Job-embedded Professional Development: What it Means

“Job-embedded professional development” is one of those phrases that sounds impressive and is used far too loosely.

A workshop during the school day - job-embedded?
A departmental meeting on a Wednesday afternoon - job-embedded?
An invited speaker addressing teachers after students have gone home – job-embedded?

It isn’t.

Professional development is not job-embedded simply because it happens at school or during working hours. That is a matter of timing, not substance.
Job-embedded professional development is something far more specific.

It is sustained, collaborative, and context-specific. It takes place during the course of a teacher’s daily work, but more importantly, it is inseparable from that work.

When most people think of job-embedded professional development, they picture workshops, conferences, or training sessions at school or during school hours. These are very valuable. At their best, they introduce new ideas, deepen knowledge, and expose teachers to broader professional thinking. However, they are not “job-embedded”. They are inputs.

The real question is what happens next.

In many schools, the answer is: not very much. Teachers attend a session, leave with ideas, and return to their classrooms. For a short time, those ideas may influence practice. Then the demands of daily teaching take over, and the ideas fade. Nothing has gone wrong. There was simply no structure to implement those ideas in the classroom.

This is where job-embedded professional development becomes essential.
It shifts professional learning from something teachers attend to something they do as part of their teaching. It is not an event, but a process, one that is continuous, responsive, and grounded in the realities of the classroom.

If there is a system in place, teachers work with actual student data. They address real challenges. They apply strategies in real time, with real students. They reflect, experiment with, adapt, and refine their practice as part of their daily work, and then they share it with colleagues.

At the center of this process are Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). PLCs provide the structure that makes job-embedded professional development possible. They create the regular, disciplined space in which teachers come together to examine student learning, discuss instructional strategies, and hold one another accountable for applying new ideas in the classroom.

Within PLCs, professional learning becomes visible and shared. Ideas introduced through formal professional development are not left to individual interpretation or initiative. They are brought into the group, discussed, tested in classrooms, and revisited in light of evidence. This is where professional development moves from intention to implementation.

In this sense, professional development is no longer separate from teaching. It is the process through which teaching improves.

This is why collaboration matters. Job-embedded professional development is not an individual activity carried out in isolation. It is sustained through structured collaboration, ongoing dialogue, shared inquiry, and collective responsibility for student learning. PLCs anchor this collaboration and ensure that it is continuous rather than occasional.

This is also why it has greater impact.

When professional learning is directly connected to classroom practice, and when it is continuously applied, examined, and refined, it becomes more than professional development. It becomes part of the culture of the school. That is the shift.

Formal professional development sessions at schools have an important role. They introduce new ideas, expand thinking, and connect teachers to the wider profession. However, in-house training and PD sessions cannot stand alone. Without job-embedded processes to carry ideas into practice, even the best training session remains just that - teachers discuss it for a day, perhaps two and then other things drown it out.

With true JEPD and a system for shared practice, those ideas begin to live in the classroom.

Schools do not lack professional development opportunities. They rarely lack effort. What they often lack is a structure that ensures professional learning becomes part of daily classroom practice.

Without the system to transform newly acquired knowledge into practical application, “job-embedded” remains a label. With the right process, it becomes a driver of real improvement in teaching and learning.

If you would like to explore this process further, click here: https://forms.gle/dEu92EgA3bHZS1qB6  for a complimentary handbook from Professional Educators Network.

工作本位專業發展（JEPD）—其真正意義

「工作本位專業發展」是當今常被使用、卻往往被過度泛化的一個術語，聽起來令人印象深刻，但實際上常被誤用。

在上課期間進行的一場工作坊——就是工作本位？
星期三下午的一次科組會議——就是工作本位？
放學後邀請講者為教師演講——就是工作本位？

並不是。

專業發展並不因為發生在學校或工作時間內，就自然成為工作本位。那只是時間安排的問題，而非本質上的特徵。

工作本位專業發展指的是一種更為明確而具體的模式。

它是持續性的、協作性的，並且具情境性的。它發生在教師日常工作的過程中，更重要的是，它與這些工作本身密不可分。

當大多數人想到工作本位專業發展時，他們往往會聯想到在學校或上課時間內進行的工作坊、研討會或培訓課程。這些活動非常有價值。在最佳情況下，它們能引入新觀念、深化知識，並讓教師接觸更廣泛的專業思維。然而，它們並非「工作本位」。它們只是輸入。

真正的問題在於接下來會發生什麼。

在許多學校，答案是：並沒有發生太多事情。教師參加完活動，帶著一些想法回到課堂。在短時間內，這些想法或許會影響教學實踐。然而，日常教學的各種要求很快佔據主導地位，那些想法也隨之淡去。並沒有出現錯誤，只是缺乏一個能將這些想法落實於課堂中的結構。

這正是工作本位專業發展變得不可或缺的原因。

它將專業學習從「教師參加的活動」轉變為「教師在教學中實踐的過程」。它不是一項事件，而是一個持續的過程——一個連續的、具回應性的，並且根植於真實課堂情境中的過程。

當有一套系統存在時，教師會運用真實的學生數據，面對實際的教學挑戰。他們在真實的課堂中、與真實的學生一起即時運用策略。他們在日常教學中反思、嘗試、調整並精進自己的教學實踐，然後再與同事分享。

在這個過程的核心是專業學習社群（PLCs）。PLCs 提供了使工作本位專業發展得以實現的結構。它們創造出一個有規律且具紀律性的空間，使教師能夠共同檢視學生學習、討論教學策略，並彼此對將新理念應用於課堂負起責任。

在 PLCs 中，專業學習變得可見且可共享。透過正式專業發展所引入的理念，不再停留於個人的詮釋或自發性行動，而是被帶入團體之中，進行討論、在課堂中實踐，並依據證據再次檢視與修正。正是在這裡，專業發展從意圖轉化為實踐。

從這個意義上來看，專業發展已不再與教學分離。它本身就是教學得以改進的過程。

這也是為何協作至關重要。工作本位專業發展並非個人單獨進行的活動，而是透過結構化的協作、持續的對話、共同的探究，以及對學生學習的集體責任來維持。PLCs 鞏固了這種協作，並確保其持續性，而非偶發性。

這也是為何它能產生更大的影響。

當專業學習直接連結於課堂實踐，並且持續被應用、檢視與精進時，它便不再只是專業發展，而是成為學校文化的一部分。這正是關鍵的轉變。

學校中的正式專業發展課程仍然具有重要角色。它們引入新觀念、拓展思維，並將教師連結到更廣泛的專業社群。然而，校內培訓與專業發展活動無法單獨發揮作用。若缺乏工作本位的機制將理念帶入實踐，即使是最優質的培訓，也終究只是如此——教師可能討論一天，或許兩天，之後便被其他事務所淹沒。

透過真正的 JEPD 與一套共享實踐的系統，這些理念才能在課堂中生根。

學校並不缺乏專業發展的機會，也很少缺乏努力。它們往往缺乏的是一種結構，能確保專業學習成為日常課堂實踐的一部分。

若沒有將新獲得的知識轉化為實際應用的系統，「工作本位」仍然只是一個標籤。具備正確的運作機制時，它才能成為推動教與學真正改進的動力。

若您希望進一步了解此運作流程，請點擊以下連結：https://forms.gle/dEu92EgA3bHZS1qB6 ，免費索取 Professional Educators Network 的手冊。

Students are Overstimulated, not Unmotivated

One of the most common concerns teachers raise today is student motivation.

“They are not interested.”
“They don’t focus.”
“They give up too easily.”

It is easy to conclude that students are unmotivated. The evidence, at first glance, seems clear.

 But what if we are misreading the situation? Students today are not under-stimulated. They are overstimulated. They move constantly between short bursts of content—videos, messages, images, notifications. Attention is trained to shift quickly, not to stay. Information is immediate, but often fragmented. The brain becomes accustomed to speed, novelty, and constant input.

 Then we ask students to do something very different

·         To read a complex text

·         To follow a line of reasoning

·         To solve a problem that does not yield an immediate answer

·         To encounter difficulty

What we interpret as lack of motivation may, in many cases, be a mismatch between how students are conditioned to engage and what learning actually requires.

Real learning demands

·         sustained attention

·         cognitive effort

·         patience

·         the ability to persist through uncertainty

 This is where the classroom challenge becomes more complicated than it first appears.

In response to disengagement, many classrooms have become increasingly structured around activity. Lessons move quickly from one task to another. There is visible participation, constant movement, and a sense that something is always happening.

I have even seen lesson plan templates that allocate precise time slots to each “activity” in the lesson—five minutes for this, seven minutes for that, ten minutes for something else. Everything is carefully paced, but what is often missing is time. Time to think, time to struggle, time to digest the knowledge.

 In trying to maintain engagement, we may be unintentionally reinforcing the very habits that make deep learning difficult. Students learn to expect constant change, immediate direction, and quick completion. The moment a task becomes challenging, the structure moves them on.

The result is a classroom that looks active, but does not always produce sustained and critical thinking.

 The question is how to rebuild students’ capacity to stay with thinking. This requires deliberate shifts in classroom practice:

·         allowing longer periods for students to engage with a single idea

·         designing tasks that require depth, not just completion

·         resisting the urge to intervene too quickly

·         making thinking visible and valued, even when it is slow

These are not easy shifts to make, especially within the pressures of curriculum coverage and time. Teachers who struggle with classroom management prefer the speed, novelty, and constant input to control students’ behaviour.

 This is where professional development becomes critical—and where it often falls short. Discussions about engagement, motivation, and attention are common in professional learning communities. Teachers share strategies, exchange ideas, and reflect on their experiences. Yet classroom practice does not always change in meaningful ways. 

In the PEN (Professional Educators Network) approach, this gap is addressed directly.A challenge such as limited attention span or shallow engagement becomes the focus of an experimental lesson.

The teacher identifies a specific learner need and designs a lesson to address it. For example:

·         increasing the amount of sustained reading time

·         structuring tasks that require extended reasoning

·         building in deliberate pauses for thinking before response

 At the same time, the teacher examines their own practice:

·         How do I structure time in my lessons?

·         Do I allow students to cope with difficulty?

·         Do I move on too quickly in the name of pacing?

·         Is my classroom management strategy edutainment instead of facilitating learning?

