TECHNICAL GUIDANCE NOTE STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING SUMMARY COACH TOOLS SEE PPT SLIDES AND RESOURCES SUMMARY i STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING i © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the information included in this work. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, with the following mandatory and binding addition: Any and all disputes arising under this License that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to mediation in accordance with the WIPO Mediation Rules in effect at the time the work was published. If the request for mediation is not resolved within forty-five (45) days of the request, either You or the Licensor may, pursuant to a notice of arbitration communicated by reasonable means to the other party refer the dispute to final and binding arbitration to be conducted in accordance with UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as then in force. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator and the language of the proceedings shall be English unless otherwise agreed. The place of arbitration shall be where the Licensor has its headquarters. The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted remotely (e.g., via telephone conference or written submissions) whenever practicable, or held at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, DC. Attribution – Please cite the work as follows: World Bank. 2021. Structuring Effective Group Training: A Technical Guidance Note. Washington, DC: The World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO. Translations – If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations – If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content: The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to Coach, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: coach@worldbank.org. Cover and interior design: Karim Ezzat Khedr, Washington, DC, USA ii COACH Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ iv Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................................................v Overview...............................................................................................................................................................1 Group Training in Teacher Professional Development.............................................................1 Characteristics of Group Training.........................................................................................................2 On What Should the Training Focus?...................................................................................3 How Long and Frequent Should Training Be?.................................................................4 Who Leads/Facilitates Trainings?..........................................................................................9 What Is the Group Training Size?.........................................................................................10 What Materials Should Be Provided?.................................................................................13 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................14 15 Appendix A. Characteristics of Effective Group Training Programs in LMICs......... Appendix B. Evidence for Group Training......................................................................................17 References….....................................................................................................................................................18 STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING iii Acknowledgments The Structuring Effective Group Training guidance package was led by Manal Quota and co-authored by Hafsa Alvi and Diana Paredes. Numerous colleagues provided insightful comments, feedback, and inputs on the package. These colleagues include Jayanti Bhatia, Elaine Ding, Andre Loureiro, Ana del Toro Mijares, Ezequiel Molina, Adelle Pushparatnam, and Tracy Wilichowski. This version of the Structuring Effective Group Training guidance package incorporates recommendations from a broad range of perspectives that were crowdsourced as part of an international public consultation. The team is grateful to the Varkey Foundation and Building Evidence in Education (BE2) for hosting consultation workshops in which individuals from multiple organizations provided feedback. The team also is grateful for the written comments received from the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), Central Square Foundation, and Finnish National Agency for Education. This package is part of a series of products by the Coach Team. Overall guidance for the development and preparation of the package was provided by Omar Arias, Practice Manager for the Global Knowledge and Innovation Team. The package was designed by Karim Ezzat Khedr. Alicia Hetzner was the chief copy editor. Medhanit Solomon and Patrick Biribonwa provided administrative support. iv COACH Abbreviations ABRACADABRA A Balanced Reading Approach for Children and Designed to Achieve Best Results for All (Kenya) APM Acompanamiento Pedagogico Multigrado CAL computer-assisted learning CoE Center of Excellence (Kazakhstan) EGRS Early Grade Reading Study ESL English as a Second Language HALI Health and Literacy Intervention (Kenya) HIC high income country IAPE Inter-American Partnership for Education LMIC low- and middle-income country M&E monitoring and evaluation MoE ministry of education NA not applicable NEI+ Northern Education Initiative Plus NGO nongovernmental organization NULP Northern Uganda Literacy Program PD professional development PLC professional learning community pp percentage points PPP public-private partnership PRIMR Kenya Primary Math and Reading Initiative RAMP Early Grade Reading and Mathematics Project RTI Research Triangle Institute International SD standard deviation SELECT Sindh Early Learning Enhancement through Classroom Transformation SSO School Support Officer TPD teacher professional development TTI Teacher Training Institute UBC Un Buen Comienzo USAID United States Agency for International Development YEGRA Yemen Early Grade Reading Approach STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING v Overview This Technical Guidance Note highlights operationally relevant guidance for how to effectively structure teacher professional development (TPD) delivery through group trainings. This Note covers five operationally relevant questions: content focus, frequency, facilitation, group size, and materials. It draws from empirical evidence, case studies, and literature on implementation science to identify approaches that are operationally feasible, especially for low-capacity-country contexts. These recommendations can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and operational teams to design in-service TPD programs. The Note is informed by an evidence review that included (1) 20 experimental or quasi-experimental studies comprising 8 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Appendix A) and 12 from high-income countries (HICs) that have demonstrated positive impacts of group trainings on teaching practices and/ or student outcomes and (2) additional TPD studies from LMICs (Appendix B). Whenever possible, the Note highlights examples from LMICs. The studies were identified (1) by using existing reviews of TPD programs by Popova, Evans, and Arancibia (2016) for LMICs and by Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner (2017) for HICs; and (2) by reviewing projects available through the “Coach Repository of In-service Teacher Professional Development Programs” (World Bank 2021a). Group Training in Teacher Professional Development Group training is a method of in-service TPD in which a group of teachers participate in training sessions, frequently facilitated by education experts and trained teachers. Group training typically is delivered in a central location (in a local or regional location or centrally in the ministry of education) to multiple teachers. Our sample review of effective programs1 identified that group sizes ranged from 5 to 70 teachers and averaged 24 teachers. Group training programs are executed within a defined timeframe that may or may not include follow-up trainings. Group trainings can be integrated with 1-to-1 support, school- and cluster-based approaches,2 and other TPD methods that can enhance program effectiveness and contribute to the scalability of in-service TPD (box 2). However, given resource and capacity constraints, there might be contexts in which applying 1-to-1 support or school-based approaches is not yet possible. Education authorities implement mainly group training. This Note is informed primarily by an evidence review of group training programs. To the best of our efforts, we exclude TPD programs that combine group training with other TPD methods to determine what makes effective group training (Appendix B). To guarantee improvements of teacher practices and student learning, education authorities should aim to adopt practices that enhance group training. This Note contributes to that effort. The challenge with traditional group trainings is that they often are short, overly theoretical, and lecture based; and do not impact teacher practices and student learning. Evidence from LMICs shows that one-off training programs generally do not give teachers time to acquire the knowledge and apply the new practices in their classrooms (Zhang and others 2013). Even when these trainings have a longer duration and provide supplemental materials to teachers, the trainings may not be useful if the content is overly theoretical and delivery too passive (Loyalka and others 2019). Large group trainings, especially those delivered centrally, also struggle with tailoring training approaches and content to local schools’ needs (Setty and others 2019). Moreover, if the school’s default culture values traditional approaches over the new skills learned, teachers often face challenges in implementing the program in the school (Mohammad 2004). Large-scale TPD approaches such as the cascade model have addressed some of the challenges of structuring group training by creating a pool of trainers who disseminate knowledge and practices across the system. The cascade model can be a cost-effective method for TPD. However, this model often adopts a one-size-fits- all approach and presumes that a general training can pass down knowledge and new skills at each level of the chain with fidelity. (See Operational Guidance 3 below on how to make the cascade model sustainable.) 1. See Main Evidence of Effective Group Training in Appendix B. 2. For guidance on how to structure other TPD methods, see Structuring Effective 1-1 Support and Structuring and Supporting School- and Cluster-Based Continuous Professional Development guidance notes which are part of the suite of Coach Tools and Resources. