Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice

Processes of Inquiry

Professional Learning Volume 10 Series editor: J. John Loughran, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Editorial board: Renee Clift – University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Ruth Kane – University of Ottawa Mieke Lunenberg – Free University, The Netherlands Anthony Clarke – University of British Columbia, Canada Donald Freeman – School for International Training, Vermont, USA MOK, Mo Ching Magdalena – Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Max van Manen – University of Alberta, Canada Rationale This series purposely sets out to illustrate a range of approaches to Professional Learning and to highlight the importance of teachers and teacher educators taking the lead in reframing and responding to their practice, not just to illuminate the field but to foster genuine educational change. Audience The series will be of interest to teachers, teacher educators and others in fields of professional practice as the context and practice of the pedagogue is the prime focus of such work. Professional Learning is closely aligned to many of the ideas associated with reflective practice, action research, practitioner inquiry and teacher as researcher.

Processes of Inquiry Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice Edited by

Joanna Higgins Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Ro Parsons Ministry of Education, New Zealand and

Linda Bonne Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM/BOSTON/TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6091-529-1 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-530-7 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-531-4 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

POROPOROAKI (dedication)

Nei rƗ te mihi ki te tokomaha, nƗ koutou, nƗ rƗtou te pukapuka nei i poipoia kia puta mai i te ao whakaaro ki te ao mƗrama, tƝnƗ rƗ koutou. Heoi anǀ ka tika anǀ hoki ki te poroporoaki i a Barbara Spurr rƗua ko Sue Jowsey, kǀrua kua ngaro kƝ i te mata o te whenua. E kore e kitea a tinana ngƗ hua kua puta mai i a kǀrua whai wƗhitanga o roto i te mahi nei, engari anǀ Ɨ-wairua e kitea. Nǀ reira kǀrua kua whetnjrangitia i roto i te wƗ nei, moe mai rƗ, okioki ai ki tǀ kǀrua kƗinga tnjturu ki reira tatari ai ma mƗtou e whai ana. Ka Ɨpiti hono, ka tƗtai hono rƗtou te hunga mate ki a rƗtou, ka Ɨpiti hono, ka tƗtai hono tƗtou te hunga ora ki a tƗtou, nǀ reira ki a tƗtou katoa, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi. A kƗti. Kua hinga ngƗ tǀtara nui o te WƗo-nui-Ɨ-TƗne. They have fallen, they have fallen, Totara trees from the great forest of TƗne Mahuta have fallen.

v

WHAKATAUKƮ (proverb)

“He tomokanga paepae he ara ki te aotnjroa.” TƝnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou i runga anǀ i ngƗ tini Ɨhuatanga o te wƗ. Ka rere tonu ngƗ mihi aroha ki a koutou ǀtira ki a tƗtou. NƗ Tuteira Pohatu Ɲnei kohikohinga kǀrero, kohikohinga whakaaro i hǀmai ki te rǀpnj nei. Tuteira Pohatu generously shared the above whakataukƯ as a metaphor for inservice teacher education. A possible translation is “crossing a threshold that leads to a path to the future”. The whakataukƯ also embodies analogies of process and ritual that may show the way to personal and professional enlightenment. In the same way, inservice teacher education draws on ways of working that involve complex interactions and that may lead to empowerment as a learner and as a leader. Ministry of Education. (2008). Ki Te Aoturoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice (p. 12). Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Series Editor’s Foreword ......................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ xiii 1. Improving Inservice Teacher Education Practice ...............................................1 Ro Parsons and Joanna Higgins 2. Organisation and Design of Analytical Tools to Identify Effective Teacher Educator Practice.................................................................................11 Delia Baskerville 3. The Measure of Success: Resolving Conflicts in Professional Learning Using Evidence of Student Learning ................................................................29 Trevor McDonald and Christina Thornley 4. Building Collaborative Professional Learning Within an Organisation ...........45 Alyson McGee 5. An Environment of Collegial Reflective Dialogue for Inservice Teacher Educators .............................................................................................63 Margaret Lamont 6. Mentoring Reflective Practice in Inservice Teacher Education ........................89 Ronnie Davey, Vince Ham, Mel Stopford, Susan Calender and Jocelyn MacKay 7. Individualised Professional Learning: Mentoring Leaders of School-Based Inquiry Projects ........................................................................117 Christina Thornley and Trevor McDonald 8. Tikanga MƗori Kei Te Ao Whakaako: MƗori Concepts and Practices Supporting Teacher Education ........................................................................133 Hiria McRae and Marama Taiwhati 9. Te Poutama: An Alternative Framework Examining MƗori Medium Inservice Teacher Education Practice .............................................................149 Leanna Herewini and Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai 10. Designing Evaluation in Messy Interventions: Reflections from Evaluation Practice ..........................................................................................163 Meenakshi Sankar ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11. Generating New Knowledge Through a System-Level Network ...................179 Joanna Higgins and Ro Parsons Glossary of MƗori Terms .......................................................................................189 About the Contributors...........................................................................................193

x

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

The mention of the term teacher education is often accompanied by an assumption that the content of the work under consideration is related to that of university-based teachers of teaching. However, as the editors of this collection demonstrate, teacher education extends well beyond university-based education programmes and it is important that this broader view is not only recognised but actively embraced in order to understand more clearly the myriad issues pertaining to development of knowledge of learning and teaching about teaching. Higgins, Parsons and Bonne have drawn on their involvement in an innovative teacher education project in order to assemble a list of authors who conducted an interesting range of activities and worked from varied perspectives in order to share what they learnt about improving inservice teacher education practice. Through this book, the editors bring to the fore examples of, and arguments about, ways in which quality in teaching might be understood better when viewed through the lens of professional learning. In so doing, they attempt to illustrate that there is a meaningful link between informed teaching practices and enhanced student learning outcomes. Through their strong examples of inquiry driven processes, this book illustrates well how central professional learning is to the development of knowledge of practice in ways that can genuinely make a difference to the nature of learning and why such studies matter in shaping the ways in which policy might not only be constructed but also enacted. As the editors make clear, and the individual chapters further demonstrate, purposeful networks of practice are central to the development of knowledge building communities through which policy, research and practice can be meaningfully integrated. Through the individual studies outlined by each of the authors in this book, the strength of professional learning (in contrast to mandated top-down professional development) offers real ways for supporting teachers in reviewing and refining their understanding of teaching and learning. As the individual chapters illustrate, each author has come to realise interesting insights about ways of challenging and supporting learning about practice in an inservice teacher education context. By drawing on the work of the inservice teacher educators, researchers and evaluators involved in this project, this edited collection offers a rich portrayal of an approach to professional learning designed to work with, rather than on, those involved as they worked to enhance their knowledge of practice across a range of settings. There is a strong theme at the heart of each of the studies in this book: the need for evidence and its place in influencing approaches to, and learning from, inquiry into practice. In working collaboratively, by developing meaningful approaches to supporting reflective practices and through paying serious attention to mentoring and leadership, the professional learning at the heart of this project is brought to life in ways that offer interesting perspectives on inservice teacher education practices. xi

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

Ultimately, it is through the combined concern of all involved in this project to develop new knowledge about teaching and learning that the real breakthroughs in practice stand out to the reader. The editors have organised this book in such a way as to make clear that policy must be informed by practice but that, in the end, real educational change is borne of teacher change. Higgins, Parsons and Bonne have structured this book in a thoughtful way that brings together a strong group of authors with an abiding commitment to quality in professional learning through a sharp focus on inservice teacher education practices. The structure of the book creates multiple entry points for the reader so that although it can be read in sequential order, it is equally accessible and useable by diving into the different sections as coherent groupings in their own right. The editors have worked long and hard to develop a well organised and carefully argued text that offers compelling evidence for an integrated approach to project management, practice, research and evaluation. Although this project was conducted in New Zealand, the learning surely extends to education precincts across the globe. There is much in this work that will appeal to, and be identified by, teacher educators in a range of contexts. I commend the work and congratulate the editors and authors on a fine example of professional learning that really does make a difference. J. John Loughran Series Editor

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank John Loughran for his support of our idea to record the stories of professional learning that were part of a project aimed at improving inservice teacher education practice. He provided theoretical insights and inspiration for participants in the project in their development of approaches to studying their practice. We would also like to thank Chris Harwood for her critical examination of the individual studies and the collective work at the national level. The examples of inquiry into practice detailed in the chapters of this book attest to her insightful leadership of a challenging project. We thank all the chapter authors and the participants in their projects for being willing to write about their experiences of inquiring into their practice. Susan Kaiser of Victoria University of Wellington’s Jessie Hetherington Centre for Educational Research was extremely helpful in providing editorial support. Delia Baskerville and Pania Te Maro of the Faculty of Education provided support and advice. Thanks to Warren Butcher for the cover photograph. We are also grateful for the support received from our respective institutions. Joanna Higgins, Ro Parsons, and Linda Bonne

xiii

RO PARSONS AND JOANNA HIGGINS

1. IMPROVING INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION

In his discussion of professional development as a policy pathway, Knapp (2003) highlighted the need to pay attention not only to the design and implementation of professional learning opportunities, but also to the development of sufficient expertise at various levels of the system in “supporting professional learning through policy in such a way that teaching practice and student learning are affected” (p. 147). Internationally, the role of external expertise (a role variously described by such terms as inservice teacher educator, professional developer and facilitator) is increasingly recognised as critical in improving classroom practice and outcomes for diverse learners. The quality of inservice teacher educator practice mediates the opportunities for teachers to improve the quality of their practice through professional learning and development. Studies of successful education reform show the importance of external expertise at all stages, and in particular, working with teachers to interpret policy for enactment in classrooms (Starkey et al., 2009). The engagement of expertise external to the group is necessary because substantive new learning requires teachers to understand new content, learn new skills and think about their existing practice in new ways (Coburn & Russell, 2008). From 2005 to 2008, in response to increased awareness of the importance of professional learning and development as a mechanism for improving the quality of teaching and student outcomes, a national research and development initiative focused on building inservice teacher educator knowledge and expertise was undertaken in New Zealand. This book presents the professional stories of some of the participants in the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project. Policy Context In New Zealand, as in many jurisdictions, the early years of this century were characterised by an increased focus in education on improving outcomes for all students through quality teaching. This policy focus was supported by the establishment of the Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme (see, for example, Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007) which, in drawing together research linked to outcomes, identified areas of influence and action that could make a difference for diverse students. J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 1–10. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

PARSONS AND HIGGINS

A number of key research and development initiatives that focused on the finegrained detail of classroom practice in mathematics, literacy, assessment and education for MƗori (indigenous) students, increased knowledge and understanding about the design of professional learning opportunities that maximised teacher opportunity to learn and improved student outcomes. These initiatives also identified inservice teacher education practice as a critical mediating factor in the effectiveness of professional learning and development provision that enables sustained improvement in teaching and learning. However, the location of professional development provision with individual providers in a competitive environment limited opportunities to develop and disseminate a body of professional knowledge about effective practice. The knowledge base about the influence of inservice teacher educator practice on the effectiveness of teachers’ classroom practice, and even more so, on student outcomes, was relatively new and contested. Evidence from schools suggested that the quality of external expertise available across the system was variable. There was no coherent and systematic approach to developing the capability of those who work with teachers. Purpose of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project The strategic purpose of the project was to strengthen the quality and consistency of inservice teacher education practice across the education system to ensure teachers’ access to high quality professional learning opportunities. As a national research and development initiative focused on the professional learning and practice of inservice teacher educators, the project was breaking new ground. It had three key objectives: – to explore and develop effective approaches for the professional learning of inservice teacher educators; – to strengthen and promote evidence-based inservice teacher education practice; and – to support professional leadership and ongoing improvement within the inservice teacher education sector. Design of the Project From the outset, a knowledge-building approach to improving professional practice across the system was adopted. The project was conceptualised as drawing on the evidence base about what worked and generating, using and disseminating new knowledge about what constituted effective inservice teacher education practice. Such an approach was being used successfully in teacher professional learning and development initiatives, such as Te Kotahitanga (see Bishop, O’Sullivan & Berryman, 2010) and the Numeracy Development Project (see Higgins & Parsons, 2009), enabling adjustments to the design and better overall strategic decision making as well as maximising cross-system engagement.

2

IMPROVING INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICE

The development of networks of professional practice and building professional leadership was closely aligned to the knowledge-building approach. The development of vertical and horizontal networks of practice had already been shown to be an important mechanism for disseminating knowledge and promoting innovation, and creating the conditions for sustainable change and ownership of continuing improvement. The use of such networks across the system also facilitated the integration of policy, research and practice (Higgins, with Parsons & Hyland, 2003). The project involved four phases: an initiation and design phase; an exploration phase; an expansion and refinement phase; and a consolidation phase. The initiation and design phase provided a critical foundation for subsequent phases. During this phase the national working group of facilitators in various inservice teacher education roles across the system was established. This group reviewed current approaches to the training of inservice teacher educators and identified the generic knowledge, skills and expertise required to effectively promote and support teacher learning. The members of the group then developed a draft professional learning framework, pedagogical approaches and associated tools, engaging a range of other teacher educators from their institutions and regions in the process. During the exploration phase, each national facilitator worked with other inservice teacher educators in their regional professional settings to trial and refine professional learning and development elements and approaches that were being generated at a national level. This exploratory work was supported by research mentors. During the expansion and refinement and consolidation phases, the national facilitators implemented inquiry-based projects in their regions that focused on the professional practice of inservice teacher educators in the course of their work with teachers and schools. Approximately 400 inservice teacher educators and researchers were involved in the project over three years. The national facilitators worked with diverse types of teacher educators, including those with special roles in learning and behaviour, literacy, MƗori education, numeracy, literacy leadership, and leadership and management. Historically, many of these groups of inservice teacher educators had not worked together. The participants adopted a research and development approach to their individual initiatives and the overall project was informed by the findings of the evaluation study that was carried out alongside. Collective responsibility was taken for the development of theoretical frames as well as the generation and trialling of tools. The consolidation phase of the project culminated in the publication of a set of learning materials, Ki Te Aoturoa: Improving Inservice Teacher Educator Learning and Practice (Ministry of Education, 2008), which captured the knowledge and understandings, and presented learning cases, developed through the research and development activities of the project. Ki Te Aoturoa identified four generic areas of knowledge and expertise for inservice teacher educators: inquiry and evidence based practice; knowledge and theory; communication and relationships; and the facilitation of change for improvement (Ministry of Education, 2008). 3

PARSONS AND HIGGINS

Processes of Inquiry The chapters in this book provide rich insights into the challenges and successes experienced by inservice teacher educators, researchers and evaluators as they worked to develop the knowledge and expertise identified in Ki Te Aoturoa in a variety of contexts of practice. The accounts also illuminate the complexities and nuances of inservice teacher education, illustrating how the generic areas of knowledge and expertise are integrated in action to generate and enable opportunities to learn and improve practice. Taken together, the accounts highlight the critical importance of a deliberate and systematic approach to inquiry in the provision of professional learning opportunities for inservice teacher educators. Delia Baskerville’s personal narrative in Chapter 2, Organisation and design of analytical tools to identify effective teacher educator practice, provides a powerful insight into the process of inquiry. This chapter describes the development and field testing of analytical tools to support improvement in inservice teacher educators’ practice and how that process supported collaboration and critical friendship. The use of the questions from Baskerville’s field notes linked to the evolution of tool development and use shows the importance of a deliberate, thoughtful approach to inquiry and the potential of such an approach to influence practice. The analytical tools developed (teacher interview, classroom observation, reflective learning conversation, values and beliefs questionnaire, learning conversation analysis review, subjective/objective review, learning from the analysis of the script table, and the use of video for stimulated recall) brought focus and rigour to the investigation of practice and the interactions leading to improvement. While there was a lack of opportunity to review and evaluate the tools, their role in the “shift from suppositions to evidence-based practice” (p. 24), linking theory and practice, structuring the process of collaboration and reflection and making explicit the qualities of effective practice, was clearly evident. This chapter also reinforces the importance of supportive conditions for inservice teacher educator learning. A growing research literature highlights the significant role of leaders of teacher learning in the school setting (Coburn, 2005; Harris, 2004; Robinson et al., 2009). In Chapter 3, The measure of success: Resolving conflicts in professional learning using evidence of student learning, Trevor McDonald and Christina Thornley focus on the work of three teacher leaders as they “built communities of practice and supported their colleagues to deepen their pedagogical content knowledge and to develop their teaching by looking for, and focusing on, evidence of student learning and change” (p. 33). The case studies provide critical insights into: the gathering, interpretation and use of student-centred data as a catalyst for improvement in professional practice; the importance of framing issues from the perspective of the student; drawing on multiple sources of data; and the power of discrepant data in challenging teacher assumptions and understandings. In each case, the analysis and interpretation of student achievement data provided the impetus for the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and engagement with research. The data also provided 4

IMPROVING INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICE

evidence of the improved outcomes for students associated with changes in practice – the measure of success. The cases illustrate aspects of pedagogical and professional knowledge and expertise important in the teacher leadership role. Each of the teacher leaders was able to adopt a considered and purposeful approach to investigating and analysing a problem of practice and drew on a mix of approaches to enable the professional learning of colleagues. Although not discussed in detail in this chapter, we should not underestimate the importance of each teacher leader having access to opportunities to learn about professional learning and pedagogy and to develop research skills themselves through the provision of ongoing mentoring support. Alyson McGee highlights the importance of developing organisational conditions that support inservice teacher educator professional practice and learning in Chapter 4, Building collaborative professional learning within an organisation. McGee’s case study of a collaborative professional learning project in an educational institution over two years documents the journey from a situation characterised by the “intermittent and spasmodic nature of professional learning” (p. 46) to a point where at least some inservice teacher educators regarded themselves as researchers for the first time. This chapter highlights the importance of a deliberate and structured approach to the design, implementation and evaluation of professional learning opportunities within an organisation. McGee describes the development of the design approach from the identification of design features (learning in collaborative groups; developing a shared question; establishing common ways of working; and using evidence to inform learning and practice) to the strengthening of processes to support professional learning (an explicit framework for inquiry and reflection; clear evaluation processes; and a focus on building leadership of professional learning). The discussion of successes and opportunities using Rogoff ’s (1998) sociocultural framework for analysis provides a valuable insight into the interconnections between the individual, interpersonal and organisational dimensions in professional learning provision. McGee’s analysis emphasises that the legitimisation of inquiry and reflection and the development of conditions for collaborative learning need to be supported by organisational structures and processes (such as the provision of time and mentoring support) to enable the management of competing demands and continued capacity and capability building at all levels. Margaret Lamont’s An environment of collegial reflective dialogue for inservice teacher educators (Chapter 5) shows how it is possible to create the organisational conditions within which a large group of inservice teacher educators in a university environment can engage with problems of practice in a systematic and sustained way. The features of a supportive environment include: the identification of leadership roles and responsibilities; clarity of expectations; agreed structures and processes; the development of tools to support a rigorous approach to gathering data to support professional inquiry; and the provision of opportunity – in particular, time – to engage in critical reflection. Lamont also focuses our attention on the complex tasks associated with participating in, and contributing to, an effective community of professional practice: 5

PARSONS AND HIGGINS

identifying the focus of inquiry; selecting tools and methods for gathering evidence; analysing and interpreting evidence; deconstructing practice and developing new ways of seeing and approaching a problem of practice; and giving and receiving constructive and critical feedback. Each task involves substantial and challenging learning. Participants must take on a variety of roles within a complex network of formal and informal collegial arrangements to support such learning in an organisational setting. In Chapter 6, Mentoring reflective practice in inservice teacher education, Ronnie Davey, Vince Ham, Mel Stopford, Susan Calender, and Jocelyn MacKay examine the mentoring of inservice teacher education colleagues. Davey et al. identify a shift in the knowledge base required to be an effective inservice teacher educator that is characterised by knowledge of the “principles and practice of reflection and ‘reflective practice’” (p. 89). Such practice is reflexive, challenging, and evidencebased, requiring a different construction of the teacher educator role. Three professional learning cases show how inservice teacher educators evaluated particular tools or theoretical frameworks in the course of their work with teachers. These focused on improving the quality and impact of mentoring conversations with teachers through substantive dialogue, questioning and interaction within a virtual environment, respectively. Together the cases highlight the important role of conceptual tools and frameworks for investigating and improving aspects of professional practice and the need to attend to the conditions required to enable effective professional learning for inservice teacher educators. Their conclusions, that the relationship between an inservice teacher educator and a teacher is better conceived and described as “mentoring” or “facilitating” than as teaching, and that mentoring colleagues in the processes of critically reflective practice is becoming the main purpose and modus operandi of inservice teacher education, signal an important shift in direction for the profession. In Chapter 7, Individualised professional learning: Mentoring leaders of schoolbased inquiry projects, Christina Thornley and Trevor McDonald explore the role of mentoring in supporting emerging leaders of school-based inquiry projects in literacy. Through the analysis of three cases, common features of an approach to improving practice and outcomes are evident: the collegial focus on a problem of practice as a context for teacher learning; the importance of data gathering, interpretation and use; the use of tools, such as a logic model, to develop professional learning plans; and the development of organisational conditions to support improvement. Thornley and McDonald highlight the multidimensional role of the mentor in the change process: catalyst for, and facilitator of, change; providing access to expertise in relation to curriculum, assessment and pedagogy; and leading a systematic inquiry process that supports improvement in outcomes. The mentor needs to be a learner as well as an expert, capable of enacting knowledge and expertise through a contextually responsive approach.

6

IMPROVING INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICE

Inservice Teacher Educators in MƗori Medium Settings The conditions under which education policy is formulated do not always allow for an indigenous voice. The two chapters in this section show the importance of allowing the space for a MƗori world view to be brought to the construction and interpretation of policy so that its enactment is culturally relevant. In Chapter 8, Tikanga MƗori kei te ao whakaako: MƗori concepts and practices supporting teacher education, Hiria McRae and Marama Taiwhati draw on a kaupapa MƗori theoretical approach to investigate the elements of collaboration from a MƗori perspective – mahi tahi (working together) and mahi ngƗtahi (collective responsibility) – and explore the question of maintaining an inclusive, supportive and constructive working environment for MƗori teacher educators. Through their interviews with teacher educators McRae and Taiwhati identify some common, fundamental concepts associated with mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi: whanaungatanga (the building and maintaining of relationships); manaakitanga (hospitality); aroha (love and care); kaupapa (an important issue or topic); and kotahitanga (unity). The emerging conceptual framework presented in this chapter situates collaborative practice within the overarching umbrella of Tikanga MƗori (MƗori cultural protocol) and describes the collaborative process in terms of MƗori protocol as manifested in the stages of pǀwhiri (a formal MƗori welcome). For each element of the pǀwhiri process the framework includes the key concepts associated with mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi, and links teacher educator practice, questions for consideration and intended outcomes. In making explicit a MƗori interpretation of the concept of collaboration, McRae and Taiwhati challenge the assumptions and perspectives that underpin commonly held definitions of concepts in teacher education. The emerging collaborative practice framework not only presents a MƗori conceptualisation of the notion of collaboration, but shows how a MƗori perspective can strengthen and expand our understanding of teacher education practice. In Chapter 9, Te Poutama: An alternative framework examining MƗori medium inservice teacher education practice, Leeana Herewini and Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai describe the complex shifting and layering of meaning that occurred as MƗori medium inservice teacher educators constructed a view of their practice as MƗori medium inservice teacher educators. Chapter 9 describes the development of the Poutama (stairway pattern) as “a theoretical and methodological framework that seeks to locate MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice within kaupapa MƗori and te ao MƗori understandings and ways of doing and being” (p. 150). The authors lead us through the process of development: the initial linear and hierarchical representation of a pathway for MƗori medium education; the focus on the materials used in the construction of the Poutama as a representation of the complexity of inservice teacher educator practice and learning; the inclusion of a reflection in the Poutama image to represent its importance in inservice teacher educator learning and practice; and the expansion of the dimensions of inservice teacher educator practice through links with MƗori stories, waiata (songs/chants) and whakataukƯ (proverbs) embodied in the Poutama.

