Therenow:

thereNow's Ongoing Professional Development Research

In September of 2004, thereNow and Spectrum Education Group helped Weber School District in Ogden, Utah to obtain funding from the U.S. Department of Education to conduct research on teacher professional development.

See the Department of Education's announcement of thereNow's research in 'The Education Innovator', Number 29.
The research project was lead by Dr. Shawn Edmondson, president of thereNow, and is documented in-full in his doctoral dissertation, which can be downloaded here as a PDF document. A brief description of the research can be found below.

thereNow conducted an experimental research study funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement. During the study, a mathematics expert in Denver, Colorado coached teachers at Weber County School Districts’ Pioneer Elementary in Utah using advanced telepresence equipment, pictured below. The research investigated the effectiveness of a coaching model of mathematics professional development but also focused on the development of comprehensive formative and summative evaluation methods to measure progress of the teachers.

The Telepresence Center presents a life-size image and mutual eye gaze.

A teacher in Utah receives coaching from an expert located in Denver using the Telepresence Center

Rachel McAnallen, a mathematics expert in Denver, models teaching for a teacher in Utah in that teacher's classroom

Rachel McAnallen, a mathematics expert in Denver, models teaching for a teacher in Utah in that teacher's classroom using the Virtual Teacher (VT). The VT allows Rachel to appear as a "holographic" image in the classroom.

Teachers at the experimental and the comparison schools received an initial workshop of the standard sort introducing the expert’s views and recommended methods; teachers in the comparison group also received a follow-up workshop to balance time-of-treatment.

Outcomes from the pilot study are encouraging both with respect to teachers’ enactment of concepts the coach presented and, on the strength of preliminary data, with respect to student outcomes. To wit:

Teachers became more proficient (in terms of enactment) with professional development content delivered via telepresence-enabled coaching than teachers who received the same content delivered via the traditional workshop model. For instance, 60% of teachers in the experimental group exceeded a “routine” level of enactment (e.g. “refinement” and “integration”); 100% of teachers in the comparison group fell short of exceeding “routine” enactment. Differences between these two groups were apparent even though the teachers in the telepresence-enabled coaching group received only eight hours of coaching whereas the teachers in the comparison group received more than twelve hours of workshops.
The students of teachers receiving professional development content delivered via telepresence-enabled coaching scored significantly higher on a content test than students of teachers who received the same content delivered via the traditional workshop model. The difference between the groups’ scores was statistically significant and dramatic: p < .0001, d = 1.72. Only 5% of students in the traditional workshop group passed the content test. 72% of the students in the telepresence-enabled coaching group passed the content test. Because of the expert, individualized, classroom-based instruction delivered to teachers via telepresence-enabled coaching, more of their students were able to master the material more quickly.
The telepresence equipment operated flawlessly throughout the pilot project. Project staff and participants reported no user difficulties, equipment downtime, or technical failures. At no point were project activities—most significantly, interaction among the telepresent coach, teachers, and their students—impeded in any way by technical issues of any kind.

The Rationale: Why Telepresence-Enabled Coaching?

Teacher professional development (PD) programs are only effective if teachers adopt the strategies advocated by the programs. Research shows that traditional teacher PD does not support enactment, i.e. teachers’ transfer of new skills and strategies into classroom practice (Hawley & Valli, 1999).*

According to many researchers, the problem lies in these programs’ approach. Traditional teacher PD often takes the form of brief “drive-by workshops” (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Teachers say that these workshops leave them ill-equipped to enact what they learned (Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991; Mullens, Leighton, Laguarda, & O’Brien, 1996; Lewis, Parsad, Carey, Bartfai, Farris, & Smerdon, 1999; Klingner, 2004; Rebora, 2004).

Research confirms teachers’ impressions. Joyce & Showers (2002) put the activities that comprise teacher professional development into four categories: (1)study of theory, (2) demonstrations of skills, (3) practice of skills, and (4) classroom-based coaching.

Based on empirical research and their well-founded professional judgment, Joyce and Showers (2002) emphasize a critical finding: in terms of the percentage of participants demonstrating specific outcomes, workshops that provide only the study of theory result in no enactment (0%). Workshops that add demonstrations result in no enactment (0%). Workshops that add practice of skills result in little enactment (5%). Only when classroom-based coaching is added is there significant enactment (95%). In other words, enactment is minimal for what is often considered high-powered teacher professional development, where presentations, discussion, demonstrations, and practice sessions are included.

