Schools and teachers aiming to adopt new practices must contend with the "geological dig" of previous policies that send contradictory signals and prevent a complete transformation of practice.(
Identifying a problem of practice extends to the culture of practice. If there is a problem, are there policies or programs in place that work against the desired outcomes? If so, they also need to be changed as part of the solution.
Organizational structures must be redesigned so that they actively foster learning and collaboration about serious problems of practice.
This means relinquishing some measure of control from the administrative offices. Allowing teachers to identify problems and explore solutions as they see fit provides agency and autonomy.
This, as PD, is a radical idea in some places (including Elkhart).
Habits and cultures inside schools must foster critical inquiry into teaching practices and student outcomes.
If we're not talking about how we teach and how students learn, then we're missing development opportunities.
Policies that support teachers' learning communities allow such structures and extra-school arrangements to come and go and change and evolve as necessary, rather than insist on permanent plans or promises.
Follow up on the immediate goals and allow teachers to adjust rather than expect the same goals to persist over time.
Structures that break down isolation, that empower teachers with professional tasks, and that provide arenas for thinking through standards of practice are central to this kind of professional growth.
Group settings and strong partnership in between these collaborative times brings two people into cooperation and builds a viable support system for changing practice.
To serve teachers' needs, professional development must embrace a range of opportunities that allow teachers to share what they know and what they want to learn and to connect their learning to the contexts of their teaching.
Interactive, problem-based (or goal-based?) PD is a good way to engage teachers in the habit of reflecting on and implementing changes to practice. There are tangible ideas to latch onto, which can raise motivation and increase drive for change.
PDSs create settings in which novices enter professional practice by working with expert practitioners while veteran teachers renew their own professional development as they assume roles as mentors, university adjuncts, and teacher leaders.
See Burbank & Kauchak, 2003, for some of the dangers in this type of setting.
Though, if it is the core structure of the school, some of the challenges identified in the study's conclusion may be mitigated because all participants are engaged in the process enough to have enrolled.
Effective professional development involves teachers both as learners and as teachers and allows them to struggle with the uncertainties that accompany each role
This is a constructivist position on teacher PD.
"teacher training"
See Kennedy, 2005.
The success of this agenda ultimately turns on teachers' success in accomplishing the serious and difficult tasks of learning the skills and perspectives assumed by new visions of practice and unlearning the practices and beliefs about students and instruction that have dominated their professional lives to date
Change is more than just "doing it differently." It is a serious revision of general practice. Doing this without support is not likely.
What types of knowledge acquisition does the CPD support, i.e. procedural or propositional? •Is the principal focus on individual or collective development? •To what extent is the CPD used as a form of accountability? •What capacity does the CPD allow for supporting professional autonomy? •Is the fundamental purpose of the CPD to provide a means of transmission or to facilitate transformative practice?
Questions to guide planning PD and designing experiences for teachers.
it recognises the range of different conditions required for transformative practice.
A single, magic-bullet style of PD isn't the point. Transformative PD relies on methods and mechanisms from various development opportunities. It is up to the participant to make it transformative.
PD can support and encourage transformation through style and substance. Coordinators/coaches/trainers need to be aware of the end goal and what to include or exclude depending on that goal.
negotiating a joint enterprise gives rise to relations of mutual accountability among those involved’ (p. 81), therefore arguably promoting greater capacity for transformative practice than a managerial form of accountability would allow.
Collaborative efforts change the frame of the activity and allow for participants to engage more fully.
When the professional activity is collective, the amount of knowledge available in a clinical unit cannot be measured by the sum total of the knowledge possessed by its individual members. A more appropriate measure would be the knowledge generated by the richness of the connections between individuals.
Knowledge generated is the defining factor. PD with collaborative groups is aways more rich because of the community building expertise and information. No single idea is better than another and all in participation benefit from the synthesis.
there are no requirements for that person to have particular strengths in terms of interpersonal communication or to be trained in the role of supporter.
This is similar in the US. The common denominator is often subject area.
The mentoring or coaching relationship can be collegiate, for example, ‘peer coaching’, but is probably more likely to be hierarchical
Mentor teachers are rarely seen as coaches or peers...at least in ECS, there is an evaluative aspect. Or, it's so hands off that the title is perfunctory more than anything else.
Arguably, standards also provide a common language, making it easier for teachers to engage in dialogue about their professional practice.
Defining concepts and ideas is a difficult part of any PD. Is this different than NBCT standards?
one of the drawbacks of this model is that what is passed on in the cascading process is generally skills-focused, sometimes knowledge-focused, but rarely focuses on values
Values are set by the community and need to involve leaders. If teacher trainers aren't on board with the values, this model simply delegates the training work.
The cascade model involves individual teachers attending ‘training events’ and then cascading or disseminating the information to colleagues
"Train the trainer" in the US. Get a core group up and running, allow them to matriculate out into the community.
performance management requires that somebody takes charge of evaluating and managing change in teacher performance, and this includes, where necessary, attempting to remedy perceived weaknesses in individual teacher performanc
Focused on lack of skill or in efforts to close perceived gaps. Teacher autonomy and choice is low.
What the training model fails to impact upon in any significant way is the manner in which this new knowledge is used in practice.
Skills are not necessarily taught in context of teaching or locale.
This model of CPD supports a skills-based, technocratic view of teaching whereby CPD provides teachers with the opportunity to update their skills in order to be able to demonstrate their competence.
Come, learn a skill, show you can do it move on. CPR, CPI, RTI, etc?
These nine categories are then organised along a spectrum that identifies the relative potential capacity for transformative practice and professional autonomy inherent in each, the premise of this being that such conditions require teachers to be able to articulate their own conceptions of teaching and be able to select and justify appropriate modes of practice.
