By

Kathleen M. Armour, BEd(Hons) MA PhD
Loughborough University, England

Contents:

Improving schools and raising educational standards are (unsurprisingly) central to the education policies of many governments around the world. However, it has becoming increasingly clear that providing high quality continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers is a key part of the process of raising educational standards (Reynolds et al 2000; Day, 1999). Thus, in England, the government has published a strategy for structuring teachers' CPD (DfEE, 2001) and has promised additional funds to support it. In the case of physical education (PE) this has resulted in a major new investment in a National PE and School Sport Professional Development Programme. The programme runs until 2008 and is offering significant funded CPD opportunities for all teachers of PE in primary, secondary and special schools. The programme has the following (ambitious) aims:

• Improving the quality of teaching and learning in PE and school sport in order to raise the attainment of all pupils
• Increasing the understanding of the use of high quality PE and school sport in whole school improvement
• Enhancing the links between high quality PE and school sport and the promotion of physical activity and health
• Encouraging innovative interpretation of the National Curriculum for PE to ensure it closely meets pupils' needs and ensures their maximum achievement
• Enhancing cross-phase continuity to ensure pupil progress

These aims are to be delivered through a series of modules that have been designed at a national level but are delivered locally. Some of these modules are ‘resource-based’, others are taught in a more traditional ‘course’ format. The idea is that teachers and schools conduct an ‘audit of need’, teachers select relevant modules from the menu and, once a module has been completed, ‘cascade’ their learning to other colleagues at school. It could be argued, therefore, that PE-CPD is well supported, and that the provision of funded career-long professional development for PE teachers in England is now a reality. So, what’s the issue?

Put simply, the issue at the heart of this discussion is learning. Providing more CPD does not necessarily mean that teachers will learn anything of value from it. On the contrary, it is argued here that unless teachers are engaged in a sustained, progressive and coherent learning programme, it is unlikely that they will adjust their pedagogies and practices in any significant ways over their careers. This, in turn, makes it unlikely that pupils’ learning will be enhanced. The question underpinning this paper, therefore, is whether any particular form of PE-CPD is likely to be more or less effective in enhancing teachers’ and ultimately pupils’ learning.

It is widely accepted in the professional development research community that a reliance on traditional patterns of CPD (mainly off-site, one-off 'courses') is unlikely to deliver radical change in teachers' pedagogies or practices (NPEAT, 1998; NFER, 2001). Indeed, what seems to be emerging from the research literature is an understanding that for CPD to be effective (i.e. in enhancing both teacher and pupil learning) it should, more often, be rooted in the day-to-day complexities of teaching. Yet, although there is a wealth of literature available on professional development, teacher learning and teacher change, there has been ‘relatively little systematic research on the effects of professional development on improvements in teaching or on student outcomes' (Garet et al, 2001, p.917; Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Guskey, 2003). Dennis Sparks (2002) summarises research from around the world to conclude that effective CPD:

• Focuses on deepening teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical skills;
• Includes opportunities for practice, research and reflection;
• Is embedded in educators' work and takes place during the school day;
• Is sustained over time; and
• Is founded on a sense of collegiality and collaboration
                                                   (Sparks, 2002, 1-4)

Furthermore, the National Foundation for Educational Research in the UK (NFER, 2001) found that CPD was most effective when

• teachers had some autonomy over the choice and direction of their personal development,
• when CPD activities were delivered with appropriate expertise
• when CPD contained challenging and up-to-date content that was relevant to classroom practice.

However, like Guskey & Sparks (2002), the NFER found that it was difficult to make clear links between CPD and ‘impact' upon teachers' practices and, most importantly, pupil learning. One way to address this issue is suggested in a key CPD research paper from the USA. Garet et al. (2001) make a distinction between ‘traditional' and ‘reform' types of CPD. Traditional forms of CPD tend to take place at specific times, and are usually undertaken off-site with minimal follow-up. They offer little opportunity or support to enable teachers to integrate new learning with practice, and so are often ineffective. 'Reform' types of CPD, on the other hand, typically take place within the school day, involve collective participation of teachers from the same school or group of schools, and are integrated into practice in the form of study groups, mentoring and coaching. Garet et al. argue that these activities are easier to sustain over time and are likely to result in better connections between new learning and existing practice.

