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Content shared via an online community is public content,
which collected over time can lead to improved teaching (Lieberman & Pointer Mace,
2010).
Portals. Technological advances increase the availability of online resources,
which can create confusion for teachers and wastes time (Spicer & Dede, 2006). Some
educational organizations are beginning to create online portals as a way to consolidate
resources for teacher professional development (Spicer & Dede). A portal is different
from a webpage because portals consolidate resources from a variety of sources.
Teachers have one entry point for accessing resources (Hartmann, 2012). More advanced
portals provide differentiated access to resources based on a teacher’s role in the
organization and tracks the individual’s usage of the resources within the portal
(Ethridge, Hadden, & Smith, 2000; Morrison, Buckley, & Coppo, 1999).
Few organizations use portals for teacher professional development. The limited
research that exists primarily investigates factors influencing the implementation of the
portal. Researchers led investigations of three portal implementations: the Milwaukee
Public Schools (MPS) Professional Support Portal, the National Science Teacher
Association (NSTA) Learning Center, and PD360.
53
In 2003, the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) launched the MPS Professional
Support Portal as a strategic initiative to support teachers with their professional growth
(Spicer & Dede, 2006). The greatest challenge faced when implementing the portal was
district-wide culture change. To facilitate the change, all communication occurred
through the portal, and extensive marketing efforts informed MPS teachers about the
portal. Teachers reported finding the portal valuable (Holland, 2007). “Milwaukee is a
story of how one district successfully pooled and leveraged existing resources to create a
portal that bridged gaps, transformed how the district works, and changed the view of
teacher professional development” (Holland, p. 401).
In 2008, the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) launched the NSTA
Learning Center, “a comprehensive electronic professional development (e-PD) online
portal” (Byers, Koba, Sherman, Scheppke, & Bolus, 2011, p. 273). The portal had more
than 6,000 on-demand resources, including journal articles, archived webinars, book
chapters, and self-directed interactive learning opportunities. Teachers also had access to
some professional development management tools that allowed them to establish goals,
manage accomplishments, and celebrate their successes with others. The PD Indexer tool
had teachers complete an assessment and recommended resources to address content gaps
for teachers (Byers et al.). The goal of the portal was to provide individualized,
professional development for teachers at a convenient time, place, and pace. After three
years of implementation, the NSTA Learning Center had more than 62,000 teacher
accounts with “over 430,000 individual e-PD resources in their online libraries” (Byers et
al., p. 285). If the trend continues, the NSTA Learning Center may serve as a sustainable
model for increasing teachers’ competence in science (Byers et al.).
54
Shaha and Ellsworth conducted a study on PD 360, a portal that provides teachers
with on-demand access to instructional videos on teaching techniques, to “an online
professional learning community of nearly one million educators” (Shaha & Ellsworth,
2013, p. 176), and to posting and downloading other professional development materials.
A multi-state, quasi-experimental study of PD 360 was conducted to study its impact on
student performance. The study population included 750 schools representing 39 states
where teachers participated in a minimum of 90 minutes of professional development by
accessing PD 360. The study sample was 169 randomly selected schools representing 19
states. To determine the impact, pre-professional development student data were
compared to post-professional development student data. Student performance in schools
using PD 360 demonstrated significant increase in effect sizes for both math and reading
(Shaha & Ellsworth).
Benefits of online teacher professional development. Researchers have
identified the benefits of online teacher professional development to include increased
access to professional development (Killion, 2013; Masters et al., 2012), differentiated
learning opportunities for teachers (Fucoloro, 2012; Australian Institute for Teaching and
School Leadership, 2014), and increased collaboration (Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership; Huber, 2010; Dede, 2010). Reductions in educational budgets
limit the resources available for professional development (Killion). As a result, many
districts turn to online professional development as a solution. Online professional
development technologies reduce the cost of providing teacher professional development
(Killion; Masters et al.); provide teachers with asynchronous access “to just-in time
learning” (Killion, 2011, p. 12); and provide teachers access to expertise and resources
55
previously unavailable (Huber, 2010), such as “in rural and hard-to-staff subject areas”
(Masters et al., p. 42).
Like students, teachers have individualized learning needs (Duncan-Howell,
2010; Fucoloro, 2012; Killion 2013). Online professional development offers
differentiated learning opportunities for teachers (Fucoloro; Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership, 2014). In a multiple case study of eight teachers’ use
of online professional development for integrating technology into the classroom,
teachers adapted the online modules to meet their own needs (Herrington, Herrington,
Hoban, & Reid, 2009). The asynchronous nature of an online community also allows
participants more time to “think, reflect, and compose answers” (Duncan-Howell, 2010,
p. 337) to address their learning needs.
“Learning occurs when learners connect with ideas and other learners” (Killion,
2013, p. 11). Online professional development bridges distance and time, which fosters
collaboration among teachers by providing new ways of communicating with one another
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014). Technology enables
teachers from all over the world the ability to interact with one another (Huber, 2010).
The asynchronous nature of online professional learning allows many people to
communicate at the same time, thereby fostering rich conversations around instructional
practice (Dede, 2010) and increasing professional capital (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012).
Challenges of online teacher professional development. Online professional
development is not always effective (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership, 2014). While access is a benefit, it also can be a challenge (Killion, 2013).
56
Participant responses to open-ended questions about the North Carolina Race to the Top
online modules revealed the following difficulties with access:
1. Navigation issues, including difficulty locating desired modules;
2. Browser compatibility issues;
3. Incorrect login information;
4. Video files not working or requiring updates to their local computer that were
not installed;
5. Unreliable access to Internet at the school;
6. Lack of adequate space on the host server; and
7. Bandwidth issues when too many educators try to access the modules at the
same time. (Kellogg et al., 2012, p. 34)
Another challenge is the quality of information (Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership, 2014). Teachers need access to relevant, accurate, and timely
information to increase their effectiveness (National Institute for Excellence in Teaching,
2012). Some online professional development designs provide fixed information, which
does not allow the personalization and adaptation of information. Depending on the
teacher’s experience, the information may not meet the teacher’s needs (Herrington et al.,
2009; Kellogg et al., 2012; Ungur, Maroudas, & Manouselis, 2011).
Encouraging teachers to use the online professional development mode of
delivery can be a challenge (MacDonald & Poniatowska, 2011). The online learning
platform is new to teachers. Learning to use an online platform effectively takes time,
which many teachers do not have. Even when teachers try to use an online platform, they
need access to adequate support as questions arise (Killion, 2013).
57
Effective professional learning design requires a clear understanding of
participants’ needs and the type of learning environment that they prefer (Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014). Some teachers do not use online
professional development because they prefer face-to-face, dynamic interactions. Online
communication may not meet their learning style (Dede et al., 2009) and may cause
teachers to feel disconnected (Killion, 2013). Administrative support is critical for
motivating teachers to use online professional development. Principals can be a
champion for the online professional development in a building by supporting the change
and providing adequate time for teachers to participate (Wideman, Owston, & Sinitskaya,
2007).
Conclusion
The review of literature focused on professional development delivered face-to-
face or online. Because face-to-face professional development existed before online
professional development, more research was available for face-to-face professional
development. No matter the delivery method, the most common studies of professional
development were qualitative case studies. By using surveys, focus groups, and
interviews, researchers identified the characteristics, benefits, and challenges participants
faced when participating in professional development. Researchers used qualitative case
studies to solicit in-depth information from participants to improve the professional
development experience for teachers. The limitations of case studies reviewed were the
small sample sizes and lack of generalizability to larger populations.
Quantitative studies were the second most common type of methodology used to
research professional development. The dependent variables commonly used in the
58
studies were teacher knowledge and skill, instructional practice, and student achievement.
The research reported mixed results. Some studies found positive statistically significant
results, and other studies found no statistically significant results between the
independent variables and dependent variables. The scopes of the quantitative studies
were large. One study included 8,828 participants, resulting in increased generalizability.
A limitation of the method in the studies reviewed was the lack of depth in responses
received from the participants. Researchers identified relationships among variables, but
not the explanation for the relationships. Online teacher professional development
emerged in the late 1990s, resulting in limited research existing in the area. To facilitate
educational leaders in making informed decisions, more research aimed at studying
online professional development concerning teacher effectiveness needs to be conducted.
Summary
The creators of the American education system recognized the importance of
teacher professional development for improving teacher effectiveness (Williams, 1937).
Throughout the years, various social, political, and educational influences affected
teacher professional development. In 2014, both face-to-face and online professional
development delivery methods exist.
Chapter two included a review of literature of teacher professional development.
The historical review of teacher professional development included the role of the federal
government, delivery methods, and evaluation methods. The current findings section
included the efficacy of various professional development delivery methods, including
workshops, action research, mentoring, peer observation, coaching, and online teacher
59
professional development. In chapter three, the method of study and the processes of
data collection and data analysis as well as concerns of confidentiality will be discussed.
60
Chapter 3
Research Methods
Teachers need access to high-quality professional development for the
improvement and refinement of teaching to increase teacher effectiveness (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Killion, 2011). The purpose of the
qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors influencing the use of My
HUB, an asynchronous professional development portal, by district teachers as a
professional development delivery method to improve their teaching. The specific topics
reviewed in chapter three include the research methodology and design appropriateness,
population and sample, informed consent, confidentiality, data collection,
instrumentation, dependability, credibility, and data analysis.
Appropriateness of Research Method
A qualitative method was the best approach to fulfill the purpose of the study.
The problem was teachers need access to high-quality professional development to
improve their effectiveness (Killion, 2011). The objective of the study was to understand
the factors influencing teachers’ use of My HUB as a professional development delivery
method to improve their teaching. Qualitative research allows for the selection of a
nonrandom, purposeful sample (Merriam, 2009); the analysis of patterns and themes
from participants’ experiences of a phenomenon within its context (McDuffie & Scruggs,
2008; Merriam); and the identification of essential characteristics that describes the
phenomenon (Schwandt, 2007, p. 248).
Through inductive reasoning, themes about the phenomenon emerged from the
data (Merriam, 2009). Identifying patterns and themes from participant responses led to
61
a clarification of the factors influencing teachers’ use of the portal and the features they
find most useful. The information may help inform further implementation of the portal
throughout the district and provide implementation guidance to other educational
organizations that may be considering a similar professional development tool.
Appropriateness of Research Design
A case study design was the most suitable design to address the study. The
research design that answers how and why questions about bounded systems most
effectively is a case study (Qi, 2009; Yin, 2009). The purpose of the study was to answer
how and why questions about teachers in a bounded system: a large, urban school system
in the southeastern United States. A case study design is also best for the interpretation
of contemporary events in which no control group exists (Yin, 2009). The contemporary
event was the January 2014 implementation of My HUB over which the researcher had
no control. In a case study, participants share their experiences and perspectives about a
phenomenon (Qi, 2009; Yin, 2009). In the study, teachers shared their experiences using
the portal; their perspectives of it as a professional development tool; and their
perceptions of factors influencing its usage.
Another characteristic of case studies is “they strive toward a holistic
understanding of cultural systems of action” (Tellis, 1997, p. 5) related to a phenomenon.
The cultural systems of action refer to the interrelated activities of participants in a
certain situation (Tellis, 1997). The cultural system of action in the study consisted of the
organizational factors of leadership, relevancy, peer influence, and teacher efficacy.
