Building Technology-Based, Learner-CenteredClassrooms: The Evolution of a ProfessionalDevelopment Framework

HI Chandra Hawvey Orr

This study examined issues in supportingmiddle-school teachers to become more learnercentered when implementing computer-based,workplace simulations in their classrooms.Specifically, this reportfocuses on aparticipant observation study of two teachersto develop and evolve a frameworkforprofessional development. Theframework wasdeveloped based on prior professionaldevelopment efforts, information ondeveloping learner-centered classrooms, anddata about teacher change. Theframeworkincludedfive key pieces: (a) reflection, (b)proximal goals, (c) collegial support groups,(d) one-on-onefeedback, and (e) supportmaterialsfor the teachers. Thefoundationfortheframework was a belief that change isindividual and needs to be supported incontext and over time.

The data includedfield observations as theteachers used the simulations in their class-rooms made by the author and three outsideobservers, and interviews with each teacherfol-lowing her use of the simulation program.

During thefour-month study, the originalframework evolved in response to the datacollected. Thefinal version of theframeworkifocuses on the professional developer zvorkingwith teachers to develop reflective skills.Proximal goals became afocusing toolforreflection after teachers had begun to developtheir reflective skills. The interplay betweenreflection and proximal goals was enhanced byoutside resources, one-on-onefeedback, andcollegial group meetings.

E Educational improvement is the central focusof this participant observation study. In thisinstance, improvement means creating learner-centered environments through the use of com-puter-based simulations that were designed tobe learning tools for students and curriculumreform tools for teachers. The purpose of thisstudy was to develop an understanding of whatkinds of approaches can support teachers inbecoming more learner centered (McCombs &Whisler, 1997) while using the simulations. Forthis study, the goals included helping teachersshift from being didactic providers of informa-tion to being facilitators; supporting teachers inbecoming expert questioners rather than simplysubject matter experts; and developing the skillsnecessary for guiding student learning by focus-ing on finding and interpreting information tosolve a problem. These goals require that tradi-tional teachers make a philosophical shift fromseeing themselves as question answerers tobecoming question askers (e.g., Brooks &Brooks, 1993).

In previous work, the research team I was apart of found that the effectiveness of the exist-ing professional development for implementingthe simulations had been less than desired (e.g.,Hawley & Duffy, 1998). in an effort to see thepotential of the simulations realized, I chose toexplore a different model for helping teachersintegrate the simulations into classrooms.

Specifically, it was the goal of the research toexplore the question: How can teachers be sup-ported in becoming more facilitative and learnercentered as they use these simulations? To movetoward answering this question, I first devel-oped a framework that combined a series ofstrategies that had been successful in similar

ETR&D, Vol 49, No 1.2001. pp. 15-4 SSN 1042-1629 15

ETR&D, Vol. 49, No I

professional development efforts. Next Ifocused on an implementation of these strategiesto evolve my understanding of professionaldevelopment. Finally, based on the results ofthis four-month study, I revised the framework.

Once upon a time ...I guess in the beginning, I thought the textbook was alI needed to teach them. But, I've come to find out thatit's not all that I need. And, I don't want to shootmyself in the foot, but if the year was longer, I could doa lot more with them in terms of making them doresearch. Finding out information about differentthings. As opposed to just trying to give them this sur-face things that you get out of the textbook . . . youhave to give them some basics-some fundamentals-that's what you need the book for. So, how to blendit. .. You just can't say, go out and find out about thisand they don't have any background, so I have to finda way to give them enough background so that theycan go out and then keep coming back-it's a balanc-ing act. (Interview with Therese Collins)

It was only two weeks before the end of mywork with the teachers in New York when The-rese reflected on her evolution in thinking aboutteaching. While she never said that my workwith her had contributed to this change, thelevel of reflection that she demonstrated in herstatement left me with little doubt that my pro-fessional development framework had some-how influenced this evolution towardinquiry-based learning and toward the develop-ment of a learner-centered environment. Cer-tainly, Therese was still in the middle of a majorconceptual shift from thinking about teaching asproviding information to thinking of learningand creating learning environments. She stillheld tight to the notion that some contentneeded to be covered thoroughly before morestudent-centered methods could be employed.However, she was indicating a desire to imple-ment more inquiry-based and project-basedapproaches.

At this point, I had been working as a partici-pant observer in Thacker Middle School in NewYork City for nearly four months. The goal ofmy research was to develop an understanding ofhow to support teachers in becoming morelearner centered while they used computer-based workplace simulations. In order to focusthe work, I had developed a framework of pro-fessional development based on the successful

efforts of others. Acting as the participantobserver allowed me the freedom to alter myenactment of the framework as necessary as wewent along as well as to develop a richer under-standing of the contextual issues that sur-rounded the teacher change effort I wasintroducing.

BACKGROUND

During the three years leading up to this study, Iwas part of a research team looking at the work-place simulations developed for middle andhigh school students from various perspectives.The work we did pointed to some shortcomingsin the way teachers were approaching the simu-lations (e.g., Center for Innovation in Assess-ment, 1998; Hawley & Duffy, 1998) whichindicated that there may be shortcomings in theteacher preparation being provided by the soft-ware company, Classroom, Inc. (CRI).

The software itself allowed students anopportunity to work in groups to solve real-world problems. In each simulation, studentteams of three or four took on a professionalrole. For example, students might become banktellers, hotel managers, or paper company man-agers depending on the simulation they wereusing. In each simulation, students worked anumber of scenarios, each dealing with a differ-ent problem. Each scenario provided the studentwith an array of relevant information that camefrom a variety of sources (the TV, other employ-ees, files, phone calls, etc.). At the end of eachsimulation, students were asked to make a deci-sion based on the information gathered. Theseanswers were multiple choice and the studentswere provided with feedback about the "correct-ness" of the chosen answer. The quality of think-ing required by these questions varied greatlyfrom one simulation to another. Most of the sim-ulations also included a few questions for thestudents to answer at the end of each unit. Theprograms were designed so that the teacherscould print these answers for evaluation.

Because the simulations were designed to bechange agents for teachers to create learner-cen-tered environments focused on cooperativeproblem solving as well as learning tools for stu-

16

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 17

dents ("Learning for Life," 1995), teacher profes-sional development was a mandatory element inadoption of the simulations. CRI required thatall teachers participate in a one-week orientationto the software that promoted problem solvingin the classroom and using cooperative learningtechniques. Once that training was completed,CRI personnel occasionally visited the teachers'classrooms to provide feedback and support.Additionally, teachers were invited to partici-pate in workshops about once a month. Eachworkshop covered a single topic, such as prob-lem solving, during a two-hour block afterschool. During my research for this project, halfof the workshops were cancelled because of lackof interest.

In our earlier research we found that theteachers who had gone through this traditionalCRI training were only moderately successful inmaking the changes desirable to be optimallysuccessful. For instance, the teachers did stepback to let the students solve the problems them-selves. However, in the process of steppingback, they became silent onlookers rather thanactive facilitators (Center for Innovation inAssessment, 1998). In fact, in one study wefound that teachers were more likely to interactwith students in instructionally irrelevant waysthan to ask guiding questions while the studentsworked on the simulations (Center for innova-tion in Assessment, 1998).

A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTFRAMEWORK

The promise of workplace simulations as toolsfor promoting critical thinking and problemsolving seemed to be unfulfilled. In the CRI sim-ulations, we were seeing slow, unpredictablechanges at best. In response to the overall lack oflearner-centeredness and critical thinking wehad found previously, I wanted to focus on sup-porting teachers in becoming facilitators in alearner-centered environment. To move towardan understanding of what it meant to supportteachers in making this shift, I created a profes-sional development framework based on theprofessional development experiences of others(e.g., Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway,

1994; Guskey, 1986; Hannay, Bissegger, Haston,& Mahony, 1994; Little, 1993; National Commis-sion on Teaching and America's Future, 1996;Richardson, 1992; Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999;Wedman, Espinosa, & Laffey, 1998;) and on sev-eral models of teacher change (e.g., Borko & Put-nam 1995; Corno & Randi, 1999; Dwyer,Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Mevarech, 1995).Then, through a participant observation study, Iimplemented and refined the framework, devel-oping new understandings along the way.