7

PARSONS AND HIGGINS

The ultimate situation of the Poutama within the framework of a tukutuku (ornamental lattice work) panel – where the back of the panel is as important as the outward view – is a powerful representation of the importance of what one brings to the role as a MƗori medium inservice teacher educator – the “understanding [of] one’s own cultural knowledge, background and positioning within community” (p. 159) and its impact on practice and effectiveness. In showing how the development of the Poutama enabled MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to construct and represent the unique knowledge and expertise required for successful practice in MƗori medium settings, this chapter is also a reminder of what is invisible when we fail to recognise indigenous knowledges and understandings. The Challenge of Evaluation A key challenge for policy-makers relates to how to integrate evaluation into the policy process in such a way that it can provide information for accountability purposes and strengthen ongoing development and decision making. In Chapter 10, Designing evaluation in messy interventions: Reflections from evaluation practice, Meenakshi Sankar discusses the methodological complexities and challenges associated with evaluating a research and development project, in particular, designing an evaluation framework that would support programme development and at the same time provide data for summative assessment. The analysis of an evaluability assessment process using Wholey’s (2004) framework shows how evaluation can support the sense-making (Datnow & Park, 2009) process that occurs as part of the policy cycle (Rist, 2000). The decision to carry out an evaluability assessment enabled clarification of the programme intent and development of a shared understanding of the theory of change. The process of exploring programme reality and reaching agreement on changes needed in the approach to design and implementation was necessary to develop the evaluation design. The lessons learned in relation to evaluation purpose, design, implementation and dissemination are relevant for policy-makers in contexts where a research and development approach is a critical component of the policy response. Generating New Knowledge through the Development of Networks of Practice The primary focus of a research and development approach is the systematic discovery of new knowledge and the application of that knowledge for improvement. Knowledge generation was at the heart of this project. Some key themes emerge across the stories of inservice teacher educators as they talk about inquiring into their practice: shifts in the construction of the role of inservice teacher educator; the centrality of inquiry in improving professional practice and the importance of linking the process iteratively with the research literature and theory; the use of data to generate, focus and structure inquiry and improve practice; the need to develop and use a variety of “smart tools”1 (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009) that are fit-for-purpose, and the power of such tools as a catalyst for 8

IMPROVING INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICE

learning; and the influence of collegial professional community and supportive organisational conditions in enabling change. The generation and application of new knowledge and theory, and its dissemination, was made possible through the development of networks of practice at all levels of the system. The important roles of collaborative networks in challenging thinking, enabling learning, promoting leadership, and supporting change in professional practice, is evident in the individual inquiry initiatives described in this book. In the final chapter, Generating new knowledge through a system-level network, we examine the structures and processes at the system level that enabled the research and development approach adopted in the Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project. In addressing the question of what enabled the project at a system level to play out the way it did, we examine the changing role of inservice teacher educators and the challenges and achievements of the networks of practice involved in building knowledge about inservice teacher educators’ work in the New Zealand context. NOTES 1

Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) describe “smart tools” as anything from software for tracking assessment data to policy documents to materials or report forms that are well designed and based on valid theories. Smart tools to help teaching and learning derived from research and development trials can be more complex. “Tools are smart if they promote teacher learning about how to promote student learning.” (p. 44)

REFERENCES Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform. Wellington: NZCER Press. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Skyes, B. Schneider & D. N. Plank with T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York: AERA/Routledge. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading. Educational Management and Administration, 32(1), 11–24. Higgins, J., & Parsons, R. (2009). A successful professional development model in mathematics: A system-wide New Zealand case. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 231–242. Higgins, J. with Parsons, R., & Hyland, M. (2003). The Numeracy Development Project: Policy to practice. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 12, 157–175. Knapp, M. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109–157. Ministry of Education. (2008). Ki Te Aoturoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Rist, R. C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. `1001–1017). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9

PARSONS AND HIGGINS Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Starkey, L., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., Hall, C., Taylor, M., Stevens, S., et al. (2009). Professional development design: Embedding educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 181–189. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

10

DELIA BASKERVILLE

2. ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS TO IDENTIFY EFFECTIVE TEACHER EDUCATOR PRACTICE

BACKGROUND

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory of situated learning provides a framework to explore relationships between people, events and objects in the selected educational space. They explain that this gives an opportunity for researchers to explore the change and transformation that occurs in participants’ identities, knowledge, understanding and skill. Lave and Wenger describe this as “the lived-in world of engagement in everyday activity” (p. 47). Through these investigations they claim communities of practice may be understood. According to Niesz (2010), the term community of practice has been used as a descriptor for many professional development networks based on the premise that teacher learning should occur in collegial communities that encourage active participation and support sustained by shared communication. This term has been used to indicate the advantages of working in this way rather than more traditional professional development experiences (Niesz, 2010). This concurs with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) claims that we learn to transform through sustained situated participation in communities. Reid (2004) asserts that the demands of 21st century economic, political and cultural globalisation require educators to be inquirers into professional practice. Such professional learning can have a powerful effect on teacher skills and knowledge and on student achievement. However, to be effective it must be sustained, focused on important content, and embedded in the work of collaborative professional learning teams that support ongoing improvements in teachers’ practice and student achievement (National Development Staff Council, 2007). Yet, according to James and McCormick (2009), opportunities for educators to learn through classroom inquiry and networking “depend significantly on organizational structures, cultures and leadership” (p. 982). They assert that what is particularly important is the school’s knowledge of the expertise it contains, the availability of that expertise and the school’s ability to tap into the identified expertise, grow and distribute it through professional development activities, and networking. These researchers claim quality of leadership is vital in facilitating these events. Also, Given et al. (2010) argue that teachers engaging in collaborative inquiry often struggle with questions regarding their work, validation of the processes and shared power. This may also be because inquiry, as defined by Reid (2004), is a systematic, J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 11–28. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

BASKERVILLE

rigorous process of critical reflection about professional practice in ways that challenge “taken-for-granted assumptions” (p. 4). A collaborative approach of action research may be used to support an inquiry-based approach to educators’ learning. Since the late 1940s, social scientists have advocated links between social problems and social theory, and this collaborative approach of action research has become a well utilised means of investigation for researchers interested in classroom teacher practice (Berg, 2007; Denscombe, 1998). There is some confusion regarding what action research is because it encompasses a wide domain; however, its central feature is change (Fox, Martin & Green, 2007). According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2000), classroom action research usually entails inquiry and data collection by teachers (frequently assisted by academics) with an aim to improve a problem of practice – a puzzling, curious and perplexing situation (Loughran, 2002). Action research paradigms that have developed over time (Feyerisen, Fiorno & Nowak, 1970) intended the action research cycle to provide a continuous research process that acknowledged the emergence of new sets of problems from addressing previous problems. Another four-stage action cycle notion was developed by Eliot (1973, cited in Taylor, 1996) and involved the identification of a problem, remedial action, course planning, action plan implementation, and behaviour outcomes review. Medical practitioners Argyris and Schön (1974) expanded action research methodology in response to a perceived flaw in many other research approaches, and they developed an approach to action research that attracted teacher researchers. They asserted that everyone, not only professional practitioners, needs to learn from competent action and spontaneous reflection on that action. Action research, in the context of this project, is concerned with improving teacher educators’ practice through analysis, assessment and theory modification (Robinson & Lai, 2006). There is, however, frequent criticism of action research due to the small-scale nature of the research and because the findings apply only to that specific context and do not have external validity (Robinson & Lai, 2006). The author acknowledges too that classroom action research may be criticised for the priority it gives to teacher knowledge compared to the absence of wider community involvement, and the tension between teacher consciousness raising and lack of theoretical frameworks. Although the researchers acknowledged inservice teacher educators’ critical role in effective teacher learning, and drew some conclusions about the effect of professional development on student outcomes, there was a lack of evidence regarding the explicit qualities of effective inservice teacher educator practice (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). Specific gaps in the research regarding what inservice teacher educators did to promote teacher learning were identified (Timperley et al., 2007). Based on this evidence, the Ministry of Education initiated a national research and development project named Inservice Teacher Education Practice to investigate the gaps in this knowledge. The underlying assumption of this project was that improving inservice teacher educator practice would improve teacher practice. The participants in this research and development project were supported by the project community 12

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

to examine their skills, knowledge, understandings, attitudes, values and beliefs and critically reflect on how these framed and constrained their action (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2008). Participants’ inquiry was supported too by the provision of critical friendship. A critical friend is “a capable reflective practitioner (with integrity and passion for teaching and learning) who establishes safe ways of working and negotiates shared understandings to support and challenge a colleague in the deprivatisation of their practice” (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009, p. 206). This structure may provide a further lens to view data and offer fresh insights and questions in order to strengthen the evidence-based inquiry into their practice (Ainscow & Southworth, 1996; Costa & Kallick, 1993; Dean, 1992). Critical friends are supportive, not manoeuvring (MacBeath, Schratz, Meuret & Jakobsen, 2000), but emphasise questioning and investigation, which would lead to understanding (Loughran, 2002). Critical friends participate in honest self-review to bring about the changes schools need (Bambino, 2002). Swaffield (2007) suggests that although the use of the term critical friendship is expanding, much remains to be researched and understood “both generally and in specific contexts” (p. 206). Through the lens of one teacher educator – the author – this chapter draws on work with five classroom teachers, the lived experiences involved in collaboratively developing and field testing analytical tools in classrooms in order to support ongoing improvements in inservice teacher educator practice. These analytical tools embodied ideas and provided the structure to highlight useful information for analysis and identified potential direction for each teacher’s professional learning. This ongoing systematic inquiry embedded in working practice made use of data gathered to deconstruct an identified problem of practice. This process evolved to promote critical reflection and challenge assumptions in order to produce new knowledge of teacher and inservice teacher educator practice. Through critical friendship these teachers were supported to identify a problem of practice and examine the congruence between their espoused theory and their theory in use (Atkin, 1996) in their classrooms. Through this process, analytical tools were designed and trialled with the purpose of examining inservice teacher educator practice. As humans are inclined to use storytelling or narrative as a natural way to convey their experiences, I provide a personal narrative to present this chapter. Educators have always used narrative knowledge, the personal stories of teachers and learners, to inform their own practice in the classroom. Bruner (1986), amongst others, identified narrative knowledge as a unique way of knowing, a legitimate way for humans to construct reality about their lived experiences. Experience and narrative are inter-connected, and narrative knowledge is a way to present educational inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998, 2000). The writings of Bruner (1986) and Clandinin and Connelly (1998, 2000) provide an approach to using personal narrative in this chapter which offers transparency to story meaning-making in the form of research text, and as MacBeath, Swaffield, and Frost (2009) claim, is the beginning of an ongoing process of reflection. Prior research experiences informed my data collection regarding the urgency to write regular, prompt field notes (Denscombe, 2007). This provided a reflection13

BASKERVILLE

in-action attempt to confidently make my thoughts, observations and experiences understandable, memorable and shareable. In this way, my story about the organisation and design of analytical tools is intended to be accessible to other inservice teacher educators and teachers. Prior to this project, I was involved in facilitating the implementation of The Arts in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2000) in the Wellington region. On contract completion, the teacher professional development focused on an in-depth, school-wide approach. I selected five teachers, who varied in content and pedagogical knowledge, based on previously established relationships, and a desire to enhance in-depth work in schools. Three teachers were from the same school. Their school-wide focus was on curriculum differentiation. The two other teachers were focusing on implementing literacy strategies in drama in their schools. This chapter is about three of the five teachers, each from different schools. Details regarding this project are outlined in the next section. INTRODUCTION

During 2006 and 2007, over 350 research participants (facilitators, tutors, resource teachers and in-school leaders of professional learning) from twelve regional teams throughout New Zealand were allocated funding by the Ministry of Education to participate in this research project. The aim was to work with teachers to raise student achievement through identifying effective inservice teacher educator practice in schools. One national facilitator and five regional facilitators were selected to represent one of New Zealand’s universities in this project. Within the context of professional development, these five inservice teacher educators and the national facilitator formed a group of critical friends who worked collaboratively to learn from one another’s experiences (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2008), focusing on evidencebased inquiry into their individual practices. This process began with team meetings. As critical friends, we negotiated group protocols and practices (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009), formulated personal action plans, and made explicit our intent to collaborate to design and field test analytical tools that would support us to deprivatise our practice and identify effective inservice teacher educator practice. We discussed emerging tensions in the work, and the strategies required to encourage teacher buy-in within already heavy workloads. I began to craft a research question. I wondered what knowledge, skills, expertise and approaches to professional learning other inservice teacher educators and I needed to facilitate effective teacher learning, in order to raise student achievement. This project presented an opportunity for me to deprivatise my practice, and to improve the quality and performance of my work with teachers over time. Although this project also presented foreseen challenges and raised many questions, I recognised the exciting learning opportunity, and wondered: – How do we know what makes a difference? – What is important to notice? – What is the important evidence to gather? – What works or does not work and what am I going to do when it does not work? – What robust tools are we going to develop to support our learning? 14

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

– How do we recognise and challenge our own and teachers’ thinking? (Author, field notes, March 2006). The contrast between potential struggles and opportunities to improve practice provided the impetus for me to be ready and willing to enter the work with teachers in schools in an attempt to deprivatise my practice with the support of my inservice teacher educator critical friends. The following section identifies aspects of the design that provided the structure for this rigorous, systematic process of critical reflection about my professional practice. The Design Process The major idea underpinning the design elements of these analytical tools was to provide a structure to support collaboration generally and critical friendship specifically. Although I struggled to identify a problem of practice, a passion for self-improvement – which stimulated my thinking – was surfacing. I wondered: – What can I do to improve the focus of the initial work with a teacher? – How might I encourage teachers to identify the challenges they want to make to their practice and what strategies would I use to achieve this? – How will I elicit different approaches and new ways of thinking, and how might these inform teacher practice? – How do these insights inform inservice teacher educator practice? (Author, field notes, April 2006) I realised this was a professional learning opportunity, not only for me but for my inservice teacher educator colleagues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998; Reid, 2004) and set about considering the design of the analytical tools to assist us in our evidencebased approach to the deprivatisation of our practice. These were: – a teacher interview – a classroom observation – a reflective learning conversation – a values and beliefs questionnaire – a learning conversation analysis review – a subjective/objective table – a script analysis table – a video for stimulated recall. Each of these tools evolved in response to the previous tool; however, due to the restrictions of time and the exploratory nature of the project I did not pay attention to the rigorous review and evaluation of these tools during the process. I will, however, discuss the purpose, organisation and findings of the design, starting the next section with details of how this research into my problem of practice began. This section is divided into three parts which tell the story of my work with three teachers. For ethical purposes to support the anonymity of these teachers I have identified them as Teacher one (T1), Teacher two (T2), and Teacher three (T3) and used the gender term she for all participants within this narrative. I begin the next section with the story of my work with T1. 15

BASKERVILLE

The Collaborative Participatory Action Research Process I instigated this process working with T1. Three analytical tools were designed to help to deprivatise her practice: an interview, a classroom observation sheet, and a reflective learning conversation. During this process two analytical tools were designed to appraise my inservice teacher educator practice: a reflective learning conversation video and a learning conversation review. The story of the development of these tools follows. Situation one: Beginning the inquiry. Prior to observing T1 teaching her Year 9 co-educational class of 28 students, I interviewed her. She reported her struggle to obtain quiet in the classroom, to manage students to listen to instructions, and to frame what she wanted to say. She disclosed that this class was a “nightmare” as when she tried to recap she found students had not understood what she had taught, and there were many off-task behaviours, such as students talking, not listening, wandering over to other groups, interrupting others’ work, presenting with a lack of focus and laughing. She recognised they were disrespecting her and one another. She knew they pulled faces and made fun of her when her back was turned, as her head of department had witnessed this behaviour (T1 interview, March 2009). Focused questions regarding the class, student prior knowledge, the present learning context and the teacher’s previous successes and struggles provided baseline data that informed my next steps in T1’s professional development. The second analytical tool used was a classroom observation sheet designed to identify the specific focus of T1’s professional development. My intention was to identify a specific problem of practice that would provide an opportunity to support this teacher to engage in learning about teaching, examine her notions about teaching, and reform her practice. Key questions, based on Timperley and Parr’s (2004) research, were incorporated into the design. These included: – How is the lesson introduced? – What evidence is there of established routines? – What learning activities are used to introduce students to new learning? – What teaching strategies are used to enable students to apply this new knowledge? – What feedback related to the learning intention does the teacher give the students throughout the lesson? – In what ways are the students encouraged to reflect on their learning? – How does the teacher cater for different learning needs? (Observation sheet, March 2006) These questions were listed in order in the first column of the designed observation sheet. In the second column I noted the details in occurrence and in the third column identified points for discussion. My observation confirmed T1’s disclosed perspective as I observed students neither respecting her nor one another, talking when she was talking, not promptly responding to her requests, and some students putting down others who were on task. In one instance three students walked around the room and knocked the backs of on-task students’ legs (Author, field notes, March 2006). I identified the required 16

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

intervention – teaching a lesson focused on establishing a safe learning environment – to explicitly model engaging and innovative teaching procedures (Loughran & Berry, 2005). I intended to model how to: establish clear expectations; develop clear boundaries; raise teacher expectations; give feedback and show respect; shift feedback from behaviour to learning; and use a circle for learning conversations, feedback and discussing consequences for inappropriate behaviour. I taught the Year 9 class whilst T1 observed. T1 was allocated release time from teaching straight after the lesson to unpack the pedagogical underpinnings of the lesson. This reflective learning conversation following the lesson – the third analytical tool – was video recorded. During the reflective conversation, tensions surfaced as T1 was challenged and became emotional; however, she acknowledged the need for change. The objective of this conversation was to explore our interactions, to collaborate in a closer reflection on what actually happened during the teaching of my lesson and provide an artefact for my critical friends to review and offer critique of my practice. The use of this analytical tool re-quired: a previously established relationship with the teacher; honest disclosure by the teacher prior to the observation; inservice teacher educator experience in observation; an established, agreed, clear focus; an understanding of what to notice; and a willingness to be honest in the observation that might challenge the teacher. This artefact of our recorded conversation provided the context for the fourth analytical tool: a learning conversation review designed to appraise my practice. This artefact that was presented to the inservice teacher educator team was the first analytical tool used as evidence to deprivatise my practice. I hoped my colleagues would support me to identify a problem of practice. Our reflection was a way to explore and clarify this experience to advance my understanding of my work (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985). Prior to viewing the video, a specific focus question was allocated to each team member to consider and focus their feedback (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009). The artefact showed moments when I challenged the teacher to resolve a problem of practice – an unsafe learning environment, where students were reluctant to take risks in their learning for fear of peer ridicule. Each inservice teacher educator provided a verbal report and I took pertinent notes. An inductive grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, cited in Creswell, 2005) of this review may have strengthened my approach to analysing the feedback. The team did not challenge my practice. They considered they lacked the knowledge, skills, attitudes or understanding to notice what they had learned not to see (Eisner, 1999, cited in Swaffield, 2007). However, during our discussion we acknowledged the strengths of T1 and my learning conversation: it was nonjudgmental. T1’s ideas took centre stage. We identified pertinent contributing inservice teacher educator qualities: attentive listening, effective questioning and prompting, encouragement and honest focused work, totally applicable to the context. In this way, T1 found applicable solutions to see her class in a different way. She was able to see beyond herself, care about her students and identify strategies to incorporate into her future practice. The team viewed this as exemplary practice as evident when one inservice teacher educator who commented that she could not see how I could have improved the conversation with the teacher, and suggested 17

BASKERVILLE

these video clips were an exemplar for other inservice teacher educators – this vulnerable teacher was looking very happy about the situation and even actually trusted someone to come in when she was struggling with her class (Transcribed team meeting, May 2006). Our discussion raised aspects of interest for our team. We wondered what choices an inservice teacher educator had if the teacher did not agree with her observations or did not respond positively to the prompts. We acknowledged the importance of positive relationships between inservice teacher educators and teachers when working in schools, and the danger of peer mentoring and teaching in instances when a competent inservice teacher educator’s teaching might intimidate the teacher and have the potential to destroy teacher confidence. As one model does not fit all, we wondered how inservice teacher educators could be contextually responsive to the professional learning needs of individual teachers, so that their professional development was pertinent to their practice. We did not yet have answers to these questions. I recognised academic literature was now crucial to the advancement of my work. One particular reading regarding teacher values and beliefs (Atkin, 1996) was applied to investigate the congruence between teachers’ espoused classroom theories and their theories in use in the classroom. I designed questions that were challenged in a team meeting as too direct and personal (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009). At this time there was a national hui (meeting) for the stakeholders. Carol Mutch (2006) discussed a multi-layered, six-step model for promoting self-reflective practice and facilitative research processes. However, it was the first step, locating the self, that grabbed my imagination. Mutch (2006) asserted that if you do not know yourself you cannot get anywhere on your educational journey. She suggested we reflect: – Who am I? – What defines learning in my classroom? Mutch (2006) claimed that we have a way of viewing the world that overrides everything and determines our theory, our beliefs and our theoretical framework. We need to identify the set of assumptions that underpin our view and the way we gather our data. We have to balance the two views – subjectivity and objectivity – with evidence. I recognised that there were links to my work with identifying values and beliefs. I wondered if I was working towards locating self as an aspect of inquiry into inservice teacher educator practice (Author, field notes, May 2006). I decided that identifying values and beliefs would be constructive in order to pose questions to engage teachers in thinking, deeper dialogue and reflective practice. I consulted with the national facilitator who supported the refining of a values and beliefs questionnaire. The use of this analytical tool that began my work with T2 is described in the following section. Situation two: A way forward. T2 was a second year provisionally-registered teacher. We had started our work together the previous year. This year we worked in her Year 11 drama class. I modelled a lesson and we taught a lesson together. Over time, four analytical tools were trialled with T2: the values and beliefs questionnaire; a learning conversation analysis and review table; a subjective/objective table; and 18

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

a script analysis table. Firstly, I introduced the values and beliefs questionnaire. Her email response (May 2006) is shown in Figure 2.1.

What do I bring to the classroom as a teacher? If you don’t know yourself you cannot progress anywhere 1. How long have I been teaching? I have been teaching for one year and one term. 2. Where have I taught? She identifies her school. 3. What key influences (such as readings, experiences, and people) have brought me to where I am today? Drama specialists such as Mammet, Checkov, Brooke and Holt, students, Author, tertiary study, the teachers and students of this school, my parents, and my own school experience. 4. Why have I chosen teaching as a career? Because I enjoy working with people, and I feel I have energy and expertise to impart. Maybe I can make a difference being positive and enjoying my job. 5. What experiences have shaped me as a teacher? My students, my environment and observing my own father. 6. What beliefs about teaching and learning have I gathered on the way? I believe all students can learn in a motivated way; and I believe I can raise the achievement of MƗori & Pasifika students. Although I feel I don’t know always how to deal with situations, I think all students can learn and are capable, intelligent, and want to love learning but not all have had positive learning experiences which means they do not enjoy learning. I believe students learn behaviour patterns which they can change but they have to want to change them. I believe that a teacher makes a difference in a classroom. 7. How does my school environment (physical, social, emotional) impact on my practice? At times I get depressed about how slow and little change there is. When this happens I am not as effective a teacher as I can be. I am fortunate I have a supportive colleague who helps when we discuss matters. This is not always regular. 8. What is important to me when teaching in the classroom? I value every student’s contribution. I value the fact that I am a learner in the classroom. I value the difficulties I face because I am still learning but it is hard to sometimes accept these.

19

BASKERVILLE

9. What do I believe about my effectiveness as a teacher? I implement a range of effective teaching strategies. I engage and motivate my students to learn at times, however sometimes I wonder if they pick anything up at all. 10. What assumptions do I carry about my students? Unfortunately I do make assumptions that some students will always be late, some will interrupt, and some will only half-heartedly engage. 11. How do I know my teaching is effective and students are learning? Through their journal work, questions and answers, through reflections, and watching, observing what happens in class. 12. What are my beliefs about the way in which students learn in my classroom? They actively participate as well as verbal and written work which I think anchors learning a lot more than doing only one of these things. 13. What are my beliefs about raising student achievement? I must raise the standard. I’m not entirely sure how. I expect a high standard. I must make these things transparent and achievable for students. Give them responsibility and accountability for their own learning. Figure 2.1. T2’s questionnaire response.

