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

Abstract

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.

35 Years on the Road from Research to Practice: A Review of Studies on Four Content Enhancement Routines for Inclusive Subject‐Area Classes, Part II

“…In both studies, the effect sizes were large. Indeed, in three studies (Schumaker et al., 2010; Schumaker et al., 2021a, 2021b), more teachers who experienced the computerized instruction produced implementation performances above the 80% mastery level than the teachers who experienced live instruction. Additionally, Schumaker et al.…”

“…In both studies, the effect sizes were large. Indeed, in three studies (Schumaker et al, 2010;Schumaker et al, 2021aSchumaker et al, , 2021b, more teachers who experienced the computerized instruction produced implementation performances above the 80% mastery level than the teachers who experienced live instruction. Additionally, Schumaker et al (2010) and Schumaker et al (2021a) found that the whole group of students of the VW teachers earned significantly higher scores than the whole group of students of the AW teachers.…”

“…In the fifth pair of studies focusing on the professional development of teachers learning a Content Enhancement Routine, Schumaker et al. (2021b) targeted the Question Exploration Routine. This routine was considered to be even more cognitively difficult than the concept routines targeted in the studies described above.…”

“…In three of these studies, the performance data collected from the students were disaggregated to display the performance of students with LD along with the performance of the whole group of students. The performance of students with LD was highlighted since this group of students has been shown to exhibit substantial skill deficits and to earn failing or barely passing grades in subject–area courses (Fore et al, 2008; Hughes & Schumaker, 1991; Schwartz et al, 2021a; Warner et al, 1980). These studies and the results associated with each of the four Content Enhancement Routines are described below.…”