Identification of the need to support high quality teaching in every classroom has led to a thriving industry in teacher professional development (PD) worth billions of dollars internationally (Birman et al., 2000; Bowe & Gore, 2017). While improving student outcomes is the fundamental goal of this investment (Kennedy, 2016), evidence of its effects is often contradictory (Guskey, 2003). Critiques of PD programs centre on ineffective content, poor design (Hill et al., 2013), and a failure to produce significant and consistent changes in teaching practice or student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) is a pedagogy-focusesd approach to PD that involves teachers observing, analysing, and discussing each other’s lessons guided by a comprehensive pedagogical model, the Quality Teaching Model (NSWDET, 2006). Building on the concept of teaching rounds QTR involves teachers working in professional learning communities (PLCs) to analyse and discuss their teaching practice. There is now robust evidence demonstrating significant effects of QTR on the quality of teaching, teacher morale, sense of recognition and student achievement in mathematics (Gore et al., 2017; Gore et al., 2021). Despite the demonstrated benefits, teachers and school leaders in small, regional, and remote schools have faced significant challenges in accessing high quality PD (Mohan, Lingam & Chand, 2017), such as QTR.

With  46% of schools, 30% of the teaching population and 28% of the student population in Australia located in rural, regional and remote areas inequitable access to high quality PD poses a massive challenge for school systems. 75% of teachers in these settings report difficulty in accessing relevant and/appropriate professional learning (AITSL, 2019). High quality, collaborative PD is frequently delivered in metropolitan centres, limiting access for teachers in regional and remote settings due to their geographical isolation, the time and costs of travelling for PD and difficulties in obtaining relief or substitute teachers in small communities (Erickson, Noonan, & McCall, 2012; Maher & Prescott, 2017).  For small schools (those with fewer than eight teachers), participation in collaborative forms of PD is even challenging due to the need to have multiple teachers off class simultaneously (Patfield, Gore & Harris, 2021).

With this in mind, a digital form of QTR (QTR Digital) has been developed and rigorously researched, through a 2019 pilot and a randomised controlled trial, involving 112 teachers from schools around NSW (Australia). QTR Digital utilises digital technologies and videoconferencing to connect teachers across school sites to support teachers’ participation in this approach to PD. This approach challenges traditional concepts of online PD as a way for teachers to quickly access learning that meets their immediate needs (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015; Duncan-Howell, 2010) and as not involving synchronous communication and professional collaboration (Erixon, 2016).  QTR Digital enables teachers to video-record and securely share their lessons with colleagues in their PLC and collaboratively engage in deep analysis of their teaching practices.

The aim of our research was to test whether QTR Digital offered teachers in small schools and those in regional and remote settings, the same benefits as teachers engaged in the traditional face-to-face delivery of QTR.  This paper examines findings from a two arm Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) to demonstrate the effects of participation in QTR Digital on the quality of teaching, teacher self-efficacy, and student academic achievement in mathematics and reading. We argue that the application of evidence-informed approaches to online teaching and learning can support teachers from all schools to engage in high-quality, rigorously tested forms of PD.