The professional development frameworkdeveloped for this research drew on the experi-ences of experts and the successes of similar pro-fessional development efforts. Based on thework of leaders in the professional developmentfield (e.g, Darling-Hammond, 1997; Guskey,1986; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1990), 1 aimed tocreate a model that allowed teachers to owntheir development (McCombs & Whisler 1997),to be supported individually in the context oftheir classroom (e.g., Guskey, 1986; Hannay etal., 1994) and to break through the feelings ofisolation typical to teachers implementing inno-vations. I also recognized the need for the frame-work to be sensitive to the individualized natureof change and the need for support over time(Guskey, 1986). To this end, I synthesized theresearch to develop a framework (Figure 1) thataddressed the needs of the teachers as theyincorporated the CRI simulations in their class-rooms. The basis of this framework was reflec-ton on the implementation of the proximalgoals that were conceptualized as the center-piece of change. Underlying this reflection on

Figure 1 E Initial Professional DevelopmentFramework,

Reflection

IPr oxinmal Goals

t ~~~~t tmadings collegial feedback

wnup

ETR&D. Vo. 49. No 1

the goals were the support elements-resourcessuch as readings to further evolve each teacher'sunderstanding and practice, a collegial supportgroup, and individualized feedback from a pro-fessional developer.

Central Aspects of the Framework

The principal focus of this framework was to bereflection on the implementation of proximalgoals. In order to provide the teachers with a

sense of direction and accomplishment, proxi-mal goals were at the center of this model. Prox-imal goals, which are small, easily achieved

goals that help move the learner toward a larger,distal goal, have been shown to raise efficacylevels in learners (e.g, Bandura & Schunk, 1981).

My hope was that including proximal goalswould allow the teachers to maintain high effi-

cacy levels as they moved through the changeprocess. Efficacy was a key concern becauseresearch indicates that more efficacious teachersadopt innovations more readily than those withlower efficacy (Guskey 1988; Tschannen-Moran,Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). It has also been found thatteachers who are more learner centered tend tohave higher efficacy levels (McCombs & Lauer,

1997). Because my goal was to promote changesin behavior and belief that would endurebeyond my tenure in the classroom, the efficacyelement seemed particularly important in thissituation.

The notion that reflection is important to pro-fessional development grew out of Schbn's work(1987). Research has shown that promotingreflection can be a successful aspect of profes-sional development efforts (e.g.; Como & Randi,1999; Miller, Bray, Vye, & Goldman, 1998; Staub,Mahon, & Miller, 1998; Wedman et al., 1998). Inchange processes, reflection seems to serve twopurposes. First, reflection can generate the inter-nal dissonance required to close gaps betweenteachers' actions and their beliefs about learning(Wedman et al., 1998). Second, reflection forcesteachers to examine their work critically andmake improvements as necessary. Reflectiontakes away the teachers' natural inclinations toact on tacit knowledge rather than well-rea-soned knowledge (Richardson, 1990).

In action, the proximal goals were to be set by

the teacher and me working collaboratively. Inmy initial thinking, the proximal goals were tobuild toward the distal goal of the teacherbecoming more learner-centered and more facil-itative. Before going out into the field, I envi-sioned that the proximal goals might includesuch efforts as asking each student group onewhy question during the course of the simula-tion. Then, using reflective questions woulddevelop understanding of how the implementa-tion of the goals went that day, how the teacherfelt about the goals she was implementing, andwhere we should focus next. I hoped that thereflection would also help the teachers becomecritical evaluators of their own classroom perfor-mances, thus allowing them to see the connec-tions between their goals for their students andhow they were supporting their students inachieving the goals. In this way, reflection couldhelp the teachers learn to guide their own devel-opment (Corno & Randi, 1999). To this end, Iadapted a set of reflective questions (Staub et al.,1998) to focus on what the teacher had just com-pleted in her classroom. Most commonly, Iasked questions such as:

* How did you promote collaboration in thisactivity?

* What did you do to support the students intheir problem solving?

* What were the goals of your introduction tothis scenario?

* How did you monitor for understandingduring the scenario?

* How did you push your students' thinkingfurther?

Supporting Aspects of the Framework

To support the reflection and proximal goalwork, there were three key elements: (a) read-ings, (b) a collegial group, and (c) one-on-onefeedback. The readings were intended to pro-vide a readily accessible library to the teachers.In this way, they modeled the same kind ofinformation-rich classroom I wanted the teach-ers to develop for their own students. Further,much literature on good teaching emphasizesthe importance of teachers developing a knowl-edge base in learning theory, pedagogical the-

18

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 19

ory, and content expertise (Borko & Putnam,1995; Richardson, 1990; Staub et al., 1998). Thereadings chosen for this project all attempted tohelp teachers develop knowledge of learningtheory and pedagogy.

The readings were compiled in a notebookthat was indexed and sorted according to topic.Readings covered topics such as using coopera-tive groups, promoting critical thinking, movingtoward learner centeredness, asking questions,and promoting learning. In addition to this note-book, each teacher was given a copy of Improv-ing Classroom Questions (Chuska, 1995), and toldthat they would be able to keep these resourcespermanently.

The collegial group was conceived as a safeplace for the teachers to share their thoughts andconcerns about using the simulations. It hasbeen shown that:

Getting teachers together regularly in small "instruc-tional support groups" to examine their own teachingin light of research findings can be a powerful vehiclefor change ... Several teachers mentioned that theygained the confidence to try new strategies from theirsupport group. (Sparks, 1988, p. 117)

These kinds of groups help raise the reflective-ness of their participants (Miller et al., 1998) andsupport participants in moving toward theirdesired goals (Blumenfeld et al., 1994).

Based on previous research (e.g., Miller et al.,1998; Richardson, 1992), 1 expected the collegialgroup to start slowly as the teachers becameaccustomed to sharing with each other. Becauseof this, I anticipated that my role within thegroup would diminish over time until the teach-ers were running the meetings. I hoped the colle-gial group might endure beyond this research.This ongoing element is considered an aspectnecessary to sustained change efforts (Hannay etal., 1994).

The final aspect of the framework was theone-on-one feedback of the facilitator. Thisserved two purposes. First, it modeled a peer-coaching method of teaching (Showers & Joyce,1996). In many cases, the one-on-one coachingput me in the role of the sounding board as theteacher talked through issues. Further, thementoring aspect was an important part ofbringing the professional development effort

into the context of the teacher's world (Guskey,1986; Hannay et al., 1994). It was intended tohighlight things that went well during the classperiod and specific changes each teacher mightmake to improve her performance.

THIS STUDY

In enacting the professional development frame-work, I chose to use a qualitative approach sothat I could evolve it as my understamdingdeveloped through my work with the teachers. Isought to demonstrate plausibility (Erickson,1985) to create a picture of the circumstances,problems, and questions that affect teacherchange. Using a qualitative approach allowedme to consider the implementation of the frame-work in a rich context (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985)-that of a real school-with all the factors thatinfluence any change effort. In order to conductthis research, it was necessary that I become aparticipant observer (Spradley, 1980). I acted asboth the professional developer and researcherthroughout the study.

The Participants

For this study, I invited teachers from one areaof New York City to work with me. Of theapproximately 12 invitees, only 2 were able toparticipate. The others were not interested, wereno longer using the products, or were using thesimulations too late in the school year.

Therese Collins. The teachers with whom Iworked were both in the math and science mag-net at Thacker Middle School. One, Therese Col-Iins, was the seventh-grade environmentalscience teacher. She used a simulation in whichstudents took on the role of the manager of apaper plant because it was well aligned with herenvironmental science curriculum. She had usedthe simulation one time before.

Therese was interested in getting her stu-dents to experience learning. Yet Therese real-ized the importance of meeting preset standardsand maintaining control over her class, tasks shestruggled with throughout our work together.

ETR&D, Vo.49. No I

She was trapped in a system with expectationsset by a previous generation. However, she waswilling to try to make the students' experiencemore exciting and add to it in ways that tiedtogether the traditional and the new. Because ofthis, Therese's class was always full of energyand she was usually pulled in many directionsat once.