Although there are some differences, there is also much common ground between the different publications that purport to identify the characteristics of effective CPD. It could be argued, therefore, that these characteristics should be considered in the design of PE-CPD. However, although we know very little about teachers' experiences of PE-CPD, we do know that in England at least, much of what is offered to (or is compulsory for) teachers is ‘traditional' in both style and structure. The new national PE-CPD programme described earlier is no exception and this raises questions about its potential to promote sustained, progressive and coherent career-long learning.

There is little detailed research evidence available on the current and historical CPD experiences of PE teachers although some case study research into teachers' lives and careers has made reference to professional development (Schempp, 1993; Moreira, Sparkes & Fox, 1995; Dowling Naess, 1996; Pissanos & Allison, 1996; Armour & Jones, 1998; Moreira, Fox & Sparkes, 2002). What seems to be the case, however, is that for many PE teachers, CPD experiences have been the very opposite of those defined in the research as ‘effective'. A study of PE-CPD for experienced PE teachers in England has recently been completed. Full details on the study, methods and findings (to date) are reported elsewhere (Armour & Yelling, 2004 a and b). In summary, the methods used were cumulative over a 2-year period, were focussed on PE teachers with more than 5 years teaching experience, and involved in-depth interviews (phase 1), open-ended CPD profile questionnaires (phase 2) and year-long case studies of ten teachers (phase 3).

Analysis of data from phases 1 and 2 suggests that these PE teachers' CPD profiles could most accurately be described as haphazard, with no discernible coherence or progression in their career-long learning. Moreover:

• there was a very poor match between teachers' declared key learning outcomes for PE and the professional development that was undertaken or was available – i.e. health/fitness and personal/social education featured strongly as key outcomes but were not reflected in CPD undertaken;
• most of the CPD reported was sport related and took the form of one-day, off-site, sport update ‘courses';
• reflecting the findings of international CPD research, ‘effective' CPD for these teachers was identified as that which is practical, relevant and applicable, able to provide workable ideas/resources, delivered by a good presenter, challenging and thought-provoking, and able to offer time for reflection and collaboration;
• course costs, teacher replacement costs and quality, pressures of time and teacher workload, location, and the need for an entitlement to CPD were all areas of concern for these teachers (Armour & Yelling, 2004 a & b).

These findings seem to suggest that some changes to the nature and structure of existing PE-CPD provision should be considered in order to enhance both teacher and pupil learning. In phase 3 of the research, ten very different PE teachers were identified as case studies. All agreed to allow a researcher to work closely with them throughout one academic year to focus on professional learning in all its forms. The aim was to find out about the nature and quality of teachers' learning, including what they were learning, when and how; and (more ambitiously) whether and how there was likely to be an impact upon pupil learning. The researcher interviewed each teacher in-depth on 3 separate occasions, attended both internal and external CPD activities with them, and then reflected with the teacher upon the quality of the learning experience and the likelihood of an impact upon pupils' learning. In addition, the teachers kept reflective diaries for specific periods of time where they noted down learning opportunities (formal and informal) that occurred throughout the course of a ‘normal' day.

Although data analysis is not complete, it is already clear that one key finding predominates; that is the high value these teachers placed on learning together and from each other. In effect, these teachers appeared to be arguing for a form of school-focused (if not school-based) collaborative professional learning similar to that suggested in the international CPD research literature. Thus, it can be suggested that viewing PE departments (and possibly other networks of PE teachers) as professional learning communities, or as learning organisations, and working through the implications of such a view, provides the foundation for the development of more effective forms of CPD (Armour & Yelling, 2003).

