Project details: Evaluation of a collaborative PPD programme as a process of management of change
Research Team
1. Professor Mary Ratcliffe
2. Pam Hanley
3. Dr Felix Maringe
Funding Body
Duration
July 2004 - July 2006
Grant
£40,000
Description
The funders commissioned an evaluation of a PPD (continuing professional development) programme developed by King’s College, London and the Weizmann Institute, Israel. The programme was designed to develop and document accomplishment in 6 different domains of science teaching (eg argumentation, scientific inquiry). The developers adopted a three-phase approach in which increasingly less experienced teachers attended workshops and compiled portfolios of evidence from the classroom.
Research AimsThe aims of the evaluation were twofold:
- to explore the history and trajectory of a PPD programme as a process of management of teacher development and change;
- to examine the extent to which the original intentions of the project are met or modified through implementation.
The main methodology was semi-structured interviews: at least one per domain with the developers at 3 stages of the project (UK face-to-face and Israelis by phone) and 11 interviews with teachers from the second and third phases (UK only).
Buchanan & McCalman’s perpetual transition model (1989) was adopted as a framework for the evaluation. This suggests that 4 interlocking processes must take place to implement and sustain major change. They operate on 4 layers as follows:
- Trigger - the need for change; opportunities, threats Project initiation
- Vision - how change addresses the triggers; desired future condition; challenges and motivation for the intervention Design and development
- Conversion - converting people to sign up to the idea Implementation
- Maintenance and renewal - managing mid-term change Roll-out; ‘tool kit’
Outcomes
The findings underline the fact that developing effective PPD is a lengthy process which cannot be rushed. The 3-phase approach provided an extended time frame for development and repeated trialling, for example to explore the optimum way of improving expertise through using evidence from the classroom. This proved invaluable in promoting discussion and reflection, but the role and status of the vehicle for compiling evidence (in this case the portfolio) must be thought through carefully to ensure it assists rather than hinders the PPD process.
All the teachers were enthusiastic about their involvement in the programme. However, there were some difficulties in getting them signed up to a clear vision that was shared with the developers, and this may have lessened their involvement leading to recruitment and retention difficulties. Collaboration between domains and countries offered the potential to widen the pool of expertise and share problems, but developers recognised that it was not exploited to its full potential: better planning and communication would have strengthened mutual understanding. This situation improved with time, particularly as developers united around producing a joint output.
In terms of the Buchanan and McCalman model, 3 things emerged as key to successful PPD development: ensuring that triggers and vision are unambiguous and openly shared; that conversion is compatible with the trigger and vision; and that the four layers are continually revisited and revised in a cyclical process.