Tobin (2010) suggested the most appropriate design for providing a focused and
detailed account of a phenomenon is a descriptive case study. A descriptive case study
62
involves investigating an intervention in its real-life context (Yin, 2009) and attempting
to provide a complete account of the phenomenon (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The
objective of the study was to identify patterns and themes relative to the use of the portal
as a professional development tool. The in-depth investigation may help guide further
implementation of the portal within the district and may be helpful to other organizations
implementing professional development portals.
Population and Sample
The location of the study was a large, urban school system in the southeastern
United States. The target population of the study consisted of 41 fifth through eighth
grade middle school teachers in a large, urban school system in the southeastern United
States. Specifically, the population included teachers at School A (n = 41). For the study
population of 41 teachers, 24 teachers, or 59%, had used My HUB. The sample, the
subset of the population from which data were collected (Merriam, 2009), was 21
teachers. For the sample of 21, My HUB was used by 13 teachers, or 62%.
Informed Consent
A study involving human subjects required approval by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) of the University of Phoenix. In the informed consent form (see Appendix
A), participants were provided with the purpose of the study, an overview of their
participation, assurances of confidentiality, the withdrawal procedures, and the process of
informed consent. Participants were made aware of potential benefits and potential harm
involved in the research process. The informed consent form was distributed and
collected at a faculty meeting. The purpose of the informed consent form was to provide
participants with awareness of the purpose of the study and to provide information about
63
their right to privacy, anonymity, benefits, and risks. The form ensured participants had
the opportunity to understand the conditions of participation and the voluntary nature of
participation. The faculty members also learned they may withdraw from the study at
any time without penalty or loss of benefit by informing the researcher orally or in
writing and by not completing the questionnaire.
Confidentiality
Participants were assured that all information associated with the research study
would be kept confidential (Yin, 2009). Participants’ privacy was protected to avoid any
undesirable consequences. Participants who signed the informed consent form provided
their e-mail address, which was used to e-mail them the information to access the
questionnaire. The signed informed consent forms were locked in a secure file cabinet
until they are destroyed five years after data collection concluded.
For the first administration of the questionnaire, the Survey Monkey e-mail
invitation collection feature was used to e-mail participants a unique survey link to track
responses. The questionnaire was available on the web. The process provided a
confidential procedure for teachers, ensuring anonymity. Survey responses were stored
on a server hosted by SurveyMonkey, which uses industry standard levels of encryption
and ensured that all servers are in highly secure data centers within the United States
(SurveyMonkey, 2013). Information access was password protected. If a participant
wished to withdraw from the study, the participant’s e-mail address was used to find the
data to be excluded from the study.
The follow-up administration of the questionnaire was a paper copy. To ensure
confidentiality for teachers, the questionnaires were coded in the back upper right corner
64
with a number that aligned to the informed consent form. An unused envelope was
placed in each non-respondents’ mailbox for them to return the questionnaire. If a
participant wished to withdraw from the study, the code was used to find the participant’s
data to be excluded from the study.
The My HUB usage report data and focus group data were stored on Dropbox, a
cloud-based storage service. Dropbox uses industry standard levels of encryption and
ensured that all servers are in highly secure data centers within the United States
(Dropbox, 2014). The data will remain stored in the secured location until five years
after data collection concluded, at which time all data will be permanently deleted and
destroyed.
Data Collection
Permission to use the district and school premises and collect data were sought
and granted (see Appendices B and C). The data collection process began by presenting
the study at a faculty meeting. The informed consent form (see Appendix A) provided
the purpose of the study, an overview of the time commitment for completing the
questionnaire, and an explanation of foreseeable risks and confidentiality information.
Teachers willing to participate in the study completed and returned the informed consent
form during the faculty meeting. Upon receiving the questionnaire link, participants
completed it by the specified due date.
When conducting questionnaire research, personalized, repeated contact with
participants increased response rates (Monroe & Adams, 2012). Dillon (2001) noted that
questionnaire response rates increased when the questionnaires were sent to participants
during mid-week after 12 p.m. Participants returning the informed consent forms
65
received a personalized e-mail with the questionnaire link to Survey Monkey on a
Tuesday afternoon at 2 p.m. and had two weeks to complete the questionnaire. Follow-
up e-mail reminders about the questionnaire were sent to non-respondents on days five
and 10 of the administration window. The principal of the school also sent a reminder
email on day seven of the questionnaire. Twenty-two participants responded. One
participant withdrew from the questionnaire. The participant’s responses were identified
and deleted from Survey Monkey. Therefore, the final number of responses was 21.
A final effort to solicit more participants was made after the two-week period.
Paper informed consent forms and questionnaires were coded for the remaining non-
respondents who attended the faculty meeting. An envelope with a memo (see Appendix
D), informed consent form, a dollar bill as an incentive, the questionnaire, and an unused
envelope was placed in each non-respondents’ mailbox. The principal announced that the
questionnaire was in the teachers’ mailboxes and encouraged participation. Non-
respondents were given an additional 10 days to return the questionnaire in the sealed
envelope. Data collection continued for three and a half weeks.
While the questionnaire was administered, a copy of the My HUB usage reports
for the first three months of implementation were obtained from the project director.
Usage reports provided data about frequency of use. A meeting was held with the
program director after the initial analysis of the data to clarify the data and to verify the
findings.
Focus groups are useful for conducting research where little is known about the
phenomenon (Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007). The faculty at the middle school
received an e-mail (see Appendix E) with an invitation to participate in a focus group at
66
the school, which included information about a Starbucks gift card incentive for
participating. Focus groups need to have 4 to 8 participants (Krueger, 2002). The size
prevents one or two people from dominating a small group and decreases the difficulty of
managing a large group (Stewart et al., 2007). Five teachers from the school, whether
they participated in the questionnaire or not, volunteered to participate in the focus group.
Two focus group participants completed the My HUB questionnaire; three participants
had not. To ensure participation in the focus group, each participant received an email
reminder the day before the scheduled time. The focus group lasted for forty-five
minutes and was audio recorded. The researcher, who served as facilitator, asked
participants to respond to the findings from the My HUB report and teacher questionnaire
analyses. Data collection concluded with the focus group.
Instrumentation
The original questionnaire and focus group questions that align to the research
questions were created for the study. The study’s central research question and sub
questions guided the creation of the questionnaire:
CRQ 1. How might participating teachers use My HUB to help improve their
teaching, if at all?
SQ 1. Why does the use of My HUB vary among teachers, if at all?
SQ2. How can My HUB be improved, if at all, as a professional development
tool?
Seventeen open-ended questions aligned to the research question and sub
questions were created initially for the questionnaire (see Appendix F). The open-ended
questions fell into three categories: investigating how teachers used My HUB to improve
67
instruction; determining the teach usage patterns for My HUB; and soliciting suggestions
for improvement of the portal. The questions were modified or deleted based on the
item’s content validity ratio (CVR). CVR is the process whereby a panel of experts
evaluates the usefulness of each question in answering the overarching research
questions. Twenty-four educational researchers and practitioners received an email (see
Appendix G) with the title of the research study, a brief description of the CVR process,
and the link to the questionnaire.
Survey Monkey was used to distribute the CVR questionnaire and collect the
data. Participants rated each item using a three-point Likert-type scale, 3 = essential, 2 =
useful but not essential, and 1 = not necessary, based on the item’s ability to answer the
proposed central research question and two sub questions. An open-ended comment box
allowed participants to provide further comments and feedback for each questionnaire
item.
At the end of the two-week period, 16 participants responded. The CVR for each
questionnaire item was calculated with the formula CVR = (ne – N/2)/(N/2), where ne =
number of panelists indicating the question as essential and N = number of panelists
(Stephens et al., 2013). The CVR values for each item ranged from a maximum value of
1 to a minimum value of 0.375 (see Appendix H). A minimum CVR of 0.50 for each
item was necessary to ensure agreement was unlikely to have occurred by chance (Ayre
& Scally, 2014). Using the CVR calculations, the original 17-item questionnaire resulted
in a more refined 10-item open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix I).
During the focus group session, participants were presented the findings from the
My HUB usage report and questionnaire data. Participants were encouraged to respond
68
to the data and asked clarifying questions. The intent of the focus group was to serve as a
member check of the questionnaire data and to collect more in-depth information about
the phenomenon.
Dependability and Credibility
The dependability of the open-ended questionnaire was established using a
content validity ratio (CVR). The CVR involves an expert panel to validate each
question’s usefulness in answering the overarching central research question and two sub
questions (Stephens et al., 2013). Expert panelists drawn from K-12 researchers and
educators not involved in the formal study provided feedback about the purpose of the
study, the research questions, and instructions for completing the questionnaire in Survey
Monkey. The expert panel performed the CVR for the questionnaire.
Using a three-point Likert-type scale, 24 panelists had two weeks to rate each
question’s usefulness as 3 = essential, 2 = useful but not essential, and 1 = not necessary,
and provided feedback about questions that needed to be modified. Based on participant
feedback, questions were removed, modified, or left the same. CVR was calculated with
the formula CVR = (ne – N/2)/(N/2), where ne = number of panelists indicating the
question as essential and N = number of panelists (Stephens et al., 2013).
Data triangulation increased the credibility of the study findings. Multiple
methods of data collection allowed the comparison of data to verify the findings and
ensured the data present “as complete a picture as possible of the phenomena”
(Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013, p. 13). Data were collected by three
methods: usage data reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group. First, the My HUB
usage reports provided data about the frequency of use in the study population. Second, a
69
questionnaire allowed teachers to share their perceptions and experiences about the portal
and its implementation. The data were used to identify common themes about the use of
My HUB. Third, a follow-up focus group finished the triangulation of the data by
providing a cross-checking of data and allowing for a more in-depth view of the
phenomenon. Emerging themes from different sources of data helped ensure that an
objective interpretation of the data occurred.
Data Analysis
Through data analysis, patterns or emerging themes about the use of My HUB as
a professional development delivery system were identified. The data analysis process
began by having a defined system for organizing and managing data (Merriam, 2009).
All data from the questionnaire were managed in Survey Monkey. The My HUB usage
reports and focus group data were managed in Dropbox.
The narrative text from the questionnaire responses was coded to identify patterns
and themes. Open coding is the process of identifying common concepts, characteristics,
and frequencies within the data (Merriam, 2009). Axial coding occurs when open codes
are grouped into broad categories (Merriam, 2009). The coded responses were
categorized by identifying the most common concepts and combining some concepts.
The final process of data analysis was selective coding, which required the refinement of
categories to identify factors influencing teachers’ use of My HUB.
While the questionnaires were being completed, the My HUB usage reports were
analyzed. The My HUB usage reports provided data about the frequency of use.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the usage reports. After the analysis, the
results were shared with the program director to verify the data.
70
The focus group data served to triangulate the My HUB usage report and
questionnaire data. Coding of the focus group audio recording occurred by dividing the
text into segments using Microsoft Word. The coded descriptors helped to determine
participants’ feedback regarding the credibility of the My HUB usage report and
questionnaire findings and provided in-depth explanations.
Summary
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers are
using to improve their teaching. The single location case study involved investigating
why and how participants use My HUB to improve their teaching. The study also
included identifying barriers to using My HUB and recommendations of participants for
improving My HUB as a professional development delivery system.
Chapter three included a discussion of the research methodology and design
selected for the study on the use of My HUB as a professional development delivery
system for K-12 teachers from a large, urban school system in the southeastern United
States. The chapter included a description of the population and sample, data collection
procedures, and rationale for the procedures. An explanation of the credibility and
dependability of the instrument and an examination of the questionnaire in terms of
questions and purpose also were included in the chapter.