 The experimental lesson becomes both:

1.      an intervention for student learning, and

2.      a focused step in improving teaching practice

 This teacher’s experience is brought back into the PLC, as evidence from the classroom, not as an abstract discussion, or intellectual exercise.

 The PLC investigate - what happened when more time was given? How did students respond to sustained thinking? Where did they struggle, and what support made a difference? How did it impact classroom management?

 This is how professional development begins to influence what matters most—the learning process in the classroom. Perhaps the issue is not that students are unmotivated. Perhaps they have simply been conditioned by an environment that does not require sustained attention.

 If that is the case, then the role of the school is not to compete with that environment, but to offer something different. Teach students how to think for longer. Help them experience the value of persistence. Make depth possible again. 

That is not a question of motivation. It is a question of design.

學生不是缺乏動機——而是受到過度刺激

當今教師最常提出的關切之一是學生的學習動機。

「他們沒有興趣。」
「他們無法專注。」
「他們太容易放棄。」

很容易就會得出結論，認為學生缺乏動機。乍看之下，證據似乎很明確。

但如果我們誤讀了這個情況呢？

今日的學生並不是刺激不足，而是受到過度刺激。
他們在短暫片段的內容之間不斷切換——影片、訊息、圖片、通知。注意力被訓練成快速轉移，而不是停留。資訊是即時的，但往往是零碎的。大腦逐漸習慣於速度、新奇，以及持續不斷的輸入。

接著，我們卻要求學生去做一些截然不同的事情：
• 閱讀一篇複雜的文本
• 跟隨一條推理脈絡
• 解決一個無法立即得到答案的問題
• 面對困難

我們所解讀為缺乏動機的現象，在許多情況下，其實是學生被訓練的參與方式與學習實際所需之間的不匹配。

真正的學習需要：
• 持續的專注
• 認知上的努力
• 耐心
• 在不確定中持續堅持的能力

這正是課堂挑戰變得比表面看起來更為複雜之處。

為了回應學生的缺乏投入，許多課堂愈來愈以「活動」為中心來進行設計。課程快速從一個任務轉換到另一個任務。可以看見學生參與，持續的活動，以及一種「事情一直在發生」的感覺。

我甚至看過一些教案模板，為每一個「活動」分配精確的時間——這個五分鐘，那個七分鐘，另一個十分鐘。所有安排都非常精細，但往往缺少的是時間。思考的時間、掙扎的時間、消化知識的時間。

在試圖維持參與度的過程中，我們可能在無意間強化了那些讓深度學習變得困難的習慣。學生習慣於持續變化、立即指示，以及快速完成。一旦任務變得具有挑戰性，課堂結構就會把他們帶往下一個環節。

結果是，一個看似活躍的課堂，卻未必能產生持續且具批判性的思考。

問題在於，我們如何重建學生持續思考的能力。這需要在課堂實踐上做出有意識的轉變：
• 讓學生有更長的時間專注於單一概念
• 設計需要深度，而不只是完成的任務
• 抵抗過快介入的衝動
• 即使思考過程緩慢，也讓其被看見並被重視

這些轉變並不容易，特別是在課程進度與時間壓力之下。對於在課堂管理上感到困難的教師而言，速度、新奇與持續輸入，往往更容易用來控制學生的行為。

這正是專業發展變得關鍵之處——也是它經常未能發揮作用的地方。

在專業學習社群中，關於參與度、動機與注意力的討論十分常見。教師分享策略、交流想法，並反思自身經驗。然而，課堂實踐卻未必產生有意義的改變。

在 PEN（專業教育者網絡）模式中，這個落差被直接處理。

例如，像是注意力持續時間有限或參與流於表面的問題，會成為一節「實驗課」的焦點。

教師會辨識一個具體的學習者需求，並設計一堂課來回應。例如：
• 增加持續閱讀的時間
• 建構需要延伸推理的任務
• 在回應之前刻意設計思考的停頓

同時，教師也會檢視自身的教學實踐：
• 我如何在課堂中安排時間？
• 我是否讓學生有機會面對並處理困難？
• 我是否以節奏為名過快地推進課程？
• 我的課堂管理策略，是否只是寓教於樂，而非促進學習？

這樣的實驗課同時成為：

1.      學生學習的介入策略，以及

2.      改進教學實踐的一個聚焦步驟

這位教師的經驗會被帶回 PLC，作為來自課堂的證據，而不是抽象的討論或理論性的思辨。

PLC 會進一步探究——當給予更多時間時發生了什麼？學生對持續思考有何反應？他們在哪裡遇到困難？哪些支持產生了差異？這對課堂管理帶來了什麼影響？

這正是專業發展開始影響最重要層面的方式——課堂中的學習歷程。或許問題不在於學生缺乏動機。

或許，他們只是被一種不要求持續專注的環境所制約。

如果是這樣，那麼學校的角色就不是與這種環境競爭，而是提供不同的可能。教導學生如何延長思考時間。幫助他們體會堅持的價值。讓深度再次成為可能。

這不是動機的問題，而是設計的問題。

Experimental Lessons in the PEN System

‍ ‍

Improving Student Learning and Teacher Practice Together

In many schools, professional development sits outside the classroom. Workshops are attended, ideas are discussed, and strategies are shared—but what happens in daily teaching often remains unchanged.

The PEN (Professional Educators Network) system takes a different approach. It places professional development where it matters most: inside the classroom, through structured, purposeful practice.

At the center of this approach are experimental lessons.

An experimental lesson is designed to address a clearly identified learning need within the school. This may be a gap in literacy, a weakness in numeracy, a need to strengthen critical thinking, or a focus on social-emotional learning. The lesson is intentional, evidence-informed, and aligned with the school’s strategic plan.

This is the first prong: improving student learning through targeted intervention.

The second prong is equally important and often overlooked. The experimental lesson is also designed to improve the teacher’s own methodology.

Teachers begin with self-reflection. Using a tool such as Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT), they identify an area of their own practice that requires development. This may include questioning techniques, differentiation, pacing, or classroom management. The experimental lesson then becomes a vehicle for working deliberately on that aspect of teaching while still addressing a specific learner need.

In this way, the lesson serves two purposes at once. It is not only about what students learn, but also about how the teacher facilitates the learning.

As with all PEN processes, the lesson is not done in isolation.

Teachers share their plans with their PLC, outlining both the targeted student learning need and the aspect of their own practice they are working to improve. After the lesson, the discussion focuses on what actually happened. How did students respond? Was the intended learning achieved? Did the teacher’s chosen strategy strengthen their own practice?

Not all experimental lessons are successful—and that is precisely where their value lies.

Students may respond in unexpected ways. A strategy aimed at improving classroom management, for example, may not produce the intended effect, requiring the teacher to adapt in the moment. These experiences provide rich material for reflection and discussion within the PLC.

Other lessons are highly successful. Students engage, demonstrate deeper understanding, and respond positively to the teacher’s refined approach. These lessons often reveal effective methodologies that can be extended and adapted across other classrooms.

In both cases, the practice is always shared.

This shared reflection strengthens the entire PLC. Teachers recognize patterns, anticipate challenges, and refine strategies together. A method that did not work in one context can be adjusted based on collective insight. A successful approach can be adopted and scaled.

Over time, this creates a culture where teaching is not private, but continuously examined and improved.

Successful lesson designs, along with reflections on teacher practice, are documented and added to a schoolwide shared database. This ensures that both effective strategies and valuable lessons learned from challenges contribute to the school’s collective knowledge.

During professional development days, PLCs present their most effective methodologies to the wider staff. These presentations are grounded in real classroom experience and demonstrate how both student learning and teacher practice have improved.

The impact is twofold and powerful.

Students benefit from targeted, responsive teaching that addresses real learning needs. At the same time, teachers become more reflective and intentional in their practice, using structured frameworks to guide their growth.

This is the strength of the PEN system. It is a two-pronged approach: improving student learning while simultaneously refining teacher methodology. Each lesson becomes an opportunity not only to teach, but to learn—individually and collectively.

For a free handbook that explains the PEN system, contact pen.info.edu@gmail.com

PEN 系統中的實驗性課堂：同時提升學生學習與教師教學實務

在許多學校中，專業發展往往存在於課堂之外。教師參加研習、討論理念、分享策略——但日常教學中的實際情況往往沒有真正改變。

PEN（專業教育者網絡）系統採取不同的做法。它將專業發展放在最重要的位置：透過有結構且有目的的實務，直接在課堂內進行。

這個方法的核心是實驗性課堂。

實驗性課堂是為了解決學校中明確辨識出的學習需求而設計的。這可能是讀寫能力的不足、數學能力的弱點、需要加強批判性思維，或是關注社會情緒學習。課堂設計具有明確目的，依據證據，並與學校的策略計畫保持一致。

這是第一個面向：透過有針對性的介入來提升學生學習。

第二個面向同樣重要，但常被忽略。實驗性課堂同時也是為了提升教師自身的教學方法。

教師從自我反思開始。透過如 Danielson 教學架構（FFT）等工具，他們辨識出自身教學中需要改進的面向。這可能包括提問技巧、差異化教學、節奏掌控或班級經營。實驗性課堂因此成為一個載體，使教師在回應特定學習需求的同時，有意識地改進自身的教學實務。

透過這樣的方式，一堂課同時達成兩個目的。它不僅關乎學生學到了什麼，也關乎教師如何促進學習的進行。

如同所有 PEN 的運作流程，課堂不會在孤立的情況下進行。

教師會在 PLC 中分享課堂設計，說明所針對的學生學習需求，以及自身希望改進的教學面向。課後的討論聚焦於實際發生的情況。學生如何回應？預期的學習是否達成？教師所採用的策略是否強化了自身的教學實務？

並非所有實驗性課堂都會成功——而這正是其價值所在。

學生可能出現未預期的反應。例如，一個旨在改善班級經營的策略，可能未能產生預期效果，教師需要在課堂中即時調整。這些經驗為 PLC 的反思與討論提供了豐富的素材。

也有一些課堂非常成功。學生投入其中，展現更深層的理解，並對教師調整後的教學方式產生正向回應。這些課堂往往揭示出可在不同班級中延伸與應用的有效教學方法。

無論成功或否，實務都必須被分享。

這種共享的反思強化了整個 PLC。教師能辨識模式、預見挑戰，並共同調整策略。在某個情境中未奏效的方法，可以透過集體的洞見加以修正；成功的方法則可以被採用並擴展。

隨著時間推進，這樣的運作會形成一種文化：教學不再是個人的，而是持續被檢視與改進的專業實務。

成功的課堂設計，以及對教學實務的反思，會被記錄並納入全校共享的資料庫。這確保了有效策略與從挑戰中獲得的寶貴經驗，能夠成為學校的集體知識。

在專業發展日中，PLC 會向全體教師呈現最有效的教學方法。這些分享建立在真實課堂經驗之上，並展現學生學習與教師教學實務如何同時獲得提升。

其影響具有雙重且強而有力。

學生從針對性且具回應性的教學中受益，學習需求得到真正的關注。同時，教師也變得更加具反思性與目的性，透過結構化的架構引導自身專業成長。

這正是 PEN 系統的優勢。這是一種雙軌並進的方法：在提升學生學習的同時，持續精進教師教學方法。每一堂課不僅是教學的機會，更是學習的機會——對個人與整個團隊而言皆然。

如需免費索取介紹 PEN 系統的手冊，請聯絡：pen.info.edu@gmail.com

Why Well-run PLCs Matter

There was a time when Professional Learning Communities were seen as a promising idea. Something schools experimented with in the hope of improving collaboration. Today, the conversation should be very different. PLCs are no longer an initiative. When they are well designed and consistently implemented, they are one of the most effective structures a school can use to improve both teaching and learning.

