{"id":680,"date":"2016-04-20T21:09:16","date_gmt":"2016-04-20T21:09:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/supporting-in-service-teachers-professional-teaching-knowledge-with-educatively-scaffolded-digital-curriculum\/"},"modified":"2016-05-06T00:44:46","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T00:44:46","slug":"supporting-in-service-teachers-professional-teaching-knowledge-with-educatively-scaffolded-digital-curriculum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-15\/issue-4-15\/social-studies\/supporting-in-service-teachers-professional-teaching-knowledge-with-educatively-scaffolded-digital-curriculum","title":{"rendered":"Supporting In-Service Teachers’ Professional Teaching Knowledge With Educatively Scaffolded Digital Curriculum"},"content":{"rendered":"

Improving teachers\u2019 effectiveness motivates many contemporary education reforms.\u00a0 Initiatives supported with both public (e.g., Race to the Top) and private (e.g., Measures of Effective Teaching, http:\/\/www.metproject.org<\/a>) funding have proposed that effective teaching is demonstrated by high student achievement on standardized exams (see Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014; Harris, Ingle, & Rutledge, 2014; Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015).\u00a0 Many scholars suggest otherwise.\u00a0 Some have posited that effective teaching is far more complex and should be more broadly defined to include holistic measures of teachers\u2019 content and pedagogical knowledge; habits of mind (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Hollins, 2011); ability to set, revise, and reach learning goals (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jensen, 2007); reflective decision-making (Ryan, Cooper, & Bolick, 2015); and personal attributes such as enthusiasm (Darling-Hammond, 2010).<\/p>\n

Others have suggested that helping teachers develop professional knowledge is a promising strategy for increasing their effectiveness (Goldenberg, Culp, Clements, Pasquale, & Anderson, 2014; Hiebert & Morris, 2012; Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009).\u00a0 The emphasis on teachers\u2019 professional knowledge and effectiveness has focused greater attention on support programs for practitioners (see Ben-Peretz, 2011; Earp, Ott, & Pozzi, 2013).<\/p>\n

Professional development (PD) typically fails to influence teachers\u2019 practice substantively, and its impact on student learning is often disappointing (Gersten et al., 2010; Goldenberg et al., 2014; Hiebert & Morris, 2012).\u00a0 Failure and disappointment may result, in part, from a program\u2019s design and implementation.\u00a0 Teachers’ PD experiences tend to be of a short duration, poorly organized (Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010), and centered around unproven ideas and strategies (Guskey & Yoon, 2009).\u00a0 PD providers also tend to deliver too few engaging activities to enrich teachers\u2019 knowledge (Borko, 2004).\u00a0 Moreover, PD tends to be ineffective even when founded upon widely recognized best practices: a strong content focus, inquiry based, and consistency with a school system\u2019s curriculum and policies (Desimone, 2009; Hiebert & Morris, 2012; Hill, Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007).<\/p>\n

Many education researchers have encouraged investigations of innovative PD models to offer additional explanations for why teacher support is routinely ineffectual, and to suggest what constitutes substantive support for teachers (Earp et al., 2013; Goos, 2013; Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Miratrix, 2012; Hill, Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013).\u00a0 This call motivated our design of a novel program of support for in-service social studies teachers.\u00a0 Throughout our study we asked, \u201cCan sustained, collaborative professional development experiences with digital educative curriculum materials help in-service social studies teachers develop professional teaching knowledge?\u201d<\/p>\n

Related Literature Informing PD Design<\/p>\n

Professional Teaching Knowledge<\/p>\n

Although many theories exist to operationalize teachers\u2019 PD, we find professional teaching knowledge (PTK) particularly relevant.\u00a0 Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler (2002) suggested that a more professional knowledge for teachers would integrate teachers\u2019<\/em> practical understanding of orchestrating classroom events with researchers\u2019<\/em> wise practice suggestions derived from scientific studies.\u00a0 Classroom teachers\u2019 knowledge tends to be specific, situated in classrooms, and derived from private experience; teacher educators\u2019 knowledge is public, generalizable, and research based.\u00a0 Thus, PTK would integrate theory-based researcher knowledge with grounded-experience teacher knowledge to produce pragmatic, field-tested suggestions to guide practice decisions (Hiebert et al., 2002; Saye, Kohlmeier, Brush, Mitchell, & Farmer, 2009).<\/p>\n

Research suggests developing PTK will be difficult.\u00a0 Transferring workplace, practical knowledge (van Velzen, Volman, Brekelmans, & White, 2012) and combining experiential understandings with more generalizable theoretical knowledge (Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012) are challenging.<\/p>\n

Our Model<\/p>\n

Engaging and educative context<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>We developed our PD program to occur within an engaging and educative context.\u00a0 Scholars have suggested that an effective PD approach might feature providers who guide teachers through dynamic activities that model and explain powerful instruction (see Borko, 2004; Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Guskey & Yoon 2009).\u00a0 Such interactive, face-to-face learning opportunities may help teachers recognize and explore pedagogical suggestions (Collopy, 2003; Goldenberg et al., 2014) and provide a deliberative space for real-time support.<\/p>\n

A pragmatic concern is precisely where and when to establish such a context.\u00a0 Our previous work exploring teachers\u2019 interactions with educative curricula (see Callahan, 2009; Callahan, Saye, & Brush, 2013a, 2013b, 2014) led us to believe that because of its busy pace and frequent interruptions, a typical school day and classroom may not provide an environment conducive to purposeful interaction with reform ideas and materials. \u00a0We thought summer months, weekends, or faculty workdays might provide more suitable times for teachers to engage deeply in PD efforts.<\/p>\n

Also, because the conceptual change associated with developing professional knowledge is difficult and incremental (Cornett, 1990; Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012) we designed our program to occur over an extended time\u2014spanning beyond one academic year\u2014to allow for sustained experiences (see Gersten et al., 2010; Heller et al., 2012; Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012).<\/p>\n

Improved materials<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>A promising strategy for improving instructional practices and student outcomes is for teachers and researchers to work together in creating, using, and revising curriculum resources (Hiebert & Morris, 2012; Morris & Hiebert, 2011). This strategy informed our design of experiences to support teachers\u2019 understanding of ways to promote historical thinking about visual information.<\/p>\n

We narrowed our PD focus to visual information (e.g., historical photographs) because contemporary physical and digital environments are filled with images through which people tend to make sense of the world (Burns 2006; Callahan, 2013a, 2015; Callow 2006; S\u00e4lj\u00f6, 2010).\u00a0 Social identities, public issues, relationships, and judgments are often mediated through sharing and responding to visual information (Callahan, 2013b, 2015; Fenn, Newman, Pezdek, & Garry, 2013; Samuels & Samuels, 2014; Werner, 2006).\u00a0 We presented teachers with comprehensive curricula and encouraged them to act upon the materials to expand their understanding of teaching and learning with visuals.<\/p>\n

Meaningful integration of technology<\/em>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Our PD model leveraged affordances of Web 2.0 tools (see Wilson, Wright, Inman, & Matherson, 2011) and facilitated the exchange of ideas and powerful strategies (see Earp et al., 2013).\u00a0 Well-designed digital technologies can support teaching and learning (Manfra, 2014; Swan & Hofer, 2008) and help learners develop new meaning-making skills (S\u00e4lj\u00f6, 2010).\u00a0 Some have further asserted that digital technology is likely to serve as the foundation for future PD efforts for in-service and preservice teachers (Hicks, Lee, Berson, Bolick, & Diem, 2014).<\/p>\n

Our technology integration centered around engaging teachers in prolonged collaborative experiences with digital educative<\/em> curricula.\u00a0 Others define educative curriculum materials (ECMs) broadly as teaching resources intended for student and teacher <\/em>learning (Collopy, 2003; Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Drake, Land, & Tyminski, 2014). \u00a0We operationalize ECMs as<\/p>\n

exemplar lessons that strongly illustrate fundaments of wise practice pedagogy and that [are] educatively scaffold[ed] to help teachers develop their professional teaching knowledge. This\u2026necessarily places a heavy emphasis on the scaffolds designed to support teacher learning. They must be nimble enough to overtly guide the teachers toward educative opportunities and facilitate participation with them, while simultaneously affording teachers the independence to discover information and create new understandings. (Callahan et al., 2013b)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The digital ECMs in this study were refined through multiple field tests with in-service teachers (Callahan et al., 2013a, 2014) and continued data-driven hypotheses for their optimal design and use (Callahan et al., 2013b).\u00a0 Logistically, our ECMs provided interactive online lesson plans: exemplars of problem-based historical inquiry (PBHI).\u00a0 Within each lesson plan we strategically embedded hyperlinks to explain PBHI tenets.\u00a0 When teachers clicked a hyperlink, a new browser window opened and presented a potentially educative feature. \u00a0Figure 1 illustrates an online lesson\u2019s interface design.<\/p>\n

