standards-based professional learning: increasing capacity to intervene with problem behavior...

Standards-Based Professional Learning: Increasing Capacity to Intervene with Problem Behavior

Michelle A. Bolling, Ed.S., NCSP Lynnae Psimas, M.Ed.

Stephen Truscott, Psy.D. Additional Contributors:

Donna Kreskey, Ed.S.Emily Graybill, Ed.S.

Kizzy Albritton, M.Ed.Allison Schwartz, M.Ed.

Introduction to the Problem › Inadequacies in professional learning (PL) › National Staff Development Council Standards

The Exceptional Professional Learning (EPL) Model › Theoretical foundations› Components of the EPL model› Sample EPL course

Increasing teacher capacity with FBA and BIP

Research Design, Questions, and Results

Implications for Practice and Future Research

Overview

Problem Diverse and changing student population Challenging behavior Concurrent academic performance demands Inadequate repertoire of strategies and skills

Professional learning could provide the means to teach and support new behaviors, competencies, and dispositions among educators.

The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (1996)› Ill conceived, poorly delivered and

ineffective PD in most states Low quality Costly Inattentive to teacher needs Lacking follow-up support for implementation Limited impacts on teaching Limited effects on student outcomes

Sweeping Changes Recommended The National Staff Development

Council (NSDC, 2001)› New standards for PD

Context Standards Address setting/situational factors

Process Standards Address implementation/practice factors

Content Standards Address substance/material factors

Shift away from traditional stand and deliver workshops › environments › approaches › leadership support

Move toward › ongoing projects › teams of learners › authentic, useful learning processes.

› Learning communities with ambitious goals › Leadership- focused on continuous improvement› Resources- financial and human capital

The Context Standards

NSDC, 2001

Addressing the Context Standards

Learning environments grounded in socioconstructivist theory (SCT)› Learning as a social process› Contextualized meaning from social

experience/discourse› Integrated new knowledge into existing schema

Enacting the model › Relatedness › Equity

(Piaget, 1962; Merriam, Caffarrella, & Baumgartner, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978)

Feelings of connectedness with and social interactions between members of a group.

•Why it’s important• Social interaction is:

Necessary for learning Empowers educators Encourages reflection Produces positive impacts on practice and

morale(Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2007)

Relatedness

Relatedness

How we enact it› Opportunities for group discussion › Collaborative team environments › Learning tasks that promote active engagement,

social discourse, and team problem solving› Large group discussion › Individual team support visits

PL projects based on SCT theory have shown positive outcomes(Grundy, Robinson, & Thomazos, 2001; Shaw & Paul, 2000; Lovett & Gilmore, 2003; Truscott & Truscott, 2004)

Valuing all parties involved, from participant to facilitator, as having equal importance and power within the learning environment.

Why it’s important› Creates enabling conditions for PL

Collaborative learning environments Shared decision making Equitable membership

(Farmer, Hauk, & Newman, 2005; Grundy, Robison, & Tomazos, 2005; Scribner, 1998)

Equity

How we enact it› Non-hierarchical relationships (Caplan, 1970)

Avoid the “expert” role › Collaborative consultation (e.g., Gutkin 1999)

› Opportunities for participants to rely on each other as resources

› Featuring accomplishments› Train the trainer model

Research findings confirm that learning environments that foster collaboration and equity enhance PL (Famer, Hauk, & Newman, 2005; Grundy et al., 2005; Scribner, 1998).

Equity

The Process Standards

PL should be a data-driven process that employs sound pedagogical methods informed by formative and summative evaluation. › Tailored

To adult learners, the identified content and project goals

› Data-Driven / Evaluative› Research-based› Applied Learning

Practice Feedback

› CollaborativeNSDC, 2001

Addressing The Process Standards

Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000 )

› Motivation is impacted by needs for: Competency Autonomy Relatedness

› Motivation is stifled by: Solitary work environments Lacks in confidence Little choice or self-direction

Enacting the model › Autonomy › Responsiveness

The freedom of the participants to guide their own learning through the formation of meaningful choices and self-direction.