The challenge is not whether PLCs work. The challenge is how they are understood and implemented.

In many schools, PLCs exist in name only. Teachers meet regularly, agendas are shared, and discussions take place. Yet very little changes in the classroom. The meetings become procedural rather than purposeful. Over time, teachers begin to see them as an additional demand rather than a meaningful part of their professional growth.

This is where the distinction between meeting and learning becomes critical.

A well-run PLC is not a meeting. It is a structured process focused on improving student learning through teacher collaboration. The focus is not on what teachers teach, but on what students actually learn—and what teachers will do when learning does not occur as expected.

This shift sounds simple, but it changes everything.

When PLCs function effectively, they are driven by evidence. Teachers bring student work, assessment data, and classroom observations into the conversation. They examine patterns, identify gaps, and make instructional decisions based on real learning needs. The discussion moves beyond opinions to professional judgment grounded in evidence.

Equally important is the role of accountability—not imposed from above, but built within the team. Teachers agree on strategies, try them in their classrooms, and return to reflect on the results. This cycle of action and reflection is what transforms PLCs from discussion groups into engines of improvement.

However, none of this happens by accident.

Effective PLCs require structure, leadership, and clarity of purpose. Teachers need to understand what is expected, how to engage with data, and how to translate discussion into action. PLC leaders need support in facilitating meaningful dialogue, keeping the focus on learning, and ensuring that meetings lead to measurable outcomes.

This is where many schools struggle. They introduce PLCs but do not build the system that allows them to function effectively.

A strong PLC model connects three essential elements: school improvement, teacher development, and student learning. These cannot operate in isolation. When PLCs are aligned with the Schoolwide Action Plan, they become a vehicle for implementing real change. When they are linked to teacher professional development, they provide a context for continuous growth. When they remain focused on the learning process in every classroom, they ensure that all efforts lead back to the student.

At their best, PLCs create a culture where teachers learn from one another, take collective responsibility for student outcomes, and continuously refine their practice. This is not about adding another initiative. It is about building a professional environment where improvement becomes part of the daily work of teaching.

The question for schools is not whether they have PLCs.

The real question is whether their PLCs are making a difference.


當 PLC 發揮作用時：教學與學習的轉變

曾經有一段時間，專業學習社群（PLC）被視為一個充滿潛力的構想。學校在希望促進合作的情況下進行嘗試。如今，這樣的討論應該有所不同。PLC 已不再是一項「倡議」。當其設計完善且持續有效地實施時，它是學校用來提升教學與學習最有效的結構之一。

真正的挑戰不在於 PLC 是否有效，而在於它們如何被理解與實施。

在許多學校中，PLC 只是名義上的存在。教師定期開會、分享議程並進行討論。然而，教室中的實際改變卻非常有限。這些會議逐漸變得流於形式，而非具有明確目的。隨著時間推移，教師開始將其視為額外的負擔，而非專業成長中有意義的一部分。

正是在這裡，「開會」與「學習」之間的區別變得關鍵。

一個運作良好的 PLC 並不是一場會議，而是一個以教師合作為基礎、專注於提升學生學習的結構化歷程。焦點不在於教師教了什麼，而在於學生實際學到了什麼——以及當學習未如預期發生時，教師將採取什麼行動。

這樣的轉變看似簡單，卻改變了一切。

當 PLC 有效運作時，它們是由證據所驅動的。教師會將學生作品、評量數據與課堂觀察帶入討論中。他們檢視模式、找出落差，並根據實際的學習需求做出教學決策。討論從單純的意見交流，轉變為以證據為基礎的專業判斷。

同樣重要的是責任的角色——這並非自上而下施加，而是在團隊內部建立。教師共同同意策略，在課堂中實施，並回來反思結果。這樣的行動與反思循環，正是將 PLC 從討論小組轉變為改進動力的關鍵。

然而，這一切都不會自然而然發生。

有效的 PLC 需要結構、領導以及明確的目標。教師需要理解期望為何、如何運用數據，以及如何將討論轉化為行動。PLC 領導者需要在引導有意義的對話、維持學習焦點，以及確保會議產生可衡量成果方面獲得支持。

這正是許多學校面臨困難之處。他們引入 PLC，卻沒有建立使其有效運作的系統。

一個強而有力的 PLC 模型會連結三個關鍵要素：學校改進、教師發展，以及學生學習。這三者無法各自獨立運作。當 PLC 與學校整體行動計畫相結合時，它們便成為推動實質改變的工具。當其與教師專業發展連結時，它們提供持續成長的情境。當其始終聚焦於每一間教室中的學習歷程時，便能確保所有努力最終回歸學生。

在最佳狀態下，PLC 能夠建立一種文化，使教師彼此學習，對學生學習成果承擔共同責任，並持續精進教學實踐。這並不是在增加另一項倡議，而是在建構一個讓改進成為日常教學工作一部分的專業環境。

對學校而言，問題不在於是否擁有 PLC。

真正的問題在於，他們的 PLC 是否正在產生影響。

The Impact of Social Media on Literacy Development

A trend that did not exist twenty years ago is now shaping literacy development in profound ways. Students are constantly immersed in language, yet not necessarily developing literacy in the ways educators expect. Social media has transformed how young people read, write, listen, and interpret meaning. The question is no longer whether it has an impact, but what kind—and how schools should respond.

Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and messaging apps have created a new form of everyday literacy. Students read continuously - captions, comments, and subtitles that are often grammatically incorrect and limited in vocabulary. They write frequently, but in compressed, informal ways. Language has become immediate, functional, and highly contextual, with emojis and abbreviations carrying meaning alongside words.

This shift presents both opportunities and challenges.

Students are active participants in language. They interpret tone quickly, respond to audiences, and navigate multi-modal texts with ease. These are real literacy skills. However, this constant exposure to fragmented content comes at a cost. Sustained reading is declining. Many students struggle to engage with complex texts that require inference, reflection, and patience. Writing becomes simplified, with reduced attention to structure, coherence, and precision.

More concerning is the impact on comprehension, which lies at the heart of literacy.

According to UNESCO, literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, and communicate meaning across contexts. Social media, by design, promotes speed rather than depth. Students skim rather than read, react rather than reflect, and process fragments rather than sustained ideas. As a result, comprehension often remains superficial.

The rise of AI-generated content further complicates this. Automated narration in videos frequently lacks natural tone and intonation. Subtitles may not match spoken language, sometimes introducing errors for example, “forearms” appearing as “four arms.” These inconsistencies may seem minor, but repeated exposure can disrupt the connection between sound, meaning, and written form, particularly for developing readers.

Social media also does little to support sustained listening. Short clips replace extended discourse, reducing students’ ability to follow complex spoken language over time.

This does not mean social media should be dismissed. It is a powerful tool—if used intentionally.

Educators can use social media texts to develop critical thinking, helping students analyze purpose, audience, and language choices. More importantly, students must be taught to shift registers—to move confidently between informal digital communication and formal academic language. This ability is essential in today’s world.

The real challenge is not student behaviour, but instructional response.

Addressing these challenges requires more than awareness. It demands a systematic, schoolwide approach grounded in classroom practice.

The Professional Educators Network (PEN) model for Professional Development provides such a framework. Literacy development in a digital age cannot be addressed through isolated workshops. It requires ongoing, job-embedded professional learning focused on real student evidence.

Within PEN, teachers collaborate in Professional Learning Communities to analyze student work, identify patterns in both writing and comprehension, and design targeted strategies. These strategies are implemented, observed, and refined over time, ensuring consistency and measurable impact.

Literacy is not treated as a separate initiative, but as part of the school’s strategic planning. Teachers develop a deeper understanding of how digital exposure influences learning—and how instruction must respond.

In this way, the challenge of social media becomes an opportunity: to strengthen literacy, refine teaching practice, and ensure that students develop depth, precision, and the ability to communicate meaningfully across contexts.