\"figure \"figure<\/p>\n

Figure 1.<\/strong> A sequence of screen shots that illustrate the digital ECMs\u2019 interface design.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Each educative feature (i.e., hyperlinked webpage) contained (a) a paragraph explaining the theoretical basis underpinning the particular PBHI tenet, (b) a second paragraph describing, in practice, how the tenet was manifested both in the online lesson and<\/em> in an upcoming videocase, (c) a 3- to 5-minute videocase illustrating the tenet in a real classroom, and (4) two critical-thinking questions to promote reflection and discussion.<\/p>\n

Sustained collaboration<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Improved collaboration can help establish powerful learning environments for teachers\u2014and their students\u2014especially when an exchange of ideas concerning powerful practices occurs (Meirink et al., 2009).\u00a0 Although teacher collaboration (i.e., instructional teams, professional learning communities, etc.) is typically recognized as an important issue, exactly how it is conducted is often unclear (Earp et al., 2013; Ronfeldt et al., 2015).<\/p>\n

We wanted to create an effective \u201carchitecture for participation\u201d (O\u2019Reilly, 2007, p. 17) to help organize and facilitate teachers\u2019 periodic collaboration throughout an academic year.\u00a0 For example, we asked participants to respond not only to the digital ECMs\u2019 critical-thinking questions but also to their colleagues\u2019 responses.\u00a0 Figure 2 illustrates an educative feature\u2019s interface design.<\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

Figure 2.<\/strong> An educative feature\u2019s interface design<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We allotted time in each PD session for teachers to plan collaboratively an activity that one teacher would implement while others observed for constructive critique.\u00a0 We hoped this lesson-study element (see Lewis, 2000; Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006) would help distribute the heavy cognitive load associated with inquiry-based reforms (Saye et al., 2009).<\/p>\n

Conceptual Framework<\/p>\n

We framed our study with a wise practice pedagogical approach to teaching history: problem-based historical inquiry.\u00a0 Proponents of PBHI posit that history instruction should be purposeful, active, connected, and structured to promote students\u2019 learning (Saye & Brush, 2004).\u00a0 To establish purpose, PBHI lessons are centered around recurring societal concerns, affording students opportunities to engage in real-world problem-solving as they work with resources in order to think deeply and begin to formulate solutions and act in authentically situated, real-world situations (National Council for the Social Studies, 2008; Oliver & Shaver, 1966).<\/p>\n

Believing that active social studies classrooms can be powerful learning environments (Colman, Pulford, & Rose, 2008; Estes, Mintz, & Gunter, 2011; Levstik & Barton, 2010; National Council for the Social Studies, 2008), PBHI often asks students to deliberate and collaborate with peers to refine understandings of the past (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; Saye & Brush, 2004).<\/p>\n

Recognizing that experts and novices tend to think and solve problems differently due to differences in degree of connectedness<\/em> in their respective schemas (Goldstein, 2008; Estes et al., 2011), the PBHI model organizes instruction around substantive ideas that function as mental anchors to which students can attach newly learned information.<\/p>\n

Teachers practicing PBHI structure their instruction to support \u201cthe learner\u2019s development and provid[e] support structures to get to that next stage or level\u201d (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 56).\u00a0 Our investigation examined the degree to which the participants\u2019 responses to our PD model suggested adoption of the four PBHI tenets.<\/p>\n

Participants<\/p>\n

We found participants through a purposive, criterion sampling (Creswell, 2012) that matched our PD program goals.\u00a0 We contacted curriculum directors, principals, and department chairs in a southeastern U.S. state to find a secondary social studies department agreeable to a 13-month-long commitment to PD centered around planning and implementing lessons (a) designed collaboratively, (b) informed by digital educative curricula, and (c) featuring visual documents in a wise-practice, inquiry-based approach.<\/p>\n

We initially planned to work with only one school\u2019s social studies department, because we could expect participants to work within a single school culture and to experience similar affordances and constraints.\u00a0 Also, the smaller number of teachers would allow for a more robust qualitative investigation into teachers\u2019 experiences.\u00a0 Three schools emerged for potential participation.\u00a0 We elected to work with Rural High School (a pseudonym) because its social studies teachers had gone the longest without social-studies-specific PD.<\/p>\n

Shortly before our project began, the school system\u2019s superintendent asked if a rural intermediate school\u2019s social studies department could also participate.\u00a0 We welcomed them.\u00a0 This paper, however, focuses solely on our work with Rural High School\u2019s teachers and their experiences planning and implementing classroom activities informed by our PD program.<\/p>\n

The six teachers described in Table 1 (all pseudonyms) comprised Rural High School\u2019s social studies department.\u00a0 At the time of the investigation, they were unaccustomed to sustained collaboration, met afterschool \u201conce or twice a semester for department meetings\u201d (Kate, Summer I), and had never experienced common planning or lunch times.\u00a0 Five members were natives of the state and had graduated from in-state universities.\u00a0 They completed teacher education programs that offered certification following four semesters of education coursework, including one content-specific methods course.\u00a0 They were also required to fulfill degree requirements in a specific content area and pass a state-mandated exam purporting to measure a candidate\u2019s knowledge and skills.<\/p>\n

The sixth member of the social studies department was the curriculum coach, Kate.\u00a0 She was not a native of the state and had graduated from an out-of-state university with an education degree that included certification.\u00a0 She also earned a master\u2019s degree from that university; both degrees were in English\/language arts.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/strong>
\nPD Program Participants<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Name<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Years Teaching<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Schooling with Teaching<\/strong>
\nCertification<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Courses Taught<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Jerome<\/td>\n\n
16<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
Political Science degree;
\nUS History Master\u2019s degree<\/td>\n		Civics & Economics
\nUS history from 1877<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Josephine<\/td>\n\n
13<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
History degree<\/td>\nUS history to 1877
\nWorld history from 1450<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kate<\/td>\n\n
4<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
Education degree;
\nEnglish\/Language Arts Master\u2019s degree<\/td>\n		(Curriculum Coach for
\nRural High school)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Martha<\/td>\n\n
10<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
Sociology degree<\/td>\nUS history to 1877
\nWorld history from 1450<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Norbert<\/td>\n\n
3<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
Political Science degree<\/td>\nCivics & Economics
\nUS history from 1877
\nWorld history from 1450<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Philip<\/td>\n\n
17<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
History degree<\/td>\nUS history to 1877
\nUS history from 1877<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Rural High School\u2019s student population, grades 9-12, was 714; 45% of students were African-American, 30% White, 15% Hispanic, 5% American Indian, and 5% self-reported as Other (Kate, personal communication, Summer I; Rural High School\u2019s state report card).\u00a0 Rural High School served a high percentage of underprivileged students: 75% qualified for free or reduced price lunch (the state\u2019s average was 54%).<\/p>\n

Research Design<\/p>\n

This study is a part of an ongoing series of inquiries that taken together constitute a type of design-based research (see Brown, 1992; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).\u00a0 The investigation reported in this paper, our third in this line of inquiry, builds on the implications from the previous two iterations of educative curricula in an effort to refine continuously the optimal design and use of digital ECMs for promoting PTK.\u00a0 Table 2 illustrates several significant design modifications we made for this iteration.<\/p>\n

Table 2<\/strong>
\nSignificant Design-Based Research Modifications Made for This Iteration<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Research Design Features From Two Previous Iterations of Investigation Into ECMs\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Design Challenges the Modifications Addressed<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Modified Design Features Made for the Third Iteration of ECMs Investigation<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Each study examined three teachers, from three different school systems, for one semester.<\/td>\n1. Afford teachers the opportunity for sustained collaboration and share the cognitive load associated with inquiry-based reforms.<\/td>\n1. We studied six teachers from one school system for more than an academic year.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Teachers planned during the school day: planning period, lunch time, after school<\/td>\n2. Afford teachers a more deliberative space and concentrate time to work with reform ideas.<\/td>\n2. Teachers planned during professional development workdays.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Teachers implemented the lessons presented in the ECMs.<\/td>\n3. Afford teachers the opportunity to add their practitioner knowledge to the researcher knowledge (ECMs) and create activities for their classroom contexts.<\/td>\n3. Teachers used the ECMs to inform their planning and implementing of an original, collaboratively designed lesson.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. The ECMs were stand-alone levers for teacher change.<\/td>\n4. Afford teachers more support to better understand and implement the reform ideas.<\/td>\n4. The ECMs were featured resources in a professional development program.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Design-based research in education typically explores an innovative approach or practice\u2014an intervention\u2014so that researchers may better understand a relationship between that intervention (i.e., its underpinning theoretical assumptions) and teaching and learning in authentic settings (Denzin, 2009; Peneul, Fishman, Chen, & Sabelli, 2011).\u00a0 Thus, design-based researchers often collect data over several iterations from multiple sources to provide rich data-triangulation (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Denzin, 2009).\u00a0 Subsequent analysis may then provide data-based speculations about the possible relationship between an intervention and teaching and learning (Collins et al., 2004).<\/p>\n

