Journal of Experiential Education
36(3) 247 –263
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053825913489103
jee.sagepub.com
Article
Experiential Professional
Development: A Model for
Meaningful and Long-Lasting
Change in Classrooms
Brigid M. Burke1
Abstract
An experiential approach to professional development (EPD) allowed Spanish
teachers opportunities to improve their practice through demonstration, observation,
collaboration, fieldwork, and reflection. As result of experiential professional
development, Burke (2012) found that teachers’ knowledge about communicative
language teaching developed, and teachers’ beliefs about language teaching changed.
The Spanish teachers implemented communicative methods, which they had used
rarely, if ever, prior to EPD. Through qualitative analysis of teacher questionnaires
and written reflections, as well as the researcher’s observations and field notes, it was
discovered that specific components of EPD made it successful. Teachers believed it
promoted a collaborative community because it incorporated purposeful meetings,
peer observations, and peer and student feedback. Teachers appreciated the on-
site coaching and practical application that allowed them time to experiment with
communicative methods. EPD provided an effective alternative to classroom-based
university courses that allowed for viable change in classrooms. The results show that
experiential educators should consider collaborating with professors, researchers,
staff developers, school administrators, and teachers to create meaningful,
transformative, EPD in which classroom teachers understand and apply theory and
research into practice effectively.
Keywords
teacher professional development, participatory action research, job-embedded
learning, experiential education, Expeditionary Learning, communicative language
teaching
1Bowling Green State University, OH, USA.
Corresponding Author:
Brigid M. Burke, 529 Education Building, Bowling Green, OH, 43620, USA.
Email: bburke@bgsu.edu
489103 JEE36310.1177/1053825913489103
research-article2013
248 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
In the context of world language education, where teachers teach students a second or
foreign language in a classroom (i.e., French in the United States or English in Taiwan),
researchers have suggested for over 40 years that effective world language pedagogy
is meaning-based or communicative in nature (Burke, 2006, 2007, 2010; Canale,
1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Lightbown & Spada, 1993; Savignon, 1972, 1997).
Thirteen years after the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) published National Standards (1999), many classroom teachers in the United
States, especially those teaching beginning and intermediate-level language classes,
still continue to focus primarily on grammar and translation, and use English as the
medium of instruction when teaching lessons (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Burke, 2006,
2011; Hall, 2004), thus failing to help students develop an appropriate degree of com-
municative competence in the world language they study (Canale, 1983; Canale &
Swain, 1980; Savignon, 1997).
World language teachers are expected to understand communicative methods they
have never, or hardly ever, experienced in a classroom themselves, along with the
theories and research that support their introduction. They also often lack either the
resources or the strategic knowledge needed to put theory into practice. Furthermore,
teachers are not given enough, if any, opportunities to observe diverse teaching strate-
gies, or time to experience these strategies in their own classrooms. Even more chal-
lenging is the fact that a broad range of deeply embedded structures found in U.S.
schools continues to influence teaching methods, further impeding meaningful and
long-lasting change in classrooms (Burke, 2011; Lortie, 1975, 2002; Tyack & Tobin,
1994; Tye, 2000).
Many forms of professional development in U.S. education have been ineffective
with little to no noticeable change in classrooms (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
2011; Nolan & Hoover, 2004; Peery, 2004). Teachers need to be provided with more
opportunities at their schools, in their classrooms, to understand, experience, and
reflect on innovative methods. Professional development that is on-site and experien-
tial in nature is critical to motivate teachers to try effective instructional practices and
create a desire to change curriculum in a meaningful and viable way (Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995, 2011; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Nolan & Hoover,
2004; Peery, 2004).
Background and Purpose
When I designed this experiential professional development (EPD) model, I wanted
to instigate change in world language teachers’ beliefs and methods by providing
them with time to experiment with communicative methods in their classrooms.
After moving to Mountain Valley1 (MV), I was curious whether teachers in the
school district used grammar-translation methods the majority of instructional time.
Preservice teachers, who were placed with MV teachers for field experiences and
took methods courses with me, found that the teachers rarely, if ever, used commu-
nicative methods.