社群媒體對識字能力發展的影響

二十年前尚不存在的一種趨勢，如今正深刻影響著識字能力的發展。學生持續沉浸在語言之中，卻未必以教育者所期望的方式發展識字能力。社群媒體已改變年輕人閱讀、寫作、聆聽與理解意義的方式。問題已不再是它是否產生影響，而是產生了什麼樣的影響，以及學校應如何回應。

Instagram、TikTok 及各類訊息應用程式等平台，創造了一種新的日常識字形式。學生持續閱讀——貼文說明、留言與字幕，這些內容往往在文法上不夠準確，且詞彙較為有限。同時，學生也更頻繁地書寫，但多以簡短、非正式的方式進行。語言變得即時、功能導向且高度依賴情境，表情符號與縮寫與文字一同傳達意義。

這樣的轉變同時帶來機會與挑戰。

學生不再只是被動接收語言，而是積極參與。他們能快速判斷語氣、回應受眾，並熟練地運用多模態文本。這些都是重要的識字能力。然而，長期接觸零碎且快速的內容也帶來代價。持續性閱讀能力正在下降，許多學生難以投入需要推論、反思與耐心的複雜文本。寫作也趨於簡化，對結構、連貫性與精確性的關注減少。

更令人關注的是對理解能力的影響，而這正是識字能力的核心。

根據聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）的定義，識字能力是指在不同情境中識別、理解、詮釋、創造與傳達意義的能力。然而，社群媒體的本質強調速度而非深度。學生傾向於瀏覽而非細讀，反應而非反思，處理的是片段資訊，而非完整且持續的概念。因此，理解往往停留在表層。

人工智慧生成內容的興起，進一步加劇了這個問題。許多影片中的自動語音缺乏自然的語調與語氣，字幕有時也無法與語音對應，甚至出現錯誤，例如將「forearms」（前臂）誤寫為「four arms」（四隻手臂）。這些看似微小的不一致，長期下來可能會干擾學生對聲音、意義與文字之間連結的理解，特別是對仍在發展語言能力的學習者而言。

此外，社群媒體幾乎無法支持持續性的聆聽能力。短影音取代了長時間的語言輸入，使學生較難理解與跟隨較複雜的口語表達。

這並不代表應該排斥社群媒體。若能有意識地運用，它仍然是一項強大的工具。

教育者可以運用社群媒體文本培養批判思考能力，引導學生分析文本的目的、受眾及語言運用方式。更重要的是，學生必須學會語域轉換——能夠在非正式的數位語言與正式的學術語言之間靈活切換。這是當今社會不可或缺的能力。

真正的挑戰不在於學生的行為，而在於教學如何回應。

要有效因應這些挑戰，僅有意識提升是不夠的，還需要一個有系統、以課堂實踐為基礎的全校性策略。

專業教育者網絡（Professional Educators Network, PEN）的專業發展模式，正提供了這樣的架構。在數位時代中，識字能力的發展無法透過零散的研習或一次性的培訓來解決，而需要持續進行、融入教學現場、並以真實學生學習證據為核心的專業學習。

在 PEN 架構中，教師於專業學習社群（PLC）中協作，分析學生作品，辨識寫作與理解方面的模式，並設計具針對性的教學策略。這些策略在課堂中實施、觀察與修正，確保教學的一致性與成效。

識字能力不再被視為獨立的計畫，而是納入學校整體發展策略之中。教師逐步深化對數位環境如何影響學習的理解，並調整教學以回應這些改變。

在這樣的脈絡下，社群媒體帶來的挑戰也轉化為契機——促使學校強化識字能力、精進教學實踐，並確保學生能在不同情境中，具備深度、精確性與有效溝通的能力。

Literacy is a Worldwide Concern - Even in the Top Schools

In my experience as an educator, modern students are exposed to more language than ever before, yet engage deeply with it less than any previous generation.

This thought captures a paradox many educators now recognize instinctively, even if we struggle to name it. In an age of constant connectivity, instant information, and endless text, literacy is not improving. In many contexts, it is quietly eroding.

And this erosion is not limited to under-resourced schools or communities with limited access to education. It is increasingly visible in well-funded private schools, international schools, and high-achieving academic environments.

According to UNESCO, literacy is defined as: The ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.

This definition matters. Literacy, in this sense, is not about decoding words or passing language exams. It is about meaning-making, comprehension, interpretation, reasoning, and communication.

Under this definition, a student may read fluently, write grammatically correct sentences, use sophisticated vocabulary, and still be functionally illiterate.

Years ago, a mathematics teacher asked me a question I have never forgotten:
“Why should I be concerned about literacy? I teach math.”

It was a revealing question. Mathematics depends on literacy. Students must read word problems accurately, interpret instructions, distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, follow logical sequences, explain reasoning, and justify solutions. When students fail to do these things, the problem is rarely mathematical knowledge alone. It is often a literacy problem.

The same applies to science, humanities, technology, and the arts. Literacy is not the responsibility of language teachers alone. It is the foundation of all learning.

Several powerful forces are converging to weaken literacy across age groups and contexts.

1. The Internet Rewards Speed, Not Understanding
Students are conditioned to skim, search, and extract rather than read, reflect, and synthesize. The habit of sustained attention—essential for literacy—is disappearing.

2. Social Media Fragments Language
Short posts, captions, comments, and emojis dominate students’ daily language exposure. These formats prioritize reaction over reasoning and brevity over clarity.

3. Information Access Is Confused with Knowledge
Students can locate answers quickly but often cannot explain them, evaluate them, or apply them in unfamiliar contexts. The appearance of competence masks shallow understanding.

4. AI Short-Circuits the Literacy Process
When tools generate text instantly, students can bypass the struggle that builds comprehension and expressive clarity. Editing replaces thinking. Output replaces understanding.

5. Reading Stamina Has Declined
Many students find extended texts exhausting. They struggle to follow arguments across pages or even paragraphs.

6. Schools Assume Literacy Instead of Teaching It
In high-performing schools especially, literacy is often assumed to be “already in place.” As a result, it is rarely taught explicitly outside language classes.

This is not a local problem. Educators worldwide report the same patterns, across curricula, languages, and income levels. The issue is not access to schooling. It is the quality of engagement with language.

When students cannot interpret, analyze, evaluate, or articulate meaning clearly, learning becomes fragile. Knowledge does not transfer. Critical thinking weakens. Democratic participation, ethical reasoning, and informed decision-making all suffer.

The solution does not lie in banning technology or adding more tests. It lies in reclaiming literacy as a shared responsibility.

Every teacher can:

• Make reading visible
  Ask students to explain how they understood a problem, not just what the answer is.

• Slow the process down
  Build time for rereading, annotating, and discussing meaning. Speed should not be the goal.

• Insist on explanation and justification
  Whether in math, science, or art, students should regularly explain their thinking in complete, coherent language.

• Teach vocabulary in context
  Subject-specific language must be unpacked, revisited, and actively used. (See the example in the PEN Handbook).

• Design tasks that require interpretation, not retrieval
  Questions with no single obvious answer force students to engage deeply with text and ideas.

• Use AI transparently and critically
  If AI is used, students should analyze, critique, and improve outputs, not submit them unexamined.

Most importantly, teachers can name literacy explicitly. When students understand that reading, writing, and thinking are central to every subject, expectations change.

Literacy is no longer something we can assume students “pick up along the way.” In a world saturated with language but starved of depth, literacy must be taught deliberately, practiced consistently, and protected intentionally.

It is not an add-on.
It is not the job of one department.
It is the core of education itself.

識字能力是全球性的關注議題——即使在最好的學校也是如此

以我作為教育工作者的經驗來看，現代學生接觸到的語言比以往任何一個世代都多，然而，他們對語言進行深度理解與投入的程度，卻比任何前一代都來得低。

這句話點出了許多教育者如今本能地察覺、卻難以清楚表述的一種矛盾現象。在一個高度連結、資訊即時、文字無所不在的時代，學生的識字能力並未隨之提升；在許多情境中，它正悄然流失。

而這種流失並不僅限於資源不足的學校或教育機會有限的社群。它愈來愈明顯地出現在設備完善的私立學校、國際學校，以及學業表現優異的學習環境中。

根據聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）的定義，識字能力是指：
能夠在不同情境中，運用印刷與書寫材料進行辨識、理解、詮釋、創作、溝通與計算的能力。

這一定義極為重要。在此意義下，識字並不只是解讀文字，或通過語言考試，而是關於意義的建構——理解、詮釋、推理與有效溝通。

依據這一定義，一名學生即使能流利閱讀、寫出語法正確的句子、並使用高階詞彙，仍可能在功能上屬於識字能力不足。

多年前，一位數學老師曾問我一個我至今難忘的問題：
「為什麼我需要關心識字能力？我教的是數學。」

這是一個極具啟發性的問題。數學本身高度依賴識字能力。學生必須能準確閱讀文字題目、理解指示、區分相關與不相關資訊、遵循邏輯步驟、說明推理過程，並為答案提供合理的論證。當學生無法做到這些時，問題往往不在於數學知識本身，而是在於識字能力。

同樣的情況也適用於科學、人文學科、科技與藝術。識字能力並非語言教師的專屬責任，而是所有學習的基礎。

目前，有多股強大的力量正同時削弱不同年齡層與不同教育情境中的識字能力。

一、網路獎勵速度，而非理解
學生被訓練去快速瀏覽、搜尋與擷取資訊，而非閱讀、反思與統整。對識字能力至關重要的持續專注力，正逐漸消失。

二、社群媒體使語言碎片化
貼文、標題、留言與表情符號主導了學生的日常語言接觸。這些形式重視即時反應，而非推理；追求簡短，而非清晰。

三、資訊取得被誤認為知識
學生能迅速找到答案，卻往往無法解釋、評估，或在陌生情境中應用這些資訊。表面的熟練掩蓋了淺層的理解。

四、人工智慧使識字歷程被捷徑化
當工具能即時生成文字時，學生便可能跳過建立理解與表達能力所需的掙扎歷程。編輯取代了思考，產出取代了理解。

五、閱讀耐力下降
許多學生覺得長篇文本在心理與認知上都令人疲憊。他們難以跨越多頁、甚至多段落來追蹤一個論點。

六、學校假設學生「已具備」識字能力，而非實際教授它
特別是在高表現學校中，識字能力常被視為理所當然，因此除了語言課程之外，很少被明確而系統地教導。

這並非地方性的問題。全球各地的教育者，在不同課綱、語言與社經背景下，都回報了相同的現象。問題不在於是否能進入學校，而在於學生與語言互動的品質。

當學生無法清楚地詮釋、分析、評估或表達意義時，學習便變得脆弱。知識無法遷移，批判思考能力削弱，民主參與、倫理判斷與明智決策的能力也隨之受損。

解方不在於禁止科技或增加測驗，而在於重新將識字能力視為共同的責任。

每一位教師都可以：

• 讓閱讀歷程變得可見
要求學生說明他們是「如何理解」一個問題的，而不只是給出答案。

• 放慢學習節奏
刻意安排重讀、註記與討論意義的時間。速度不應成為目標。

• 堅持解釋與論證
無論是在數學、科學或藝術課程中，學生都應經常以完整且連貫的語言說明自己的思考。

• 在情境中教授詞彙
各學科的專業語言必須被拆解、反覆使用，並實際應用。（可參考 PEN 手冊中的範例）

• 設計需要詮釋而非擷取的任務
沒有單一標準答案的問題，能迫使學生與文本與概念進行深度互動。

• 以透明且批判的方式使用 AI
若使用 AI，學生應分析、批評並改進產出，而非未經思考即提交。

最重要的是，教師應明確地「點名」識字能力。當學生理解閱讀、寫作與思考是所有學科的核心時，學習期待便會隨之改變。

識字能力已不再是學生能「順其自然學會」的技能。在一個語言氾濫卻缺乏深度的世界中，識字能力必須被有意識地教授、持續地練習，並刻意地保護。

它不是附加項目。
它不是某一個部門的責任。
它是教育的核心。

翻譯：ChatGPT

Critical Thinking - a Fragile Skill

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information, evaluate evidence, recognize assumptions, and make reasoned judgments rather than simply recalling facts or repeating learned responses. It involves questioning, interpreting, synthesizing ideas, and applying knowledge to unfamiliar situations. In short, critical thinking is thinking that goes beyond what to why and how.

