There are several limitations to this study. First, at its inception, the evaluation design did not include a comparison or control group. As a result, the findings cannot support claims regarding causal relationships. However, an effort was made to identify correlational evidence where appropriate, and the more descriptive approach permitted an examination of general trends and
associations. Second, as noted throughout this chapter, the teacher sample was very small, so the design called for a longitudinal approach to collecting classroom instructional data. Every effort was made to prevent attrition over time, but the sample did fall from 40 teachers to 28 teachers. With such a small sample, the analyses and their interpretation must be approached cautiously. Nevertheless, the findings do illuminate some of the key features of professional development that have been incorporated into the Basa program.
Conclusions
As noted, although the data on changes in teacher instructional practices presented in this chapter were based on a small sample of teachers and classrooms, the results do indicate changes in teacher practice associated with the Basa professional development program. Teachers demonstrated progress in applying effective classroom management and literacy instructional practices; however, room for improvement remained, particularly among the more unfamiliar and/or complex teaching
strategies. Continuing to improve teacher practices in areas such as effective grouping is likely to have a positive effect on student achievement in
reading; thus, teachers will need continuing professional development to reinforce and deepen their understanding of effective literacy instruction to see continued progress in student achievement. In particular, training should focus on managing differentiated instruction and reinforcing the reading–writing connection. Although a causal relationship between teacher outcomes and the Basa professional development program cannot be determined due to the design of the study, as explained in the
Limitations section, the relationship is associative but highly suggestive of the previously mentioned conclusions.
In addition to more training and support in implementing specific literacy instruction strategies, more rigorous ongoing supervision and coaching
would further strengthen the Basa intervention. In another related study, the Basa project team found that schools with principals who reported checking lesson plans and observing classrooms frequently tended to perform better than those whose principals reported less frequent checking. We found positive associations between student achievement in reading and principals who reported attending Learning Action Cell training and providing instructional support to teachers on teaching reading. Previous research has documented the positive and important role principals play in supporting teachers’ professional development—professional development that leads to improved classroom practice (Bredeson, 2000). Importantly, these associated data have highlighted a link between principal support to teachers and student achievement in reading.
As a mediator of student achievement, improved teacher practices supported gains in student reading and writing achievement. By the end of grade 2, after one full year of reading instruction in Filipino, students were demonstrating beginning reading skills in the language. Again, while no causal relationships can be claimed from this research, the Basa approach to professional development is associated or correlated with some student improvement in reading. A final takeaway is that effective professional development can be thought of as a three-legged stool: Face-to-face training, teaching and learning materials for both students and teachers, and ongoing support are the three legs. The legs on the stool are mutually supportive. If one leg is removed, the stool is not stable. All three combine to encourage teacher behavior change and student improvements in literacy achievement.
Acknowledgments
This chapter was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Basa Pilipinas project and the Philippines Department of Education. The contents of this chapter are the sole responsibility of Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US government.
References
Bredeson, P. V. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-service Education, 26(2), 385–401. https://doi. org/10.1080/13674580000200114
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education (pp. 94–122). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200616 Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’
professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515 Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F.
(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081 Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria (EDOREN). (2014).
Teacher competence: Improving teacher effectiveness by building skills and subject knowledge (Issue Brief No. 2). Abuja, Nigeria: Author. Retrieved from https://edorennigeria.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/policy-brief2- teacher-competence.pdf
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC). (2016). USAID/Philippines Basa Pilipinas Program: Final outcome evaluation report, 2013–2016. Waltham, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/ PA00MGD2.pdf
Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2007). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling- Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy (revised and updated). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~henschkej/articles/a_ The_%20Modern_Practice_of_Adult_Education.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). How can professional development enhance teachers’ classroom practices? Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ how-can-professional-development-enhance-teachers-classroom- practices_2745d679-en
Popova, A., Evans, D. K., & Arancibia, V. (2016). Training teachers on the job: What works and how to measure it (Policy Research Working Paper No. 7834). Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://
openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25150
Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, 19–21 October, Melbourne. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/
research_conference_2003/3
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Shalem, Y., Steinberg, C., Koornhof, H., & de Clercq, F. (2016). The what and how in scripted lesson plans: The case of the Gauteng Primary Language and Mathematics Strategy. Journal of Education, 66, 13–36. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313502983_The_what_and_ how_in_scripted_lesson_plans_the_case_of_the_Gauteng_Primary_ Language_and_Mathematics_Strategy