Burke 249
A year prior to offering EPD to MV school district, eight world language teachers
allowed me to visit their classrooms. These preliminary observations confirmed the
preservice teachers’ opinions; teachers were not using communicative methods on a
daily basis, if at all. Consequently, I chose to engage in participatory action research
so that willing and interested teachers could become more knowledgeable about com-
municative language teaching (CLT) through experiential learning, coaching, and
reflection (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Merriam, 2002; Richards, 2003). With my knowl-
edge of Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound design, CLT, and action research, I
believed I could help teachers create more communicative classrooms so their students
would learn to negotiate, express, and interpret their world language.
In Burke (2012), I presented and discussed the effects of EPD on the teachers’ theo-
retical knowledge about CLT and on their instruction. As a result of EPD, through
qualitative analysis of teacher questionnaires and written reflections, as well as my
observations and field notes, the participating teachers were found to have changed
their beliefs about world language pedagogy. They were more willing to integrate
communicative methods while still using traditional classroom instruction. Meaningful
pedagogical changes were made during EPD; the theory and practice learned became
part of the teachers’ daily instruction.
The purpose of this article is to provide readers with details of this EPD model,
designed and implemented as a university-sponsored course at a secondary school in
the northeast region of the United States with four Spanish teachers. In the following,
I provide a review of literature that presents elements, structures, and approaches to
effective professional development. Then, I explain the EPD model, course, and the
research design. Next, I discuss components that were identified in qualitative data
collected as contributing to the success of EPD. In conclusion, suggestions are made
about how EPD may be implemented in various school contexts.
My hope is that after readers learn about this EPD model, experiential educators
will consider collaborating with professors, researchers, staff developers, school
administrators, and teachers to implement EPD in schools. EPD allows for teachers to
learn content-specific knowledge and skills, and improve instruction and student
learning inside classrooms where teachers and researchers agree it is needed.
Effective Professional Development
Experiential Learning Inside Out
“Teachers learn by doing, reading, and reflecting (just as students do); by collaborat-
ing with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing
what they see” (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011, p. 83). Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin (2011) assert that professional development must encourage teachers
to maintain the roles of both teacher and student and allow them struggle through the
uncertainties of each role to deepen their understanding about pedagogy. They believe
that to instigate meaningful change, teachers must want to improve their practice, and
they need to be involved in choosing what they will learn. They suggest that staff
250 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
developers support teachers’ implementation of new methods in their classrooms with
their students to see results in learning.
Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) report that high-quality professional
development must be centered on student learning, allow for collaboration among
staff for an extended period of time, and promote active learning for teachers in their
schools and classrooms. Darling-Hammond and Richardson believe professional
development must be sustained, job-embedded, and collaborative to be effective.
Above all, they promote the idea of establishing professional learning communities
within school buildings to change practice and influence student learning. Staff devel-
opers using this model ask teachers to examine their practice, identify areas that need
improvement, and then learn about, try out, and reflect on new methods and tech-
niques with colleagues (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Teachers in profes-
sional learning communities collaborate inside and outside of one another’s classrooms
and continually engage in dialogue to improve teaching and learning (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
Similarly, Peery (2004) states that professional development is meaningful and
encourages positive growth only if it has an inside-out nature where teachers look
inside their classrooms and determine what needs improvement. For Peery, the inside-
out model emphasizes process over product, allows for participants to feel safe and
engaged, and promotes reflection and collaboration with peers and outside consul-
tants. Peery suggests that staff developers include personalized inquiry, dialogue,
simulations, coaching, direct application, self-evaluation, and reflection of new teach-
ing strategies in professional development.
Structural Features of Effective Professional Development
Joyce and Showers (2002) propose several training components for staff development
to be effective and enable teachers to learn and apply new knowledge and behaviors in
instruction. They emphasize a combination of theoretical grounding with observation,
practice, and reflection of skills or strategies being introduced by staff developers
(Joyce & Showers, 2002). They believe that staff developers can model skills during
classroom lessons and/or during afterschool professional development meetings.
Joyce and Showers caution that students may be resistant to change at first and exert
pressure on the teacher to revert to familiar teaching methods. When this occurs, the
actual process of developing the skill should be discussed so that teachers and students
understand theory can translate into practice (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) also found teachers valued cer-
tain structural features of professional development. Teachers preferred professional
development that possessed reform-orientation activities such as teacher study groups
to traditional workshops or courses. Garet et al. (2001) discovered that the longer the
professional development lasted, in relation to time span and contact hours, the more
effect the training had on teachers’ integration of their new knowledge into practice.