 Most educators agree on this definition in principle. In practice, however, many schools are discovering just how fragile this skill has become.

 Across education systems worldwide, schools increasingly identify critical thinking as an urgent area for development. Teachers observe that many students struggle when asked to explain their reasoning, justify choices, or solve problems without a prescribed method. This concern spans age groups, curricula, and national contexts.

 Several forces contribute to this decline. Social media, search engines, and now artificial intelligence provide instant answers, often without requiring learners to engage deeply with the underlying thinking. Students become accustomed to finding answers rather than constructing them. Over time, this erodes confidence in their own reasoning.

 The problem becomes particularly visible when internet access is removed. In classrooms where devices are restricted, or during examinations, students often grapple with tasks that require original thinking. When no ready-made answer appears on a screen, many are unsure how to begin.

 This gap is most evident in problem-solving situations that demand analysis rather than recall. Students may understand terminology and remember definitions, yet falter when asked to apply concepts to new contexts. Instead of experimenting with ideas, testing assumptions, or exploring multiple solutions, they search for familiar keywords and hope recognition will carry them through.

 The issue is not a lack of intelligence or effort. It is a learned dependency on external sources and fixed patterns of response.

 Another significant contributor lies within education systems themselves. In environments where success depends heavily on rote learning and memorization, students are rewarded for accuracy of recall rather than depth of understanding. Over time, they learn that reproducing information is safer than questioning it.

 When assessments emphasize right answers over reasoning, critical thinking becomes optional rather than essential. This creates learners who are well prepared for predictable tasks, but ill-equipped for complex or unfamiliar challenges.

One incident from my own teaching experience illustrates this vividly. While grading an AP Macroeconomics test paper, I encountered two identical wrong answers to a question that required higher-order thinking. Cheating was impossible. The students were seated far apart, and I controlled the test conditions tightly.

 When I spoke to the students afterward, the explanation emerged. Both had the same after-hours tutor, although they attended sessions separately. The tutor had provided model answers for common question types, which the students memorized. Faced with the test question, both students latched onto familiar keywords, failed to read the question carefully, and reproduced the memorized response verbatim.

 The irony was striking. The question was designed specifically to assess critical thinking, as Advanced Placement examinations require. The students’ preparation had trained them to bypass thinking altogether.

 This story is not about poor teaching or weak students. It is about systems that unintentionally prioritize shortcuts over understanding. If students are consistently shown that memorization leads to success, they will naturally rely on it, even when it fails them.

 Latching onto keywords and giving the memorized answer becomes a survival technique. A Grade 3 English teacher once told me that he asked a student, “How are you today?” and the child answered, “It’s sunny.” In the textbook, the question had been “How is the weather today?” The keyword was today. There was no thinking, just a memorized phrase.

 Rebuilding critical thinking requires deliberate effort. It means designing learning experiences that value process over product, reasoning over recall, and questions over answers. It also means helping students become comfortable with uncertainty and intellectual struggle.

 One practical and accessible resource that supports this work is “The Critical Thinking Companion” by WABISABI LEARNING. Rather than treating critical thinking as an abstract ideal, it offers concrete strategies and language that teachers can use across subjects and age levels. Resources like this matter because critical thinking does not develop by accident. It must be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced.

 Critical thinking is not a luxury skill for advanced learners. It is a foundational capacity for navigating complexity, misinformation, and real-world problems. If schools want students who can think independently, then education must consistently demand independence of thought.

 The challenge is clear. The responsibility is shared. The work must begin with action research in everyday classrooms, one question at a time.

批判性思考——一項脆弱的能力

批判性思考是指分析資訊、評估證據、辨識假設，並做出有理有據的判斷，而不只是回憶事實或重複學過的回應。它包括提問、詮釋、整合想法，以及將知識應用於不熟悉的情境。簡言之，批判性思考就是超越「是什麼」，進而思考「為什麼」與「如何」。

多數教育工作者在原則上都同意這一定義。然而在實務中，許多學校正逐漸發現，這項能力其實有多麼脆弱。

在全球各地的教育體系中，學校愈來愈將批判性思考視為迫切需要發展的重點。教師觀察到，許多學生在被要求解釋自己的推理、為選擇提出理由，或在沒有既定方法的情況下解決問題時，往往感到困難。這樣的現象橫跨不同年齡層、課程體系與國家背景。

多種因素共同導致了這樣的退化。社群媒體、搜尋引擎，以及如今的人工智慧，都能即時提供答案，卻往往不要求學習者深入參與背後的思考過程。學生逐漸習慣於「找到」答案，而不是「建構」答案。久而久之，他們對自身推理能力的信心便被削弱。

當網路存取被移除時，問題便顯得格外明顯。在限制使用裝置的課堂中，或在考試期間，學生常常必須面對需要原創思考的任務。當螢幕上沒有現成答案出現時，許多人甚至不知道該如何開始。

這個落差在需要分析而非記憶的問題解決情境中表現得最為明顯。學生或許理解術語、記得定義，卻在被要求將概念應用於新情境時表現失常。他們不是嘗試想法、檢驗假設，或探索多種解決方案，而是尋找熟悉的關鍵字，並希望「看起來對」就能帶他們過關。

這個問題並非源自智力不足或努力不夠，而是一種對外部資源與固定回應模式的習得性依賴。

另一個重要的成因，其實來自教育體系本身。在高度依賴死記硬背與記憶學習的環境中，學生因為記憶準確而受到獎勵，而不是因為理解深度。久而久之，他們學會了複述資訊比提出質疑來得安全。

當評量強調正確答案勝過推理過程時，批判性思考便成為可有可無，而非不可或缺。這樣的制度培養出能應付可預測任務的學習者，卻難以面對複雜或陌生的挑戰。

我自身的一段教學經驗，生動地說明了這一點。在批改一份 AP 經濟學（總體經濟）考試試卷時，我發現有兩位學生在一道需要高層次思考的題目上，給出了完全相同的錯誤答案。作弊是不可能的。學生座位相距甚遠，而我也嚴格掌控了考試條件。

事後與學生談話時，原因才逐漸浮現。兩人都有同一位課後家教，雖然並非同時上課。這位家教為常見題型提供了「標準答案」，要求學生背誦。面對考試題目時，兩位學生都抓住了熟悉的關鍵字，沒有仔細閱讀題目內容，而是逐字重現了背過的答案。

其中的諷刺意味十分明顯。這道題目正是為了評量批判性思考而設計，這也是 AP 考試的核心要求。然而，學生所接受的準備卻訓練他們完全繞過思考。

這個故事並不是關於不良教學或能力不足的學生，而是關於那些無意間將捷徑置於理解之上的制度。如果學生一再被告知，死記硬背等同於成功，他們自然會依賴這種方式，即使在它失效時也是如此。

抓住關鍵字並給出背誦過的答案，逐漸成了一種求生技巧。一位三年級英文老師曾告訴我，他問學生：「你今天過得如何？」孩子回答：「天氣晴朗。」在課本中，問題原本是：「今天天氣如何？」關鍵字是「今天」。沒有思考，只有背過的句子。

重建批判性思考需要有意識的努力。這意味著設計重視過程而非結果、重視推理而非記憶、重視提問而非答案的學習經驗。同時，也意味著幫助學生逐漸適應不確定性與思考上的掙扎。

一項實用且容易上手、能支持這項工作的資源是 WABISABI LEARNING 出版的《The Critical Thinking Companion》。它並未將批判性思考視為抽象理想，而是提供具體策略與語言，讓教師能在不同學科與年齡層中加以運用。這類資源之所以重要，是因為批判性思考並不會自然發展，它必須被明確地教授、示範，並反覆練習。

批判性思考並非進階學習者的奢侈能力，而是一項用來應對複雜性、錯誤資訊與真實世界問題的基礎能力。如果學校希望學生能夠獨立思考，那麼教育就必須持續要求思想上的獨立。

挑戰已經很清楚。責任是共同的。而這項工作，必須從日常課堂中的行動研究開始，一次一個問題。

Action Research - the Heart of Continuous School Improvement

In every accredited school, continuous improvement is expected, but it only becomes meaningful when it moves out of documents and meetings and into real classrooms with real teachers and real students.

 Action research is the bridge that makes this happen. It gives teachers a structured way to understand their learners more deeply, to test new ideas, and to refine their own practice. In the PEN system, this process becomes even more powerful because it is deliberately two-pronged: teachers investigate what their students need, and at the same time they consciously focus on their own professional growth.

 The starting point is always the learners. A good action research question grows out of something the teacher notices: perhaps the students struggle to express themselves clearly, or their problem-solving is inconsistent, or they participate unevenly in group work. Sometimes the trigger is assessment data, standardized testing, perhaps a pattern observed across classes. Often it will be something that emerges from PLC conversations.

 In the PEN system, this is only half of the inquiry. The teacher also considers what they need to strengthen in their methodology to address these learner needs. This could be anything from modelling and questioning techniques to scaffolding, lesson structure, or the way feedback is given. Their understanding of the Framework for Teaching, along with peer observations, self-reflection, and feedback from a supervisor, helps the teacher identify which aspects of their own practice will become part of the research cycle.