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 1 Evidence suggests that well-designed group trainings can be an effective and an operationally practical method to deliver TPD, especially in resource-constrained contexts (He, Linden, and Macleod 2008; Jukes and others 2017; Kerwin and Thornton 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to consider structuring practices that make group trainings a more effective TPD approach to improve teaching practices. Effective group training programs generally (1) focus on improving teacher knowledge and practices in a focused and specific way, taking into consideration teachers’ needs and education system guidelines; (2) provide ongoing training with initial and follow-up sessions that enable teachers to integrate new knowledge in practice; (3) are led by education experts and trained teachers with knowledge of the content and pedagogy; (4) provide training to small groups of teachers or hire leaders to facilitate small group activities to enhance learning; and (5) include materials that promote teachers’ learning and help them apply the newly acquired practices in classrooms. To enhance group training and guarantee improvements in teacher practices and student learning, this Note provides practitioners with evidence-based guidance based on the five key considerations: content focus, frequency, facilitation, group size, and materials. Characteristics of Group Training As with other forms of TPD, group trainings are more effective when they are tailored to learners, focused on content, and offer practical opportunities for learning ongoing over a set period (see Coach Principles). Using empirical evidence and case studies (Appendix B), this Note identifies five characteristics linked to group training effectiveness: content focus, frequency, facilitators, size, and materials (table 1). Table 1. Summary of Characteristics of Effective Group Training Programs On what should the training Training focus varies (such as pedagogy, subject content knowledge, new technology) but needs focus? to clearly identify the knowledge and/or practices that teachers should be able to implement after the training, taking into consideration teachers’ needs and education system guidelines. How long and frequent Training duration ranges from 16 to 160 hours (averaging 65 hours), ranging from 2 days to 13 should training be? months. Most programs include a longer initial session (approximately 50% of the total time) and shorter follow-up sessions throughout the school year (1 to 13 sessions). Although the duration and frequency depend on the training focus and goals, more frequent trainings tend to provide more opportunities to adequately cover the content and enhance the learning experience. Who leads/facilitates Typically led by education experts or trained teachers with knowledge of the content and pedagogy. training? There could be different facilitators throughout the training depending on the focus of the training sessions. What is the group training Group size ranges from 5 to 70 teachers, averaging 24 teachers. size? When groups are large, to enhance deeper learning among teachers, small group activities can be included, with teacher-pedagogical leadera ratios ranging from 5:1 to 12:1. What materials should be Group training can include lesson plans, teacher guides, videoed teaching cases, and student work. provided? In low-capacity country contexts, lesson plans and teacher guides can help teachers implement the newly acquired practices in their classrooms. Note: a. Pedagogical leader refers to any individual who provides ongoing professional development support to teachers. Individuals with varied backgrounds can fill the role of pedagogical leader, including trained master teachers, coaches, education experts, researchers, principals, pedagogical advisors, school support officers, and inspectors. 2 COACH On What Should the Training Focus? As do other TPD programs, group trainings should focus on improving teachers’ knowledge and practices within a specific subject area, taking into consideration teachers’ needs and contexts. The trainings also should ensure that they align with education system guidelines, which include subject curricula, student performance standards, and national teaching standards. If teachers are expected to learn a new skill and implement new practices in the classroom, trainings should focus on enhancing teachers’ abilities to deliver these practices (Jukes and others 2017; Kerwin and Thorton 2015). Effective group training moves away from TPD that covers broad topics and instead improves teachers’ knowledge and practices in a specific, focused way. The primary focus of the training can be Pedagogy (Cilliers and others 2018; Jukes and others 2017), Subject Content Knowledge (Bando and Li 2014), or new technology (He, Linden, and Macleod 2008; Mo and others 2014). Our review of group training programs suggests that, whatever the focus, most effective group training programs clearly identify the practices within the subject area that teachers should be able to implement after the training. Table 2 shows examples of group training programs goals. Table 2. Examples of Group Training Program Goals in LMICs Group Training Program Content Focus, Subject, and Goal Kenya: Health and Literacy Focus: Pedagogy Intervention (HALI) Subject: Literacy in Swahili and English (Jukes and others 2017; Brooker Goal: Teachers adopt classroom practices to improve literacy instruction, such as and Halliday 2015). teaching the relationship between sounds and syllables and using print materials during singing and oral reading. Ecuador: The Inter-American Focus: Content knowledge (80%) and Pedagogy (20%) Partnership for Education Subject: English (as a second language) program (IAPE) Goal: Improve teachers’ subject content knowledge and pedagogical practices, such (Bando and Li 2014). as speaking English during class and providing students with a more active role in learning. India: Second Language Focus: Technology Acquisition and the Pratham Subject: English as a Second Language (ESL) PicTalk Program Goal: Teachers implement new learning activities and games in classrooms using (He, Linden, and MacLeod 2008). an electronic PicTalk machine. Each student has access to a machine, which include picture dictionaries, stories, poems and actions. Note: For more characteristics and impacts of these programs, see Appendix A. Having a mechanism to diagnose existing skills and behaviors can provide valuable information on the type of content that would most benefit targeted teachers. Tools3 to diagnose existing educator skills and behaviors can be administered so that information on teachers’ professional development needs is identified. For example, in Cyprus, before the program started, teachers’ practices were evaluated by observers who were part of the training coordinating team. Teachers then were assigned to specific groups according to their stage of teaching skills. Teachers received supporting literature and material related to their level of teaching skills, and pedagogical leaders explained the area on which each group had to concentrate their efforts to improve. Moreover, teachers developed their own group action plan 3. For example, the World Bank’s Teach Tool is a classroom observation that has been used in country contexts. The Teach Tool evaluates the (a) time that teachers spend on learning activities and time on task and (b) quality of teaching practices, which include Classroom Culture, Instruction, and Socioemotional Skills. By characterizing these behaviors as “low, medium and high,” Teach can be an effective tool to gather evidence on classroom practices in middle- and low-income-country contexts to track and improve teaching and learning practices (World Bank 2019). For more information on Teach, see https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/teach-helping-countries-track-and-improve-teaching-quality. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 3 by exchanging ideas and collaborating with the pedagogical leaders and group members (Antoniou and Kyriakides 2013). In Ecuador, a group training program to enhance English as a Second Language for students was designed specifically for teachers with intermediate English proficiency. Subsequently, only those teachers could enroll in the program. Before the program began, each teacher’s English proficiency was assessed through a 10-minute phone interview by Inter- American Partnership for Education (IAPE)-trained instructors. Teachers with a high proficiency were invited to join a more advanced TPD program (Bando and Li 2014). In situations in which capacity is limited, one short-term solution is to outsource the assessment of teachers’ existing skills to a third party or government counterpart (Operational Guidance 1). As education systems increase their mechanisms to diagnose existing skills and behaviors—at the level of the individual teacher or among teachers throughout the system (through surveys, assessments, classroom observations)—education authorities will have a better understanding of teachers’ needs and will be able to design more tailored group training. Practitioners also will have to decide which information on teaching practices is sufficient and the most practical methods for securing information that supports tailoring and focusing content. Once the focus has been identified, it is important to clearly communicate to teachers the training goals for student learning; and, if possible, to set objectives with teachers to promote internal motivation and the desire to improve their practices (Antoniou and Kyriakides 2013; Creative Associates International 2015). For example, as part of the Yemen Early Grade Reading Approach (YEGRA) reform, teachers were briefed on the reasons that the reform was being introduced and that the particular approach had been selected. The training included discussions about how learning to read in the early grades improves chances of success in reading and in other subjects in the upper grades (Creative Associates International 2015). Moreover, it is key to ensure that the content of the training sessions meets and addresses the stated learning objectives. If learning experiences are poorly designed and content is introduced as abstract concepts with little or no practical application, the TPD program may not improve teacher practices and may fail to meet its objectives (Loyalka and others 2019). OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 1 In situations in which capacity is limited, one short-term solution is to outsource the assessment of teachers’ existing skills to a third party or government counterpart. This solution assumes that countries have the resources to hire and outsource activities, and sufficient internal capacity and personnel to implement the assessment in the medium to long term. Hiring external entities also can help to bypass bureaucratic hurdles that may delay teachers’ skills diagnostic and the design of the TPD program. For example, in Jordan, as part of the Reading and Mathematics Program (RAMP), the Ministry of Education (MoE), with funding from development partners, contracted Research Triangle Institute (RTI), who in turn engaged a team of international and local experts in special and inclusive education to conduct a situational assessment for students with disabilities in Jordanian schools. Findings from this study revealed that teachers lacked training in inclusive education practices. Based on these data, the program made three recommendations for inclusive education measures: (a) create resource centers that provide technical support and supplementary materials to teachers who teach children with disabilities, (b) make inclusive education a mandatory part of the pre-service and in-service training curricula, and (c) train teachers on the standards and protocols of inclusive education (RTI 2017). The decision to procure the services of an external partner (such as a consulting firm or NGO) requires defining the scope of work and contract size to determine the best bidding process. Depending on government procurement guidelines, World Bank guidelines, and sources of funding, multiple market approach options (open competition, limited, direct, international) to procure a firm may exist. How Long and Frequent Should Training Be? Although