A tension emerged. I wondered how to apply T2’s questionnaire responses to develop her classroom practice. I realised a theory for improvement was required so began to investigate a conceptual framework to analyse reflective conversations with teachers. I wondered how, through the analysis of transcribed, post-teaching learning conversations, inservice teacher educators might improve the quality of their reflection with teachers and address problems of practice over time. I wanted to have a conversation that did more than describe the things that happened in the classroom, one that identified values and beliefs which otherwise would have remained implicit. What tool would allow me to investigate below the surface of the conversation and conduct a deeper analysis that would challenge teachers to bring about change in their attitudes and assumptions? I wanted to investigate how knowledge gained would improve teaching and impact on learning, and to identify what we could take forward and embed in practice. I wanted this to be spontaneous, cooperative learning with the teacher that may provide a way to challenge the teacher to make the required change in practice. I again reviewed academic literature. According to Gee (2005), teachers’ conversations are complicated and influential social processes that communicate their perspectives of the world in terms of potential accuracy, need and routine. Teachers’ talk has “deep implications…for how we act” (p. 2). Gee’s definition aligned with the purpose of this analytical tool design. I found a Model for Learning Talk (Annan, Lai & 20

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

Robinson, 2003) to support my design of a tool to reflect on, appraise and improve teaching practices. According to Annan et al. (2003), developing teacher talk promotes change in thinking and practice. This aligned with my assumption that such an analytical tool could be used to challenge teachers to change their thinking in a way that would change their practice. Their idea of analytical talk would direct our conversation to specifically analyse the impact of teaching practices on learning, and would enable me to identify the critical talk: that part of our conversation that evaluates the outcomes. Finally, the challenging talk would be the talk about making changes to ineffective practices and creating new effective ones. I envisaged this framework would enable me to reflect on the learning conversation with the teacher, as well as review this conversation with my team. I designed a learning conversation analysis table that I field tested with T2 to analyse Year 11 student reflective journals. The table contained three columns – category of talk, transcribed learning conversation, and analysis – that categorised the talk on the left, and evaluated inservice teacher educator practices on the right. In a meeting with my research mentor and two of my critical friends, we took time to review my work using this learning conversation analysis table. One critical friend drew my attention to the fact I did not pick up on the teacher’s belief of student laziness during the course of the conversation, and suggested I missed the opportunity to identify this blaming attitude. Questions were discussed: – Was it about T2’s inability to motivate? – Was it about her expectation regarding the required length of the journal entry? – Was this deficit thinking? – How do I find a way to rectify this missed opportunity? We discussed a potential framework to send to T2 for analysis of her practice. Four columns – facilitator reflection, transcript of our conversation (around laziness), teacher reflection, and implications – were to be filled in together (Author, field notes, June 2006). Due to time constraints and school commitments, the suggested analytical tool was neither developed nor field tested. However, T2 responded to my email request to organise the transcribed interview into subjective and objective views which were discussed with me face-to-face. I defined the subjective view as a personal perspective regarding what happened, whereas the objective analysis indicated a distanced viewpoint that removed emotional and personal interest. This step provided scaffolding for T2 to identify her learning. The analysis of her learning is shown in Table 2.1. We agreed to take a break from the professional development so T2 could trial timely journal feedback. Meanwhile I turned my attention to one of three teachers working in another school to investigate a way to provide professional development that was contextually responsive to teachers’ needs and explore ways to ascertain the congruence between teachers’ espoused theories and theories in use in their classrooms. The story of this process follows.

21

BASKERVILLE

Table 2.1. Script analysis table Realisations made and the learning you take from this analysis

Changes you choose to make

Strategies to use in the classroom to implement these changes

I realised that some of my judgments were probably based on assumptions, like a student is lazy, and you said how do you know? But actually it maybe that it’s my instructions that aren’t clear enough or that I am not giving them enough time in class, so I am not actually holding them as accountable as I should and sending someone off to do something.

Since having done our professional development, in reflection, every day we do a recap verbally that they actually remember and I keep linking in journal questions now saying “okay what do I now know about drama and so they have got to keep putting that in”, or “what have I found out on a deeper level about drama” and then they keep having to do that.

I will start next year with a structured journal process I will change my attitude to journals. I will make them more important. As soon as I get their journals in, I will mark them that night, so I will not take them in unless I can actually look through them and then I make a comment and I hand them back in two days. They will get the immediate feedback and I give them another question on the day that I return the journals. Then the students can read their feedback while it’s still fresh in their minds and then they can answer the next question.

Situation three: Re-trialling analytical tools.During T3’s professional development experience three analytical tools were re-trialled: an interview; the values and beliefs questionnaire; the learning conversation review table; and one other introduced to advance my work with teachers – using video for stimulated recall. I wanted to identify what contextually responsive professional development was for teachers and examine the congruence between teachers’ values and beliefs and classroom practice. Initially I requested a department meeting with the teachers. These three teachers were released for a professional development meeting. Previously used questions (T1 interview, March 2009) identified each teacher’s strengths and struggles during the group discussion. Each teacher then responded to the values and beliefs questionnaire. This experience provided a pertinent contextually responsive process that identified teacher professional development needs. T3 disclosed that it was good to be in silence in the school, in a professional development meeting, and not feeling pressured to be somewhere or do something. She also claimed that it was good to acknowledge the bigger picture of time constraints, family pressure, extracurricular work, and realise what she was doing well and what needed to change now (field notes, June 2006). T3’s completed questionnaire made explicit the values and beliefs that underpinned her practice. Respect was identified as an important value in her classroom and she described aspects of respect in her classroom that she appreciated: students respecting her as a teacher, as well as one another, and T3 respecting her students 22

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

which meant they listened to one another, they attended classes regularly and everyone respected the work (T3, field notes, June 2006). A week later I filmed T3 teaching her Year 12 class. The video, a visual reminder of the lesson taught (Polio, Gass & Chapin, 2006), was used later to jog her recall of events, and reflect on an aspect of the recent lesson that captured her work in action. A section of the transcribed conversation follows: Author:

What do you notice here?

T3:

To be honest this is something that happens a lot in my classes. I think the students get really excited about beginning the work and they chat. Jeepers it takes about 6 or 7 attempts to get them quiet to hear my instructions.

Author:

So in terms of your values and beliefs, you identified respect as important to you, how do you think this belief sits with what you just observed on video happening in your classroom?

There is a long pause while T3 thinks. T3:

I don’t know. To be honest it is quite confronting, to see it. How it actually…what is actually going on.

Author:

Are you comfortable talking about it?

T3:

Yes, because I want to address it.

Author:

Well done.

T3:

I think it’s in a way…the breaking away from being someone, that’s a teacher who is fun and likes a lot of activity and a lot of chatter, only if they are focused on the work, to being clear with the transitions and the information. I don’t think I am necessarily scaffolding that. (Stimulated recall conversation, June 2006)

This appears to reflect the conscious thoughts of T3 as she recalls the observable events (Bloom, 1954). Links to values and beliefs to examine the congruence between theory and practice (Atkin, 1996) and stimulated recall appeared to provide a pertinent way of working. The comments reflected what the teacher was probably thinking both at the time of the exchange and at the time of the recall comment, linking her espoused theory to theory in use. According to Polio et al. (2006), the use of stimulated recall exposes patterns that cannot be distinguished through examination of the primary data. The learning conversation analysis review table was used next to analyse other aspects of the conversation. The team gave feedback suggesting further analysis of time duration between the author’s statements, and what the context for inservice teacher educator input was. T3 was then asked what learning would be taken away from this analysis. She reported that this work had been confronting, especially when she saw students talking while others were acting. What she preferred in class was students engaged in watching their peers and learning from that. 23

BASKERVILLE

Instead, they were seeing it as a turn-taking situation where they did not need to watch when others were taking their turn. She realised she “needed to work on expecting respect in her classroom” (T3, field notes, June 2006). This work with T3 appears to have demonstrated a pertinent process to identify and provide contextually responsive professional development for a teacher, and align a teacher’s values and beliefs with classroom practice. The concept of locating self (Mutch, 2006) appears to have provided an opportunity to examine what teachers valued and believed and the impetus to ascertain if their beliefs were realities in the classroom. This was an effective reflective process that facilitated shifts in teacher practice, a shift from suppositions or deficit thinking to evidence-based practice, higher teacher expectations and a focus on teaching and learning. The following section identifies the understandings I gained through this process of deprivatising my practice. Inservice Teacher Educator Collaborative and Individual Learning During the first phase we worked with unknown, ambiguous outcomes and unknown processes to design and field test analytical tools in selected schools. This is as Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) described, meta-learning: learning about one’s own learning. Available evidence and research were used to design and field test frameworks to inform the next phase of the project. During the second phase the five inservice teacher educators implemented and refined these analytical tools in order to support their colleagues to deprivatise their practice. Inservice teacher educator professional learning occurred in many ways during this phase of the project: through our field work, mentoring, supervision, critical friendship, reflection on practice, journaling and the development of analytical tools based on the previous research. There were several key challenges facing inservice teacher educators: identifying an aspect of practice for focus; gathering evidence of practice; developing tools to evaluate practice; and collaborating to critically analyse practice. Many factors, opportunities and challenges contributed to our meeting the desired outcomes of this project. These were: time allocation, collaboration, personal inservice teacher educator attributes, designed and field tested analytical tools and an evidence-based approach consolidated through an action research process. New perspectives were conceived through this self-examination process which required inservice teacher educator willingness and readiness to commit and participate in honest reflective inquiry into practice and an ability to persevere and make numerous revisits to practice. This necessitated selfdiscipline, intrinsic motivation, and honest appraisal, ability to be challenged by applicable feedback, and the aptitude to follow suggestions to improve practice. Inservice teacher educators required openness to critical analysis of research literature, discernment to choose relevant ideas and the aptitude to transfer this newly-gained knowledge to the design. According to Loughran (2002), reflection that carefully considers observation and participation and impacts on practice is effective. In this instance, such an inquiry approach to field work 24

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

provided an opportunity to advance and contribute to changing my approaches to implementing professional development. I felt there was a shift from suppositions to evidence-based practice in my work. Through the analysis of learning conversations I gained insights into what to notice, what was happening, what was effective today so I could improve work tomorrow, and decide what other data I needed to collect to inform future practice. The funded time allocation as part of the project design was essential to manage the design and field testing of analytical tools that facilitated inservice teacher educator inquiry and self-improvement. It is a challenge to ascertain if this time was used effectively and the outcomes were satisfactory for the project goals. There were no opportunities for such feedback. Feedback from the Ministry of Education was not collaboratively evaluated by the inservice teacher educators to ascertain areas for improvement regarding this use of time before the next phase of the project. Allocated time provided an opportunity to reflect on practice. This was also an essential component of intellectual curiosity and professional learning as I found new ways of working. I improved my ability to construct new frameworks to assist professional development implementation because of the additional funded time for reflection. Field notes were an effective technique to support this reflection. I gained skills in identifying what I did, and I rigorously analysed the events and recognised emergent findings. These tools allowed me to remember where I was with the teachers, and pick up where we left off, with confidence and accuracy. Working as a collaborative team of critical friends supported us to deprivatise our practice. Our meetings provided opportunities for learning conversations which, over time, became open, honest, explicit and more deliberate. We took time to explore, discover, debate, question, design and identify what we had achieved and identified which areas needed improvement. I perceived critical friendship to be an invaluable aspect of my professional development that enriched my work. I valued feedback, insights, and gathering other experiences to trial, in my own way, within the context of my specialist area. Good inservice teacher educator practice requires an ongoing inquiry into individual and collective practice (Robinson, 2002), and it takes time to develop in-depth knowledge through professional discussions (Routman, 2002). Timely collaboration was both central and imperative to this work. Without this collaboration with teachers and other inservice teacher educators, I could not have reviewed my practice. Mutual respect for our work and respectful relationships enabled close examination of our practices, and identified problems – and strategies to address these – to improve practice. This process appears to have initiated change in my practice that impacted on teacher practice. Mentoring and critical friendship processes contributed to these outcomes. Mentoring was invaluable: to have a mentor take an interest in my work enabled us to undertake an honest and realistic in-depth reflection. The national facilitator listened attentively, gave us space to talk through our ideas, asked pertinent questions and made suggestions. She provided timely, insightful feedback. It appears this mentoring provided supervision that encouraged group 25

BASKERVILLE

reflection to analyse work, identify aspects to focus on and commonsense approaches to explore and resolve the problem that emerged. We became more proficient at research because of her support. During one-to-one meetings I considered her comments and suggestions around frameworks to be professional development as our conversations stimulated my thinking and I gained skills, understanding and insights that would transfer to future research. My aptitude to discern relevant transferable qualities of academic research to my work context, and self-discipline and intrinsic motivation, were positive contributing factors to this process. This critical analysis – using designed frameworks – provided the potential to make me a better facilitator and the teachers more articulate about what they were thinking and doing. Being given pertinent readings and the time to read was invaluable. This aspect of the project impacted on what I achieved. The work of other researchers triggered ideas and possibilities for analytical tools to improve practice. The development of these tools provided a new approach to deprivatise practice, to reflect and develop ideas, and support a focused, improved inquiry that maximised collaborative expertise. It was a challenge to select pertinent sections of transcribed conversations for analysis. In hindsight, consultation with the group regarding this selection might have supported me in this task. Group expertise and agreement on the section of the script for analysis might have been less biased and might have provided potential selection of more challenging aspects to review. This would have strengthened the process. Using analytical tools to reflect on learning conversations was important in the development of my understanding, the creation of authentic learning experiences and the development of professional knowledge. Rather than making suppositions about observed teacher practice, over time I addressed the limitations of such an approach by structuring collaborative reflection in a variety of ways. In the process of reflection, by intertwining theory and practice, I challenged myself to develop my own knowledge. This evidence-based approach was consolidated through a collaborative action research process. Throughout this process I collaboratively revisited aspects of the inquiry through multiple implementations of the designed analytical tools. This collaborative work that made explicit the qualities of effective inservice teacher educator practice supported us to modify and strengthen the use of analytical tools and their application to other contexts with other teachers in other schools. It is important to note, however, the process was limited to the examination of inservice teacher educator and teacher practice and did not investigate the impact of this work on student achievement. However, as a result of this project I more readily articulate and identify the congruence between espoused theory and classroom practice, insightfully discuss the importance of this congruence with teachers and have designed a new approach to provide contextually responsive professional development for teachers.

26

ORGANISATION AND DESIGN OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

REFERENCES Ainscow, M., & Southworth, G. (1996). School improvement: A study of the roles of leaders and external consultants. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 229–251. Annan, B., Lai, M. K., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2003). Teacher talk to improve teaching practices. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 31–35. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atkin, J. (1996). From values and beliefs about learning to principles and practice. Seminar Series, No 54, Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria, Australia. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Archives/files/links/link_98133.pdf Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25–28. Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional indifference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 205–221. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp. 23–46). New York: Harper. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 150–178). Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, L. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 19–36. Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. Cresswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education. Dean, J. (1992). Inspecting and advising: A handbook for inspectors, advisors and advisory teachers. London: Routledge. Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press. Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Feyerison, K., Fiorno, A., & Nowak, A. (1970). Supervision and curriculum renewal: A systems approach. New York: Appleton. Fox, M., Martin, P., & Green, G. (2007). Doing practitioner research. London: Sage. Gee, T. (2005). Captring study influence. Psychotherapy and Health, 1(1), 52–75. Given, H., Kuh, L., LeeKeenan, D., Mardell, B., Redditt, S., & Twombly, S. (2010). Changing school cultures: Using documentation to support collaborative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 49(1), 36–46. James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 973–982. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2008). The value of participatory research in clinical nursing practice. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 14(1), 34–39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: Searching of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.

27

BASKERVILLE Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 193–203. MacBeath, J., Schratz, M., Meuret, M., & Jakobsen, L. B. (2000). Self-evaluation in European schools: A story of change. London: Routledge Falmer. MacBeath, J., Swaffield, S., & Frost, D. (2009). Principled narrative. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(3), 223–237. Ministry of Education. (2000). The arts in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Mutch, C. (2006, May). Furling and unfurling: In step, out of step or a step ahead? Presentation to Inservice Teacher Education Practice project conference, Wellington, New Zealand. National Staff Development Council. (2007). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.srnleads. org/resources/publications/nsdc.html Niesz, T. (2010). Chasms and bridges: Generativity in the space between educators’ communities of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 37–44. Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267. Reid, A. (2004). Towards a culture of inquiry in DECS (Occasional Paper Series, no. 1). Adelaide: South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/corporate/files/links/OP_01.pdf Robinson, V. M. J. (2002). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 775–812). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Robinson, V., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Routman, R. (2002). Teacher talk. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 32–35. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning and it’s about time. London: Taylor Francis. Swaffield, S. (2007). Light touch critical friendship. Improving Schools, 10(3), 205–219. Taylor, P. (1996). Doing reflective practitioner research in arts education. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Researching drama and arts education: Paradigms and possibilities. London: Routledge Falmer. Timperley, H., & Parr, J. (2004). Using evidence in teaching practice: Implications for professional learning. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Hyde Park, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Whyte, W. F. (1994). Participant observer: An autobiography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

28

TREVOR MCDONALD AND CHRISTINA THORNLEY

3. THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS Resolving Conflicts in Professional Learning Using Evidence of Student Learning

Examinations of effective professional learning in the literature rarely document the work of teachers as facilitators of professional learning for their colleagues. We would suggest that given the multiple and sometimes competing demands of simultaneously being a teacher, a colleague and a facilitator of professional learning, the role is complex. This chapter focuses on three educators as they led projects in schools over one school year to bring about changes in teacher practice and student achievement. Two of them held teaching positions in the school in which the professional learning was based. The third was a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour1 who worked with teachers in one of the schools to which she was assigned. Through a focus on evidence of student achievement, the teachers to be discussed here overcame numerous obstacles that threatened to compromise the outcomes they achieved. We believe their experiences can offer insights to others working in this field. The chapter that follows is divided into four sections. Firstly, a brief review of recent research is used to describe the challenges inherent in each project. The second section describes the design principles established to frame the inquiries, undertake the projects and analyse the results of each inquiry. Following this, the process and outcomes of each of the projects are described in a series of vignettes, and the final section discusses the implications of the experiences of these three educators for the field. FOCUS OF THE CASE STUDY INQUIRY: EFFECTIVE PRACTICE AND COMMON PRACTICE

There is little argument today that effective teaching is linked with raised student achievement (Boyd, 2002; Higgins, with Parsons & Hyland, 2003) and that effective professional learning for teachers is central to the process of improving teaching (Poulson & Avramidis, 2003; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson & Rodriguez, 2005; Timperley & Wiseman, 2003). The research identifies effective professional learning for teachers as including opportunities for:

J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 29–44. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

– Teachers and inservice teacher educators to interrogate student achievement data (Agosta, Graetz, Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004; Earl & Katz, 2002; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007), including student voice (Kershner, 1999); – The analysis of teachers’ knowledge, practices and beliefs in the context of the classroom (Borko, 2004; Guskey, 2000; King & Newmann, 2000; McDonald et al., 2008); – The use of the research literature alongside classroom data to enable teachers to deepen their pedagogical content knowledge and for the development of theoretically sound interventions (Elmore & Burney, 1997; Fernandez, 2002; Hansford, Tennent & Ehrich, 2003; Robinson & Lai, 2006; Timperley et al., 2007); – The development of research and inquiry skills (Robinson, 2003). Further, numbers of studies advocate conditions within models of effective professional learning that are seen to promote positive outcomes. Birman, Desimone, Porter and Garet (2000) discussed the centrality of collegial communities of practice similar to those which Corden (2002) and Goodnough, (2004) described as collaboration. Within such communities, equal status is accorded all partners and emphasis is placed on establishing common values and beliefs underpinned by a set of shared understandings about goals, the process, and the outcomes for professional learning (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bean & Harper, 2004; Borko, 2004; Snow-Gerono, 2005). In order to achieve a practice that is goal driven, collaborative and outcomes focused, an inquiry approach to professional learning has commonly been adopted. In the synthesis of the literature on effective professional learning, the New Zealand Ministry of Education (2008) described the inquiry process as an opportunity to use evidence to critically reflect on what is happening in a classroom or school context and to make decisions about the practices that will increase student outcomes. They characterised the inquiry process as involving the following activities: – Clarifying meanings; – Identifying issues or problems; – Developing inquiry questions; – Collecting data; – Locating and drawing on research; – Critically interrogating practice and data; – Analysing, interpreting and theorising results; – Developing and implementing strategies to enhance learning; – Assessing impact. Robinson (2003) has said that treating professional learning in this way is very much like bringing a research lens to teaching. She noted that the practice of each requires many of the same dispositions, skills and understandings, such as “attitudes of openness, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to step outside a frame of reference to see things in new ways” (p. 28). As inservice teacher educators face the realities of professional learning in schools, the nature of the relationships between them and teachers can be highly problematic, 30

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

rendering it difficult to achieve those elements of effective practice described in the literature. By definition, the inservice teacher educator must be an expert in his or her field (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). They must possess strong instructional and collegial leadership skills (Poulson & Avramidis, 2003), they must be able to match effective practice with the realities of the classroom (Shulman, 2004), and have the ability to mentor teachers as they adopt new approaches (Musanti, 2004). The negotiation of this role poses significant challenges, especially when teachers do not share the vision, or possess the inquiry skills (Ministry of Education, 2008), or the pedagogical content knowledge (Timperley et al., 2007) necessary for their equal participation or the creation of new knowledge (McDonald et al., 2008; Snow-Gerono, 2005). The experiences of the teacher leaders of each of the projects discussed in this chapter exemplify the challenges described above. In the first case, Lucy (all names are pseudonyms) who was head of arts in a secondary school, worked with teachers in her department to enact the school’s inquiry into improving student achievement through a focus on teacher practice, following the Education Review Office’s2 expression of concerns about achievement levels across the school. A number of Lucy’s colleagues felt that they should be exempted from this inquiry because of the ‘practical nature’ of their curriculum foci. In the second case, Maria was also a teacher in a secondary school. She had been appointed to lead a cross-curricular group of five teachers as they interrogated their own practice with respect to addressing the literacy demands inherent in their curriculum areas. Although the school had maintained a focus on literacy across the curriculum for several years, some of the teachers in Maria’s group had avoided participation in previous professional learning, as they did not see that the literacy focus applied to them. As a result of this, these teachers lacked the literacy content knowledge that would allow them to develop their teaching. Significant numbers of students had been referred for behavioural support from one of the schools to which Sally, a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour, was assigned. In referring students to this service, most teachers expected the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour to work directly with students to teach them how to moderate their own behaviour. In this instance Sally felt that the need for change lay with the school and teachers rather than with students. Through a focus on pedagogical change and classroom management she embarked on a professional learning project aimed at reducing the number of students referred to her service. FEATURES OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING INQUIRIES: UNPICKING THE PARTS

In completing these projects, Lucy, Maria and Sally worked with us and with mentors in a research and development project focusing on the identification and description of effective learning for inservice teacher educators. Concurrent with the development of each project a number of opportunities were provided for these project leaders to learn about effective professional learning and pedagogy, and to develop a range of research skills. As a result, they used a common inquiry framework within which their 31

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

projects were structured. In addition, they were provided with ongoing research, professional and logistical supports, and supervision. They also participated in research investigations to describe the approaches undertaken and the extent to which those approaches led to the outcomes achieved across each project. To investigate the impact of each project, we developed a means of evaluating the professional development projects based on Guskey’s (2000) evaluations of professional development and Shalock’s (1995) general principles for evaluation which suggest that the impact of an intervention can only be assessed within an analysis of the context within which it occurs, along with the description of characteristics and practices of the participants in that intervention. Table 3.1 identifies the range of information we sought in each of the four areas described. In addition to using the design as a means for describing the impact of professional learning on teachers and students, it also assisted in the identification and description of problems that might arise. Each of the projects reported here had a number of elements which, when compared with the literature, had the potential to be problematic. Across the projects these elements included resistance to the notion that literacy needed to be a part of all teaching and learning across the curriculum, a lack of background knowledge about reading and writing, and misconceptions about the role of specialist support providers. Given this, we felt that if we had a means of identifying difficulties as they arose, we could address them promptly in order that positive outcomes could still be achieved (Guskey, 2000). Preliminary work in each project therefore required that Lucy, Maria and Sally identify relevant literature, design a number of data collection tools and learn how to undertake analyses of data once they had gathered them. Data sources included surveys, observations, informal discussions, meeting minutes and other documents, student achievement data, student voice, and concept maps. As each of their projects developed, the teacher leaders and the teachers with whom they worked continued to review relevant literature and to gather and analyse data, and every project leader also kept a journal in which they regularly reflected on their projects, their progress and their personal learning journeys. For the analysis of the data collected we adapted Charmaz’s (2000) constant comparative approach in which we searched data for categories and accounts that we could use to assist in building a set of understandings about the ways in which participants made sense of the learning opportunities provided them. This approach suited us because we were concerned to ensure that the analysis of data included comparisons of each participant’s views, accounts and practices within and across projects. In addition, we wished to investigate change over time for individuals and groups insofar as knowledge and practice were concerned. As project leaders undertook this analysis we also asked that each of them use their findings to make decisions about future steps within each project based on specific incidences of teacher and student learning and to develop sets of theories of action based on the learning they did.