 The teacher then designs a short set of lessons that allows them to test a promising strategy. This is where action meets inquiry. The lessons are carefully planned, not as isolated activities, but as deliberate steps that respond to the learners’ needs while also stretching the teacher’s skills. If a teacher is working on improving academic discussions, they may introduce sentence frames, adjust the questioning sequence, and model how to respond. If writing is the focus, they may try new approaches to modelling, conferencing, or using exemplars. In every case, the teacher is watching both sides of the story: how students respond, and how they adjust their methodology to support better learning.

 As the lessons unfold, evidence begins to appear. It doesn’t come from complicated spreadsheets or statistical analysis; it comes from the natural rhythm of classroom life. The teacher gathers exit tickets, listens to student talk, notices how learners engage with a task, compares early work with later work, and observes whether learning behaviours begin to shift.

 Alongside this, the teacher also reflects on their own practice: What did I change in my teaching? What surprised me? What worked more effectively than I expected? What should I adjust tomorrow? These reflections, supported by peer or supervisor feedback, form an essential part of the PEN process.

 Formative assessment becomes the guide that helps the teacher adjust in real time. It answers the quiet but essential question: “Is this working?” Sometimes the teacher realizes the students need more modelling, or a slower pace, or a clearer scaffold. At other times the strategy is effective, but a small modification will help it reach more students. For the teacher’s own growth, the formative moments are equally important. They begin to notice their habits, their instructional moves, the moments when they are clear and the moments when they are not. This is professional growth embedded in daily practice.

At the end of the cycle, a summative moment provides clarity. Students complete a final task—a piece of writing, a comprehension check, a speaking performance, or simply a new demonstration of understanding—and the teacher compares it to the starting point. The impact often becomes visible in subtle but meaningful ways: greater confidence, clearer thinking, stronger explanations, more engagement, or more accurate language.

 The teacher also looks at themselves: What did I learn about teaching? What have I improved? What should I carry forward to my next unit? This dual reflection is what gives the PEN system its strength.

 When teachers share their action research within their PLCs, the impact grows beyond one classroom. Their insights help colleagues facing similar challenges, and the collective learning begins to influence schoolwide practices. In accredited schools, this becomes invaluable. The evidence and reflections feed directly into the continuous school improvement cycle, shaping schoolwide learner outcomes, informing action plans, and strengthening the school’s culture of reflection and growth.

 In the end, action research is not a task to complete but a habit of mind. It shifts the focus from “What did I teach?” to “What did they learn, and how did I grow because of it?” In the PEN system, this habit becomes a way of life. Teachers improve because they understand their learners more deeply and because they continually refine their own methodology. Students improve because their teachers are intentional, reflective, and supported by a system that values professional growth.

This is the essence of continuous school improvement: a school becoming stronger each day through the thoughtful, informed actions of the people who work closest to the learners. And that is why action research sits at the centre of PEN. It honors the teacher as both learner and expert, and it ensures that every step forward is grounded in evidence, reflection, and shared purpose.

 If you would like to have additional information and a template for experimental lesson plans, write to us at: pen.info.edu@gmail.com

行動研究 —— 持續學校改進的核心

在每一所通過認證的學校中，持續改進是被期待的，但只有當它從文件與會議中走出，進入真實的教室、真實的教師與真實的學生之間時，才會變得有意義。

行動研究是促成這一切的橋樑。它為教師提供一個有結構的方式，更深入地理解學習者、測試新想法，並精進自己的教學實踐。在 PEN 系統中，這個過程變得更為強大，因為它是刻意的雙向設計：教師探究學生的需求，同時有意識地聚焦於自己的專業成長。

起點永遠是學習者。一個良好的行動研究問題源自教師的觀察：也許學生在清晰表達自己時有困難，或解決問題時不一致，或在小組合作中參與度不均。有時觸發點是評量數據、標準化測驗，或是在跨班級觀察中發現的某種模式。它常常也會在 PLC 的對話中浮現。

在 PEN 系統中，這只是探究的一半。教師也會思考自己在教學方法上需要加強的部分，以回應這些學習需求。這可能包括示範與提問技巧、鷹架、課程架構，或提供回饋的方式。他們對《教學框架》（Framework for Teaching）的理解，加上同儕觀課、自我反思與督導回饋，都能協助教師辨識出自身教學實踐中需要納入研究循環的面向。

接著，教師會設計一小組課程，使他們能測試一個有前景的策略。這就是行動與探究相遇的地方。這些課程經過細緻設計，不是孤立的活動，而是回應學習者需求的刻意步驟，同時也拓展教師的技巧。若教師致力於提升學術討論能力，他們可能會引入句型框架、調整提問順序，並示範如何回應。若焦點是寫作，他們可能會嘗試新的示範方式、寫作會談或範例文本的運用。在每一種情況中，教師都在觀察這一段故事的雙面向：學生如何回應，以及他們如何調整自己的方法以支持更好的學習。

隨著課程推進，證據開始浮現。這些證據不是來自複雜的試算表或統計分析，而是來自教室生活自然的節奏。教師收集離堂紙條（exit tickets）、聆聽學生的口語、注意學習者如何投入任務、比較早期與後期的作品，並觀察學習行為是否開始改變。

與此同時，教師也反思自己的實踐：我在教學中改變了什麼？什麼讓我感到意外？什麼比我預期的更有效？明天我應該調整什麼？這些反思，在同儕或督導回饋的支持下，構成 PEN 流程中不可或缺的一部分。

形成性評量成為指引，使教師能在實時中做出調整。它回答那個安靜卻重要的問題：「有效嗎？」有時教師意識到學生需要更多示範、更慢的步調或更清晰的鷹架。有時策略是有效的，但小幅度的調整能使其惠及更多學生。對教師自身的成長而言，形成性的片刻同樣重要。他們開始注意自己的習慣、教學行為、清晰的時刻與不清晰的時刻。這就是嵌入日常實踐的專業成長。

在循環結束時，總結性的時刻帶來清晰。學生完成一項最終任務──一篇寫作、一項理解測驗、一段口語表現，或只是新的理解展示──而教師將其與起點進行比較。影響往往以微妙但重要的方式變得可見：更大的自信、更清晰的思考、更強的解釋能力、更高的參與度，或更準確的語言。

教師也檢視自己：我對教學學到了什麼？我改善了什麼？下一個單元我應該延續什麼？這種雙重反思正是 PEN 系統的力量所在。

當教師在 PLC 中分享他們的行動研究時，影響力超越了一間教室。他們的洞見能幫助面臨相似挑戰的同事，而集體的學習開始影響全校層面的實踐。在通過認證的學校中，這具有無價的價值。這些證據與反思直接融入持續的學校改進循環，塑造校級學習者成果、提供行動計畫的資訊，並強化學校的反思與成長文化。

最終，行動研究不是一項待完成的任務，而是一種思維習慣。它將焦點從「我教了什麼？」轉向「他們學到了什麼？而我因此如何成長？」在 PEN 系統中，這種習慣成為生活方式。教師精進，是因為他們更深入地理解學習者，並持續改進自己的方法。學生進步，是因為他們的教師具有目標性、反思能力，並受到一個重視專業成長的系統支持。

這就是持續學校改進的真諦：透過那些最貼近學習者的教育工作者深思熟慮、資訊充分的行動，一所學校每天都在變得更強。而這正是行動研究位居 PEN 核心的原因。它尊崇教師同時是學習者與專家，並確保每一步都立基於證據、反思與共同的使命。

若您希望獲得更多資訊或實驗課程計畫的模板，請寫信至：pen.info.edu@gmail.com

THE 6 MOST COMMON MISTAKES SCHOOLS MAKE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - and how to avoid them

Schools don’t fail at PD because people don’t care. They fail because the structure isn’t right. I’ve had significant contact with schools, and the same PD patterns appear again and again. The good news? These mistakes are easy to fix once you see them.

Here are six of the most common traps — and what to do instead.

1. Too many “events,” not enough follow-through

A big conference, an enjoyable workshop, an outside speaker, a PD day with excellent snacks…
Then nothing happens.

Teachers return to their classrooms and carry on exactly as before — not because they don’t want to improve, but because improvement needs structure, not fireworks.

Build on this through Job-embedded PD. Create a rhythm for the school: PLC meetings, action research, shared reflection, evaluation. Small steps, taken consistently, incorporate those big events and make them meaningful change agents.

2. PD chosen by trend instead of by student need

A shiny new method appears online and suddenly everyone must learn it, the buzzwords are everywhere — even if it has nothing to do with the school’s learners.

Start with the only question that matters: “What do our students need right now?” Does this align with our learners’ needs? Was it something that came our of a university’s ivory tower and now everyone is fired up about it?
Investigate, discuss and then plan PD around that if it has the lasting value that will make an impact on your students’ learning.

In my several decades in education I have seen trends burst onto the scene, the buzzwords flying in every meeting, enthusiastic school leaders expecting all their teachers to implement the latest trend, and a few years later the whole thing had fizzled out like the New Year’s Eve fireworks.

3. Theory with no classroom reality

Teachers listen politely to long presentations… and nobody knows what to do with the information.

Give teachers something they can actually use tomorrow morning. Clear strategies, examples, modelling, and a chance to test ideas and see how they work with their own students. Give the teachers something substantial that can be tested out in experimental lessons and discussed in their PLCs.

4. Treating evaluation as punishment

In many schools, evaluation is a tense, secretive process that arrives once a year and causes mild panic. I even heard a school leader call it “performance appraisal”. Ouch!

Evaluation should be guidance, not fear. Use a clear, shared framework. The most comprehensive evaluation tool is Danielson’s Framework for Teaching which is  “A guide for reflection, observation, and conversation” (Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed. (ASCD, 2024).)

When using The Framework for Teaching as an evaluation tool, everyone knows what good teaching looks like. When teachers use the rubric for self-reflection and peer evaluation, the whole tone changes.

5. Expecting teachers to grow alone

If PD depends on individual effort in isolated classrooms, it will not last. Teachers need to talk, compare notes, and look at student work together.

Transformation can only happen through shared practice. Build real PLCs. When teachers plan together, investigate student needs together, and share their findings, improvement spreads across the whole school — not just one classroom.

6. No one leading the process

Even excellent PD ideas fall apart if no one is constantly steering the ship. PD cannot survive on conference enthusiasm alone. Job-embedded BP needs for all leaders to be on board.