Traditional face-to-face QTR involves the PLC of around 4 teachers coming together for a discussion of a text to gain a shared understanding, build familiarity between PLC members and discuss the upcoming lesson observation. In each Round, the ‘host’ teacher teaches a lesson that is observed by all other PLC members, who individually code the lesson in accordance with the 18 elements of the Quality Teaching Model. The PLC draw on their individual coding to discuss each element with a goal of reaching consensus in the analysis of the lesson. QTR Digital uses digital technologies in each of the four stages of QTR. Watching video-recordings of lessons provides all teachers, particularly the ‘host’ teacher, with a great reflective tool to improve their pedagogy (Susoy, 2015; Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014). Digital lesson recordings, along with the texts for discussion, can be securely shared by the host teacher with PLC members via Microsoft Teams. Microsoft Teams was selected as the platform for use as it allowed for secure file sharing and video conferencing in one platform and was also a commonly used program amongst our participants. The PLC come together via video-conferencing technologies to discuss the text and the codes. The timing of each stage of QTR Digital is determined by members of the PLC to ensure that it suits their classroom commitments and to avoid ‘zoom fatigue’ (Wiederhold, 2020). Each of these four steps (reading discussion, lesson observation, individual coding, and coding discussion) are repeated to ensure each PLC member has the opportunity to ‘host’ a Round. The 2021 randomised controlled trial (RCT) involved 62 teachers in QTR, while the remaining 59 teachers were allocated to a waitlist control group, to participate in QTR in 2022. The primary outcome measure for this RCT was student achievement in mathematics and reading over the course of the school year. Progressive Achievement Tests, produced by ACER, were given to all participating students in Terms 1 and 4 of 2021. Additionally, all teachers were asked to video record one lesson in Terms 1 and 4 to assess the impact of QTR on teaching quality. A total of 36 interviews were conducted with teachers and school leaders at the beginning and end of the 2021 school year.

The findings discussed in this paper include the primary and secondary outcomes from the two-arm RCT. A 2019 RCT (see Gore et al., 2021) found teachers’ participation in QTR led to significant growth in student achievement in Mathematics with an effect size of 0.12, equivalent to two months of additional growth over the school year (Education Endowment Foundation, 2018). While this study aimed to replicate these findings, disruptions to schooling caused by COVID-19 appear to have impacted results. All schools involved in this project had periods of ‘learning from home’ during the RCT, with a large proportion of schools providing remote teaching and learning for up to 17 weeks during the year. Despite the impact of COVID-19 on traditional schooling, our qualitative interview data has illuminated a number of key positives for teachers and schools who participated in QTR Digital. Accessibility to high-quality collaborative PD was one key benefit described by all participants in the QTR condition. Furthermore, teachers and school leaders reported that participation in QTR Digital supported them in creating networks across a system that can be isolating for many teachers, particularly in remote settings. Furthermore, engagement with this approach to PD has led to some small, regional, and remote schools to build stronger networks, enabling their teachers to participate in collaborative, cross-school PD and overcoming some of the traditional barriers to accessing PD in these contexts.

AITSL. (2019). Professional Learning for Rural, Regional and Remote Teachers: Spotlight Report. Canberra, Australia Birman, B. F., Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28e33. http://outlier.uchicago.edu/computerscience/OS4CS/landscapestudy/resources/ Birman-Desimone-Porter-and-Garet-2000.pdf. Bowe, J, & Gore, J (2017). Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 352e366. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1206522 Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017, June). Effective teacher professional development. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev. Erickson, A., Noonan, P., & McCall, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of online professional development for rural educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 22-32. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748e750. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308401007 Gore, J (2014). Towards quality and equity: The case for quality teaching rounds. In Proceedings for the Australian Council for Educational Research annual research conference, "Quality and equity: What does research tell us? (pp. 86e91). ACER. Gore, J, Lloyd, A, Smith, M, Bowe, J, Ellis, H, & Lubans, D (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 99e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007 Gore, J, & Rosser, B (2020). Beyond content-focused professional development: powerful professional learning through genuine learning communities across grades and subjects. Professional Development in Education, 1e15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904 Hammond, J. (2008). Implications of quality teaching initiatives. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 128e154 Hill, H. C., Beisiegel, M., & Jacob, R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476e487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512674 Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945e980. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654315626800 NSW Department of Education and Training. (2006). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. https://app.education.nsw.gov.au/qualityteaching-rounds/Assets/Classroom_Practice_Guide_ogogVUqQeB.pdf OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf Opper, I. M. (2019). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR4312. Report no. RR-4312 Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. Rowe, K. (2003, October). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. In [Paper presentation]. Australian Council for Educational Research annual research conference, “Building teacher quality: What does the research tell us?” Melbourne, Australia. http:// research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/3. Timperley, H. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best synthesis iteration. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/ Educational_Practices/EdPractices_18.pdf