The online resource Language track represents a new mode of in-service professional development in Norway. We employ survey and other data to explore how teachers respond to and engage with the resource. The positive response is interpreted cautiously. Teachers may lack tools or criteria for analyzing and evaluating such resources.
In 2015, the Norwegian Department of Education commissioned the Norwegian Reading Centre to lead, administer and manage a major strategy, which aims to improve the literacy skills of Norwegian children. One element of this strategy was the design, production and dissemination of open online professional development resources, entitled Language Track for use in schools and kindergartens.
The online resource Language track represents a new mode for the delivery of in-service professional development in Norway. Traditionally, in-service for teachers has been delivered ‘face to face’ through seminars and courses offered by external parties, such as universities or teacher education institutions. Most often one or two teachers attend such courses with the expectation that they will then pass on new knowledge to other teachers. These courses aim to improve the competence of individual teachers
Language track endeavours to exploit the wide-reach, flexibility and other potential resident in newer technology to reach a broader audience than traditional PD programmes. It is also the first time a professional development strategy includes staff from kindergarten to upper secondary school. The resource was piloted in a one-year trial in the school year 2015-2016. Schools enrolled in the pilot program through their local municipality. The resource is now freely open to all interested.
The web based materials in Language track can be viewed as a policy related artefact (März, Kelchtermans, & Vermeir, 2017), as these are introduced to provoke educational change through the introduction of the particular artefact. Vermeir, Kelchtermans & Marz, (2017, page 116) suggest that the introduction of an educational artefact forces teachers to engage with the artefact and take a stance, and that this positioning is a complex process, even if, as in the case of Language Track, the resource has a clear rationale and script to follow. In this paper, we employ survey and other data to explore how teachers respond to and engage with the resource.
The resource design
The Language Track web page menu directs users firstly to the level of schooling: primary, lower secondary or upper secondary. Each level contains a number of different packages. Each package has an overall theme such as First instruction in reading, Reading difficulties and so on, and contains up to ten related sessions. These sessions contain texts with voice over, video examples of educational practice, video lectures, questions for reflection, articles and tasks for teachers to try out in the classroom, sharing experiences with the other teachers in subsequent sessions.
A typical session has a recommended duration of around 60 minutes, which is considered well suited for school-based PD sessions. Figure 1 shows a typical plan for a session in Language Track.
Plan for session “Choosing useful words from a text” under the main theme “Working with language”
This session has 6 components, each with recommended timing. The small icons to the right indicate the type of content. The session opens with a video, followed by group
discussion, a mini-lecture and so on. The session leader may choose which components to use, but there is an inherent expectation that users will start with the first component, the introduction, and work through all components.
The PD sessions are entirely school-based. There is no participation in online communities, no synchronous interactive responses or other support, apart from a free but non-obligatory one-day introduction seminar offered by the Reading Center. There is no form of accreditation for teachers or schools completing the sessions or packages.
In designing and producing Language Track the Reading Centre drew on a combination of experience from designing and implementing face-to-face teacher development programs and research. An already existing in service course entitled “The writing path” served as a model.
Theoretical considerations
The enormous number and increasing variety of online courses and resources available how these exploit the different potentials for interactivity, synchronous communication, mentoring and other features inherent in the digital medium (Borko et al. 2009) makes it difficult to position “Language track” in the literature. As background, we draw on research on professional development, both off line and online. We also attempt to analyze “language track as educational and policy artefact (März et al., 2017).
Policy artefacts are those introduced to provoke educational change. Language track is a government initiative with the explicit aim of raising children’s literacy competencies by changing and improving practices in the teaching language, reading and writing. Further, we note that while the locus of the intervention is in schools and directed towards teachers, the decision to use the resource often resides with the central school administration.
Inherent in Language track are five design features identified in research as salinet in successful PD programs. These include, duration, active learning, collaboration, coherence and a focus on academic content (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007; Fishman et al., 2013; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yon & Birman, 2002). Kennedy (2005) argues that effectiveness is more strongly related to the purpose of the PD than to design features. The purposes vary. The weakest models, in her assessment, are those that aim to transmit knowledge, typically courses addressing perceived weaknesses. Middle level models aim to stimulate to changed practice though coaching and mentoring), while the most effective models are those which encourage teachers to operate with full autonomy and manage their own development. These are termed “transformative”.
The focus given to questions for reflection within the sessions and to teacher activity between sessions reflects transformative ambitions on the part of the designers. Following the analysis of März, Kelchtermans, & Vermeir (2017) we employ framing analysis to seek to understand how teachers interact with this normative frame.
Methods
The data analyzed in this study stems primarily from surveys sent participating schools and teachers. In addition, a case study was undertaken in a municipality involving ten schools. Supporting data has been gathered through data logging, blogs and informal interview.
In the pilot year 2016, three surveys were sent to 1) those who participated in introduction seminars 2) those leading the PD at schools and kindergartens and “ordinary “ participants.
A further two surveys, one in 2017 and one in 2018 were sent to selected schools. These schools were participating in another research project. As part of this project, they were committed to use the resource regularly over a two-year period. In addition to the surveys, the schools submitted weekly reports. These reports included a record of usage of the resource. Separate questionnaires were completed by three groups, 1) school leaders, 2) those responsible for leading the PD sessions and selected teachers.
Results and discussion
At the time of writing, only analysis from the first surveys is available. Analysis from the second set of surveys is pending and awaited shortly.
Initial responses from the first set of surveys are positive. We suggest that these responses may be evaluative rather than reflective. While in other countries, materials for teacher use, such as lesson plans, activities, games and so on, abound there are relatively few resources of this sort available in Norway. The language barrier hinders access to many materials available in other languages. The novelty of the resource needs to be taken into consideration. Teachers may need to establish routines around school based PD first before directing focus to purpose. Newer forms of professional development supported by web-based resources require new tools and criteria for analysing and evaluating the content or format of such resources