Design-based research holds \u201cthe promise of effectively bridging the research-to-practice gap to produce meaningful change in practice when innovative practices are fine-tuned\u2026by partnerships with teacher [and] researcher\u201d (Jitendra, 2005, p. 213).<\/p>\n

Data Sources and Collection<\/p>\n

Our first data point was a preintervention interview of participants and observations of their instructional planning. The second data point was a 13-month-long intervention that occurred in four phases.\u00a0 Each phase consisted of participants (a) as learners, experiencing an activity modeling PBHI; (b) in small groups, exploring digital ECMs; (c) collaboratively planning and implementing an activity informed by our PD program; and (d) together, debriefing each activity\u2019s implementation.\u00a0 The third data point was similar to the first: postintervention interviews and observations of participants\u2019 instructional planning.\u00a0 Table 3 illustrates this project\u2019s data points.<\/p>\n

Table 3<\/strong>
\nData Points and Collection Schedule<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\nData Point\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Collection\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Source of Data\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Preinterview and
\nobservation<\/td>\n		June, Summer I<\/td>\n(a) Interview
\n(b) Observation of planning
\n(c) Develop activity with historical
\nphoto(s)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Four-phase intervention<\/td>\nJuly
\nOctober
\nMarch
\nJune<\/td>\n		(d) PBHI learning experience
\n(e) Exploration of ECMs \u2014 debriefing discussion
\n(f) Collaboration to plan PBHI-
\ninformed activity
\n(g) Observation of implementation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Postinterview and
\nobservation<\/td>\n		June, Summer II<\/td>\n(j) Develop activity with historical
\nphoto(s)
\n(k) Interview and observation of
\nplanning
\n(l)\u00a0 Member-checks and field notes
\nthroughout<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

We employed think aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1998; Jaaskelainen, 2010) during the teachers\u2019 interactions with digital ECMs and throughout the collaborations to gain insight into participants\u2019 thoughts and rationale for their decisions.\u00a0 We also compiled transcripts and field notes and conducted member-checks throughout the study.<\/p>\n

Phase 1<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 In July, Summer I, the first author (Callahan)\u2014who provided all of the PD\u2014began a 5-hour session by modeling PBHI.\u00a0 He projected a historical photograph (Figure 3) and distributed an original advanced organizer (Appendix<\/a>).\u00a0 He then led participants through a Socratic exercise, asking a series of purposeful questions to encourage their thinking critically and historically about a document.<\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

Figure 3.<\/strong> Historical photograph from the PBHI experience in Phase 1. Shorpy Higginbotham, a “greaser” on the tipple at Bessie Mine, of the Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co., Bessie Mine, Alabama. Photographed<\/em> by Lewis W. Hine (1910). <\/em>Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The teachers analyzed the photograph\u2019s source, contextualized and corroborated its information, and thought deeply about its message (see Wineburg, 1991, 1999; Wineburg & Reisman, 2015).\u00a0 Callahan then engaged the teachers in a dynamic role-play (see Orlich et al., 2013, p. 257) of specific individuals and events depicted in the photograph.\u00a0 He asked participants to act out the photograph as a type of interactive tableau vivant.\u00a0 He then asked questions of participants to answer in character to help everyone engage in a thorough understanding of the era (e.g., \u201cWhy are you here covered in grease instead of at school?\u201d and \u201cWhat changes to society\u2014specifically, this community\u2014would you like to see and why?\u201d).<\/p>\n

Callahan corrected ahistorical extrapolations and assumptions. \u00a0Next, he posited a compelling question (\u201cHow well did Progressive Era society address the problem of poverty and help those in need?\u201d) and asked the teachers to use information gleaned from their photo-analysis to begin to formulate an answer.<\/p>\n

He then led a debriefing discussion that emphasized how the previous activities (a) established purpose for studying social studies by reasoning about a persisting societal problem; (b) incorporated multiple ways of knowing, including political philosophy and moral reasoning; and (c) used analogical reasoning to refine thinking about a problem\u2019s possible solutions (see Saye & Brush, 2004).\u00a0 In the discussion, participants explored the notion that instruction can be authentically situated in real-world societal problems, and it can call for decision and civic action.<\/p>\n

Following the discussion, Callahan introduced the idea of \u201ceducative\u201d curricula.\u00a0 He suggested participants might further develop their craft in ways consistent with the PBHI experience by engaging digital ECMs and discussing them with colleagues.\u00a0 The participants\u2019 then explored a set of digital ECMs, and Callahan facilitated a discussion of its four educative features.\u00a0 Finally, the participants collaborated to develop an activity informed by their PD experiences.\u00a0 Callahan did not join the participants\u2019 collaboration.\u00a0 They understood one participant would teach students the collaboratively planned activity while the other participants and Callahan observed.<\/p>\n

Phases 2 and 3<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>The second and third phases occurred during the academic year (fall and spring semesters, respectively).\u00a0 Participants, individually and on their own time, explored a second and third set of digital ECMs.\u00a0 A week later, substitutes taught the participants\u2019 morning classes while the participants met in their school\u2019s media center for another 5-hour, face-to-face PD session.\u00a0 Both sessions began with a PBHI learning experience identical to the one described for Phase 1. The only difference with this experience was the historical photograph explored.\u00a0 Again, Callahan led teachers through steps associated with thinking critically and historically and engaged them in a dynamic role play.\u00a0 The teachers then revisited their earlier work with digital ECMs and synthesized their discussions of PBHI tenets.\u00a0 Finally, the teachers collaboratively planned an activity.<\/p>\n

Phase 4<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 The ensuing June, Summer II, the final phase occurred; it closely resembled the previous three.\u00a0 Participants experienced another PBHI activity (identical to the one described for Phase 1) centered around a fourth historical photograph; then they explored a fourth set of digital ECMs.\u00a0 The teachers again discussed their thoughts and experiences related to PBHI; however, instead of developing a fourth activity, participants collaboratively developed departmental goals for the next academic year.<\/p>\n

Data Analysis<\/p>\n

We triangulated data sources to increase the credibility and validity of our findings (Creswell, 2012; Denzin, 2009) and reduce limitations found in analyzing a single source (as in Maxwell, 2013).\u00a0 Our analysis began with multiple readings of all data.\u00a0 We then organized data chronologically and created a profile for each PD phase.\u00a0 Next, we analyzed profiles\u2014individually and across PD phases\u2014and looked closely for phenomena (e.g., recurring events, analogies, or concepts mentioned) to use as codes to describe participants\u2019 experiences (as in Huberman, Miles, & Saldana, 2013).\u00a0 We privileged codes grounded in the convergence of multiple data sources.<\/p>\n

We specifically compared data collected earlier in the study (e.g., preintervention interviews and Phase 1 implementation) to data collected later (e.g., Phase 2 and 3 implementation and postintervention interviews).\u00a0 Then, we reread all data through the lens of our conceptual framework (PBHI) and looked for evidence to suggest that participants\u2019 may have used the digital ECMs to develop PTK.<\/p>\n

Findings and Discussion<\/p>\n

We investigated whether sustained, collaborative PD experiences with digital educative curriculum materials could promote secondary social studies teachers\u2019 PTK. Despite our inability to isolate key variables and analyze them individually, data suggested that sustained experiences with digital ECMs helped participants begin to develop PTK for PBHI.<\/p>\n

Here, we should emphasize the difficulty many teachers experience when they encounter the type of fundamental change presented by inquiry-based practices (e.g., Windschitl, 2002).\u00a0 For teachers new to inquiry, complete fidelity to our PBHI model would represent a remarkable achievement.\u00a0 Adopting a more realistic view, any significant adherence to PBHI by study teachers should be considered a notable development.<\/p>\n

Collaborative Planning<\/p>\n

Phase 1 implementation<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 In July, Summer I, the teachers together planned an activity informed by their PD experiences.\u00a0 Because she wanted a new introduction to her existing Civil War unit, Martha volunteered to teach her students the first collaboratively designed activity. \u00a0Jerome, Josephine, and Philip were particularly interested in battlefield prints from a Mathew Brady collection they found online, but Martha said, \u201cI want something that can compare the earlier and later aspects of the war\u2026so that they [students] will think about where we\u2019re headed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The participants found Alexander Garner\u2019s Abraham Lincoln <\/em>(Figure 4) and formalized ideas into an activity.<\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

