Exploring the Relationship Between Staff Development and Improvements in Student Learning

by Thomas R. Guskey and Dennis Sparks

Journal of Staff Development, Fall 1996 (Volume 17, Number 4)

Documenting the connections between staff development and improved student learning is becoming more crucial.

While considering the district's budget, a school board directs the superintendent to document the effectiveness of the district's staff development efforts. The board wants to know how staff development has affected student learning. The superintendent passes along the request to an assistant superintendent, director of staff development, or districtwide staff development committee. These individuals typically are overwhelmed by such a request, particularly if documenting the effectiveness of staff development efforts was never discussed as programs were planned.

The effectiveness of staff development efforts must be considered throughout the staff development process, starting with the earliest planning activities. School leaders should begin discussions with questions such as: What improvements in student learning do we seek and what changes must be made to get those results? What types of staff development are required to make those improvements? How will we know if staff development led to those improvements?

Questions such as these have perplexed researchers and educational leaders for years. Although it's generally assumed that there is a strong and direct relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning, efforts to clarify that relationship have met with little success.

Answering these questions, however, is more pressing today. Policy makers consistently note the need for substantive, high quality staff development in educational improvement plans. But, they also want to see results in well defined, student learning outcomes.

Like others in our field, we have given considerable thought to the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning, and particularly to the significance of this relationship in modern educational improvement efforts (Asayesh, 1993). On several occasions we have described the relationship's intricacies (Guskey, 1991, 1994; Sparks, 1994, 1996a) and have emphasized its importance in evaluating staff development efforts (Guskey & Sparks, 1991). We also have tried to identify key factors that affect this relationship and, as a result, impinge on efforts to document staff development's effectiveness (Guskey, 1995; Sparks, 1995a, 1995b).

In this article, we describe a model for exploring the complicated and multidimensional relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Our purpose in presenting the model is two fold. First, we hope it brings added clarity to discussions of the complexities of this relationship and to investigations of those complexities. Second, we hope it stimulates and challenges all those involved in staff development to explore this relationship more thoughtfully and, through that process, add to our understanding.

Our proposed model of the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning is shown in Figure 1. The factors or components in the model strongly affect this relationship and lie within a school's sphere of influence. The arrows represent the direction of those effects. Although such effects are complex and, in some cases, recursive, the arrows represent the direction we believe is strongest and most direct.

We base our model on the premise that the quality of staff development is influenced by a variety of factors. Factors that have an immediate and direct influence are classified in three major categories: content characteristics, process variables, and context characteristics.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Content characteristics refer to the "what" of staff development. They concern primarily the new knowledge, skills, and understandings that are the foundation of any staff development effort. Content may include a deeper understanding of specific academic disciplines as well as particular pedagogical processes. As our knowledge base in education expands, practitioners need new types of expertise. Staff development helps educators keep abreast of this emerging knowledge base so they can continually refine their conceptual and craft skills (Guskey & Huberman, 1995).

Content characteristics also include aspects relating to the magnitude, scope, credibility, and practicality of the change required to implement this new knowledge (Doyle & Ponder, 1977; Fullan, 1991, G. Sparks, 1983). Crandall, Eisemann, and Louis (1986), for example, argue that the greatest success in staff development is likely when the size of the advocated change is not so massive that typical users find it necessary to adopt a coping strategy that seriously distorts the change, but large enough to require noticeable, sustained effort. Asking teachers or administrators to change too many things too rapidly also may result in maintenance of the status quo.

Process Variables refer to the "how" of staff development. They concern not only the type and forms of staff development activities (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989), but also the way those activities are planned, organized, carried out, and followed-up. Most of the writing on the staff development quality and most staff development research focuses on these variables. Examples include the quality of training and the value of sustained follow-up activities such as coaching, action research, or focused study groups (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; Louis & Miles, 1990).

Context Characteristics refer to the "who," "when," "where," and "why" of staff development. They involve the organization, system, or culture in which staff development takes place and where the new understandings will be implemented. An important part of the context, for example, may be the pressure created by a district's high expectations for the learning of all students.