The data analysis section included the triangulation of data from multiple sources:
My HUB usage reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group. Survey Monkey was used to
collect and analyze the questionnaire data for emerging patterns and themes. Microsoft
Word was used to code the focus group audio recording, while descriptive statistics was
71
used to analyze the My HUB usage reports. In chapter four, discussion will include the
research findings from the data collection and analysis.
72
Chapter 4
Presentation and Analysis of Data
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB by district teachers as a professional development
delivery method to improve their teaching. Limited research about asynchronous teacher
professional development exists. A descriptive case study allowed teachers to share their
experiences using the portal, their perspectives of it as a professional development tool,
and their perceptions of factors influencing its usage.
The study population was 41 fifth through eighth grade middle school teachers in
a large, urban school system in the southeastern United States. The questionnaire (see
Appendix I) was administered to the 24 teachers, who completed the informed consent
form. Twenty-one teachers completed the questionnaire. The My HUB usage reports
provided data about the frequency of use. The focus group guide provided the
framework for collecting data to facilitate triangulation of the questionnaire data. Chapter
four includes the epoche; results from the data analysis of the My HUB usage reports, the
questionnaire, and focus group; and summary.
Epoche
The epoche process began before data collection and continued through the
conclusion of analysis. Epoche occurs when "personal prejudices, viewpoints, and
assumptions" (Merriam, 2009, p. 25) are temporarily set aside to ensure the data are
interpreted without bias (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). Personal bias was limited in
three ways. First, the open response narrative for the 10 items on the questionnaire was
coded. All data were treated equally and reported straightforwardly. Second, the
73
research questions and theoretical frameworks helped bracket the information, focused
the topic, and limited the acquisition of superfluous data that might have been of little use
in describing the phenomenon. Third, a member check of the data by the focus group
helped triangulate the data and ensured it reflected teachers’ perceptions and experiences
of using My HUB as a professional development delivery method for improving their
teaching.
Data Analysis
Patterns or emerging themes about the use of My HUB as a professional
development delivery system were identified. Three sources of data were analyzed and
triangulated: My HUB usage reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group. This section
includes the findings from the analysis.
My HUB Usage Reports
The program director of My HUB provided usage reports in the form of Excel
spreadsheets for the first three months of implementation. The data included in the
reports were last name, first name, username, default role, default institution, and distinct
logins. The last name and first name columns provided the users’ first and last names.
The username column provided the usernames for logging into My HUB. The default
role column identified the user as employee, leadership, N/A, staff, student, system
operator, and teacher. The primary work location for the user was the default institution.
The distinct logins included the count of the logins during the month indicated, which
included multiple logins by the same person.
The teacher data were filtered by the default institution column for the
participating school within the district to report about the study population. After
74
alphabetizing the data for the participating school by the user first name column and then
the user last name column, the data were consolidated to determine the total number of
My HUB teacher users for the study population. For the study population of 41 teachers,
24 teachers, or 59%, had used My HUB.
The teacher data were filtered by the default institution column for the
participating school within the district to report about the study population. The number
of teachers accessing My HUB per month from January through March 2014 was
determined by filtering users by the month column and using the count feature in Excel
(see Figure 3). The access data for the study population were one teacher in January, five
teachers in February, and 22 teachers in March.
Figure 3: Number of Teachers Accessing My HUB per Month for Study Population
(N=41).
75
The distinct logins column, which included the count of all logins during the
month, for the filtered study population was used to determine the number of times
teachers accessed My HUB for each month of implementation (see Figure 4). The total
number of distinct logins by teachers in the study population from January to March 2014
was 85 with one login in January, 13 logins in February, and 71 logins in March.
Figure 4: My HUB Teacher Distinct Logins for Study Population (N=41)
The results from the analysis of the My HUB reports were shared with the
program director. The director reviewed the My HUB usage report data. After analyzing
the data, the director concurred with the findings.
Questionnaire
The narrative text from the questionnaire responses were open coded. After
reading through the text three times, tally marks were recorded for each label as it
76
occurred in the text (see Table 2). Some text had multiple labels. The most frequent
labels from the tally chart were resources, social, and information sharing.
Table 2: Types and frequency of Open Code Labels, by Category
Open Code Frequency Resources 65 Social 58 Information Sharing 41 Lesson/Unit Planning 33 Personalization 30 Instructional Strategies 28 Online 24 Lack of Access 23 Functionality 23 Time 21 Information Storage 17 Content Area Focus 16 Integrating Technology 14 Standards 13 Videos 13
The next step in the analysis was axial coding of the data. Labels with more than
10 tallies were grouped together and reasoning provided (see Table 3). Categories
related to resources were grouped together into the axial coded category storing and
disseminating teaching resources throughout the organization, which had a frequency of
240 appearances in the text. The next axial code category was collaborating with others,
which had a frequency of 160 and included the open code categories of social,
information sharing, lesson/unit planning, and instructional strategies. The remaining
axial coded categories were user-friendliness of system and need more time to access My
HUB.
77
Table 3: Axial coding and selective coding chart for open coded labels
Open Code Axial Code Selective Code Resources Storing and Disseminating
Teaching Resources Throughout the Organization
Knowledge Management Information Sharing
Lesson/Unit Planning Instructional Strategies Integrating Technology Information Storage Content Area Focus Standards Videos Social Working with Others Collaboration Information Sharing Lesson/Unit Planning Instructional Strategies Personalization User-friendliness of System Accessibility Lack of Access Functionality Lack of Access Need more time to access
My HUB Time Personalization Anytime access to searchable
resources Online Time
The coded responses were categorized by identifying the most common concepts
and combining some concepts. The final process of data analysis was selective coding,
which required the refinement of categories to identify factors influencing teachers’ use
of My HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers perceive as useful for
improving their teaching. Three themes emerged from the data: knowledge management,
collaboration, and accessibility.
Synthesis of My HUB Report Data and Questionnaire
Data from the My HUB usage reports and questionnaire were analyzed to identify
gaps in the findings. Two areas were identified: the reasons for limited accessibility by
teachers and opportunities for improvement. Accessibility was a consistent theme
78
identified in both data sets. From the My HUB reports, 17 teachers (41%) in the study
population had not accessed My HUB. For the sample of 21, 8 teachers (38%) had not
accessed My HUB. On the questionnaire, 13 participants (62%) commented about the
accessibility of My HUB with eight participants (38%) mentioning not having the time to
access My HUB. The reasons for the variation in the use of My HUB by teachers
remained unclear.
More data are needed to identify opportunities for improving My HUB. The My
HUB usage report data provided no information for improvement opportunities.
Participants provided one and two word responses to the My HUB questionnaire.
Recommendations for improving My HUB remained unclear. The focus group was
conducted to gather more data.
Focus Group
Five teachers participated in the focus group. The audio recording of the focus
group was transcribed into Microsoft Word. To maintain participant confidentiality, the
initials FG and a number were assigned to each participant. The assigned number was
used throughout the transcription to document data being shared by a specific participant.
The purpose of the focus group was to serve as triangulation of the data about
teachers’ experiences with using My HUB as a professional development delivery
system. The transcription was reviewed five times to gain a greater understanding of the
three themes of knowledge management, collaboration, and accessibility as identified
from the teacher questionnaire. Data from the focus group provided more information
about the reasons for limited accessibility by teachers and opportunities for improvement.
79
Findings by Themes
After analyzing the data from the My HUB usage reports, the questionnaire and
focus group, knowledge management, collaboration, and accessibility emerged as themes
from the data. The 21 participant responses to the questionnaire were reviewed to
determine the frequency of each theme (see Table 4). The focus group provided a
member check of the themes and more in-depth information. Subthemes for accessibility
also emerged from the data. The accessibility subthemes were user-friendliness and time.
Table 4: Major Themes from Coded Responses to My HUB Questionnaire
Theme N n/21
Knowledge
Management
17 81%
Collaboration 15 71%
Accessibility 13 62%
Note. Data are from 21 study participants’ responses to the 2014 questionnaire about the usage of My
HUB.
Knowledge management. Seventeen participants (81%) cited the use of My HUB
as a tool for knowledge management on the questionnaire. “The more you know, the
more information you have, the better your instruction and student learning” (Participant
4). My HUB provided one place to access a variety of online resources (Participants 5 &
10) and “keep valuable knowledge current” (Participant 7).
Resources available in My HUB included lesson plans, webinars, PowerPoints,
videos, and content area resources. “My HUB will enhance my planning and
instructional practice to better prepare students for the future. I like being able to access
all of the necessary systems and online resources in one place” (Participant 5). Three
focus group participants mentioned My HUB being a platform for gaining access to a
80
variety of links and district resources (Participants FG2, FG4, & FG5). My HUB also
allows access to resources “without you having to spend time searching the web for those
same resources” (Participant 10). One focus group participant stated being optimistic
about My HUB being a useful resource for teachers (Participant FG2).
The three most common resources participants identified as accessing in My HUB
were lesson plans, content area resources, and videos. Ten questionnaire participants
(48%) mentioned using My HUB to access lesson plans, which “would encourage
teachers to use resources outside of their textbooks” (Participant 14). Teachers access
others’ lesson plans to integrate new instructional strategies into their lessons. Participant
3 shared that My HUB could be used to “review sample lesson plans and get ideas for
improving my lesson.” The integration of new ideas into lesson plans may result in more
students being engaged and increased student achievement (Participants 1, 2, 7, 20, &
21).
All teachers in the focus group knew about the ability to upload lesson plans.
Two teachers had uploaded lesson plans to My HUB (Participants FG1 & FG3). The
search feature allowed teachers to type in key words to find resources available about a
particular topic, which provided teachers on-demand access to a variety of professional
development materials (Participant FG1).
Two teachers expressed uncertainty about access to their lesson plans by others.
One participant shared,
I think there’s a lot of guess work when it comes to My HUB. You know they have us creating a unit plan at the end of the module and then it says to submit to school bank. You know how you submit it to get your computer but you don’t know why you are submitting it to the school bank. Then, we just took a guess well maybe they are trying to build up school banks so we will be able to use resources. There’s just too much guesswork with it [sic]. (Participant FG1)
81
Another participant had uploaded a lesson plan into My HUB, but was unsure if it was
accepted and shared with other teachers (Participant FG3).
Resources in My HUB are linked to content area standards, so teachers can search
for content area aligned resources. Nine questionnaire participants (43%) identified
accessing content area resources, particularly standards based resources (Participants 1, 2,
9, 20, & 21). Teachers can find a variety of content area resources not only in their
content area, but other content areas. One participant noted how My HUB resources
helped with the alignment of science and social studies lessons to standards (Participant
20). “My HUB will keep lessons fresh by giving ideas and lessons from other teachers
that may not have been thought of when planning lessons” (Participant 7). While all
focus group participants had used My HUB, no focus group participants mentioned
accessing content area resources or videos in My HUB.
The third most common type of resource, identified by eight participants (38%),
was videos. The district created and uploaded a collection of videos to My HUB that
features the demonstration of different instructional strategies within the classroom. By
accessing the videos, teachers see a lesson in action and can incorporate new strategies
into their teaching (Participants 10 & 12). Using My HUB makes it “easier to access
videos in the classroom without worry about restrictions or the availability of video”
(Participant 10).
Focus group participants shared that My HUB replaced the previous professional
development management system. All focus group participants mentioned using My
HUB to browse through professional development offerings, register for workshops, and
track their professional development schedules for the summer (Participants FG1, FG2,
82
FG3, FG4, & FG5). Participant FG2 also mentioned using My HUB to evaluate
professional development workshops and to review professional development credits
transferred from the previous professional development system.