Figure 4.<\/strong> Historical photograph around which participants developed Phase 1 implementation. Abraham Lincoln<\/em> photographed by Alexander Gardner (February 5, 1865). Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Josephine took the lead in describing visual aspects she would want students to reflect upon:<\/p>\n

Look at his hands\u2026.They\u2019re moving.\u00a0 Is he nervous? \u00a0Is he impatient? \u00a0It\u2019s 1865, so later in the war.\u00a0 February, actually, so close to the end.\u00a0 And his hair is\u2026disheveled. \u00a0I think this could give students a reason to think about what\u2019s going on and what could cause him to look and act like this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The participants decided to use the photograph as a brief activity toward the beginning of a class period. The following dialog took place toward the end of the planning session:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Norbert:<\/td>\nA lot of this is what we are expected to do already. \u00a0I mean we should already be connecting content to real life and asking good questions, right? \u00a0These [digital ECMs] should provide something more innovative.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Philip:<\/td>\nGood point. Most of this is common knowledge.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kate:<\/td>\nYeah, I agree we should be doing this [connecting content to students\u2019 lives], but I don\u2019t know that we are, really. \u00a0I mean, these [digital ECMs] are at least providing us ways to think about making class more interesting for students, and it can help with differentiating, too.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n[Josephine and Martha nodded assent]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Jerome:<\/td>\nYeah, it does. \u00a0This gives students more opportunity to express their ideas and different gifts and aptitudes. \u00a0For example, having kids deconstruct images is really good for their being observant and objective\u2026and it [the strategy] also allows them to share all of that\u2026through the small groups.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Norbert:<\/td>\nI use mixed ability small groups a good bit and see how it [the strategy] could work well for letting students\u2019 talents work together.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kate:<\/td>\nWell, sure, but it depends on how you want them [students] to express what they\u2019ve learned\u2026.Is it through completing this [holding up the advanced organizer] or classroom discussion like she\u2019s describing [pointing to her laptop screen]. \u00a0Both can work.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Four months later, during the fall semester, Kate, Josephine, and the first author (Callahan) observed Martha leading students through the activity.\u00a0 The photograph was projected at the front of the classroom as students entered. Immediately after the tardy bell rang, Martha led a whole-class conversation of its details.\u00a0 She repeated students\u2019 observations (e.g., askew bow tie, Lincoln\u2019s many wrinkles) and asked two questions to help organize their thinking: \u201cWhat does this tell us about the era?\u201d and \u201cWhat was its purpose?\u201d<\/p>\n

Martha accepted superficial answers (e.g., \u201cIt was stressful\u201d or \u201cTo tell he was important\u201d) and continued with her preexisting multimedia presentation concerning the Election of 1860, Fort Sumter, and the First Battle of Bull Run.\u00a0 When debriefing the lesson, Kate and Josephine shared their observations.<\/p>\n

Kate said, \u201cThe activity was good, but it seemed kind of disjointed.\u201d Josephine said, \u201cThey we\u2019re really into it, but not everyone participated.\u201d\u00a0Martha thought the activity was \u201cgood.\u201d She said, \u201cWhen we talked about the election, they knew who won obviously\u2026.I got to ask them for opinions and some took the risk\u2014you know, the low-level risk that it really was\u2014to\u2026share their thoughts.\u201d<\/p>\n

As participants planned and implemented the first activity, they demonstrated minimal understanding of PBHI tenets. The teachers present for the implementation seemed to attribute value to engaging students in a thoughtful discussion to analyze a photograph critically (e.g., \u201cWhat is its purpose?\u201d).\u00a0 Josephine wanted students to use information they gathered from the photograph to hypothesize about its historical context (e.g., \u201cWhat\u2019s going on and what could make him look and act like this?\u201d).\u00a0 However, experiences with the ECMs did not seem to help teachers orchestrate classroom experiences to achieve these goals.\u00a0 Although Martha asked her students two potentially higher ordered thinking questions, she presented no rationale, or purpose<\/em>, for exploring the historical photograph as evidence from the past.<\/p>\n

The teachers seemed to interpret active<\/em> to mean engaged.\u00a0 Martha\u2019s students simply shared their initial observations of the photograph; they did not socially construct a meaningful understanding of the past by negotiating truth claims, defending perspectives, and reasoning together to draw conclusions.<\/p>\n

Norbert and Philip thought that connecting content information to students\u2019 lives was \u201ccommon knowledge,\u201d and seemed dismissive of the digital ECMs.\u00a0 However, the materials described the PBHI tenet differently.\u00a0 Connected<\/em> was described as organizing instruction around big ideas\u2014key concepts or persisting societal concerns\u2014that serve as mental-anchors onto which new information can become tethered, thus creating a larger schema (i.e., mental map) of meaning.\u00a0 Kate seemed to interpret connected<\/em> to mean only interlesson consistency, that all activities seem related. \u00a0She seemed especially concerned that the lesson was \u201cdisjointed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The participants also seemed to interpret structured<\/em> differently from the digital ECM\u2019s intent. \u00a0Martha and Josephine agreed with Kate and Jerome\u2019s description of structured activities as opportunities for students \u201cto express their ideas and different gifts and aptitudes.\u201d\u00a0 The teachers did not seem to take up the ECM\u2019s notion that supporting higher level student thinking would likely require (a) advanced planning to anticipate typical learner difficulties, and (b) spontaneous aid provided by the teacher during impromptu discussions during the lesson.<\/p>\n

Phase 2 implementation<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Following Phase 1 implementation, participants planned a second activity.\u00a0 Josephine said, \u201cI liked the Lincoln one [activity] because it allowed lower level students\u2026to enter the conversation.\u201d\u00a0 Martha agreed: \u201cIt worked better for me and for them. They didn\u2019t seem to worry about being right or getting the content. \u00a0They weren\u2019t remembering something.\u201d<\/p>\n

Philip thought they should develop another activity concerning the Civil War. On his laptop he revisited the Mathew Brady battlefield prints collection and asked, \u201cDo we want to use some of these?\u201d\u00a0 The participants followed Philip\u2019s lead.\u00a0 As they began to plan, the teachers often revisited the digital ECM\u2019s lesson they examined earlier.\u00a0 Kate was more vocal during this planning session; her initial comment was: \u201cWhat about making this lesson more like in here?\u201d\u00a0 She continued, \u201cLet\u2019s have students work together filling out these [holding up the advanced organizer provided by Callahan during the session] and then share all of their writings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Josephine liked the idea and suggested a \u201ccompare and contrast exercise with the pictures providing the information that we later talk about.\u201d\u00a0 Jerome suggested a \u201cbefore and after picture of Charleston or Richmond\u2026or Atlanta.\u201d\u00a0 Kate reminded everyone of the state\u2019s course of study and a few of its essential themes for the social studies.<\/p>\n

Eventually, they agreed to use several pictures of destroyed cities (Figure 5) and ask students to address the state\u2019s essential theme of \u201cexploring the impact of war on the lives of everyday citizens.\u201d\u00a0 Kate reiterated, \u201cLet\u2019s make this lesson more like this\u201d [pointing to laptop\u2019s screen displaying the digital ECMs lesson]. Jerome spent several minutes revisiting the digital ECMs and read aloud a persistent societal concern presented in the materials.\u00a0 After a short pause, Jerome asked, \u201cWhat about asking students to justify the war actions?\u201d \u00a0Josephine quickly added, \u201cOr outcomes. \u00a0I love it. Was the war\u2014any war\u2014worth it. You know, the hundreds of thousands dead and all the destruction? \u00a0Death and destruction versus freedom. \u00a0Cost versus cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

a. Stone Wall Below Marye\u2019s Heights photographed \u00a0by Andrew Russell (May 3, 1863). <\/em>Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

b. Ruins in Charleston, S.C., photographed\u00a0 by George Barnard. (April 1865). Library of Congress, Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

c. Antietam, Maryland. Dead of Stonewall Jackson’s Brigade by rail fence on the Hagerstown pike. <\/em>Photographed by Alexander Gardner (September 1862). Library of Congress,<\/em> Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

Figure 5<\/strong>. Historical photographs around which participants developed Phase 2 implementation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

During the spring semester, Kate, Martha, Jerome, and Callahan observed Josephine leading students through the activity.\u00a0 As students entered the classroom, Josephine handed each a two-sided handout: both sides were a blank copy of the PD advanced organizer (see appendix<\/a>). \u00a0She initiated a discussion of students\u2019 reactions to the word war<\/em>.\u00a0 Josephine wrote her students\u2019 responses on the room\u2019s whiteboard and categorized them (e.g., combatants, conditions, causes, weapons, and specific examples).<\/p>\n