there is no strict guidance on the duration, trainings with a longer timespan are more likely to include the kind of learning opportunities necessary for teachers to integrate new knowledge into practice (Brown 2004; Penuel and others 2007). Effective group training moves away from one-off training sessions to provide extended learning opportunities that enable teachers to practice new knowledge, reflect on their performance, and receive feedback. Group training programs reviewed for this Note engaged teachers in 16 to 160 hours of learning over 2 days to 13 months. The duration generally is longer in HICs than in LMICs (average 77 hours vs. 46 hours), and most 4 COACH programs are implemented throughout the school year (10 months). Overall, the duration and timespan should depend on the training’s focus and goals. Nevertheless, more frequent training tends to provide more opportunities to adequately cover the content and enhance the learning experience (Kerwin and Thorton 2015; Kim and others 2011). Most of effective group training programs reviewed for this Note distributed total training time across separate sessions throughout the year. Typically, these programs include an initial training, follow-up training session/s, and/ or other mechanisms to support teachers (box 1). The trainings provide teachers with opportunities to try the new practices in their classrooms and to receive continued, targeted support for their concerns in the subsequent training sessions (HICs: Doppelt and others 2009; Greenleaf and others 2011). Table 3 presents examples of group training program structures in LMICs; table 4 shows the duration and frequency summary. Distribution of training programs typically follows the pattern below: • Initial training. Multiday or multiweek intensive training before or at the beginning of the school year in which teachers are trained on the knowledge and practices that the program aims to build and on how to use specific materials or resources. The initial training session represents, on average, 50 percent of total training time. Most programs include longer initial training sessions (vs. follow-up sessions) that range from 8 hours to 3 weeks (Doppelt and others 2009; Roth and others 2011). Other programs, mostly in HICs, distribute total training time in sessions of equal length throughout the school year (Heller and others 2012; McGill-Franzen and others 1999). Only a few programs, particularly in LMICs, provide a one-off training that could range from 2 days to 1-month without follow-up training sessions. However, some of these one-off sessions are complemented by other support mechanisms throughout the school year (Abeberese, Kumler, and Linden 2011; Carpenter and others 1989; He, Linden, and Macleod 2008). • Follow-up training. Multiple half-day or one-day training sessions throughout the school year during which teachers strengthen their knowledge and practices and are provided opportunities to answer questions and receive and share feedback. Follow-up training sessions typically engage teachers in 1 to 13 sessions throughout the school year or the length of the program. The duration of each follow-up session can be from 2 to 20 hours, and the duration generally is inversely related to the number of sessions. Programs with only 2 follow-up sessions, usually at mid-year and at the beginning of the next year, offer 1-day sessions or multiple-day sessions (Jukes and others 2017; Greenleaf and others 2011). Programs with 7 or more follow-up sessions, usually 1 session per month, offer 4-hour sessions on average (Kerwin and Thornton 2015; Abrami and others 2016; Kleickmann and others 2016; Taylor and others 2017). Depending on resources and teachers’ schedules, follow-up sessions can be presential or not. If the sessions are short, they can take place during school holidays, weekends, or after school (Buczynski and Hansen 2010; Finkelstein and others 2010; Kerwin and Thorton 2015; Abrami and others 2016).4 • Support mechanisms. In some cases, group training sessions are complemented by other support mechanisms that allow interactions between pedagogical leaders and teachers. These mechanisms can include visiting schools to monitor implementation, encourage the use of lesson plans, and answer questions from teachers (Abeberese, Kumler, and Linden 2011; Cilliers and others 2018; He, Linden, and Macleod 2008); sending text messages to provide brief instructional tips and motivation to implement lesson plans (Jukes and others 2017); and assigning a pedagogical leader as resource person to respond to any question via email or to moderate group email interactions (Carpenter and others 1989; Greenleaf and others 2011; Finkelstein and others 2010). 4. Although this Guidance Note focuses on group trainings, we acknowledge that group training can be integrated with other TPD methods. Box 2 provides examples of TPD programs that combine group training with 1-1 support and with school- and cluster-based approaches. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 5 Table 3. Examples of Group Training Program Structures in LMICs Programs Initial Training Follow-up Training Support Mechanisms Kenya: Health and Literacy 3-day training to learn how Two 1-day training sessions: Weekly text messages to Intervention (HALI) children learn to read and A problem-solving workshop provide instructional tips how to use the teachers’ 4 months after the beginning and motivation to implement Teachers are trained manual. Teachers have the of school year to learn lesson plans. in methods to improve opportunity to customize additional instructional students’ literacy materials for use in their methods, receive and share (Brooker and Halliday 2015; classrooms. feedback; and a refresher Jukes and others 2017). training at the beginning of following school year. Uganda: Northern Uganda 5-day training at the end of 3 trainings on literacy 3 visits during the school Literacy Program (NULP) the previous school year to methods during school year to conduct classroom learn Leblango orthography. holidays, and 6 Saturday observations and to collect Teachers are trained workshops throughout the data on student attendance in methods to improve school year. and enrollment. students’ literacy (Kerwin and Thorton 2015). India: Second Language 5-day training to learn how to Not included. School visits to answer Acquisition and the Pratham implement new methods and teachers’ questions. PicTalk Program practices, including the use of an electronic machine with Teachers are trained to use educational activities. technology to teach English as Second Language to students (He, Linden, and Macleod 2008). Note: For more characteristics and impacts of these programs, see Appendix A. Table 4. Length and Frequency of Group Training Programs Mean Min. Max. Total Duration (hours) 65 16 160 traininga Timespan 8 months 2 days 13 months Initial Initial training / total training duration (%) 51 38 71 trainingb Timespan 6 days 8 hours 3 weeks Follow-up Follow-up trainings /total training duration (%) 49 29 62 trainingb Number of sessions 6 1 13 Duration per session (hours) 7 2 20 Notes: a. Based on the 20 group training programs from our evidence review (Appendix B). b. Based on 15 group training programs from our evidence review, which included initial training and follow-up sessions. 6 COACH Box 1. How the HALI Program in Kenya Used Training Workshops The aim of the Health and Literacy Intervention (HALI) in Kenya was to improve literacy outcomes for children, mitigate the impact of malaria on educational outcomes, and assess the interactions between these two interventions. The literacy component of the HALI program had a series of training workshops in which teachers were given practical information about literacy instruction, lesson plans, and practical guides as well as ongoing support through weekly text messages. The text messages included instructional tips and motivation to implement the lesson plans in the classroom. The training component included a three-day initial workshop to provide guided information on developing instructional activities for literacy; a “problem-solving” workshop four months after the beginning of the school year; and a refresher training at the beginning of the following school year. During its first year, the literacy intervention had a significant impact on Swahili sound knowledge that translated to improved Swahili word reading by the end of the second year. The program also had large effects on teacher behavior in the classroom. Teachers were more likely to use written materials and focus on letters and sounds rather than whole sentences, which demonstrates that it is possible to influence teacher behavior through group training (Jukes and others 2017). Box 2. Integrating Group Training with Other In-Service TPD Methods This Guidance Note focuses on group trainings. However, we acknowledge that combining group training with other TPD methods, such as 1-1 support and school-and cluster-based approaches,a could enhance program effectiveness and the scalability of in-service TPD. For instance, effective 1-1 support programs generally start with an initial group training (Ardington and Meiring 2020; Beuermann and others 2012; Yoshikawa and others 2015). The decision on how to integrate methods will depend on the TPD goals and the system’s capacity for implementation. One example of an effective TPD program that integrated group training and 1-1 support is the Un Buen Comienzo (UBC) TPD program for preschool teachers in Chile. The program is structured in 12 modules over 2 years. Each module consists of a 4-hour didactic workshop to introduce a topic and the instructional strategies, followed by 2 coaching sessions in which the coach models the strategies, and the teacher implements them. Every two months, there is a group reflection session at the school to discuss the module’s successes and challenges. The experimental evaluation found that this TPD program had positive impacts on emotional support and classroom organization (Yoshikawa and others 2015). TPD programs also can integrate group training and school-and cluster-based approaches or professional learning communities. In Colombia, Escuela Nueva TPD, which trains teachers in a child-centered and participatory learning approach, is an example of well-designed TPD that combines group support and professional learning communities. Escuela Nueva TPD includes: • Demonstrative schools: Permit direct observation of the innovation and facilitate attitudinal changes. • Group training: Three experiential participatory workshops in which teachers learn how to apply the Escuela Nueva components and elements. Provides a teacher’s manual and learning guides that follow a methodology similar to that of the children’s learning guides. • Professional learning communities (microcenters): Periodic gatherings (ideally monthly) of teachers to discuss progress in implementation and solve problems together. These gatherings facilitate teachers’ reflection on their pedagogical practice. Since most of the schools have only 1 or 2 teachers, the microcenters bring together teachers from several schools to a convenient location (Colbert and Alboreda 2016). For examples of programs that combine TPD approaches, see the Spotlight Sheets on Un Buen Comienzo (UBC), Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI+), and Acompanamiento Pedagogico Multigrado (APM). STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 7 Note: a. For guidance on how to structure other TPD methods, see “Structuring Effective 1-1 Support Technical Guidance Note” and “Structuring and Supporting School- and