My HUB was a knowledge management system that allows the dissemination of
information throughout the organization. Three recommendations for improving My
HUB’s knowledge management capabilities were to add more resources, align the
resources to the teacher evaluation rubric, and improve communication. One focus group
participant suggested the district prioritize links that teachers need to use. Instead of
sending the links via email, the links could be loaded into My HUB for teachers to access
(Participant FG2). A questionnaire participant shared that teachers have a new evaluation
rubric. Therefore, “topics creating supporting documents for materials submitted would
be extremely helpful as well as examples that fully illustrate the four domains (perform,
create, respond, connect)” (Participant 19). By placing district resources in one place,
teachers have easier, on-demand access to information when needed (FG 2).
With improved communication from the district central office, My HUB could
provide focus and alignment for district initiatives, such as common formative
assessments and project-based learning (Participants FG4 & FG5). While one focus
group participant had used My HUB to deliver common formative assessments
(Participant FG4), other participants were not aware of the feature (Participants FG1,
FG2, FG3, & FG5). Participant FG4 recommended for improving communication that
teachers “need a common language, a cheat sheet of what My HUB has to offer.”
Collaboration. For the first question on the My HUB questionnaire teachers
reported the types of professional development they had participated in the last two
83
months. Fifteen questionnaire participants (71%) cited participation in collaborative
team meetings. Collaborative grade level team meetings were used to foster professional
learning, but no specific details were provided.
During the focus group, one participant mentioned using My HUB to upload and
disseminate common formative assessments (Participant FG4). A grade level team
collaborated with the My HUB program director to pilot common formative assessments.
After teachers met to create a common formative assessment in My HUB, the assessment
was disseminated to students. Student logged into My HUB to complete the assessment.
The grade level team collaborated to discuss the common assessment data and used it “to
drive our instruction and to create more common formative assessments” (Participant
FG4) for monitoring student progress. However, the grade level team did not load any
instructional resources into My HUB to share with one another (Participant FG4).
In addition to collaborative grade level meetings, study participants mentioned
using My HUB to view what other teachers in the district are doing, communicate with
them, and integrate the ideas into their classrooms (Participants 2, 12, & 16). One
teacher wanted to collaborate with other teachers throughout the district by sharing
resources via My HUB (Participant 4). “I think taking someone else’s perspective on a
lesson would help the students as well. Might help me reach ones that normally don’t
respond to certain features or resources I use” (Participant 2). Another participant cited
wanting to access video recordings from other schools to foster collaboration through
peer evaluation (Participant 19).
My HUB had been implemented for three months when the questionnaire was
conducted. While study participants wanted to use My HUB to collaborate more,
84
uncertainty about how to collaborate existed. Seven questionnaire participants (33%)
mentioned using My HUB to collaborate with other teachers within the school and
outside the school. “I will use it [My HUB] as a means to network with other teachers”
(Participant 18). One participant found My HUB useful for sharing resources aligned to
standards with other teachers within the school (Participant 9). Participant 20 mentioned
using My HUB to foster “collaboration between schools for teachers with same topics.”
The five focus group participants acknowledged the difficulty of knowing how to use My
HUB for collaboration because they do not know the full capabilities of My HUB
(Participants FG1, FG2, FG3, FG4, & FG5).
Accessibility. Teachers need access to My HUB to use it. The theme of
accessibility emerged from all three sources of data: the My HUB usage reports, the
questionnaire, and the focus group. For the study population of 41 teachers, 24 teachers,
or 59%, had used My HUB. Thirteen questionnaire participants (62%) responded with
comments about the accessibility of My HUB. Two subthemes for accessibility emerged:
user-friendliness and time (Table 5). The five focus group participants agreed with the
data about accessibility from the My HUB usage reports and questionnaire. The focus
group data provided more in-depth information about the two subthemes of accessibility:
user-friendliness and time.
Table 5: Major Themes from Subthemes for Accessibility.
Subtheme N n/21
User-friendliness 9 42%
Time 9 42%
Note. Data are from 21 study participants’ responses to the 2014 questionnaire about the usage of My
HUB.
85
User-friendliness. A subtheme of accessibility identified by participants was
user-friendliness. Nine questionnaire participants (42%) mentioned user friendliness.
Eight questionnaire participants (38%) found My HUB difficult to find (Participant 2)
and navigate (Participants 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, & 14). Participant 7 shared
I could not log on to my account and had to go through several people in order to get it resolved. Once on the website, navigation is not as easy at first. Too many links to click in order to find what you need. On one page, a key needs to be put at the bottom for people who do not know what the ‘bubbles’ mean.
In contrast, one questionnaire participant stated My HUB was easy to navigate
(Participant 6).
Focus group participants agreed with the theme of user-friendliness. One focus
group participant reported having difficulty logging into My HUB:
I never could stay logged in. It kept kicking my email address out, so I haven’t even been able to be on it much. I’ve been locked out now for two weeks and haven’t been able to access any of the professional development that I signed up for so I don’t even remember what I signed up for. (Participant FG1)
After logging into My HUB, focus group participants reported that navigating and
accessing resources was difficult. Three focus group participants discussed the large
number of clicks required to find resources in My HUB (Participants FG3 & FG4). Even
though Participant FG3 helped train several teachers, remembering the clicks when
navigating My HUB was difficult. One focus group participant mentioned having
difficulty accessing My HUB resources at home because the resource links were only
accessible on the school network (Participant FG2).
Teachers suggested two recommendations for improving the user-friendliness of
My HUB. The first recommendation was about the My Materials section of My HUB.
Participant 5 cited that when trying to save resources to view later, the resources did not
86
automatically save to My Materials and suggested that “there needs to be immediate
access into their ‘My Materials’ section.”
The second recommendation was to offer more training on how to use My HUB.
My HUB training was offered in an online professional development module (Participant
FG2). Five focus group participants mentioned having uncertainties about accessing the
different features and resources available in My HUB and concurred that more training
was needed (Participants FG1, FG2, FG3, FG4, & FG5).
Teachers have different comfort levels with technology (Participant FG2) and
need different professional development support (Participants FG2, FG4, & FG5).
“Some people—me—are not technologically savvy. Although we were shown the site, I
would benefit from guided instruction or even a one-on-one lesson” (Participant 21).
Since the district purchased My HUB for teachers to use for professional development,
one focus group participant stressed the importance of providing communication and
training before teachers were expected to use it (Participant FG4). “It’s important when
rolling things out to teachers that they get professional development in multiple formats
and at multiple times because it takes several times for teachers to catch on” (Participant
FG5).
Participants provided a variety of suggested professional development formats for
helping teachers learn how to use My HUB. The most popular suggestions were face-to-
face workshops and video trainings (Participants 1, 9, 12, & 14). Participant 7
recommended a new user welcome video and embedded help link for My HUB. One
focus group participant recommended the creation of a handout that provides an overview
about My HUB and how to use it (Participant FG4).
87
Time. Participants identified time as a barrier to accessibility. With My HUB
being implemented three months before the questionnaire administration, nine
questionnaire participants (42%) identified time as a barrier to accessibility. Participants
cited being too busy to explore My HUB (Participants 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 20, & 21).
Participant 12 mentioned that “I have not had the time to access HUB as I have grades to
complete, S-Teams to attend, instruction to be giving and Modules to be completing for
ALL STAR.” The five focus group participants had accessed My HUB, but
acknowledged that they did not use My HUB until there was a reason for using it
(Participants FG1, FG2, FG3, FG4, & FG5). Participant 2 cited only using My HUB to
review previous professional development and to register for summer professional
development since it replaced the previous professional development system.
Two recommendations were made for finding time to access My HUB. One
questionnaire participant recommended using a professional leave day, which allows
teachers to take the day off from teaching to participate in professional development,
before the school year ended to have time to access My HUB (Participant 21). While
two questionnaire participants and one focus group participant mentioned waiting until
summer to use My HUB (Participants 14 & 20; FG1), four focus group participants stated
that teachers would not spend time using My HUB over the summer (Participants FG2,
FG3, FG4, & FG5).
Summary and Conclusion
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB by district teachers as a professional development
delivery method to improve their teaching. Information for the study was provided from
88
the My HUB usage reports, My HUB questionnaire, and a focus group. Chapter four
included the epoche; results from the data analysis of the My HUB usage reports, the
questionnaire, and the focus group; and summary.
The data analysis provided for a triangulation of data through the analysis of data
from three sources: the My HUB usage reports, a questionnaire, and a focus group.
Three themes emerged from the analysis of the My HUB questionnaire: knowledge
management, collaboration, and accessibility. Two subthemes for accessibility, user-
friendliness and time, also emerged. The focus group served to triangulate the data about
teachers’ experiences with using My HUB as a professional development delivery system
and provided more in-depth explanations about My HUB. Chapter five includes a
discussion of the findings and limitations; recommendations for school leaders and
teachers; suggestions for future research; and summarizes overall insights learned from
the study.
89
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Teachers need access to high-quality professional development for the
improvement and refinement of teaching to increase teacher effectiveness (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Killion, 2011). The purpose of the
qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors influencing the use of My
HUB, an asynchronous professional development portal, by district teachers as a
professional development delivery method to improve their teaching. A qualitative
descriptive case study permitted the identification of common themes and patterns
teachers perceived about My HUB as a professional development delivery method.
Chapter five includes a discussion of the findings and limitations; recommendations for
school leaders and teachers; suggestions for future research; and summarizes overall
insights learned from the study.
Discussion of Findings and Implications
Chapter four included the findings of the qualitative descriptive case study. Three
major themes were identified: knowledge management, collaboration, and accessibility.
This section includes the themes identified in the data in terms of the theoretical
frameworks of the study and the literature reviewed.
The findings related to the two theoretical frameworks for the study: theory of
change and activity theory. Three months before the questionnaire was administered, My
HUB replaced the district’s previous professional development management system. My
HUB was used to manage teachers’ registration and attendance of face-to-face workshops
and disseminate professional development resources and information throughout the
90
district. Because My HUB was a new implementation, teachers recognized the need for
more time to use it before district and school leaders could expect changes in
instructional practices.
Activity theory allowed the various parts of My HUB to be identified and
analyzed further. The findings demonstrated that teachers expressed wanting to use My
HUB as a professional development tool to improve their teaching. For teachers to
increase their usage of My HUB, the district needed to add more professional
development resources to My HUB and improve communication.
Theme 1: Knowledge Management
Knowledge management as a theme included the dissemination of various
resources, including lesson plans, webinars, PowerPoints, videos, and content area
resources. Teachers can search for resources by key words and begin using resources in
their lesson plans, which may lead to more student engagement and increased student
achievement. The major premise of knowledge management as a theme was teachers
need one place to share and access professional development resources.
The findings of the current study are similar to the findings of studies of the
Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) Professional Support Portal and the National Science
Teacher Association Learning Center. The greatest challenge when implementing the
MPS Professional Support Portal was the culture change. A critical component to the
success of the portal implementation in Milwaukee was communication (Holland, 2007).
While teachers expressed interest in using My HUB for professional development,
teachers mentioned having uncertainty about the purpose and expectations the district has
for using My HUB.