Following Wenger (1998), the notion of a ‘professional learning community' (PLC) reverberates throughout the professional development literature. Toole & Louis (2002, p.4) use the term 'professional learning community' but note that the CPD literature abounds with a variety of terms conveying broadly similar concepts:

All these concepts share a foundation in the social constructivist learning theories of Vygotsky (1978) and Lave & Wenger (1991), are underpinned by a belief that teachers have much to learn from each other, and make the assumption that both teacher and pupil learning can be enhanced as a result. In such a model, it is acknowledged that expert, external knowledge will still required at times but in a PLC, this form of input is not privileged. Instead, the need for specific forms of external input would be established collectively, and the resulting learning would be shared (as a matter of course) among colleagues.

The teachers in our PE-CPD study in England didn't mention the term ‘professional learning community', but they certainly identified the broad concept of collaborative professional learning, emphasising its central importance to their professional development and a strong desire to do more of it. Two examples of comments by teachers about their ideal forms of CPD are illustrative:

So, in other words, where CPD is provided in the traditional ‘course' model, it is likely that teachers are learning off-site and out of context, from a provider who must attempt to provide generic learning that can apply equally to vastly different contexts. In this model, the task is to pack the teacher full of ‘knowledge' so that they can ‘transport' the learning back to their own school and (optimistically) to colleagues. Yet, just as is reported in the wider research literature, these case study PE teachers found the model largely unsatisfactory:

Ironically, the traditional model of CPD is expensive and is essentially disruptive to pupils' learning as teachers leave their classes to attend courses. So why does it endure – and how could it be changed? Well, as might be expected, there is no easy answer and at least three parties engaged in sustaining the current system would need to make some radical changes to their structures, processes and…habits.

1. Changing CPD Providers

Although CPD as traditionally conceived and structured is unhelpful to teachers who want to learn in a school-based collaborative context, it is the traditional model that CPD providers are used to providing! Stein et al. (1999) argue that what professional developers need is ‘more akin to a transformation than to tinkering around the edges of their practice' (p. 256) and they cite examples of new practices that will be required such as:

• the ability to develop 'self-sustaining learning communities' in schools rather than developing individual teachers;
• the need to base development on theories of teacher learning;
• the importance and relevance of individual school contexts, and
• the need for professional developers to take greater responsibility for the outcomes of their development activities. (p. 257).

In particular the final bullet point is revealing. If professional developers are to take more responsibility for their provision and its impact upon pupil learning, they will need to work with better models of teacher development and find better methods of working with teachers to evaluate that impact. In order to do this, Guskey (2002, p. 388-396) suggests that professional developers will need to recognise that change is a gradual and difficult process for teachers, ensure that teachers receive regular feedback on student learning progress, and provide continued follow-up and support. Inevitably, this requires a major shift in the traditional model of CPD provision and it has both pedagogical and financial implications. Yet, if enhanced pupil learning is the ultimate goal of CPD, it may be that we need ‘imagination…a matter of keeping open what we can imagine as possibility' (Greene, 2001, p.10/11) in order to achieve it.

2. Changing school structures

If CPD providers could be persuaded to change their practices to promote school-based collaborative learning amongst teachers, then schools would need to change too. Darling-Hammond, and McLauglin (1995, p. 598) argue that ‘teachers learn by doing, reading and reflecting (just as students do); by collaborating with other teachers, by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing what they see', yet schools largely prevent such learning. Hence they suggest that a vital step in providing more effective CPD is to address school policy and structural barriers to collaborative professional learning. In order to do this, Brandt (2003) provides a checklist against which teachers can rate their schools as ‘learning organisations' including the requirement for schools to have ‘supportive organisational cultures' to enable collaboration and openness. However, as Stokes (2001) comments, few schools support teachers to work together in this way. Similarly, Newmann (1994, p.2) describes ‘formidable obstacles to the development of clear, shared purpose, collective responsibility and collaboration' and Mayer et al (2003) found that lack of time and opportunity for teachers to work together was a recurring problem. The teachers in the PE-CPD study in England agreed:

Yet, unless school structures are designed to accommodate the situated learning needs of teachers, then they are acting as barriers to effective teacher learning and, ultimately, pupil learning too.

