How Good Is Workforce Development Revised

Downloaded from

EFFECTIVE CPD

A summary of research evidence

There is a sizeable amount of research on effective CPD. This resource aims to be a regularly-updated one covering some of the findings from surveys and research. The summary of research evidence is arranged alphabetically.

ADULT LEARNING:

A survey of 5000 adults carried out in early 2004 by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education/Leicester University (“Soft Structures, Hard Outcomes”) revealed that 1 in 4 adults believed that training courses were of little or no value. Instead they found that doing the job was most useful, being shown techniques by colleagues, engaging in active reflection and active observation. 90% stated that they had picked up most of their skills via on-the-job experience. 93% said they performed better if they had help to find their own ways of working. More than half said the internet was of not help and two thirds said study leave was not very important.

BEST PRACTICE RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIPS: IMPACT:

A DfES commissioned evaluation by Furlong, Salisbury and Coombes (2003) of this initiative giving £3000 scholarships for school-based research completed over a year. 100 teachers were involved in the evaluation. In all schools teachers and senior colleagues felt it was a valuable form of professional development especially in terms of confidence, increased knowledge, better reflection and a greater knowledge of their own professional learning. Many examples showed a wider benefit but much of the evidence on impact was “soft”.

COLLABORATIVE CPD:

A NUT/EPPI Research Review investigated the benefit of collaborative CPD for teachers of the 5-16 age range. Research showed:

positive links with teacher:
self-efficacy and self-esteem;
willingness and ability to change practice; enthusiasm and motivation;
knowledge and understanding;
repertoire of strategies able to meet students’ needs;
interest in continuing CXPD.

positive links with student:
motivation;
performance;
responses to specific subjects;
better organisation of work;
increased questioning skills and responses;
wider range of learning activities.

CPD with positive outcomes:

use of external expertise linked to school-based activity;
observation and feedback focused on teachers’ learning targets;
emphasis on peer support rather than supervisory leadership;
scope for teachers to identify own CPD focus within overall frameworks – teacher ownership and not an over-managerial approach;
processes to encourage, extend and structure professional dialogue;
processes for sustaining CPD over time to embed practices in own classrooms.

Other issues:

effective CPD builds on what the teacher already knows, believes or can already do;
a priority is collaboration – peer coaching skills – coaching grounded in classroom observation and sustained support;
need to build an internal peer coaching platform;
no one element works on its own – programmes involve complex relationships;
collaborative CPD can aid recruitment and retention if organised on a collaborative and sustained basis;
CPD often fails to take full account of the specific needs and concerns of teachers;

Coaching needs to include arrangements for:

developing internal peer support to complement specialist external inputs over time so that new approaches can be adapted;
sustain experimentation and integrate practice incrementally into existing approaches;
create a distinctive space where it is safe to admit need;
the potential for collaboration between teachers to leads to collaborative ways of pupil learning.

CPD providers could better:

respond specifically to the needs of teachers at different stages of development;
encourage and support in-school coaching;
provide specialist input;
sustain efforts over time;
best practice can be better developed as a learning process embedding it in CPD activities to meet the needs of learners;

EPPI also carried out a systematic review of literature on teachers working together on a sustained basis and/or working with an LEA/HEI or other professional colleagues. Impact was found to be considerable. 11 research projects were examined co-ordinated by Philippa Cordingley, most research, however, taking place in the USA.

teachers expressed a clear preference for this method – reporting increased confidence, enhanced beliefs in their powers to make a difference, enthusiasm and increased commitment to change and other positive behaviours although often following initial discomfort and there were often unintended outcomes;
students – some evidence on motivation, better test results, responses to specific subjects, better organisation of work and more sophistication in response to questions as well as some unplanned ones such as changed attitudes, satisfaction with work, active participation;
CPD processes – positive outcomes emerged from use of external expertise, observation, feedback, peer support, processes to encourage, extend and structure professional dialogue, sustaining CPD to embed practices in classroom settings, teacher time and interventions designed to take account of what teachers knew and could already do. Less widespread was the use of action research, research literature and paid non-contact time.

Overall there is evidence that CPD strategies should focus on collaborative CPD on a sustained basis, building g on what teachers already know and coaching. However, at least 12 weeks collaboration was needed to have any real impact on learning.

CPD IMPACT: DfES PROJECT led by ALMA HARRIS, CHRIS DAY AND JANET GOODALL

The type of CPD most appreciated included secondment/sabbaticals; inset days; mentoring/critical friendships; informal networking; a series of workshops; classroom observation; accredited programmes; coaching; extended training programmes; demonstration lessons and practitioner research. Least appreciated were demonstration videos.