Collective participation of teachers at the same school also improved the chances of
new skills being implemented after the professional development concluded (Garet
Burke 251
et al., 2001). These core features contributed to enhanced knowledge and skills and
changes in teaching practice: a focus on content knowledge, an active or inquiry-
orientated approach to the professional development experience, and a high level of
coherence with other reform activities (Garet et al., 2001).
Job-Embedded Learning and Action Research
Nolan and Hoover (2004) suggest that “instead of conducting teacher training away
from the classroom, with teachers as passive recipients who sit and receive knowledge
provided by consultants on designated in-service days, staff developers [should
emphasize] multiple forms of experiential learning called ‘job-embedded learning’”
(p. 113). Job-embedded learning occurs as part of the daily routine of teachers through
structured, experiential opportunities to collaborate and grow in an authentic context
(Nolan & Hoover, 2004, 2008). The job-embedded approach involves organized plan-
ning, execution, and reflection on teacher practice to improve student learning (Rock,
2002). Nolan and Hoover (2004, 2008) recommend that competent and experienced
teachers engage in this self-directed growth by designing their own job-embedded
experiences in which they identify, explore, and create experiences to further their
professional development while having a positive impact on student learning.
Action research requires teachers to pose “well-defined questions about their prac-
tice, systematically gathering and interpreting data to answer those questions, and con-
sequently taking action to improve practice” (Nolan & Hoover, 2008, p. 104). Teachers
can engage in action research projects individually or collaboratively, and they can
focus on classroom- or school-based questions (Johnson, 2012; Nolan & Hoover,
2008). Nolan and Hoover (2004, 2008) suggest that teachers focus research on stu-
dents, teaching practices, themselves, curriculum, or the school as an organization.
They caution that teachers may not adopt an inquiry stance without outside support,
such as staff developers, educational consultants, and university faculty. Educators,
such as Johnson (2012), provide guidance teachers can use to determine what problem
or issue they wish to investigate, and how to engage in the action research process.
Superior Staff Developers
Supervisors or staff developers must take on certain roles when aiding teachers in job-
embedded learning or inside-out professional development (Nolan & Hoover, 2004,
2008; Peery, 2004). Peery (2004) advises them to be the coach, cheerleader, friend,
parent, role model, teacher, and disciplinarian when guiding professional develop-
ment. Likewise, Killion and Harrison (1997) and Harrison and Killion (2007) discuss
how staff developers and teacher-leaders take on a variety of roles depending on the
context: resource provider, instructional specialist, curriculum specialist, classroom
supporter, learning facilitator, mentor, school leader, data coach, catalyst for change,
and learner. Superior staff developers have been found to exhibit qualities of proactive
leadership, strategic empowerment, collegiality, systematic implementation of strat-
egy, and voracious learner (Castle, 1989). To make professional development
252 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
challenging and worthwhile, insiders and outsiders need to work together to achieve
short-term and long-term goals to improve curriculum and instruction (Peery, 2004).
EPD
The EPD Model and Course
This EPD was a 10-week learning expedition that originated from Outward Bound and
Expeditionary Learning (EL) design (Campbell, Liebowitz, Mednick, & Rugen, 1998;
Cousins, 1998; Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, 2011; Figure 1).
Learning expeditions are
long-term, in-depth investigations of a topic that engage students in the world through
authentic projects, fieldwork, and service. The work students do within learning expeditions
centers on critical thinking, essential skills and habits, and character development. Ongoing
assessment is woven throughout the expeditions, pushing students to higher levels of
performance in pursuit of academic excellence. (Campbell et al., 1998, p. 3)
The EPD model (Figure 2) was influenced by EL design, inside-out professional
development, job-embedded learning, self-directed growth, and modeling and demon-
stration of a skill (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Nolan & Hoover, 2004, 2008; Peery, 2004).
The EPD course was implemented at Mountain Valley High School (MVHS) in the
northeastern part of the United States (Appendix A). The goal of the course was to
promote the use of communicative methods in secondary world language classrooms.
In communicative classrooms, students are encouraged to communicate in the world
Outward Bound, Europe, 1913
Salem School, Germany, 1920
Gordonstoun School, Scotland, 1934
Outward Bound, Wales, 1941
Atlantic College, England, 1962
↓
Outward Bound USA, 1961
The Colorado Outward Bound School,
Colorado, USA, 1961
↓
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, 1992
Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA, 1988
↓
Experiential Professional Development, 2004
Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA, 2002
The Pennsylvania State University,
Pennsylvania, USA, 2004
Figure 1. The origins of experiential professional development.
Burke 253
language instead of solely talk about the language (Burke, 2006, 2007, 2010; Canale
1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Savignon, 1972, 1983, 1997). EL design was used to
guide teachers to experience communicative methods through demonstration, obser-
vation, collaboration, fieldwork, and reflection (Campbell et al., 1998; Cousins, 1998;
Duckworth, 1996, 2001).
EPD was offered as an independent study in applied linguistics through the univer-
sity. Three graduate credits or 90 mandatory state professional development credits
hours were earned for taking the course, which was a motivating factor for teachers to
enroll. Eighty-five percent of the cost of the course was paid for by the school district,
and the teachers paid the remaining 15%.
Participation in EPD activities included a breakfast meeting, implementation of the
innovation (communicative activities), peer observations, peer meetings, two after-
school meetings, consultant visits, and consultant meetings. Teachers were required to
implement three communicative activities during Weeks 5 to 8. All teachers imple-
mented many more than the minimum requirement, and they began implementation
before the 5th week. Twenty-eight students from the teachers’ classes participated in
afterschool meetings that occurred during the 3rd and 9th weeks. Peer and consultant
meetings usually took place at the high school during planning periods or study halls
Figure 2. The EPD model.
Note: EPD = experiential professional development.
254 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
that the EPD teachers supervised; however, one teacher preferred to meet with the
consultant outside of school.
Inspired from the work of Duckworth (1996, 2001), written projects for EPD activ-
ities required teachers to submit a fieldwork report and final reflection paper. After
implementing the lessons, teachers reflected with one another and the consultant.
Teachers were instructed to focus on one communicative activity in the fieldwork
report; however, certain teachers discussed more. The consultant recommended that
teachers keep a personal journal to write the final reflection paper. In the reflection
paper, teachers were prompted to reflect on their EPD experience as a whole and were
given guiding questions to help focus their report.
Participants
Four Spanish teachers from MVHS participated in the EPD course and research study,
three of which had been observed prior to EPD. They were diverse in terms of age and
years of teaching experience. Sophia was a 1st year teacher who taught beginning
levels of Spanish (Spanish I and Spanish II). Sergio was a 2nd year teacher who also
taught beginning Spanish (Spanish II). Daniella had been teaching for 8 years, and she
taught beginning and advanced Spanish (Spanish II and Advanced Placement Spanish).
Raquel was a 23-year veteran and taught beginning Spanish (Spanish I). All four
teachers possessed a BA in Spanish and were certified to teach Spanish in Grades 6 to
12 in the state where the study took place. While earning their undergraduate degrees
in Spanish, three of the teachers had studied abroad in Spain for a semester and one
had studied at a university in Colombia for 6 months.
Data Collection
The EPD study was qualitative in nature. I used four data collection procedures: ques-
tionnaires, written reflections, observations, and field notes. Teachers completed three
questionnaires: the biographical questionnaire; the pre-EPD questionnaire, completed
at the beginning of EPD; and the post-EPD questionnaire, completed 5 months after
EPD had ended. The two written reflections, the fieldwork report and the reflection
paper, were also analyzed for the study.
I conducted numerous observations during EPD and post-EPD, using an observa-
tional data sheet. I also collected various handouts, worksheets, assessment, and stu-
dent work. Field notes from observations recorded teacher and student interaction,
explanations of topics and assignments, interesting phenomenon that occurred during
various lessons, and reflections and comments from the teacher-consultant and after-
school meetings. Classes were observed daily; usually two class periods per teacher
during the 10-week course. Immediately following the EPD course, visits occurred
twice a week for 3 weeks, and again twice a week for 3 weeks, approximately 5
months after the course. Post-EPD observations usually took place during two class
periods per teacher. During and after the course, observations or meetings with teach-
ers totaled approximately 328 hours.
Burke 255
Data Analysis
Individual and shared reflection from the researcher-consultant and the participants
were integrated during data analysis (Richards, 2003). Credibility, a qualitative
research term that is analogous to internal validity in quantitative research, was
established through triangulation by analyzing the various data sources (question-
naires, written reflections, observations, field notes) collected from multiple par-
ticipants (teachers, the researcher-consultant) (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Lincoln, &
Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2002; Patton, 1990). Patton (1990) explains that credibility
depends most on the richness of the data collected and the researcher’s analytical
abilities. To achieve credibility, I translated the participants’ interpretations or
understandings into rich, thick description (Merriam, 2002). When placing data
under certain categories and subcategories, it was compared, contrasted, coded, and
then filed. Glaser and Strauss (1999) call this the constant comparison method of
qualitative analysis. Similarities and differences that were found from one data
source were compared and contrasted with other data sources and themes were
identified (Richards, 2003). Using analytic induction, data were rechecked to see
whether the various cases were related and justified (Richards, 2003; Silverman,
2001). When summarizing the results, the categories, subcategories, and concepts
were connected to various theoretical underpinnings. Member checks (Merriam,
2002) were conducted in some cases to discover whether the participants agreed
with how the researcher-consultant had interpreted the data and to obtain further
explanation for certain responses.
Findings
EPD affected teacher understandings and integration of communicative methods
(the innovation) (Burke, 2012). Data from the fieldwork reports, reflection papers,
post-EPD questionnaire, observations, and field notes showed evidence in the
development of all the teachers’ understandings of communicative activity and
CLT (Burke, 2012).As a result of EPD, teachers implemented communicative
activities such as daily questions, story writing, student interviews, implicit gram-
mar and vocabulary lessons, skits, improvisation, and computer-mediated commu-
nication. During the 3 weeks that immediately followed the course, and then still
5months after the EPD course concluded, teachers continued to integrate commu-
nicative activities. Even though the teachers used CLT methods post-EPD, there
was resistance and even refusal to change certain teaching methods that were tradi-
tional in nature (involving grammar and translation), which resulted in barriers to
change, represented by the dotted lines in the form of a box in Figure 2 (Burke,
2011, 2012).
According to the data, teachers believed that the experiential design of EPD made
it successful. In the following, the essential components of EPD, as identified by the
participants, are discussed.
256 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
Collaborative Community
By using EL design, the researcher-consultant was able to promote a collaborative
community. Specific events and structures were strategically incorporated into the
learning expedition to encourage teachers to work together, with the consultant, and
with students.
Breakfast Meeting. I created the breakfast meeting so I could meet the teachers outside of
school. A collaborative community needed to be modeled from the beginning of EPD. Daniella
mentioned the breakfast meeting in her reflection paper:
[The researcher-consultant] successfully took certain specific steps to ensure that we formed
a true learning community. First, she opened her home, family, and life to us; offered us food
in a non-traditional setting; and had each of us share the “I” story. Therefore, professional
posturing and defensiveness did not occur; she showed a good faith effort toward trying to
create a win-win-win situation rather than simply furthering her educational career; and
provided an humane environment in which creativity flowed because our senses were
awakened, our basic needs were met, and genuine interest was present.
The teachers shared stories of how they became world language teachers. This
meeting gave the consultant an opportunity to get to know the teachers without their
students present. Community building is crucial in EL design if participants are
going to be successful in their learning (Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound,
2011).
Afterschool Meetings and Student Participation. Because teachers wrote about their lack
of knowledge about CLT in their pre-EPD questionnaire, I modeled three communica-
tive activities in French at the first afterschool meeting. At the follow-up afterschool
meeting during Week 9, Daniella and Sophia both taught a communicative activity.
Ten of Sergio’s Spanish II students participated in the first meeting, and 18 of Daniella
and Sophia’s beginning and advanced students participated in the follow-up meeting.
At both meetings, teachers observed the lessons, and then students shared comments
about the lessons. Teachers asked students about how they felt during the lessons.
Teachers also learned theoretical background concerning CLT and EL design at these
meetings. In her reflection paper, Daniella pointed out the importance of showing
students we had established a learning community: “Students should see us as a united
front, a group of cooperators, a community rather than separate, different, competitive
entities.”
Students’ opinions about CLT were valued by the teachers and consultant, allowing
them a voice in the development of curriculum and instruction that they were not used
to having. They were integral to the effectiveness of afterschool meetings. Raquel
noted in her reflection paper, “Students gave me the users’ perspectives on what we
do.” And Sophia remarked in her reflection paper, “I enjoyed having students at the
meetings because they were open to talk about the experience. I saw what they were
thinking and they began to see what the teachers did.”
Burke 257
During EPD, several components of effective professional development recom-
mended by Joyce and Showers (2002) were enacted. Professional modeling, coaching,
and feedback occurred along with question/answer sessions, theoretical discussions,
debriefings, and collaboration within the learning community that included everyone
involved (students, teachers, colleagues, and the consultant).
Peer and Consultant Observation and Feedback. Teachers worked together and with the
consultant to integrate and reflect on communicative methods. In written reflections,
teachers described a period of adjustment at the beginning of EPD because they were not
used to consultant visits and meetings, peer observation, or crew meetings. Sophia noted
in her reflection paper, “It took a few weeks for me to become comfortable with the obser-
vations. It is hard to let someone in to see you at your best and worst every day.” Teachers
wanted reassurance that the consultant was there to support and not to judge. Raquel
specifically stated in her reflection paper, “Thank you for the opportunity to experiment
without judgment and to observe other teachers in action doing this great work.”
Even though teachers needed to readjust to an “open door” policy that came along
with peer observation and coaching, in the end, they found it to be helpful. In her reflec-
tion paper, Sophia wrote, “The little details that Sergio and Daniella used to manage
their classes were so impressive. It is amazing the numerous techniques that I acquired
just through observing a few lessons.” Sophia’s professional development went beyond
learning about CLT; she improved her classroom management by observing her peers.
Teachers were asked to observe their crew partner once; however, peer observation
and coaching occurred more frequently than was anticipated. Teachers were interested
to learn what other teachers were doing, and the consultant suggested teachers visit
particular classes depending on their needs and interests. In her reflection paper,
Sophia described her crew meetings with Daniella: “[Daniella] was always supportive
of my activities, and very encouraging. We talked about issues in our classrooms, and
at times I think we both needed each other just to overcome issues that were bothering
us at the time.” In addition, Sergio commented in his reflection paper that EPD pro-
moted collaboration in “a large school where world language teachers are spread out
the length of a hallway.”
EPD course activities were designed and implemented strategically so that teachers
and students could feel comfortable trying new methods and so that reflection could
occur often about the process of implementing CLT (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Crew
meetings, a necessary component to building community in EL schools, allowed teach-
ers time to plan, reflect, and regroup with colleagues (Expeditionary Learning Outward
Bound, 2011). Garet et al. (2001) also found that teachers preferred professional devel-
opment that possessed reform-orientation activities and that collaboration of teachers at
the same school improved the long-term effects of the professional development course.
On-Site Coaching
Teachers appreciated the on-site coaching provided during EPD. I was present regu-
larly in classrooms to give teachers constructive feedback. The effectiveness of a
258 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
consultant being on-site, acting as a participant-observer, was evident multiple times
in the data. In her reflection paper, Daniella noted,
[The consultant’s] immediate and concise feedback after lesson observations helped me fine-
tune my style and better scaffold students. Clear directives such as “write commonly-asked-
for vocabulary on the board to save time and eliminate confusion,” and “give students
brain-storm time” to facilitate flow of later communication worked. That is the type of
guidance I desire.
By observing lessons and listening to teachers during one-on-one consultant meet-
ings, I coached the teachers to experiment with CLT and gave them the support neces-
sary to succeed with lessons. Active participation in the implementation of new
practice, the process of inquiry, reflection, and collegiality was crucial to teachers
successfully implementing CLT into their established curriculum (Joyce & Showers,
2002; Nolan & Hoover, 2004; Peery, 2004).
As the EPD consultant, I aimed to increase awareness and practice of CLT as well
as collaboration among language teachers to enhance world language learning. I was
a major instigator in influencing the teachers’ beliefs and methods, but I did not dictate
what they did in their classrooms. In their reflection papers and post-EPD question-
naires, teachers claimed that the consultant made them feel comfortable to try new
methods in their classrooms because she
•• raised consciousness in teachers about pedagogy and encouraged them to be
reflective and critical of their practice,
•• celebrated successful implementation of new skills by teachers and their stu-
dents and encouraged teachers to implement similar lessons again,
•• delegated responsibility to participants (peer observation, crew meetings), and
•• offered opportunities for participants to socialize and get to know one another
outside of school at a time and place that was convenient for everyone (break-
fast meeting and potluck party).