Josephine then projected the image Stone Wall Below Marye\u2019s Heights <\/em>(Figure 5a) and asked, \u201cWhat do you see?\u201d\u00a0 After several superficial observations (e.g., \u201cguns and bodies on the ground,\u201d and \u201can old wall\u201d) Josephine said, \u201cWhat I see are widows and orphans and shattered families\u2026.What about the impact of the war?\u201d<\/p>\n

The ensuing discussion, although brief, included students establishing a relationship between the cost of war and the reasons it was waged.\u00a0 A majority of students agreed that killing people and creating widows and orphans was a high cost to pay, but moreover, it was absolutely worth it to end slavery.\u00a0 No student voiced a differing opinion.\u00a0 Josephine then presented a question to order their study of the Civil War: \u201cWas the cost of the war justified? Just something to think about today and this week.\u201d<\/p>\n

She returned to the photograph and began to address its source:<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t know Andrew Russell [the photographer] from Adam, but what might his bias be? \u00a0Remember bias isn\u2019t the same as prejudice. \u00a0Think of prejudice as preconceived dislike for someone. \u00a0Think of bias as just how someone sees the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Josephine characterized her students\u2019 answers as \u201cantiwar\u201d and \u201ctrying to show how destructive and wasteful war is.\u201d\u00a0She continued, \u201c1863, what does that tell us? \u00a0Later in the war right? \u00a0Well, this is right before the Battle of Fredricksburg.\u201d \u00a0For the next several minutes she described the battle: particular facts concerning the belligerents, their commanders, and the total casualties for both sides.<\/p>\n

Next, Josephine placed students into small groups and distributed to half the image Ruins in Charleston <\/em>(Figure 5b)and to the other half the image Antietam <\/em>(Figure 5c).\u00a0 The groups completed one side of their advanced organizer as Josephine circulated around the room and visited with each group. \u00a0Josephine then collected the class together as a whole and called on groups to share their findings.\u00a0 She added content information to students\u2019 observations (e.g., \u201cThat structure is actually the Circular Congregational Church and beside it is Secession Hall\u201d).\u00a0 Students were assigned to complete the other side of their advanced organizer during a whole-class debriefing session.<\/p>\n

After the activity, Kate said, \u201cThat was good. \u00a0The organizer helped a lot\u2026kept everybody together focused on the questions.\u201d\u00a0 Jerome added, \u201cThat went better than I could have done, I think. She [Josephine] did a really good job of keeping the discussion moving and getting through it all. That was a lot to do in one block.\u201d\u00a0 Martha said, \u201cI wondered how it was going to go, but they seemed to understand\u2026just fine. \u00a0I think this is the type of lesson we should all be teaching because the kids were thinking, <\/em>[emphasis added] and we all need that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Josephine was thrilled with the activity.\u00a0 She said, \u201cI just loved it. \u00a0It was great to see the students working on this all together.\u201d\u00a0 When Callahan asked Josephine what she would like to have done differently, she replied,<\/p>\n

I guess the big question should have been better. \u00a0I think they think we answered it right away and are still trying to figure it out with the rest of the unit. \u00a0Does that make sense? \u00a0I mean, we kind of did answer it, but they need more to give an even better answer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Participants demonstrated a growing understanding of PBHI tenets throughout implementation of Phase 2.\u00a0 The teachers present for the implementation again made comments that seemed to indicate they valued engaging students in a thoughtful discussion.\u00a0 However, the ECMs still failed to support teachers in developing a class discussion characterized by higher level questions and critical analysis of photographs.<\/p>\n

Josephine presented an essential question for students to \u201cthink about today and this week.\u201d She wanted to establish purpose for her students by requiring the use of the photographs\u2019 information to formulate an answer.\u00a0 However, during the discussion prior to the activity, students seemed to think they soundly answered the question and did not need to revisit it nor use the photographic evidence Josephine presented.\u00a0 Further, she did not provide students with a rationale for developing the 21st-century skills associated with visual literacy.<\/p>\n

Josephine actively engaged students in meaningful dialog and group work to perceive better the social reality of wartime costs on everyday citizens.\u00a0 Students were not limited by their individual perspectives, but rather worked together to develop and refine broader insights.\u00a0 Josephine also engaged students with some historical thinking.\u00a0 She referred to the source of one document (Stone Wall Below Marye\u2019s Heights,<\/em> Figure 5a)\u00a0and attempted to model thinking about a creator\u2019s potential point of view: \u201cThink of bias as just how someone sees the world.\u201d\u00a0 She contextualized the photograph by linking it in time to a battle students were to soon study (\u201c1863… this is right before\u2026 Fredricksburg\u201d).\u00a0 Still, her historical analysis of the photograph was shallow, and she did not ask students to think deeply about the photographs together as evidence from the past.<\/p>\n

Despite students\u2019 providing rather superficial answers to Josephine\u2019s questions, Martha considered the lesson a success and the type of activity \u201cwe should all be teaching because the kids were thinking<\/em>\u201d [emphasis added].\u00a0 This response suggests a misinterpretation of the expectations for active learning embodied in this PBHI tenet.\u00a0 While it is true that students seemed engaged in small, cooperative groups throughout the lesson, they only minimally constructed new knowledge or reasoned critically.<\/p>\n

When Josephine introduced an essential theme, she attempted to establish a key concept that data could be connected to.\u00a0 However, because students seemed to think they had already answered the question, information gathered from the photographs served as illustrations of their preconceived answer as opposed to evidence from which an answer could be derived.<\/p>\n

Josephine took Kate\u2019s suggestion to make this lesson more like the PD sessions by employing the advanced organizer to help structure students\u2019 thinking.\u00a0 Josephine seemed to consider the handout a pragmatic tool to help order the day\u2019s events, keep students on task, and provide a mechanism for students to share their thoughts concerning their assigned photograph.\u00a0 However, there was no evidence that our PD design encouraged participants to conceptualize the advanced organizer as a scaffold to promote students\u2019 critical thinking.<\/p>\n

Phase 3 implementation<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>The participants\u2019 third activity (designed and taught during the spring semester) involved three photos: two from the Progressive Era and one from recent history (see Figure 6).\u00a0 Although the topic did not fall squarely within Josephine\u2019s course content, she again enthusiastically volunteered to teach the activity.\u00a0 Josephine later described the activity as a \u201c1-day current event focal point.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"figure a. \u201cCarrying-in” boy in Alexandria Glass Factory, Alexandria, Va<\/em>. Photographed by Lewis Hine (June 1911). <\/em>Prints and<\/em> Photographs Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.<\/em> \"figure b. A little spinner in the Mollahan Mills, Newberry, S.C.<\/em> Photographed by Lewis Hine (December 3, 1908). Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"figure<\/p>\n

c. Garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh<\/em>. Unknown photographer for the Clean Clothes Campaign<\/a> (March 2010). Reposted and found by the teachers on The Fableists blog at http:\/\/thefableists.wordpress.com\/2013\/11\/14\/what-is-a-sweatshop\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 6. <\/strong>Historical photographs around which participants developed Phase 3 implementation.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As before, the teachers sat together in a semicircle: each with a laptop and a binder of PD materials.\u00a0 Josephine said, \u201cI think it should be a lot like the last one [Phase 2 implementation]\u2026.The kids got into it and learned a lot.\u201d \u00a0Kate suggested the activity include one of their state\u2019s essential themes.\u00a0 She asked, \u201cIs there a way to make the lesson more conceptual to cover more ground?\u201d\u00a0 The teachers looked through a list of essential themes, and Josephine said, \u201cI think there are a lot of connections from that era [Progressive] to now\u2026so, \u2018change over time\u2019 makes sense, or continuity really…as in, \u2018Has this really changed?\u2019\u201d\u00a0Participants worked with laptops open and often revisited the digital ECMs.\u00a0 The teachers also used online search engines and visited the Library of Congress website (http:\/\/loc.gov\/pictures<\/a>\/) looking for powerful historical photographs.<\/p>\n

Photographs of child labor during America\u2019s Progressive Era reminded Martha of pictures she had recently seen of a factory in Bangladesh.\u00a0 The teachers discussed a tragedy that occurred less than a year earlier, when an eight-story building in Dhaka, Bangladesh, collapsed, killing hundreds of low-wage textile workers.\u00a0 In short order the participants decided to have students compare the working conditions and quality of life between the Progressive Era children-workers and the children (and women) who worked in Bangladesh factories a century later.<\/p>\n