The implication of this body of research is clear: classroom-based coaching is necessary for teachers to enact new knowledge and skills. Without enactment of research-based reading strategies, for instance, there is no logical reason to expect that student reading achievement will increase as a result of professional development activities (Shaver, 1983).

As demonstrated by Joyce & Showers, coaching is the most critical component of staff development activities with reference to “transfer” or enactment. The literature demands further empirical research to establish a firm link between coaching and improved student outcomes. In a report to the Aspen Institute Program on Education and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Neufeld & Roper (2003) state: “No one, as yet, has proven that coaching contributes significantly to increased student achievement.”

Of what, then, does “coaching” consist?

First and foremost, coaches establish vibrant, site-based communities of practice within which teachers can learn and grow. According to Hord (1997), “…Teachers who felt supported in their own ongoing learning and classroom practice were more committed and effective than those who did not receive such confirmation… [and] teachers with a high sense of their own efficacy were more likely to adopt new classroom behaviors….”

In general terms, Neufeld & Roper (2003) indicate that coaches (1) help teachers transfer what they learn about new practices to their classrooms and (2) establish an environment in which teachers strive to improve practice without fear of criticism or evaluation. More specifically, they:

Work with teachers to plan, implement lessons.
Work with some content-area teachers to hone specific strategies.
Develop / find materials, other curriculum resources.
Work with new teachers on new teacher issues as well as other instructional strategies.
Encourage teachers to talk about their practice with them and with one another
Observe classes; provide written, oral feedback after observations
Provide demonstration lessons

Coaching is not, of course, sufficient in itself: rather, it is a critical but oft-neglected component of a complete staff development program. Why has it been neglected? Traditionally, coaching has been delivered in one of two ways (peer coaching or full-time, in-house coaching), each to some degree unsatisfactory. thereNow has developed a third approach (telepresence-enabled coaching) that addresses the shortcomings of both incumbent models.

Incumbent model #1: Peer coaching

“Peer coaching,” the practice of training teachers to coach one another, is a common and relatively inexpensive strategy schools have used to furnish staff development programs with a coaching component. Though several studies indicate that peer coaching can be effective under certain circumstances, the approach is not without liabilities. According to Wong & Nicotera (2003):

"The problems that may result from a peer coaching program… occur in many school reform programs: insufficient training, limited resources, and lack of evaluation. Research on peer coaching cites the need for quality training for the coaches to develop an effective professional development program (Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Holloway, 2001; Perkins, 1998)."

To achieve a measure of success, peer coaching programs necessitate the large-scale restructuring of schools’ learning and administrative environments. The researchers continue:

"Many schools and districts have limited access to funds for professional development. In peer coaching programs, teachers often leave their classrooms to observe another teacher, which may require a substitute teacher. Additionally, time is required for collaborative planning and development of lesson plans. These are resource and logistics issues that the administration must solve through reallocation and restructuring of the school to ensure an effective program."

When the authors conclude that—perhaps—the benefits of peer coaching are not worth the costs, noting that “…the quality of the [coaching] assistance is critical, and… it is better to offer no assistance than poor or inappropriate assistance,” they are essentially endorsing the proposition that pedagogy (the practice of teaching children) and androgogy (the practice of teaching adults) are fundamentally different disciplines. Outstanding pedagogues are not necessarily—or even commonly—equally skilled androgogues.

A qualified coach, in other words, is a rare animal; he or she must be the master of a pair of divergent and demanding skill-sets.

Incumbent model #2: Full-time, in-house coaches

Given the limitations of peer coaching, many districts have opted instead to hire full-time, in-house coaches to serve their teachers. Experience and the literature identify drawbacks to this approach that can be classified under two headings: (1) feasibility and (2) scalability.

Feasibility

As a practical matter, it is both difficult and expensive to locate, recruit, and hire individuals qualified to fill full-time coaching positions. Nearly half (41%) of America’s schools are located in small towns and rural areas (NCES, 2002). Administrators over these schools—and many urban schools—are finding it difficult even to recruit qualified teachers: certified teachers either are not to be found or will not consent to work in these areas for the wages offered. Recruiting and affording better-qualified and better-paid coaches to work in these areas is a far more challenging—even impossible—proposition.