32

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

Table 3.1. Data informing the components of the research model Characteristics of students and teachers – Demographic information (students) – Typical student achievement levels – Teacher knowledge and beliefs – Expectations

Contextual factors – Demographic factors including school culture and the ways in which professional learning was supported – Previous professional development – Perceptions of school strengths/needs – Organisation and management – Supports for professional learning

Teaching practice Use of assessment data Goal setting Descriptions of interventions Assessment of outcomes Changes in practice Supports for learning Individual outcomes – Changes in teacher pedagogical and content knowledge – Changes in student achievement resulting from teacher change

– – – – – –

MAKING SENSE OF SITUATIONS AND CREATING CHANGE

What follows are three vignettes describing each of the projects completed. In each case, teacher leaders encountered a number of challenges in completing the professional learning they undertook. Across each project some teachers resisted the interrogation of their practice, others saw little relevance in the professional learning for themselves and others sought a ‘quick fix’ to problems they felt they did not own. In each instance, however, teacher leaders built communities of practice and supported their colleagues to deepen their pedagogical content knowledge and to develop their teaching by looking for, and focusing on, evidence of student learning and change. Case One: Teacher Leader Lily As head of department, Lily worked with teachers of music, drama, photography, design and art to enact the school’s goal for raising student achievement. She had a strong background in the arts herself and was regarded by her colleagues as a successful teacher. Early in her project and to build on her own expertise (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009), she supplemented her content knowledge through participation in professional learning opportunities focusing on inquiry learning/research and worked with colleagues to improve her pedagogical knowledge. In doing so, Lily began an analysis of the difficulties her own students encountered when they were required to deal with academic texts and to apply their learning to their own drawing and painting. At this point, Lucy decided that the development of students’ literacy skills was key to developing their thinking and analytical skills. After some further reading and discussion Lucy worked with her own students. In reviewing the development of her students’ skills she was very pleased with the resulting improvements in students’ analytic and practical skills and consequently she 33

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

felt ready to begin the inquiries into teaching practice requested by senior management. Her first step was to survey the teachers in her department regarding their concerns for their students. Results confirmed that teachers felt that many students struggled in these curriculum areas and despite the practical nature of much of what they did, it seemed that the problems teachers encountered were much like those experienced by Lily. The survey also indicated that teachers were interested in increasing their students’ achievements and that they would be happy to participate in a departmental professional learning project. Lily met with the teachers in her department for a workshop where they discussed the rationale for, and the process Lily had undertaken in, her intervention with her students. Integral to this were “before and after” samples from students’ journals from which it was possible to see concrete evidence of an increase in students’ skills in using academic texts to analyse the stylistic qualities of a number of paintings and in translating those understandings to their practical work. Each of the teachers with whom Lily worked was enthusiastic about her students’ achievements but two teachers in particular did not feel that what Lily had undertaken was relevant to their subject areas. Indeed, despite what they had said in their surveys, they felt that they should be exempted from the school-wide achievement goal given the “practical nature” of their curricula. The outcome of this workshop and the evaluations submitted raised a number of issues and questions for Lily. First, the dissenting teachers had challenged her conclusion that a focus on developing students’ literacy skills held the key to raising achievement in the arts. Secondly, Lily wondered if she could continue to think of the arts as an umbrella content area or whether the circumstances of learning in other arts subjects were different from what she had thought. Finally, she was concerned that if there were differences, she must consider what effective literacy learning in other areas might look like. When Lily reflected on the development of her own understandings in this project she concluded that her understanding about the role of literacy in the arts had developed as she backward planned from the practical requirements of her curriculum area. Further, she realised that in order to cement this learning she first had to work through the process with her students and then look at differences that arose through her changed teaching practices. When this was completed, Lily and her mentor reviewed the curriculum documents used in her department with the result that she was able to conclude what her understandings about learning in fine arts held for other arts content areas. Following this phase, Lucy went back to her colleagues with the relevant sections of the New Zealand curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and a selection of standards that students had to meet to gain National Certificate of Educational Achievement3 credit. Over the course of an inservice day, Lucy worked with teachers to describe the challenges students faced in each of the respective curriculum areas and then to identify how teachers could address these challenges in the context of their classes. In each instance, teachers developed sets of flow charts outlining the aspects of the curriculum to be addressed, how these aspects could be broken down and then what approaches teachers could use in assisting students to independently 34

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

build their own understandings. As a result of this activity, all of the participating teachers could see that their students’ learning would be enhanced through the development of their independent literacy skills and as an outcome of the analysis of curricular and assessment tasks they had a means of moving forward. The next element in the work that Lucy undertook with her colleagues was for them to trial the teaching approaches they had developed. Lucy supported her teachers through collaborative teaching sessions after which she completed observations and coached her colleagues through the planning and implementation phases. Subsequent to this phase, teachers came back together to review their findings including analysis of examples of students’ work. The teachers Lily worked with were enthusiastic about their own and their students’ learning and progress, and as an outcome of the review they had undertaken they spent time planning how and where they wished to develop the use of literacy approaches in their content areas. In Lucy’s work with her teachers she managed to assist her colleagues to see how the school’s goal of raising student achievement could be translated to the context of art, music and drama classrooms. In this case she was challenged to demonstrate through an analysis of the relevant curriculum documents and evidence of student learning the relevance of independent literacy skills to ostensibly practical curriculum areas. In so doing, she built a community of practice in which teachers began the process of working collaboratively, using student learning as the central element. Case Two: Teacher Leader Maria Maria was an English teacher in a Year 7–13 secondary school which catered for students from the ages of 11 to 18. She had been selected as team leader for a group of five of her colleagues to investigate the literacy learning needs of students across the content areas and then to develop teaching approaches aimed at increasing students’ competence in the use of a range of literacy skills. It was further intended that as a result of coaching support provided to teachers by Maria, and through engagement in a number of inquiry cycles in which student data would be sought, teachers would trial, evaluate and refine various teaching approaches to increase students’ reading skills in order that evidence of increased student understanding and achievement would become apparent. The school had maintained a focus on literacy for several years and as a result of previous professional learning projects had developed robust support mechanisms. However, a number of teachers had managed to “fly under the radar” and as a result, had avoided the school-wide literacy work. Several of the teachers in Marias’s group were in this situation. As she began her work, Maria undertook observations of teachers as they worked with students. She also met with the teachers as a group, during which time they completed concept maps (Markham, Mintzes & Jones, 1994) describing their perceptions of the relationship between their content areas, literacy and student achievement. After completing some analysis of the concept maps, Maria used them in individual discussions with teachers to gather more information about 35

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

teacher knowledge and also to acquaint herself with the challenges posed for teachers and students in content areas with which she was less familiar. Maria and her teachers then reviewed diagnostic literacy assessments and other student data and, based on the theoretical framework for literacy adopted across the school (see McDonald & Thornley, 2005; McDonald et al., 2008), made decisions about initial literacy teaching approaches to use with their students. Subsequent to this, Maria worked in a coaching capacity with teachers to assist them in classroom implementation. During a number of the participants’ debriefs and despite their shared planning, Maria struggled in assisting teachers to reflect on their practice or to focus their thinking about their literacy teaching work. As reflected in their preliminary work, Maria realised that she had done most of the planning work for teachers and that this had masked the knowledge her teachers had about adolescent literacy generally and about their students specifically. As a result of this realisation and in order to facilitate a stronger focus on students and the classroom, Maria, in consultation with her mentor, decided that it might be useful to gather information from students about their perceptions of the learning opportunities in which they had participated. To this end, she conducted focus group interviews with students where they were asked to discuss: their understandings about literacy; the literacy activities they engaged in across their content areas; if they felt they had learned new skills from engagement in these activities; how literacy learning was similar or different across content areas; and what teachers should do to assist student learning. In undertaking these focus group interviews, Maria assisted the teachers she worked with to see that although students felt that literacy learning was important, they perceived that there were few opportunities to learn how to be literate across content classes. These data were then compared to student achievement data, observations and to the teachers’ concept maps. The comparative analysis of data was a watershed for teachers in that they could see that their own understandings and beliefs impacted on the experiences they provided and on their students’ achievement. This had the effect of promoting a sense of shared ownership of the process amongst the teachers in Maria’s group. As a result, the group returned to the literature available to them and began planning in earnest to develop their knowledge and practice. As Maria noted, when interviewed about her project: The student focus group suggested little explicit teaching was occurring or had been digested. This gave my five teachers the impetus to get into literacy boots and all, to make headway. We were able to use this to set goals for ourselves. This was measurable by hearing from our student focus group further down the line where they were able to talk with more confidence about text features and other facets of literacy. Maria’s group continued to engage in their literacy project and through cycles of inquiry that were punctuated with further information from student focus groups and examples of student work, teachers refined their practice and as a result, increased student achievement. At the end of the project and when discussing final assessments, Maria said: 36

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

We tested target classes this week with literacy diagnostic assessments…and it is really exciting how explicitly they are discussing the text features, forms and vocabulary along with seeing the strategies they are using. Like Lucy’s teachers, those who worked with Maria did not initially see a role for themselves in teaching literacy skills in the context of their curriculum areas. In addition, observation and concept mapping revealed that they did not provide opportunities for their students to learn such skills. However, through the use of student voice from focus group interviews and from student assessment, Maria helped her teachers to see how important literacy teaching within the context of the content areas is. In this way teachers overcame their fears about literacy teaching and worked together to develop new approaches that were seen to reflect students’ needs. Case Three: Teacher Leader Sally Sally is a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour. Early in the school year, she received six referrals for behavioural support for students from one school. When Sally discussed these referrals with the principal of the school she expressed her concern about the high number of referrals received. The outcome of this was a decision that rather than address the challenges posed in the referrals individually, Sally would embark on a professional learning project aimed at building teachers’ knowledge of effective behaviour management. However, a number of the teachers in this school were somewhat ambivalent about the approach that Sally had adopted as they believed that the role of the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour was to work directly with ‘problem students’ to effect behavioural change. As a first step, Sally surveyed each teacher in the school. The aim of the survey was to ascertain teachers’ understandings of the factors seen as influencing students’ behaviour, how teachers perceived their own and the school’s role in preventing inappropriate behaviour, and the strategies that they found effective in dealing with inappropriate behaviour. Secondly, Sally and the principal conducted a number of focus groups that brought together students referred for behavioural support and their peers. The primary intent of this exercise was to ascertain what constituted students’ ideas about their behaviour, what constituted “good” behaviour, and the type of assistance that would help them to manage their own behaviour. It was felt that students might be prepared to talk more openly about their own and others’ behaviour if their teachers were not present. As an additional focus, Sally was interested in using these groups as an opportunity to observe the interactions between students referred for behavioural support and their peers. Sally was aware that it was important to develop positive working relationships with teachers and to support them to engage with the content of the project. For that reason, she did not observe students in their classes in the initial stage of the project. Instead, Sally met with the whole staff and used data from the student focus groups as evidence of students’ understandings about 37

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

behaviour and to initiate discussions about the possible antecedents for student behaviour, and how students’ work preferences, learning needs, the physical environment or the classroom climate might affect the control a student has over their behaviour. At this point Sally also introduced teachers to research articles and resources, including those online, that posited a range of approaches for dealing with the issues raised in the initial discussion. At the end of this phase, Sally asked teachers to complete an evaluation that also asked them to identify any learning needs that had arisen from the workshop they had just completed. Teachers responded positively to the workshop and they identified a wide range of needs for their own learning from the focus group data and what they felt they needed from school leadership and from Sally. While pleased with this outcome, Sally was concerned about the extent of her own knowledge base in supporting both school-wide change and teachers. To this end, she undertook an extensive literature search in the area and consulted with a number of colleagues and experts in the field. In explaining her own learning needs she also negotiated entry to all classrooms in the school so that she could begin to get to know the referred students and to understand more about the context of their classrooms. As the project progressed, Sally began working with teachers in cycles of inquiry (Ministry of Education, 2008) that encouraged all teachers to reflect on the way in which they interacted with students, and in light of the learning they had undertaken, to plan for meeting the needs of the students they taught, to implement their plans, and then – based on their own experiences and Sally’s observations and other data – to reflect on progress and to deepen their learning and planning work. Concurrent with these cycles of inquiry, Sally facilitated a number of staff workshops and sought out and supported teachers to attend external seminars in which experts addressed behaviour and behaviour management. Alongside individual work with teachers, Sally facilitated a number of meetings during which staff used their developing understandings to design a set of procedures to be used school-wide for dealing with difficult behaviour, should it arise. The participating staff also wrote a set of policies regarding behavioural expectations that were then presented to the school board for ratification and adoption. During this time, Sally continued to observe and survey teachers and to conduct student focus groups. Along with using these data to identify ongoing needs, she focused on the identification of indicators of change. Similarly, Sally was interested in describing the chain of influence from school supports, practices and policies and how these impacted teachers and, in turn, how changed practice influenced students’ learning and behaviour. Table 3.2 explains what she was looking for, how she sought information, and how she made sense of the process of change:

38

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

Table 3.2. Indicators of change Area of focus

School

Teachers

Students

Change indicators

Systems Supports Policies Practices

Increased knowledge Changed attitudes and beliefs Changed practices

Engagement Understandings about their own behaviour Changes in behaviour

Data sources

Meeting notes Reflections Protocols and other documentation

Observations and discussions Workshop minutes Notes and reflections Surveys

Student focus groups Observations

Chain of influence

Towards the end of the project the principal and Sally’s mentor also undertook a number of observations in classrooms. Along with these observations, it was apparent from other data sources (as outlined in Table 3.2) that there had been a change in teachers’ attitudes and understandings about difficult behaviour that resulted in observable changes in teacher practice. In some cases, teachers also began to adapt their new understandings to different situations as their students’ behavioural and learning needs changed. The final indicator of change came from observations that showed changes in students’ behaviour and from comments students made that they felt more able to moderate their own behaviour. An apparent direct result of the project was that a number of the referrals for students were withdrawn and in all other cases the role of the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour was reduced to that of monitoring progress until such time as referrals for the remaining students were also withdrawn. The principal had the following comments: When I look, particularly, at this boy here who moved to our school last year, you wouldn’t recognise him for the same boy now. With one exception, there have been improvements in all of them [referred students]. I think that it’s because the teachers have got more tools in their toolkit, more strategies to use and they feel empowered that they can actually do it. In this case account, Sally was forced to deal with a set of expectations that saw her as specialised, working directly with a number of students who experienced behavioural challenges. Through the use of the focus group interviews and by introducing teachers to the research literature, Sally assisted teachers in understanding their own role in changing difficult student behaviour and in the maintenance of these changes. Through the alignment of classroom observations and further focus groups, Sally also showed teachers how their changed practices positively influenced the students with whom they worked.

39

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

DISCUSSION: LOOKING ACROSS AND WITHIN COMMONALITIES, CONUNDRUMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

The professional learning literature identifies a number of conditions such as collaboration with and amongst teachers, and professional learning communities underpinned by shared goals, understandings and outcomes (Birman et al., 2000; Corden, 2002; Goodnough, 2004) that have been seen to impact positively on the outcomes achieved for students. Central to this has been a focus on student achievement data and its interrogation for decision making about the nature and process of professional learning and for measuring quality of outcomes (Taylor et al., 2005). The literature has also posited the importance of the analysis of current teacher beliefs and practices (McDonald et al., 2008) and within communities of practice, the development of shared goals, understandings, commitment and outcomes to drive inquiries into teaching (Goodnough, 2004). It has been further argued that these conditions must also allow for a focus on teachers’ research skills and on deepening their pedagogical content knowledge (Timperley et al., 2007). When reviewing both the process and findings of the three projects described here, a number of common threads emerge. The most powerful of these is the use of student-centred data. Sitting underneath the role of data and central to their power was the use of research and other information with which to analyse and interpret those data (Robinson & Lai, 2006). Lucy used journals and artworks produced by her students to show the value of the approach she advocated to the analysis of artworks. As she continued to work with her colleagues, they too relied on the work their students produced to test their understandings and to develop their practice. Maria relied heavily on the data generated from student focus groups to sit alongside her observations and coaching records, as well as the diagnostic assessments students completed. Sally also used focus group data along with observation as a means of revealing students’ developing understandings about behaviour arising from the changes made to school-wide policies and teacher practice. In each instance these data served a variety of purposes. At the outset of each project a number of participating teachers did not see that the inquiries undertaken were relevant to them and in some cases they did not feel that the nature of the inquiry was appropriate. In each case, however, initial data relating to student achievement or behaviour acted as a catalyst for teachers to explore the issues raised, to take ownership of the problem and to engage them as problem-solvers (Ministry of Education, 2008). As the projects progressed, student data were continually matched against a range of resources that provided a means for teachers to interpret the data they had, and to identify a way forward (Hansford et al., 2003). In doing this, Lucy used the New Zealand curriculum documents and National Certificate of Educational Achievement standards, Maria used literature outlining the theoretical approach to literacy instruction the school had adopted, and Sally used both research on behaviour management along with experts in the field. Finally, student data were used to determine whether or not the outcomes of the projects were met (Borko, 2004). 40

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

The data used by each of these project leaders varied according to the nature of the investigations they completed but in each instance, the tools used were specific to the information to be gathered, and the data were contextualised to the demands of the curriculum area from which they were taken and from the students who were their focus (Shulman, 2004). Although participating teachers did not always analyse these data themselves, they each had multiple opportunities within the projects to interrogate them against their own planning and teaching and what they had learned from the research literature. In some instances this was challenging for teachers, and in Maria’s case it necessitated that she take a step back and source other data that teachers could more readily access. The presentation of these data was also challenging in that it forced teachers to see, as in Sally’s and Maria’s projects, that their own actions and beliefs could lead to a situation in which students did not have the opportunities to learn new skills or behaviours. In each case, the data collected and analysed formed the basis of, and catalyst for, the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and research practice. Lucy’s teachers learned about the ways they could support students to become independent learners in arts subjects as they reviewed their curriculum documents in light of the progress Lucy’s students had made. Maria’s teachers worked through diagnostic literacy data and student focus group findings to identify the literacy learning opportunities available in their content areas. Through a process of matching that knowledge with the literacy framework used across the school, they then developed and trialled new teaching approaches. Although focused on behaviour, Sally’s teachers followed a similar path. They collected and worked with new data about their students’ beliefs about their own and others’ behaviour and how to handle it. As a result of this focus, each of the teachers Sally worked with learned about the application of an inquiry process to their classrooms and to their own learning. It is our contention that the success of these projects began and ended with useful, relevant data gathered from students using a range of sources that were contextualised to each of the projects and the use to which the data were to be put. It served the purpose of engaging teachers who, because they had not had a role in the identification of the respective goals, were not initially invested in the projects. Student achievement data also sustained their engagement through the projects and led to the achievement of positive outcomes for all participants. In addition to this, we also suggest that a focus on student achievement data provided something of a buffer zone behind which hesitant teachers could develop their practice without having to reveal limitations in their skills to support students’ learning. The pedagogical and professional learning expertise of each project leader was central to the use of data in the ways described. Before Lucy could begin work with her colleagues she worked extensively with her own students to develop and trial teaching approaches she would later explore with her colleagues. Maria leaned heavily on the research materials available to her and as Sally’s work developed, she referred back to the literature in her area to confirm her understandings. In each case Lucy, Maria and Sally worked with a mentor (Musanti, 2004) who could provide them with ongoing support and guidance. Their participation in the research and 41

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY

development project surrounding their work also ensured that the three project leaders had opportunities to learn about research and effective professional learning. While there is still a great deal of work to be done regarding the characteristics of effective leaders of professional learning (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009), we cannot underestimate their impact. Similarly, the mix of professional learning approaches used by these project leaders was an important element in their work (Domitrovich et al., 2009). In each case, classroom teachers participated in workshops and meetings, received in-class support, and were coached and mentored in their work. These activities afforded opportunities for support to be targeted and specific, for teachers to practise what they had learned and to receive feedback, and for the creation of opportunities for reflection. Clearly there is a range of conditions central to effective professional learning for teachers. What we have seen from the projects discussed here is that while it may be advantageous for all participants in the professional learning process to develop and agree on the focus, goals and outcomes, an essential prerequisite for the achievement of positive outcomes is the framing of problems from the perspectives of students. In addition, a sufficiently strong evidential basis to support the formulation of inquiries into effective practice is also critical, as is the skill of the leader of professional learning in taking the teachers they work with to a desirable conclusion. Many of us have faced situations in which teachers were not, for whatever reasons, invested in the work we offered. We believe that the knowledge generated from these projects offers a way forward as we encounter teacher resistance or nonengagement. The use of evidence in the form of student achievement data was but one element in the work these project leaders undertook with their colleagues but it was the central element on which they built everything they did. It was also the introduction of student achievement data that led to the outcomes Lucy, Maria and Sally achieved for their teachers and for their students. NOTES 1

2

3

42

Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour are specialist teachers who are employed across clusters of schools to support teachers in working with students with complex or challenging learning and/or behavioural issues. In New Zealand, the Education Review Office undertakes triennial reviews of schools to ensure, among other things, that students have access to high quality educational opportunities. In New Zealand, students complete achievement standards for the National Certificate in Educational Achievement in each of the last three years they attend secondary school. Each achievement standard is awarded a number of credits that when aggregated lead to the awarding of the qualification.

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

REFERENCES Agosta, E., Graetz, J. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). Teacher researcher partnerships to improve social behavior with social stories. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 276–287. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey Press. Bean, T. W., & Harper, H. J. (2004). Teacher education and adolescent literacy. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 392–414). New York: The Guilford Press. Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet, M. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Boyd, P. (2002). Rose tinted reflection? The benefits for teachers of initial teacher education in secondary schools. Journal of In-service Education, 28(2), 203–217. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). London: Sage. Corden, R. (2002). Developing reflective writers in primary schools: Findings form partnership research. Educational Review, 54(3), 249–276. Domitrovich, C., Gest, S., Gill, S., Bierman, K., Welsh, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering high quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professional development support: The headstart REDI program. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 567–597. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data rich world. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 1003–1024). New York: Springer. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning. New York: Harvard Press. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–406. Goodnough, K. (2004). Fostering collaboration in a school district-university partnership: The teachers researching inquiry-based science project. Teaching Education, 15(3), 319–330. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hansford, B., Tennent, L., & Ehrich, L. C. (2003). Educational mentoring: Is it worth the effort? Education Research and Perspectives, 30(1), 42–74. Higgins, J., with Parsons, R., & Hyland, M. (2003). The Numeracy Development Project: Policy to practice. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 12: 2002. Kershner, R. (1999). The role of school-based research in helping teachers to extend their understanding of children’s learning and motivation. Journal of In-Service Education, 24(3), 423–444. King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576–580. McDonald, T., & Thornley, C. (2005). Literacy teaching and learning across the secondary years: Establishing a pathway for success to NCEA and beyond. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 9–14. McDonald, T., Thornley, C., Thomson, C., Pullar, K., Pullar, M., & Low, H. (2008). Raising students’ literacy achievements in secondary schools: Findings from teacher-researcher partnerships. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 46–52. Markham, K., Mintzes, J., & Jones, M. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of reliability. Journal of Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2008). Ki te Aoturoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice: Te whakapakari i te ratonga whakangungu kaiwhakaako. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Musanti, S. (2004). Balancing mentoring and collaboration: Midcareer teachers constructing a new role. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 6(1), 13–24.

43

MCDONALD AND THORNLEY Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage. Poulson, L., & Avramidis, E. (2003). Pathways and possibilities in professional development: Case studies of effective teachers of literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 543–569. Robinson, V. (2003). Teachers as researchers: A professional necessity? SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 27–29. Robinson, V., & Lai, M. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Shalock, R. (1995). Outcome-based evaluation. New York: Plenum Press. Shulman, J. H. (2004). From inspired vision to impossible dream: The dangers of imbalanced mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 393–406. Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21, 241–256. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40–69. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Timperley, H., & Wiseman, J. (2003). The sustainability of professional development in literacy: Report to the Ministry of Education. Part 2: School-based factors associated with high student achievement. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

44

ALYSON MCGEE

4. BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING WITHIN AN ORGANISATION

INTRODUCTION

Inservice teacher educators work with teachers to facilitate and support teacher professional learning and practice and ultimately student learning. However, despite the wealth of literature concerning teacher inquiry and professional development there has been little research related to inservice teacher educators, their work and their professional learning. A recent review of the literature on teacher professional learning and development noted an alarming absence of information about those who provide teacher professional learning – the inservice teacher educators (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). This chapter describes an inservice teacher educator professional learning and research project, which was part of a wider inservice teacher educator practice project to tackle the lack of research and development in this field. The Ministry-funded project was in answer to growing recognition of the importance of inservice teacher educators’ professional learning and aimed to explore, develop and strengthen effective approaches to inservice teacher educator professional learning and practice (Ministry of Education, 2006). The case study discussed in this chapter focuses on a two-year collaborative professional learning project at an educational institution in New Zealand. The description of the project is divided into two phases and focuses on theoretical framing and design features. The evaluative process is outlined and the findings are framed around Rogoff ’s (1998) socio-cultural perspective and three interlocking planes. The discussion of the findings highlights some successes and challenges around building collaborative professional learning within an organisation. THE FIRST PHASE

Theoretical Framing At the beginning of the institution’s project in 2007 there were three key theories and understandings of professional learning which guided the design process. These included the importance of collaborative learning, situating professional learning in practice, and the need for changes to learning and practice to be informed by evidence. Firstly, the socio-cultural learning theories of Vygotsky (1978) and Rogoff (1998) support the importance of collaboration and interdependencies as part of the learning process. Learning occurs first as a shared process which is enhanced by participation with others, and then at an individual level as thinking changes. J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 45–62. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MCGEE

Co-construction of knowledge and understanding occurs during a shared collaborative task or process. Secondly, according to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993), situating professional learning in context ensures the learning is relevant, context based and useful. Professional learning should be designed to enable practitioners to question their own beliefs and practices about teaching and learning and enable them to build on their prior knowledge (Coburn, 2003). Ownership of the learning process and knowledge is also an important part of making the process practitioner relevant and this has been shown to increase motivation to participate in professional learning (McKenzie & Santiago, 2005). Thirdly, our project was built on the theory that the need for change in inservice teacher educator professional learning and practice should be informed by evidence. This is supported by the national project goals and also by Timperley, Annan, and Robinson (2006) who maintained that evidence can provide a basis to build change and make decisions which are informed by more than just assumptions. LOCAL CONTEXT

The institution was an inservice teacher education provider that had been involved in the nation-wide project. It employed over 50 inservice teacher educators and had three geographically distinct campuses. The inservice teacher educators worked with teachers in early childhood, primary and secondary sectors across the three geographic regions. They worked in mainstream and special education settings, as well as English language and MƗori language contexts. In the past, professional learning for inservice teacher educators at the institution had tended to be dominated by courses, conferences, outside speakers and presentations. More recently, with the recognition of the effectiveness of teacher inquiry and in-depth teacher professional development, the institution had attempted to support the need for inservice teacher educators to inquire into their own practice. However, an internal structural review in 2004 highlighted the intermittent and spasmodic nature of professional learning. In addition, a review of organisational processes in 2006, coupled with an evaluation of professional learning, indicated that the needs of many inservice teacher educators were not being met. Hence, the institution’s involvement in the national project offered an opportunity to more explicitly focus on professional learning. Design Features The first phase of the institution’s project was guided by the local needs and context as well as the theories of professional learning. The four main design features in the first phase involved inservice teacher educators: a) learning in collaborative groups; b) developing a shared question; c) establishing common ways of working; and d) using evidence to inform learning and practice. a) Learning in collaborative groups Twenty inservice teacher educators volunteered to join the first phase of the project. These included advisers and resource teachers from the secondary and primary 46

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

sectors. The most common reason why inservice teacher educators volunteered to join the project was explained by one participant: I know it’s important to examine and reflect on my own learning and practice but I feel I don’t do it enough... I don’t prioritise it. The inservice teacher educators formed five groups to work collaboratively on the focus of their inquiry. The groups consisted of three to five participants who selected their group according to a number of factors. One group was based within one geographic region whereas most were spread across the institution’s three regions. Some groups formed around a common aspect of work; for example, one group had an assessment focus while another group worked within one school. Other groups cut across these work-focused boundaries, having some members working in primary and secondary schools. b) Developing a shared question The inservice teacher educators involved in the first phase of our project decided that all five groups would have the same overarching research questions. Developing this focus became the first step and led to a decision to focus on two questions based around change in learning and practice. The focus of the first question was on change in inservice teacher educator learning: “What motivates inservice teacher educators to engage with change in their practice?” The focus of the second question was on inservice teacher educators’ practice with teachers: “What do inservice teacher educators do that motivates teachers to engage with change in their practice?” From these two overarching questions each group developed their research within their specific context, subject area or situation. These included the arts, assessment, mathematics and individualised learning. c) Establishing common ways of working To facilitate the collaborative professional learning, some common ways of working were developed for each group within the project. Initially each group established their research focus and then designed methods of collecting and analysing data. The research process was supported by two research mentors from within the institution. The research mentor’s role was to assist groups to establish their research questions and methodology specific to their contexts, and also to support other aspects of the research process, including ethical principles and practices, data gathering and data analysis. Groups met regularly to evaluate and reflect on their learning to ensure that reflection was built into the methodology of each group. All the participants also met together twice in a larger forum to discuss, reflect and share their learning with the wider project group. In addition, each of the five groups had a leader/representative who met once a month with the other groups’ representatives to discuss, share and reflect on their group’s learning. d) Using evidence to inform learning and practice Inservice teacher educators collected data from others in their professional learning group and also from teachers who they worked with in schools. They used a 47

MCGEE

combination of questionnaires, reflective journals, observations, interviews and existing written and visual forms of evidence to gather information appropriate to their context and purpose. The groups worked collaboratively to interpret and develop understandings and also to generate new insights. Each group collected and analysed data in ways most appropriate and relevant to their research context. For example, the group working within the arts recorded their conversations with teachers when discussing lesson observations. They then re-listened to these post-observation conversations with their teachers and with their professional learning group. This involved reflecting collaboratively on key moments, clarifying why they were important and what inservice teacher educators could change in their facilitation practice. In contrast, the group focusing on individualising teacher professional learning developed and used a variety of teacher self-assessment tools. They interviewed teachers to explore teacher perceptions of the self-assessment tools. Finally, they analysed and reflected on these perceptions, both with teachers and their professional learning group, and decided on changes in their practice resulting from consideration of the evidence. THE SECOND PHASE

Theoretical Framing In the second phase of the institution’s project in 2008, the goal remained to use research and evidence to inquire and develop effective inservice teacher educator professional learning and practice. The fundamental theories and features of the first phase continued, such as learning collaboratively, situating learning in practice and using evidence to inform practice. However, there were some changes and development to our understandings of effective professional learning which affected the design features in this phase. These changes were as a result of consideration of findings, the evaluation of the first phase, and proposed theory of improvement from the national project. The theoretical underpinnings which were added to strengthen and guide the second phase of the project included the importance of clear action inquiry cycles and reflection, a clear evaluation process and leadership of professional learning. Clarke and Erickson (2006) see inquiry as a defining feature of professional learning and practice and although inquiry was an integral part of the first phase, many inservice teacher educators felt the design of the process needed to allow for more clearly framed cycles of inquiry and learning. Therefore, firstly, a clear cyclical action inquiry approach was added to help meaningful and sustainable learning and change in practice. Professional learning built around an action inquiry approach can enable a culture of questioning, gathering evidence, reflection, action, and more sustainable change (McNiff, 2002). Furthermore, by ensuring a non-linear and cyclical process we could help to legitimise and build in reflection as part of the process. The second theoretical underpinning added to this phase was the importance of purposefully evaluating the professional learning project, which Fullan (2007) 48

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

referred to as developing a culture of evaluation. Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many (2005) stated that if professional development is an intentional process, we must seek to analyse information to promote continuous improvement to the process. This was reiterated by Poskitt (2008) who highlighted the importance of establishing ways to evaluate professional development through ongoing cycles of inquiry and feedback. According to Poskitt (2008), documentation and evaluation of professional learning require continuous efforts by an organisation to provide the processes and resources needed. Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, and Wallace (2005) also stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluating the impact of the professional learning process to maximise its effectiveness. We recognised that this would be a challenge, but wanted to strengthen this aspect in the second phase. A further theoretical underpinning behind creating more sustainable professional learning was linked with building leadership capacity. This third theoretical underpinning was related to the importance of sharing leadership to build capacity within an organisation, which was also stressed by Beatty (2000), Fullan (2002) and Hellner (2007). The Education Review Office (2009) report on managing professional learning and development also found a clear relationship between high quality professional learning and the quality of leadership of the learning. CHANGES TO THE DESIGN FEATURES

The three main changes in the design features of the second phase were due to the added theoretical underpinnings and evaluation. These were: a) changes in composition and locality of the collaborative groups; b) changes to the inquiry process; and c) changes to the institution’s organisational structures. a) Changes in composition and locality of the collaborative groups There were a number of seemingly minor but important changes to the collaborative professional learning groups in the second phase. Although the overall number of inservice teacher educators involved in the project remained the same, over 75% of the participants were new to the project. This was because some inservice teacher educators had left the institution, some felt they did not have time to be involved again and there were others who asked to join the project. A major change was that the individual professional learning groups were all site based, whilst in the first phase, most inservice teacher educators in professional learning groups had been from different sites and regions. In the second phase there were also inservice teacher educators from a greater variety of sectors and curriculum areas in the individual groups. For example, one group consisted of inservice teacher educators who worked in early childhood, primary and secondary sectors and also in four different curriculum areas: literacy, assessment, technology, and numeracy. A further significant change to the ways the groups worked was that each group chose their own shared question. There was no overarching question for all groups as there had been in the first phase. This was due to evaluation from 49

MCGEE

the first phase, which indicated that individual groups wanted to ‘own’ their inquiry for greater practitioner relevance. For example, in Phase 2, one group chose to investigate how beliefs and values around teaching and learning affected practice and their question was; “How can we get better at enabling more professional dialogue with teachers around beliefs and values?” Another group asked, “How can we support and facilitate teachers to make use of digital environments to contribute to building professional learning communities?” b) Changes to the inquiry process A significant modification to the second phase of the project was the development and use of an explicit framework for the action inquiry process. The framework provided a more formalised approach for inservice teacher educator inquiry than we had in the first phase. This framework was informed by findings from the first phase of the project and was also built around our theories and beliefs about action research and inquiry (Table 4.1 is a brief overview of the framework). Table 4.1. Overview of the framework Establish professional learning group to explore and improve practice Negotiate ways of working collaboratively in your professional learning group – Importance of negotiation, shared responsibilities and bicultural ways of working. Professional learning group identifies a puzzle of practice – One puzzle shared by everyone in the professional learning group. – Puzzle needs to keep focus on inservice teacher educator practice: e.g., what can I do that…? how can I…? Explore puzzle of practice – Explore assumptions – start from participant’s knowledge and expertise levels. – Gather evidence to support this phase. It is important to base decisions on evidence not assumptions. – Evidence can be gathered in a range of ways: e.g., observational data, questionnaires, interviews, documents, achievement data, audio, and video. Clarify puzzle – Reflect on evidence, readings. Decide and implement actions – Choose appropriate method/s, such as: role play, modelling, mentoring, video, and audio recording, to bring a change in practice. Collect evidence to see if the action is working – Acknowledging the increasingly skilled and complex nature of pedagogical actions, it is vital that inservice teacher educator actions be critically examined as part of the action inquiry cycle. Return to puzzle if needed – Or move on from new learning to another cycle of learning and practice.

50

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

The inquiry framework involved the collaborative professional learning groups following action inquiry cycles around their own inquiry questions – their puzzles of practice. The exploration, clarification, reflection and actions were to be based on evidence to ensure meaningful changes in practice. In addition, the framework and research process were supported by the researcher who played a key role within the action inquiry process. It is important to note that as action inquiry is not a linear process (McNiff, 2002), the inservice teacher educators often moved backwards and forwards in this framework. c) Changes to the institution’s organisational structures There were some important changes to the institution’s organisational structures and processes in the second phase. These organisational changes affected the design of the project and were a direct result of findings and evaluation from the first phase. In Phase 1, the collaborative professional learning groups had to meet in their own time as well as find time to meet twice during the project as a larger group. This was problematic. However, in Phase 2, the institution’s organisational structure was changed to include explicit inservice teacher educator professional learning days. The purpose of these days was for professional learning to take place approximately once a month. Therefore in the second phase, inservice teacher educators were expected to meet at least once a month for professional learning. EVALUATION OF THE FIRST AND SECOND PHASES

In the second phase of the project a more overt and continuous cycle of evaluation was built in as a result of feedback and added theoretical underpinnings. However, both phases included a different form of formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluations in both phases occurred throughout each year and at the end of each year. In Phase 2, ongoing feedback was also collected from inservice teacher educators in their regular group meetings either through recorded and transcribed reflective conversations or from co-constructed notes from the conversations. Some groups kept reflective learning logs which were also used for evaluative purposes. In addition, in both phases a representative from each professional learning group met once a month with the other group representatives to discuss, share and reflect on the learning of their group. Each of these meetings was recorded for re-listening to check understandings supported by the notes taken. The two research mentors in the first phase and one research mentor in the second phase also attended these monthly meetings and were involved in the feedback. The forums and written reports also provided opportunities for evaluation of both projects. In the first phase, all those involved in the project met together twice in a larger forum. This offered a venue to not only discuss, reflect and share learning but also contributed to the evaluation of the project both verbally and in written questionnaires. In the second phase, an end-of-year forum also provided an opportunity for learning and evaluation. In this forum, all the collaborative learning groups presented their projects and findings to a wider audience including other inservice teacher educators, teacher educators from the wider institution and sector 51

MCGEE

group members. This opportunity was also used for written group evaluations of the second phase. Therefore, this variety of evaluative methods resulted in all inservice teacher educators and research mentors contributing to the evaluation of both process and project. FINDINGS: SUCCESSFUL FEATURES

Rogoff ’s (1998) socio-cultural perspective with three interlocking planes forms a useful framework to analyse and discuss the findings from the institution’s projects in 2007 and 2008. Rogoff ’s foci on the three planes – personal (individual), interpersonal (group) and community or institution – involves concentrating on one plane at a time but still understanding that all three planes are interlinked and inseparable. These three planes are also relevant to use for this discussion of the findings as they reflect O’Neill’s (1997) three contexts for managing and organising professional development – at the individual, group and whole institution levels. Therefore, as a means of description the discussion will focus on one level at a time but it must still be clearly recognised that in this professional learning process all three planes are interlocking. Through the evaluative process, successful features of building collaborative professional learning within an organisation were identified, as well as challenges and tensions. Despite the wide-ranging contexts and questions explored by the different groups over the two years of the project, a number of common aspects emerged as successful features for building professional learning. Firstly, at a personal (individual) level these were identified as legitimising reflection, inquiry learning and evidence-based learning. Secondly, at an interpersonal (group) level this was primarily identified as working collaboratively. Thirdly, at an institutional (organisational) level these were identified as changes to the organisational structure and systems, and building capacity to support professional learning. Level 1 – Personal Opportunities Legitimising reflection Given that reflection was built into the methodology of the first phase of the project and was inherent in the action inquiry framework of the second phase, it was not surprising that reflection was identified as a significant successful feature of the project. This finding supports the wealth of literature affirming the value of reflective practice, such as Senese (2007) who concluded, “what some may see as a luxury is actually vital to continuous professional improvement” (p. 58). Our analysis showed that it was not just reflection that was important but legitimising and valuing reflection. Many of the inservice teacher educators spoke of reflection as something they had wanted to put time into, but, for a variety of reasons, had not. They acknowledged that their participation in the projects had legitimised reflection and this influenced their attitude to reflection:

52

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

I knew that reflection was something I needed to do but I never seemed to have the time…. Being given the time for reflection [in the project]…has made a huge difference…now I see it is a legitimate part of our work…reflection time is valuable time. One of the factors that influenced the effectiveness of reflection for inservice teacher educators was repeatedly listening to audio and video-recorded conversations with teachers, and with other inservice teacher educators. One inservice teacher educator stated, “I found that I learnt more about what was being said with each subsequent listening”. Another found that repeatedly listening to teacher and inservice teacher educator conversations enabled her to identify misunderstandings and misinterpretations, gain insights into her practice and to “think about other things I could have said”. Inquiry learning The importance of establishing an inquiry framework for collaborative professional learning was highlighted by the project, particularly the second phase with a clear action inquiry rationale and process for professional learning. The two most successful features were that inquiry learning was based in practice and inservice teacher educators were modelling the inquiry learning they expected of teachers. Firstly, relevance and ownership of the professional learning were important features of both phases of the project as the learning was in context and had a practical focus. This enabled inservice teacher educators to value the professional learning as it was not seen as separate from their everyday work. For example, during the evaluations at the end of the second phase, one inservice teacher educator commented positively that the professional learning was “not a huge add-on to what we already do in our work”. Another inservice teacher educator confirmed this: One of the most important decisions we made was to give priority to this inquiry into our practice and make it part of how we did our work. Secondly, through being involved in their own inquiry, inservice teacher educators felt they were modelling best practice. Many inservice teacher educators felt that as teachers were being asked to see teaching as inquiry (Ministry of Education, 2007b) they should also be doing the same with their professional learning and practice. One inservice teacher educator said we should be “walking the talk – doing what we expect of teachers”. This successful aspect was only evident in the second phase after the action inquiry framework and structure had been introduced. Some inservice teacher educators said they now saw themselves as “deliberate learners” and felt they had given themselves “permission to be learners”. Another inservice teacher educator noted a further benefit was that the relationship with his teachers had improved as they now saw him as a learner with them: We are all learners…I am not worried anymore if I don’t know the answer – this is a big shift for me.

53

MCGEE

Evidence-based learning The focus on evidence-based professional learning was seen as an important feature of the project, particularly the second phase which stressed the use of evidencebased decision making. Robinson and Lai (2006) confirm evidence-based inquiry as essential for improving practice. Inservice teacher educators’ comments about the power of evidence included, “seeing is believing” and “I had surprises from evidence which go against my expectations and assumptions”. One example of the importance of evidence for building successful professional learning was an inservice teacher educator reflecting on her practice of giving feedback to teachers after observations. Prior to the project her assumption was that the type of feedback she had been giving to teachers was useful for their learning. Through collecting evidence of her facilitation skills she could now confirm the success of the feedback. She clearly acknowledged the value of having evidence, rather than assumptions, for her own confidence and affirmation of her practice: I don’t know why I was surprised…this was something I should have already known…well, I did know, but now I really know… I’d always seen [feedback] as important but I really see it now. Level 2 – Interpersonal Successes The personal and interpersonal level successes from the project were closely interwoven. However, an obviously interpersonal aspect which emerged as a great opportunity for inservice teacher educators was around collaborative learning. Collaborative learning The collaborative nature of learning was part of the design and rationale of both phases of the project and all inservice teacher educators talked about the positive impact of working in collaborative groups with a shared goal. This positive feature is supported by a great deal of evidence which highlights the importance of creating collaborative cultures of inquiry (Baldwin, 2008; Reid, 2004; Stoll et al., 2003; Timperley et al., 2007). In both phases of the project, inservice teacher educators were highly positive about collaborative learning, commenting on the value of “sharing experiences”, “collegial relationships”, “increased motivation”, and “challenging thinking and practice”. Another successful feature of supporting collaborative professional learning in the organisation was the building of relationships and negotiating ways of working in the groups. This aspect of the collaborative professional learning had not been successful for all groups in the first phase, as some individuals had dominated and some groups lacked structure. However, in the second phase the negotiation and relationship building proved to be more successful as it was a more deliberate part of the action inquiry framework. Developing good relationships, trust and feeling safe were factors mentioned for successful collaboration and learning in the second phase evaluations. This was seen as a particularly important aspect of the collaborative process, as individual inservice teacher educator practice would be questioned by others in their group. The two comments below confirm this: 54

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

We have built our relationships to develop trust and make it okay to question in a safe environment. Relational connectedness with people is critical for successful professional learning. Level 3 – Organisational Successes On Rogoff ’s (1998) third plane, there were a number of factors which supported the process of building successful collaborative professional learning for inservice teacher educators. It is clear from the work of Argyris and Schön (1974) and Robinson (2001) that the circumstances in an organisation are critical in professional learning. In the second phase of the project there were two major changes at a structural level. These were changes made to organisational structures and systems, and building capacity to support professional learning within the organisation. Changes to the organisational structures and systems In the second phase, the value of and need for effective inservice teacher educator professional learning was signalled more clearly in the strategic goals of the organisation. This led to some changes in the organisation’s structures and systems to support and facilitate professional learning. The two main changes were in the time and opportunities for professional learning and the support and resources provided by the management team. Time and opportunities consisted of specific days and times being established and designated to professional learning in 2008. As previously mentioned, sitespecific professional learning days were timetabled for days when all inservice teacher educators were expected to be on site and not in schools. This established a number of timetabled opportunities to work in collaborative groups and also share learning with others. Feedback from collaborative professional learning groups indicated this was a vital feature in the ability of groups to meet. In addition, in Phase 2 the sharing forums on professional learning days and the project sharing day at the end of the year were valuable opportunities. Many inservice teacher educators valued these extra opportunities for the sharing of learning and practice. For example, one group’s written feedback after the sharing day was: We have appreciated hearing from other project teams within [the institution]…and we have picked up ideas from them and we are adapting these to our own work. The management team committed greater support and resources to facilitate professional learning in Phase 2. At every management meeting the project was included on the agenda, which underscored the importance of professional learning to the organisation. Furthermore, inservice teacher educator professional development was included in the induction process for new inservice teacher educators. In addition, the institution developed a professional learning booklet for all inservice teacher educators, which again underlined the value of professional learning to the organisation. Poskitt (2008) stressed the importance of this kind of deliberate 55

MCGEE

planning and strategy to implement and build in professional development. Feedback from inservice teacher educators showed these organisational changes were seen as valuable and one group saw this as an “affirmation of practice”. Building capacity to support professional learning Building capacity in an organisation is one of Fullan’s (2007) main drivers for change. Three successful features of the project were building leaders of professional learning, developing an evaluative process and growing research skills. These features facilitated professional learning by building greater capacity and capability within the organisation. The importance of building quality leadership of professional learning is widely recognised. The project created leadership roles and helped to build quality leadership of professional learning. In the first phase the leadership was primarily developed through a number of individuals such as the regional facilitators, project directors and research mentors. According to inservice teacher educator feedback, a successful change in the second phase was the widening of the leadership capacity by encouraging more shared, distributed leadership roles. In Phase 2, over half of the inservice teacher educators in the collaborative professional learning groups shared leadership roles in the evaluative group. An important process which built capacity to facilitate effective professional learning was the evaluation and feedback from both phases of the project. The evaluative processes were important, as they enabled examination and reflection of individual and group inquiry and also the changes needed by the organisation to facilitate and support professional learning. Speck and Knipe (2001) supported the necessity of ongoing feedback into what is working or not working in a professional development programme. Feedback showed that the evaluative group was particularly successful as it led to a more deliberate ongoing formative evaluative process. Developing inservice teacher educator research skills was also important for building capacity and capability. According to Mohr et al. (2004, p. 23), two important elements of inquiry research are that it needs to be “intentional [and] systematic”. For research to be systematic, it requires a level of understanding and expertise by those involved in the processes. This was addressed to some extent by providing research support through research mentors in both phases of the project. However, the evaluative questionnaire completed at the end of the first phase highlighted the need for greater capacity and capability around research methodologies for evidence-based inquiry learning. Fourteen out of 20 inservice teacher educators said that they found aspects of the research process challenging. In a bid to improve this and make the research element intentional, the action inquiry framework was introduced in the second phase. In addition, the research mentor played a larger role in supporting groups with the collection and analysis of data to provide evidence for meaningful change in practice. This was provided by meeting and supporting collaborative professional learning groups more frequently on site and on professional learning days. In the second phase, many inservice teacher educators commented positively on their growth in research expertise through this support and process. One inservice teacher educator commented: “Some of us now regard ourselves as researchers for the first time”. 56

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

FINDINGS: ONGOING CHALLENGES

Despite the successful features which were identified in the institution’s projects, there were a number of challenges and tensions. Some of these challenges emerged from the immediate feedback, reflections and ongoing evaluations from individuals and groups in both phases. Other tensions only became apparent over a period of time which allowed deeper critical reflections (McGee, 2007) as we unpacked the “baggage” of our understandings. The change in the design of the second phase of the project was an attempt to address many of the challenges that were identified in the earlier phase. However, following the second phase evaluation process and feedback there were still some challenges remaining. At personal and interpersonal levels, the challenges were closely interwoven and it was not possible to separate them. The focal challenge at both these levels was related to time. At an institutional level, continued prioritisation of professional learning by the organisation and also continued capacity building to ensure sustainable, effective inservice teacher educator professional learning were both ongoing challenges. Level 1 and Level 2 – Personal and Interpersonal Challenges Issues of time For the individual inservice teacher educator and the collaborative professional learning groups, time was a challenge in a number of situations. This included the time for inservice teacher educators to work together in collaborative groups, as well as collect and analyse data gathered from and with inservice teacher educators as well as teachers. Inservice teacher educators also talked about the time needed to establish relationships and the time needed for reflection. For example, in the evaluative questionnaire completed at the end of the second phase, there were many responses related to these challenges of time for inservice teacher educators working in collaborative professional learning groups: Making time to meet as groups. More time…we actually need the time to work together. In addition, the inservice teacher educators in our project stressed that effective inquiry and changes in practice take time. Timperley et al. (2007) also noted that extended timeframes and frequent contacts between participants are required for effective professional learning. This is because the process of changing practice involves new learning. Much of the literature around change in practice also supports the principle that deep or meaningful change takes time and this is often considerably longer than anticipated (Fullan, 2007; Guskey & Sparks, 1996; Poskitt, 2008). In the second phase of the project, we found that most collaborative groups felt that after one year they were still in the middle of an ongoing inquiry process and more cycles of inquiry were needed. For example, one group noted that it had taken six months to clarify their puzzle of practice, as they had to first explore and make explicit their own beliefs and values about teaching and learning. 57

MCGEE

They did this through collecting teacher feedback, individual and group reflection, and using video and audio recordings of their practice with teachers. Only then did they feel able to refine their own puzzle of practice about how to facilitate teachers to question their teaching and learning beliefs and practices. Level 3 – Institutional Challenges Continued prioritisation of professional learning Competing demands and initiatives in an organisation can be a challenge for sustaining professional learning. The project had been prioritised in the institution but with the end of the national project and resourcing, it was an organisational challenge to maintain this priority and build on the recognised successes. At an organisational level, there were other Ministry of Education initiatives which also needed to be prioritised, such as the New Zealand curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007b) and the national literacy and numeracy standards (Ministry of Education, 2009a, 2009b). This had affected the resourcing, time and motivation needed to sustain collaborative professional learning. For example, there were competing tensions around the opportunities and time being given to other initiatives on institution-wide sharing days and site days. This had led to the organisation giving mixed messages about the priority of sustaining collaborative professional learning. Poskitt (2008) recognised that institutions need to have continued “deliberate planning and strategy” to sustain “new ways of operating whilst adapting to internal and external stimuli” (p. 21). A further ongoing challenge for the organisation to build and sustain professional learning was to prioritise and provide the resources needed for the leadership of the learning. Timperley (2008) clearly viewed active leadership of professional learning as an important factor for success. She also recognised the important roles of this leadership in developing a vision, leading the learning and organising the opportunities for professional learning. These three aspects were identified as successful features of Phase 2; however, continued prioritisation and resourcing was vital to sustain the professional learning. Continued capacity and capability building Building leadership capacity and capability is similarly a challenge for an organisation. This was particularly important in the institution as inservice teacher educators were based across three sites and leadership of the learning had to be distributed accordingly. One difficulty with building capacity and capability in the field of leadership of professional learning was the issue of staff change and turnover. For example, in the second phase of the project there were only three inservice teacher educators who had also been involved in the first phase, plus the project director and one research mentor. Poskitt (2008) recognised this challenge from her research in schools, noting that sustaining professional learning was difficult when a “sufficient proportion of staff left the school” (p. 28). A further related challenge at an institutional level was to build the capacity and capability of inservice teacher educators to evaluate and document their professional 58

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

learning process. Evaluating and documenting the professional learning were recognised as successful features of building professional learning in both phases. These were seen as important processes for professional learning to be a continuous ongoing cycle of inquiry which is able to adapt to change. Without the continued resourcing and requirements of the projects these features would be harder to sustain. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

As the quality of teacher professional learning has been recognised to be a crucial factor for teachers (Ministry of Education, 2006), it is vital that there is effective professional learning for inservice teacher educators, the teachers of teachers. Therefore, in the same way that it is essential for teachers to inquire into practice and use evidence to inform their practice, it is also crucial for inservice teacher educators. Systematic and intentional inquiry into practice is an important way for inservice teacher educators to examine their practice of teaching about teaching (Berry, 2004). The institution’s projects used an inquiry-based approach to collaborative professional learning in both phases in 2007 and 2008. The rationale, findings, feedback and evaluations from the first phase guided the changes to the rationale and design of the second phase. The major design features of the second phase included collaborative professional learning groups with a shared inquiry question following an action inquiry approach, supported by organisational structures and processes. Our project highlighted a number of key factors which supported the building of collaborative professional learning for inservice teacher educators. Critical factors for success at an individual level were legitimising reflection and following an evidence-based inquiry approach. At an interpersonal level, learning and sharing practice in collaborative groups was highly successful. At an organisational level, successful features included facilitating professional learning through structures and systems and also building capacity and capability in leadership and research skills, through a deliberate evaluative process. A number of tensions and challenges emerged. Significantly, some of these tensions were not clear until some time later, following further critical reflections and evaluations. Some remaining challenges at personal and interpersonal levels were a variety of time-related issues. At an organisational level the major tensions were based around sustainability of professional learning. Sustainability was a challenge in terms of keeping collaborative professional learning as a priority and therefore continuing to build the resources for leadership of learning, ongoing evaluation and documentation, and the organisational structures to facilitate the process. Akhavan (2005) stressed the importance of organisational support for collaborative learning and noted that, “creating and sustaining a collaborative culture takes work, effort and focus” (p. 20). In conclusion, the institution’s projects in 2007 and 2008 are important in adding to a small but growing body of knowledge about inservice teacher educator 59

MCGEE

professional learning and practice. Using Rogoff ’s (1998) socio-cultural framework for the analysis of the findings has been valuable as it has clearly revealed factors affecting the building of collaborative professional learning occur on the personal, interpersonal and organisational levels. It is interesting to note that in the first phase of our project we hadn’t fully recognised the importance of organisational level factors and had focused more on the personal and interpersonal aspects of building collaborative professional learning. The findings and evaluations from the first phase of the project revealed the difficulty of embedding effective professional learning without also developing organisational systems and structures. King and Newmann (2001) firmly supported this and stated that “organisational conditions influence the quality of learning that takes place” (p. 87). This was endorsed by Guskey (2000) who saw organisational factors as hindering efforts or preventing successes and a major reason why many professional development attempts fail. Therefore, our projects revealed that to build effective collaborative professional learning within an organisation, opportunities for learning and change in practice need to be facilitated on all three planes. This requires personal, interpersonal and organisational learning and change to be addressed simultaneously and to support each other, otherwise he gains made in one area may be negated by continuing issues in another (Sparks & Hirsch, 1997). MƗ te whiritahi, ka whakatutuki ai ngƗ pnjmanawa-Ɨ-tƗngata Together weaving the realisation of potential Author’s note The author would like to acknowledge and thank all inservice teacher educators involved in the project and particularly Anne Lawrence as the project’s co-director.

60

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

REFERENCES Akhavan, N. (2005). Creating and sustaining a collaborative culture. Leadership, May/June, 20–23. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldwin, R. (2008, November). Professional learning groups in secondary schools: What makes them effective? A paper presented as the NZARE conference, Palmerston North. Berry, A. (2004). Self-study in teaching about teaching. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1295–1332). Dordrecht: Springer. Beatty, B. (2000). Teachers leading their own professional growth: Self-directed reflection and collaboration and changes in perception of self and work in secondary school teachers. Journal of In-Service Teacher Education, 26(1), 73–97. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. UK: University of Bristol. Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2006). Teacher inquiry: What’s old is new again! BC Educational Leadership Research, 1, 44–68. Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2005). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Education Review Office. (2009). Managing professional learning and development in secondary schools. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20. Fullan, M. (2007). The meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34–38. Hellner, J. (2007, October 8). A community of learning. New Zealand Education Gazette, p. 18. King, B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: conceptual and empirical considerations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86–93. McGee, A. (2007). Critical reflections of action research used for professional development in a Middle Eastern Gulf State. Educational Action Research, 16(2), 235–250. McKenzie, P., & Santiago, P. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teacher. Paris: OECD. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development (3rd ed.). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1,html Ministry of Education. (2006). INSTEP: Enriching professional practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007a). Ki te Aǀturoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007b). The New Zealand curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1–13. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2009a). The New Zealand curriculum reading and writing standards for years 1–8. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2009b). The New Zealand curriculum mathematics standards for years 1–8. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Mohr, M., Rogers, C., Sanford, B., Nocerino, M., MacLean, M., & Clawson, S. (2004). Teacher research for better schools. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

61

MCGEE Noffke, S. (1995). Action research and democratic schooling: Problematic potentials. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical. New York: Teachers’ College Press. O’Neill, J. (1997). Stairway to heaven? Co-ordinating the professional development of school leaders. New Zealand Principal, 12(4), 22–25. Poskitt, J. (2008). Sustaining professional development: Rhetoric or reality? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 43(1), 21–35. Reid, A. (2004). Towards a culture of inquiry in DECS (Occasional Paper Series, no.1). Adelaide: South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services. Retrieved from www.decs.sa.gov. au/corporate/files/links/OP_01.pdf Robinson, V. M. (2001). Descriptive and normative research on organizational learning: Locating the contribution of Argyris and Schön. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 58–67. Robinson, V., & Lai, M. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Heatherton, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognitions as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Series ed.), D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vols. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception and language (pp. 697–744). New York: Wiley. Senese, J. (2007). Providing the necessary luxuries for teacher reflection. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 45–59). London: Routledge. Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. In T. Guskey (2000), Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2001). Why can’t we get it right? Professional development in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time): What’s in it for schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. In Educational practice series – 18. Perth, Australia: International Academy of Education. Timperley, H., Annan, B., & Robinson, V. (2006). New Zealand’s approach to school reform: Successful approaches to innovation that impact on student learning. In C. Ng & R. Renshaw (Eds.), Reforming learning: Issues, concepts and practices within the Asia-Pacific region. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

62

MARGARET LAMONT

5. AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE FOR INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATORS

INTRODUCTION

Professional learning and development for professional practitioners such as teachers and inservice teacher educators must take account of the distinctive and complex nature of their role and practice, and the implications for effective professional learning processes and contexts (Cheetham & Chivers, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Day, 2007; Loughran, 2006; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). Such learning environments should incorporate the development of: professional knowledge, theory and expertise; rational, reflective and creative thinking; flexible, innovative practice; continuous learning; commitment to lifelong learning; and the development of learning skills (Cheetham, 2005). These components reflect an emphasis on personal growth, autonomy and agency (Fraser, Kennedy, Reid & Mckinney, 2007). Where fostered through a collaborative inquiry approach to professional learning, such inquiry is rigorous, systematic, critically reflective on professional practice, evidence-based and informed by research and theory (Cordingley, 2008; Ministry of Education, 2006; Reid, 2004; Robinson, 2003). Evidence-based practice is defined in the New Zealand Schooling Strategy 2005–2010 (Ministry of Education, 2005) as: …the practice of teacher educators that is informed by evidence. Evidence means a combination of: research which links teacher educator actions and behaviours to teacher improved practice and improved student academic and social outcomes; data and information about teacher practice and student learning progress. (p. 35) Professional learning communities, as discussed by Stoll et al. (2005), can provide the context for collaborative inquiry within an inclusive group of like-minded professional practitioners who are motivated to enhance their learning by challenging and supporting each other towards a shared vision of improved practice. Engaging in such learning communities to scrutinise and analyse professional practice can be an uncomfortable process and it requires participants to offer critique and bring different perspectives in a supportive, challenging, trusting, and respectful environment (Costa & Kallick, 1993; Forde, McMahon, McPhee & Patrick, 2006; Reid, 2004). This can be facilitated by openly discussing expectations, roles and protocols for interactions (Brookfield, 2006). The extent to J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 63–88. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

LAMONT

which learning communities impact positively on individuals’ professional learning and development depends on the dynamics of the community and on the perspectives of the participants. The degree of collegiality is evident in mutual and equitable contributions that are “spontaneous…voluntary, development oriented, unscheduled and unpredictable” (Stoll, 2000, p. 10) and where there is a sense of collective responsibility, shared goals and beliefs and an enthusiastic commitment to innovation and problem solving to improve practice (Little & McLaughlin, 1993). Constructive, positive collegial learning communities, or communities of practice as defined by Wenger (1998), can provide the setting for critical reflection on practice which is conscious, planned and intentional and which is designed to examine and deconstruct professional practice, assumptions, beliefs and values (Brockbank & McGill, 2007). In this way, individuals’ espoused theories (what they think they do) and their theories in use (what they actually do) can be made explicit and considered critically with a view to improving practice and further aligning personal values and beliefs with practice (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Taylor (1996) applied the metaphor of crystallisation to reflective practice, since, like a prism, different perspectives “provide a deepened, complex, thoroughly partial understanding of the topic” (p. 44). The nature of dialogue that takes place to facilitate critical reflection on practice is reflective dialogue which engages realities, is grounded in experience, enables new ideas to emerge, and challenges assumptions and world views as discussed by Brockbank and McGill (2007). By engaging in such dialogue, critical friends help colleagues to make sense of their world by being non-judgmental and trying to understand their perspective. Other personal attributes and skills of critical friends such as knowledge, questioning, caring, listening and perseverance were explored by Baskerville and Goldblatt (2009) in the description of their developing critical friendship. Costa and Kallick (1993) added that a critical friend takes the time to fully understand the practice and context and become “an advocate for the success of that work” (cited by Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 68). Reflective dialogue facilitates the process of “reflection-on-action” (Schön, 1987). Engaging in reflective dialogue can be an uncomfortable process and can bring about feelings of dissonance in professional practitioners (Timperley et al., 2007). Boud et al. (1985, p. 11, cited in Cheetham, 2005, p. 58) argued that “… the reflective process is a complex one in which both feelings and cognition are closely related and interactive”. They cautioned that the process of reflection can precipitate loss of confidence and impact negatively on self-efficacy. Cheetham (2005) drew on Candy et al.’s (1985) work to suggest that “reflection can sometimes cause a reduction in performance because the individual’s attention is divided between executing the activity and consciously observing himself, or herself, doing it” (p. 58). Fullan (2001) referred to this as an implementation dip; a phase which can occur quite naturally in progression towards improvement of practice. Brockbank and McGill (2007) observed that learning is not an individual pursuit, and in order to engage effectively in reflective dialogue there must be acknowledgement of the impact of relationships between and among participants. The nature of these relationships is influenced by each individual’s view of the 64

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

world and their “appreciative system” (Schön, 1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1996) which impacts on “beliefs, perceptions and ways of construing and acting upon experience” (Weil & McGill, 1989, p. 247, cited by Brockbank & McGill, 2007, p. 66). Brockbank and McGill (2007) also noted that power relations within any group can be an issue, whether they are explicit or implicit in interactions and relationships. Little and McLaughlin (1993) observed that local, contextual influences such as school or departmental attitudes and approaches impacted on individuals’ and communities’ sense of self-efficacy and overall effectiveness in bringing about change. There are, therefore, a range of external and internal forces which can impact on an individual who is engaging in reflective dialogue within any learning community. This chapter will discuss the ways in which inservice teacher educators at one university worked as critical friends within a variety of professional learning communities to engage in reflective dialogue with the intention of supporting and promoting critical reflection on professional practice. BACKGROUND

The Inservice Teacher Education Practice project framed as research and development was implemented in four phases between May 2005 and December 2008. During the initial two phases work was conducted on project design and planning, and then on exploring and trialling the initial framework for professional learning and development. The third phase (July 2006 – June 2007) allowed for expansion and refinement and is the focus of this chapter (see Figure 5.1). This phase provided time for the development and implementation of a specific research focus, where each regional facilitator worked with a group of inservice teacher educators to improve their practice in the normal course of their work with teachers and schools. The national facilitators worked with the regional facilitators and researchers to implement inquiry-based research projects focused on the professional learning of inservice teacher educators, and the revised drafts of the framework and accompanying materials were developed: Towards a framework for professional practice: Inservice Teacher Education Practice (Ministry of Education, 2006).

Figure 5.1. Timeframe of activities and responsibilities within the expansion and refinement phase. 65

LAMONT

Within the university in which this case about Phase 3 is situated, the national facilitator worked with five regional facilitators who each supported a team of inservice teacher educators in exploring professional learning approaches. Thirtyone inservice teacher educators participated in the project at the university out of a total of seventy-nine staff employed in some capacity as inservice teacher educators. In order to protect the identities of the participants, the regional facilitators are referred to as Regional Facilitators 1 to 5, and all other participants are referred to as inservice teacher educators. All participants are referred to in the female gender. The nature of the practice, research activities and professional interests of the participants was complex and diverse. The aim of the research was to investigate the ways in which collaboration enhanced inservice teacher educator pedagogy and learning, and identify the ways in which inservice teacher educators worked together as critical friends to improve their practice, and in turn, improve teacher practice and student outcomes. An inquiry and evidence-based approach was adopted within a variety of professional learning communities. During this expansion and refinement phase, each inservice teacher educator was expected to conduct an iterative process of inquiry into their practice: develop an inquiry plan; gather evidence (including relevant research and theory); decide on a specific focus for inquiry into their practice; share the evidence with peers; receive and respond to feedback and reflect on their values and beliefs. There were clear expectations of all research participants, and a strict timeframe was agreed (as shown in Figure 5.1). Over this time, leadership meetings were regularly scheduled for various groups that included regional facilitators and the national facilitator, and regional facilitators and inservice teacher educators. Preparatory periods for regional facilitator and inservice teacher educators were also scheduled. During these inservice teacher educator preparatory periods, inservice teacher educators gathered and reviewed evidence of practice while the regional facilitators coordinated activities and prepared reports for the leadership meetings. Throughout the process, there were ongoing interactions and collaborative arrangements, where any number of formal and informal interactions took place. The regional facilitators were responsible for supporting the inservice teacher educators in their inquiries and conducting their team meetings. Explicit reference was made in the timeframe to preparation in order to highlight the importance of an ongoing and iterative inquiry process. Within a variety of collaborative arrangements, inservice teacher educators adopted a number of different roles and responsibilities within their professional learning context. These included leader, coach, mentor, mentee and critical friend. The national facilitator worked with the regional facilitators as a critical friend and led each of the leadership team meetings. The national facilitator had regular one-to-one meetings with the regional facilitators, coordinated the research activities, sourced relevant readings and finalised and distributed a range of appropriate tools to aid critical reflection and data capture, details of which will be provided later in this chapter.

66

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

Each regional facilitator worked as a leader within their own team, with the exception of several informal interactions across teams. Regional facilitators sometimes worked together informally as critical friends (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009) to support their role as leaders. Regional Facilitators 4 and 5 shared leadership of their team. The unique characteristics of each regional facilitator team, and the ways in which the regional facilitators worked with them to promote reflective dialogue about practice is detailed in the following section. Collaborative Arrangements Regional Facilitators 1 and 2 worked independently, each with a group of inservice teacher educators who were involved in professional development initiatives in primary and secondary schools with teachers, principals, heads of departments, management teams, whole departments and whole schools. Some research participants had previously established working and social relationships, while others had not necessarily worked with each other before. The regional facilitators led each of the scheduled team meetings. Regional Facilitator 3 worked with nine inservice teacher educators, all of whom worked with schools within the context of a long-term Ministry of Education curriculum development project. They had already established a variety of working relationships based on a number of factors. The team was free to choose the critical friends they wished to work with. Most members of the team worked in an open plan environment in close proximity to each other. They were used to working collaboratively in fluid groupings (depending on the nature of the work being undertaken). Regional Facilitator 3 led each of the scheduled team meetings. They used a modelling book in the form of a flip chart to record key points of meetings to promote inclusivity and encouragement of a shared ownership of the professional learning process. This team shared and discussed their values and beliefs and agreed on protocols for their interactions. The discussions were recorded in the modelling book, and the protocols were revisited at each team meeting. Regional Facilitator 3 prepared a timetable of when she could be available for team members, and displayed it on the notice board. Regional facilitators 4 and 5 worked with all eight members of one school of the university. All team members were used to working in a collaborative way. Most of these participants were physically located in close proximity to each other in eight separate offices occupied by one or two full-time staff, and one divided office occupied by two full-time and two part-time staff. The regional facilitators worked closely and collaboratively as critical friends and shared leadership of their team. They worked with the team to develop a shared vision of their role and expectations as inservice teacher educators reflecting on their practice. The social dynamics and power relations within each team, group or pair of critical friends were quite unique to each collaborative arrangement and the role of critical friend was played out in a variety of ways and within different contexts. This research sought to identify the ways in which working with collegial critical friends enhanced professional learning and practice. 67

LAMONT

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

The research and development project was designed to explore aspects of professional learning for inservice teacher educators by providing opportunities for systematic and sustained engagement with problems of practice. Participants adopted an inquiry approach to improving their practice, and engaged in iterative processes of learning where “deeper learning typically requires repeated cycles of engagement with learning processes, practice, and outcomes” (Timperley et al., 2007, p. 8). A case study methodology was adopted, where the cases were bounded (Creswell, 2008; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2003) by participants’ common experience of participation in the project, an awareness of the significance of research and evidencebased inquiry, and concurrent engagement in such inquiry. Each single case was characterised by each inservice teacher educator group’s context, ways of working, leadership, collaborative arrangements and experience. Participant groups within the study, therefore, offered a variety of perspectives and experiences, enhancing the potential transferability of the findings to other contexts. This balance and variety maximises the “opportunity to learn”, which is of “prime importance” (Stake, 1995, p. 6). The data took the form of transcripts and minutes from individual and focus group interviews and meetings, questionnaires, audio and video recordings of professional learning activities, and individual journal entries and reflections. All participants were recruited by invitation, and participation was voluntary. The research was not anonymous but was confidential, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Specific research questions were developed from the project theoretical framework (Ministry of Education, 2006). Main research question: How does the notion of critical friend enhance professional practice and learning? Sub-questions: 1. In what ways does the notion of critical friend support and enable inservice teacher educators to identify and evaluate particular aspects of pedagogy and practice? 2. In what ways do critical friends support the improvement of evidence-based pedagogical decision-making processes? 3. In what ways can critical friends enhance each other’s professional learning through inquiring into problems of practice? 4. In what ways are collaborative arrangements for professional learning enhanced through the notion of critical friend? A significant aspect of this research was the way in which one large group of inservice teacher educators from within the university engaged in a collaborative initiative to promote individual learning and improve practice. At the core of the initiative was the engagement in collaborative critical dialogue. Yeo (2006) posits that “in order for meaningful conversations to develop, sufficient space including physical, psychological, cognitive and cultural influences must be created” (p. 408). He highlighted the importance of collective values, cooperation and a supportive system. Hawley and Valli (1999) discussed a new paradigm of professional development 68

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

which is a “shared public process” that “promotes sustained interaction” (p. 134). They emphasised that a collaborative inquiry approach to learning is one which is most likely to lead to improvement in practice, and that schools that foster teacher learning will minimise constraints, clarify goals and priorities, and provide opportunities for collaborative learning and evaluation of learning. The following section details the ways in which Inservice Teacher Education Practice project participants were supported in such an environment. Structures and processes. The stage of the research project described in this chapter had a very tight timeframe of seven months within which all inservice teacher educators were expected to identify and collaboratively inquire into a problem of practice. In Phase 2 of the project, where the regional facilitators engaged in critical inquiry into their practice, they identified the value of collaboration and collegiality in relation to the professional learning experience (Lamont, 2009). They also found that it took some time to go through the process of identifying what they “say they do and their explanations for their action” and “what they actually do and the real reasons for their action” (Robinson & Lai, 2006, p. 99). Regional facilitators also found that the development of analysis tools was necessary to facilitate detailed critical analysis of practice with specific foci (Lamont, 2009). They embodied ideas, provided a structure and identified direction for professional learning (see Baskerville chapter in this volume for further discussion). The leadership team, therefore, acknowledged the importance of a timeframe and particular structure around the professional learning activities, so a structure and timeframe was agreed, as discussed earlier and shown in Figure 5.1. A range of digital technologies was used throughout the project. Digital video and audio were introduced to record interactions in schools and with critical friends. The recordings were used in a number of different ways: individuals viewed them and reported what they learned; some inservice teacher educators used them in stimulated recall with a colleague or client; some transcribed them to enable full detailed analysis against a framework with criteria. Some inservice teacher educators preferred to handwrite transcriptions of interactions as they occurred. Inspiration (Inspiration Software Version 8), a visual mapping tool, was introduced as a planning and organisational tool. The use of any of the digital technological tools was entirely optional, and inservice teacher educators selected appropriate tools for their purpose. Tools for Critical Reflection and Data Capture Since we were focussing on the aspect of collaborative arrangements, it was important to be able to gather relevant evidence of interactions that took place, why they took place, and the impact of critical friends on decision making and critical reflection. The leadership team designed some tools to support the professional learning activities and enable some gathering of data for analysis. The tools detailed in this section were available to all inservice teacher educators and they were encouraged to use them to support their inquiries and to submit them as data for 69

LAMONT

analysis. Individuals and teams also developed tools to be used within the context of their inquiry as analytical tools used to facilitate scrutiny, deconstruction and reconstruction of practice. These tools enabled the analysis of a variety of forms of evidence such as classroom observations, learning conversations and teacher interviews (see Baskerville chapter in this volume for further discussion). Tool 1: Values and beliefs questionnaire Atkin (1996) acknowledged that the identification of values and beliefs is a threatening and complex process. She proposed some “processes and strategies…to engage [learning communities] in a values and vision driven approach” (p. 2). Atkin’s work informed the development of a values and beliefs questionnaire (Figure 5.2) to ascertain: “what we value”; “what we believe about how people learn”; and “what we need to do to improve our practice so that it more truly reflects our values and beliefs” (Atkin, 1996, p. 7). What do I bring to teacher professional development as a facilitator? “If you don’t know yourself you can’t get anywhere” 1.

How long have I been facilitating inservice teacher professional development?

2.

What key influences (readings, experiences, and people) have brought me to where I am today?

3.

What experiences and professional learning opportunities have I had in the past to improve my practice?

4.

What beliefs about teaching and learning have I gathered on the way?

5.

How does my work environment (physical, social, emotional) impact on my practice?

6.

What is important to me when delivering professional development for teachers?

7.

What do I believe about my effectiveness as a facilitator?

8.

What assumptions do I carry about my teachers?

9.

How do I know my facilitation is effective and teachers are considering my interventions?

10. What are my beliefs about the way in which teachers engage with professional development? 11. What are my beliefs about raising student achievement? 12. What else do I wish to add?

Figure 5.2. Values and beliefs questionnaire.

Tool 2: Inquiry plan model Conducting critical inquiry into practice is not a trivial exercise and requires a systematic and rigorous approach likened to that of action research cycles (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; McNiff, 2002; Piggot-Irvine, 2005). Critical friends’ feedback, and learners’ response to feedback is an integral aspect of taking learning forward and reconstructing practice (Boud, 2000; Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 1999; Smyth, 1992; Woodward, 1998). An inquiry model (Figure 5.3) was adapted from McNiff (2002) to support inservice teacher educators in an iterative inquiry process. Within the iterative inquiry plan, inservice teacher educators were asked to consider the feedback from critical friends and indicate what action might be taken in response to the feedback. 70

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

Inquiry Plan Current statement/s or observation/s in relation to your personal values and beliefs. (Can be a general statement or a focus on a specific area.) What aspect of your practice do you wish to examine? Describe the context and methodology. (Stimulated recall; peer observation; transcripts…) What evidence of your current practice will you bring to the next meeting? (Evidence should include an artefact and some reference to theory/research which relates to the aspect of your practice.) How will you prepare the artefact for the meeting with your critical friend/s? (Transcript/video excerpt; focus questions…) What feedback did you receive from your critical friend/s? How do you plan to act on the feedback? Figure 5.3. Inquiry plan model.

Tool 3: Critical friends template In order to examine critical friend interactions more closely, a template was developed (Figure 5.4) to facilitate the explicit recall of aspects of critical friendship such as challenge, support, stimulation of learning and different perspectives (Costa & Kallick, 1993; Ministry of Education, 2006; Swaffield, 2004). Inservice teacher educators were asked to record instances of their being a critical friend to others and of colleagues acting as their critical friend. Inservice teacher educators were advised that this might support them in their journal keeping. They were asked to record the context of the critical friend interaction, for example, whether it was online or faceto-face, the number of participants, and their relationship to the critical friend. They were also asked to record whether it was a formal or informal meeting, along with the names of the participants and the focus of the meeting. Critical Friends Template Being a critical friend In what ways were you a critical friend today? What questions did you ask to help your critical friends see a different perspective today? In what ways did you support others in examining their practice today? How did you stimulate others’ thinking today? Being supported by critical friend/s In what ways did your critical friend/s support you in reflecting on your practice today? What questions were you asked that helped you see your practice from a different perspective today? How did others support you in examining your practice today? How did others stimulate your thinking today? Figure 5.4. Critical friends template. 71

LAMONT

Tool 4: Decisions template Much of the pedagogical decision making by inservice teacher educators is, due to the complex nature of their practice, implicit and tacit, as they are constantly dealing with “situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict” (Schön, 1983, p. 50). Aligning with Schön (1983), Loughran (2006) and Hoban (2002) called for the ambiguity of teaching to be made public, and stressed that the tacit knowledge of teaching needs to be made explicit, with teacher educators being “challenged about the why of practice and not just the how of practice” (Loughran, 2006, p. 9). The decisions template (Figure 5.5) was designed to assist inservice teacher educators in thinking explicitly about the pedagogical decisions they make and to inform their journal keeping. Decisions Template What decision am I reflecting upon? Can I identify the key decision-making moment/process? Do I have evidence of the moment or process? (e.g. transcript; video; audio; meeting minutes; journal entry) What key factors were considered in making the decision? Who was involved/instrumental in the decision? Figure 5.5. Decisions template.

Tool 5: Journal prompts Maintaining a rigorous journal of learning and practice requires some structure and discipline on the part of the individual (Shulman, 1998; Smyth, 1992; Woodward, 1998). Although inservice teacher educators were free to select their preferred system and format for journal keeping, some visual organiser templates and journal prompts (Figure 5.6) were developed to facilitate this process. Journal Prompts What are my beliefs around effective teacher professional development in schools? What ideas are new to me? What surprised me? What do I want to follow up on? How will this impact on my practice? What are the key challenges? What were my ‘aha’ moments? What further questions do I have? Add any other notes or references you wish. Figure 5.6. Journal prompts. 72

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

Tool 6: Inservice teacher educator questionnaire Each of the tools described above was designed to support inservice teacher educators in their evidence-based inquiry into practice. However, at the end of the inquiry, these personal records and reflections were also a source of data for the research project. A final questionnaire was designed which inservice teacher educators completed at the end of the project to gather data on the specific research sub-questions. A range of questions was devised under the headings: Ways of working with inservice teacher educators and regional facilitators; Support of national facilitator/regional facilitators; Data gathering tools; Use of technology; Critical friends; Personal learning; Values and beliefs; and project resources. Examples of questions included: – How useful were the scheduled/formal meetings with your whole team (other inservice teacher educators and your regional facilitator)? (not at all, a little, fairly useful, quite useful, very useful) Explain. – In what ways have other inservice teacher educators supported your work? – Which data gathering tools did you use to support your learning? (journal, inquiry plan, decisions reflections, critical friends reflections). – Which of the following technology tools did you use to support you in your work? (audio recording, video recording, photos, concept map). – What did you learn in your role as a critical friend? – What were the main challenges to you in your work? – What did you learn/gain from making your values and beliefs explicit? – To what extent did you make use of the materials and readings? (not at all, a little, reasonably, a lot, a great deal). ASPECTS OF CRITICAL PRACTICE

Since each of the research sub-questions was designed to elicit different aspects of critical friendship, the findings are reported against each of these aspects: identifying and evaluating aspects of pedagogy and practice; improving evidencebased pedagogical decision making; enhancing professional inquiry through inquiring into problems of practice; and enhancing collaborative arrangements for professional learning. a) Identifying and Evaluating Aspects of Pedagogy and Practice Strategies used to deconstruct the “complex pedagogical actions” (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 134) included: stimulated recall; discussion; focused and informal conversations between inservice teacher educators and regional facilitators that made links between the work of the different groups; emails; phone conversations; observations; review of audio transcripts of team meetings and the sharing of individual inquiries into practice. Inservice teacher educators were required to identify research and theory to support their inquiry into practice. The inquiry plan included reference to research and/or theory which related to the aspect of practice identified. Due to the complexity of inservice teacher educator practice and the degree of tacit knowledge and skills required, some inservice teacher educators had difficulty identifying an aspect of pedagogy and practice for inquiry. 73

LAMONT

Focus of inquiry. Sometimes critical friends helped in the identification of evidence and development of questions. One inservice teacher educator responded in the questionnaire that the critical point was listening to an audio recording of her practice within the group meeting and “selecting a part to focus on that epitomized the issue” (July 2007). An informal conversation with a critical friend outside the group meeting helped her to focus on an approach to take. Another inservice teacher educator reflected that she was supported by the regional facilitator in selecting specific evidence and devising questions for feedback from critical friends. The support took the form of questioning and encouragement to analyse practice and choose an appropriate video clip to share with the group (inservice teacher educator’s critical friends template, March 2007). The requirement for participants to identify a focus, or key questions for critical friends’ feedback, facilitated the focus on specific aspects of practice. Feedback. Within the iterative inquiry process, participants were required to consider their response to feedback from critical friends who were conscious of the need to be particularly specific. In her reflection on the role she played as a critical friend, one inservice teacher educator recorded that she stimulated thinking by “focussed talk and reflective questions around key questions” (inservice teacher educator’s critical friends reflection, March 2007). Another recorded that her critical friends supported her by “making comments, suggestions; engaging in discussion as a result of my questions” (inservice teacher educator’s critical friends template, May 2007). Another inservice teacher educator recalled observing a video of a colleague’s practice where she was specifically asked to look for evidence of questioning used to scaffold, and indications of power status within the interaction (inservice teacher educator’s critical friend’s template, April 2007). Another reported that she “tried to give general and specific feedback on aspects of the interview with a teacher” (inservice teacher educator’s critical friends template, March 2007). Multiple perspectives. When viewing video or listening to audio recordings of evidence of practice, individuals in the team were sometimes asked to focus on different perspectives or aspects of practice, for example the teacher or facilitator perspectives, questioning techniques, or the effect of body language. This effectively allowed for several sweeps of the data within a short timeframe and generated multiple perspectives for discussion. Regional Facilitator 2 devised the process shown in Figure 5.7 to review the questioning techniques used in an audio recording. Multiple perspectives from critical friends were valued by participants: [As a critical friend I learned] that it is useful for others to have an opportunity to talk about their practice and someone who will listen but also that you can provide another perspective, which might help them to approach a situation differently or helps them to see it more clearly.

74

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

Those [informal critical friend] meetings were challenging in that sometimes the critical friend provided a different perspective, a way of seeing interactions that I had understood differently, or provided other suggestions for how the situation might be approached. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) 1.

2.

3. 4.

Listen to the tape and notice the language I use: i. Is it inviting? ii. Am I giving him ‘room’ to answer my questions? Listen to the tape and notice the questions. Pair Share: i. In what ways are they concise and well worded? Offer suggestions for improvement. ii. In what ways do they provide opportunities for the principal to respond? iii. What openings are missed? Listen to the tape and notice missed opportunities for challenge. How might these be rectified? Figure 5.7. Audio recording prompts.

By collaboratively and critically reflecting on evidence of interactions, some inservice teacher educators discovered that the close and trusting relationships they enjoyed with teachers and principals did not necessarily result in a shared understanding of outcomes and responsibilities. By asking clarifying, challenging and focussed questions, critical friends brought a different perspective which facilitated the deconstruction of aspects of practice and co-construction of next steps towards improvement. Two inservice teacher educators, who had been working with a teacher and a principal with whom they had longstanding and respectful professional relationships, learned they need to state outcomes and expectations clearly, and be well planned and rigorous with their questioning. b) Improving Evidence-Based Pedagogical Decision Making Within the iterative process of inquiry into practice, inservice teacher educators were required to consider relevant evidence of improved practice (from inservice teacher educator observations of practice to teacher perceptions/evaluations to student voice and achievement data). Inservice teacher educators were required to bring evidence of practice to share with critical friends. This consisted of video, audio, typed and handwritten transcripts, teacher evaluations, journal entries, questionnaires and observation frameworks such as detailed elsewhere in this book (see Chapter 2). The inquiry plan made specific reference to the preparation of evidence and the identification of a specific focus for critical friends’ feedback. The scheduled (formal) regional facilitator/inservice teacher educator meetings set clear expectations of inservice teacher educators to bring evidence of practice to each meeting. Inservice

75

LAMONT

teacher educators had to consider which was the most appropriate format for the evidence they would bring to share with critical friends. Nature of evidence. One case in particular highlighted the importance of selecting an appropriate tool for capturing evidence. An inservice teacher educator had identified her questioning strategies as the aspect she wished to explore. She chose to video her interaction with a teacher and brought a video clip back to her team of inservice teacher educators for collaborative critical reflection. The main focus of the feedback from the team was around her use of body language and how that impacted on her interaction with the teacher; her questioning strategies became a secondary consideration. As a result, the second video clip showed that while she had adapted her use of body language, her questioning had deteriorated due to her primary focus on gesturing. She then had to accept that, for her, gesturing was an integral component of the way in which she communicates. The third piece of evidence, therefore, while still attending in a small way to gesturing, was focussing on her questioning skills. The question arises: if she had chosen an audio or a transcript of her interaction rather than video, would the process of reflection have been more focussed, smoother and more satisfying for her? The other teams elected not to use video evidence. They used audio and transcripts and found them to be satisfactory for their purpose. Experience with video indicated that it was time consuming to extract clips and more difficult to obtain transcripts. Audio was easier to edit and the files were easily e-mailed for transcription. In some instances, it was the absence of evidence that triggered further investigation. Evidence that is not apparent. One inservice teacher educator in Regional Facilitator 3’s team began her work with a group of teachers examining their values and beliefs about teaching and learning. She was struck by the evidence that was not there: explicit statements about improved student outcomes. When she looked at the synthesis of her inservice teacher educator team’s articulation of their own values and beliefs, there were also no specific references to improving student outcomes. This caused her to wonder whether she made specific reference to student outcomes in her workshop delivery. She set about working with a peer and with the teachers to capture data on her workshop conversations. It was noted that triangulation of evidence was important, including teacher voice and student achievement data. Teacher voice. One inservice teacher educator had indications from teacher evaluation questionnaires that the content of workshops was impacting on student experience. However, at this stage, there was no hard evidence of the impact on student learning. One teacher said she was making maths fun; another teacher was seeing numeracy experiences and opportunities everywhere. However, seven did not make any changes (Journal entry of inservice teacher educator in a conversation with the regional facilitator, following the evaluation from teachers of a workshop).

76

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

c) Enhancing professional inquiry through inquiring into problems of practice Inservice teacher educators were required to identify a problem of practice: a question; a dilemma; or a ‘noticing’ of what was or was not evident. They were required to produce an action plan for their inquiry into their practice. They were also asked to consider their values and beliefs and how these might align with their practice, and to ensure that the inquiry was informed by research and theory. Grounded, contextually-based inquiry. Before the first whole-team meeting of participants, a selective readings list, prepared by the regional facilitators, was distributed as background reading in preparation for the project. This helped ensure that inquiry into practice had some rigour, was grounded in theory and research, and was not simply a ‘navel gazing’ exercise. Inservice teacher educators were required to identify relevant theory and research literature to support their inquiry. One inservice teacher educator reported that critical friends supported her with “conversations, research, articles; ways to build on the rigour of my own question about my practice” (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). Inservice teacher educators valued the opportunity to take time and apply it directly to improving their practice and enhancing their learning. They valued the critical friends’ interactions based on ‘hard evidence’ which was contextually based: The informal meetings I had with [regional facilitators] were very helpful...they were able to clarify the process and guide me through the development of an inquiry process to examine my professional practice. Through the conversations I was challenged to look at my work with a magnifying glass which is what I was looking for when joining the programme. [What was most rewarding was] finding an answer to an aspect of my practice that I wondered about – it was good to get some hard evidence to realise that my gut feeling was supported by evidence. This gave me confidence in my delivery – building on participants’ responses. But my critical friend was able to challenge me to think – now what? So what? Where to next? [What I valued most was] having permission to spend some time thinking about my work and reporting to people about the actual practice rather than the outcomes. (Excerpts from Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) Regional Facilitator 1’s team focussed on the area of learning conversations, and used Annan, Lai, and Robinson’s (2003) work to provide a framework for analysing their conversations with teachers and principals. Based on the premise that particular types of discussion can impact upon educators’ beliefs and improve practice, Annan et al. outlined a ‘learning talk’ that was critical, analytical and challenging. One inservice teacher educator was working with a principal with whom she had a longstanding close working relationship which she considered to be based on honesty and trust. On reflecting on her conversation with him within the forum of her critical friends, she realised that she was allowing the principal to avoid the issues 77

LAMONT

she was trying to raise with him. She realised she needed to challenge him more and be tenacious in her line of questioning. She summarises the experience: I went into this programme wanting to know if my familiarity with the people I work with and length of time working in the field was proving to lessen my effectiveness. The opportunity to examine my practice has given me a clearer picture and reinforced my work while exposing the need to be a bit more analytical when working with people I know and like. She reported that the most rewarding aspect of the project was “examining in detail, and with support, some of the assumptions I was making about certain areas of my work”, and what she valued most about her critical friends was “their honesty and different perspectives” (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). Awareness of self. Many inservice teacher educators expressed that critical friends helped them to stand back and deconstruct their practice. One inservice teacher educator discovered that she was very critical of herself and valued the opportunity to dissect her practice from other perspectives and areas of expertise and “see myself as others see me”. Another inservice teacher educator reported that meetings with critical friends were useful in terms of making her aware of her own behaviour, gaining insights into alternative approaches and gaining “precision in personal understanding”. There was particular reference from another inservice teacher educator to critical friends’ “supportive challenge” and “questioning assumptions”. Another concluded “that there is [otherwise] a lack of opportunity to do this [be supported by a critical friend]. When it happens it can make a significant difference to self awareness and changing behaviour” (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). Although initially hesitant, participants responded that they valued examining their own personal values, beliefs and assumptions, as proposed by Atkin (1996, 1999). Values, beliefs and assumptions. Several inservice teacher educators reported that they particularly valued the detailed scrutiny and the challenging of their assumptions about their work. One inservice teacher educator asserted that the process clarified her thinking and focussed her goals. Another noted that she valued the opportunity to “focus in on my own beliefs and values”. Others reflected on a heightened awareness of the ways in which their values and beliefs shaped their practice: [From making my own values and beliefs explicit, I learned] that in general I walk my own talk, but need to be constantly revisiting my values and beliefs to ensure I am still walking the stated path. I learned that I had a range of values and beliefs that drive my behaviour and this helped me to understand why I do certain things. I took away an increased understanding of what my personal reflection is about and how I might gather evidence for this research. It isn’t enough to 78

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

say I asked this – I also need to review the answers I received and increase my understanding of why I got the answers I did... I have been thinking more about the process of What? (What are the commonalities and differences between my core beliefs and values about professional development and inschool facilitators?) So What? So what is the impact of having this information and Now What? Now what am I going to do with this information. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) Inservice teacher educators also valued what they learned through reflective dialogue with colleagues who were identifying their values and beliefs. One inservice teacher educator valued the deeper understanding of the ways in which her colleagues worked, and awareness of the “theories that underpin their values and beliefs” (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). They articulated an increased awareness of diversity among peers and of the unique world view that informs and shapes each individual’s learning and practice: I am quite different from other people on my team…it is a good feeling to examine these [values and beliefs] every so often and discover how experience has impacted on your work. [Being supported by a critical friend, I learned that] people have very different assumptions about their work and what looks the same on the outside (good practice) comes from very different positions and backgrounds and even philosophies about teaching and learning. Advisors are a diverse bunch. [It was rewarding] working with colleagues – having the opportunity to really dig into why I do what I do and is what I think I do what others think I do and is what I value in what I do, what others value too! (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) For some, ‘walking the talk’ of identifying their own values, beliefs and assumptions led to a deeper understanding of the importance of this aspect when working with teachers to bring about change: I am starting to appreciate the importance of teachers’ values and beliefs in terms of how they influence teacher practice but also how they impact on those that work to change practice. I think it is important to know what influences your own practice but also when you are working with others what informs their practice because this is what will provide the potential or resistance to change from those individuals. (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) The experience of making values and beliefs explicit and aligning them with practice was reported by inservice teacher educators to be both rewarding and challenging. Challenge. The most common aspects that participants identified as being key components of their project experience were those of challenging others and being challenged. One reflected that her critical friend supported her by “not allowing me 79

LAMONT

to sidestep”. Several reported that they valued critical friends being supportive, challenging, questioning, affirming and informative. Another inservice teacher educator reflected that she learned “the difference between being an active listener and asking the searching questions that encourage/force greater reflection”. Others were confronted with issues of their espoused theory and theory in use being poorly aligned, and articulated the discomfort of exposing practice, values and beliefs to be scrutinised by peers: [I was challenged] because I was not sure I was doing the “right” thing in school. I tended to become very defensive when my practice was challenged. Working with critical friends helped me to become more confident. The meetings were challenging because they forced me to confront issues within my own practice and that was a bit uncomfortable ‘exposing’ yourself to the scrutiny of others. …also personally challenging to listen to the transcripts and feel there is a long way to go. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) Impact on practice and learning. This research project focused primarily on the process of professional learning and the ways in which critical friends impacted on that process. It does not document the learning that took place and the ways in which individuals enhanced their practice. However, when inservice teacher educators were asked to reflect on and articulate their learning, they identify the importance of critically reflecting on practice which is evidence-based, and the need to be challenging and analytical: As a facilitator in the area of leadership and management I will more often model leadership strategies for principals and be a little more challenging and analytical in my discussions. That if I want change; my first response is to look at what I am doing and what I can do differently. To double check that what I think I am saying is what is being heard, that what I think I am doing is explicit and not implicit and that I explore further what it is I actually mean when I use educational catchphrases [I] have started to use this model with three networks of teachers and supporting them as they develop reflective projects. Evidential focus in everything I do. [I have learned] the power of the right question. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007)

80

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

d) Enhancing Collaborative Arrangements for Professional Learning Inservice teacher educators were required to reflect on formal and informal interactions with critical friends and pedagogical decisions that were influenced or supported by critical friends. They were also asked to consider the feedback from critical friends and indicate what action might be taken in response to the feedback. All aspects of the inservice teacher educators’ collaborative inquiry into practice took place within a very structured framework and timeframe of activities. Structures and processes. It was evident from the positive responses that inservice teacher educators gained a great deal from the experience of reflecting on their practice in this environment. Many of them reported that the data capture tools were useful in supporting their learning. The clear structure, timeframe and expectations ensured all participants were scaffolded in the process of inquiry, and were also instrumental in providing a common vision or goal for the subsequent professional learning communities: Guidance, organisation, structure with deadlines at all times kept the focus on the work and the brief of the project. (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire July 2007) Providing a base of readings prior to the implementation phase also helped to inform inservice teacher educators of the inquiry and evidence-based approach as well as providing some possibilities for focussing on aspects of practice. The process of mapping activities onto a concept diagram framework scaffolded the national facilitator/regional facilitator team’s thinking and clarified the research process. Some inservice teacher educators used visual mapping software (Inspiration Software Inc.) to document their learning journey. This was helpful as it provided an overall visual diagram of the process, with embedded layers of supporting information. The format of the scheduled meetings in Regional Facilitator 3’s team was reported to be very effective. The use of the modelling book and principles of distributed leadership within the team was inclusive and engaging. However, inservice teacher educators reported that meaningful critical friend interactions occurred more frequently in smaller ad hoc meetings than in the larger group. The complexity of practice and diversity of inservice teacher educators at this university often resulted in silos of practice, where individuals can feel quite isolated and insecure. The project provided a common focus for diverse individuals to work together, and for members of curriculum area teams to work together in different ways. Evidence-based inquiry into practice gave rise to a cross-curricular/ cross-disciplined variety of ad hoc professional learning communities. Individuals felt enriched by having the opportunity to explore and discuss aspects of their practice within various critical friends’ forums. Involvement in the project provided a common goal and focus for “interactive professionalism” (Ministry of Education, 2006, pp. 59–66), focussed around improving practice.