Cluster-Based Continuous Professional Development Guidance Note,” which are part of the Coach suite of Tools and Resources. Depending on resources and teachers’ schedules, group training programs can adopt blended or virtual learning approaches, typically for virtual follow-up sessions and support mechanisms. The ABRACADABRA program in Kenya is an example of a well-designed group training program with a blended approach. The program included a presential initial training and weekly web conferences, and teachers had access to online materials and collaborated through a virtual community (box 3). When used well, technology can support the scale-up of TPD programs through enhancing teachers’ access, participation, engagement, and application in the classroom. Importantly, technology may not always be the right solution. Policymakers and practitioners who want to scale up TPD practices through technology need to analyze current in-country delivery challenges for face-to-face TPD and identify whether technology offers a solution to these challenges (Quota and others 2022). Box 3. Using a Blended Learning Approach in Kenya The ABRACADABRA (ABRA) Project used an evidence-based multimedia software to equip teachers with effective instructional strategies to improve literacy instruction for students in Kenyan English language classrooms. The learning activities that are part of the ABRA program are backed by evidence on what works for literacy instruction. The program focuses on activities that provide a comprehensive approach for both written and oral language instruction. ABRA includes a (a) Student Module with over 32 instructional activities for children and student-generated stories; (b) Professional Development Module, consisting of lesson plans, videos of effective teaching practices, and access to a wiki for sharing best practices in literacy instruction; and (c) Parent Module with strategies to use ABRA activities at home. The intervention in Kenya followed a blended approach for the TPD program. A three-day presential initial workshop was conducted with teachers to familiarize them with ABRA’s methodology, followed by a flexible multimedia scaffolding and support for teachers. Teachers were provided with an iBook in which ABRA was installed and took part in weekly web conferences conducted by the project coordinator to discuss teaching issues. Additionally, school staff at the training site provided feedback to teachers on lesson plans and support during the lab sessions. Findings indicated that, after being exposed to the ABRA program for 13 weeks, student language comprehension (listening reading and passage) improved. Additionally, ABRA teachers reported being more comfortable with using technology and greater use of literacy components and computers for literacy instruction. Moreover, classroom observations indicated that teachers attempted to implement ABRA strategies in the classroom. The flexible nature of the ABRA software enabled teachers to access the resources based on their teaching preferences and students’ needs and choose specific skills to target for their students. The web- conferences provided ongoing support for implementing the program (Abrami and others 2016). 8 COACH Who Leads/Facilitates Trainings? To provide adequate support to teachers on content and pedagogy, group training programs commonly are led by education experts or trained teachers (Buczynski and Hansen 2010; Carpenter and others 1989). Education experts and trained teachers should have in-depth knowledge of the content and the pedagogy in which they support teachers. In some cases, education experts are the ones who develop the TPD program or curriculum (LMICs: Kerwin and Thornton 2015; He, Linden, and Macleod 2008; HICs: Finkelstein and others 2010; Buczynski and Hansen 2010). In other cases, education experts are contracted by the government or other institutions to implement the TPD program (LMICs: Cilliers and others 2018; HICs: Kleickmann and others 2017). Typically, education experts are staff of private education companies (LMICs: Kerwin and Thorton 2015), university faculty in education or in a specific subject (HICs: Kleickmann and others 2017; Roth and others 2011), or non-profit education organizations (LMICs: Cilliers and others 2018). Depending on the focus, there could be different leaders throughout the training. For example, training sessions on subject content can be led by university faculty or other education experts, while sessions more focused on pedagogy can be led by trained teachers (Buczynski and Hansen 2010; Roth and others 2011). Even if there are multiple facilitators, the learning experience should be designed and delivered to be coherent, articulate, and aligned with overall learning goals. In LMICs, identifying and developing high-quality pedagogical leaders can represent a challenge, particularly when scaling up TPD programs. Moreover, some education systems might not provide the resources needed for the pedagogical leader to effectively implement the program, including not paying for stipends and gas, the technological resources for follow-up, or printed materials. Other systems may provide pedagogical leaders with materials not suitable or not easily adaptable to teachers’ contexts. Based on TPD programs in LMICs, Operational Guidance 2 provides suggestions on how to support pedagogical leaders so that they can effectively lead trainings as TPD programs are implemented at scale. OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 2 Evidence from TPD programs in LMICs show diverse ways to train and support pedagogical leaders as programs scale up, making cascade models more sustainable. • Provide materials that allow for replicability of content. To ensure the delivery of consistent training content by different pedagogical leaders, TPD programs can develop textbooks and other supplementary materials that include practical activities that could be modeled by pedagogical leaders along the cascade (Raubenheimer and others 2020). Similarly, comprehensive training guides for pedagogical leaders can help to ensure that the content is passed down each level of the cascade with fidelity (USAID 2016a). • Design parallel systems for sustained collaboration. To prevent “dilution of content” from one level of cascade to the next and to build on the learning of more experienced pedagogical leaders, TPD programs also can create professional learning communities or regular group sessions of pedagogical leaders. In this way, leaders from different schools or cohorts can share experiences and advice on program implementation and teaching practices (Lange 2016; Yoshikawa and others 2015). • Strengthen pedagogical leader skills through mentorship. In addition to training workshops for pedagogical leaders, mentors also can be assigned to provide ongoing support and monitor progress. Mentors can provide feedback to pedagogical leaders and comment on their strengths, weaknesses, perceived participant reactions. and consistency of the content delivered using the training modules. The mentors’ reports also can provide insights on how effectively the content is being transferred down the cascade and inform program improvements. The Center of Excellence (CoE) in-service program in Kazakhstan provides an example of a rubric to monitor the transfer of content knowledge in a cascade training model (Turner, Brownhill, and Wilson 2016). • Use video aids and virtual support. During TPD program implementation, similarly to the TPD program at Ceará, Brasil (Bruns, Costa, and Cunha 2017), pedagogical leaders can share videos of themselves delivering the training to teachers, and mentors can provide feedback to pedagogical leaders. As part of the ongoing support, pedagogical leaders also can have virtual consulting sessions with program specialists (Metis Gaia 2018). STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 9 Pedagogical leaders’ teaching and leadership skills are key to implement effective group training. Successful education systems such as in Shanghai and Singapore have the capacity to monitor teaching and identify and motivate teachers who perform well. These high performers then become master teachers who can lead trainings or professional learning communities (Jensen and others 2016; World Bank 2013). With increased frequency of delivering TPD, education systems can build their internal capacity to identify and support future pedagogical leaders who could effectively lead trainings. In low-income-country settings, as they progressively develop government capacity for implementation, practitioners can leverage public-private partnerships (PPPs) to co-deliver trainings (Operational Guidance 3). OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 3 Practitioners working in low-income-country settings can leverage public-private partnerships (PPPs) to incrementally develop government capacity for implementation and future sustainability. For example, the design of the Sindh Early Learning Enhancement through Classroom Transformation (SELECT) Project delivers group trainings through the government Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs). However, TTI technical capacity is limited, and trainings still depend heavily on outdated practices. Recognizing this challenge, the government through the project will partner with private providers to co-deliver project group trainings as part of the TTI capacity enhancement efforts and to ensure fidelity when delivering trainings to teachers (World Bank 2021b). Review for reference, World Bank projects for operational examples: • Sindh Early Learning Enhancement through Classroom Transformation (SELECT) Project PAD (World Bank 2021b). • To access other World Bank projects that have a TPD component, see the World Bank Teacher Professional Development Repository (World Bank 2021d). What Is the Group Training Size? While there is no strict rule on group size, learning in smaller groups can enhance deeper learning among teachers. Size of effective group training programs reviewed for this Note range from 5 to 70 teachers, with an average of 24 teachers. Support in small groups (of 16 teachers or fewer) tends to include more opportunities for teachers to practice, collaborate, and reflect (see In-Depth Look below). Furthermore, training sessions tend to be more frequent in small groups than when support is provided to bigger groups (on average, 4 vs. 7 training sessions throughout the year). However, small group learning might require greater investment such as more pedagogical leaders and meetings; and in general, might be more difficult to organize and scale up (Jones 2007). From evidence of effective group training that included group size information, three categories were identified: 1. Small groups of 5-16 teachers. Particularly in HICs, examples of effective group training in small groups tend to include active learning activities and teacher support materials such as adapting lessons plans, analyzing students’ work, discussing video cases, and reflecting on their own practices (HICs: Doppelt and others 2009; Penuel, Gallagher, and Moorthy 2011; Roth and others 2011; Taylor and others 2017). 2. Medium groups of 17-30 teachers. Most LMIC and HIC group trainings that train up to 30 teachers together include active learning activities (HICs: Buczynski and others 2010; Carpenter and others 1989; Kutaka and others 2017, LMICs: Bando and Li 2014; Kerwin and Thorton 2015). 3. Large groups of 31-70 teachers. LMICs have few cases of effective group training of more than 30 teachers (LMICs: Cilliers and others 2018). When group training size is large, to enhance deeper learning among teachers, small group activities can be included (Operational Guidance 4). 