91
The NSTA Learning Center began with 6,000 on-demand resources in a variety of
formats. After three years, the NSTA Learning Center had more than 430,000 resources
(Byers, Koba, Sherman, Scheppke, & Bolus, 2011). My HUB was in its first months of
implementation. Teachers mentioned the need for more resources being added to My
HUB, which may foster the development of professional capital (Fullan & Hargreaves,
2012) and lead to improved teaching (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2010).
The findings of the current study did not support the PD 360 study. The PD 360
study investigated the impact of teachers accessing on-demand resources and its impact
on student performance. The current study focused on how teachers used My HUB for
professional development not its effects on student achievement.
The implication of the findings for leadership is the importance of determining
and communicating a clear purpose when implementing a new professional development
system. During the planning phase of implementation, leaders need to develop the
purpose and a clear implementation plan for the asynchronous professional development
system. Before teachers access the system, portal functionality needs to be maximized by
ensuring a wealth of resources are available for teacher access. In addition, leaders need
to create a communication plan for implementation.
Theme 2: Collaboration
Using My HUB, collaboration can occur within the building or throughout the
district. My HUB allows the district to share professional development resources with
teachers. Teachers can share their lesson plans throughout the district, view various
resources, and integrate the ideas into their classrooms.
92
The findings of the study are similar to the findings of Huber (2010). Huber
posited that technology allowed teachers to collaborate with one another regardless of
location. Teachers can collaborate with others not only in their content area, but other
content areas. Teachers across the district, regardless of their location, can collaborate
with other teachers by using My HUB.
The findings of the study did not support the findings in studies by Fusco,
Gehlback, and Schlager (2000); Dede (2010); and Killion (2013). When studying
Tapped In, an online community of practice, the results of the survey data demonstrated
that participation in e-learning helped decrease teacher isolation and positively influenced
a teacher’s instructional practice (Fusco et al., 2000). My HUB launched January 2014.
Because My HUB was a new implementation in the district, teachers had limited time to
access it before the study data collection began. No teachers mentioned using My HUB
to decrease teacher isolation and change instructional practice. Teachers needed more
time to use My HUB before determining similar findings.
Dede (2010) discovered that asynchronous professional development helped
teachers have rich conversations around instructional practice. While teachers mentioned
the potential of using My HUB to collaborate around instructional practices, they were
not using My HUB to collaborate. Teachers still had uncertainty about how to use My
HUB. Even though teachers were creating lesson plans and loading them into My HUB,
they did not know if other teachers could access the lesson plans. Without the sharing of
lesson plans and other resources, collaborative conversations cannot be fostered.
Killion (2013) posited that online professional development would cause teachers
to feel disconnected. No teachers in the study mentioned feeling disconnected. Instead
93
participants anticipated that My HUB would help them connect with teachers not only
within their school, but also throughout the district.
The implication of the findings for leadership is an online professional
development system can foster collaboration, but it does not ensure that teachers
collaborate. Using My HUB, district leaders have the ability to foster teacher
collaboration by allowing teachers to share resources within their school and throughout
the district. The uncertainty about the purpose of My HUB was a barrier to teachers
using it to collaborate. For teachers to use My HUB more to collaborate, district leaders
need to establish a clear vision for the use of My HUB by teachers and communicate it.
Theme 3: Accessibility
To benefit from asynchronous professional development, teachers need access.
Two subthemes in the accessibility category were user-friendliness and time. My HUB
had been implemented for three months before the study began. Teachers reported
having many responsibilities throughout the school day; therefore, finding time to access
My HUB was difficult. Teachers also reported that logging into My HUB was easy;
however, navigating it to find resources was a challenge.
The findings of the study are similar to the findings of Fusco, Gehlback, and
Sclager (2000); Wideman, Owston, and Sinitskaya (2007); MacDonald and Poniatowska
(2011); and Kellogg, Corn, and Booth (2012). Fusco, Gehlback, and Schlager (2000)
identified barriers participants faced with using Tapped In, an online community of
practice. The similar barriers identified between both studies were lack of time and
technological difficulties, including navigation.
94
According to both Wideman, Owston, and Sinitskaya (2007) and MacDonald and
Poniatowska (2011), teachers needed encouragement and time to use online professional
development. Online platforms are new to teachers, and learning to use it takes time.
Teachers highlighted the same issue with My HUB. Teachers needed to be provided time
to learn about My HUB and how to use it.
Kellogg, Corn, and Booth (2012) investigated the North Carolina Race to the Top
online modules and identified accessibility issues. The study of My HUB revealed
similar accessibility issues, including navigation issues, such as locating resources.
Teachers mentioned the large number of clicks required to locate resources.
The findings of the study did not support the conclusions drawn by Dede et al.
(2009). Online professional development may not meet the learning style of some
teachers (Dede et al., 2009). No teachers mentioned not accessing My HUB because of
having a learning style issue with My HUB. Further research would be necessary.
The implications of the findings for leadership are an online professional
development system needs to be easy to use, and teachers need time to access it. District
leaders need to provide more training about My HUB to help teachers use it. In addition,
the number of clicks to access resources needs to be reduced.
Teachers need time to access My HUB. District leaders need to use My HUB
more during professional development days, so teachers have time to access it.
Principals can also champion the use of My HUB by providing time during grade level
team meetings for teachers to access My HUB.
95
Limitations
During the study, three additional limitations emerged. One limitation was the
implementation timeline of My HUB. Originally, teacher access to My HUB was to
begin January 2013. However, teachers were not able to access it until January 2014. To
mitigate the issue, the researcher delayed data collection for three months. Because of
the implementation timeline, teachers had not accessed My HUB and hesitated to
participate in the study. The second limitation was the sample was not representative of
teacher use of My HUB throughout the school district. A deliberate attempt was made to
include teachers who had not used My HUB by extending the length of the questionnaire
window, providing a paper copy, and providing incentives for participation. Even with
the efforts to recruit participants with different experiences with My HUB, the study
participants had used My HUB at a substantially higher percentage than other district
teachers. Therefore, the generalizability of the study for other schools was decreased.
The third limitation was the My HUB usage reports. The reports included the number of
times a teacher had used My HUB, but no other information. Having data about the
resources teachers used would have been beneficial and helped inform the district about
specific resources to add to My HUB.
Recommendations for School Leaders and Teachers
The literature presented in chapter two, and the results of the qualitative
descriptive case study led to five recommendations for action:
1. Develop a clear purpose for how teachers can use My HUB.
2. Develop a plan for achieving the goal.
3. Establish effective communication.
96
4. Provide more professional development for using My HUB in a variety of
formats.
5. Ensure My HUB has more resources.
The first recommendation was to develop a clear purpose for the use of My HUB.
Confusion existed among teachers about the purpose of My HUB and how they were to
use it. When implementing new professional development tools, defining goals and
objectives for the professional development before its implementation may help with
establishing the clear purpose for how teachers should use the system (Butler &
Schnellert, 2012; Killion, 2008).
Establishing goals and objectives helps with addressing the next two
recommendations of having an implementation plan and fostering better communication.
With the goal established, a plan can be created to identify the intended outcomes and the
roadmap for achieving the goal. The outcomes within the plan can serve as benchmarks
for monitoring progress toward achieving the goal (Anderson, 2005; Killion, 2008).
A challenge faced when implementing an asynchronous professional development
system is change. Communication is a critical component for facilitating change (Fixsen,
Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Holland, 2007). The communication plan
should consider including the purpose and features of My HUB. Additionally, teachers
also should know where to get help when an issue arises and have the opportunity to
provide feedback about My HUB to the project director.
Teachers have different comfort levels with technology and need different
professional development support. The district should consider providing professional
development support for My HUB in multiple formats, such as a handout or video, and
97
delivered at multiple times (Participant FG5, 2014). Providing additional training for
teachers to use My HUB may help increase its use.
The final recommendation was to add more resources to My HUB. When
teachers logged into My HUB, very few resources were available. While teachers saw
the potential value of using My HUB to support professional growth, the limited number
of resources made it less valuable to teachers. Once more resources are added and
shared, more teachers are likely to use it for professional development.
Suggestions for Future Research
The qualitative descriptive case study explored the factors influencing the use of
My HUB, an asynchronous professional development portal, by district teachers as a
professional development delivery method to improve their teaching. Considering the
opinions of the study participants, the limitations of the current study, and the limited
research on asynchronous teacher professional development, more research on the same
topic would be beneficial. The suggestions for future research include:
1. replicate the current qualitative descriptive case study in a different school, which
would provide another perspective to the research;
2. conduct a mixed method case study to examine the effects of teachers using
asynchronous professional development and their changes in instructional
practices to determine the impact this delivery method has on teacher instructional
practices;
3. conduct a quantitative correlational study to investigate the effects of teachers
using asynchronous professional development and the impact on student
98
achievement to determine the relationship between this delivery method and
student achievement ; and
4. conduct a mixed method case study to explore the effects of principal leadership
on the use of an asynchronous professional development tool to determine the role
of principal leadership in the implementation of asynchronous professional
development and the strategies principals can use to foster the use of
asynchronous professional development.
Summary and Conclusion
The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the factors
influencing the use of My HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers
perceived as useful for improving their teaching. The specific problem was teachers need
access to high-quality professional development for the improvement and refinement of
teaching to increase teacher effectiveness (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012; Killion, 2011). Two theoretical frameworks, theory of change and activity
theory, were the basis for the study. The main conclusion of the study was teachers see
value in an asynchronous professional development portal providing them resources in
one location for improving their teaching.
Chapter five concludes the study. The findings included three themes reflecting
teachers’ perceptions and experiences about using an asychronous professional
development portal. The themes were knowledge management, collaboration, and
accessibility. The recommendations based on the study findings included that
administrators have a clear purpose for how teachers need to use the system and for
fostering two-way communication so improvements can be made.
99
References
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011, November). The high cost of high school
dropouts: What the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Alliance for Excellent
Education Issue Brief. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2014, July). On the path to equity: Improving the
effectiveness of beginning teachers. Alliance for Excellent Education Issue Brief.
Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf
Altwerger, B., Arya, P., Jin, L., Jordan, N., Laster, B., Martens, P., Wilson, G., & Wiltz,
N. (2004). When research and mandates collide: The challenges and dilemmas of
teacher education in the era of NCLB. English Education: Teacher Education in
Language Arts and Literacy in the Era of No Child Left Behind, 36(2), 119-133.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/i40004925
American Society for Training & Development. (2011). State of the industry, 2011:
ASTD's annual review of workplace learning and development data (Rep.).
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.
Amir, R. & Parvar, J. (2014). Harnessing knowledge management to improve
organizational performance. International Journal of Trade, Economics, and
Finance, 5(1), 31-38. doi: 10.7763/ijtef.2014.v5.336
Anderson, A. (2005). The community builder's approach to theory of change: A practical
guide to theory development. New York, NY: The Aspen Institute Roundtable on
Community Change.
100
Apte, J. (2009). Facilitating transformative learning: A framework for practice.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 49(1), 169-189. Retrieved from
http://www.ajal.net.au/
Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2),
139-147. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl053
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2014). Designing
professional learning. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
website. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/professional-
growth/research/designing-professional-learning
Ayre, C., & Scally, J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio:
Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. doi:10.1177/0748175613513808
Bai, Y. (2009). Action research localization in China: Three cases. Educational Action
Research, 17(1), 143-154. doi:10.1080/09650790802667543
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2013). Leading effective PD: From abstraction to action. Phi
Delta Kappan, 94(7), 70-71. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007, September). How the world's best-performing school
systems come out on top. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/locations
/UK_Ireland/~/media/Reports/UKI/Education_report.ashx
Bean, R., & Morewood, A. (2007). Best practices in professional development for
improving literacy instruction. In L. Gambrell, L. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 373-394). New York, NY:
Guilford.