3. Changing PE teachers' expectations

There are also issues centring on PE teachers themselves: their readiness to learn (linked to career stage/aspirations), their beliefs about what constitutes real (legitimate/authentic) PE-CPD, and their willingness to take the lead in professional learning. For example, if school-based PLCs are to become a valued learning framework for PE-CPD, and if the development of formal and informal learning networks is to be encouraged and supported, then working with a group of like-minded professional colleagues is a basic requirement. But whereas some teachers appear to be tireless in their time and commitment to teaching, others are less committed, and yet others are committed but feel a need to draw some boundaries and retain a life outside teaching. The establishment of successful PLCs within PE departments will need to recognise this range; simply expecting all teachers to give ‘more' is not the way forward:

The time pressures many of the case study teachers felt and expressed must be acknowledged; and it seems clear that the way forward for professional development is to develop a model that reduces – rather than increases – such pressures. At the moment external CPD is ‘bolted on' to the task of teaching and to school structures and processes – and that is a fundamental problem.

Finally, PE teachers need to have more confidence in themselves, their judgement and their capabilities. From the strength of a PLC they should be demanding more appropriate forms and levels of CPD in the interests of the learning needs of themselves and their pupils (which might, of course, include attendance at selected external ‘courses', or the buying-in of external advice and expertise). This teacher is able and motivated, and is entitled therefore to be challenged by progressive and coherent CPD:

It is ironic that a profession called ‘education' has failed to base teachers' professional development structures and processes on best knowledge about learning . As Guskey (2002) argues, we need to revise our understandings of how and why teachers change; and rather than attempting to change teachers' attitudes and beliefs in order to persuade them to change their practice, we need to recognise that ‘significant change in teachers' attitudes and beliefs occurs primarily after they gain evidence of improvements in student learning' (p. 383). The value of working in school-based and collaborative frameworks is clearly signalled and this is supported both by theoretical and empirical evidence. We would certainly conclude that CPD provision needs to be turned on its head, with PE teachers leading from their professional learning communities so that they can stand in a different relationship to CPD knowledge (becoming initiators and drivers), thus producing different types of knowledge in the interests of the learning needs of their particular pupils. This would appear to represent the essence of CPD in that is it Continuous, Professional (involves working closely with professional colleagues) and results in Development (offering limitless opportunities for progressive and relevant learning).

ARMOUR, K. M. & YELLING, M.R. (2004a). Continuing professional development for experienced physical education teachers: Towards effective provision. Sport, Education & Society. 9, 1, 95-114

ARMOUR, K.M. & YELLING, M.R. (2004b). Professional development and professional learning: bridging the gap for experienced physical education teachers. European Physical Education Review. 10, 1, 71-94

ARMOUR, K.M. & YELLING, M.R. (2003). Physical education departments as learning organisations: the foundation for effective professional development.Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Annual Conference, Edinburgh, September.

ARMOUR, K.M. & JONES, R.L (1998 ) Physical Education Teachers' Lives and Careers. London, Falmer Press.

BRANDT, R. (2003) Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development. 24, 1. http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brandt241.cfm

DARLING-HAMMOND, L. AND MCLAUGHLIN, M.W. (1995) Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta KAPPAN , 76, 8. pp.597-604.

DAY C. (1999) Developing Teachers: The Challenges of Lifelong Learning. ( London, Falmer Press).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (2001) Learning and Teaching. A strategy for professional development (Nottingham, DfEE publications).