The EPD consultant took on many different roles, such as designer, coach, resource
provider, cheerleader, friend, role model, and catalyst for change, all with the goal in
mind to help the teachers improve their practice and enable students to communicate
in Spanish (Harrison & Killion, 2007; Killion & Harrison, 1997; Peery, 2004).
Practical, Motivating, and Transformative
Teachers believed EPD was practical and motivating because they could apply what
they were learning on a daily basis. Teachers learned experientially and believed EPD
transformed their practice. In her reflection paper, Daniella wrote,
Accomplishments were evident on virtually an every-day basis during EPD. EPD is practical.
I need practicality if my professional development is going to have a concrete effect on
Burke 259
changing the way I teach enough to show positive results on assessments of students. I had
time to teach finally. EPD had a huge tangible impact on my professional and the students’
educational quality of life. I feel motivated and refreshed. Through EPD, we have truly
broken new ground in the curriculum and are now on un-charted territory.
EPD provided job-embedded learning and inside-out professional development
that allowed for a context in which teachers collaborated and were supported in
endeavors to enhance knowledge and skills and engage in action research while they
were working with students during the school day (Garet et al., 2001; Nolan & Hoover,
2004, 2008; Peery, 2004). EPD allowed for focus to be on student learning, promoted
collaboration among teachers, and facilitated active learning for teachers in their class-
rooms, which Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) report as being crucial ele-
ments of high-quality professional development.
Conclusion
The EPD described here was a nontraditional form of professional development, one
that involved participatory action research, job-embedded learning, self-directed
growth, and inside-out staff development. Because certain educators may not fully
understand or accept inquiry as a means of learning, it is in the best interest of the
consultant to educate administrators, if necessary, on the advantages of EPD for teach-
ers. In addition, it is crucial for an EPD course instructor/consultant to form a strategic
plan in collaboration with the teachers. He or she needs to be organized and able to
manage his or her time well.
For the EPD course to be practical for instructors, researchers, or staff developers,
it must to be designed to fit the instructor’s and the teachers’ schedules and needs. This
EPD lasted 10 weeks and involved only three whole-class meetings outside of the
school day. The beginning and ending weeks of other EPD can include more collabo-
ration between the teachers involved in the course and less visits from the instructor/
consultant. Class visits and consultant meetings can be more intense during the middle
4 weeks when implementation of the new skill is supposed to be taking place by the
teachers with the support of the instructor. In addition, a graduate assistant who dem-
onstrates understanding of the skill the teachers are trying to implement in their class-
rooms, and who is experienced and comfortable working with teachers, can also assist
the instructor with visits and meetings.
Change was achieved through this EPD because teachers were offered the opportu-
nity to take leadership in their own growth and learning and not leave their classrooms.
The teachers were able to understand and apply theory and research into practice by
engaging in practical learning experiences with support from a consultant. They were
allowed the time and given the support to learn in their classrooms with their students.
Teachers should be active in their own projects and collaborate with their colleagues,
students, and researchers in their field. EPD moves away from simply telling teachers
what to do and gives them an on-site, hands-on experience during which they are able
to create innovative curriculum and practice it with support.
260 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
By implementing professional development in schools that is experiential in nature,
teachers can integrate innovative instruction such as differentiation, constructivist
theory, discovery learning, inquiry-based learning, simulations, critical thinking, prob-
lem solving, technology-based learning, and performance-based assessment through
demonstration, observation, collaboration, fieldwork, and reflection. With the help of
experiential educators, perhaps professors, researchers, staff developers, school
administrators, and teachers could create more opportunities for meaningful, transfor-
mative, experiential professional development in which classroom teachers under-
stand and apply theory and research into practice effectively.
Appendix A
Table 1. Timeline for EPD.