Evelyn Murray. Evelyn Murray, the otherteacher, was the eighth-grade math teacher aswell as the professional developer for the mag-net. She had used the banking simulation manytimes before with sixth-grade students, but wasgoing to use it for the first time with her eighth-grade students. In the banking simulation, thestudents acted as tellers amd customer servicerepresentatives.

Evelyn was definitely a traditional teacher.She was always dignified and professional inher approach. Her students sat and absorbed theinformation she presented. Evelyn alwaysremained in control of her class and alwaysstayed at the center of the learning. Her typicalapproach to teaching involved being the infor-mation provider. Her repertoire was built oftime-honored classics such as having studentswork problems on the board and do worksheets.However, she was also comfortable enough andskilled enough to add twists such as cooperativelearnig or real-world stories to keep thingsmore interesting.

Would it be fair to say that either of theseteachers was better than the other? No. In fact,my outside observers could not even agree onthis issue. Two observers (Duffy & Yoshida)thought Evelyn's control of her classroom wascritical to building a learner-centered environ-ment, while the other observer (Kirkley) and Ifelt that while Therese could not maintain con-trol of the entire class at one time, the portion shewas able to reach was really learning. The teach-ers had very different styles, different strengths,and different needs. These differences helpedinform me about how to support them in becom-ing the best they could be.

The researcher as professional developer. My roleas the professional developer paralleled that of aband conductor. While in the end, the teaching

was only as good as the individual efforts putforth by the teachers, my job was to know whatto focus on and "rehearse" more and what partscould wait for another day.

I decided the course for many of our sessionsand colored the teachers' practice with my owninterpretations of what teaching and learningshould be. In my mind, I envisioned moving theteachers toward a learner-centered approach(McCombs & Whisler, 1997). 1 began the studyrecognizing that the image I had of a greatteacher was one who was not directive and whoused questioning amd reflection to promotelearnig. I found that this notion was immedi-ately challenged by the fact that Evelyn had beenselected teacher of the year for her district andwas a mentor in the school, yet her teaching wasentirely teacher-centered and directive. I facedthe challenge of learning how to support theteachers in finding their own way because I rec-ognized that as a graduate student I had no rightto tell the teacher of the year that her style wasnot exemplary. I also recognized that the teach-ers needed to find their own way because therewere no extrinsic rewards to support thechanges I was asking them to make. For exam-ple, their classrooms would likely not be orderlybecause of the increase in collaboration and theteachers might not be able to have all theanswers anymore since the students might askquestions the teachers had not previously con-sidered.

At times, it was easy to balance the role ofprofessional developer and the role ofresearcher. In the cases where it became impos-sible to balance the two roles, I attempted to pro-tect the inquiry at the expense of theprofessional development. This meant that Iintroduced strategies to the teachers rather thanwaiting for the teachers to indicate a need forthem, used a tape recorder even though it mightsquelch some of the conversation, and tried tomove the teachers in directions that they mightnot have gone naturally. However, to the extentpossible, I maintained the integrity of the profes-sional development role as I had conceived of itin my preparation for the data collection.

20

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 21

DATA COLLECTION

I attended Evelyn and Therese's classes eachtime the students worked on the simulations.During my classroom visits, I took field notesfocused on teacher interactions with the stu-dents, and was able to interview each teacherafter every classroom observation. These tape-recorded interviews served as both reflectiveconversations and as a data source. Often, theinterview and reflection depended on answersto the same questions. The interview sessionsalso allowed me to make some suggestionsabout different teaching strategies, provide pos-itive feedback on the aspects of the class thatwent well, and clarify any questions I had. Eachinterview was transcribed verbatim.

Both teachers chose to use the simulationsduring the one day each week when they metwith the students for a double class period,because that provided them with approximately100 minutes to introduce the simulation, havethe students work it, and engage in a follow-updiscussion at the end. In Therese's class, thisschedule provided me with 13 weeks of data.However, I was only able to observe and inter-view Evelyn a total of 8 times during the datacollection period because in the second month ofour work she adjusted her schedule to work onthe simulation only every other week. She madethis decision because she thought her studentsneeded to have more opportunity to do math,and using the simulation was taking away twoclass periods of math each week.

In addition to the field notes and interviews, Ialso videotaped each teacher at least two timesduring four months of data collection. I was ableto use the videos from the 7th and 14th weeks ofmy data collection for the video analysis. Twoother videos were recorded in Therese's class,however they did not contain meaningful databecause of computer problems in her class thosedays. All four videos were transcribed and ana-lyzed as field notes and using a checklist thatfocused on the kind of interactions the teacherhad with the students and how the teacher waspromoting higher-level thinking. Anotherresearcher involved with the larger researcheffort (Kirkley) and I performed the checklistanalysis. Finally, I was also able to collect some

document information in the form of assign-ments the teachers prepared for the students,and materials outlining the school's purposeand goals.

In order to create a supportive environmentfor the teachers I initiated a collegial group dur-ing the data collection. In addition to Thereseand Evelyn, I invited two more teachers in themagnet to join us in this group. These two teach-ers were team-teaching a medical simulation forsixth-grade students. Because this was their firstuse of the simulation and their first year asteachers, they were asked only to participate inthe collegial group. Previous experience hadshown that even experienced teachers struggledwith technology issues in their first year of usingthese simulations; therefore, they were not goodcandidates for the overall professional develop-ment effort.

In all, there were five group meetings. Thefirst was during Week Six of the data collection.Three participants attended all five meetings.The sixth-grade math teacher missed two meet-ings. During the meetings, I recorded the flow ofthe conversation while participating in the dis-cussion. Because of the risk of missing or misin-terpreting valuable data, I gave a copy of mynotes to Therese after all but the first and lastmeeting to ensure I had not missed anything.

In addition to my own presence, I invitedthree outside observers to join me in the class-room. Two, Thomas Duffy and Jamie Kirkley,were involved with the larger Indiana Univer-sity simulation research effort. The third,Makoto Yoshida, had previously worked withCRI as a research associate. Each was asked tofocus on the interactions the teacher had withthe students, what the teacher seemed to be pro-moting the most, and how the teacher was pro-moting problem solving. Each outsideresearcher took notes that were given to me, andI debriefed them about what they had seen. Inall, three sessions of Therese's class and four ses-sions of Evelyn's class included outside observ-ers. I added the outside observers' notes to mydata pool as well as my notes from the conversa-tions we had following each of the sessions. Thenotes of our conversations were typed and sentto the outside observers for member checking.

The use of multiple researchers, like the use

ETR&D. Vol. 49, No I

of multiple data-collection methods, served as away of enriching the overall picture. It did notguarantee increased reliability, rather itexpanded the interpretation and revealed ele-ments that were not necessarily seen by a singleresearcher (Denzin, 1989). Particularly as timewent by, the observations of these outsiderswere very valuable to my understanding of thephenomenon taking place. For instance, while Icould see the small steps from within the project,they brought in the more idealistic expectationsthat I was slowly releasing over time. Theyallowed me to have an insider's view and anoutsider's perspective simultaneously. The datafrom these observers were used in my analysisof the cases-they added a depth that wouldhave been missing if only my view had beenpresent. More importantly, the outside observ-ers often helped steer the research by pointingout things I had missed in my own observationsand by suggesting some different approaches Imight use with the teachers.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis was ongoing. I kept a field journalto track my thoughts and assumptions through-out the process. This preliminary analysishelped inform both my questioning strategiesfrom week to week and the approach I was tak-ing (Bogdan & Biklen,1992). Near the end of thedata-collection phase, I began looking for poolsof meaning (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) to helpme better understand the data. Then, I used acombination of memoing (Strauss & Corbin,1998) and coding (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).Through these early efforts, and guided by theoutline of the professional development frame-work, I was able to use a sorting method to orga-nize the data (Creswell, 1994). Finally, eachteacher's data were included in a cross-caseanalysis. This report represents an instrumentalcase study designed to illuminate an issue ratherthan highlight specific experiences (Stake &Mabry, 1995).