CPD IMPACT: BIRMINGHAM RESEARCH:

The Birmingham School Effectiveness Division were involved in a research project related to how schools evaluate the impact of their CPD. The research also involved Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton LEAs and targeted 27 secondary, 9 primary and 2 nursery schools. The following were some of the main conclusions:

most schools take their targets as a starting point for CPD planning but in only a minority of schools were the links between whole school priorities and CPD very precise. There is a lack of clarity about the relationship between strategic priorities and CPD activities needed to support these, partly related to the lack of precision with teaching and learning improvement targets;
performance management objectives must include at least one whole school one in a third of secondary schools but overall there is no uniform approach to linking PM objectives to whole school priorities;
very few schools require teachers to record their “learning” and reflect critically on training to their personal development;
the CPD co-ordinator is part of the leadership team in two thirds of secondary schools and, in half of primary schools, it is the headteacher. In a small number of secondary schools, the CPD programme is directed by a School Improvement Group but they are not systematically involved in whole-school monitoring and evaluation;
pupils and parents views are taken but largely in a generalised form, eg. about the school rather than priorities;
in very few schools was the training programme differentiated to meet the needs of different staff knowledge, skills and understanding;
schools claimed to base needs either on an audit or monitoring and evaluation but the approach often lacked rigour and an overall strategy;
few schools were specific about specific changes they expected to see. Success criteria are couched in very general terms such as “raised attainment”, “independent learning”;
most saw CPD in “traditional” terms such as whole staff training days, courses – a few schools though had some twilight follow up sessions. Staff delivered training often followed the attendance by that person at a course, ie. a cascade model. There was a tendency to move towards more in-house training. Few schools could explain why a particular form of CPD had been selected as the most appropriate way of meeting need;
other forms of training cited included collaborative planning, teaching and evaluation; coaching, mentoring and action research although these tended to be far from widespread and often used to support struggling or inexperienced staff. Only a quarter of those in secondary schools and half in primaries saw coaching as a significant part of CPD and even here there was inconsistency in the use of the terminology;
the move to a more sustained, coherent, enquiry based approach to CPD as advocated by experts such as Stoll and Fink seems more developed in primary than secondary schools with the latter relying more on traditional forms;
two thirds of secondary respondents and half of primary felt that effectiveness would relate to longer term impact on classroom practice – and would be judged by observations by senior colleagues. Many others expected a link with standards as evidenced by work scrutiny and data;
many used evaluation questionnaires to gauge immediate feedback; a few also used “staff discussion”;
not all CPD co-ordinators are involved in whole school monitoring and evaluation;
there are few opportunities for teachers to practice newly-acquired skills, eg. working with and from other teachers so that practice is shared. Most teachers continue to work in isolation from each other except possibly for planning.

CPD IMPACT: RESEARCH OF DAVIES AND PRESTON (2002).

The main conclusions, published in the “Journal of In-Service Education”, 28, and derived from questionnaires to MA Ed students (45 in total) indicated a positive impact on subject knowledge, teaching competence and confidence, management styles, promotion prospects and to a lesser extent children’s performance and relationships. Surprisingly 47% felt stress levels had increased (yet this may be affected by many having to fund themselves) but confidence was increased for 84% respondents. The impact on personal lives was more varied.

CPD IMPACT: RESEARCH OF FLECKNOE (2000):

Based on LeedsMetropolitanUniversity and done on behalf of the TTA and published in the “Journal of In-Service Education”, 26. More than 80% of the sample reported positive experiences especially in terms of pupil attitude, achievement and on the teaching staff but it was inconclusive as to whether all teachers benefit. Non-contact time is a crucial factor in success.

CPD IMPACT: RESEARCH OF HARLAND AND KINDER:

In the British Journal of In-Service Education, 23/1, Harland and Kinder suggest a hierarchy consisting of three orders of outcome – the third order involves acquisition of new information and encouraging new awareness is least likely to affect classroom practice while first-order such as attending inset may affect things substantially.

CPD IMPACT: RESEARCH OF HUSTLER, McNAMARA, LONDRA AND CAMPBELL (2003):

This focused on 2500 teacher perceptions It was commissioned by the DfES. Most felt that CPD increased learning and standards and benefited them personally in terms of teaching skills, desire to learn more with least impact on promotion prospects. The main findings comprised:

CPD cultures vary across and within schools with some effective CPD learning communities;
Most are satisfied with their CPD over last 5 years;
Most appreciated were perceived relevance and applicability;
Criticism of “one size all standardised CPD”, eg. NOF ICT;
Much was school-led and focused on teaching skills and subject knowledge;
Little involvement in research, award bearing, secondments, international but these were highly valued;
Traditional notions of CPD - courses and INSET days;
Important inhibitors were finance, travel and workload (especially for older teachers);
Principal drivers seen as SDP and national priorities;
Most want a balance between system and individual needs. Latter now needs higher priority;
Attitudes tend to be shaped by complex relationships between local structural and cultural factors, their career stage, age and subject;
Clear differences exist between younger/early career and older/later career. Latter less focused on individual needs;
Dissatisfaction that particular subject interests were never “centre stage”;
Positive attitudes associated with a sense of career progression.
The status, knowledge and approach of the CPD co-ordinator (and SMT) could radically affect teachers’ attitudes;
CPD co-ordinator role was crucial and often underdeveloped.

