The purpose of this study was to investigate the discourse patterns characterizing individual special education teachers as they participated in a collaborative professional development (PD) group, and how these individual discourse patterns influenced other group members’ opportunities to learn about reading instruction for upper elementary students with disabilities. Videotaped cohort meetings and associated artifact data were collected during a 2-year period and analyzed using Gee’s (2005) methods of discourse analysis. Findings indicate that teachers’ individual discourse varied along the two dimensions: knowledge (integrated, implementation, and low) and inquiry (high and low). Teachers whose discourse conveyed both integrated knowledge and a proclivity for inquiry provided other group members with the most sophisticated learning opportunities related to PD content. Additional implications for future research and practice regarding collaborative learning groups as a method of PD are provided.
AndersonJ. R.RederL. M.SimonH. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5-11.
2.
BakerS.SmithS. (1999). Starting off on the right foot: The influence of four principles of professional development in improving literacy instruction in two kindergarten programs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 239-253. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_5
3.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003
4.
BrownJ.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 75, 32-42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
5.
BrownellM. T.AdamsA.SindelarP.WaldronN.van HoverS. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72, 169-187.
6.
Darling-HammondL.RichardsonN. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66, 46-53.
7.
DesimoneL. M.PorterA. C.GaretM. S.YoonK. S.BirmanB. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112. doi:10.3102/01623737024002081
8.
DingleM.BrownellM.LekoM. M.BoardmanA.HaagerD. (2011). Developing effective special education reading teachers: The influence of professional development, context, and individual qualities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 87-103. doi:10.1177/073194871103400106
9.
FairbanksC. M.LaGroneD. (2006). Learning together: Constructing knowledge in a teacher research group. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 7-25.
10.
GaretM. S.PorterB. F.DesimoneA. C.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915
11.
GeeJ. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
KlingnerJ. K. (2004). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248-255. doi:10.1177/00222-194040370031001
LevineT. H.MarcusA. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389-398.
15.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 913-945.
16.
Loucks-HorsleyS.LoveN.StilesK. E.MundryS.HewsonP. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
LumpeA.HaneyJ.CzemiakC. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context: The state of the scene. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275-292.
18.
MillerJ. W.EllsworthR. (1985). The evaluation of a two-year program to improve teacher effectiveness in teaching instruction. Elementary School Journal, 85, 485-495.
19.
O’ConnorR. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
PenuelW. E.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221
21.
PugachM.BlantonV.CorreaV.McLeskeyJ.LangleyL. (2009). The role of collaboration in supporting the induction and retention of new special education teachers (Technical paper, National Center to Improve Policy and Practice in Personnel Preparation (NCIPP)). Gainesville: University of Florida.
22.
PugachM. C.JohnsonL. J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
23.
PutnamR. T.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 4-15.
24.
RogersR. (2002). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33, 213-237.
25.
RossD. D.StaffordL.Church-PupkeP.BondyE. (2006). Practicing collaboration: What we learn from a cohort that functions well. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 32-43. doi:10.1177/08884064-0602900105
26.
SeifertK.MandzukD. (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: Support groups or intellectual communities?Teachers College Record, 108, 1296-1320.
27.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-21.
28.
VescioV.RossD.AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practices and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80-91.
29.
WilliamsonP. (2006). Grade level team meetings: How dialogue shapes teacher problem and response construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
