His ideas are in my head: peer-to-peer teacher observations as professional development
Download 246.26 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
Hamilton-Hisideasareinmyhead
|
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.726202 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. His ideas are in my head: peer-to-peer teacher observations as professional development Erica R. Hamilton* Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (Received 6 June 2012; final version received 29 August 2012) This study examines an embedded professional development practice for secondary teachers, namely peer-to-peer observations (P2POs). P2POs involve teachers identifying goals and watching colleagues teach in order to expand their knowledge, practice and pedagogy. The research questions addressed are: what are teachers ’ experiences with P2POs, and what do teachers learn, if anything, from P2POs? This study took place during the 2010/11 school year at a Midwest, suburban public high school located in the United States and relies on survey and interview data. Sixty- five percent of faculty (n = 28) responded to an online survey, and eight teachers and one administrator were interviewed (n = 9). Results indicate that P2POs afforded many teachers choice, on-site learning opportunities and increased collegial respect. Findings also highlight inherent challenges regarding this model of solitary, one-time professional development. Keywords: K-12 professional development; peer observation; teacher learning Introduction According to Sawchuk (2010), billions of dollars are invested each year in US K –12 teacher professional development, an activity utilized to further educators’ knowledge and skills (Borko 2004, Avalos 2011). US teacher professional develop- ment is also employed to advance K –12 students’ learning and achievement (for example, Rueda 1998, Ball and Cohen 1999, Desimone 2009, 2011, Guskey and Yoon 2009). According to Wilson and Berne (1999), K –12 professional develop- ment comes in many forms. These include teacher in-service training, conference attendance, faculty meetings, committee service, relevant university coursework, personal re flection, structured seminars, teacher conversations, co-teaching and pro- fessional study groups (Darling-Hammond 1997, Flint et al. 2011). Broadly, there are two categories of teacher professional development, namely extracted and embedded. Extracted professional development constitutes the privi- leging of outsiders ’ specialized knowledge (Flint et al. 2011), whereas embedded development emphasizes insiders ’ expert knowledge (Desimone 2011, Opfer and Pedder 2011). Generally, the majority of K –12 teacher professional development opportunities in the United States are ones extracted from the classroom. In these cases, teachers are professionally ‘developed’ by outside experts, often unfamiliar *Email: ehamilto@msu.edu Professional Development in Education 2012, 1 –23, iFirst article ISSN 1941-5257 print/ISSN 1941-5265 online Ó 2012 International Professional Development Association (IPDA) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.726202 http://www.tandfonline.com Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 with individual school cultures, faculty and student needs (Fiszer 2004). In contrast, embedded teacher professional development enables teachers to learn from one another within their own school contexts (for example, Webster-Wright 2009, Desimone 2011, Opfer and Pedder 2011). Although teachers experience both types, the focus of this study is one model of embedded professional development, namely peer-to-peer observations (P2POs) in which US secondary teachers employ peer observations as a means of learning from one another. Embedded professional development emphasizes localized professional learning opportunities and is complex because it exists in nested systems of schooling, con- texts, and teaching (Opfer and Pedder 2011). According to Butler et al. (2004), one type of embedded professional development is the professional learning community, in which on-site assessment, active teaching, re flection and observation are empha- sized (Darling-Hammond and Richardson 2009). These communities most often exist to support on-site action research and collective inquiry in order to improve student outcomes (DuFour et al. 2008, Carroll et al. 2010). Professional learning communities also foster peer interactions centered on texts, topics and teaching (Hadar and Brody 2010). According to Joyce and Calhoun (2010), other embedded professional development models include individual inquiry and peer mentoring. Moreover, Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran (2011) and Knight (2011) point to teacher coaching as an additional means of embedded professional development. Teacher instructional rounds, in which teachers study their schools and peers ’ prac- tices in order to improve student learning and teacher performance, constitutes one more variety (City 2011). These embedded professional development models, among others, provide school-based, individual and collective support for educators. According to Billett (2001), embedded professional development models take place in localized school contexts; in large part because scholars consider the work- place central to effective and continued teacher professional learning (TPL) (Eraut 2004). Similarly, embedded professional development experiences offer teachers opportunities to apply what they learn on-site within their own school contexts (for example, Ball and Cohen 1999, Borko 2004, Hawley and Valli 2000). Therefore, given the potential for schools to provide teachers with on-site and educative peer- facilitated professional development opportunities, there exists a need to study speci fic embedded professional development models to further understand how teachers ’ professional learning is impacted. Currently, within a US context, there is little research available regarding one speci fic embedded professional development model, namely P2POs. Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to literature focused on P2POs and, as such, centers on the year-long P2PO model employed at Franklin High School (FHS). Prior to the start of the 2010/11 school year, FHS principal Ms Ritter eliminated all required faculty meetings. In lieu of these meetings, she required FHS teachers to do three things. First, they had to identify a teaching goal, and then they named three faculty members who could help with this goal. Finally, they were required to conduct three, full-class period P2POs before the end of the school year, giving them more than seven months to complete the required P2POs. For each observa- tion, teachers were required to watch one of their peers teach for an entire class per- iod. This embedded professional development activity would ‘count’ for four of FHS teachers ’ 30 hours of required professional development, mandated annually by the state. These four hours consisted of one hour of goal setting and three hours of peer observation. 2 E.R. Hamilton Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 Theoretical framework This research draws on a theory of teacher professional learning (TPL) (Opfer and Pedder 2011). TPL occurs when teachers learn through participation in embedded professional development opportunities featuring ‘learning communities’ (McLaugh- lin and Talbert 2006) in which teachers learn from and with their peers, something Lave and Wenger (1991) call ‘communities of practice’. In contrast to Shulman’s (2004) pedagogical solitude, TPL is collaborative, ongoing and includes re flective practice (Schön 1983, van Manen 1991). TPL moves teachers from isolation and solitude to interaction and engagement (DuFour 2006), forming communities to analyze and improve their practice (Shulman 2004). According to McLaughlin and Talbert (2001), TPL promotes teacher self-ef ficacy as it promotes growth. It is also ‘conceptualized as a complex system rather than as an event’ (Opfer and Pedder 2011, p. 378). According to Bruner, human learning is, ‘participatory, proactive, communal, collaborative and given over to constructing meanings rather than receiving them ’ (1996, p. 84). Shulman (2004) connects Bruner ’s (1996) notions of human learning to teachers ’ learning because, ‘when the teacher is an active agent in the process … teacher learning becomes more active through experimentation and inquiry ’ (Shulman 2004, p. 514). TPL is also participatory because learning occurs when teachers directly involve themselves in activities to acquire knowledge and further their expertise (Sfard 1998). Moreover, TPL has potential to contribute to a school ’s professional community when teachers look to one another as sources of knowl- edge, particularly when they formulate and distribute effective pedagogy and prac- tice (Grossman et al. 2001, Talbert and McLaughlin 2002). Theoretically, if teachers engage in P2POs, there exists potential for TPL because P2POs provide opportunities for teachers to share expertise and engage in re flective practice. Relevant literature In order to contextualize this study and its results, I discuss learning from col- leagues, teacher professional development, re flection and peer observation. Despite the limited research connected to P2POs within US contexts, each contributes to the ways in which P2POs fit within the larger context of embedded teacher profes- sional development. Learning from colleagues Teachers are at the center (or should be) of teacher learning, as they are both the subjects and objects of professional development and learning (Avalos 2011). Although teachers need sustained time to develop and implement professional development learning (Opfer and Pedder 2011), adult learners often focus on short- term, practical objectives. In fact, in many contexts adults ’ learning becomes an experience of immediate acquisition, rather than a long-term, sustained activity (Mezirow 1997). This is true of some types of extracted and embedded teacher pro- fessional development, in which learning new strategies and acquiring additional activities is the goal. In these cases, teachers focus on acquiring immediate and directly applicable tools and strategies, rather than engaging in long-term dialogues and sustained, critical studies of teaching and learning. Professional Development in Education 3 Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 However, ‘learning from colleagues requires both a shift in perspective and the ability to listen hard to other adults ’ (Grossman et al. 2001, p. 32). Learning is a situated practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) and is often guided by more experienced others (Vygotsky 1978). In order for teachers to learn from one another, Shulman (2004) suggests putting an end to pedagogical solitude in order to shift teaching from private to public property. Doing so enables teachers ’ practices and pedagogies to become open to others, namely their peers. Learning from colleagues provides opportunities for teachers to construct and situate knowledge and meaning as they participate in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), namely teaching. Learning from colleagues also means that: ‘rather than receiving “knowledge” from “experts” in training sessions, teach- ers and administrators will collaborate with peers, researchers, and their own students to make sense of the teaching/learning process in their own contexts ’ (Sparks and Hirsh 1997, p. 11). In this case, peers function as coaches and model- ers of ideas, strategies and techniques aimed at improving students ’ learning and teachers ’ instruction (Glazer and Hannafin 2006). Teacher professional development According to Wilson et al., effective teacher professional development is: ‘one that is sustained and long-term (allowing for teachers to repeatedly try out new strate- gies and to re flect on what worked and did not) and focuses on records of practice, including student work ’ (2011, p. 385). The results of effective professional devel- opment include improved student learning, as well as teachers ’ increased knowl- edge, skills and changes in classroom practices (Garet et al. 2001). According to Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (2011), meaningful professional development should be sustained, ongoing and include participant-driven inquiry, re flection and experimentation. It should also connect to and derive from teaching and learning experiences (Wilson and Berne 1999). Moreover, teacher professional development often takes place in schools that, ‘are places where the adult educators are in a high state of growth and give each other energy, knowledge, and skill ’ (Joyce and Calhoun 2010, p. 8). Therefore, teacher professional development occurs not in a vacuum but, rather, within a speci fic social context (Timperley et al. 2007). According to Little (1993), it exists formally and informally in the daily lives of educators and, as noted by Webster-Wright (2009), it is a responsibility of today ’s professionals. It must be grounded in participant-driven inquiry and include re flection and experimentation. Furthermore, Flint et al. (2011) note that successful embedded professional develop- ment is sustained and ongoing. It is also connected to and derived directly from experiences with teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 2011). According to Bransford et al. (2000), professional development programs for teach- ers should center on learners (i.e. teachers), knowledge (i.e. pedagogy and content), assessment (i.e. self, peer and outside experts) and community (i.e. teachers and schools in context). Effective embedded teacher professional development functions as an integral part of a school ’s culture and, at the same time, encourages teachers to involve themselves as learners. According to Wehlage et al. (1996), professional develop- ment programs that strengthen professional communities and improve student learning engage faculty collectively, take place over a sustained period and enable 4 E.R. Hamilton Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 teachers to identify and study goals as well as improve practice. In their review of research, Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) note that one feature of suc- cessful school-based professional development includes long-term implementation (i.e. it occurs over time, compared with one-time or episodic experiences and events). Teachers need extended time and opportunities for active, hands-on teacher learning. They also need to collaborate with peers. In tandem with this, teachers must have time and opportunities to acquire and re flect on new content and peda- gogical knowledge. In the United States, speci fically, professional development must also link teacher learning to curriculum, student learning, as well as state and national assessments and standards. Professional development contextualizes and situates teaching and learning, promoting teachers ’ skills, knowledge and pedagogy (Rueda 1998). Successful school-based professional development is collaborative (Louis et al. 1996), focuses on content knowledge, offers opportunities for active learning (Garet et al. 2001) and connects with other learning opportunities (Wilson and Berne 1999). It also necessitates contextualized, complex learning and decision-making (Butler et al. 2004). Effective localized, embedded professional development must foster teacher learning (Borko 2004), provide intensive programs that expand teacher knowledge and practices (Darling-Hammond and Richardson 2009), as well as make available records of practice in which teachers examine the practices and pedagogy of self and others (Fiszer 2004, Kennedy 2005, Joyce and Calhoun 2010). In her study of experienced secondary teachers, Meister (2010) found that pro- fessional development must foster opportunities for teachers to connect with col- leagues within academic disciplines as well as communities of friends, also referred to as a ‘critical friends group’, a term coined by the National School Reform Fac- ulty (for example, Key 2006, Curry 2008, Silva and Contreras 2011). In this model, teachers observe and analyze peers ’ teaching in order to promote TPL, as well as increase teacher ef ficacy and student learning. Similar to a critical friends group