Leaders need to protect time, set expectations, encourage reflection, and follow up. When  leaders take PD seriously, teachers feel supported and valued — and the culture shifts.

 學校在專業發展中最常犯的六大錯誤

— 以及如何避免它們**

學校在專業發展上之所以失敗，並不是因為大家不在乎，而是因為缺乏適當的架構。我與許多學校密切接觸過，而同樣的專業發展模式一次又一次地出現。好消息是：一旦看清問題，這些錯誤其實非常容易修正。

以下是六個常見的陷阱——以及更好的做法。

1. 太多「活動」，缺乏後續追蹤

一場大型會議、一個令人愉快的工作坊、一位外聘講者、一個有豐盛茶點的專業發展日……
然後什麼都沒改變。

老師回到教室後依然照舊上課，並不是因為他們不願意改進，而是因為改進需要的是系統性的架構，而不是煙火式的活動。

透過**職務嵌入式專業發展（Job-embedded PD）**強化此部分。為學校建立一個穩定的節奏：PLC 會議、行動研究、共同反思、評鑑。將這些大活動納入一個長期持續的系統中，才能真正轉化成具體的改變。

學校建立一個穩定的節奏：PLC 會議、行動研究、共同反思、評鑑。將這些大活動納入一個長期持續的系統中，才能真正轉化成具體的改變。

2. 以潮流為導向的 PD，而非學生需求

某個全新的教學法在網路上爆紅，於是大家都必須學，流行語滿天飛——即使它與學校學生的需求毫無關聯。

請從唯一重要的問題開始：
「我們的學生現在需要什麼？」
它是否符合學習者的需求？這是否只是某所大學象牙塔裡冒出的理論，如今大家一窩蜂跟風？

調查、討論，若其內容具備長期價值且能真正影響學生學習，再據此規劃 PD。

在我數十年的教育生涯中，我看過無數教育潮流華麗登場，校務會議上流行語四處飛舞，校長熱情地要求所有老師採用最新方法；幾年後，那些潮流卻像跨年煙火般迅速熄滅。

3. 理論脫離課堂現實

老師們禮貌地聽了冗長的簡報……但沒有人知道下一步該怎麼做。

給老師一些隔天早上就能用得上的東西：清楚的策略、示例、示範教學，以及在自己班級試行的機會。讓老師們在「實驗課」中測試新做法，並在 PLC 中討論其成效。

4. 把評鑑當成懲罰

在許多學校，評鑑是一年一次、令人緊張且半神秘的作業，帶著一點驚慌。我甚至聽過一位學校領導人把它叫作「績效考核」。——哎喲！

評鑑應該是引導，而不是恐懼。請使用一套清晰且具共識的架構。最全面的工具是 Danielson 教學框架（The Framework for Teaching），它是
「一份用於反思、觀察與對話的指南」
（Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed., ASCD, 2024）。

使用 FFT 作為評鑑工具時，每個人都清楚什麼是高品質的教學。當教師以此作為自我反思與同儕互評的依據，整個氛圍便會完全改變。

5. 期待老師獨自成長

如果 PD 依靠每位老師在孤立的教室裡單打獨鬥，它永遠不會持久。老師們需要交流、比較、一起研究學生的作品。

真正的轉變來自於分享實踐。建立真正的 PLC。當老師們一起規劃、共同探究學生需求、分享發現時，改變便會從個別教室擴展至整所學校。

6. 沒有人帶領這個過程

即使再出色的 PD 構想，也會因為缺乏持續的領導而瓦解。專業發展不能靠研討會上的熱情來維持。職務嵌入式 PD（Job-embedded PD）需要所有領導者全程投入。

領導者必須保留 PD 時間、建立明確期望、鼓勵反思並持續跟進。當領導者認真看待 PD，老師會感到支持與被重視——而校園文化也會隨之改變。

由 ChatGPT 翻譯

Using Danielson’s Framework for Teaching to Strengthen Practice and Improve Learning

The PEN system uses a reliable, research-based tool to assess how teachers develop in their individual practice while refining their methodology to meet learner needs. That tool is Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT) — one of the most tried and tested evaluation frameworks in education today. It provides a clear structure for professional reflection and a common language for discussing teaching across grade levels and subject areas. It is one of the pillars of the PEN system.

 Within the PEN system, the FFT becomes more than an instrument for appraisal; it is a guide for growth. Teachers conduct self-evaluations across all four FFT domains:

Domain 1 - Planning and Preparation

Domain 2 - The Classroom Environment

Domain 3 -  Instruction

Domain 4 -  Professional Responsibilities

 These four areas cover everything from lesson design and classroom management to student engagement and professional ethics, offering a complete picture of effective teaching.

 Self-evaluation across all four domains helps teachers see the connections between how they plan, how they teach, and how their decisions affect learning. From there, they design  experimental lessons and action research projects focused on specific learner needs, turning reflection into classroom improvement.

 Peer and supervisory evaluations add a second perspective. Classroom observations under the PEN system concentrate on Domains 2 and 3 — The Classroom Environment and Instruction — where teaching and learning are most visible. These domains examine how the classroom functions as a community of learning and how instruction engages students, uses questioning, and checks for understanding.

 Supervisors may choose to conduct a full four-domain evaluation or focus on these two domains when the purpose is specifically classroom growth. This flexibility keeps evaluation meaningful, fair, and time-efficient.

 Because the FFT is comprehensive and transparent, it helps schools sustain consistent expectations while supporting professional autonomy. Teachers and evaluators work from the same evidence base, keeping the process focused on improving student learning rather than completing forms.

 Schools adopting the PEN system are able to access to the FFT both in its traditional format and through a secure online version provided by an external provider who works closely with the Danielson’s Group. (Contact us for more information.) This allows teams to document evidence, monitor progress, and track growth over time — an efficient way to support a culture of continuous professional learning.

 The FFT remains one of the most reliable tools available to educators, and within the PEN system it anchors a balanced process of reflection, collaboration, and measurable improvement in teaching.

 Part of the Transforming Teaching Through Shared Practice series by Professional Educators Network (PEN).

以教學框架強化教學實踐與學習成效

PEN 系統運用一個可靠且以研究為基礎的工具，評估教師在個人教學實踐中的成長，同時精進其教學方法以符合學生的學習需求。這個工具就是 夏洛特・丹尼爾森（Charlotte Danielson）的《教學框架》（Framework for Teaching，簡稱 FFT）——當今教育界最經得起時間考驗且最受信任的教師評鑑架構之一。它為專業省思提供清晰的結構，也建立了一種跨年級、跨學科的共同語言，用以探討教學。

在 PEN 系統中，FFT 不僅僅是一個評鑑工具，更是一個成長導引。教師會依據 FFT 的四個領域進行自我評估：
第一領域 — 教學計畫與準備
第二領域 — 課室環境
第三領域 — 教學實施
第四領域 — 專業責任

這四個範疇涵蓋了從課程設計與課堂管理，到學生參與與專業倫理的一切，提供了對有效教學的完整視角。

在四個領域的自我評估能幫助教師看清「如何計畫」、「如何教學」以及「這些決策如何影響學習」之間的關聯。接著，教師會設計實驗性課程與行動研究，針對特定的學習需求進行探究，將省思轉化為課堂上的具體改進。

同儕與主管的評估則提供第二個觀點。在 PEN 系統中，課堂觀察著重於 第二與第三領域——「課室環境」與「教學實施」，也就是教與學最具體呈現的地方。這些領域觀察課堂如何作為一個學習社群運作，以及教學如何吸引學生、運用提問並檢核理解。

主管可以選擇進行涵蓋四個領域的完整評估，或僅聚焦於這兩個課室相關領域，當評鑑目標特別針對課堂成長時。這樣的彈性讓評鑑更具意義、公平且節省時間。

由於 FFT 架構完整且透明，它能幫助學校維持一致的期望，同時支持教師的專業自主。教師與評鑑者以相同的依據進行對話，使整個過程專注於提升學生學習，而非僅僅填寫表格。

採用 PEN 系統的學校可同時使用 FFT 的傳統紙本形式，或透過與 **丹尼爾森集團（Danielson Group）**密切合作的外部提供者所提供的安全線上版本。這讓團隊能記錄證據、追蹤進展並觀察長期成長——是一種有效支持持續專業學習文化的方式。

FFT 仍是教育工作者最可靠的工具之一，而在 PEN 系統中，它穩固地奠定了省思、協作與可衡量的教學改進之間的平衡。

出自 專業教育者網絡（Professional Educators Network）《透過共享實踐轉化教學》（Transforming Teaching Through Shared Practice）系列。

由 Chat GPT 翻譯

PLC Leadership Lessons

Every school has teachers who quietly bring people together. They are the ones who keep discussions focused, who notice when someone’s struggling and offer to assist, they often turn a good idea into a shared one. Those are your PLC leaders, though they don’t always wear a title. The PEN system recognizes those teachers and put them where these people skills can be used and honed.

 A Professional Learning Community doesn’t run on enthusiasm alone. It needs leadership — someone who can turn conversation into collaboration and collaboration into growth.

When I designed the PEN System, I saw how much the quality of a PLC depends on how its leader shapes the space: how they listen, frame questions, and help their peers connect learning goals to what’s actually happening in their classrooms.

Good PLC leaders do far more than arrange meetings or fill out forms. They keep the group anchored on student learning, not administration. They encourage every voice, especially the quiet ones. They notice patterns in classroom data and help the team decide what to do next. Most importantly, they lead their colleagues to bring the ideas teachers collect from books, conferences, webinars, or workshops back to the group and turn them into something practical — something that can be tried the following week, not shelved and forgotten.

They provide the framework for using those ideas when teachers do action research and share their results in their PLC.

 When a teachers do experimental lessons to improve methodology, the PLC leader is there to encourage them. When teachers examine the work of struggling students, the PLC leader directs the meeting and makes sure that everyone participates.

 When this happens, the whole school changes. Knowledge stops belonging to individuals and starts circulating. A teacher who attended a workshop on reading fluency, for example, can share what worked, others adapt it, and within a few weeks the impact reaches dozens of classrooms. That’s how best practice becomes shared practice — the heartbeat of the PEN System.