While initially not intended to determinestrict cause-and-effect relationships, thisresearch examined situational and attitudinalfactors that affected the teachers' adoption of the

strategies. Through this examination, my inten-tion was to offer a plausible picture of what giv-ing support to these teachers involved. Themeasures of success and growth were based onmy interpretations of what occurred in thesespecific classrooms as supported by the variousdata collected. While this study cannot offer firmanswers for developing professional develop-ment programs, it provides a groumded theory(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) about professionaldevelopment-specifically what kinds of ele-ments should work together in a professionaldevelopment situation.

Limitations of This Study

As with any participant observation, the accounthere is undeniably biased. I developed relation-ships with the teachers during the four-monthduration of the study that undoubtedly affectedmy interpretations. One notable bias along theselines was based on the fact that Therese wasmore inclined to improve her teaching from theoutset, thereby setting a different tone in ourwork together.

While this research no doubt would havebeen different if I had been able to separate the"researcher" from the "professional developer,"that was not a possibility. The findings and sug-gestions reported here present an image thatcould be viewed as "half empty" or as "halffull." Because I was there and because I was astakeholder, I chose to focus on the smallamount of growth that was made rather than theimprovements that undeniably were stillneeded in the end. The teachers were affected bymy professional development effort-theyreported it, the analysis of the videos show asmall change, and analysis of the observationswarrants the claim that changes were made. Thequestions then become if the changes were sub-stantial enough to warrant the effort and if theywill last beyond the end of this study. Those arequestions that this study cannot answer.

A substantial hole in the data comes from thelack of a student voice in a project that focusedon building learner-centered classrooms. Therewere no data collected on student performanceor on student perception of the teaching stylebeing used.

22

BUILD NG LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Professional Developer Role in theEvolved Framework

Professional developer as content expert. From mywork with the two teachers and the discussions Ihad with the outside observers involved in mydata collection, I came to understand moreabout the many aspects of the role of the profes-sional developer. First, I found that in this situa-tion, the professional developer needed to be afaciltator well versed in research literature aswell as experienced in using these strategies inother classrooms. My ability to bring in stories ofother classrooms as well as examples from theliterature helped build my credibility with theteachers. For example, I was able to use storiesfrom my own experience and from the literatureas a basis for interview discussions. In one suchinstance, I pulled an observation I had witnessedfrom another classroom in a discussion of devel-oping an understanding of student thinking. Inour conversation, Therese had been talkingabout how she wanted to understand where thestudents were through their questions andanswers rather than through using them to mea-sure correctness. In order to move the conversa-tion forward, I offered this anecdote:

Chandra: I saw in a class one time-they were usingChelsea and the teacher asked the student, "why doesthe supervisor need to check-to verify-this checkbefore you can cash it?" And the student said,"because it might be stolen." And she was like, "no,"and she went on to another person. And that personsaid, "Because it's in the manual." And she was like,"Right." And, they were answering two differentquestions.

Therese: Exactly, exactly exactly. I mean the kid didanswer the question. That was a legitimate answer.Chandra: And, he was actually thinking harder thanthe person who said,Therese: Exactly, exactly, exactly.

Chandra: "The manual said this."

Therese: The whole purpose of the manual is to helpyou avoid cashing a check that might be stolen. (Shegiggles.]

Chandra: Stolen or...

Therese: You know, whatever. Forgery

Chandra: I thought it was really cool because the kidhad-cause there is nothing in the manual that says

you need to get it verified because of this. He thoughtthrough it to the next step. But, the teacher was in ahurry and didn't stop and say, "Why would you saythat?"

Therese: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [We return to discussingthe article that started this conversation.]

Through other examples, I was able to explainparticular approaches I was promoting. Forinstance, when I explained proximal goals toEvelyn, I was able to pull in concrete examplesdirectly from the work of Bandura and Schunk(1981) who had explored proximal goals in amathematics setting. Because Evelyn was a mathteacher, I thought these examples would be rele-vant to her.

Professional developer as resource provider. My back-ground also proved important as I recommendedcertain reading materials to the teachers. Bycarefully selecting the materials and asking theteachers to read particular items, I was able seechanges beyond those gained through my otherefforts. For instance, when the teachers readImproving Classroom Questions (Chuska, 1995),there were observable behavior changes in bothof them. The most important of these changeswas Evelyn's movement toward a guidingapproach in her questioning. While Evelyn mayhave known the questioning strategies and ideasbefore she read the book, the book's ideasaffected her behavior more than any other singleintervention. The first class period after she hadthoroughly examined the book, Evelyn was theleast directive of all the days I observed her. Shestill maintained control over the students byreleasing them to their computers one group at atime, but she also allowed students to solveproblems that she had previously not allowedthem to figure out:

Evelyn watched group two as they struggled to countmoney-they were just grabbing and dragging. Sheglanced over at group three for a moment and talkedto team three about an answer they have typed. Sheglanced over at group one. Then back to group two-who finally finds the tally sheet and is suddenly moreorganized in their counting.

During this same class period, Evelyn overtlytied her change in teaching to the Chuska (1995)book by adopting an approach she had read in

ETP&D. Vol. 49, No I

the book. Rather than telling the students whatto do or questioning them during the scenarios,she wrote down questions to discuss at the endof the period. This step dramatically reduced thenumber of interactions she had with the stu-dents and nearly eliminated the directive inter-actions that had plagued much of her approach.More importantly, this strategy tied the debrief-ing discussion more tightly to the work the stu-dents had done that day. Because of this, thedebriefing was more focused as were the fewinteractions Evelyn had with her students. Forinstance, once during the scenario, Evelynapproached a team and had the following con-versation:

Evelyn: Before you made the decision did you go tothe manual?

Students: Yes.

Student: [Indicating herself and another student,] Wesaid C. He said B.

Evelyn: What do you think you could have done?

Student: Could we have gone back to the mamual?[The student seemed sincere in asking this question.]

Evelyn: Yes. You could have.

Evelyn: [Elaborating and mentioning once again thatthey were looking for details,] With 3 of you, if some-one disagrees, you need to go back and see whateverything said.

This was a far less directive interaction than Iwas used to seeing with Evelyn. She focused onhelping the team understand the value of look-ing at details while supporting them in the pro-cess of becoming better at cooperative problemsolving. In this way, she not only allowed stu-dents more ownership, but shifted their learningfrom being doing based to being understandingbased. In earlier interactions of this kind, typi-cally, she would have stopped the studentswhen they indicated disagreement, and toldthem to go back and read the manual. In earlierscenarios, Evelyn likely would have told the stu-dents that they needed to go to the manual. Asan example, in one earlier scenario, this was howshe worked with students:

Evelyn: [Moving to computer #15,1 What's going onin the scenario?

Student: Some of the checks are not signed.

Evelyn: So it was not endorsed-the word isendorsed. Did you look at the manual?

Student: [Inaudible.]

Evelyn: Go to your mamual and see what it says. Thenstart tuming over those checks.

Evelyn did not ask the students what choice theywere thinking of or if they were even ready tomove to the manual. Instead, she prescribedgoing to the manual. This took away any deci-sion making from the students and emphasizedthe manual over the group process.

Professional developer as questioner. Next, as theprofessional developer, I needed to be a supportperson. This meant that I offered feedback, actedas a second pair of eyes, and helped the teacherfind solutions to problems through reflection orbrainstorming. Occasionally, it also meant that Iowned the change process because the nature ofthe project required me to determine when touse different approaches.

In this research, my primary activity wassimply promoting reflection. I did this throughthe questions that I asked in my interviews withthe teachers. The questions maintained a focuson having the teachers explore what they did intheir class that day. During the research effort, Imoved from more general questions such as,"When your students are working with the CRIsimulations, what sorts of things do you do?Why do you do these things?" to more specificquestions such as, "How did you supportmetacognition in class today?" This straightfor-ward approach impacted both teachers. Theywere better able to discuss their own work andmove toward their goals at the end of theresearch than at the outset.

