Professional Development Activity 11-A
Submitted by Jeffrey Glanz, Wagner College
(Comment option available at the bottom of the page.)

This activity relates to several standards for action research, but relates particularly to Standard 11.6.

Case Study

 

The interdisciplinary teams provide an ideal infrastructure for professional development. Significant decision-making power over curriculum and even supervision is delegated to the teams. Team members engage in action research as not only an alternative to traditional supervision, but more importantly as a means to support faculty professional development and ultimately, student learning.

Maria Rodriguez, Bill Evans, Fred Alvaro, and Martha Cunningham are working together on a team.  Integral to professional development at IHS is to brainstorm ideas on a wide variety of topics. Any team member can raise a problem or concern for group reaction. During one of these "reflective" sessions, Maria expressed concern about students' test scores in writing. Other members shared her concern.   Statewide examinations in writing had been mandated two years ago and the team was concerned that preliminary data indicated students were significantly deficient in this area, especially since under the former administration little attention had been paid to writing. Team members met over the summer to decide on a curriculum plan for teaching writing, eschewing pre-packaged writing programs all too common in other schools in the city. After much research and in consultation with a prominent local university, the team decided to implement a rather well known writing program sponsored by the university, although with significant modifications. Infusing writing in all content areas together with individual and small group "writing consults," the team set out to make writing a priority in the fall semester. The team decided to field test the new program with a randomly selected group of students in 10 th grade and identified a comparable group of 10 th graders not in the program.

Eric Nadelstern, the principal at the time, supporting the team, provided targeted professional development and encouraged action research strategies to track program success. He encouraged teams to use action research to demonstrate the impact of teaching on student writing achievement. As part of the program, students kept detailed writing portfolios that contained writing samples over time illustrating writing maturity. Writing assessments were continuously administered. Detailed monitoring of student progress along with constructive feedback were hallmarks of the program. After the administration of the Statewide writing examination in May of that academic year, team members met to assess the impact of the program on student achievement, student writing motivation, and on the effectiveness of the teaching strategies employed by the teachers.

                    The chart below summarizes their findings:

Instrument	Standard	Percentage Meeting	Conclusion
Standardized Writing Achievement Test	50% above 50 th percentile	65% above 50 th percentile (25% improvement over previous year); Only 35% of girls scored above norm	Expectation met; Examine achievement of girls (interviews, etc)
Writing Portfolios	At least 50% scoring “acceptable” on portfolio rubric	55% scored acceptable but only 15% for girls	Expectation met overall but examine achievement for girls
Monthly Teacher-Made Exams	At least 50% scoring “acceptable” on writing rubric for idea development, sentence structure, and grammar	80% scored acceptable, but significantly less for girls	Expectation met overall but examine achievement for girls
Student Surveys	At least 80% registered satisfaction with new approach to writing	70% approval rating, but only 10% for girls	Expectation not met; Further study needed

The second phase of the activity involves breaking into groups of no more than three individuals to undertake the following task:

Based on the data collected in “phase one” above as indicated in the chart, plan “phase two” of the action research for the following school year. Answer the following questions:

 

The third phase of the activity involves helping participants develop an “action plan” to address concerns expressed during the second phase. It is unlikely that participants, without guidance, will come up with a systematic action plan to address their concerns.  At best, a number of viable suggestions might be offered. During this phase, participants are provided a set of guidelines for developing an action plan that might include, among others:

A framework for conducting additional action research that includes, but is not limited to, a Group Leader to guide the plan, a group-developed Goal Statement, an Objective or Focus, additional Research Questions, a Division of Labor among participants of the study, an Instructional Plan to address stated concerns in phase two, a Process for additional Data Collection, Analysis, Interpretation, built in Time for Reflection and Discussion, and a Written Document summarizing findings and recommendations.

Assessment Criteria

The Standards for Instructional Supervision