Professional development should involve learners (e.g., teachers) in the identification of what they need to learn and, when possible, in the development of the learning opportunity and/or the process to be used (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Burch, 1996; CPRE, 1995; Little, 1993; Miller, Lord, & Dorney, 1994; NFIE, 1996; Tillema & Imants, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1995). This engagement increases educators motivation and commitment to learn (Hodges, 1996); affirms their strengths and enhances their sense of efficacy (Pink & Hyde, 1992); empowers them to take instructional risks and to assume new roles and responsibilities (Pink, 1992; Barr, Anderson, & Slaybaugh, 1992); increases the likelihood that what is learned will be meaningful and relevant to particular contexts and problems (Pink & Hyde, 1992); improves instruction (Hodges, 1996); and makes the school culture more collaborative and improvement-oriented (Pink, 1992).
If teachers are denied input in their own professional development, they are likely to become cynical and detached from school improvement efforts and to reject what is experienced as imposition (American Federation of Teachers, 1995; Guskey, 1995; Hargreaves, 1995). Lack of involvement also significantly reduces the capacity of the school and district to understand and successfully manage the school change initiative (Pink & Hyde, 1992, p. 268).
This principle, like others, requires strong leadership at the school level. In a school where professional learning is integral to the implementation of the core technology--teaching--being a leader would mean being a facilitator of learning. Reform is short lived if it is led, rather than facilitated by top leadership (Barr, Anderson, & Slaybaugh, 1992). While hierarchical authority creates learned conformity, more egalitarian authority relations increase the likelihood that individuals will feel and be freer to in reflective practice and experimental learning (Smylie, 1995, p. 99).
As indicated in this principle, there are so many possibilities of learning so many things that school leaders must keep attention focused on what teachers need to learn in order to close the gap between school goals and school performance. For example, teachers are not likely to identify their need for subject matter knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge (Borko & Putnam, 1995). Professional credibility and depends on teachers knowing the material they teach students. Yet current understandings of mathematics, science, history and the arts--and how to teach those subjects--have changed radically in recent years. School leaders must create organizational cultures in which everyone feels good about needing to learn. They must, however, protect teachers from unnecessary and unproductive involvement, unreasonable expectations, and burn-out (Guskey, 1995).
Barr, R., Anderson, C. S., & Slaybaugh, J.E. (1992). Deliberations about grouping in Crete-Monee. In W. T. Pink & A. A. Hyde (Eds.) Effective staff development for school change (pp. 65-93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teachers knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 35-66). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Burch, Barbara (1996, September). Masters degrees for teachers: A call for change. AACTE Briefs, 17 (11). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1995, June). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 114-132). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire: A postmodern perspective. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 9-34). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hodges, H.L.B., (1996). Using research to inform practice in urban school: 10 key strategies for success. Educational Policy, 10 (2), 223-252.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129-151.
Miller, B., Lord, B., & Dorney, J. (1994). Summary report. Staff development for teachers. A study of configurations and costs in four districts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC.
Pink, W. T. (1992) A school-within-a-school for at-risk youth: Staff development and program success. In W. T. Pink & A. A. Hyde (Eds.), Effective staff development for school change (pp. 33-63). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Pink, W. T. & Hyde, A. A. (1992). Doing effective staff development. In W.T. Pink & A. A. Hyde (Eds.), Effective staff development for school change (pp. 259-292). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 92-113). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Tillema, H. H. & Imants, J. G. M. (1995). Training for the professional development of teachers. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 135-150). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
U.S. Department of Education (1995). Building bridges: The mission and principles of professional development. Washington, DC: Author.