Evelyn, more than Therese, seemed toimprove in her reflective skills. She graduallymoved toward better and more specific answersabout her teaching. By the end of our worktogether, Evelyn was even willing to considerchanges she might make in her own teaching-something that had been totally absent from ourearly conversations. For example, in our firstmonth together, when I asked Evelyn what shewould most like to improve about her teaching,her answer shifted away from critically examin-ing her own work:

What I would really like is some computers that workso every time I go in there I don't have to be adjusting

24

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 25

and changing and going through this. You know whatI would like is a room with the computers where thesekids go in and do what they have to do and no one elseis going in and messing it up and every morningbefore you come I have to go to every computer andmake sure everything is on. This morning when I wentin, there were five computers that were knocked outagain. And, it's very, very frustrating because here it is.I am teaching a first and second period. I have to kindof leave them [to go] back and forth . . . to make sureeverything is on so that by the time you get here, thekids won't be idling.

By the end of my work with Evelyn, she hadbegun to reflect on her teaching and was able totalk about changes she had made as well aschanges she wanted to make. For example, inthe following interview excerpt Evelynreflected on how she would like to improve herteaching of the simulation:

Maybe some more training in some areas where I basi-cally know the whole scenario. It's so hard to use theword improve when I have done it so many times. But,maybe some more directed questions. Maybe I candevelop different type questioning based on what is inthe scenario. I basically like kids acting out and stufflike that. . . But, on the scenario itself, I basically knowthe whole scenario I've done it so many times-maybewriting some more what they need to do and maybe towork with them even more closely. If I had the time ...to work with them as much as I would like to be ableto see that the final product of their skit really comesout the way I want it to come out. So, maybe some-thing like that.

While there were still numerous issues show-ing up in this reply about her perspective of herrole as teacher and she was equating good teach-ing with knowing the scenario well, Evelyn alsoindicated an ability to improve the scenario bythinking about how she had taught the scenariospreviously. This was a critical step in our worktogether.

Therese, more than Evelyn, seemed to probedeeper into her goals and her own understamd-ings to improve her teaching. She commentedon the role of reflection in our final interview,saying:

I mean the feedback has influenced [my teaching]because every time I do something I think in terms ofwhatever suggestion you gave me. It's not even a mat-ter of suggestions-it's a matter of some questions thatyou asked me that somehow I incorporated and

started thinking about: "Why?" and "What it is I reallywant to do?" So, it helps me keep on task.

For Therese, reflection combined with myfeedback allowed an opportunity for her to startunderstanding how some of the things she didnaturally led to particular outcomes she had notthought of. For example, when we began, sheoften could not answer questions about how shesupported problem solving in the simulations.Yet, I repeatedly saw her doing things that pro-moted problem solving in different ways, suchas asking students to generate their own guidingquestions for the scenarios (an idea she gotthrough our reflective sessions), promoting care-ful reading, and providing an inquiry structurethat asked students to think about what theyknow and what they want to know at the begin-ning of each scenario.

Professionaldeveloperassupporter. While beingable to support the teachers was necessary, act-ing as an advisor to the teachers was not. I foundthat the teachers trusted only their own experi-ences. For instance, one week in the middle ofthe study, I supported some students on thecomputers while Therese worked with others ona related activity. During our interview, Iexplained what had happened while I wasworking with the students and suggested whereI thought the students were struggling the most.While Therese seemed to agree with the conclu-sions I had posited about the students' problemson the scenario, as evidenced by her willingnessto have the entire class rework the scenario, itwas not until Therese herself worked with thestudents that she was willing to treat those prob-lems. In fact, during the second session of work-ing on this scenario, Therese stopped herstudents to have a whole-class discussion of"changeover costs," which had been the conceptthe students were struggling with in the earlierattempt. In our interview that day, Therese indi-cated that she had trusted my opinion and real-ized there was a problem, but needed to see theproblem with her own eyes in order to act on it.She commented:

Even though they didn't do well the first time, I didn'treally get the opportunity to see why they didn't dowell. So, this time, I could really see why because that

26 ETR&D.Vo.49, No I

time was just a [bad] day altogether. But now I can seewith my own two eyes where the stumbling block is,and with more preparation, I could get them on theroad.

The single instance of more overt advisingthat did seem to work was Duffy's informalmodeling of questioning techniques for Thereseduring his visit as an outside observer. WhileTherese never commented on that incident,Duffy and I both noted how quickly she adoptedthe same kinds of critical questions he had askedthe students about the program. Therese furthersupported the notion of professional developeras modeler in our final interview when she

stated that the thing I could have done thatwould have been more helpful would have been

to show her what I wanted by modeling it forher. However, even with the professional devel-oper as a model, the teacher still retains controlover deciding what is appropriate for the stu-dents at a given moment.

My experience seemed to be significantly likethat of Richardson (1992) in that the teachersshowed more interest in topics that arose fromtheir concerns than in those that I suggested. Infact, when I commented on readings, the conver-sation often stopped. Whereas, when they talkedabout the readings, their discussion grew. Thisreemphasized the need for me to act in a sup-portive role rather than an advisory one.

Professional development as developing understand-ing. The other primary foundation of theevolved framework is the notion that profes-sional development is more than another way toprovide tools for teachers. It seems that profes-sional development is too often aimed at doingskills-that is, aimed at filling the teachers'toolboxes with many activities they can do intheir classrooms. They can put students ingroups, have students do research, and usemanipulatives. However, little time is spent sup-porting teachers in developing an understand-ing about why to use these tools, how to usethese tools, or how these tools will have amimpact on student learning. This doing andunderstanding dichotomy also carried throughto the classroom and affected the way the teach-ers taught. For a simple example of this, I turn tomy first observation of Evelyn's math class. She

was trying to explain addition of positive andnegative integers to her students. She repre-sented the negative numbers with filled-in cir-cles and the positive numbers with empty circlesdrawn on the chalkboard. She placed these cir-cles in rows over each other and crossed out thecorresponding number of circles to leave twoempty circles. She then told the students thatthis was called using "manipulatives" because itallowed them easily to see what they weredoing. However, using manipulatives is gener-ally understood to mean actually using objectsthat can be shifted around. While this point atfirst seems minor, it becomes an excellent illus-tration of the difference between doing andunderstanding. The teacher was providing avisual representation for marking out circles andcounting what was left, however, she was notallowing the students to become physicallyinvolved in the math by using solid objects thatthey could move around to develop their ownmathematical understanding. By using theboard, Evelyn kept the numbers rather abstract.If she had developed an understanding ofmanipulatives, she would have realized thatpart of their value was in the students' actualhandling of the tools to solve math problems.

In another example of the pervasiveness ofdoing, Evelyn asked her class to reflect at theend of one scenario. Typically, reflection is usedto help push understanding further or to fostermetacognition. However, as shown in the fol-lowing excerpt from our conversation, Evelynsaw reflection as another doing activity-heronly goals were memorization-level, and not thedevelopment of understanding. Following isEvelyn's discussion of goals in her "reflection"activity:

I am wanting to see whether the students actuallyremembered what happened last week and see whatdecisions they made based on what they remember.Also, to see, as I pointed out-in walking around [Inoticed that] some people said that "No. nothing hap-pened." They know very well that something wentwrong. We had this whole discussion based on thechoice or the decision they made, but because they didnot want to write, they decide, "No" and leave it therebecause if they answer "yes" then they have to explain.So, this taught me that I will rephrase my questions inthe future so they will not give me that blank, "No."

BU LD NG LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 27

This over-emphasis on doing and the associ-ated need for understanding pushed my frame-work to focus more on reflection. By its verynature, reflection requires a development ofunderstanding-particularly in this situationwhere I held a mirror up for the teacher andasked her about what she was doing and why.In fact, reflection became a foundation-everpresent and always going a little further.Through this stronger emphasis, the teacherswere able to examine innovations andapproaches more critically. From this, theunderlying hope is that if teachers are more crit-ical in their classroom decisions, they will modelmore critical thinking and allow for morehigher-order learning than if they are focusedsolely on doing.

Evolutions in the Pieces of theFramework

In addition to the findings about the role of theprofessional developer that came from thisstudy, I also learned more about the frameworkitself. Through iterative testing in the field andreflection, I was able to develop a differentunderstanding about the professional develop-ment framework itself.