model, P2POs include peer observation. Unlike the critical friends group, the FHS P2PO model does not include required post-observation follow-up or formal analysis of self and others. Re flection Re flection is one element of effective embedded professional development. Zeichner insists ‘there is no such thing as an unreflective teacher’ (1996, p. 207), and accord- ing to Boud et al. re flection is the: ‘intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understand- ings and appreciations. It may take place in isolation or in association with others ’ (1994, p. 19). Connected to professional development, teachers must try new approaches and strategies repeatedly, re flecting on what works and why (Wilson et al. 2011). Re flection often promotes the improvement of teaching, particularly when teachers have opportunities to analyze their own as well as others ’ teaching practices. However, just thinking about and re flecting on teaching may not necessar- ily be enough. There must also be purpose and subsequent action associated with re flection, which includes deliberation as well as making choices and decisions about possible alternative courses of action (van Manen 1991). As an element of embedded professional development, re flection may take on the form of introspection in which teachers participate in professional reading, Professional Development in Education 5 Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 scholarly study, and internal self-examination and dialogue. It may also manifest itself in external conversations with others. Dewey considered re flection to be ‘the heart of [an] intellectual organization and of the disciplined mind ’ (1938, p. 87) and claimed that re flective thinking is valuable because it ‘converts action that is merely appetitive, blind, and impulsive into intelligent action ’ (1933, p. 17). Reflection is a professional necessity and crucial to lifelong learning (Stronge 2007). It must also produce an intelligent action (Dewey 1933). However, as Fendler (2003) and Opfer and Pedder (2011) point out, if teachers are not re flective in their pedagogy and practice, there is little chance of discovering the ways in which best intentions do not achieve intended purposes. Peer observation One type of embedded professional development is peer observation. According to Guskey, ‘one of the best ways to learn is by observing others, or by being observed and receiving speci fic feedback from that observation’ (2000, p. 23). Furthermore, it builds practitioner con fidence and promotes reflective thinking (Weller 2009). Peer observation, for professional development purposes, is often utilized at the university level (for example, Blackwell and McLean 1996, Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004, Lomas and Kinchin 2006, Weller 2009). Moreover, in two international contexts – Oman (Al-Rasbiah 2009) and Hong Kong (Shing et al. 2004) – peer obser- vation offers a model of professional development for effective teacher coaching. Within a US K –12 school setting, peer observations offer teachers opportunities to be the observer as well as the observed. According to Desimone (2011), some of the most in fluential professional development learning experiences take place in teachers ’ classrooms, through the observation of others and self. However, accord- ing to Cosh (1999) there are few models of peer observation connected to embed- ded teacher professional development. Of those that exist, one model includes teacher feedback and discussions, in order to focus on the improvement of teaching and learning. This model is akin to the critical friends group model discussed earlier (for example, Key 2006, Curry 2008, Silva and Contreras 2011). Another peer observation model focuses on teacher re flection, in which educators use peer obser- vations to encourage and promote self-awareness, re flection and potential improve- ment. In this case, teachers observe colleagues who enact and model speci fic lessons to enhance and further develop faculty members ’ teaching practices (Casey 2011). In these cases, peer observations may contribute to others ’ teaching develop- ment as well as the wider diffusion of high-quality practice and pedagogy within the school and, possibly, the field. Research questions Researchers do not always agree on what works and why in teacher professional development (Opfer and Pedder 2011). However, one way to better understand what does and does not work (and why) is to learn from studies that focus on teachers ’ lived experiences, an element absent from many studies regarding embedded teacher professional development. Furthermore, as noted earlier, although there are some models of embedded professional development that include peer observation, dia- logue and teacher learning within classrooms, there has been little written about this speci fic model of P2PO, in which teachers set goals and watch their peers teach. 