Why it’s important› Increases motivation

(Lewis & Hayward, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000)

› Contributes to changes in attitudes (Bainer & Wright, 2000)

› Contributes to changes in practices (Truscott & Truscott, 2004)

How we enact it› Voluntary participation › Opportunities for meaningful choices

Case-study application Student selection Data collection method

› Active decision making

Choice-based learning increases PL participant motivation and interest (Lewis & Hayward, 2003) and is more likely to create changes in practice (Bainer & Wright, 2000; Lovett & Gilmore, 2003; Truscott & Truscott, 2004).

Sustained efforts to assess and attend to the needs of participants.

Why it’s important› Effective for improving learning outcomes

(Gallagher & Worth, 2008)

› Facilitates relatedness(Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007)

› Facilitates equity & increases buy-in (Ancess, Barnett & Allen, 2007)

How we enact it› Needs assessment & formative assessment› Flexible program activities › Evolving agendas› Individuation of learning engagements› Opportunities for collaboration› Self-reflexive activities

Though not common in PL, formative assessment is widespread in education and can improve achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Gallagher & Worth, 2008).

The Content Standards

Focus on student outcomes and teacher implementation of the topical, content material presented in PL projects

› Improve the learning of ALL students› Develop teachers’ pedagogical, topical, and

assessment skills › Enhance family and stakeholder involvement

NSDC, 2001

Addressing the Content Standards

Theoretical foundations› Positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000)

› Distributed practice (Desimone, 2009; Donovan & Radosevich, 1999)

› Situated cognition to enhance positive qualities and build skills (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989)

Enacting the model› Content Selection› Authenticity

Content Selection

Developing educators’ capacity to conduct effective functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and create behavior intervention plans (BIP) for students with challenging behavior › Federally required/legally necessary› Evidence-based approach› Fit well in Response to Intervention (RTI)

paradigm

Emphasis on genuine or authentic application to the real-world or authentic context and practicality of the content to the setting

Why it’s important› Effective practice should:

Be relevant Be intense Occur over time Occur in real world situations

(Truscott & Truscott, 2004; Cooter, 2003; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman, 2002)

How we enact it› Assessment of current practice/current status› Identification of participants› Consider contextual factors› Video practice › Case study application › On-Site trainings and support

PL activities that do not meet specific classroom or content needs or those that lack authentic applications are not highly valued by participants. (Laguardia et al., 2002; Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2005)

Researching and example of the EPL Model

Context of the Research

Partnership between GLRS, GSU and Local School District

Peri-urban district 8,000 students 8 elementary schools, 1 middle school,

1 sixth-grade school, and 1 high school 645 teachers Average pupil to teacher ratio of 20:1

Team Members (N=22)› 13 special education teachers› 7 general education teachers› 2 school psychologists

Demographic data› 90.9% female (N=20)› 13.6% Black (N=3), 4.5% Hispanic (N=1), and 81.8%

White (N=18)› 36.4 % under age 35 (N=8), 31.8% from 36-45 (N=7),

31.8 % 46 or older (N=7)› 18.2% held bachelors degrees (N=4), 40.9% had

masters degrees (N=9), and 40.9% held higher degrees (N=9)

Participants

PL Design and Implementation

Research Design & Procedures

Group Interview Data › Semi-structured group interviews› Conducted pre and post training

Teachers’ Attitudes about Professional Development Scale (TAP; Torff, Sessions, & Byrnes, 2005)

› Pre and post measure of participants’ attitudes about PL

FBA Knowledge Test (Tobin & Crone, 2003)

› Multiple choice and short answer questions› Conducted pre and post training

Rubric for Permanent Product Evaluation› Pre and post de-identified FBA and BIP

Research Questions & Results

Question 1: What were participants’ perceptions of prior PL activities and did prior experiences incorporate components associated with this model?

Question 2: How did participants perceive

this experience incorporated the components associated with our model of PL and what were participants’ feelings/thoughts/ and/or perceptions related to these components?

Results- Relatedness

Previous PL Experiences

Not reported by teams as a salient feature of previous PL experiences.