Reflection. When I developed the original pro-fessional development framework, I envisionedproximal goals being at the center of my workwith the teachers. After all, growth and changecome through meeting those goals. However, inthe enactment, reflection was the most impor-tant element of the work I did. Both teachersreported that they found the reflective questionsto be valuable in helping them to stay on taskand become better teachers. Further, the reflec-tion seemed to provide a tool for examiningbeliefs. Therese was able to make her classroomapproaches and plans more closely adhere to thebeliefs she held about teaching and learning.Even when we first began working together,Therese had many beliefs about students learn-ing by doing and an understanding that shecould not transmit her knowledge to them.However, her classroom initially tended to bequite traditional-particularly when she used

the simulation. By the end of my work with her,Therese was implementing more of the beliefsshe held about learning, such as to "provide [thestudents] with some basic tools so they can goand investigate things on their own with someguidance." This particular goal was addressed,in part, by Therese's asking the students to gen-erate their own questions to guide their workthrough the simulation.

Evelyn, on the other hand, was able to aligndissonant beliefs with each other. For example,she believed that students learn from talking,writing, asking questions of each other, andbeing engaged in learning. Yet, she also believedthat the teacher's job was to deliver knowledgeto the students. For example, she said that stu-dents:

Learn by their mistakes-by making a mistake andpossibly, after they realize a mistake is made they cansit down and try to correct it on their own or ask forhelp to correct the mistake they have made.

This implied that students need a teacher to tellthem how to fix their errors. Through reflection,she was able to move more toward her vision ofgood learning by beginning to create a newmodel of good teaching. She moved, in action,from being authoritative to being more under-standing and tolerant. For example, early in theresearch, the outside observers referred to her as"harsh" (Kirkley) and "authoritative" (Yoshida).Evelyn would often say things that were quitecritical to the students such as announcing toone team, "I want to tell you since I went aroundto every station . . . You did not check themoney. Go back and check the money." Thiswas a sharp contrast to the questioning she wasdoing by the end of the research.

Proximal goals. In the original conceptualizationof this framework, proximal goals were to beused as motivational strategies to help move theparticipants from being teacher centered tobeing more learner centered. The initial conceptwould have involved working with each teacherto identify the areas where she needed tobecome more learner centered in the classroom.The likely implementation would have involvedmy developing the proximal goals with theteachers, or, more likely, for the teachers, and

ETR&D. Vol 49. No. I

giving these formulated goals to them almost asa doctor hands a patient a prescription. Thegoals were to be focused on the teachers' efforts,the distal goal being for the teachers to becomeleamer-centered facilitators while they used thesimulations.

During the study, it became apparent thatthis approach would be inappropriate for anumber of reasons. First, it did not allow theteacher to own the change process (Richardson,1992). The changes would have been thechanges that 1, as the professional developer,found appropriate. The teachers might or mightnot have found value in those changes andwould have, at best, tried them because theywanted to help me, not because they intended touse the ideas once I left. Second, this processwould have been too dependent on the profes-sional developer. The teachers would not havelearned how to generate proximal goals forthemselves. Rather, I would have providedthem with one more tool to adapt to their situa-tion in whatever way they felt was appropri-ate-whether it was consistent with the ideasbehind proximal goals or not. Finally, the pro-cess as originally outlined assumed that theteachers would buy into the idea of changing forthe sake of changing. It required that they adoptmy perspectives on how teaching should be. Inshort, the approach as initially proposed was notleamer centered. Rather than modeling the envi-ronment that I wanted each teacher to create forher students, the initial plan required me to dic-tate how she should react and behave with herstudents.

Fortunately, through my interviews with theteachers, I identified these weaknesses in time tomake some major changes in the approach sothat the teachers could own the process. Ratherthan focus the proximal goals on changing theteachers, I found it effective to focus theteachers' attention on improving student learn-ing. Once each teacher identified the areaswhere she wanted to see student improvement,we were able to generate proximal goals for get-ting there using reflective questions that led tothe development of a framework for developingproximal goals.

Each teacher was introduced to the notion ofproximal goals very differently. In my work

with Therese, I initially took responsibility fordeveloping the goals rather than helping herlearn to develop them. This led her to depend onme to give her a list that she could customize.For example, I suggested, as a proximal goal,creating reflection questions that would beready immediately when students finished theirscenarios. This was to be a step toward the distalgoal of getting the students more focused on thescenarios and on learning. Therese modified thisproximal goal to have students generate theirown questions about the scenario that guidedtheir work on each scene and provided reflec-tion opportumity at the end. This approach tiedinto Therese's overall views of learning andmoved her toward the classroom she wanted. Bythe end of my work with her, she was generatingproximal goals quite naturally by herself as shereflected on where her students were and whereshe wanted them to go. Therese often spoke ofher work with the students in terms of the nextgoal they would work toward.

In my work with Evelyn, I found myself atthe opposite extreme. Because Evelyn perceivedherself as a good, experienced teacher, I felt thatshe would be very resistant to any ideas that Isuggested for change. Therefore, I introducedproximal goals to her as an idea to try in herroom. Without any guiding questions and only afew examples to work from, Evelyn developedand implemented some goals; however, theyseemed to lack the specificity needed to be suc-cessful in providing the motivation and struc-ture that they should have offered. For example,her initial proximal goal was to improve thestudents' writing process. This was a huge goalthat would not be easy to achieve. Further, shenever fully adopted the proximal goals as part ofher planning process. If she did not have extratime, she did not generate goals, but planned theclasses as she always had, whereas, Thereseused the goals as a framework for her regularclassroom planning.

As stated earlier, by the end of the research, Ihad developed a question framework for thisprocess. The questions stepped the teachersthrough a planning process by asking them toidentify their distal goal for their students,examine why students were not yet achievingthat goal, break the goal into proximal goals,

28

BU LD NG LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 29

and examine how the teachers could support thestudents in reaching those goals. I piloted theframework with three members of the collegialgroup during a group meeting. Based on theresponse in the collegial group and from The-rese and Evelyn individually, it seems that thesequestions should have served as the basis for thedevelopment of proximal goals. Even in ourbrief work with these questions in one collegialgroup meeting, it was apparent that these ques-tions helped the teachers focus and forced themto think. By shifting proximal goals in this way,there is a focus on what the students need toimprove and all of the strategies that a teachercan use to support this improvement.

Overall, this work was an important shift inthe use of proximal goals. Rather than usingthem for learning, as they are commonly dis-cussed in the literature, the proximal goalsbecame tools for teaching. Therese, in particular,was starting to guide her efforts through the set-ting and evaluation of proximal goals. Forinstance, in discussing metacognition during thesimulation, Therese said, "I need to set up someproximal goals so that I can get there. BecauseI I . we're not in that area yet."

Resources. In my work with these two teachers,I found my initial inclination to provide a smalllibrary of materials for the teachers to be flawed.It seemed that providing a resource library-inthis case, an organized binder of materials cho-sen to support teachers in learning about thekinds of things learner-centered facilitators do-actually prevented the teachers from using theresources because they were overwhelmed bythem. Through the discussions I had with theteachers and my observations of what it took topromote the reading of any professional devel-opment materials, my understanding of howthey should be used evolved. First, the materialsshould be provided on an as-needed basis, butas immediately as possible. If a teacher werestruggling with collaboration, for instance, to beable to pull out an article with good ideas andprovide it on the spot would have greatlyincreased the chances of the article being read.Because it had immediate relevancy, it probablywould not have been one of the many articlesbeing skimmed over.

Next, I found that, because of time con-straints, teachers often skimmed the articlesrather than reading them carefully. Therefore,the articles chosen for professional developmentshould be very clear and include structures thathelp guide skimming, such as numbered listsand bullet points. The point of the article shouldbe to help the teacher, not hold her captive.

Finally, through a combination of theresources and collegial group, I learned thatteachers have the power to influence each other.If one teacher reads an article or book and findsit exciting, she can help motivate others to read.For longer-term efforts, this effect could be veryimportant.