The following week, Martha, Kate, Jerome, and Callahan observed Josephine as she began the activity by asking students to analyze Lewis Hine\u2019s Carrying-in <\/em>(Figure 6a). She presented the image, distributed to each student a copy of the advanced organizer, and assigned students to individually examine the photograph.\u00a0 For several minutes, Josephine randomly called on students to share aloud their observations.<\/p>\n

She asked students about the photographer\u2019s bias; she said, \u201cremember bias may not be the exact same as prejudice. \u00a0Think of prejudice as preconceived dislike or intolerance for someone or something.\u00a0 Think of bias as just how someone sees the world. \u00a0Bias is the lens someone wears.\u201d<\/p>\n

Following several superficial answers, Josephine said, \u201cWell, here, Lewis Hine is a social reformer. His life\u2019s work was to present evidence of society\u2019s problems so that we could fix them\u2026.What problem is this showing?\u201d \u00a0Many students shared thoughts related to child labor.\u00a0 Josephine continued to talk through the sections of the advanced organizer and led a short lecture that covered child labor in early-1900s America.\u00a0 She asked, \u201cDoes this type of thing still happen today?\u201d and encouraged students to also think about other nations.\u00a0 After a few minutes where students shared thoughts about popular clothing brands and companies allegedly exploiting workers in developing nations, Josephine introduced the day\u2019s essential\u2014she called it \u201cthe big\u201d\u2014question: \u201cWhat should be done about child exploitation [labor]?\u201d<\/p>\n

Next, Josephine distributed another handout (each side was a blank copy of the advanced organizer), placed students into six groups and then gave each group one copy of Hine\u2019s Mollahan Mills <\/em>(Figure 6b).\u00a0 <\/em>She allotted 10 minutes for the groups to analyze the photograph, during which she moved about the room visiting each group several times to keep students focused and to correct inaccuracies (i.e., ahistoric assumptions).\u00a0 Next, in a whole-class setting, she called on several students from different groups to share their collected data.<\/p>\n

Still in small groups, students then (a) analyzed a third photograph Dhaka, Bangladesh <\/em>(Figure 6b), (b) completed the other side of the advanced organizer, and (c) generated conclusions regarding the day\u2019s big question.\u00a0 Josephine again moved about the room to help students think more deeply about the photo. \u00a0She asked students various questions, such as, \u201cHow are the people in both pictures feeling?\u201d and \u201cIf you were one of them, what would you want done on your behalf?\u201d<\/p>\n

To Josephine\u2019s attempts to promote empathy, students\u2019 responses were superficial.\u00a0 Many students mentioned the need for governments to protect workers through labor laws; others declared they would have refused to work in such conditions. \u00a0Callahan observed no attempts to substantively compare lived experiences of people from the past and present, nor any explicit attempts to distinguish the two eras.<\/p>\n

Finally, Josephine asked each student to \u201cwrite a few sentences to answer the big question, \u2018What should be done about child exploitation?\u2019 \u00a0Be sure to refer to evidence from your worksheets.\u201d\u00a0 Josephine was thrilled with her students\u2019 performance in the day\u2019s activities. Following the lesson she said, \u201cIt was awesome today!\u00a0 They were really thinking\u2026and making connections from over a hundred years ago\u2026recognizing a problem and coming up with reasons to do something about it.\u201d\u00a0 Kate said,<\/p>\n

It was such a big pay-off\u2026. They [the students] were thinking and talking about things that really matter and analyzing it.\u00a0\u00a0 Don\u2019t know if any of them will do something about it [child labor\/exploitation], but I think they know about it and could do something if they want to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the third activity, participants demonstrated more understanding of PBHI; however, teachers\u2019 actions and statements suggested their adoption of the tenets of the PBHI model was not yet well integrated.\u00a0 Influence from the digital ECMs was evident as Josephine presented her students an open-ended question that presented a societal concern (i.e., child exploitation) and called for real-world problem solving.\u00a0 As Josephine helped students engage in meaningful, authentic decision-making about a world problem, she felt, in her own words, \u201cmore energetic and enthusiastic\u2026 because it seemed to really matter.\u201d The lesson had a clear purpose; <\/em>students were encouraged to address the concern and use information from the day as evidence to support their position. \u00a0Still, Josephine presented no rationale for why she wanted to help students develop visual literacy, historical thinking skills, or engage an ill-structured question.<\/p>\n

As with her earlier activity, Josephine\u2019s students were active; they worked in small, collaborative groups, explored two historical photographs, and completed advanced organizers.\u00a0 She also attempted to analyze a photograph\u2019s source when she said, \u201cLewis Hine is a social reformer. \u00a0His life\u2019s work was to present evidence of society\u2019s problems so that we could fix them.\u201d \u00a0Still, Josephine did not explain the value of questioning a document\u2019s source; likewise, students completed other critical and historical thinking (i.e., contextualizing, corroborating, and thinking deeply) with virtually no discussion of their implicit value.<\/p>\n

Participants continued to interpret the connectedness tenet to mean only interlesson consistency: that all activities and information logically fit together.\u00a0 However, in this lesson they overtly linked past events to those in the present and used child labor exploitation as the unifying theme.\u00a0 Students were given time to generate conclusions concerning the big question, and they were encouraged to use photographs from the past and present to formulate answers.<\/p>\n

Josephine employed the advanced organizer and encouraged students to look for evidence of needed societal reform. \u00a0She again moved about the room as students worked; however, this time Josephine asked a few higher order thinking questions of student groups and corrected their ahistorical assumptions.\u00a0 Previously, Josephine employed structure (i.e., scaffolding) for classroom management, not to support student thinking.<\/p>\n

Interactive Experiences Modeling Wise Practice Pedagogy<\/p>\n

Data suggest that the PBHI learning experiences helped participants engage reform ideas and begin to develop their teaching knowledge.\u00a0 Four times Callahan led participants through an interactive, dynamic activity that modeled PBHI.\u00a0 When asked about the experiences, Jerome said, \u201cThey\u2019re very helpful\u2026.Your modeling was so helpful for me to know really how to do this type of activity in my lessons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Martha commented on the repetition of the experiences: \u201cWe definitely needed those activities repeated.\u00a0 Some of us still do not fully understand how to facilitate<\/em> [emphasis added] like you do.\u00a0 Some of us still \u2018tell\u2019 students about history instead of letting them figure it out.\u201d<\/p>\n

Philip and Josephine also had strong feelings about the PBHI experiences.\u00a0 Philip said, \u201cI thought it was all a bit redundant.\u00a0 Once we got it, like the initial time, I think we could have used the rest of the times to create lessons.\u201d\u00a0 Josephine disagreed. \u201cThey were my favorite<\/em> [emphasis added] part.\u00a0 This training is very<\/em> [emphasis added] useful and insightful. \u00a0It\u2019s the most beneficial training I have been to in maybe forever.\u00a0 Thank you<\/em>!\u201d [emphasis added]. Norbert explicitly referenced wanting to learn more because of the PBHI experiences: \u201cYou did a great job of modeling the process.\u00a0 I loved the ideas, wanted to do it, but had difficulty doing it.\u00a0 It was helpful to see it and practice with you. I\u2019m not that good at it yet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Our observations of Martha and Josephine suggest that interactive experiences may have helped them recognize value in PBHI, but the PD model was less helpful for developing a deep understanding of its aspects.\u00a0 In their respective implementations both teachers used phrases nearly verbatim from the PD activity.\u00a0 Josephine repeated to students, \u201cBias may not be the exact same as prejudice. \u00a0Think of prejudice as a preconceived dislike or intolerance for someone or something. \u00a0Think of bias just as how someone sees the world.\u00a0 Bias is what lenses someone wears.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similarly, the two questions Martha presented to students (\u201cWhat does this [photograph] tell us about the era?\u201d and \u201cWhat was its [the photograph\u2019s] purpose\u201d) were originally presented to her during the first PD session.\u00a0 Neither teacher seemed able to transform those statements into higher ordered thinking opportunities for students.\u00a0 Martha quickly moved on after having accepted students\u2019 superficial answers, and Josephine did not help students pursue bias as a means to better address a photograph\u2019s purpose for distribution.<\/p>\n

Interphase Connections to PBHI<\/p>\n

Throughout the intervention, the teachers\u2019 activities tended to become more purposeful.\u00a0 Their first implementation consisted of a 10-minute, bell-ringer activity with no facet of inquiry.\u00a0 In the second and third implementations, participants developed class-length lessons that asked students to begin to answer an ill-structured question that called for civic action.\u00a0 As the teachers noted, student participation increased, too, as the activities required students to be more active in classroom events.\u00a0 At first, students answered only two questions regarding Lincoln\u2019s nervousness. Eventually, they began to think about child labor and its existence and continuity throughout the last century.<\/p>\n