“No time to consider what your needs are and make contact”

Only one participant reported experiencing relatedness in a previous training

“I felt like it was more of just a conversation.”

EPL Model Experience

All teams, (100%) cited relatedness as a salient strength of the training.

The most frequent observation, noted by 73% of teams, was that the training was “interactive”

“You saw that there was a need for dialogue.”

Also evident was the presence of a collegial atmosphere

“We got to know the other teachers.”

“having someone here face to face”

Results- Autonomy


In 100% of the interviews, participants spoke about “mandated” trainings

“A lot of it you have to do… it’s

not an option” “I don’t think things that are

mandated are taken well. People tend to shut off.”

“So many building level, state level initiatives to keep up with, it’s difficult to focus on learning and implementing anything else.”


Enacting Autonomy proved more difficult than anticipated. In 36% of team interviews, it was shared that voluntary participation was not enacted.

“ We were told to go…we suggest you work harder to recruit real volunteers.”

For some participants coercion was evident:

“I sort of wanted to do this.” “this we were asked to do and

agreed.”

Participants also did not seem to recognize choices presented within training.

Results- Responsiveness


Responsiveness was typically lacking in previous PL

“teachers have an agenda and they stick to it”

“its usually just been a presentation of the program”

“training occurs then next topic, then next topic…”

Little follow-up support or interaction with trainers

“maybe observation [is conducted] to see if it's done correctly, but no assistance [is provided] when needed”

“Most trainings provide info and it is never revisited.”


Responsiveness was perceived by 100% of the teams

Dialogue and interaction were perceived as forms of responsiveness

“atmosphere where you felt like you could ask questions”

Feedback was perceived to “individualize” training:

“You wanted input from us…. I think [it’s] in consideration right now.”

Support visits facilitated responsiveness:

“ [The support visits were] particularly helpful. I don't speak out in a crowd, so it was easier to get my questions answered”.

Results- Authenticity


Information likely to be implemented

“More meat and potatoes- practical stuff”

“If I feel like I could take it to class tomorrow and use it”

“If they relate it to my students”

Cumbersome initiatives and those unrelated to student needs are less likely to be implemented

” to difficult to apply - the time you have, it's not realistic in a school day.”

“We did "talents unlimited", but it wasn't good for our kids. For the regular kids it might be helpful.”


Authentic activities (e.g. hands on and case-study) were cited by 91% of teams as strengths.

"We didn't just listen to it, we did it"

“Putting this to use builds that higher order learning"

"I think it was much better because there was some hands on there…If we had just met and left, we wouldn't have gotten as much out of it."

Participants frequently cited the “practical” nature of the activities and content

"I liked it because it was practical stuff that I could actually use."

Results- Equity


Equity was generally lacking in previous PL experiences

When equity was specifically described as not evident, participants viewed this negatively making comments like:

“They assume that we're all stupid- assume I don't know any of it.”

“While I teach nine year olds, I don't like to be treated like one.”

“They [previous trainers] don’t want to be questioned.”


Equity was reported by 91% of teams as a prominent feature of this PL activity.

Several participants noted that trainers did not present “as experts” or appear intimidating

“You didn’t talk down to the audience” or “present as ‘we know everything’”).

Participants cited other factors that contributed to the establishment of equity. These included openness to other opinions, becoming members of the team, and being “in the trenches” with the participants.

Results- Other Noteworthy Aspects of the EPL Model

About Content 100% of teams cited

resources provided as useful

Favorable attitudes:› Concrete or clear

approach (46% of teams), › Objective way to view

student behavior (46% of teams),

› Useful information (36% of teams)

› A systematic way to approach behavior problems (64% of teams).

About Support Visits Cited by 100% of teams

as strengths of this PL Viewed in an positive

light (e.g., “particularly helpful”)

May contribute to sustainability in that they reportedly, “helped keep the information intact” and “you kept doing it… more of a continuous process.”

Results- Other Noteworthy Aspects of the EPL Model

Competence Gains Reported› Increased objectivity

"I'm looking at these kids through different eyes."