Collegialgroup. The collegial group in thisresearch proved to be valuable in two ways.First, it provided a forum for sharing ideas andhelping each other. When we began our work,the teachers did not know anything about oneanother's simulations. By the time we ended, theteachers knew a little about each other's simula-tions, but, more importantly, they realized thatthey were all struggling with the same prob-lems. Through the group interactions, the teach-ers were able to brainstorm new ways of dealingwith problems as well as learn from each other'sexperiences. For instance, the teachers discussedhaving only some of the students work on thecomputers at one time while the others did otheractivities. Through the interactions, the teacherswere able to hear different perspectives, both agood experience and a bad one, to help them indeciding the best approach for their own use.

Second, the collegial group helped equalizethe teachers. In the first meeting, Evelyn tookcharge-and, it seemed that this was a fairlytypical experience. However, through the shar-ing of different experiences and the opportunityto discuss issues in an informal setting, theteachers quickly shifted their interactions witheach other. By the last meeting, even Evelyn waslearning from Mr. Crane, a first-year teacher, ashe discussed why it was important for his stu-dents to learn about genetics. Everyone could bethe learner and everyone could be the expert.

One-on-one interactions. Framing my work withthe teachers were the one-on-one interactions I

ETR&D, Vo 49. No.1

had with them. Through these interactions, Iwas able to build trust, promote reflection, sug-gest strategies, and offer opinions. Both teachersfelt that this one-on-one relationship was vital tokeeping them "on track." In their reflectionsthey noted that the benefit of having me therewas that it forced them to keep progressing intheir work and to keep working with the simula-tions and the teaching styles they were cultivat-ing because they knew I would be there andexpect that. While the interactions I had with theteachers were more intense than might reason-ably be expected in practice, it seems that thepositive influence of the interactions makesthem worth considering further. It may be that aportion of the one-on-one interaction in thisframework could occur using a peer coachingmodel. However, because interactions weresometimes successful because of the expertise Icould offer as a professional developer, espe-cially the expertise of outside experience, itseems that some of the one-on-one work with aprofessional developer is also important. Myknowledge of how the simulations worked inother classrooms and my knowledge of the liter-ature were both beneficial to the professionaldevelopment effort at certain points. For exam-ple, when Therese expressed an interest in pro-moting more thinking through a writingassignment to accompamy the simulation, I wasable to tell her about some similar assignments Ihad seen in other classrooms and how they hadworked. This allowed Therese the opportunityto explore her idea more thoroughly beforeimplementing it.

The Evolved Framework of ProfessionalDevelopment

As indicated already in this discussion, the goalof this research was to develop an understamd-ing of what it takes to support teachers inbecoming more learner centered-particularlyin the area of supporting critical thinking. Tothis end, the framework that I began withevolved constantly based on the data collected.The outcome was a more holistic model withmore tightly interwoven parts than the originalmodel suggested. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is

Figure 2 E Evolution of ProfessionalDevelopment Framework

also ore larne )icenterd- tha theoriginals

model.iAtealcl,thowcouldc OIlepcheetah

(oitllUllCtdltl /fefiomI s su n t

The heart ofthefamwoli. evld> ,/m\

also more learner centered than the original

model. After all, how could 1 expect these teach-

ers to change in a way that was dramatically dif-

ferent from the way I was supporting them?

The heart ufithe framework. The evolved frame-

work (Figure 2) was centered around reflection,especially as it was influenced and promoted byenactment and the implementation of proximalgoals. In this model, the teacher and professionaldeveloper first needed to build a common set ofexperiences so that the reflection on enact-ment-that is, what the teacher just experiencedin her class-could occur. Then, reflection pro-vided a way for the teachers to see how thepieces of what they did worked together andhow they were helping their students meet thegoals they had set for them.

Reflection must also be refined. In this study,this happened through repetition of reflectivequestions over time, using questions thatevolved to be more specific and in depth. Byusing this approach, I found it natural to movethe teachers to become more thoughtful abouttheir practice.

Proximal goals, as implemented in this study,provided a motivational force for the teachersand provided a foundation for reflection. Theyalso offered a structure for change previouslyabsent by allowing the teachers to focus onattending to and promoting student learning.The goals allowed each teacher to focus on hergoals for her students and how she could move

30

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 31

them to those goals. Through the reflective partof the model, then, the proximal goals were con-stantly examined and refined. This interplayallowed the goals to serve as change agents asthey pushed each teacher to work constantly toimprove her students' learning experiences andevaluate her effects.

Finally, enactment completes the triad ofessential building blocks for the model. It wasthrough the enactment that change occurred. Inthis study I found that reflection on the enact-ment highlighted problems and led to the devel-opment of proximal goals. All three strategiesdepended on each other. In fact, for Therese thethree pieces could no longer be separated by theend of my work at Thacker Middle School. Theyhad become interdependent. Therese could nolonger reflect on her classroom without generat-ing a proximal goal that she would enact toaddress a situation that had arisen. She could nolonger plan a class or teach without implement-ing something that she talked about in herreflection. In one simple example, in one of ourfinal discussions, she mentioned that teamworkwas one of her biggest frustrations. In her nextclass period with the computers, she activelyprovided a strategy to the students of makingtriangles with their three chairs in order to makeit easier to work in teams. Her reflection, enact-ment, and goals were all intertwined.

TFhe contextfor the framework. The two outer cir-cles of the model represent the context withinwhich the change took place. First one-on-onecollaboration provided an opportunity for deepreflection to take place. As pointed out by bothteachers, if I had not been there, they would nothave kept going in their efforts. In fact, Evelyncommented that she would have reverted backto her old way of teaching. Having an outsiderpresent seemed to challenge the teachers to holda mirror up to their teaching and describe whatthey saw to someone else. It was during theseone-on-one interactions that the teachersseemed to grow the most and seemed to workthrough some of the problems they were seeing.The one-on-one interaction took place in a safeenvironment where I was a listener, not anadviser. Based on my experience, this one-on-one relationship needed to include both debrief-

ing sessions and classroom observations. Thishelped build a well-rounded image of what washappening in the classroom.

The second context within which the changeoccured was a peer group. In this research, thepeer group served several purposes. First, itallowed teachers to share problems, stories, andexperiences with each other. By doing this, theteachers' initial feelings of isolation were eased.The collegial group also allowed each teacher tobe a follower and each teacher to be a leader.Even Mr. Crane, one of the first-year teacherswho had been very quiet in most meetings, cameto life when he was asked a question thatallowed him to share his expertise with thegroup. Finally, the peer groups allowed forlearning-from each other and from the staffdeveloper.

These contexts are, in many ways, the com-munications tools of the heart of the model.Without the one-on-one interactions and thegroup interactions, there would likely be nochance for reflection and little chance for explor-ing new ideas.

Influences on theframework. Finally, there wereoutside influences that needed to be consideredas part of this overall professional developmenteffort. The first were the learning resources thatwere brought into the system. In this case, theseresources were mostly print-based. I chose arti-cles and books that were directly relevant tosupporting teachers in reaching the goalsinvolved with becoming more learner centered.As already described, these resources had animpact on the teachers when they did use them.For instance, the only resource I specificallyasked the teachers to read during this researchwas Improving Classroom Questions (Chuska,1995). While only Therese read the book when Iinitially asked the teachers to read it, her discus-sion of the book in our collegial group meetinginspired the others to at least glance through itand find useful pieces. More importantly, it ledto visible changes in both Evelyn and Therese'sclassroom behaviors.

The other influencing factor on the frame-work has simply been deemed "life. " It includedall of the unpredictable factors that had animpact on the professional development effort.

ETR&D. Vo.49, No 1

For instance, early in this research there weresignificant portions of class time that were lost tocomputer problems, and throughout theresearch there were numerous unexpectedschedule changes that affected whether theclasses met at all. All of these factors affected theprofessional development and need to be con-sidered. However, the flexibility of this frame-work allowed the effort to move forward evenwith unexpected problems.

AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As with any research effort, this one raised anumber of compelling questions worth furtherexploration. First, there were a number of pro-fessional development issues raised in thisresearch. One of the most compelling areas forfurther research is in the area of using proximalgoals as change agents and teaching tools. Myimplementation of proximal goals differed dra-matically from the original concept. The goalsfocused on the students rather than the teachers,becoming an organizing framework for theteacher to use to move students further ratherthan a guide to follow to randomly changeteaching approaches. Do they have value inhelping to improve teachers' classroomapproaches and do they offer a framework forchange by themselves? This question needs to beexplored. In addition, there is still much to belearned about ongoing professional develop-ment and supporting teachers in becoming morelearner centered.