Overall identified priorities:

CPD needs more effective marketing in schools;
Mid and later career teachers need to be focused;
Needs more professional control, self regulation and choice;
Many heads and CPD co-ordinators need CPD on CPD;
Problem with small, geographically isolated schools;
Schools need to improve needs identification;
More resources for CPD need to be ring-fenced for personal/individual CPD;
Serious attention needs giving to effective CPD evaluation – not just system level targets.

CPD: MEDIOCRITY:

The large CPD industry was rather taken back with a report from Sandra Leaton Gray from CambridgeUniversity. She felt that much was of poor quality with much profiteering by private companies. She also criticised inadequate resourcing and the failure to ring fence cash for professional development. Some schools spend less than £600 and even the higher spenders are let down by cowboy trainers. The research used evidence from 181 teachers. She concluded “two thirds of the continuing professional development teachers get is probably rubbish”. Some courses had the same content but appeared with different titles and intended audiences. She was more complimentary about training from local authorities, trade unions and subject associations. The worst tended to be “one man band operations, set up in a spare bedroom and touting themselves as consultants”. Dr Leaton Gray condemned the largely-unregulated market but felt that more money was needed and providing an entitlement for each teacher having a set amount of professional development in their contracts. Contact:

CPD PREFERRED METHODS:

According to a GTC survey, 83% respondents claimed that working with colleagues was their main form of CPD.

CPD AND SABBATICALS:

The £6000 bursary for teacher sabbaticals ended in July 2004. However, a NFER survey of 130 teachers who had sabbaticals indicates that considerable benefit was derived. The sabbaticals ranged widely – from teaching and learning to management. Both headteachers and participants were enthusiastic. Most frequently-cited benefits included improved confidence, motivation and self-esteem; increased skills and knowledge and changed practice by the teacher and the wider school institution. The opportunity to “think outside the box” was highly valued. Of interest to the CPD world was the finding that developing the individual teacher frequently went hand in hand with the delivery of school improvement plans.

EARLY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT including NEWLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS:

A survey from the GTC and completed by 4000 teachers in 2005 revealed:

88% early development teachers view their career development in terms of improving their teaching skills;
only 45% saw themselves taking on management responsibilities as the next stage of their career;
only 4% envisage headship within 5 years;
in contrast more than 10% intend leaving the profession and 13% want part-time work within the next 5 years;

the most popular form of CPD is collaborative learning with colleagues;
over 80% have attended external courses;
82% want more opportunity to observe lessons;
two thirds have approached their subject specialist associations;
only 23% claim to have been supported by a mentor or coach in the last 12 months;
83% felt that their training needs had been met with the main gap identified as motivating under-achieving pupils followed by thinking skills and gifted and talented;
the factors identified as making CPD integral to their development were understanding individual needs; supply cover for training during teaching time; support from senior managers and access to high-quality CPD within the local authority.

A formal evaluation of the DFES pilot was carried by Moor, Halsey, Johnson, Stott and Harland as a NFER project. The interim report analysed 358 primary and 130 secondary schools as well as more detailed case studies. It demonstrated an impressive 75% positive impact with 61% seeing a significant impact. The main impacts were an enhanced willingness to undertake professional development, understanding of what constitutes good practice, teaching practice, contribution to colleagues and school and an enhanced commitment to teaching as a career. Half also commented on improved morale and confidence. Particularly valued were courses open to all and observing practitioners at work. Ironically those aimed specifically at EPD had low ratings. Mentoring was also viewed positively especially where mentors had been well trained. EPD teachers felt they could make a positive impact on their colleagues and schools. The most successful approach was a non-centralised one.

Essex, produced “Early Career Continuing Professional Development” based on the work done on EPD as part of their GTC project. The emphasis was on:

the relationship between the professional learning of teachers and that of pupils;
the need to value and develop teachers in their early career;
the added value of schools working in consortia.

The project involved 21 schools working in 8 consortia and involved 120 early career teachers, each consortia having 10-24 supply days to facilitate the provision of CPD opportunities.

Amongst the activities were:

an audit of CPD needs and current provision in each consortia;
preparing an activity plan to meet the identified CPD needs of early career teachers;
networking with other LEAs;
10 teachers through TIPD visited Canada.

Significant outcomes included:

the value of working collaboratively with other schools;
the value of early career teachers working with more experienced colleagues;
the value of observing lessons in other schools;
senior colleagues benefited from collaborative work and sharing and leading on aspects.

Their recommendations included:

teachers should be allowed to identify their own needs and integrate this with performance review;
schools need a plan for the delivery of CPD needs of individuals within a clear timeline;
a broad and flexible view is needed of possible CPD activities accessing the range available;
collaboration is crucial especially in primary schools, smaller departments;
the CPD co-ordinator role needs clear definition;
partnership work needs proper management to organise, sustain and address resource issues;
there are real benefits in a CPD entitlement;
early career teachers need some opportunities to develop leadership and management skills and there should be continued mentoring support.

EFFECTIVE CPD: