DOCUMENT RESUME CE 079 961 ED 440 214 Pennsylvania Action Research Network (PA-ARN) Staff TITLE Development through Five Regional Staff Development Centers. Final Report, July 1998-June 1999. Pennsylvania State Univ., McKeesport. INSTITUTION Department of Education, Washington, DC.; Pennsylvania State SPONS AGENCY Dept. of Education, Harrisburg. Div. of Adult Basic and Literacy Education Programs. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 53p.; For the PA-ARN Action Research Monographs connected to NOTE this project, see CE 079 962-985. Project Director was Gary W. Kuhne. For the 1997-1998 final report, see ED 427 221. CONTRACT 099-99-9010 AdvancE, PDE Resource Center, Department of Education, 333 AVAILABLE FROM Market Street, Floor 11, Harrisburg PA 17126-0333. Tel: 717-783-6788; Web site: http://www.pde.psu.edu/able. Reports Descriptive (141) PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. *Action Research; Adult £sic Education; *Adult Educators; DESCRIPTORS Adult Literacy; English (Second Language); High School Equivalency Programs; *Literacy Education; Material Development; *Problem Solving; *Professional Development; Program Evaluation; Program Improvement; State Programs; Statewide Planning *Pennsylvania IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT With the existence of 67 monographs and approximately 60 practitioners trained in action research in the western and central parts of Pennsylvania from project years 1995-98, the 1998-99 Section 353 project expanded the action research network (ARN) to include teachers, administrators, and researchers in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the state. The project produced a revision of the monograph guidelines and the Action Research Planner (ARP); trained 23 participants over the approximately 8-month research period; continued the refinement of the proposal review process to allow expert input to project proposal designs in order to improve quality control; produced 23 research monographs; and developed the Learning from Practice Web page (http://www.learningfrompractice.org). Interviews with 15 of 20 1997-98 participants one year after the completion of their project activities found: the majority improved their problem solving strategies; dealt with problems more systematically; made lasting changes in their classrooms; and felt action research made changes in their agencies. Interviews with 10 of 16 supervisors of participants' programs found that they rated action research highly, and a majority pointed to lasting changes in their institutions/programs as a result of action research. The 8-page report is followed by a list of 1998-99 monograph titles, the results of evaluation studies of the Pennsylvania ARN, and revisions to the ARP and Monograph Guide. (Contains 53 references.) (YLB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. FINAL REPORT "Pennsylvania Action Research Network (PA-ARN) Staff Development Through Five Regional Staff Development Centers" Project Number 099-99-9010 July 1998June 1999 Project Director: Dr. Gary W. Kuhne Assistant Professor and Regional Director of Adult Education The Pennsylvania State University U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 ii TITLE PAGE Pennsylvania Action Research Network (PA-ARN) Staff Development Title: Through Five Regional Staff Development Centers Adult Dr. Gary W. Kuhne, Assistant Professor and Regional Director of Project Director: Education, The Pennsylvania State University 1998-1999 Fiscal Year: Pennsylvania Action Research Network Agency Address: Penn State-McKeesport, 307 Ostermayer Lab McKeesport, PA 15132-7698 $46,539 Federal Funding Awarded: 099-99-9010 Project No: U.S. Department of The activity, which is the subject of this report, was supported in part by the position or Education. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the of Education, and no policy of the U.S. Department of Education or the Pennsylvania Department official endorsement by these agencies should be inferred. 3 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii m LE PAGE iv ABSTRACT PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL REPORT 1 3 FINAL REPORT 3 Statement of the Problem 3 Goals and Objectives of the Project 5 Procedures Employed 5 Objectives Met 6 Objectives Not Met 6 Evaluation Instruments and Results Procedure for the Dissemination of Findings and Products 8 8 Recommendations 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ACTION RESEARCH 13 APPENDIX A: 1998-99 MONOGRAPH I II LES 15 APPENDIX B: EVALUATION STUDIES OF PAARN 16 External Evaluation Impact Evaluation of Supervisors of Participants in 1997-98 Projects 18 22 Impact Evaluation of Participants in 1997-98 Projects 28 Field Evaluation of 1998-99 Participants 36 APPENDIX C: REVISIONS Revisions to the Action Research Planner Revisions to the Monograph Guide 4 iv Project No.: 099-99-9010 ABSTRACT PAGE Network: do Penn State-McKeesport Grant Recipient: Pennsylvania Action Research Phone: 412-675-9473 307 Ostermayer Lab, McKeesport, PA 15132-7698 Network (PA-ARN) Staff Development Through Program Name: Pennsylvania Action Research Five Regional Staff Development Centers Grant Allocation: $46,539 Project Period: July 1998-June 1999 and Regional Director of Adult Project Director: Dr. Gary W. Kuhne, Assistant Professor Education, The Pennsylvania State University literacy/ABE/GED/ESL Project Purpose: The project proposed to (a) train & mentor development of the Action Research practitioners in Pennsylvania in action research, (b) extend the produce and disseminate Network begun in 1995/96 across more of Pennsylvania, and (c) practitioner-based knowledge for the advancement of the field. (a) a revision of the Project Outcomes: The project produced the following outcomes: 23 participants over the monograph guidelines and the Action Research Planner, (b) trained refinement the proposal review process approximately eight-month research period, (c) continued improve quality control, (d) produced 23 to allow expert input to project proposal designs to participated in 1997-98 as well research monographs, (e) conducted an impact study on those who conducted an annual meeting of participants and interested others as their '97-'98 supervisors, (f) participant follow-up evaluation among the 1998- at the 1998 PAACE conference, (g) conducted a training into the PAARN Summer 1999 participants, and (h) planned for moving Action Research Institute for 1999-2000 project year. from the 1997-98 project year, as well Impact: Impact evaluation was done with both participants Participant impact interviews were conducted with 15/20 of the as supervisors of participants. 