Date Description of event
Spring 2003 Consultant visited MVHS world language teachers and met curriculum
coordinator
Summer 2003 Consultant presented EPD to MVHS world language curriculum coordinator
November 19, 2003 MVHS Spanish teachers enrolled in EPD course
January 24, 2004 EPD course began, breakfast meeting with consultant and EPD teachers
January 26-February
13
EPD (Weeks 1-3) consultant conducted observation visits and consultant
meetings
February 11 First afterschool EPD meeting with students, consultant, and EPD teachers
February 16-20 EPD (Week 4) consultant conducted observation visits and consultant
meetings; teacher crew meetings began; teachers planned for
implementation of communicative activities
February 23-March
26
EPD (Weeks 5-8) teachers implemented, observed, reflected on
communicative activities; consultant conducted observation visits and
consultant meetings; teachers met in crews to plan and reflect on
communicative activities
March 8-14 MVHS spring break
March 29-April 2 EPD (Week 9) teachers implemented, observed, reflected on communicative
activities; consultant conducted observation visits and consultant meetings;
teachers met in crews to plan and reflect on communicative activities
March 31 Follow-up afterschool EPD meeting with students, consultant, and EPD teachers
April 5-9 EPD (Week 10, final week) consultant conducted observation visits
and consultant meetings; fieldwork reports and final reflection papers
submitted by teachers
April 9 EPD course ended
April 13-29 EPD + 1, 2, 3 post-EPD visits began consultant conducted observation
visits and consultant meetings
August 31 MVHS world language department meeting, discussed post-EPD visits with
teachers
September 14-30 EPD + 23, 24, 25 post-EPD visits occurred consultant conducted
observation visits
Note: EPD = experiential professional development; MVHS = Mountain Valley High School.
Burke 261
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Note
1. For purposes of privacy, the names of the high school and teachers have been changed.
The information on the school district is also not referenced to protect the anonymity of the
participants.
References
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language
learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania,77, 262-274.
Burke, B. M. (2006). Theory meets practice: A case study of preservice world language teachers
in U.S. secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 148-166.
Burke, B. M. (2007). Creating communicative classrooms with experiential design. Foreign
Language Annals, 40, 441-462.
Burke, B. M. (2010). Promoting communication in the target language with and among stu-
dents. The Language Educator, 5(5), 50-53.
Burke, B. M. (2011). Rituals and beliefs ingrained in world language pedagogy: Defining
deep structure and conventional wisdom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
2, 1-12.
Burke, B. M. (2012). Experiential professional development: Improving world language peda-
gogy inside Spanish classrooms. Hispania, 95, 714-733.
Campbell, M., Liebowitz, M., Mednick, A., & Rugen, L. (1998). Guide for planning a learning
expedition. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
In J. Richards, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London,
England: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Castle, D. (1989). Competencies of the staff developers. In S. Caldwell (Ed.), Staff develop-
ment: A handbook of effective practices (pp. 156-175). Oxford, OH: The National Staff
Development Council.
Cousins, E. (Ed.). (1998). Reflections on design principles. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies that support professional devel-
opment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darling-Hammond, L. and M.W. McLaughlin. (1995). Policies that support professional devel-
opment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
262 Journal of Experiential Education 36(3)
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin,
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Duckworth, E. (1996). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and
learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Duckworth, E. (2001). Tell me more: Listening to learners explain. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound. (2011). Expeditionary Learning core practices: A
vision for improving schools. Retrieved from http://elschools.org/our-approach/what-we-
do
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Aldine.
Hall, J. K. (2004). “Practicing Speaking” in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign lan-
guage classroom. In D. Boxer, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second
language acquisition (pp. 68-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1),
74-77.
Johnson, A. P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (1997). The multiple roles of staff developers. Journal of Staff
Development, 18, 33-44.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.),
Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 18-33). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign lan-
guage learning in the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: National Standards in Foreign Language
Education Project.
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. (2004). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. (2008). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice (2nd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Patton, M. Q. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE.
Peery, A. B. (2004). Deep change: Professional development from the inside out. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Education.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York, NY: Palagrave Macmillan.
Rock, H. (2002). Job-embedded professional development and reflective coaching. The
Instructional Leader, 5(8), 1-4.
Burke 263
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching.
Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and inter-
action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to
change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York, NY:
Teacher’s College Press.
Author Biography
Brigid M. Burke, PhD, is an assistant professor of education at Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH, USA.
Copyright of Journal of Experiential Education is the property of Association for Experiential
Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.