101
Bellanca, J. (2009). Designing professional development for change (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Berger, J., Boles, K., & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change:
Paradoxes, problems, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1),
93-105. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.008
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (n.d.). Preparing to lead an effective classroom:
The role of teacher training and professional development programs. (Issue
brief). Retrieved from
http://teachersnetwork.org/effectiveteachers/images/CTQPolicyBriefOn_TCHR_
TRAINING_ANDPROFDEV__021810.pdf
Bersh, L., Benton, P., Lewis, A., & McKenzie-Parrales, M. (2011). Action research for
improving at-risk students' literacy skills: The professional development of three
Florida teachers through their journeys integrating technology, poetry, and
multiculturalism for literacy intervention. i.e.: inquiry in education, 2(2), 1-18.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A., & Dexter, E. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of
literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34. doi:10.1086/653468
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings
from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: Author.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
102
Boston, M. (2013). Connecting changes in secondary mathematics teachers' knowledge to
their experiences in a professional development workshop. Journal of Math
Teacher Education, 16, 7-31. doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9211-6
Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reform implementation and
teacher efficacy: Teacher peer coaching in grades 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian
Journal of Education, 31(2), 346-370. Retrieved from http://www.csse-
scee.ca/CJE/
Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009, May). Teacher qualifications and student achievement
in urban elementary schools (Rep.). Retrieved from http://www.rand.org
/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2010/RAND_RP1410.pdf
Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1206-1220.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.009
Byers, A., Koba, S., Sherman, G., Scheppke, J., & Bolus, R. (2011). Developing a web-
based mechanism for assessing teacher science content knowledge. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 22, 273-289. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9227-2
Cambell, S. (2004). What do we need? Nursing Management--UK, 10(10), 27-31.
Chamberlain, J. M., D'Artrey, M., & Rowe, D. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: A
decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189-201.
doi:10.1177/1469787411415083
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
103
Chen, N., Huang, H., & Shih, Y. (2002). Factors affecting use of web-based teachers'
training in elementary and high school. International Conference on Computers in
Education, 593-597, 3-6 December 2002, Auckland, New Zealand. Washington,
DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society.
doi:10.1109/CIE.2002.1186014
Chetty, R., Friedman, J., & Rockoff, J. (2012). The long-term impacts of teachers:
Teacher value-added and student outcomes (NBER Working Paper No. 17699).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Choy, S. P., Chen, X., & Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher Professional Development in
1999–2000: What Teachers, Principals, and District Staff Report (NCES 2006-
305) (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006305.pdf
Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of
teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student learning.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154. Retrieved from
http://www.teqjournal.org/
Cook, J. (2012). Examining the mentoring experience of teachers. National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration, 1(2), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://cnx.org/content/m42021/latest/
Corcoran, T. C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for
state policymakers (Rep.). Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
104
Cullen, T. A., Akerson, V. L., & Hanson, D. L. (2010). Using action research to engage
K-6 teachers in nature of science inquiry as professional development. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 21, 971-992. doi:10.1007/s10972-010-9218-8
Darden, E. C. (2008). Restructuring: NCLB's final solution. Forecast: Emerging Issues in
Public Education, 6(1), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org
/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast0208.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence (Issue brief No. R-99-1). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study
of Teaching and Policy: University of Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and
supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning
profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook for policy and practice
(pp. 376-411). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review teaching matters:
What matters? How Teachers Learn, 66(5), 1-10.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
105
development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff
Development Council.
De la Fuente, A., & Ciccone, A. (2003). Human capital in a global and knowledge-based
economy (Rep.). Retrieved
http://areadocenti.eco.unicas.it/ferrante/HCDElaFuenteCiccone(1-44).pdf
Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and
methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Dede, C. (2010). Reflections on the Draft National Educational Technology Plan 2010:
Foundations for transformation. Educational Technology Publications, 50(6), 18-
22.
Dede, C., Jass Ketelhut, D., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A
Research Agenda for Online Teacher Professional Development. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19. doi:10.1177/0022487108327554
Demir, K. (2010). Predictors of Internet use for the professional development of teachers:
An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teacher Development, 14(2), 1-
14. doi:10.1080/13664531003696535
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional
Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational
Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dillon, L. (2001). Online surveys--Lessons learned (Rep.). Toronto, CA: IBM.
Doyle, M. J. (2012). Using peer-to-peer observation to improve teacher collaboration
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database. (UMI3544518)
106
Dropbox. (2014). Dropbox privacy policy. Dropbox website. Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/privacy
Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a
source of professional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2),
324-340. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x
Dunst, C., & Raab, M. (2010). Practitioners’ self-evaluations of contrasting types of
professional development. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(4), 239-254.
doi:10.1177/1053815110384702
Eilks, I., & Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a long-term participatory action research project
on science teachers’ professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science, and Technology Education, 7(3), 149-160.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
Ethridge, R. R., Hadden, C., & Smith, M. P. (2000). Building a personalized education
portal. Educause Quarterly, 12-19.
Falzon, M. (2012). Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, praxis, and locality in
contemporary research. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Farooq, U., Schank, P., Harris, A., Fusco, J., & Schlager, M. (2007). Sustaining a
community computing infrastructure for online teacher professional development:
A case study of designing Tapped In (Rep.). Menlo Park, CA: Center for
Technology in Learning, SRI International.
107
Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research (Rep.). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands
Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. Fullan, M. (2007).
Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Fogarty, R., & Pete, B. (2010). Professional learning 101: A syllabus of seven protocols.
Phi Delta Kappa, 91(4), 32-34.
Frazier, B. W. (1935). History of the professional education of teachers in the United
States: National survey of the education of teachers (Vol. 81, Rep. No. 10).
Washington, DC: Office of Education.
Fucoloro, D. J. (2012). Educators' perceptions and reported behaviors associated with
participation in informal, online professional development networks (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
(UMI3553069)
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Change wars. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Reviving teaching with "professional capital"
Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/06/33hargreaves_ep.h31.html
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
108
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Reviving teaching with "professional capital"
Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/06
/33hargreaves_ep.h31.html
Fusco, J., Gehlbach, H., & Schlager, M. (2000). Assessing the impact of a large-scale
online teacher professional development community. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education (pp. 2178-2183). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Garcia, E. (2012). Language, culture, and early education in the United States. In R.
Pianta, W. S. Barnett, L. Justice, & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook for early
childhood education (pp. 137-157). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Garet, M., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., . . . Sztejnberg, L.
(2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early
reading instruction and achievement (Rep. No. NCEE 2008-4030). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Garet, M., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
doi:10.3102/00028312038004915.
109
Garet, M., Wayne, A., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., . . . Doolittle, F.
(2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study:
Findings after the second year of implementation (Rep. No. NCEE 2011-4024).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gatta, M. (2009). Low-skill workers, technology, and education: A new vision for
workforce development policy. The Economic and Labour Relations Review,
19(1), 109-128. Retrieved from http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/research
/publications/economiclabourrelationsreview/Pages/default.aspx
Gilford, D. (1996). Measures of inservice professional development: Suggested items for
the 1998-99 schools and staffing survey (NCES 96-25). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics Working Paper, U.S. Department of
Education.
Geyer, N. (2008). Reflective Practices in Foreign Language Teacher Education: A View
Through Micro and Macro Windows. Foreign Language Annals, 41(4), 627-638.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03321.x
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus,
M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a
randomized controlled study (Rep. No. NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Services, U.S. Department of Education.
110
Goodnough, K. (2008). Dealing with messiness and uncertainty in practitioner research:
The nature of participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Education,
31(2), 431-458. Retrieved from http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/
Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of
Distance Education, 19(1), 20-35. Retrieved from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde18 /about.html
Grossman, P., Woolworth, S. W., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012. doi:10.1111/0161-
4681.00140
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi
Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/
Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Yanowitz, K. L. (2009). Who is conducting teacher research?
The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 415-426.
doi:10.3200/JOER.102.6.415-426
Hancock, D. R. & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide
for beginning researchers, 2 ed. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Harder, H. (2010). Explanatory case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe,
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 371-372). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412957397.n138
111
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in
every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2008). Teacher research and learning communities: A failure
to theorize power relations? Language Arts, 85(5), 382-391. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/journals/la
Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Hoban, G., & Reid, D. (2009). Transfer of online
professional learning to teachers' classroom practice. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 20(2), 189-213. Retrieved from
http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/
Hine, G. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. In
design, develop, evaluate: The core of the learning environment. Proceedings of
the 22nd Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth, AUS: Murdoch University.
Retrieved from http://otl.
curtin.edu.au/professional_development/conferences/tlf/tlf2013/refereed/hine.htm
l
Hirsch, L. J. (2011). Utilizing peer observation as a professional development tool.
(Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
(UMI3494486)
Holland, I. (2007). Evolution of the Milwaukee public schools portal. In A. Tatnall (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies (pp. 397-401). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-989-2.ch067
112
Hochberg, E., & Desimone, L. (2010). Professional development in the accountability
context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45(2),
89-106. doi:10.1080/00461521003703052.
Hord, S., & Hirsh, S. (2009). The principal's role in supporting learning communities.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 22-23. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
/publications/educational-leadership/aspx
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour (sic) in qualitative
case-study research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12-17. Retrieved from
http://nurseresearcher. rcnpublishing.co.uk/
Huber, C. (2010). Professional learning 2.0. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 41-46.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/aspx
Ingersoll, R. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us. Education Week,
1-6. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/16/kappan_ingersoll.h31. html
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for
beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. American Educational
Research Association, 81(2), 201-233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional
development that effect change in secondary science teacher’s classroom
practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 775-786.
doi:10.1002/tea.20069
113
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
doi:10.3102 /0013189X033007014
Jorgensen, M., & Hoffman, J. (2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). Pearson Assessment Report. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR /rdonlyres/D8E33AAE-BED1-4743-
98A1-BDF4D49D7274/0 /HistoryofNCLB_Rev2_Final.pdf
Joyce, B. (2009). State of the profession revisited. Journal of Staff Development, 30(3),
44-48. Retrieved from http://news-business.vlex.com/source/journal-staff-
development-4162
Joyce, B. R., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development: A celebration
of educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kellogg, S., Corn, J., & Booth, S. (2012). Race to the top online professional
development evaluation: Year 1 report (Rep.). Raleigh, NC: Consortium for
Educational Research and Evaluation--North Carolina.
Kent, A., Green, A., & Feldman, P. (2012). Fostering the success of new teachers:
Developing lead teachers in a statewide mentoring program. Current Issues in
Education, 15(3), 1-18. Retrieved from
http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/988
114
Keown, P. (2009). The tale of two virtual teacher professional development modules.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(4),
295-303. doi:10.1080/10382040903251166
Killion, J. (2003). 8 smooth steps: Solid footwork makes evaluation of staff development
programs a song. Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 14-26. Retrieved from
http://news-business.vlex.com/source/journal-staff-development-4162
Killion, J. (2006). Evaluating the impact of professional development in eight steps. The
Evaluation Exchange, 11(4), 4-11. Retrieved from
http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange
Killion, J. (2008). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Killion, J. (2010). Educator learning keeps evolving. Teachers Teaching Teachers, 5(5),
6-8. Retrieved from http://www.teachersteachingteachers.org/
Killion, J. (2011). The changing face of professional development. Edge, 6(5), 3-19.