1999 (one year after their involvement 1997-98 action research participants between March-April, majority (93%) of last year's participants as with the Network) with the following findings: (a) the majority (93%) now deal with interviewed had improved their problem solving strategies, (b) the lasting changes in their problems more systematically, (c) the majority (60%) had made made changes in their agencies. classrooms, and (d) the majority (67%) felt action research had of the participants' programs Supervisor interviews were conducted with 10/16 of the supervisors highly; and (b) the majority with the following findings: (a) supervisors rated action research result of action (80%) could point to lasting changes in their institutions and/or programs as a participants (1998-99) and research. Summative evaluation was done with the current year's projects and had found that participants were very satisfied with their involvement in 1998-99 research. made meaningful changes to their programs as a result of action monographs of completed projects, Products: PAARN produced 23 trained practitioners, 23 through the development of the contributed to the development of better dissemination of findings guideline and Action Research Planner, an Learning from Practice Web page, a revised monograph follow-up evaluation of this impact study on the '97 -'98 participants and their supervisors, and a year's participants. contacting PDC offices, or Products Available From: Products are available from AdvancE, by contacting the Pennsylvania Action Research Network. positive picture of project impacts Project Continuation and/or Future Implications: The important form of professional staff development suggests Action Research should continue as an within the state. Education, a more Conclusions/Recommendations: In coordination with the Department of be developed. The Action comprehensive plan for the dissemination of research findings must findings and better disseminate these Research Network needs to continue to draw out patterns of the Action Research in ways the field can use. In addition, PDE should consider ways to use the emergent directions of Network to test new policy ideas or program thrusts. Finally, policy. practitioner interests and research could also be used to inform PDE 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE 1998-99 FINAL REPORT Project Purposes: The purposes of this project could be described as a professional development "process" for improving practice at the individual and local level, and the development of a knowledge "product" for the improvement of literacy at the state (and national) level. Specifically, the two basic purposes of this project were: (1) To continue to supplement the traditional professional staff development model being used in Pennsylvania by adding a practitioner-based model of action research and (with an added objective) to compare the lasting impact of action research with traditional workshops/courses in the literacy field. (2) To add practice-based knowledge to the knowledge base and literature as created by practitioners. Project Time Frame and Activities Overview: Projects in 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 South Central region, and the were carried out in the Northwest region, the Southwest region, the Central Northwest region. The 1998-99 extension of this project expanded into the Southeast region, as well as continued professional staff development efforts in the four regions already impacted. The delivery model used involved practitioners meeting regularly--from weekly to BI- weekly--for several hours at a central location in a region for both the training and on-going meetings on projects. In addition to the meetings, participants had frequent contact by telephone/mail or e-mail with their group leader from the Action Research team. Key Personnel: The Action Research team included: State University Dr. Gary W. Kuhne, Penn Research Director: Debbie Doyle Admin. Assistant: Hedy Miller Team Leader for Pittsburgh and PDC Southwest: David Fetterman Team Leader for Erie and PDC Northwest: David Fetterman Team Leader for PDC Central/Northeast: David Fetterman Team Leader for the PDC Southeast Linda Ritchie Team Leader for PDC South Central: Audience: The specific audience for this project was literacy, ABE, GED, and ESL practitioners in Pennsylvania. Administrators, teachers, program planners, and counselors would find the problems. report useful for ideas on various interventions that hold promise to solve practice-based An impact study was conducted on the participants and the supervisors of their programs of 1997- 98. The results of the projects as published in the 1998-99 monographs (23 new monographs, added to the 67 written over the past three years for a total of 90) will also be of interest to researchers. Permanent copies of monographs are available at the AdvancE library in Harrisburg and also at the Western Pennsylvania Adult Literacy Resource Center in Harrisburg (addresses below), in PDF format through the Learning From Practice Website, and on request from the Action Research Network: 6 2 standards Overview of Outcomes. Each action research project conformed to quality control reviewed participants' initial planning set by the Handbook. In addition, a panel of three experts 1998-99 designs for projects in order to give