There are also serious questions to be raisedabout how to provide professional developmentthat leads to meaningful change. If this frame-work is moving in that direction, what are theimplications? How can we scale-up an effort ofthis sort-one that is time intensive as well asresource intensive? Is this kind of effort feasiblein a larger context? Undoubtedly, there wouldhave to be changes made to this framework con-sidering that one researcher was able to supporttwo teachers in making only minor changes infour months. In order to scale-up the effort,using the collegial group more and providing apeer-coaching model might be feasible optionsto promote sustainability and scalability. Once

the professional developer has supported agroup of teachers in becoming more reflectiveand more learner centered, that group couldhelp support their colleagues. In this study,there seemed to be no clear point at which a pro-fessional developer would not be needed insome way, but with a peer-coaching model,some of the professional developer support rolemight be done online rather than exclusively inthe classroom. However, as pointed out byBlumenfeld et al. (1994), professional develop-ment models that strive to influence practice aremonetarily and resource intensive. Based on thisresearch, this seems to be an inescapable truth.There were no apparent shortcuts-every aspectof the framework seemed a necessary compo-nent and sustainable change necessarily takestime (e.g., Mevarech, 1995).

Another area for further consideration is howto use this framework in other settings wherelearner-centered principles are to be enacted.This framework is open-ended enough poten-tially to be useful in a variety of settings, not justthose using computer-based, workplace simula-tions. In fact, in this case, the software actuallymay have harmed the effort to develop thelearner-centered, thinking-oriented classroom.For example, in Therese's class students askedquestions that could have led to more learningbut were stopped by a lack of the critical infor-mation necessary to pursue learning. Oneinstance involved students wanting to knowwhich grade of paper had the highest profitmargin for the company. They were unable todetermine this because the only informationprovided by the simulation was the selling pricefor the paper without its production cost. How-ever, the software did provide relief from theteachers' "regular" classrooms and, in fact, mayhave promoted a more adventurous spirit in theclassroom. Therefore, more research is neededon the transferability of the framework to othersituations.

Finally, there were questions surroundingthe appropriate use of technology. The teachersstruggled to fit the simulations into an alreadyovercrowded curriculum. There was littleattempt to really integrate the programs andthere were a number of technology problemsthat interfered with the learning process. How

32

BUILDING LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS 33

can ongoing professional development helpsupport a more integrated approach to softwareintegration that is critical to many kinds oflearner-centered environments? If the teacherssee the software as an add-on, will they also seethe strategies used in this framework as beingadd-ons? If so, there will be no long-term changein teachers' daily classroom. One key may be tooffer longer or more frequent exposure to theprofessional developer.

There is, undoubtedly, more research neededon this professional development framework.Like other frameworks and models that proposechanging the way we think about professionaldevelopment and, in fact, the teaching profes-sion (e.g., Blumenfeld et al, 1994; Stein et al.,1999), this one is time intensive and would bequite expensive to carry out in a large scaleeffort. However, if the results of the effort are thedevelopment of classrooms that focus on learn-ing and teachers who are reflective profession-als, the cost will be worthwhile. C

Chandra Hawley Onill is a research scientist in theLearning and Performance Support Lab at theUniversity of Georgia. She can be reached atorrill@coe.uga.edu.

The work reported here was completed as part of adissertation conducted at Indiana University's Centerfor Innovation in Assessment, and was supported inpart by grants from the Andrew W. MellonFoundation and the Russell Sage Foundation. Theschool and participant names have been changed toprotect their identity. All researcher names are actual.

The author wishes to thank and acknowledge TomDuffy, Lee Ehman, Linda Mabry, and LarryMikulecky for their support during this research. Shealso wishes to thank Jamie Kirkley, Makoto Yoshida,and Tom Duffy for their assistance as outsideobservers and for their perspectives.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating com-petence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest throughproximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway,E. (1994). Lessons leamed: How collaborationhelped middle grade science teachers leam project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal,94(5), 539-551.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklin, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research

for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn amd Bacon.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding ateacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychologi-cal perspective on professional development. In T.R.Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional develop-ment in education: New paradigms and practices (pp.35-65). New York: Teachers College Press.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of under-standing: The casefor constructivist classrooms. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Center for Innovation in Assessment (1998). Assessinglearning and supporting teacher as coach in The ChelseaBank simulation. (Annual Report). Bloomington, IN:Indiana University.

Chuska, K.R. (1995). Improving classroom questions.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa EducationalFoundation.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of quali-tative data. Thousamd Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,Inc.

Corno, L., & Randi, J. (1999). A design theory for class-room instruction in self-regulated learning? In C.M.Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and mod-els: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 11, pp.293-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative andquantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blue-print for creating schools that work. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical intro-duction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1991).Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technol-ogy-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8),45-52.

Erickson, F. (1985). Qualitative methods in research onteaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearchon teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Mac-Millan.

Guskey, T.R. (1986, May). Staff development amd theprocess of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15,5-12.

Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, andattitudes toward the implementation of instruc-tional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,4(1),63469.

Hannay, L., Bissegger, M., Haston, M., & Mahony, M.(1994). Professional development for facilitating ref7ec-tive practice: A case study. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans.

Hawley, C.L., & Duffy, T.M. (1998). The role of theteacher in simulation leaning environments. In G.Leinhardt (chair), Workplace simulations in schools.

ETP&D. Vol. 49, No. 1

Structured poster symposium presented at Ameri-can Educational Research Association Annual Meet-

ing: Sam Diego, CA.Learning for life: Real-life simulations build skills for

the working world and an appreciation for culturaldifference. (1995). Curriculum Administrator.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development

in a climate of educational reform. Educational Eval-

uation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.McCombs, B.L., & Lauer, P.A. (1997). Development

and validation of the Leamer-Centered Battery: Self-assessment tools for teacher reflection amd profes-sional development. The Professional Educator, XX(l),

1-21.McCombs, B.L., & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The leamer-cen-

tered classrrom and school: Strategies for increasing stu-

dent motivation and achievement. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Mevarech, Z.R. (1995). Teacher's paths on the way to

and from the professional development forum. InT.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professionaldevelopment in education: New paradigms and practices(pp. 151-170). New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, L.D., Bray, M., Vye, N., & Goldman, S.R. (1998).

Explorations of learning and teaching: Professional devel-

opment in collegial support groups. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. San Diego.

National Commission on Teaching & America's

Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching forAmerica'sfuture. New York: Teachers College Press.

Richardson, V. (1990). Significamt and worthwhilechange in teaching practice. Educational Researcher,19(7), 10-18.

Richardson, V. (1992). The agenda-setting dilemma in

a constructivist staff development process. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 8(3), 287-300.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning in theprofessions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996, March). The evolutionof peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 12-16.

Sparks, G.M. (1988). Teachers' attitudes towardchange and subsequent improvements in classroomteaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1),

111-117.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Pa rticipant observation. New York:Holt Rinehart, & Winston.

Stake, RE., & Mabry, L. (1995). Case study for a deepunderstanding of teaching. In A. Omstein (Ed.),Research on teaching (pp. 292-304). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Staub, F.C., Mahon, L.K., & Miller, A. (1998). Content-focused coaching: Scaffolding teaching and reflection on

core issues of instructional practice. Paper presented atAmerican Educational Research Association Annual

Meeting. San Diego.

Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., & Silver, E.A. (1999). Thedevelopment of professional developers: Learningto assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Har-vard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-

cations, Inc.

Tschanmen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K.(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.

Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Wedman, J.M., Espinosa, L.M., & Laffey, J.M. (1998). Aprocessfor understanding how afield-based course intu-ences teachers' beliefs and practices. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. San Diego.

34

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Building technology-based, learner-centered classrooms:the evolution of a professional development framework

SOURCE: Educational Technology Research and Development 49no1 2001

WN: 0100103447002

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.