10 COACH OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 4 If the group training size is large, those responsible for program design can include more opportunities for small group activities facilitated by pedagogical leaders. Some LMIC programs include an adequate number of pedagogical leaders to facilitate small group activities during training sessions. Evidence suggests that the teachers-to-pedagogical leader ratios during small group activities range from 5:1 to 12:1 (Cilliers and others 2018; Jukes and others 2017; Taylor and others 2017). In South Africa, a group program that trained teachers in pedagogical techniques to improve students’ literacy exemplified how small group activities can be accommodated when the total group size is large. Even though the group size was 70 teachers, the 7:1 ratio of teachers to pedagogical leaders contributed to implement activities in which teachers could practice the techniques (Cilliers and others 2018). In Kenya, 62 teachers were trained in methods to improve student literacy, and during follow-up training sessions, pedagogical leaders led small focus group discussions of 6 to 12 people to identify teachers’ perceptions and needs (Jukes and others 2017). IN-DEPTH LOOK Approaches to Promote Learning during Group Training To promote learning during group trainings, it is key to take into consideration adult learning theory. Adults come to learning with experiences that should be used as resources for new learning. Adults should choose their learning opportunities based on their classroom experiences and needs, and reflection and inquiry should be central to learning and development (Darling- Hammond, Hyler and Gardner 2017; Trotter 2006). Providing teachers with opportunities to practice during group trainings enables them to strengthen their knowledge of the newly acquired practices and to be more prepared to implement them in their classrooms. Training sessions can incorporate activities that give teachers opportunities to practice so that they feel more prepared and confident to implement the new skills in their classrooms. This preparation can be better facilitated in smaller group training sessions and in break-out sessions within them. Effective TPD programs spend approximately 45 percent of the time on practice and only 10 percent of the time on discussion (Piper and Mejia 2019). Table A provides examples of practice activities during training sessions. Table A. Examples of Practice Activities during Training Sessions Activity Description Example Rehearsal Teachers simulate real-life teaching experiences As part of the Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS) in to elicit the knowledge, skills, and commitment South Africa, teachers were trained in pedagogical needed to interact with students. The pedagogical techniques to improve students’ literacy. Roughly leaders act as students and provide feedback to 25% of the training time was meant to be spent teachers. This approach can be used to provide on teachers practicing the techniques (Cilliers and individualized feedback as well as to lead a group others 2018). discussion and collaborative analysis (Lampert and others 2013). Role-Play Some teachers simulate real-life teaching In the Computer-Assisted Learning program experiences, while other teachers take on the in China, teachers were trained to implement role of students. Pedagogical leaders and/or computer-assisted mathematics remedial tutoring the teachers who act as students can provide sessions. During the training, teachers were feedback. After the role-plays, teachers can engage introduced to the pieces of software and practiced in group reflection. with them. Randomly selected teachers gave mock classes to all the other teachers, who played the role of students (Mo and others 2014). Moreover, providing intentional time for structured reflection on practice during group training enables teachers to identify what worked well and what needs to be improved for the implementation of the newly acquired practices in their classroom. Group training programs associated with gains in student learning frequently build in time for teachers to think about, receive input on, and make changes to their practice (Darling-Hammond and others 2017). For example, teachers can describe which elements of the activities during training extended their own learning on the subject and consider the implications for their classrooms. This strategy can bolster teachers’ own learning and improve their teaching practices in their classrooms. In the Reading Apprenticeship Program in California, US biology teachers were trained to integrate science content and reading instruction. After teachers had participated in literacy activities as learners, they participated in a reflection in which they described the elements of the activity that had extended their literacy learning and considered implications and adaptations of the pedagogy to their classrooms (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner 2017; Greenleaf and others 2011). STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 11 IN-DEPTH LOOK Approaches to Promote Learning during Group Training (continued) Effective group training also creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate in their learning. Teachers have different knowledge and experiences that could be used as resources for learning. Providing opportunities for teachers to share experiences and problems in a group can foster participants’ confidence and learning. Opportunities to engage with other teachers include peer coaching and observations across classrooms, collaborative planning, and participation in professional learning communities (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner 2017). Given that peer collaboration opportunities usually extend outside training sessions, those responsible for TPD design should evaluate and adjust the use of time within the school schedule to increase opportunities for collaboration and ensure the support of school leaders. Table B provides examples of peer collaboration opportunities. Table B. Examples of Peer Collaboration Activities Activity Description Example Collaborative During or between training sessions, teachers In Cyprus, a TPD program to improve mathematic planning can get together in pairs or small groups to plan teaching skills asked teachers to develop their and adapt lessons and practices that will be own action plans for improvement. Teachers were implemented in classrooms. grouped according to the development stage of their teaching skills. Each teacher developed his/her action plan by exchanging ideas and collaborating with members of his/her group and pedagogical leaders (Antoniou and Kyriakides 2013). Peer Between training sessions, teachers who work in In an urban school district in the US, teachers coaching and the same school can undertake peer observations participated in a TPD program to strengthen observation and provide feedback (after the observation or in standards-based instruction and foster culturally across the next training session). responsive teaching. As part of a TPD program, classrooms teachers attended monthly workshop days to During training sessions, teachers can observe refine the curriculum to better meet the needs of videos of classrooms from their peers and provide their students and undertook peer observations, feedback. providing positive and constructive feedback to colleagues (Johnson and Fargo 2010). When deciding which activities to use, it is important to consider the context, the social and cultural conditions under which teachers learn, and the pedagogical leaders’ skills (Rincón-Gallardo 2016). Depending on the number of teachers in the training and/or the number of pedagogical leaders, structured group reflection on practice and peer collaboration activities can be implemented with all teachers participating in the full session or in smaller groups. Even though the focus of this Note is group training, peer learning strategies, particularly participation in professional learning communities, are included in higher frequency in school- and cluster-based professional development (PD). Well-designed school- and cluster-based approaches are ongoing collaborative groups in which teachers meet regularly and locally to develop practical skills tailored to their needs (World Bank 2021c). This In-Depth Look provides a brief overview of some learning design aspects for TPD. For more information about adult learning theory and learning design for Teacher Professional Development, see: • Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTigue 1998) • Design for How People Learn (Dirksen 2016) • How Learning Works (Ambrose and others 2010) • Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning (Agarwal and Bain 2019) • Practice Perfect: 42 Rules for Getting Better at Getting Better (Lemov, Woolway and Yezzi 2012) • Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (Timperley and others 2007) • Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools (Bambrick-Santoyo 2018). 12 COACH What Materials Should Be Provided? To promote active learning during training sessions, effective group training typically includes resources such as lesson plans, videos, and students’ work samples. These resources can encourage teachers’ learning, collaboration, and reflection during training (see In-Depth Look above) and help them apply the new skills in their classrooms (box 4). Table 5 describes how teacher support materials commonly are used to promote active learning in group trainings. Table 5. Examples of Teacher Support Materials That Could Be Used in Group Training Teacher Support Materials Description Lesson plans with Lesson plans describe the content that should be covered for each instructional day and give teacher guides guidance on how to implement the plans or pedagogical techniques that should be applied. During group training, teachers can learn how to use the lesson plans and adapt them if needed (LMICs: Brooker and Halliday 2015; Cilliers and others, 2018; Colbert and Alboreda 2016). Video cases of Videos provide examples of instructional practice in actual classrooms. Teachers participating teaching in group training also can record their own videos. During group training, teachers can watch the videos; engage in self- and group reflection; and, if they shared their own videos, get feedback (LMICs: Kerwin and Thorton 2015; Abrami and others 2016, HICs: Greenleaf and others 2011; Kutaka and others 2017; Roth and others 2011; Taylor and others 2017). Students work and/ Student work samples can be provided by the pedagogical leader. For follow-up training or assessments sessions, teachers also can bring their students’ work from a common unit that they taught. During group training, teachers can analyze students’ understanding of content and make instructional decisions based on student thinking (HICs: Doppelt and others 2019; Greenleaf and others 2011; Heller and others 2012; Roth and others 2011; Taylor and others 2017). Written cases of Written cases of how teachers applied the practice and can incorporate student work analysis, teaching student teacher dialogue analysis, and teacher thinking and behaviors. During group training, teachers can analyze teachers’ instructional choices and consider teaching implications for their own students (HICs: Heller and others 2012). Resources provided through group trainings should be paired with structured self- and small group reflection and/or collaborative discussion that help