DOWLING NAESS, F.J. (1996) Life events and curriculum change: The life history of a Norwegian educator, European Physical Education Review , 2, 1, pp. 41-53.

GARET, S. M., C. A. PORTER,. DESIMONE, L., BIRMAN, B.F., AND SUK YOON, K. (2001) What makes professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers. American Educational Research Journal , 38, 4, pp. 915-945.

GREENE, M. (2001) Educational purposes and teacher development. In A. LIEBERMAN & L. MILLER. Teachers Caught in the Action. Professional Development that Matters. (New York, Teachers College) pp. 3-11.

GUSKEY, T (2003) ‘An Analysis of Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development'. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 21 st –25 th .

GUSKEY, T. R. (2002) Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 8, 3/4, pp. 381-391.

GUSKEY, T. & SPARKS, D. (2002) Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association , New Orleans, LA, April.

LAVE, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

MAYER, D., MITCHELL, J., MACDONALD, D., LAND, A. and LUKE. A. (2003) From personal reflection to professional community . Education Queensland. Professional Standards for Teachers. Evaluation of the 2002 pilot. State of Queensland. Department of Education.
http://education.qld.gov.au/learning_ent/ldf/pdfs/standards/pilot-eval2002.pdf

MOREIRA, H. SPARKES, A.C. AND FOX, K. (1995) Physical education teachers and job commitment: A preliminary analysis, European Physical Education Review, 1, 2, pp.122-36.

MOREIRA, H., FOX, K. & SPARKES, A.C. (2002) Job motivation profiles of physical educators: Theoretical background and instrument development. British Educational Research Journal . 28, 6, pp. 845-862.

National Foundation for Educational Research (2001) Continuing professional development: LEA and school support for teachers. By BROWN, S, EDMONDS, S AND LEE, B. LGA education research programme (Slough, UK. NFER).

National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT) (1998) Improving professional Development: Eight Research-based Principles , http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/npeat/

NEWMANN, F. M. (1994) School-wide Professional Community. Issues in restructuring schools. Issue Report 6. Spring, pp. 1-2. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Wisconsin Center for Education Research. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archives/completed/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/

PISSANOS, B.W. & ALLISON, P.C. (1996) Continued professional learning: A topical life history, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 16, pp. 2-19.

REYNOLDS, D. & TEDDLIE, C. WITH HOPKINS, D. & STRINGFIELD, S. (2000) Linking school effectiveness and school improvement, in C. TEDDLIE & D. REYNOLDS (Eds) The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, ( London, Falmer Press) pp. 206-231

SCHEMPP, P.G. (1993) Constructing Professional Knowledge: A Case study of an Experienced High School Teacher, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 13, pp. 2-23.

SPARKS, D. (2002) Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. National Staff Development Council, Oxford, OH. USA. Available at http://www.nsdc.org/library/leaders/sparksbook.cfm

STEIN, M., SMITH, M. AND SILVER, E. (1999) The development of professional developers: learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways, Harvard Educational Review , 69, 3, pp. 237-269.

STOKES, L. (2001) Lessons from an inquiring school: Forms of inquiry and conditions for teacher learning. In A. LIEBERMAN & L. MILLER. Teachers Caught in the Action. Professional Development that Matters. (New York, Teachers College) pp. 141-158.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, Trans.). (London: Harvard University Press).

WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

1. Is professional development for PE teachers in your country designed to enable teachers to engage in sustained, career-long, progressive and coherent learning?

2. If not, why not and, in your view, what are the implications for teacher and pupil learning?

3. If you agree with any of the suggestions made in this paper, can you identify practical steps that can be taken to make them a reality?

First copy the above questions ( you'll paste them into the reply form of the discussion forum) and then ...

Just click onto this link

March 2005 - Dr. Corinne M. Daprano & Dr. Peter J. Titlebaum will start with a new article.

Have a good discussion, 

co-ordinator 

Guy Van Damme