A comparative spectrum can help classify different kinds of PD for different situations, depending on the goals.
To avoid overload, future development efforts may want to consider the timing of projects and levels of teacher assistance needed to provide adequate support in the classroom prior to beginning projects.
This is true for all teachers. The level of change or challenge provided by PD needs to be cognizant of how committed teachers already are and provide support if a high time investment is required.
While action research provided teachers with a tool for examining their own practice, the power of action research teaming stemmed from its ability to foster collaboration and professional development through collaborative research.
Perhaps the focus can be on "collaborative [X]." While this was AR based, common goals in the school can also unite teachers in changing (or examining) methods and habits with students.
Preservice teachers’ uncertainties may be due to their developing understanding of what teaching and professional development entails.
Even first year teachers can struggle with this because their body of experience which can be used to contribute to a discussion is much smaller than many other staff members' present.
Another inservice teacher reported that action research teaming provided a mechanism for professional growth through peer collaboration, “Research teaming creates a feeling of community and professionalism because teachers learn from one another and listen to each other as experts”
Leaving space for teachers to contribute in a led workshop allows for true collaboration while the facilitator falls into a facilitative role rather than an instructional role.
Allowing people to dialog on instructional ideas allows me to feel out the room rather than diving in with my pre-planned notes. Adjusting on the fly can help ensure everyone's needs are met much more effectively.
Other veteran teachers noted that action research teaming increased their awareness of student learning.
Discussing results after trying something new can help illicit insight. Talking with one another in PD is important!
However, when asked if they would be willing to participate in action research teaming in the future, preservice teacher candidates were more positive (x̄=6.4)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=6.4)</mtext></math> than their veteran counterparts (x̄=5.8)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=5.8)</mtext></math>.
Maybe it's that the preservice teachers are more overwhelmed with learning to teach and they aren't a full staff member in the cooperating district, so potential impact (perception) is decreased.
inservice teachers strongly believed action research teaming to be an effective vehicle to improve their teaching practice (x̄=6.0<math><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=6.0</mtext></math>, see Table 1); teacher candidates were less positive (x̄=4.7)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=4.7)</mtext></math> about collaborative action research as a vehicle to change their teaching. Inservice teachers were also more positive (x̄=5.5)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=5.5)</mtext></math> about the potential for collaborative action research for examining views about research than their preservice counterparts (x̄=4.2)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=4.2)</mtext></math>. Both groups viewed the collaboration process as an effective vehicle for dialoguing with their team counterparts, but again developmental differences appeared. Experienced teachers thought collaboration provided an effective vehicle to talk with their teacher candidates about both teaching (x̄=6.2)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=6.2)</mtext></math> and research (x̄=5.3)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=5.3)</mtext></math>. Teacher candidates, while generally positive about the dialogic possibilities of teaming, were markedly less positive about its potential to provide a forum for discussion about teaching (x̄=4.7)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=4.7)</mtext></math> and research (x̄=4.0)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=4.0)</mtext></math>.
It's interesting that seasoned teachers saw immediate value in this process while preservice teachers didn't. Perhaps it's because of autonomy?
One way to overcome this isolation is to encourage collaboration with informed peers through established frameworks within school communities.
Perhaps restructuring traditional PD to be more longitudinal can help. But, how do I manage so many different teams?
Traditionally, views of beginning as well as inservice teacher practice are typically organized to disseminate a knowledge base constructed almost exclusively by outside experts.
Am I considered an outside expert? How does a district-level coach fall into the PD structure?
Perhaps it is defined by relationships...since I know my teachers and I'm employed by the district, I'm a colleague rather than an outsider. But, I don't have my own classroom to try things in, so my advice and training is taken at face value based on my own experiences.
Specifically, professional development must include opportunities for active interpretive processes that examine the complex contexts of classrooms and schools
Asking teachers questions about practices, even if you're not kicking off an AR project, can be more effective for growth.
When collaboration does take place, it is too often limited to an exchange of daily anecdotes, or discussions of “tricks of the trade” to improve practice
Sharing tips without background or information on implementing isn't equipping teachers for success.
but unless deliberate attempts to share findings are established, the products of teacher research often remain within individual classrooms
Does this mean we should focus more on longitudinal AR for PD?
As teachers gained familiarity and agency, they moved from perceiving ‘research’ as a domain that existed outside the classroom, to doing research and seeing where it fits with classroom practice.
Is the term "action research" a barrier for teachers to engage?
In our research program overall, we have observed the success of teacher teams who follow a cyclical structure of co-planning/ co-teaching/ implementation/ debriefing with enactments (practice) in between team meetings, and so we expected to see this pattern repeat itself (and it did).
This would be a great use of time for the ambassador program next year.
This discussion informed the development of a problem statement (a brief statement encapsulating the problem under focus in the classroom) and corresponding research question.
Is there a way to do this in smaller chunks of time? The time commitment to group meetings may dissuade potential participants. How can the researcher help identify and define a problem for teachers to look at?
The most important factor was that at least some visual evidence of classroom practice and student work was shared in team meetings, which allowed team members to literally see what was happening in one another’s classrooms.
"If you can't see it, it isn't happening."
Finding time to see these practices is hard. The researcher (or facilitator) can play part of that role in documenting sessions for the group as a whole. Asking teachers to identify examples can also promote observational skills when trying to gather data.
they realized that they would be supported rather than judged and that team members would help to find answers
The Instruction rounds format would be great for building this trust and teach valid observation techniques.
Teachers saw each other as mutually supportive.
Building this relationship takes time. Departments support one another, but for collaborative, systemic work, we need to break out of department silos and consider common cross-curricular methods.