teachers learn the new practices, challenge their beliefs, and make adaptations based on their classrooms’ and students’ context. Teachers can analyze together what worked well and what needs to be improved to implement the newly acquired practices and purposefully reflect on the implications to their classroom and students. In this way, teachers become a shared resource for one another because every teacher has different knowledge and experiences that could be used to learn and to provide opportunities for teachers to problem-solve and learn together (see In-Depth Look). Regarding which materials to use, during initial training sessions, it is recommended to use neutral materials, such as videos of teachers who do not participate in the TDP program (Operational Guidance 5.) OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE 5 For structured reflections and discussions in initial training sessions, instead of videos of teachers’ own classroom practices, consider using neutral materials such as samples of students’ work or videos of teachers who do not participate in the TPD program. Although reflecting on their own videos can be highly motivating, early in the training, teachers can have a hard time analyzing critical events from their own classrooms (Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education 2017). In low-capacity country contexts, lesson plans and videos commonly are used during group training, whereas, in HICs, analysis of students’ work and written cases also are used. For example, the Kenya Primary Math and Reading Initiative (PRIMR) compared the impacts on students’ literacy and numeracy skills after implementing three STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 13 interventions: (1) TPD (group training and 1-1 coaching); (2) TPD and books (1 book to each student); and (3) TPD, books, and structured teacher lesson plans. The study found that the intervention that included structured teacher lesson plans was both the most effective and the most cost-effective. (Piper and others 2018). Moreover, experiences in Africa and Latin America suggest that a well-designed group training not only trains teachers on how to use the lesson plans and teacher manuals but also gives them the opportunity to customize the materials for use in their classrooms and to adapt them to the local needs (Brooker and Halliday 2015; Colbert and Alboreda 2016). Box 4. How the NEI+ Program Utilizes Teaching and Learning Materials to Improve Teacher Practice Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI+) is a five-year program focused on strengthening the ability of Bauchi and Sokoto States in Nigeria to provide access to quality education and improve reading skills for more than 1 million school-aged children and youth. Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! is the concept and main learning material for the project. Pedagogical leaders use the Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Teacher Training Manual to conduct the training, as well as the Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Guide to Coaching and Professional Learning Communities. Teachers take part in a face-to-face workshop covering early grade reading strategies that teachers can implement in their classrooms. The initial 8-day workshop for teachers includes 6 days for interactive activities that cover the principles and approaches outlined in the teacher guides, and a 2-day practicum in which teachers take part in lesson demonstrations and receive feedback from Head Teachers, Trainers, and School Support Officers (SSOs) based on a classroom observation instrument (USAID 2016a). Endline program evaluation results indicate that reading standards improved, with all the classes (for whom grades were available) passing at the level set by the government. Moreover, an EGRA in the Hausa language conducted by NEI+ for Primary 4 showed gains from the baseline (Rowan and others 2021). Resources: • Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Teacher Training Manual (USAID 2016a) • Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Guide to Coaching and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) (USAID 2016b) Conclusion The identified characteristics of effective group training provide evidence-based guidance that can support the delivery of quality TPD learning opportunities. The characteristics inform practitioner questions around five key structural considerations: content focus, frequency, facilitation, group size, and materials. The guidance does not intend that all trainings conform to a particular standard but to provide technical insights on the operational questions that challenge governments and practitioners. Moreover, although it was not the focus of this Note, we acknowledge that, for effective group training, the learning design of the group training itself is crucial (see In-Depth Look). As with all other TPD programs, design is only as good as implementation fidelity, supported by ongoing monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Implementing program design with fidelity, especially at scale, is a challenge for all TPD programs. Given the nature of the design, group trainings often are easier to implement than other in-service TPD methods. However, M&E of group training impacts is still limited. Programs often focus more on outputs (such as teacher attendance and number of trainings delivered) than on the quality aspects of teacher learning and application of new skills in the classroom. More focus could be placed on monitoring skills, knowledge and/or behavioral changes, and the practices and quality of the pedagogical leaders who deliver the trainings. With better data on what works and why, improvements in structuring and implementation of group trainings can be advanced. This Note is part of a series on how to effectively structure TPD opportunities, whether as 1-1, school or cluster- based, or groups. It is up to the practitioners and policymakers to decide on the TPD structure needed to achieve intended sector objectives, taking into consideration the context and available resources and capacity. The guidance provided in this Note aids planning and design by providing practical technical and operational guidelines that can inform decisionmaking. 14 COACH Appendix A. Characteristics of Effective Group Training Programs in LMICs Table A1. Characteristics of Effective Group Training Programs in LMICs Group Training Duration, Time Span, Pedagogical Leaders, Impacts Program and Structurea Group Size, and Materialsb Uganda: Northern Uganda Duration: 88 hours Pedagogical leaders: Teachers are more likely Literacy Program (NULP) Education company staff to say that they would still Time span: 10 months choose teaching if asked to Teachers are trained (school year) Group size: Approx. 23 pick a career again (+20 pp). in methods to improve teachers Structure: 5-day initial students’ literacy 1st grade students’ training, 3 follow-up trainings, Materials: Videos of recognition of letters (Kerwin and Thorton 2015). and 6 Saturday workshops. instructional practices. improved by 1.0 SD. Kenya: Health and Literacy Duration: 40 hours Pedagogical leaders: Impact on classroom Intervention (HALI) Literacy program team practices with standardized Time span: 10 months effect sizes from 0.57 to 1.15 Teachers are trained in (school year) Group size: NA (For example, teachers are methods that improve Structure: 3-day initial In total, 62 trained teachers; more likely to use written students’ literacy training, two 1-day follow- discussion groups of 6-12 material and students spent (Brooker and Halliday 2015; up trainings; weekly text teachers during follow-up more time reading). Jukes and others 2017). messages. trainings. Impact on 2nd grade Materials: Teacher manual students’ literacy with with lesson plans; summary standardized effect sizes up sheet to document to 0.64. descriptions of and reflections on lessons taught. India: Second Language Duration: 40 hours Pedagogical leaders: NGO English knowledge of 1st to Acquisition and the Pratham staff 5th grade students improved Time span: 10 months PicTalk Program by 0.25-0.35 SD. (school year) Group size: NA Teachers are trained to use Structure: 5-day initial Materials: Flash cards, technology to teach English training; school visits. PicTalk machines. as Second Language (ESL) to students (He, Linden, and Macleod 2008). South Africa: Early Grade Duration: 32 hours Pedagogical leaders: Reading test scores of 2nd Reading Study Education company staff grade students improved by Time span: 10 months (appointed by government) 0.12 SD after 2 years of the Teachers are trained in (school year) program. techniques to improve Group size: 70 teachers; Structure: 2-day initial students’ literacy 7:1 ratio of teachers to training, 2-day follow-up pedagogical leaders. (Cilliers and others 2018).c training; school visits. Materials: Lesson plans and class materials (graded reading booklets, flash cards, and poster). Philippines: Sa Aklat Sisikat Duration: 16 hours Pedagogical leaders: Reading test scores of 4th Reading Program Reading specialists grade students improved by Time span: 31 days 0.13 SD immediately after the Teachers are trained to Group size: NA Structure: 2-day training; program. encourage students to read visits to schools. Materials: Books for (Abeberese, Kumler, and students. Linden 2011). STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 15 Kenya: ABRACADABRA (A Duration: 44 hours Pedagogical Leaders: Project Reading comprehension of Balanced Reading Approach coordinators 2nd grade students improved for Children and Designed to by 11 pp (Cohen’s d =0.29). Group size: NA Achieve Best Results for All) Time span: 13 weeks Materials: Lesson plans, Teachers are trained to videos of effective teaching use interactive multimedia Structure: 3-day initial practices, printable resources, to develop their students’ workshop; weekly web teacher manual. reading skills conferences; access to a wiki (Abrami and others 2016). for sharing best practices in literacy instruction. Ecuador: The Inter-American Duration: 100 hours Pedagogical Leaders: NA English knowledge of trained Partnership for Education teachers improved by 0.35 Time span: 10 days Group size: 18-35 teachers, (IAPE) SD in the short run. depending on the cohort Structure: 10-day training. Teachers are trained to English knowledge of 7th Materials: NA. enhance ESL in students to 12th grade students improved by 0.16 SD. (Bando and Li 2014). China: Computer Assisted Duration: 16 hours Pedagogical Leaders: Mathematics scores of 3rd Learning (CAL) Program Researchers and 5th grade students Time span: 2 days improved by 0.16 SD. Teachers are trained to Group size: NA Structure: 2-day training. integrate computer-assisted In total, 72 trained teachers learning in math classrooms Materials: Two pieces of (Mo and others 2014). software. Note: NA = “not applicable”; SD = “standard deviation”; pp (here) = “percentage points.” a. “Duration” refers to total training duration, including initial and follow-up training sessions. When the duration in hours is not provided in the study, it is calculated based on the number of days and assumes an 8-hour session per day. b. “Group size” refers to the number of teachers who receive training together. Most studies include the total number of teachers who received training, but very few studies explicitly include the group size or provide information to infer it. c. Cilliers and others (2018) evaluate 2 TPD approaches: group training and 1-1 support. In this Note, we include only the characteristics and impacts of the group training approach. 