The scarcity problem is hardly limited to schools in rural and urban areas, though. Forces including rising enrollment, frustration with “the system,” planned retirement (on the rise as a result of a steadily aging teacher population), federal requirements for “highly qualified teachers,” initiatives that espouse reduced class-sizes, and the pressures associated with high-stakes testing have combined to exacerbate the issue of teacher supply and demand in schools nationwide. The result, according to researchers: “There is reason to believe that a teaching shortage will exist during the next six years (Bracey & Molnar, 2003).” In the face of such a shortage, hiring qualified coaches will undoubtedly grow more difficult still.

Furthermore, qualified coaches are specialists: they are likely to have expertise only in a given subject-area as applied to a limited selection of grade-levels. While a district might well be able to afford a single, full-time coach, that coach could provide services only to teachers in their area and level of specialty. To best serve all of their teachers, a district would need to recruit and hire a diverse cadre of coaches.

And finding coaches is only half the battle. Once hired, they must receive ongoing staff development ensuring that their skills and knowledge keep pace with the best new research in their subject-area and in both child and adult education. Providing the specialized support coaches need is a further financial burden on already cash-strapped school districts. Even those that can afford to pay face practical challenges: who can provide the specific training coaches need, and where are these individuals to be found?

Scalability

Given that coaches require perhaps a full day of preparation and professional development time each week and that the vast majority of their work with teachers on the other four days must take place during school hours, a coach can only serve a limited number of teachers. Moreover, experts assert that coaches should not attempt to split their time between coaching and classroom teaching (Neufeld & Roper, 2003)—implying that districts should only acquire coaches in full-coach increments. A district whose teachers require 1.2 coaches’-worth of coaching services, in other words, should hire two coaches to meet the need. One or both of these would then exist as underutilized resources, a luxury most schools cannot afford.

This consideration introduces a broader problem facing districts that hire full-time, in-house coaches. Coaching is essentially individualized, differentiated instruction. Because teachers’ experience, natural abilities, and needs differ, some will require more attention in given areas than others. On the district level, the aggregated needs of the teacher population will dictate how many coaches are required, and in what areas of expertise.

Such “needs profiles” are naturally anything but stable. As teachers retire and new ones are hired, as individual teachers learn and develop, as students and their unique demands come and go, and as curricular emphases change, so will the needs profile. Very effective coaches, as they succeed in transforming teachers’ classroom practice, will essentially coach themselves out of a job: the need for coaching in their area of expertise will diminish to the point where the district can no longer justify their employment—at least in the short term. In summary, delivering coaching solely through full-time, in-house coaches suits only the largest and wealthiest districts: given the difficulty of finding qualified individuals in the first place, to “lay off” and “lay in” coaches as teacher-need ebbs and flows is neither practical nor desirable for the rest.

New model: Telepresence-enabled coaching

The research described above has demonstrated the potential efficacy of a third approach to coaching: a new professional development delivery method that makes use of telepresence—as facilitated by carefully selected commercial-grade videoconferencing equipment—to connect teachers with expert, outsourced coaches. The model retains the advantages of coaching as delivered through either of the incumbent models while addressing their weaknesses (quality, feasibility, scalability).

Telepresence

Although an uncommon term, “telepresence” is neither new nor particularly exotic—nor is the equipment required to facilitate it. According to Steuer (1992), if presence is defined as “the sense of being in an environment,” then telepresence is “the experience of presence in an environment by means of a communication medium.” The relevant literature describes “degrees” of telepresence, recognizing that “presence” can be thought of in terms of a number of distinct facets related to the individual senses—sight, sound, etc.—and that each facet can be represented by various communication media with more or less fidelity to real life. The telephone, for example, represents the “sound” facet of presence quite well and “sight” rather poorly. To Steuer, telepresence is a function of two dimensions: “vividness” and “interactivity”:

Vividness means the representational richness of a mediated environment as defined by its formal features, that is, the way in which an environment presents information.
Interactivity is defined as the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of the mediated environment in real time.