further input. Each of the 23 completed projects for by the Action has been made available in a monograph form for distribution through AdvancE and Research Network (see Appendix A for monograph titles). Monographs in PDF formats are hosted at available through the Learning From Practice Website. An open mid-year meeting was the annual Pennsylvania Adult Education conference in Hershey, PA. Report Copies can be attained from: AdvancE, PDE Resource Center Dept. Of Education 333 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333 Information on the Project can be attained from: ph. 412-675-9473 Dr. Gary Kuhne: ph. 724-727-2518 Debbie Doyle: Mailing Address. Pennsylvania Action Research Network c/o Adult Education Graduate Program Penn State University, McKeesport Campus 307 Ostermayer Lab McKeesport, PA. 15132 Comment: Concerning the Nature of the Monographs A "qualifier" has been inserted in the inside cover of each monograph which states that none of the individual reports assumes to hold wide generalizability; rather, each of these small-scale studies is strictly illustrative, informative and--hopefully --stimulative for other practitioners who might choose to replicate or adapt study to their setting. This qualifier has been added because those who that these are quantitative parametric are not knowledgeable about action research might assume experimental studies with wide generalizability. Quite the contrary, Action research adds pieces of of findings over time. a puzzle and any generalizability sought can be gained by seeking patterns Thus, the qualifier asks readers to look at other similar monographs as well as the literacy literature for patterns or; alternatively, to contact the Action Research Network team for assistance in this. Summaries of such patterns are currently being studied and the results will be available through the Learning From Practice Website. 7 3 FINAL REPORT: PAARN 1998-99 Statement of the Problem The Action Research initiative in Pennsylvania was rooted in a literature review demonstrating a growing awareness in K-12 (as well as in Adult Basic Education) that "expert research" or "received research" is not the entire answer to everyday practitioner research), problems. While the field of literacy does not lack "received research" (including 353 practitioners lack ways to systematically apply expert findings; to observe and validate the their knowledge widely (Lytle outcomes of their own work; and, too often, the confidence to share well, & Cochran-Smith, 1990). As a result, the field does not develop or apply expert knowledge nor does it inform itself very well from its own practice. Traditional school-oriented workshops and courses are perhaps the most extensively used form of professional development in both K-12 and adult basic education, but have demonstrated important limitations for the professional development of literacy practitioners, including: (1) The geography for delivery of workshops is often problematic. (2) The travel costs are usually a barrier for practitioners. (3) The disincentive of knowing that very few practitioners will realize any career advancement/pay raise by virtue of traveling and attending "professional development". (4) The constant problem of real content relevance in workshops and courses. (5) The difficulty with on-going mentoring or follow-up of traditional school-oriented professional development workshop/course. Awareness of the problems with traditional school-oriented professional development workshops and courses has led many to suggest that the answer to improved professional practice lies in self-directed learning by literacy practitioners. Although self-directed learning activities can produce useful results for practitioners, there are a number of weaknesses at the every day operational level when relying too heavily upon such an answer. A better and more complete answer requires that practitioners be given: (1) A better method for taking published research findings and testing, then adapting them, in their own classrooms. (2) A way to systematically study their own research ideas on a daily-action basis. (3) A systematic way to share and disseminate findings of best practices so improvements "rediscovered" across to teaching/administration/counseling do not need to be constantly the state and country. Seeking to respond to the above listed problems and limitations of workshops and independent studies, many adult literacy programs across California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have begun using Action Research. The Pennsylvania Action Research Network has completed three years of increasingly productive professional development assistance 8 4 within the state. The long-term impact studies conducted in this project (see Appendix B) and the participant evaluation follow up study (see Appendix B) strongly suggest that action research is helping to address some of the endemic issues of traditional professional development and limitations of self-directed practitioner improvement. Goals and Objectives of the Project This proposal sought to add Pennsylvania's staff development efforts the dimension of "doing by learning," as action research's acknowledged founder Kurt Lewin described the working definition of action research. With the existence of 67 monographs and approximately 60 trained practitioners in the western and central parts of the state from project years 1995-98, this year's project sought to expand the network to include teachers, administrators, and researchers in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the state. It was hoped that practitioners could be linked throughout the state in order to provide a means to work together on common problems statewide. The focus of all action research projects was on everyday program and classroom needs. A number of goals guided the actual implementation of this 1998-99 353 project: 1. Serve New Areas: We will continue action research staff development in the Southwest (Pittsburgh), the Northwest (Erie), the Central Northeast (2 groups, one near Scranton and one near Lockhaven), and the South Central (Lewistown), and expand into the Southeast (Lancaster). We expect to have a total of 40 new participants this year. 2. Employ A Consistent Training Model: An Action research Staff Developer will be assigned for each PDC region (two for the Central Northwest) to meet a minimum of facilitation sessions (once in eight times with participants in PA-ARN for half day training September, Bi-weekly in October and November, Once in January, February, March, - facilitation more as needed). These half-day sessions will provide continuing guidance and during implementation of action research projects. 