The teachers seemed to desire connectedness within their instruction; they wanted each aspect of the lesson to cohere to a common end.\u00a0 They also seemed to overlook additional components to the construct, however.\u00a0 The teachers made no indication that the connected tenet of PBHI also included, for example, that students should integrate new information in larger webs of meaning (schema) and apply newly developed skills and dispositions to authentic problems.<\/p>\n

The teachers also supported students\u2019 thinking more diligently as the study progressed.\u00a0 At first, they did not use an advanced organizer and asked few questions.\u00a0 Later, they had students compare information from completed organizers and helped students begin to think about value claims.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the greatest mismatch between the aspirations of the ECM models and teachers\u2019 enactment of the PD lessons was the pursuit of complex student thinking.\u00a0 Martha and Josephine were reluctant to challenge students to derive original conclusions from evidence.\u00a0 The digital ECMs lessons advocated students\u2019 deliberation of multiple truth claims and discussion of values underpinning historical decisions; both teachers omitted these features.<\/p>\n

Limitations<\/p>\n

The study\u2019s limitations should temper any conclusions about the educative potential of our PD materials and model.\u00a0 Our findings are not generalizable; we cannot rule out all alternative explanations.\u00a0 Here, we report on practices of only one secondary school\u2019s complement of social studies teachers for one academic year.\u00a0 A wider sample of teachers over a longer window of support might have produced different results.\u00a0 The Hawthorne Effect may have been an additional limitation; simply by being observed, the teachers may have planned, discussed, and taught in ways different from their norm and told Callahan what they thought he wanted to hear (see Cook, 1962).\u00a0 Despite these limitations, our findings suggest a number of potential implications that might enhance the effectiveness of PD, especially when programs feature digital ECMs in similar contexts.<\/p>\n

Implications<\/p>\n

This study contributes to the growing literature concerning theoretical and logistical groundwork for meaningful PD.\u00a0 Specifically, our work supports the idea that effective PD is situated within communities of practice that serve to distribute the cognitive load for understanding and implementing reform ideas (Garet, Proter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).\u00a0 However, additional innovative teacher support programs over longer periods of time are needed to allow for more confident claims regarding which methods and materials can best support teachers.\u00a0 Our implications suggest areas of improvement in our future design and use of ECMs.<\/p>\n

Interactive Experiences to Model Wise Practice<\/p>\n

This study\u2019s first implication is that interactive, dynamic learning experiences may be an effective way to present teachers with pedagogical reforms.\u00a0 Many teachers have served long apprenticeships in traditional classrooms as students (Lortie, 2002) and often distrust researchers\u2019 suggestions (Hiebert et al., 2002). \u00a0We positioned interactive, dynamic experiences early in each face-to-face PD session and conducted them throughout the study to challenge participants\u2019 (very likely) traditional assumptions.<\/p>\n

Several participants specifically commented that they thoroughly enjoyed the learning experiences and that PBHI was exemplar teaching to which they aspired.\u00a0 Martha and Josephine made such comments and were enthusiastic participants who articulated and demonstrated an emerging understanding of PBHI.\u00a0 Participants who experience wise practices might be more likely to meaningfully engage in PD in order to design and deliver similarly powerful instruction.<\/p>\n

For several teachers, interactive experiences may have served as an effective first step to help motivate them to recognize value and utility in PBHI.\u00a0 Creators and presenters of teacher support programs should consider how interactive experiences that model tenets of a wise-practice pedagogy might increase teachers\u2019 engagement and their motivation to test reform ideas.\u00a0 The collaborative nature of these experiences might also help establish communication norms and trust between participants (Borko, 2004).<\/p>\n

Collaborative Curriculum<\/p>\n

Another implication is that educative curricula may enhance PD efforts, especially when the materials facilitate meaningful collaboration among participants.\u00a0 The significant modifications we made to the structural features of this, the third, generation of our digital ECMs seemed to better promote a participatory teacher-curriculum relationship.\u00a0 Teachers explored digital ECMs collaboratively in a PD context and interacted with digital ECMs in preparation to plan and implement an original activity.<\/p>\n

The teachers averaged 66 minutes exploring digital ECMs, and of that time they devoted an average of 26 minutes (39%) to discussing educative features.\u00a0 When teachers invest nearly half of an hour to collaboratively engage in a coconstruction of new understandings of reform ideas, they are more likely to begin developing more robust interpretations of their craft.<\/p>\n

We also substantially modified the design of the digital ECMs, reducing the number of educative links embedded in the materials. \u00a0This modification seemed to have helped teachers\u2019 concentrate their efforts to begin developing an understanding of PBHI.\u00a0 Each educative feature contained two questions that promoted participants\u2019 collaboration (i.e., discussion, reflection, and brainstorming). \u00a0Curriculum designers who seek to establish a participatory relationship between teachers and their digital curricula might consider that fewer hyperlinks should increase teachers\u2019 engagement: fewer stimuli may allow for focused attention and minimize cognitive overload (see Callahan et al., 2014).<\/p>\n

Expert Mentors<\/p>\n

A third implication is that despite an ability to encourage collaboration, educative curricula may require a skilled mentor as an active participant to facilitate learning.\u00a0 We only introduced the notion of educative curricula, provided digital ECMs, and encouraged teachers to work together to make sense of the reform ideas.\u00a0 Alone, our lesson study elements were not optimal experiences for teacher learning.\u00a0 Including a skilled mentor to plan classroom events with participants might have been more effective.\u00a0 As curriculum coach, Kate was a designated mentor for the department; however, she was not an expert in social studies pedagogy.\u00a0 Her contributions to the group consisted largely of reminding teachers of the state\u2019s course of study.\u00a0 Researchers have suggested that strategic mentoring and partnerships with pedagogy experts (i.e., teacher educators) can help teachers develop pedagogically (Goldenberg et al., 2014; Saye et al., 2009).<\/p>\n

A related consideration is the need to provide teachers with increased modeling in formats both synchronous (i.e., real-time experiences) and asynchronous (i.e., video cases).\u00a0 This modeling could require explicit attention to expert teachers\u2019 skillful questioning, careful listening to student responses, and building a powerful discussion from those responses (see Sherin & van Es, 2009).<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

In this study we attempted to identify any possible influence a novel PD program could have as secondary social studies teachers planned and implemented instruction.\u00a0 Our findings and implications may help the field continue to address the dearth of effective PD: \u201cthe most serious unresolved problem for policy and practice in American education\u201d (Sykes, 1996, p. 465).<\/p>\n

In order to make clear assessments as to teachers\u2019 development of PTK, we recruited teachers unfamiliar and unpracticed in PBHI.\u00a0 By the end of our 13-month long PD program, none of the six participants fully adopted PBHI.\u00a0 However, teachers\u2019 collaborative participation and created activities offered promising evidence that sustained collaborative experiences with digital ECMs can help teachers begin to recognize, value, and practice tenets of a wise-practice pedagogy.<\/p>\n

To develop expertise in complex pedagogy, continuing collaboration and mentorship over multiple years with expert support gradually fading may be necessary.\u00a0 Teachers and teacher-educators might find mutual benefits from membership in this community as PTK is continuously negotiated and refined among its members.<\/p>\n

Much is yet to be learned concerning effective ways to incorporate digital ECMs into effective PD environments. \u00a0Our work may provide additional suggestions for investigations into the potential of interactive PD featuring digital ECMs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27<\/em>, 3-9.<\/p>\n

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33<\/em>(8), 3-15.<\/p>\n

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24<\/em>(2), 417-436.<\/p>\n

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2<\/em>(2), 141-178.<\/p>\n

Burns, M. (2006). A thousand words: Promoting teachers’ visual literacy skills. Multimedia and Internet@Schools, 13<\/em>(1), 16-20.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to promote the development of professional teaching knowledge<\/em> (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University. Auburn, AL.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C. (2013a). Analyzing historical photographs to promote civic competence. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8<\/em>(1), 77-88.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C. (2013b). Thinking historically about the Depression Era. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8<\/em>(2), 25-42.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C. (2015). Creating or capturing reality? Historical photographs of the Progressive Era. The Social Studies, 106<\/em>(2), 57- 71.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C., Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2013a). Educative curriculum materials to develop social studies teachers’ professional teaching knowledge. International Journal of Social Education, 24<\/em>(2), 5-33.<\/p>\n

Callahan, C., Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2013b). Designing more effective educative curriculum materials for the social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13<\/em>(2), 126-155. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol13\/iss2\/socialstudies\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n

Callahan, C., Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2014). Social studies teachers\u2019 interactions with second generation web-based educative curricula. Journal of Social Studies Research, 38<\/em>(3), 129-141. doi:10.1016\/j.jssr.2014.03.002<\/p>\n