Retrieved from http://edgemagazine.net/
Killion, J. (2013). Tapping technology's potential: Shrinking budgets, looming standards,
and a dizzying array of innovations are changing the professional learning
landscape. Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 10-18. Retrieved from
http://news-business.vlex.com/source /journal-staff-development-4162
Kim, Y. J., Chaudhury, A., & Rao, H. R. (2002). A knowledge management perspective
to evaluation of enterprise information portals. Knowledge and Process
Management, 9(2), 57-71. doi:10.1002/kpm.137
115
Knowledge Advisors. (2010). Training needs assessment: State of the industry. Chicago,
IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgeadvisors.com /wp-
content/uploads /2010/12/Research_Training_Needs_Assessment.pdf
Koh, J., & Kim, Y. G. (2004). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and
empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-93.
Retrieved from http://www.ijec-web.org/
Kohler, F., Kerry, M. C., Shearer, D. D., & Good, G. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on
teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 240-
250. doi:10.1080/00220671.1997.10544578
Koppich, J. (2000). The federal role in teacher professional development. Brookings
Papers on Education Policy, 2000(1), 265-295. doi:10.1353/pep.2000.0010
Kretlow, A., & Bartholomew, C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of
evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 279-299. doi:10.1177/0888406410371643
Kretlow, A., Cooke, N., & Wood, C. (2012). Using in-service and coaching to increase
teachers' accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special
Education, 33(6), 348-361. doi:10.1177/0741932510395397
Krueger, R. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. St. Paul, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Larson-Daugherty, C., & Walker, C. (2010). From evolution to revolution: Updates to
effective learning model help facilitate better learning. Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching, 3(1), 55-64. Retrieved from
116
http://www.nu.edu/assets/resources
/pageResources/7638_JournalofResearch09.pdf
Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford social innovation review,
9(4).
Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning quick reference guide
[Pamphlet]. Oxford, OH: Author.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design, Ninth Edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers--transforming their world and their work.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in
the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 77-88.
doi:10.1177/0022487109347319
Liu, Y., & Wang, H. (2009). A comparative study on e-learning technologies and
products from the East to the West. System Research & Behavioral Science,
26(2), 191-209. doi:10.1002/sres.959
Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(5), 52-56. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/
MacDonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development of
staff for teaching online: An OU (UK) case study. Distance Education, 32(1),
119-134. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565481
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
117
Masters, J., De Kramer, R., O'Dwyer, L., Dash, S., & Russell, M. (2012). Impact of
online professional development on teacher quality and student achievement in
fifth grade mathematics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1),
1-26. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jrte
McCombs, J., & Marsh, J. A. (2009). Lessons for boosting the effectiveness of reading
coaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 501-507. Retrieved from
http://www.kappanmagazine.org/
McDuffie, K. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2008). The contributions of qualitative research to
discussions of evidence-based practice in special education. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 44(2), 91-97. doi:10.1177/1053451208321564
McLaughlin, K. A. (2012). Elementary teachers' perceptions of mathematics coaching
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database. (UMI3536685)
McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling staff development: What have we learned? In A.
Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New
demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 61-81). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
McLean, R. (2012). Online communities of practice and teachers perceived sense of
efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ.
McNulty, C., & Fox, K. (2010). Teacher drop-outs? Empowering induction-year teachers
to create affable environments to enhance retention. Childhood Education, 86(5),
312-315. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/uced20/current#.UhQCeZK1E1Q
118
Meihami, B. & Meihami, H. (2014). Knowledge management a way to gain a
competitive advantage in firms (evidence of manufacturing companies).
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 3, 80-91.
Mello, M. (2008). Professional development and teacher job satisfaction: Does it make a
difference? (Unpublished master's thesis). Georgetown University, Washington
DC.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, E. (1995). The old model of professional development survives in a world where
everything else has changed. Harvard Education Letter, 11(1). Retrieved from
http://hepg.org/main/hel/Index.html
Morra, L., & Friedlander, A. (n.d.). Case study evaluations (Rep.). Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Mullen, C. (2011). New teacher mentoring: A mandated direction of states. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 47(2), 63-67. doi:10.1080/00228958.2011.10516563
Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory based
methodology to guide computer system design. Proceedings of Interact 2001:
Eighth IFIP EC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 9-13 July 2001,
Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/11804/1
/Daisy_Japan_Interact_2001.pdf
Nardi, B. A. (2001). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
119
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2010, September 20). Business cycle dating
committee, national bureau of economic research. Retrieved from the National
Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983, April). Archived: A Nation At
Risk. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website:
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs /NatAtRisk/risk.html
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011, May). Removing the roadblocks: How
federal policy can cultivate effective teachers (Rep.). Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org /p/publications/docs/nctq_eseaReauthorization.pdf
National Education Association. (2010). Teacher assessment and evaluation: The
National Education Association's framework for transforming education systems
to support effective teaching and improve student learning. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2012). Beyond "job-embedded": Ensuring
that good professional development gets results (Rep.). Santa Monica, CA:
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching.
Nieto, S. (2009). From surviving to thriving. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 8-13.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/aspx
Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into
practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Obama, B. (2009, March 10). Taking on education [Video blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/taking-on-education
120
O'Reilly, M. G., & Renzaglia, A. (1992). Teaching systematic instruction competencies
to special education student teachers: An applied behavioral supervision model.
Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 17, 104-111.
Paige, R. (2003, September). Stronger accountability: Key policy letters signed by the
Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary. [Letter written July 24, 2002, to State
Department of Education Commissioners]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov
/policy/elsec/guid /secletter/020724.html
Parker, M., Ndoye, A., & Imig, S. (2009). Keeping our teachers! Investigating mentoring
practices to support and retain novice educators. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 17(4), 329-341. doi:10.1080/13611260903391500
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
doi:10.3102 /0002831207308221
Peterson, D. S., Taylor, B. M., Burnham, B., & Schock, R. (2009). Reflective coaching
conversations: A missing piece. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 500-509.
doi:10.1598/RT.62.6.4
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Qi, S. (2009). Case study in contemporary educational research: Conceptualization and
critique. Cross-cultural Communication, 5(4), 21-31. Retrieved from
http://cscanada.net /index.php/ccc
121
Quintis, L. (2011). A phenomenological examination of barriers to implementing best
teaching practices learned during coaching (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI3461463)
Ramlo, S. (2012). Inservice science teachers' views of professional development
workshops and their learning of force and motion concepts. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28, 928-935. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.002
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teacher learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richey, H. G. (1957). Growth of the modern conception of inservice education. In N. B.
Henry (Ed.), Inservice education: Fifty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education (pp. 36-66). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Robinson, M. (2010). School perspectives on collaborative inquiry: Lessons learned from
New York City, 2009-2010 (CPRE Research Report #RR-67). Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The organizational context of schooling.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Salleh, H. (2006). Action research in Singapore education: Constraints and sustainability.
Educational Action Research, 14(4), 513-523. doi:10.1080/09650790600975684
122
Salvador, J. (2012). Observation in a school without walls: Peer observation of teaching
in a 2nd-12th grade independent school. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI3530055)
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change
course before it's too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by
focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective,
quasi-experimental study of title I schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(4), 1006-1033. doi:10.3102/0002831209333185
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The
Information Society, 19(3), 203-220. doi:10.1080/01972240309464
Scholastic & Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Primary sources: 2012
America's teachers on the teaching profession. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Schwandt, T. (Ed.). (2007). Qualitative inquiry. In The Sage dictionary of qualitative
inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 248-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, S., Cortina, K., & Carlisle, J. (2012). Understanding coach-based professional
development in Reading First: How do coaches spend their time and how do
teachers perceive coaches' work? Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 68-85.
doi:10.1080/19388071.2011.569845
Seraphim, K. (2010). Enticers and barriers to e-learning based distance corporate
training: The case of a Greek bank. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
123
Education, 11(4), 109-120. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde18
/about.html
Shaha, S. & Ellsworth, H. (2013). Multi-state, quasi-experimental study of the impact of
internet-based, on-demand professional learning on student performance.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 2(4),
175-184.
Shidler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student
achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 453-460.
doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0298-4
Shidler, L., & Fedor, K. (2010). Teacher-to-teacher: The heart of the coaching model. YC
Young Children, 65(4), 70-75. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/academy/primary/ycarticles
Shortland, S. (2010). Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional
development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 47(3), 295-304. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498181
Shulman, V., Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform:
Consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 11(4), 407-425. doi:10.1080/13603120802183905
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3),
681-714. doi:10.3102/00028312041003681
124
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers.
Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57. Retrieved from http://news-
business.vlex.com /source/journal-staff-development-4162
Spicer, D., & Dede, C. (2006). Collaborative design of online professional development:
Building the Milwaukee professional support portal. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(4), 679-699. Retrieved from
http://www.aace.org/pubs/jtate/
Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A. J., & Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional
development. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook on research
on teacher education (pp. 666-703). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups and the research
toolbox. In Focus Groups (2nd ed., pp. 37-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781412991841.
Stronge, J. H. (2010). Effective teachers = student achievement: What the research says.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Sullivan, P., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. (2012). Peer observation of teaching
as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12(26), 1-6.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-26
Sumner, K. Y. (2011). An explanatory mixed-methods study of instructional coaching
practices and their relationship to student achievement (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI3449622)
125
SurveyMonkey. (2013). Confidentiality information. SurveyMonkey website. Retrieved
from http://help.surveymonkey. com/articles/en_US/kb/How-can-I-ensure-my-
survey-will-be-kept-confidential-by-SurveyMonkey-Audience-members
Taylor, J. (2008). Tapping online professional development. Adult Basic Education and
Literacy Journal, 2(3), 182-186. Retrieved from
http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf /ABELJournal08PD.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2008). High priority systems: 2008-2009.
Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/education/reportcard/doc
/Acctabilitychart2010.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2009, May). Tennessee accountability chart for
schools and districts. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/education/reportcard/doc
/Acctabilitychart2010.pdf
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2), 1-12.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR
Tichenor, M. S., & Heins, E. (2000). Study groups: An inquiry-based approach to
improving schools. The Clearing House, 73(6), 316-319.
doi:10.1080/00098650009599434
Tobin, R. (2010). Descriptive case study. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research. (pp. 289-290). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/10.4135/9781412957397.n108
Tozer, S. E., Violas, P. C., & Senese, G. (2002). School and society: Historical and
contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
126
Turner, D., III. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR
Ungur, M., Maroudas, A., & Manouselis, N. (2011). LaProf web portal: User satisfaction
analysis (T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner, Eds.). In World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 1659-1664).
Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science
Education State Grant Program. Archived: Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics
and Science Education State. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education
website: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/131.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Achieving the Goals--Goal 4: Teacher
Professional Development--Table of Contents. Retrieved from U.S. Department
of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/AchGoal4/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, ESEA
Title II, Part A: Non-regulatory Guidance (U. S. Department of Education,
Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education).
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). Title I - improving the academic achievement of
the disadvantaged. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website:
http://www2.ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
127
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. Office of Educational Technology. Washington, DC:
Education Publishing Center.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Fair, flexible, and focused: President Obama's
blueprint for accountability. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education
website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint /faq/accountability.pdf
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs
for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’
experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 543-
562. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.002
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of Practice--a brief introduction. Communities of
Practice--a Brief Introduction. Wenger-Trayner website. Retrieved from
http://www.ewenger.com/theory /communities_of_practice_intro.htm
Wideman, W., Owston, R., & Sinitskaya, N. (2007). Transforming teacher practice
through blended professional development: Lessons learned from three initiatives.