Media like books and newspapers are neither very vivid nor very interactive. Online chat forums and walkie-talkies are highly interactive but minimally vivid. High-definition movies and amusement-park rides like Disney’s “Star Tours” are incredibly vivid, but not very interactive. The virtues of a medium in terms of vividness and interactivity does not make it, in an absolute sense, “better” or “worse” than another medium. These dimensions, however, are important considerations when selecting a medium to facilitate telepresence for a given task. And given its importance and highly interpersonal nature, coaching requires a medium that is both as vivid and as interactive as possible. Minimally, the medium in question must support model-teaching by coaches, observation by coaches of teachers, and intimate follow-up conversations.

Only lately has a relatively mainstream medium—commercial-grade videoconferencing—attained levels of both vividness and interactivity required to create telepresence rich enough show promise as a delivery means for coaching. Early videoconferencing showed promise on which it largely failed to deliver. Images were grainy, small, and choppy; sound was distorted, stuttering, and half-duplexed (i.e. only one party in a conversation could speak at any given time; no cross-talk). Though reasonably interactive, early videoconferences were certainly not vivid.

Fault for these problems lay both with the equipment (cameras, images, speakers, and processors) and the connectivity (bandwidth). Recent significant advancements in both areas have finally prepared videoconferencing to deliver a degree of telepresence supportive of coaching. On the equipment front, processors and cameras like those in Sony’s high-end G-series capture and compress high-definition (HD) images and sounds while HD monitors present these vividly and in life-size. Full duplexing allows for the natural cross-talk that characterizes face-to-face conversations. Careful engineering has resulted in “plug-and-play” simplicity and “chalkboard” reliability for this equipment. Considering connectivity, the advent and wide proliferation of Internet2 (the “Abilene” network) offers schools simply massive quantities of bandwidth. What is lacking now is not pipeline-space, but worthwhile applications for this new and potentially revolutionary resource. Telepresence-enabled coaching is such an application.

Outsourcing

Truth be told, schools already “outsource” (for lack of a better term) much—if not most—of their professional development programming. Universities, expert national consultants like Jay McTighe and Michael Fullan, and online course providers like Teachscape, Annenberg CPB, and the School Improvement Network provide the lion’s share of staff development to teachers in schools across the nation. Why? The U.S. Department of Education (2000) states that “districts do not have the infrastructure to be able to manage and implement effective professional development.” Further, schools recognize that outsourcing has many benefits. Conventional wisdom in the business world (equally applicable to education) prescribes that organizations should outsource tasks of several sorts:

Those that are not central to an organization’s competitive success: For schools, “competitive success” is increasingly defined in terms of student outcomes, not teacher knowledge or skills, per se—although these certainly contribute to student outcomes in no small way.
Those that are routine and demanding of valuable time, resources, and energy: As previously discussed, professional development in general and coaching specifically fit this description.
Those that are temporary, occur in cycles, or are in fluctuating demand: Given the instability of district’s teachers’ aggregate “needs profiles” (see p.4), coaching answers this description.
Those that are better or cheaper done externally than in-house: As evidenced by the high degree of outsourcing already taking place, schools recognize that external organizations bring to the table essential expertise, resources, and perspectives that are not and should not be cultivated or held within a district. K-12 schools exist to educate students, not teachers.
Those that are so specialized and exacting in nature that it is impractical to have a regular employee do them: Much of staff development answers this description. High-quality staff development considers the latest research in specific subject-areas, in pedagogy, and in androgogy. While district administrators can and should play an active, guiding role in staff development, they cannot possibly develop or maintain mastery of so many diverse subjects.

Providers

The telepresence-enabled coaching method thereNow has developed could be adopted by the same expert national consultants and universities who presently deliver “drive-by” workshops—to the mutual benefit of both the consultants and the schools they serve.

For consultants, the model could greatly reduce their need to travel. Most consultants presently operate at perhaps 60% efficiency—they must travel two days (one out, one back) for every three they spend teaching teachers—and set the hourly price on their time accordingly. Traveling is tiring and tiresome. Many consultants limit the geographic areas from which they will accept clients, a measure that reduces the demands and strains of travel, but also reduces their reach. As travel costs rise, consultants must choose either to absorb the additional expenses or pass them along to districts and risk losing clients who are priced out of the market as a result. Further, travel binds consultants to the much-disparaged workshop mode: other modes, more complete, are simply impractical. As much as an expert may want to coach individual teachers, they cannot.

[For a complete list of the references on this page, please see the REFERENCES page of Dr. Edmondson's dissertation]