6 E.R. Hamilton Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 Therefore, by focusing on a situated US context, particular teachers ’ experiences, and a speci fic professional development model (i.e. P2POs), I seek to answer the following questions: (1) What are teachers ’ experiences with P2POs? (2) What do teachers report learning, if anything, from P2POs? Method Context FHS is a Midwestern suburban public high school, located in the United States. During the 2010/11 school year, there were approximately 800 students enrolled in Grades 9 –12 and 43 full-time and part-time faculty members. As noted earlier, for the duration of this school year FHS Principal Ms Ritter discontinued the practice of holding mandatory faculty meetings. Previously, these meetings ful filled a por- tion of teachers ’ state-required 30 hours of professional development. This study focuses on the affordances and limitations of P2POs as a means of professional development within FHS. However, unlike Guskey ’s (2000) observa- tion and assessment model of professional development, P2POs at FHS only involve observation, due to union stipulations regarding P2POs and Principal Rit- ter ’s conceptual design. In this P2PO model, there is no required follow-up or feed- back between the observers and the observed. Upon completion of their three peer observations, FHS teachers filled out and submitted a worksheet to Ms Ritter, indi- cating their teaching goal(s), observation dates, and the names and class periods of the three teachers they observed (Appendix 1). Methodology The purpose of this study is to gain a greater understanding of teachers ’ experiences related to P2POs and the ways in which participants ’ perspectives fit into the larger context of embedded professional development. Participants in this study (i.e. sec- ondary teachers and one administrator) vary in levels of experience, knowledge and understanding, which in fluences their interpretations and perspectives (Magoon 1977). As such, meaning is constructed and interpreted, based on participants ’ feed- back (Crotty 1998). Speci fically, this study seeks to examine and make visible what happens during P2POs as well as systemically document others ’ thoughts about and experiences with this practice (Erickson 1986). In doing so, I examined patterns and uniqueness in participants ’ perspectives (Glesne 2011). Additionally, although this study is quali- tative in nature, some quantitative data are included to contextualize the setting and participants ’ responses. The result is a constructed understanding of the ways P2POs occur as well as participants ’ experiences with and thoughts about P2POs. It also includes a discussion of the possible advantages and disadvantages of this model. Participants This study took place during the 2010/11 school year and participants include one FHS administrator (i.e. Ms Ritter) and 43 FHS faculty members (Appendix 2). Sur- vey respondents represent all content areas and their teaching experience ranged Professional Development in Education 7 Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 from one to more than 24 years. Interviewees represent the four core content areas – namely, social studies, mathematics, science and English – and their experience as educators ranged from one to 22 years. The online survey was open to all FHS faculty members. Interview participants, however, were selected utilizing strati fied, purposeful sampling (Hinkle et al. 2003, Cohen et al. 2007). I chose this sampling method because I sought to identify core content area teachers with varying levels of experience. In order to select interview participants, I first divided FHS faculty according to their core content area (removing faculty members ’ names who taught only non- core subjects). This resulted in four strata. Then, I subdivided these strata, still based on core content teaching assignments, into two groups. One group consisted of those with 0 –10 years of teaching experience, and the second those with more than 10 years of experience, resulting in eight strata. A person not associated with this project selected one faculty member ’s name at random from each stratum, resulting in eight teachers ’ names. Data Data for this project include responses from a 10-question, anonymous online sur- vey. This web-based survey included close-ended and open-ended questions, focused on ascertaining FHS faculty members ’ thoughts about professional develop- ment as well as their experiences with P2POs. The survey was open to all FHS fac- ulty and enabled teachers to participate at a time most convenient for them (Curasi 2001, Evans and Mathur 2005). I distributed the online survey as a link, shared via email to FHS faculty. This method enabled me to gain access to all FHS teachers and afforded additional means of data collection and analysis (Wright 2005). Of 43 possible FHS participants, 28 FHS faculty members completed the survey between January 2011 and May 2011, resulting in a 65% response rate. Nine semi-struc- tured, one-on-one interviews were included to elicit experiential knowledge con- nected to P2POs (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009, Newby 2010). In addition to interviewing Principal Ritter, I also interviewed eight core-content faculty members. These interviews centered on learning more about participants ’ perceptions of and experiences with professional development, their experiences with and thoughts about P2POs, as well as the P2PO model itself. I contacted the eight initially selected faculty members via email and invited them to participate. Six FHS faculty members consented, one declined and one did not respond. In order to maintain equal representation from the four core subject areas and across years of teaching experience, I selected two more teachers ’ names using the same initial strati fied random sampling process. I contacted both via email and they consented to participate, resulting in eight faculty interviewee participants. Interviews lasted 40 –50 minutes, were audio-recorded, and transcribed for further analysis. I also asked questions and took notes during each interview. As noted previously, questions from the online survey and the semi-structured interview protocols sought to address both research questions, as well as offer participants opportunities to share additional information related to the topics pre- sented. Analytic memos and interview notes captured during data collection and analysis aided the generation of meaning as well as the framing of analysis and this study ’s results (Miles and Huberman 1994, Newby 2010). 8 E.R. Hamilton Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 Data analysis Data analysis included open coding (Miles and Huberman 1994, Creswell 2008) and constant comparative methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Strauss and Corbin 1998). I examined the survey data first, in order to gain an overview of respondents ’ thoughts about professional development and learn about their experi- ences with P2POs. After reading respondents ’ answers, I assigned initial, thematic codes to the survey data. I then re-examined survey responses multiple times, in order to ascertain whether assigned codes matched content. During this process, in order to remain open, I also checked for additional codes (Miles and Huberman 1994, Newby 2010). Once there appeared to be no new codes within the survey data, I read and coded all interview field notes; in the process, I noted four new codes. Using codes generated from survey and interview field notes, I then read through and coded interview transcriptions and applied the preliminary codes to the interview data. During the course of analyzing and coding the interviews, four addi- tional codes emerged, resulting in 12 codes in total. I then re-read and reviewed all other data multiple times, applying the 12 codes. To ensure coding reliability, I requested a colleague ’s assistance to maintain intercoder agreement (Lombard et al. 2002). Throughout the coding processes, I generated analytic memos and marginal remarks to capture my thoughts and remain focused on the research questions (Miles and Huberman 1994). As I examined the codes generated, there emerged three over-arching themes. The Findings section below contains a description and discussion of these three themes (i.e. choice, teachers as experts, and takeaways), as well as connections to both research questions. Results indicate that P2POs afforded many teachers with choice, on-site learning opportunities and increased collegial respect. Also highlighted are inherent challenges regarding this one-time, year-long model of embedded professional development. Findings According to interview and survey data, during observations most teachers sat at student desks and watched their colleagues teach, taking few or no notes. Some interacted with the teacher and students. Although not required or of ficially documented, a few indicated that they participated in informal post-observation conversations. As stated earlier, analysis of data revealed three themes; namely, choice, teach- ers as experts, and takeaways. In the subsections below, participants ’ own words are used to represent each theme. Moreover, each theme connects to one or both of the research questions, regarding teachers ’ experiences with P2POs as well as what they learned. These themes were evident in survey and interview data, across all content areas and appeared regardless of participants ’ years of teaching experience. However, in order to distinguish between interview and survey participants ’ responses, interviewees are associated with pseudonyms. Teachers ’ experiences with P2POs: ‘I get to choose’ In this section, I discuss the ways in which teachers ’ P2PO experiences resulted in additional choices, affording participants opportunities for individualization, motiva- tion and direct classroom application. As part of the P2PO model, FHS teachers Professional Development in Education 9 Downloaded by [Erica R. Hamilton] at 14:08 10 October 2012 first identified what they wanted to improve upon or learn. Overwhelmingly, partici- pants valued the opportunity to choose individual goals, as re flected in one survey respondent ’s response: ‘We can focus on building a technique/method that interests us. We focus ourselves on things that interest us. ’ Principal Ritter conceived of P2POs as a means of empowering FHS teachers to learn and ‘be in charge of their own professional development ’. She also explained that P2POs, because they con- tain an element of individualization, have ‘meaning to [teachers] because they get to choose what their goal is going to be and what [and who] they want to go observe ’. According to survey and interview participants ’ responses, embedding choice in the P2PO model positively in fluenced teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with P2POs. Survey respondents ’ comments illustrating this include: ‘When we are actively involved in our learning, we are more likely to apply what we learn ’ and P2POs ‘give teachers an opportunity to focus on their needed areas’. Similarly, others acknowledged that P2POs enable teachers ‘to choose where we wanted to develop because each of us is different and needs to improve in different areas ’. Motivation also manifested itself as a product of choice. Survey and interviewee Download 246.26 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|