In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.
2148-2154). Chesapeake, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Williams, E. I. (1937). Horace Mann: Educational statesman. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
128
Yang, S., & Liu, S. (2004). Case study of online workshop for the professional
development of teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 733-761.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.005.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement
(Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Southwest. Retrieved http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033_sum.pdf
129
Appendix A
Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent: Participants 18 years of age and older
Dear Teacher,
My name is Margie Johnson. I am a student at the University of Phoenix. I am
working on a doctorate degree. I am doing a research study entitled A Qualitative Study
of the Implementation of an Asynchronous Teacher Professional Development Delivery
System. The purpose of the study is to explore the factors influencing the use of My
HUB and to identify the portal features district teachers perceive as useful for improving
their teaching.
Study participation will involve completing a questionnaire about My HUB. The
questionnaire will take no more than 15 – 20 minutes. The questionnaire data will be
recorded anonymously by using Survey Monkey. Since the questionnaire is anonymous,
all responses will be considered.
If selected for the focus group, it would last no more than 1.5 hours and be audio
recorded.
You can decide to be a part of this study or not. Once you start, you can withdraw
from the study at any time without any penalty or loss of benefits. The results of the
research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your
name will not be made known to any outside party.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you.
Although there may be no direct benefit to you, a possible benefit from your
being part of this study is providing your opinion about My HUB as a professional
130
development tool. Your opinion will help inform further implementation and increase
the user-friendliness of My HUB. Your opinion may also increase the user-friendliness
of My HUB for other educators.
If you have any questions about the research study, please call me at 615-482-
0081 or e-mail me at [email protected]. For questions about your rights as a
study participant, or any concerns or complaints, please contact the University of Phoenix
Institutional Review Board via e-mail at [email protected].
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:
1. You may decide not to be part of this study or you may want to withdraw
from the study at any time. If you want to withdraw, you can do so without any
problems.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. Margie Johnson, the researcher, has fully explained the nature of the research
study and has answered all of your questions and concerns.
4. Because interviews will be done, they will be recorded and you must give
permission for the researcher, Margie Johnson, to record the interviews. You understand
that the information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher
will develop a way to code the data to assure that your name is protected.
5. Data will be kept in a secure and locked area. The data will be kept for five
years, and then destroyed.
6. The results of this study may be published.
“By signing this form, you agree that you understand the nature of the study, the possible
risks to you as a participant, and how your identity will be kept confidential.
131
When you sign this form, this means that you are 18 years old or older and that
you give your permission to volunteer as a participant in the study that is
described here.”
(□) I accept the above terms. (□) I do not accept the above terms. (CHECK ONE)
Signature of the participant _____________________________ Date _____________
Participant e-mail Address: _______________________________________________
Signature of the researcher _______________________________ Date _____________
132
Appendix B
Premises, Recruitment, and Name Use Permission
133
134
135
Appendix C
Data Access and Use Permission Form
136
137
Appendix D
Non-respondent Memo
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Dear,
I hope you had a wonderful spring break.
On February 18th, my dissertation study was presented during the in-service day.
While my dissertation topic is My HUB, the questionnaire wants to know about your
experiences with professional development. Even if you have NOT accessed My HUB,
your responses are critical to my study. I have enclosed $1 along with an informed
consent form and paper copy of the questionnaire for you to complete.
Please review the informed consent form and paper copy of the questionnaire. If you
are willing to participate in the study, please complete the following steps:
• Sign the informed consent form. • Fill out the paper copy of the questionnaire. • Place the materials back into the provided envelope and seal it. • Please put my name, Margie Johnson, on the envelope and return to the secretary
by Wednesday, April 9th at 2 PM. I will pick up the questionnaire at 3 PM on Wednesday.
The responses to the questionnaire are anonymous and will not be shared with
anyone. Your input is invaluable for guiding future professional development
implementations throughout the district and increasing the user-friendliness and
usefulness of My HUB.
Thanks for helping me get one step closer to finishing my dissertation.
Sincerely,
Margie Johnson
138
Appendix E
Focus Group E-mail
Dear Teacher,
As you know from the faculty meeting and previous e-mails, I am conducting research to
investigate the use of My HUB by K-12 teachers. The purpose of the study is to explore
the factors influencing the use of the My HUB and to identify the portal features district
teachers perceive as useful for improving their teaching.
For the second phase of my study, I am conducting focus groups. The focus group for
[SCHOOL NAME] will be on June 13th at 11 AM at the school library. If you are
interested and available to participate, please complete this ONLINE FORM by June 10th.
Eight teachers will be selected randomly to participate in the focus group and will receive
an e-mail notification on June 12th. Each participant will receive a Starbucks gift card for
participating in the focus group.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at
Thanks,
Margie Johnson
139
Appendix F
Initial Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions. Your participation in this study is greatly
appreciated.
1. Have you used My HUB? Yes or No (Question branching based on answer.)
NO Branched Questions
1. If you have not used My HUB, please explain why.
2. What barriers prevent you from using My HUB?
3. What additional supports would you need to address any of these barriers?
Yes Branched Questions
1. What was the major influence for you to use My HUB?
2. What organizational supports or structures, if any, have been critical to your use of My HUB? Please explain. 3. Which My HUB topic(s) have you accessed in the last 3 months?
• Common Core
• Assessments
• Quality Instruction
• Evaluation
• Leadership
• Grading for Learning
• Professional Learning
Communities
• Learning Technology
• Project-Based Learning
• Instructional Coaching
4. What other topic(s) would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching? 5. Which My HUB resource(s) have you accessed in the last 3 months? • Audio • Book
• Exemplary Student Work • Handout/Worksheet
140
• Image • Manipulative • Teacher Resource • Presentation
• Software • Video • Web Site
6. What other resource(s) would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching?
7. Which professional development format have you participated in the last 3 months? • Online Course • Blended Workshop • Coaching • Workshop • Model Classroom • Action Research
• Collaborative Team Meeting • Peer Observation • Mentoring • Professional Learning Network • Conference • Institute
8. What other professional development formats would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching? 9. How might you use My HUB resources in your classroom? Please explain your answer. 10. How might using My HUB change your instructional practice? Please explain
your answer.
11. How might using My HUB benefit your students?
12. What barriers, if any, prevent you from using My HUB to a greater extent? 13. What additional supports would you need to address any of these barriers? 14. What recommendations do you have for the district that would increase the number of teachers using My HUB to inform their instruction?
141
Appendix G
CVR Participation Email
Dear Colleague,
I am conducting a research study entitled, A Qualitative Study of the Implementation of
an
Asynchronous Teacher Professional Development Delivery System.
I need external reviewers to help with the validation of my questionnaire. It should only
take about 5 minutes of your time.
Specifically, please read the proposed research question on the page and assess the
proposed questions to see if they are aligned. It is critical that each question yield data
that adequately answers the research questions. You, as an independent party, will help
me select the correct questions and ensure that my questions are understandable. If a
question remains unclear to you or you have feedback to share about some questions,
please provide it in the comment box provided at the bottom of each page.
Click here for the link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCX88CT. It
will take about 5 minutes.
I appreciate your time and expertise.
Thanks,
Margie Johnson
142
Appendix H
Content Validity Ratio (CVR) for each Questionnaire Item
CRQ 1: How might participating teachers use My HUB to help improve their teaching, if
at all?
Question CVR* Raw Score**
Which My HUB topic(s) have you accessed in the last 2 months?
0.375 11/1
Which My HUB resource(s) have you accessed in the last 2 months?
0.375 11/1
Which professional development format have you participated in the last 2 months?
0.5 12/1
How might using My HUB benefit your students? 0.75 14/1 How might you use My HUB resources in your classroom?
Please explain your answer. 0.875
15/0
How might using My HUB change your instructional practices? Please explain your answer.
0.75 14/0
SQ 2: Why does the usage of My HUB vary among teachers, if at all?
Question CVR* Raw Score**
What was the major influence(s) for you to use My HUB? 0.75 14/0 If you have not used My HUB, please explain why.
0.625 13/0
What organizational supports or structures, if any, have been critical to your use of My HUB? Please explain.
0.375 11/0
What barriers, if any, prevent you from using MyHUB to a greater extent?
1 16/0
What additional support(s) would you need to address any of the barriers?
0.625 13/0
SQ 3. How can My HUB be improved, if at all, as a professional development tool?
Question CVR* Raw Score**
What other topic(s) would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching?
0.75 14/0
What other resource(s) would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching?
0.875
15/0
143
What other professional development format(s) would you recommend be added to My HUB that would improve your teaching?
0.625 13/0
What recommendations do you have for the district that would increase the number of teachers using My HUB to inform their instruction?
0.375 11/1
* CVR = (ne – N/2)/(N/2)
** Raw Score -- ne/nne
CVR = content validity ratio, ne = number of panelists indicating the question as
“essential”, N = total number of panelists, number = ratio fails to reach minimum
values
144
Appendix I
My HUB Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in the dissertation study entitled, A Qualitative Study of the
Implementation of an Asynchronous Teacher Professional Development Delivery
System. The purpose of the study is to explore the factors influencing the use of My HUB
and to identify the portal features district teachers perceive as useful for improving their
teaching.
Your input will help increase the user-friendliness of My HUB and inform the further
implementation of My HUB throughout the district.
If you have any questions/concerns, please feel free to contact Margie Johnson at
1. What professional development format(s) have you participated in the last 2
months?
• Online Course
• Blended Workshop
• Coaching
• Workshop
• Model Classroom
• Action Research
• My HUB
• Collaborative Team
Meeting
• Peer Observation
• Mentoring
• Professional Learning
Network
• Conference
• Institute
145
• Other (please specify)
2. What professional development format(s) would you recommend be added to My
HUB? Please explain your answer.
3. What factor(s) influenced your use of My HUB? Please explain your answer. If
you have not used My HUB, please indicate it and explain why.
My HUB is a professional development portal with on-demand access to resources for
improving instructional effectiveness and achievement. My HUB has videos, URLs,
documents, PowerPoint slides, recorded webinars, sample lesson plans, and other
resources, aligned with the TEAM evaluation rubric, common core standards, and
MNPS initiatives. My HUB allows teachers within a school and throughout the district
to share best practice resources with one another.
4. How might you use My HUB resources in your classroom? Please explain your
answer.
5. What professional development resource(s) would you recommend be available
in My HUB? Please explain your answer.
My HUB has resources for a variety of professional development topics tied to
common core standards, content areas, and MNPS initiatives. Some topic
examples are project based learning, classroom management, integrating
technology, SIOP, inclusion, response to intervention, artisan teacher, balanced
math, PLCs, and balanced literacy.
6. What professional development topic(s) would you recommend be available in
My HUB? Please explain your answer.
146
7. How might using My HUB change your instructional practices? Please explain
your answer.
8. How might using My HUB benefit your students? Please explain your answer.
9. What barriers, if any, prevent you from using My HUB to a greater extent?
Please explain your answer.
10. What additional support(s), if any, is needed to address any of the barriers?
Please explain your answer.
147
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Margie Johnson has extensive experience in education, including working in KY,
NC, and TN. Her roles include middle school teacher, software applications instructor,
instructional technology specialist, district-level professional developer, educational
consultant for state departments in the Appalachia region, and business intelligence
coordinator. She has been involved in e-learning since 2003 and completed this
dissertation as a result of her passion for providing alternative learning experiences to
others.