Today curriculum and accountability standards around the globe have created major shifts in what students are expected to know and who is responsible for that learning. For example, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the United States not only represent significant shifts in what students are expected to learn but also recast demands on teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge for teaching (e.g., Goertz, Floden & O’Day, 1995; Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). These new cognitive demands often go unnoticed by the public, who believe “anyone can teach if they know a particular subject and that it is not really necessary to first learn about curriculum, classroom management and instruction” (Strauss, 2017). Today, these beliefs are underscored with the use of industry-sponsored, ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum and legislation that allows teachers to be hired without formal training (Wertz, 2017; Gunter, Hall & Apple, 2017). This situation is particularly problematic in large, high-poverty, urban school districts, where accountability frameworks require documented gains in student learning and teacher professional development is limited (e.g., Avalos, 2011).

Teacher action research can be used to combat this situation. As a professional development strategy, action research focuses questions on links between an individual teacher’s instruction and student learning then the findings are used to improve their classroom practice (e.g., Pine, 2009). In many fields outside education, micro-credentials are used to assess, recognize, and communicate acquisition of new learning, particularly when it occurs outside traditional learning environments (Elkordy, 2012). Applied to education, micro-credentialing offers teachers an individualized system for assessing distinct units of understanding and observable competencies within a larger body of professional knowledge. Taken together, the uniqueness of each teacher’s action research project pairs well with the outward-facing, individualized nature of micro-credentials. In this project, we asked how might micro-credentialed action research in the knowledge domains of teaching document development of a teacher’s professional practice to improve perceptions about their expertise?

This research involves secondary mathematics and science teachers participating in a professional development project to develop expertise in the knowledge domains of teaching; domains that live at the intersection of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and encompass, among others, common content knowledge, specialized content knowledge, knowledge of content and students, and knowledge of content and teaching (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Through the project, teachers learn specific content in a self-selected knowledge domain then develop an action research project that examines implementation of the selected intervention. Teachers earn a micro-credential upon completion of their research and most earn four ‘badges’ each year.  

The milieu of this project calls forward a research design that draws together three theoretical frameworks. The first posits teacher learning as a situated, distributed, and social activity (e.g., Borko, 2004) that stimulates an ever-evolving professional practice (Grossman, Smagorinsky & Valencia, 1999). The second theory situates action research as a professional learning strategy that enhances teacher knowledge and improves educational practice (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010). The third theoretical construct grounds our use of micro-credentials to document teacher learning. Creating a system of micro-credentials motivates participation (Gibson, Ostashewski, Flintoff, Grant & Knight, 2013), allows participants to make individualized decisions about what to learn, and provides opportunities to customize content specific to their needs and context. Micro-credentialing also provides “transparency and depth into the learning and achievements of the learners which can then be reviewed by others” (Gamrat, Zimmerman, Dudek & Peck, 2014, p. 1136). This theoretical framework grounds the project’s professional development model and informs our research design.

This qualitative research project involves 24 high school mathematics and science teachers, who are participating in a five-year, action research-based project focused on expanding expertise in the knowledge domains of teaching. Data were generated from three, distinct arenas: teachers’ survey responses, video observation summaries of teachers teaching, and a document analysis of their action research projects. The survey was informed by existing research-grounded instruments. Specifically, we drew from surveys of instructional practice and content knowledge (Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001) and a content knowledge for teaching instrument produced in previous projects (Holbrook, Rannikmäe, & Valdmann, 2014). We also videotaped teachers teaching and, using an amalgam of two observation protocols, rendered summary notes (e.g., Inquiring into Science Instruction Observation Protocol (ISIOP) and Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices). We also conducted a document analysis of teachers’ action research projects (n=96). Each data set offers insights on how teachers learn. Collectively, these data offer a multimodal portrait of how a teacher’s professional practice develops. Our analysis of each data set began by uploading collected artifacts into N’Vivo and identifying essential features. This process facilitated the creation, tracking, and analysis of both codes and coded segments. First cycle coding was deductive and structural in design (Saldana, 2016). Descriptive codes using the theories framing this study served as an initial point of analysis. A microanalysis of the language within each artifact followed. A comparison and analysis of coded sections within each data set followed, which yielded similar language patterns. The coded segments underwent a second round of coding to note any interrelationships and patterns among them. Despite differences in audience, this inductive, side-by-side, analysis of the coded documents illuminated how each was “defining and redefining the other, saying and doing things differently” (Hodder, 2000, p. 704). Three themes emerged – how teachers understand the knowledge domains of teaching, how they make sense of, and take up new learning in their professional practice, and a tighter sequence of claims, evidence, and reasoning in their action research projects. Each theme was resituated in the data. Branching nodes were created to indicate the presence/absence of a theme or when relationships or gaps among them became evident (Saldana, 2016). This process rendered responses to the question: how might micro-credentialed action research in the knowledge domains of teaching document development of a teacher’s professional practice to improve perceptions about their expertise?

Three findings emerged from our analysis of the generated data. The first shines a spotlight on how teachers build a personalized path into the multi-faceted knowledge domains of teaching. One teacher, exploring the specialized content and knowledge domain noted, I would like to get to the point with our department where we have a common rubric for looking at CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning). If we develop the rubric and discuss how it should be used, it could give us better information on how our students are doing with scientific argumentation. (Teacher A) Other teachers were intrigued by different domains. The second finding addresses the importance of teacher voice in defining their learning path. Self-selection of badges and the individualized nature of teachers’ action research projects was essential in personalizing what they wanted or needed to learn. Teacher N described it this way, “It was important that I pick which badge I wanted to complete. It had to be a badge where I had to collect data and reflect on something that I actually workshopped in the classroom”. The third finding addresses the important role of micro-credentialed action research as a mechanism for documenting growth in their professional practice. Teacher Q said, “I like doing research, digging into data, and then designing the work to be done in my classroom practice that compliments the research”. This teacher’s statement epitomizes the action research cycle. In this research, teachers saw their classrooms as legitimate data sources and developed action research projects that would offer findings on their practice. More importantly, they used project findings to make upgrades in their classroom practice. Then they started the process again. Documenting this learning with a micro-credential, professionalizes teachers’ work, makes it visible to the public, and improves perceptions about their role in helping children learn.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 10-20. Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. Blank, R.K., Porter, A.C., & Berry, B., Montgomery, D., & Snyder, J. (2008). Urban Teacher Residency Models and Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preparation: Center for Teaching Quality. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. Elkordy, A. (2012). The future is now: Unpacking digital badging and micro-credentialing for K-20 educators. HASTAC. Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development program. British journal of educational technology, 45(6), 1136-1148. Gibson, D., Ostashewski, N., Flintoff, K., Grant, S., & Knight, E. (2013). Digital badges in education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 403-410. Goertz, M., Floden, R., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform, Volume I: Findings and conclusions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating conceptual and pedagogical tools for teaching English: A conceptual framework for studying professional development (pp. 32). Albany, NY. Gunter, H. M., Hall, D., & Apple, M. (Eds.). (2017). Corporate elites and the reform of public education. Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol University Press-Policy Press Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 703-715). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publications. Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., & Valdmann, A. (2014). Identifying Teacher Needs for Promoting Education through Science as a Paradigm Shift in Science Education. Science Education International, 25(2), 4-42. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Pine, G. (2009). Teacher Action Research: Building Knowledge Democracies. New York: Teachers College Press. Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Strauss, V. (2017, May 14). In Arizona, teachers can now be hired with absolutely no training in how to teach, Washington Post. Wertz, J. (Producer). (2017, July 18). Reading, Writing And Fracking? What The Oil Industry Teaches Oklahoma Students. Morning Edition.