› Use of behavioral data to understand children and make decisions “this gave a more exact idea of data and how to

collect and use it.”

› Changes in perspective "We are stuck on what's wrong with the child,

but we need to be saying how can we change what we're doing to get something different".

Question 3: To what extent did participating in this model of PL contribute to changes in participant attitudes about PL?

Teachers’ Attitudes about Professional Development Scale› Scores on this test range from 5-30 points› Mean pretest score - 12.47 (range= 8-20, SD=3.64)› Mean posttest score - 13.68 (range= 9-20, SD=3.4))

There was not a significant difference between participant pretest and post test scores › t(18) = -1.36, p=.096, one-tailed› The resulting effect size, d=.34 is considered a small

effect

Question 4: To what extent did participating in this model of PL contribute to increases in participant knowledge?

FBA Knowledge Test› Scores on this test range from 0-22 points› Mean pretest score - 7.7 (range= 1-16, SD=3.99) › mean posttest score - 12.75 (range= 6-22,

SD=4.25)

There was significant difference between participant pretest and post test scores › t(19) = -5.33, p<.0005, one-tailed› The resulting effect size d=1.225 is considered a

large effect

Question 5: To what extent did participation in the PL activity increase participant skills?

Rubric for Permanent Product Evaluation› Scores on the rubric range from 0-12 points› Mean rubric rating for FBAs and BIPs completed pre-

training - 4.20 (range=0-11, SD=4.6) › Mean rating post training - 7.6 (range=1-12,

SD=4.0)

There was a significant difference between participant rating pre training and post training › t(9) = -1.89, p=.046, two-tailed› The resulting effect size, d=.78 is considered a large

effect

Discussion

The need to increase the efficacy of PL in education is well documented

In general, we are failing to respond to this need (Wei et al, 2009)

Participants in this study reported that the majority of their prior PL experiences were one-day, lecture-style trainings, many of which were district initiatives that did not focus on their individual needs as an educator nor the specific needs of their students.

Discussion

The perceptions of prior PL experiences of the participants in this study were consistent with research findings indicating that PL often lacks coherence, is sporadic, and does not attend to individual teacher needs or authentic practice (Wei et al, 2009).

Implications for Practice

Consider carefully the context of PL› Carefully select trainers

Openness to differing opinions Accessible to participants Personable dispositions

› Integrate time for relatedness Devote time for talking Group problem solving Build rapport and emphasize dialogue


Respond to participant needs› Assessment

Take time for needs assessment & formative assessment

Solicit feedback through dialogue

› Tailor training to needs When you see a need, respond to it Individualized trainings are well received and

tend to result in more actual change


Supporting autonomy was harder to achieve than we thought

School cultures with shared goals and responsibilities may place individual needs in conflict with the collective needs or goals of the organization› Participation in collective goal setting› Participation in needs identification › Self-selection of training› Avoid coercion


Authenticity is key › Content needs to stay in the real-world

Practical Relevant Concrete

› “If you don’t use it, you lose it”… a.k.a. if you don’t use it, you’ll never use it. Incorporate opportunities for real life

practice Provide supportive feedback


Other points to remember› Collaborative group learning is important› PL is like an investment- you get out of it,

what you (the trainer and the participant) put into it Time Labor Resources


What NOT to do› Don’t make people participate in training

that lacks relevance to their classroom. › Don’t advocate for time consuming or labor

intensive initiatives, but if you must… Provide a sound rationale for why they are

worth it Provide a means to immediately experience

the positive outcome first hand› Don’t just throw it out there and see what

sticks– Always provide a mechanism for follow-up support.

No comparison group Limited sample size Content Competing system demands Possible confounding initiatives/variables Limited student impact data Restricted model enactment Not being allowed to audio record

interviews

Implication for Future Research

Comparison groups More comprehensive student data Weight of the components Controlling for competing system

demands Replication with different content Replication in different systems An analysis of barriers and enablers

Michelle [email protected] Lynnae Psimas [email protected]

standards-based professional learning: increasing capacity to intervene with problem behavior...

Documents