3. Develop A Summer PAARN Institute: The principle investigator will develop a Summer Action Research Institute for use in future years (Summer 1999 will be target date for first Summer Action Research Institute). This Summer Action Research Institute will enable PA-ARN to centralize the Action Research Training process. Potential action research participants for the upcoming year from various regions of the state would attend the Institute and receive basic instruction in Action Research, assistance in developing their actual action research proposal, and both an evaluation review of their proposed projects and formal approval before the end of the Institute. Moving from training in each region into an Institute approach will insure uniformity in training, allow new projects to begin in September of each year instead of months later, incorporate the evaluation process into beginning of year, and permit more cross-region sharing by participants on the action research process. 4. Expand The Monograph Series: PA-ARN will plan to continue the edited monograph series, as well as collaborate with the individual or team established by ABLE to coordinate the dissemination of research findings from the Learning From Practice projects. Debbie Doyle will maintain the database and Issues Network and edit the final monographs. Dr. Kuhne will act as managing editor on all products. Disseminate Sound Research Findings: Participation in PA-ARN will be 5. voluntary. The team's job will be to advise on, coordinate, and help disseminate sound research. The team will ultimately reserve the right not to edit a piece in the monograph series. That researcher can provide a report to PDE in another format, as necessary. The 5 subjects but will not take team will advise all participants on the protection of human inquire that liability for breaches of subject confidentiality. It will be explained to those who auspices. this project can only serve practitioners who are under PDE-Sponsored program with Project 6. Coordinate with Project Equal: PA-ARN will seek to coordinate Equal initiatives in various regions to develop joint efforts as appropriate. Procedures Employed locations This project was conducted from July 1, 1998 June 30, 1999 in five different Fetterman, Linda within the PDC regions mentioned above. Team leaders (Hedy Miller, Dave presentations on action Ritchie) conducted bi-weekly/monthly meetings. The team also made teachers, research at the PAACE annual conference. Adult basic education, literacy, GED, ESL involved from large urban, smaller urban, tutors, program administrators, and counselors became and rural programs. Every participant was trained using the revised Handbook and Planner and, where mentoring of possible, a mentor from the 1995-98 project years was involved in the training and frequent follow up calls from our team leaders. new participants. The participants also received action Learning from previous year's experience, practitioners in rural areas were served by (e.g., in researcher team trainers/mentors with monthly daylong meetings. For urban areas, second week. Pittsburgh) participants began with weekly meetings and moved to meetings every their groups. A Rural practitioners, especially, were encouraged to establish "buddies" within in the early stages panel of 3 experts was asked to review each initial planner from each practitioner coordinating point of projects. The panel gave individual feedback. The Project Director was the level of input and he synthesized the feedback for each practitioner. It is evident that this external has enhanced the monographs over this last year Objectives Met And How Serve New Areas: We were able to engage 23 practitioners in all five regions, i.e., the regions. Southwest, the Northwest, the Central Northeast, the South Central, and the Southeast Thus we met the regional expansion goals identified at the start of the project year. & Employ A Consistent Training Model: The Pennsylvania Action Research Handbook input Project Planner, first written by A. Quigley in 1995-96, received minor revisions based on the from past years. This was used in all of the training sessions and was disseminated to participants. The planner formed the basis for each project and only when this planner was individual's acceptably complete and reviewed by the team leader and the expert panel was an and, as project begun. The Network team was oriented for this year at an initial fall meeting described. described above, they met with interested practitioners in rural and urban settings as evaluations. An Action The evaluation of their training and the projects overall can be seen in the of eight times with research Staff Developer was assigned for each PDC region to meet a minimum facilitation sessions (once in September, Bi-weekly participants in PA-ARN for half day training These half-day in October and November, Once in January, February, March, more as needed). research sessions provided continuing guidance and facilitation during implementation of action projects. Summer Develop A Summer PAARN Institute: The principle investigator developed a Research Action Research Institute to be held on August 16-18, 1999. This Summer Action action Institute will enable PA-ARN to centralize the Action Research Training process. Potential 10