16 COACH Appendix B. Evidence for Group Training Main Evidence for Effective Group Training To determine the best practices for group training, we reviewed 20 experimental or quasi-experimental studies that have demonstrated a positive impact of group training on teaching practices and/or student outcomes (8 programs from LMICs and 12 from HICs5). Throughout the Note, whenever possible, we emphasized examples from LMICs (Appendix A). We selected studies in which TPD includes: • Only group training sessions • Group training sessions and additional support mechanisms in which pedagogical leaders interact with teachers. These support mechanisms can take different forms (school visits, text messages). However, to the best of our knowledge, they are not frequent 1-1 mentoring or coaching or structured school- and cluster- based approaches. To determine what makes group training effective, and because Coach Technical Guidance Notes on 1-1 support and school- and cluster- based approaches already exist, we excluded from our main evidence the studies that combined group training with other TPD methods and did not isolate the impacts of group training. To gather a list of studies and apply our selection criteria, we drew on the literature reviews performed by Popova and others (2016) for LMICs (26 studies) and by Darling-Hammond and others (2017) for HICs (35 studies). We also added other studies that followed our criteria from the Coach Repository of In-service Teacher Professional Development Programs. Additional Evidence To provide examples and in-depth insights, we used additional studies from TPD programs in LMICs that did not fulfill our inclusion criteria: • 3 experimental or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated group training that had no impacts on student learning.6 • 9 studies that integrated group training and other TPD methods for content about combining TPD methods, sharing training objectives, training pedagogical leaders and providing materials.7 • 2 studies that examined the effectiveness of cascade models.8 5. 12 studies from HICs: Buczynski and Hansen 2010; Carpenter and others 1989; Doppelt and others 2009; Finkelstein and others 2010; Greenleaf and others 2011; Heller and others 2012; Kleickmann and others 2016; Kutaka and others 2017; McGill-Franzen and others 1999; Penuel and others 2011; Roth and others 2011; Taylor and others 2017. 6. Barrera-Osorio and Linden 2009; Loyalka and others 2019; Zhang and others 2013. 7. Ardington and Meiring 2020; Beuermann and others 2012; Bruns, Costa, and Cunha 2017; Colbert and Arboleda 2018; Creative Associates International 2015; USAID 2016a; Piper and others 2018; Rowan and others 2021; Yoshikawa and others 2015. 8. Lange 2016; Raubenheimer and others 2020. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 17 References Abeberese, Ama B., Todd J. Kumler, and Leigh L. Linden. 2011. “Improving Reading Skills by Encouraging Children to Read in School: A Randomized Evaluation of the Sa Aklat Sisikat Reading Program in the Philippines.” NBER Working Paper 17185. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17185. Abrami, Phillip C., Anne Wade, Larysa Lysenko, Jonathon Marsh, and Anthony Gioko. 2016. “Using Educational Technology to Develop Early Literacy Skills in Sub-Saharan Africa” Education and Informational Technologies 21: 945–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9362-4. Agarwal, Pooja K., and Patrice M. Bain. 2019. Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Powerful+Teaching%3A+Unleash+the+Science+of+Learning- p-9781119521846. Ambrose, Susan A., Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett and Marie K. Norman. 2010. How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/How+Learning+Works%3A+Seven+Research+Based+Principles+for+Smart+Te aching-p-9780470484104. Antoniou, Panayiotis, and Leonidas Kyriakides. 2013. “A Dynamic Integrated Approach to Teacher Professional Development: Impact and Sustainability of the Effects on Improving Teacher behavior and Student Outcomes.” Teaching and Teacher Education 29: 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001. Ardington, Cally, and Tiaan Meiring 2020. “Impact Evaluation of Funda Wande Coaching Intervention: Midline Findings.” Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU), School of Economics, University of Cape Town, South Africa. https://fundawande.org/img/cms/news/Impact%20Evaluation%20 of%20Funda%20Wande%20Coaching%20Intervention%20Midline%20Findings.pdf. Bambrick-Santonyo. 2018. Leverage Leadership: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/ Leverage+Leadership%3A+A+Practical+Guide+to+Building+Exceptional+Schools-p-9781118138601. Bando, Rosangela, and Xia Li. 2014. “The Effect of In-Service Teacher Training on Student Learning of English as a Second Language.” Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Washington, DC. https://publications.iadb.org/en/effect-service-teacher-training-student-learning-english-second-language. Beuermann, Diether, Emma Naslund-Hadley, Inder. J. Ruprah, and Jennelle Thompson. 2012. “The Pedagogy of Science and Environment: Experimental Evidence from Peru.” Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper. OVE/WP-01/12. IADB, Washington, DC. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/ The-Pedagogy-of-Science-and-Environment-Experimental-Evidence-from-Peru.pdf. Blackwell Lisa S., Kali H. Trzesniewski, and Carol S. Dweck. 2007. “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention.” Society for Research in Child Development 78 (1): 246–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x. Brooker, Simon, and Katherine Halliday. 2015. “Impact of Malaria Control and Enhanced Literacy Instruction on Educational Outcomes among School Children in Kenya: A Multi-Sectoral, Prospective, Randomised Evaluation.” 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 18. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), New Delhi, India. https://www.3ieimpact. org/evidence-hub/publications/impact-evaluations/impact-malaria-control-and-enhanced-literacy. Brown, John. L. 2004. Making the Most of Understanding by Design. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). https://www.ascd.org/books/making-the-most-of-understanding-by-design. Bruns, Barbara, Leandro Costa, and Nina Cunha. 2017. “Through the Looking Glass: Can Classroom Observation and Coaching Improve Teacher Performance in Brazil?” World Bank Group, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27962. 18 COACH Buczynski, Sandy, and C. Bobby Hansen 2010. “Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Practice: Uncovering Connections.” Teacher and Teacher Education 26 (3): 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006. Carpenter, Thomas P., Elizabeth Fennema, Penelope L. Peterson, Chi Pang Chiang, and Megan Loef. 1989. “Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study.” American Educational Research Journal 26 (4): 499–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004499. Cilliers, Jacobus, Brahm Fleisch, Cas Prinsloo, and Stephen Taylor. 2018. “How to Improve Teaching Practice? Experimental Comparison of Centralized Training and In-Classroom Coaching.” RISE-WP-18/024. https://riseprogramme.org/sites/default/files/publications/RISE_WP-024_Cilliers_TeachingPractice.pdf. Colbert, Vicky, and Jairo Arboleda. 2016. “Bringing a Student-Centered Participatory Pedagogy to Scale in Colombia.” Journal of Educational Change 17:385–410 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9283-7. Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. 2017. “Emerging Design Principles for Online and Blended Teacher Professional Development in K-12 STEM Education.” Education Development Center, Inc., Waltham, MA. http://cadrek12.org/resources/emerging-design-principles-online-and-blendedteacher- professional-development-k-12-stem. Creative Associates International. 2015. “Teacher Motivation and Change in Yemen: Innovation in Teacher Professional Development from Yemen Early Grade Reading Approach (YEGRA).” Creative Associates International, Yemen Ministry of Education, Sana’a. https://www.eccnetwork.net/resources/teacher-motivation-and-change-yemen. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Marie E. Hyler, and Madelyn, Gardner. 2017. “Effective Teacher Professional Development.” Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto, CA. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev. Dirksen, Julie. 2016. Design for How People Learn. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Doppelt, Yaron, Christian D. Schunn, Eli M. Silk, Matthew M. Mehalik, Birdy Reynolds, and Erin Ward. 2009. “Evaluating the Impact of Facilitated Learning Community Approach to Professional Development on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement.” Research in Science and Technological Education 27 (3): 339–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903166026. Finkelstein, Neal, Thomas Hanson, Chun-Wei Huang, Becca Hirschman, and Min Huang, M. 2010. “Effects of Problem- Based Economics on High School Economics Instruction: Final Report.” NCEE 2010–4002. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, United States Department of Education, Washington, DC. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=89. Greenleaf, Cynthia. L., Cindy Litman, Thomas L. Hanson, Rachel Rosen, Christy K. Boscardin, Joan Herman, Steven A. Schneider, Sarah Madden, and Barbara Jones. 2011. “Integrating Literacy and Science in Biology: Teaching and Learning Impacts of Reading Apprenticeship in Professional Development.” American Educational Research Journal 48 (3), 647–717. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210384839. He, Fang, Leigh L. Linden, and Margaret MacLeod. 2008. “How to Teach English in India: Testing the Relative Productivity of Instruction Methods within the Pratham English Language Education Program.” Working Paper. Columbia University, New York, NY. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/how-teach-english- india-testing-relative-productivity-instruction-methods-within-pratham. Heller, Joan I., Kirsten R. Daehler, Nicole Wong, Mayumi Shinohara, and Luke W. Miratrix. 2012. “Differential Effects of Three Professional Development Models on Teacher Knowledge and Student Achievement in Elementary Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (3): 333–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21004. Jensen, Ben, Julie Sonnemann, Katie Roberts-Hull, and Amelie Hunter. 2016. “Beyond PD: Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems.” National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC. https://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BeyondPDWeb.pdf. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 19 Johnson, Carla C., and Jamison D. Fargo. 2010. “Urban School Reform Enabled by Transformative Professional Development: Impact on Teacher Change and Student Learning of Science.” Urban Education 45 (1): 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909352073. Jones, R.W. 2007. “Learning and Teaching in Small Groups: Characteristics, Benefits, Problems and Approaches.” Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 35: 4 (August): 587–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0703500420. Jukes, Mathew C.H., Elizabeth L. Turner, Margaret M. Dubeck, Katherine E. Halliday, Hellen N. Inyega, Sharon Wolf, Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, and Simon J. Brooker. 2017. “Improving Literacy Instruction in Kenya through Teacher Professional Development and Text Messages Support: A Cluster Randomized Trial.