Friday, March 28, 2014

RSA #2: Teacher Professional Development to Improve Science and Literacy Achievement of English Language Learners

RSA #2:  Teacher Professional Development to Improve Science and Literacy Achievement of English Language Learners


The Type of Teacher Professional Development is the Best to Influence Student Achievement
The article “Teaching Teachers: Professional Development to Improve Student Achievement,” examines which type of professional development helps improve teacher’s instructional practice and, therefore, increase student learning.  It begins by traveling through time in the 1960’s and 1990’s and discusses how professional development has progressed.  It concludes that professional development (PD) needs to be in the curricular area that the educators teach and apply to the real-classroom setting, using curriculum standards and its materials such as assessments or tools.  It should give the teacher’s insight about how the students acquire that subject area knowledge.  Additionally, American Educational Research Association found that “professional development is likely to be more effective if it is sustained over time and involves a significant number of hours” (3).
Lastly, the article details four steps on how administration should structure the professional learning opportunities for their teachers to ensure its success.  These steps include:  assuring that PD aligns with the subject matter the teacher teaches, allowing for the PD to align with teacher’s curriculum and evaluation pieces, allocating adequate time for PD and that it is supporting students’ knowledge of the subject matter, and having evaluating systems in place to measure the effectiveness of the PD on teachers’ practice and student achievement (American Educational Research Association, 2005).

The Need for Professional Development
The article, “Teacher Professional Development to Improve Science and Literacy Achievement of English Language Learners” directly begins by providing statistics for the increasing number of United States school-aged children who are categorized English language learners (ELLs). Subsequently, more academic rigor is being added to the education of all students, including ELLs, which is adding to a great “achievement gaps across all content areas” (Lee & Buxton, 2013).  It was found that most teachers did not feel sufficiently trained to meet the needs of their students in their subject matters.
Lee and Buxton focus the next portion of the article in the core area of science.  They detail three key areas of effective practices in science instruction.  They next share how successful teachers use the five domains of language development to further support their teaching of ELL students in science.
Lastly, valuable teacher professional development needs to be broken down into the following features:  content focus, active learning and coherence.  Additionally, PD must have sufficient duration for the teacher and students.  Plus, it should have an element of collective participation and collaboration among all stakeholders.

Together
Both articles express the necessity for professional development for teaching professionals to enhance student learning.  The authors of the two articles examine the essentials of effective PD.  They concur that it needs to in the teacher’s content area with their current curriculum and materials.  However, the second piece from Lee and Buxton, delves deeper into the foundations of valuable PD such the collaboration aspect that could take place during a professional learning community.  Also, professional development can work better when teachers have the time to implement new instructional strategies and that the students have multiple years to learn them.

References
American Educational Research Association. (2005). Teaching teachers: professional development to improve student achievement. Research Points, 3(1), 1-4.

Lee, O., & Buxton, C.A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners.  Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 110-117.


No comments:

Post a Comment