 A good PLC leader doesn’t control the conversation; they guide it. They understand that professional growth is both personal and collective. They model reflection, honesty, and curiosity, and they create a space where teachers feel safe to take small risks — to try something new, share what happened, and learn from both success and struggle.

 Schools thrive when professional learning is led by teachers, not imposed on them. PLC leaders are the quiet architects of that change — building bridges between ideas and action, between professional development and classroom reality. In every great school, you’ll find them: the people who make shared practice possible, but in the PEN system they get recognized for it.

PLC領導的啟示

在每一所學校裡，總有一些老師默默地把人聚在一起。他們讓討論保持焦點，留意到有人遇到困難時主動伸出援手，也常常能把一個好點子變成集體的行動。這些人就是PLC的領導者，雖然他們未必有正式的頭銜。PEN系統認可這些老師，並讓他們的溝通與協調能力得到充分發揮與磨練。

專業學習社群（PLC）並非僅靠熱情就能運作。它需要領導力——需要有人能把對話轉化為合作，並把合作轉化為成長。
當我設計PEN系統時，我看見一個PLC的品質，很大程度取決於其領導者如何營造空間：他們如何傾聽、如何提出問題，並如何協助同儕將學習目標與實際教學情境連結起來。

優秀的PLC領導者遠不只是安排會議或填寫表格。他們讓團隊始終以學生的學習為核心，而非行政事務。他們鼓勵每一個聲音被聽見，尤其是那些平時較安靜的老師。他們觀察學生學習數據中的模式，引導團隊決定下一步行動。最重要的是，他們帶領同事把從書籍、研討會、網路講座或工作坊中獲得的想法帶回團隊，並轉化為可實踐的策略——那些可以在下週就嘗試的點子，而不是被擱置或遺忘的資料。
他們為教師行動研究提供架構，讓這些想法能被應用、被測試，並在PLC中分享成果。

當老師們為改進教學方法而進行實驗課時，PLC領導者會在旁鼓勵他們；當老師們檢視學習困難學生的作品時，PLC領導者主持會議，確保每個人都參與討論。

當這樣的文化形成時，整所學校都會改變。知識不再屬於個別教師，而是流動共享的。一位參加閱讀流暢度研習的老師，能分享有效的策略，其他人再加以調整與應用，短短幾週後，影響力已擴散至數十個教室。這就是如何讓最佳實踐變成共享實踐——PEN系統的核心精神。

優秀的PLC領導者不主導對話，而是引導它。他們明白專業成長既是個人的，也是集體的。他們以反思、誠實與好奇作為榜樣，並營造一個讓老師敢於嘗試新事物、分享經驗、從成功與挑戰中學習的安全環境。

當專業學習由老師主導而非被外力推動時，學校才能真正茁壯。PLC領導者正是這種改變的靜默建築師——他們在理念與行動之間、在專業發展與教學實踐之間搭起橋樑。在每一所優秀的學校裡，你都會找到他們——那些讓共享實踐成為可能的人，而在PEN系統中，他們的努力也會被看見與肯定。

由ChatGPT翻譯

Action Research to Enhance Student Learning

Have you ever had one of those moments when you look around your classroom and think, something’s not quite clicking here? The students are trying, you’re trying, but the learning just isn’t landing the way you hoped. That’s usually where the magic of curiosity begins—and in the PEN system, that curiosity has a name: action research.

Action research is really just a structured way of doing what good teachers already do. It starts with a question. Not a grand academic question, but an honest one: What am I seeing in my classroom, and how can I make it better? From there, it’s all about testing ideas, trying new approaches, collecting evidence, and reflecting on what happens. No jargon, no over-complication—just inquiry with purpose and keeping a record of it for later discussion.

In the PEN model, this isn’t an extra task squeezed in between grading and report cards. It’s part of the rhythm of teaching. It’s how growth happens—from the inside out. Teachers become researchers in their own classrooms, not because someone told them to, but because the school has a culture of teachers curious about improving learning.

The best part is that no one does it alone. Within Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) those regular, scheduled PLC meetings - teachers share what they’ve tried. Sometimes it’s a short reflection, sometimes it’s a video clip, sometimes it’s just a “this didn’t work as planned” story. These conversations are where the real learning happens. You hear someone else’s idea, it sparks a new thought, and suddenly you’re trying something different with your own students.

These sessions aren’t about judging or showing off—they’re about professional honesty. Teachers give feedback, ask questions, and help each other look at things from new angles. Student needs are not unique, there are trends and often shared concerns. Maybe someone notices that a certain strategy worked better with younger learners. Maybe another teacher sees how to adapt it for students who need more support. Slowly, the room fills with collective expertise, built from real classrooms and real students. It’s not information from someone in an ivory tower who never teaches students older than graduate level.

Sometimes, study groups emerge naturally from this kind of collaboration. A few teachers decide to dig deeper into a problem - say, reading comprehension or student engagement - and before long, they’re running their own mini research project. It’s professional development that’s alive, not locked away in a conference handout or hidden in a forgotten USB file.

And when teachers start looking closely at student work, the discoveries multiply. Instead of just checking answers, they begin to notice patterns - where thinking breaks down, which questions confuse students, what really captures their attention. It’s not about assigning grades anymore; it’s about understanding how students learn.

In the bigger picture, action research connects to the school’s goals. Teachers use data, often from their own testing, or from standardized tests, to focus on the real learner needs that matter most. One of those, across almost every school worldwide, is literacy. Reading and writing challenges don’t just belong to language teachers. They spill over into Science, Social Studies, even Math. Through action research, teachers across subjects can work together to address these gaps and strengthen learning for everyone.

Action research is not some academic add-on. It’s the heart of professional growth in the PEN model. It’s teachers saying, “Let’s figure this out together,” and then doing it with purpose, curiosity, and sometimes courage. It’s about testing, reflecting, sharing, and, most importantly, improving learning for the students right in front of you.

In the end, that’s what makes it powerful: it keeps teachers learning just as much as the students do and that takes us to the next discussion – self-evaluation and action research to improve one’s own teaching.

Contact us for a free PEN Handbook.

Professional Development that Benefits Everyone

Have you ever been sent to a conference where you experienced one of the following?

Conference A is packed with session after session of information. Keynote speakers talk about their research and their great new ideas. Among all those breakaway sessions, you can’t find enough that relates directly to your teaching or your students’ learning needs to keep you interested for three days. Still, you feel it’s your duty to attend as many sessions as possible, hoping to pass on something useful to a colleague. So, you sit through workshops that don’t really connect with your daily experience in the classroom.

Conference B is packed with useful information. There are so many breakaway sessions to choose from that it takes some fine-tuning to select those most appropriate to your teaching. The keynote speakers are inspiring, and delegates are basking in new ideas. The networking is meaningful. You leave the conference after three days bursting with enthusiasm and a renewed sense of purpose.

Then back to school. If colleagues ask about the conference, they’re seldom truly interested in hearing about the inspiring keynote address or looking at the slides released to delegates. Even if you attended a workshop you thought might benefit them, finding time to talk becomes difficult. They have papers to grade, exams to set, and lessons to plan. Classroom management strategies for that difficult class often take second place to simply coping at the coalface.

Both scenarios leave conference delegates with dwindling inspiration. The initial enthusiasm soon disappears under piles of student books and presentations, test papers, and behaviour issues—until the next conference comes around. This is how formal professional development usually works. Do you also find the forgotten conference materials from four or five years ago at the back of the cupboard or on and old USB somewhere?

Is there a way to share and retain, even expand, the knowledge delegates gain?
That question bothered the designer of the PEN System. How could a school make sure that everyone benefits from new ideas and knowledge when there is usually no budget for sending everyone to an international conference with first-class speakers.  The answer became part of the multi-pronged PEN system that eventually translates this new knowledge into addressing student needs, not only for the conference delegate’s students, but  to bring about transformation through shared practice.

Both Job-Embedded Professional Development (JEPD) and Formal Professional Development, such as conferences, seminars, webinars, short courses and workshops, have their rightful place within the PEN Framework. Each is planned and purposeful, designed to meet the evolving needs of educators. While JEPD supports ongoing growth through daily practice and collaboration, formal PD offers structured opportunities to deepen knowledge and expand instructional repertoire. One should enhance the other.

JEPD happens where teaching happens — in the moment, in the classroom, among peers. It is contextual, reflective, and owned by the teacher. It invites experimentation, celebrates curiosity, and builds a culture where learning and sharing that knowledge is part of the work, not an interruption to it.

Formal professional development. These experiences introduce teachers to new perspectives, new research, and innovative approaches that may not emerge naturally in the day-to-day rhythm of school life. The challenge is ensuring that this knowledge doesn’t vanish into forgotten folders, unshared notes, or unvisited slides once the excitement fades.

This is where the PEN framework bridges the two. It provides a clear process: teachers begin with honest self-reflection, examine data from their own students, and connect their goals to the broader vision of the school. From that point forward, their professional development becomes a living plan — dynamic, tailored, and continuously shaped by their practice. Formal PD becomes fuel for ongoing inquiry, feeding into the conversations and actions that define JEPD.

How? It is a plan that lives in dialogue — between educators, between individual aspirations and school-wide goals. When do busy teachers make the time for this? This is where knowledge sharing in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) comes in. The time for sharing is scheduled, and participation is compulsory.

A PLC is more than a group of teachers working together. Collaboration must be structured and purposeful, focused on improving student learning through continuous educator development. This is where those great lessons from formal PD sessions find their next life — not forgotten at the back of a cupboard or on an unused hard drive, but brought into discussion, adapted, and applied to bring about transformation through shared practice.

At its core, a PLC must bring educators together in a cycle of inquiry: they collectively identify learning goals, examine student data, discuss and implement new strategies, and reflect on their impact.

The strength of a PLC lies in shared responsibility. Teachers no longer work in isolation but as part of a team that grows together through dialogue, feedback, and mutual support. Regular meetings give space to talk about student progress, teaching ideas, and what’s actually working in the classroom.

PLCs aren’t divided by subject, but by teachers working with the same age group — keeping every conversation relevant, practical, and immediately useful to everyone.

In our next blog post, we’ll talk about action research and how it fits in with the teacher’s personal growth as well as the learning needs of the students.

For our handbook describing the PEN Framework in detail, contact us, it’s free of charge.