The Effects of Computerized Versus Collaborative Professional Development on Teachers’ and Students’ Performance Related to the Concept Anchoring Routine

• Published in: Journal of learning disabilities Vol. 54; no. 6; pp. 420 - 437
• Main Authors: Schumaker, Jean B., Walsh, Lisa D., Fisher, Joseph B., Graner, Patricia Sampson
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.11.2021; SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Classes (Groups of Students); Collaboration; Computerization; Cooperative learning; Electronic Learning; Elementary School Students; Elementary School Teachers; Faculty Development; Humans; Individualized Instruction; Instructional Effectiveness; Learning; Learning Activities; Learning Disabilities; Multimedia; Pretests Posttests; Professional development; School Teachers; Schools; Secondary School Students; Secondary School Teachers; Software; Special education; Student Satisfaction; Students; Students with Disabilities; Teacher Collaboration; Teacher education; Teacher Workshops; Teachers; Teaching; Teaching Methods; group and multiple-baseline designs; inclusive classes; students with LD; Grades 4 to 12; subject-area instruction; computerized PD; Concept Anchoring Routine
• ISSN: 0022-2194; 1538-4780; 1538-4780
• DOI: 10.1177/0022219420988001

Two studies investigated the effects of a live, collaborative Professional Development (PD) program versus individualized PD with a multimedia software program. For both studies, teachers were randomly assigned to either a Virtual Workshop (VW) group that used the software program or to an Actual Workshop (AW) group that participated in a face-to-face workshop that included collaborative activities. The same teaching routine, the Concept Anchoring Routine, was taught to the teachers in both studies. In Study 1, teachers’ scores on a knowledge test about the routine and written plans for using the routine significantly improved from pretest to posttest in both groups. The groups’ posttest scores were not significantly different. Similarly, in Study 2, both groups’ posttest scores with regard to their knowledge of the routine, their written plans for use of the routine, and their implementation of the routine in their classes were significantly higher than their baseline scores. There were no differences between the teacher groups after training. The posttest knowledge scores of the whole groups of students being taught by both groups of teachers were also significantly higher than their pretest scores. Similar significant results were achieved by the students with LD. Moreover, the whole groups of students of VW teachers earned significantly higher posttest scores than the whole groups of students of AW teachers. Both teacher groups were satisfied with the training they received and with the routine. The students of both groups were satisfied with the way their teachers used the routine to help them learn.