Although we have a common professional knowledge base in education and certain staff development principles are universal, most content and processes must be adapted, at least in part, to the unique characteristics of the setting (Firestone & Corbett, 1987; Fullan, 1985; Huberman & Miles, 1984). Teaching and learning are complex endeavors embedded in highly diverse contexts. Staff development efforts succeed to the degree that they can adapt to and capitalize on this variability (Guskey, 1994). In other words, they must be shaped and integrated in ways that best suit regional, organizational, and individual contexts: the local values, norms, policies, structures, resources, and procedures (McLaughlin, 1990; Talbert, McLaughlin, & Rowan, 1993).

Content characteristics, process variables, and context characteristics are all important in determining the quality of staff development. These three dimensions also form the conceptual framework of the recently developed Standards for Staff Development (National Staff Development Council, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). Neglecting any one of these dimensions can significantly diminish the effectiveness of staff development and drastically reduce the likelihood of improvement in student learning.

For example, because some educational innovations are more hype than substance (Guskey, 1992; Walberg, 1986), even their thoughtful implementation in a supportive environment is unlikely to result in improved student learning. By the same token, a proven innovation may fail if implemented in a context that is inconsistent with its principles or one that does not support change.

Quality of Staff Development is the central component of the model. Although it does not directly or exclusively affect improvements in student learning, high quality staff development is an important and necessary prerequisite to such improvements. Staff development's influence on students is accomplished principally through its direct effect on teacher and administrator knowledge and practices.

Teacher Knowledge and Practices are the most immediate and most significant outcomes of any staff development effort. They also are the primary factor influencing the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Clearly if staff development does not alter teachers' professional knowledge or their classroom practices, little improvement in student learning can be expected.

Although teacher knowledge and practices can be measured in various ways, it is important to recognize that adaptating and refining classroom practices is an ongoing process that requires considerable time. Furthermore, in assessing implementation, the dimensions of quantity and quality are equally important. A good idea implemented poorly seldom brings positive results.

Administrator Knowledge and Practices are also directly influenced by the quality of staff development, although they often are neglected in evaluations of staff development efforts. Administrators typically do not influence student learning directly. However, their knowledge and practices indirectly influence students in two important ways. The first is in interactions with teachers, especially through activities such as clinical supervision, coaching, and formative evaluation. Administrators can do much to establish the climate or culture of a school by modeling high standards of professional behavior and by ensuring the school is a true learning community that supports experimentation and values efforts to improve (Deal & Peterson, 1994). The second way administrators indirectly affect student learning is through their leadership roles in helping form school policies regarding school organization, the curriculum, assessment, textbooks, discipline, attendance, grading, and the like. These policies have a powerful and direct effect on how students learn, what they learn, how their learning is reported, and what the consequences of their behaviors will be.

It is important to note in the model that school policies are also affected by teacher knowledge and practices, especially through lead-teacher programs, shared governance, and school-based decision making (Guskey & Peterson, 1996). Although this influence is direct, its strength depends largely on the degree to which the process for teacher input in policy formulation is routine and formalized.

Parent Knowledge and Practices are included in the model as the third primary influence on improvements in student learning. Parents have a direct and powerful effect on student learning, not only through the learning experiences they provide for their children during early years of development, but also by their continuing involvement in school activities and homework assignments (Cooper, 1994). Parent knowledge and practices can be influenced by teachers, especially through parent conferences, student-led conferences, and guided homework activities (Bailey & McTighe, 1996).

Parent education programs also provide valuable information and strategies to parents who want to help their children succeed in school. Increased parental involvement in school-based decision making strengthens their role in the formation of school policies and increases their sense of ownership in the school's academic mission.

Student Learning Outcomes are another central component in the model. They are broadly defined in the model to include the entire range of student learning goals. Most often they include indicators of student achievement, such as assessment results, portfolio evaluations, marks or grades, or scores from standardized examinations. However, they may also include measures of students' attitudes, study habits, school attendance, homework completion rates, or classroom behaviors. Schoolwide indicators such as enrollment in advanced classes, memberships in honor societies, and participation in school-related activities might be considered as well. The learning outcomes of interest depend on the nature of the staff development effort, the participants, and the goals in that particular setting.