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10 (3): 449–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1221487. Kerwin, Jason, and Rebecca L. Thornton. 2015. “Making the Grade: Understanding What Works for Teaching Literacy in Rural Uganda.” PSC Research Report 15-842. 7 2015. Public Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/abs/9527. Kim, James. S., Carol Booth Olson, Robin Scarcella, Jason Kramer, Matthew Pearson, David van Dyk, Penny Collins, and Robert E. Land. 2011.“A Randomized Experiment of a Cognitive Strategies Approach to Text-Based Analytical Writing for Mainstreamed Latino English Language Learners in grades 6 to 12.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 4 (3): 231–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.523513. Kleickmann, Thilo, Stephen Trobst, Angela Jonen, Julia Vehmeyer, and Kornelia Moller. 2016. “The Effects of Expert Scaffolding in Elementary Science Professional Development on Teachers’ Beliefs and Motivations, Instructional Practices, and Student Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (1): 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000041. Kutaka, Tracy Shizu, Wendy M. Smith, Anthony D. Albano, Carolyn Pope Edwards, Lixin Ren, Heidi Lynnn Beattie, W. James Lewis, Ruth M. Heaton, and Walter W. Stroup. 2017. “Connecting Teacher Professional Development and Student Mathematics Achievement: A Four-Year Study of an Elementary Mathematics Specialist Program.” Journal of Teacher Education 68 (2): 140–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116687551. Lampert, Magdalene, Megan Loef Frank, Elham Kazemi, Hala Ghousseini, Angela Chan Turrou, Heather Beasley, Adrian Cunard, and Kathleen Crowe. 2013. “Keeping It Complex: Using Rehearsals to Support Novice Teacher Learning of Ambitious Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education 4 (63). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837. Lange, Sarah. 2016. Achieving Teaching Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa Sarah Lange Empirical Results from Cascade Training. Wiesbaden: Germany, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14683-2. Lemov, Doug, Erica Woolway, and Katie Yezzi. 2012. Practice Perfect: 42 Rules for Getting Better at Getting Better. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://teachlikeachampion.com/books/practice-perfect/. Loyalka, Prashant, Anna Popova, Guirong Li, and Zhaolei Shi. 2019. “Does Teacher Training Actually Work? Evidence from a Large-Scale Randomized Evaluation of a National Teacher Training Program.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11 (3): 128–54. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170226. McGill-Franzen, Anne, Richard L. Allington, Linda Yokoi, and Gregory Brooks. 1999. “Putting Books in the Classroom Seems Necessary but Not Sufficient.” The Journal of Education Research 93 (2): 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597631. Metis Gaia. 2018. “Evaluación del Diseño e Implementación de la Intervención de Acompañamiento Pedagógico en Instituciones Educativas Multigrado.” Final Report. FORGE Project. Lima, Peru. https://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12799/5780. Mo, Di, Linxiu Zhang, Renfu Luo, Qinghe Qu, Weiming Huang, Jiafu Wang, Yajie Qiao, Matthew Boswell, and Scott Rozelle. 2014. “Integrating Computer-Assisted Learning into a Regular Curriculum: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Rural Schools in Shaanxi.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 6 (3): 300–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2014.911770. 20 COACH Mohammad, Razia Fakir. 2004 “Practical Constraints upon Teacher Development in Pakistani Schools.” Journal of In-Service Education 30 (1) (March): 101–14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251815719_Practical_ Constraints_upon_Teacher_Development_in_Pakistani_Schools. Penuel, William R., Barry J. Fishman, Ryoko Yamaguchi, and Lawrence P. Gallagher. 2007. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Strategies That Foster Curriculum Implementation.” American Education Research Journal 44 (4): 921–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221. Penuel, William R., Lawrence P. Gallagher, and Savitha Moorthy. 2011. “Preparing Teachers to Design Sequences of Instruction in Earth Systems Science: A Comparison of Three Professional Development Programs.” American Educational Research Journal 48 (4): 996–1025. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864. Piper, Benjamin, and Jessica Mejia. 2019. “Training Teachers or Robots: Unexpected Findings of a 7-Country Teacher Professional Development Study.” RTI International, Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) Conference, April 18. https://shared.rti.org/content/training-teachers-or-robots-unexpected-findings-7- country-teacher-professional-development. Piper, Benjamin, Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, Margaret Dubeck, Evelyn Jepkemei, and Simon J. King. 2018. “Identifying the Essential Ingredients to Literacy and Numeracy Improvement: Teacher Professional Development and Coaching, Student Textbooks, and Structured Teachers’ Guides.” World Development 106: 324–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.018. Popova, Anna, David K. Evans, and Violeta Arancibia. 2016. “Training Teachers on the Job: What Works and How to Measure It.” Policy Research Working Paper 7834. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25150. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Quota, Manal, Cristóbal Cobo, Tracy Wilichowski, and Aishwarya Patil. 2022. “Implementing Effective Teacher Professional Development Using Technology: A Guidance Note on Technology-Based Strategies to Enhance Teaching Practices from across the Globe,” World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO. Raubenheimer, Chelsea, Milena Rosenzvit, Laura Ospina, and Rin Kim. 2020. “Supporting Teacher Professional Development: Program Sustainability in Colombia.” In: Reimers F. (eds) Empowering Teachers to Build a Better World. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2137-9_3. Rincón-Gallardo, Santiago. 2016. “Large-Scale Pedagogical Transformation as Widespread Cultural Change in Mexican Public Schools.” Journal of Educational Change 411–36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9286-4. Roth, Kathleen J., Helen E. Garnier, Catherine Chen, Meike Lemmens, Kathleen Schwille, and Nicole I.Z Wickler. 2011. “Video-Based Lesson Analysis: Effective Science PD for Teacher and Student Learning.” Journal on Research in Science Teaching 48 (2): 117–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20408. Rowand, Fiona, Mohammed Ibrahim, Benedicta C. Agusiobo, Ganya Adamu, Arowolo Ayoola Abimbola, Comfort Kaliyad Boman, and Hadiza Shettima. 2021. “Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI+): End Line Performance Evaluation Report.” United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington, DC. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XB17.pdf. RTI (Research Triangle Institute International). 2017. “Early Grade Reading and Mathematics Initiative: Assessment on Education of Students with Disabilities in Jordan. Final Report.” Prepared for USAID by RTI International NC. https://ierc-publicfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/public/resources/Final%20Jordan%20report%20FINAL%20 from%20RTI%20updated%208_24_18_508%20font.pdf. Setty, Rohit, Radhika Iyengar, Matthew A. Witenstein, Erik Jon Byker, and Huma Kidwai. 2019. Teaching and Teacher Education: South Asian Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-26879-4. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 21 Taylor, Joseph A., Kathleen Roth, Christopher D. Wilson, Molly A.M. Stuhlsatz, and Elizabeth Tipton. 2017. “The Effect of an Analysis-of-Practice, Video Case-Based, Teacher Professional Development Program on Elementary Students’ Science Achievement.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10 (2): 241–71. https://doi. org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1147628. Timperley, Helen, Aaron Wilson, Heather Barrar, and Irene Fung. 2007. “Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration.” Ministry of Education, New Zealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/TPLandDBESentireWeb.pdf. Trotter, Yvonne D. 2006. “Adult Learning Theories: Impacting Professional Development Programs.” “The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin” 72 (2) (Winter): 8–13. http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/nmsmithpages/irex2012/readings/ Susan/Susan%20Turner%20Reading%201.pdf. Turner, Fay, Simon Brownhill, and Elaine Wilson. 2016. “The Transfer of Content Knowledge in a Cascade Model of Professional Development.” Teacher Development 21 (2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1205508. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2016a. “Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Teacher Training Manual.” United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI+) program. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N786.pdf. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2016b. “Mu Karanta! Let’s Read! Guide to Coaching and Professional Learning Communities.” United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI+) program. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N787.pdf. Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. 1998. “Backward Design.” In Understanding by Design, 13–34. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/. World Bank. 2012. “System Approach for Better Education Results (SABER): What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More Effective Teaching Profession.” Washington, DC © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11926 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. World Bank. 2019. “Teach: Observer Manual.” 1st ed. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/949541542659103528/Teach-Observer-Manual. World Bank. 2021a. “Coach Repository of In-Service Teacher Professional Development Programs.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO. World Bank. 2021b. “Sindh Early Learning Enhancement through Classroom Transformation (SELECT) Project Appraisal Document.” World Bank Group. Washington D.C. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P172834. World Bank. 2021c. “Structuring and Supporting School- and Cluster-Based Continuous Professional Development: A Technical Guidance Note.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO. World Bank. 2021d. “World Bank Teacher Professional Development Repository.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO. Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, Diana Leyva, CatherineE. Snow, Ernesto Treviño, MClara Barata, Christina Weiland, Ceila J. Gomez, Lorenzo Moreno, Andrea Rolla, Nikhit D’Sa, and Mary Catherine Arbour. 2015. “Experimental Impacts of a Teacher Professional Development Program in Chile on Preschool Classroom Quality and Child Outcomes.” Developmental Psychology 51 (3): 309–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038785. Zhang, Linxiu, Fang Lai, Xiaopeng Pang, Hongmei Yi, and Scott Rozelle. 2013. “The Impact of Teacher Training on Teacher and Student Outcomes: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Beijing Migrant Schools.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 5 (3): 339–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2013.807862. 22 COACH Access Coach Tools and Resources Contact us at coach@worldbank.org and visit us at www.worldbank.org/coach 23 COACH STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE GROUP TRAINING 23