Callow, J. (2006). Images, politics and multiliteracies: Using a visual metalanguage. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29<\/em>(1), 7-23.<\/p>\n

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13<\/em>(1), 15-42.<\/p>\n

Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103<\/em>(3), 287-303.<\/p>\n

Colman, A., Pulford, B., & Rose, J. (2008). Collective rationality in interactive decisions: Evidence for team reasoning. Acta psychologica, 128<\/em>(2), 387-397.<\/p>\n

Cook, D. (Dec., 1962). The Hawthorne effect in educational research. The Phi Delta Kappan, 44<\/em>(3), 116-122.<\/p>\n

Cornett, J. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A case study of a secondary social studies teacher. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18<\/em>(3), 248-273.<\/p>\n

Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions<\/em> (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage<\/p>\n

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education<\/em>, 61<\/em>(1-2), 35-47.<\/p>\n

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives<\/em>, 13<\/em>(42).<\/p>\n

Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34<\/em>(3), 3-14.<\/p>\n

Denzin, N. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods<\/em>: London, UK: Aldine Transaction.<\/p>\n

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Designed-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32<\/em>(1), 5-8.<\/p>\n

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers\u2019 professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38<\/em>(3), 181-199.<\/p>\n

Drake, C., Land, T., & Tyminski, A. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers\u2019 knowledge. Educational Researcher<\/em>, 43<\/em>(3), 154-162.<\/p>\n

Earp, J., Ott, M., & Pozzi, F. (2013). Facilitating educator\u2019s knowledge sharing with dedicated information systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 29<\/em>, 445-455.<\/p>\n

Engel, M., Jacob, B., & Curran, F. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51<\/em>(1), 36-72.<\/p>\n

Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5<\/em>(3), 178-186.<\/p>\n

Estes, T., Mintz, S., & Gunter, M. (2011). Instruction: A models approach<\/em> (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.<\/p>\n

Fenn, E., Newman, E., Pezdek, K., & Garry, M. (2013). The effect of non-probative photographs on truthiness persists over time. Acta Psychologica, 144<\/em>(1), 207-211.<\/p>\n

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal<\/em>, 38<\/em>(4), 915-945.<\/p>\n

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J., & Santoro, L. (2010). Teacher study group impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47<\/em>(3), 694-739.<\/p>\n

Goldenberg, L., Culp, K., Clements, M., Pasquale, M., & Anderson, A. (2014). Online professional development of high school biology teachers: Effects on teachers’ and students’ knowledge. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22<\/em>(3), 287-309.<\/p>\n

Goldstein, E. (2008). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience<\/em> (2nd ed.). Boston. MA: Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n

Goos, M. (2013). Knowledge for teaching secondary school mathematics: What counts? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44<\/em>(7), 972-983.<\/p>\n

Guskey, T., & Yoon, K. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90<\/em>(7), 495-500.<\/p>\n

Harris, D., Ingle, W., & Rutledge, S. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51<\/em>(1), 73-112.<\/p>\n

Heller, J., Daehler, K., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49<\/em>(3), 333\u2013362.<\/p>\n

Hicks, D., Lee, J., Berson, M., Bolick, C., & Diem, R. (2014). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14<\/em>(4). Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol14\/iss4\/socialstudies\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n

Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63<\/em>(2), 92-102.<\/p>\n

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for teaching the profession: What would it look like and how we can get one. Educational Researcher, 31<\/em>(5), 3-15.<\/p>\n

Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jenson, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal <\/em>of Teacher Education<\/em>, 58<\/em>(1), 47-6<\/p>\n

Hill, H., Beisiegel, M., & Jacob, R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42<\/em>(9), 476-487.<\/p>\n

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62<\/em>(4), 395-407.<\/p>\n

Huberman, A., Miles, M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook<\/em> (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n

Jaaskelainen, R. (2010). Think-aloud protocol: Handbook of translation studies<\/em>. Amsterdam, NE: John Benjamins Publishing.<\/p>\n

Jitendra, A. (2005). How design experiments can inform teaching and learning: Teacher-researchers as collaborators in educational research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20<\/em>(4), 213\u2013217.<\/p>\n

Levstik, L., & Barton, K. (2010). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools<\/em> (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development<\/em>. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.<\/p>\n

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35<\/em>(3), 3-14.<\/p>\n

Lortie, D. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study<\/em> (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Manfra, M. (2014). Editorial: 15 years after Martorella’s sleeping giant: A year of special themed issues. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14<\/em>(1). Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol14\/iss1\/socialstudies\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach<\/em>. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n

Meirink, J., Meijer, P., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. (2009). Understanding teacher learning in secondary education: The relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25<\/em>(1), 89-100.<\/p>\n

Morris, A., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products an alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40<\/em>(1), 5-14.<\/p>\n

National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in social studies. Social Education, 72<\/em>(5), 277-280.<\/p>\n

Newmann, F., Wehlage, G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools<\/em> (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.<\/p>\n

Oliver, D., & Shaver, J. (1966). Teaching public issues in the high school<\/em>. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.<\/p>\n

O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65<\/em>(1), 17-39.<\/p>\n

Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisan, M., Brown, A., & Miller, D. (2013). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction<\/em> (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n

Peneul, W., Fishman, B., Chen, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementing, and design. Educational Researcher, 40<\/em>(7), 331-337.<\/p>\n

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44<\/em>(4), 921-958.<\/p>\n

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 52<\/em>(3), 475-514.<\/p>\n

Ryan, K., Cooper, J., & Bolick, C. (2015). Those who can, teach<\/em> (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n

Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28<\/em>(7), 999-1008.<\/p>\n

S\u00e4lj\u00f6, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26<\/em>(1), 53-64.<\/p>\n

Samuels, A., & Samuels, G. (2014). Using Norman Rockwell paintings as a window to the Black experience. Social Studies Research and Practice, 9<\/em>(1), 129-145<\/p>\n

Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2004). Promoting civic competence through problem-based history learning environments. In G. Hamot, J. Patrick, & R. Leming (Eds.), Civic learning in teacher education: International perspectives on education for democracy in the preparation of teachers<\/em> (Vol. 3). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies\/Social Science Education.<\/p>\n

Saye, J., Kohlmeier, J., Brush, T., Mitchell, L., & Farmer, C. (2009). Using mentoring to develop professional teaching knowledge for problem-based historical inquiry. Theory and Research in Social Education, 37<\/em>(1), 6-41.<\/p>\n

Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers\u2019 professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60<\/em>(1), 20\u201337.<\/p>\n

Swan, K., & Hofer, M. (2008). Technology and social studies. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson. (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education <\/em>(pp. 307-326). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.<\/p>\n

Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77<\/em>, 465-467.<\/p>\n

van Velzen, C., Volman, M., Brekelmans, M., & White, S. (2012). Guided work-based learning: Sharing practical teaching knowledge with student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28<\/em>(2), 229-239.<\/p>\n

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society; The development of higher psychological processes<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n

Werner, W. (2006). Reading pictures of people. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities<\/em> (pp. 217-237). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.<\/p>\n

Wilson, E., Wright, V., Inman, C., & Matherson, L. (2011). Retooling the social studies classroom for the current generation. The<\/em> Social Studies, 102<\/em>(2), 65-72.<\/p>\n

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political changes facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72<\/em>(2), 131-175.<\/p>\n

Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83<\/em>, 73-87.<\/p>\n

Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 80<\/em>(7), 488-500.<\/p>\n

Wineburg, S., & Reisman, A. (2015). Disciplinary literacy in history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58<\/em>(8), 636-639.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Author Notes<\/p>\n

The professional development work and materials presented here are sponsored in part by the Library of Congress Teaching with Primary Sources Eastern Region Program, coordinated by Waynesburg University.<\/p>\n

Cory Callahan
\nUniversity of Alabama
\nEmail: cwcallahan@ua.edu<\/a><\/p>\n

John Saye
\nAuburn University
\nEmail: sayejoh@auburn.edu<\/a><\/p>\n

Thomas Brush
\nIndiana University
\nEmail: tbrush@indiana.edu<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Appendix
\nThe Advanced Organizer Distributed in Each PD Session<\/p>\n

(pdf download)<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Improving teachers\u2019 effectiveness motivates many contemporary education reforms.\u00a0 Initiatives supported with both public (e.g., Race to the Top) and private (e.g., Measures of Effective Teaching, http:\/\/www.metproject.org) funding have proposed that effective teaching is demonstrated by high student achievement on standardized exams (see Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014; Harris, Ingle, & Rutledge, 2014; Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, […]<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":[],"meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"publication":[86,35],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/680"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=680"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=680"},{"taxonomy":"paper_format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/format?post=680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}