Some important relationships are not included in the model. Federal and state legislation, state departments of education, and local school boards, for instance, have significant influence on policies that affect student learning. Graduation requirements, school calendars, and assessment and accountability programs are but a few examples. The relationships we have identified in the model, however, are those we believe are the most direct and most powerful. With the exception of certain context characteristics, we also believe these factors are the most directly influenced by educators and, hence, the most immediately alterable.

Implications

Second, the model offers guidance to those interested in evaluating the effectiveness of staff development efforts. Undoubtedly, most educators today would like to be able to measure the impact of staff development in terms of demonstrable improvements in student learning. Recognizing factors influencing that relationship, however, can help evaluators not only document results but also offer explanations as to why those results occurred.

Third, the model illustrates the importance of a systemic approach to staff development and the need to view reform from a systems perspective (Sparks, 1996b). Staff development efforts that do not consider the complex relationship between staff development and improvement in student learning, or various factors that impinge on that relationship, are unlikely to succeed. Improvements may be evidenced in some classrooms or in some schools, but it seldom brings improved success at high levels of learning for all students.

Some Final Thoughts

Furthermore, the model does not adequately portray the important role that desired student learning outcomes should have in determining the content, process, and context of staff development. Our view is that student learning outcomes should provide the starting point for all school improvement and staff development efforts.

At the same time, the model does make clear that while many variables ultimately affect student learning, staff development in its many forms is essential to improving those factors that a school can directly influence. Teachers, administrators, and parents all have critical roles to play in improving student learning, and their ability to fulfill their responsibilities more effectively will be determined largely by the quality of staff development. Our model clarifies those relationships in a way that can assist school leaders to plan and assess their staff development efforts.

References

Bailey, J., & McTighe, J. (1996). Reporting achievement at the secondary level: What and how. In T.R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning (pp. 119-140). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cooper, H. (1994). The battle over homework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Crandall, D.P., Eisemann, J., & Louis, K. (1986) Strategic planning issues that bear on the success of school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 21-53.

Deal, T., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The practical ethic and teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.

Firestone, W., & Corbett, H. D. (1987). Planned organizational change. In N. Boyand (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321-340). New York: Longman.

Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85, 391-421.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.

Guskey, T. R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 239-247.

Guskey, T. R. (1992, Nov.). What does it mean to be "research-based"? The Developer, p. 5.

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4) 42-50.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T. R., & Peterson, K. D. (1996). The road to classroom change. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 10-14.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-76.

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast & Islands.

Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.

National Staff Development Council. (1994). Standards for staff development: Middle level edition. Oxford, OH: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (1995a). Standards for staff development: Elementary school edition. Oxford, OH: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (1995b). Standards for staff development: High school edition. Oxford, OH: Author.

Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 26-29.

Sparks, D. (1995a). Focusing staff development on improving student learning. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 163-169). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Sparks, D. (1995b). Using research to improve staff development: An interview with Tom Guskey. Audiotape interview from the "Leaders in Staff Development" series. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Sparks, D. (1996a, Jan.). Results-driven staff development. The Developer, p. 2.

Sparks, D. (1996b, Feb.). Viewing reform from a systems perspective. The Developer, pp. 2, 6.

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.

Sparks, G. M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.

Talbert, J. E., McLaughlin, M. W., & Rowan, B. (1993). Understanding context effects on secondary school teaching. Teachers College Record, 95(1), 45-68.

Walberg, H. J. (1986). Syntheses of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 214-229). New York: Macmillan.

Thomas R. Guskey is a professor, University of Kentucky, Dept. of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, 131 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0001, (606) 257-8666, guskey@pop.uky.edu.
Dennis Sparks is the executive Director of the National Staff Development Council, 1124 W. Liberty St., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103, (313)998-0574 (e-mail: SparksNSDC)

copyright 1996 NSDC