81

LAMONT

During the project, there was clear evidence of a shared vision and a culture of inquiry (Reid, 2004) within the various learning communities: [I valued] the open dialogue and the fact that we knew the purpose of the project meant that there was never a sense of frustration. …the process actually helped to build trust and to develop professional relationships that otherwise would not have happened. The project gave permission to follow up on situations that otherwise might have been ignored. [I valued] being given time to talk with each other, for once the talking time was valued. There is a lack of opportunity to do this [have discourse with critical friends]. When it happens it can make a significant difference to self awareness and changing behaviour. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) Inservice teacher educators used a range of strategies and activities within the inquiry process, such as observation, modelling, mentoring, coaching, team teaching, peer review, and sharing research literature. Activities. One inservice teacher educator valued the modelling of practice by her peers through the stimulated recall of video evidence, while another appreciated her regional facilitator modelling “the open dialogue that made meeting with critical friends productive”. Yet another observes that “it’s about thinking how you can support people. That can be peer reviewing their work, taking the time to have a conversation, saying thank you, noticing research articles that would be beneficial to others”. One inservice teacher educator intended to take the collaborative learning model fostered by the project into other areas of her work (Inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). Professional relationships were sown and nurtured within the environment of collaborative inquiry. Learning relationships. Although inservice teacher educators were used to working with peers in some capacity, the common goals of the project and the shared responsibility meant that participants engaged in a range of professional relationships and interactions which may not previously have been explored. One inservice teacher educator articulated that she “found it a collegial way of working in an organisation that can [otherwise] be quite isolating” and that the process “helped [her] build relationships with others”. Others valued the collegial nature of the process: [I valued] working with people that I don’t usually work with…being able to ask for support and knowing that it is there. We are all on the same track.

82

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

[I valued] co-generating dialogue about what matters most in our practice – increased student outcomes for all students. [I valued] being given time to talk with each other, for once the talking time was valued. (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007) The professional relationships that evolved were based on a variety of factors impacting on the inservice teacher educators’ ways of working. Critical friends’ collaboration. Participants valued the positive approach, the support, the challenges, and the feedback they experienced with critical friends. Although some teams self-selected groups of critical friends who they identified as most suitable to work together, mostly inservice teacher educators worked with those they had easy access to, either through working in close proximity or through working together. Regional Facilitator 3’s team initially self-selected the groupings of critical friends. These ranged from pairs to a group of four. The choices were largely practical in that the individuals in the groups shared common work, and therefore naturally formed small communities of practice. What eventuated was that these initial groupings were not maintained, largely because of the multi-faceted nature of inservice teacher educator work, the timeframe, and the problem of being able to schedule regular meetings where all participants were available. The practice of the critical friend continued on an ad hoc basis with conversations relating to individual inquiry happening between people as they worked together off-site or when they were working within the communal open-plan working space. Although Regional Facilitator 2’s group began with the intention of particular groupings of critical friends, they also found that they seized opportunities for professional interactions as they arose. The informal interactions within this team, however, were almost all with the regional facilitator acting as critical friend to each individual, rather than inservice teacher educators identifying each other as critical friends. The regional facilitators maintained close relationships with each other while they shared the common purpose of leading their teams through the inquiry process. Ad hoc professional conversations were taking place frequently, and ‘collegial’ as opposed to ‘congenial’ relationships developed which were voluntary and spontaneous, with a shared goal and vision of enhancing learning and improving practice (Baskerville & Goldblatt, 2009; Little & McLaughlin, 1993). This collegial environment seemed to offer a safe forum for deprivatising practice and making values and beliefs explicit. Support, affirmation and trust. The process of inquiring into practice in a collaborative way with critical friends was found in most cases to be safe, supportive, encouraging, and rewarding. One inservice teacher educator reported the group sessions as being encouraging, helpful, and constructive in improving 83

LAMONT

practice and said she “felt positive about the sessions”. Another inservice teacher educator found one of the most rewarding aspects was “being listened to and becoming more aware of the way I behave when working with others; being able to support a colleague to reflect in a structured safe manner.” Some of the informal interactions among critical friends took place off-site, where colleagues were working together and where common issues were explored. It was noted that the process of sharing concerns with others could “help you to see different ways of doing things or it can affirm that you are doing things OK” (Excerpts from inservice teacher educator questionnaire, July 2007). There were also several references to inservice teacher educators being encouraging, positive and trustworthy. In the case of one inservice teacher educator, her experience and disappointment with her performance illustrated the ‘downside’ of reflection: the experience of critically reflecting on her practice impacted negatively on her sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy. In order to progress through the “implementation dip” (Fullan, 2001), the inservice teacher educator continued to focus on improving her practice by being encouraged and reassured by her critical friend in a supportive, professional and trusting environment. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

The multi-faceted nature of the practice of inservice teacher educators at this university meant that they worked within a variety of teams to deliver inservice and preservice teacher education, or to complete personal research or study. The notion of collaboration therefore was a familiar one. However, inservice teacher educators reported that the opportunity to work closely and critically with peers to examine their own practice within meaningful contexts was of particular value. This process was described by Regional Facilitator 3: Inservice teacher educators created their own research journey through working with a large team, all involved in a common curriculum area. These processes can be described through two metaphors. The first of a wheel with radials projecting from a central core illustrates each individual’s research and reflective practice. The art of teaching was viewed as a creative process. The creative process when shared in a common investigative approach exemplifies the principles of social constructivism (Wenger, 1998). … We felt we had a challenge and an opportunity to interpret the ‘brief ’ while using what we know about presentation, what we know about kids and what we know about how we learn best. We are having fun… The process was viewed as the metaphor of layering overhead transparencies. Beginning with the initial task, each exploration finding was embellished and refined by placing it over the work of others. (Regional Facilitator 3’s contribution to final research report) The common goal of improving practice through evidence-based inquiry precipitated the formation of a variety of learning communities based on trust, respect and support. 84

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

It is worth noting, however, that although these qualities were reported in informal and formal meetings, participants identified challenge as one of the aspects they valued most within their interactions. It is interesting to note that the two teams who did not normally work together (teams of regional facilitators 1 and 2) reported that their critical friends’ interactions took place within the scheduled (formal) meetings, whereas the other two teams (those of regional facilitators 3 and 4/5) reported numerous informal interactions which impacted upon their decisions and actions. It would be interesting to look more closely at factors affecting the nature and impact of interactions. The requirement for inservice teacher educators to be explicit about values and beliefs was initially regarded with suspicion when it was introduced to the whole inservice teacher educator staff in 2006. Within the expansion and refinement phase of the project, it was an expectation that personal values and beliefs were articulated. Some participants shared values and beliefs as a group, while others considered them individually. Participants reported that the raising of selfawareness and awareness of other perspectives and philosophies were the things they valued in identifying their values and beliefs. The structure and clear expectations of the project played an important part in setting the scene for the formal and informal professional learning communities to interact. It would be interesting to delve a little more into the structure and leadership of the formal meetings to identify what structures, processes, strategies and outcomes were valued and found to be particularly effective in these forums. Data capture using digital media, audio and transcripts were found to be most valuable to share with the group, while video was used very effectively in the critical friends’ one-to-one sessions. With both audio and video, there are implications with regard to editing and costs of transcription. Editing is not problematic as long as relevant software is available and some training provided. Transcription is a service that needs to be provided in a timely and effective manner if audio is to be used to its full potential. Equity of access and funding for equipment and transcription services are key considerations if inservice teacher educators are to benefit from the use of these tools to enhance their learning and improve practice. Most inservice teacher educators reported that it was very difficult to conduct an in-depth inquiry into their practice in such a short timeframe. The nature of the inquiry process is iterative, and time did not allow for many iterations. Although inservice teacher educators valued the time allowed by the project, finding time to prepare evidence and meet with critical friends was still a challenge for most. While inservice teacher educator practice may be shown over time to be associated with improved student outcomes, gaining evidence of this was not generally possible within the timeframe. Professional learning for experienced professional practitioners is very personalised and often informal (Cheetham, 2005). This research and development project has contributed to individuals’ learning by supporting and promoting some 85

LAMONT

of the ‘pointers’ given by Cheetham and Chivers (2001) including: readiness for learning; seeking feedback; learning from others; using cognitive strategies; seeking challenges; being positive; taking time to reflect; sharing experiences with others; and being self-aware. The project experience has allowed various communities of critical friends to inquire into their own practice and interact with enthusiasm, support, challenge, trust and respect. A sense of collegiality has been affirmed and supported, and participants have begun to critically reflect on their practice in the light of hard evidence, including relevant literature and their personal philosophies of teaching and learning.

86

AN ENVIRONMENT OF COLLEGIAL REFLECTIVE DIALOGUE

REFERENCES Annan, B., Lai, M. K., & Robinson, V. (2003). Teacher talk to improve teaching practices. NZCER SET: Research Information for Teachers, (1). Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atkin, J. (1996). From values and beliefs about learning to principles and practice. Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria, (Seminar Series No. 54. Melbourne). Retrieved April 27, 2007, from www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/files/links/ValuesBeliefs.pdf Atkin, J. (1999, August). Values for a learning community: Learning to know. Paper presented at the Victorian Principals’ conference, Melbourne. Baskerville, D., & Goldblatt, H. (2009). Learning to be a critical friend: From professional difference through challenge to unguarded conversations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 205–221. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. (2006). Critical thinking materials. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www. stephenbrookfield.com/ Cheetham, G. (2005). Professions, competence and informal learning: Graham Cheetham and Geoff Chivers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (2001). How professionals learn in practice: An investigation of informal learning amongst people working in professions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(5), 248–292. Cordingley, P. (2008). Research and evidence-informed practice: Focussing on practice and practitioners. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 37–52. Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173. Day, C. (Ed.). (2007). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Forde, C., McMahon, M., McPhee, A. D., & Patrick, F. (2006). Professional development, reflection and enquiry. London: SAGE. Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & Mckinney, S. (2007). Teachers’ continuing professional development: Contested concepts, understandings and models. Journal of In-service Education, 33(2), 153–169. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Lamont, M. (2009). Enhancing professional learning for the improvement of practice of inservice teacher educators: Professional learning for inservice teacher educators. The International Journal of Learning, 16(16), 431–444. Little, J., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press.

87

LAMONT Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new action researchers. Retrieved August, 2004, from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Education. (2005). Making a bigger difference for all students: Schooling strategy 2005 – 2010. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz Ministry of Education. (2006). Towards a framework for professional practice: Inservice Teacher Education Practice. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/instep Piggot-Irvine, E. (2005). Just reviewing appraisal is not enough! Retrieved from http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/ resources/magazine/2005/nov/Reviewing%20Appraisal.htm Reid, A. (2004). Towards a culture of inquiry in DECS. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from www.decs.sa. gov.au/corporate/files/links/OP_01.pdf Robinson, V. M. J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: A professional necessity? SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 27–29. Robinson, V. M. J., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schön , D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. (1998). Teacher portfolios: A theoretical activity. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the New Teacher professionalism (pp. 23–37). New York: Teachers College Press. Smyth, J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American Research Journal, 29(2), 267–300. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: SAGE. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stoll, L. (2000). School culture. NZCER SET: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 9–14. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., et al. (2005). What is a professional learning community? A summary. Professional learning communities: Source materials for school leaders and other leaders of professional learning. United Kingdom: National College for School Leadership. Swaffield, S. (2004, January). Exploring critical friendship through leadership for learning. Paper presented at the 17th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Rotterdam. Taylor, P. (1996). Researching drama and arts education paradigms and possibilities. London: Falmer Press. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Woodward, H. (1998). Reflective journals and portfolios: Learning through assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 415–423. Yeo, R. K. (2006). Learning institution to learning organisation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(5), 396–419. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

88

RONNIE DAVEY, VINCE HAM, MEL STOPFORD, SUSAN CALENDER AND JOCELYN MACKAY

6. MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION

Traditionally, those who provided professional development to teachers were considered to be trainers. Now, their roles have broadened immensely. …they have to be facilitators, assessors, resource brokers, mediators of learning, designers, and coaches, in addition to being trainers when appropriate. Practitioners of professional development, often teachers themselves, have a new and wider variety of practices to choose from in meeting the challenging learning needs of educators... (Loucks-Horsley, 1996, n.p.) Mentoring colleagues in the processes of critically reflective practice is becoming one of the main functions of inservice teacher education. In many jurisdictions, inservice teacher educators are being more often charged with the task of facilitating or mentoring their professional peers in practitioner (self-)inquiries into their own practices than with the tasks of delivering skill development courses or disseminating the latest curriculum or policy information. As a result, the knowledge base required for inservice teacher education is changing. It is becoming characterised less as a current knowledge of national policy, curriculum, or even pedagogy, and more as a knowledge of the principles and practice of reflection and reflective practice, and of how these may empower teachers to improve their own classroom practices. Inservice teacher educators are telling or informing less, and mentoring or facilitating more. There is some broad consensus in the literature on reflection, critical reflection, and (self-)reflective practice around what critical reflection is, conceptually. Most of that literature recognises that reflective practice involves more than simply thinking about practice (Brookfield, 1995; Schön, 1983), and more than teachers or teacher educators changing practice in isolation from each other (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007). Ideally it is reflexive and it is challenging. It involves a collective investigation of tacit professional assumptions and a willingness to challenge them (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Wenger, 1998). And ideally too, it is evidence-based, at least to the extent that professional reflection and learning is founded on a planned investigation of what we do and on data gathered intentionally for the purpose (Timperley & Parr, 2004). Beyond this, however, there is rather less agreement on what critical reflection might look like as a set of empirical indicators in our day-today practice, and even less around what might be the most effective methods that

J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 89–115. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

DAVEY ET AL.

teacher educators can use to develop or promote it in themselves and in their teacher colleagues. This chapter describes three professional learning investigations conducted by groups of experienced New Zealand teacher educators that specifically addressed these latter issues: what does critically reflective practice actually look like, either in our own practices as teacher educators or in the practices of the teachers with whom we work; and what can we do better to foster it in both ourselves and them? In the particular inquiries reported here, three research groups, each of five or six inservice teacher educators, chose a particular tool or theoretical framework from the literature on reflection and critical reflection in teaching and teacher education, and conducted a practical, evidence-based evaluation of that tool or framework as they applied it in their own practices as mentors of teachers. Their research was conducted as part of the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project, a national research and development project aimed at developing models for effective professional learning for inservice teacher educators. The specific models or tools of mentoring practice that were evaluated by each group draw on their own specific theoretical literatures, and these are outlined in the theory sections of the vignettes below. However, the inquiries all related in some way to improving the quality and impact of the mentoring conversations that the teacher educators had with teachers over the year of the study, and especially the role that language and language techniques might play in these conversations. MENTORING

In initial teacher education, especially in the USA and UK, mentoring is most often used to refer to the activity and role of in-school senior teachers inducting preservice teachers into the profession of teaching, while in business the term is closely associated with formal processes of professional advancement within a given organisation. Mentoring in this chapter refers to neither of these. It is used because its common meaning and connotations better acknowledge the mutually agreed presence of expertise in the mentor than ‘facilitator’, better acknowledge the importance of the mix of modelling and collegial dialogue involved in learning conversations than ‘coach’, and avoid possible confusion with formal job titles associated in New Zealand with ‘advisers’ and ‘consultants’. Mentoring is thus used more broadly to embrace the general notion of an experienced colleague (mentor) working with another (mentee) for the professional learning benefit of the mentee. It includes and incorporates some of the meanings in these alternative terms, but is more broadly conceived and more closely aligned with descriptors such as co-coaching, critical friendship, and the like. THE ACTION RESEARCH GROUPS

Each of the three research groups’ investigations used a formal action research methodology based on two to three observation-reflection-action cycles over a period 90

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

of up to a year. Their research was focused both on the inservice teacher educators’ collective professional learning with their research facilitator mentor over the year, and their respective practices with teachers in schools. Data were collected from a number of professional learning conversations or workshops, and analysed either collectively or individually. For the most part, the data consisted of audio recordings or transcripts of learning conversations triangulated against the participants’ journalled reflections on those sessions. Some also analysed video recordings of these professional learning sessions, and one had access to the automatically recorded archive of all of her online community’s discussions. The analysis of each tool reported in the following vignettes, therefore, draws on data from both the workshops the inservice teacher educators had with their inservice teacher educator colleagues in the research teams, and the professional development sessions that respective inservice teacher educators had with teachers as part of their normal practice in schools. A distinguishing characteristic of the broader inservice teacher educator group was its diversity. The coordinators of the three research groups worked in rather different teacher educator roles: one was a university-based adviser in information and communication technology (ICT) education, one was a leadership facilitator working for a private professional development consultancy company, and one was a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour employed by a group of schools. The colleagues they worked with included, respectively, fellow advisers, lead teachers from schools, and fellow Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour. The thing that connected the three collective inquiries, therefore, was a common focus on developing reflective practice as a goal of inservice teacher professional learning, while the things that differentiated them were the different professional learning tools that they evaluated, and the different content specialisms of the teacher educators and teachers involved. VIGNETTE 1 – LEAD TEACHERS AND SUBSTANTIVE DIALOGUES

If values are the heart of the community, communications are the pulse, bones and physiology. Most teaching groups, isolated from peers for so many years, need to learn ways of talking together. (Garmston & Wellman, 1999, p. 266) In this study, an experienced inservice teacher educator, regional facilitator, and a group of lead teachers co-opted to lead a long-term professional development for teachers in their schools, spent time investigating what an effective learning conversation might look like, and how some of the language techniques associated with substantive dialogues (Dalton & Anderson, 2007) fitted with, and contributed to, their evolving understanding of highly effective professional learning. The lead teachers took part in modelled learning conversations with the regional facilitator and then tried out these techniques when they engaged with teacher colleagues. The action inquiry questions guiding the study revolved around the usefulness and efficacy for them as inservice teacher educators of the substantive dialogue concept (Dalton & Anderson, 2007), and a number of particular language techniques associated with it. 91

DAVEY ET AL.

THE THEORY

‘Substantive dialogue’ is used by Dalton and Anderson (2007) as a catch-all term for an effective professional learning conversation. In their substantive dialogue model, a professional learning conversation is most likely to be effective when it takes the form of a genuine dialogue between colleagues, when that dialogue is learner rather than facilitator-focused, and when it addresses issues that are meaningful to both parties. The notion of substantive dialogue thus gives primacy to language techniques in the mentoring process and assumes that language is at both the front and the centre of effective facilitation practice. Above all, it assumes that words are not innocent in professional learning situations (Kotze, Myburg, Roux & Associates, 2002), and that “group talk is the central organising ingredient of shared learning” (Garmston & Wellmann, 1999, p. 25). Moreover, group talk, or any other social language act for that matter, is not necessarily facilitative of learning in and of itself; it can be, and needs to be, deliberately shaped, constructed and framed, especially by the person facilitating. It is acknowledged that group talk per se can be counterproductive. To put adults in a room without frameworks and tools for skilled interaction, and therefore practical guidelines, co-created, owned and used by staff, can make all the difference in the effectiveness of that talk as a learning experience. As Fisher and Sharp (1998) put it, “there is an enormous difference between telling others what they have to do, and inviting them to participate” (p. 21). To these ends, Dalton and Anderson (2007) developed an advocate-to-inquirer model for the conduct of learning conversations in which a range of specific language techniques is seen as more, rather than less, effective in shifting respective mentor and mentee roles along the advocate-inquirer continuum over a sequence of professional learning conversations. Specifically, a professional learning conversation between a professional learner (in our case, teachers and teacher educators undergoing professional development) and a mentor/facilitator is most likely also to be a substantive dialogue when: – the facilitator is more of an inquirer than an advocate; – the facilitator talks around 20% of the time and the teacher/learner 80% of the time; – it is assumed that the person doing the talking is the person doing the learning; – various specific (language) strategies are deliberately practised and modelled over time (such as wait time, clarifying questions, paraphrasing, listening, positive and engaged body language) to promote a shift in the mentor role from advocate to inquirer; – the outcomes of the conversations are meaningful and purposeful for both the facilitator and the teacher/learner. THE PRACTICE

As a vehicle for trialling substantive dialogue techniques, the group established a programme of regular learning conversations, which they called the in-school ‘power hours’, to run alongside the ICT focused practicums that they held in the 92

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

schools. In these scheduled learning conversation times, the school-based lead teachers implemented and investigated dialogue strategies learned during their workshops on facilitation with the regional facilitator. Interspersed with these power hours with teachers were online and face-to-face reflective sessions with the regional facilitator as their mentor, in which the lead teachers shared their experiences of the power hours, and formally reflected on the substantive dialogue model in general. The lead teachers initially assessed themselves on their facilitation language skills by formally reviewing one of their recent conversations with teachers, using an assessment rubric on substantive dialogue. The results of this analysis provided a direction and focus for their action inquiries into the language they would use in subsequent power hours. The specific language features that they chose to investigate are outlined in Figure 6.1. As can be seen, both speaking and, more especially, listening features were of particular interest in the group. The reflective analysis of their respective mentoring practices took the forms of regular contributions to an online reflection website, informal emails to the regional facilitator, occasional phone calls, and several formal face-to-face interviews with the regional facilitator, during which recordings of professional learning conversations were used as stimulated recall for reviewing their learning conversations with teachers.

Figure 6.1. Particular language features trialled.

93

DAVEY ET AL.

Enablers Providing “real” strategies. For both the regional facilitator/mentor and the lead teachers the concept of substantive dialogue and its accompanying strategies were particularly valued for their practicability and their focus on the manageable details of professional practice. As teachers new to facilitation as their role, they saw obvious value in acquiring what one called “practical ideas to implement”, and another “real strategies” that could be taken away and “tried out the next day”. There was a comforting security in the manageability of the techniques (which were seen as at least easy to try out, if not so easy to embed or make ‘natural’), and in “knowing what to do next” if conversations got problematic. A framework for understanding. The concept and strategies were also seen as providing an essential conceptual framework against which they could both measure and make sense of their experiences with teachers. Several lead teachers, for example, referred to the framework as making the processes of facilitation itself “clearer” or more foregrounded in their own thinking, as providing helpful cues for future action on their part (“I know what my next steps are”), and as providing a common language with which to discuss their experiences in analysis and reflection sessions (“[She] clarifies and probes well – a great role model”, “probing was probably more appropriate there…”). Transferability. Almost all of the lead teachers also commented that they used the techniques across their professional and personal practice, and not just in their formal professional development sessions or the power hours. Indeed, several of them did not use the power hours to trial the techniques until they had piloted them in other situations, such as with students, in staffroom morning tea conversations, or with family at home, which they saw as less formal or less high risk in terms of their credibility as facilitators. Conversations of “substance”. A fourth enabling aspect of the substantive dialogue framework and its strategies was in providing techniques by which facilitators could less obtrusively turn a learning conversation that had become distracted back to the topic at hand, and by which they could transfer the focus of the conversation away from themselves as advocates towards the teachers as inquirers. In reflections, for example, several lead teachers commented that where previously their sessions with teachers had often been hijacked by discussions on technical issues, or had turned into ‘moan’ sessions about other school issues, now they had a means by which they could more confidently redirect the conversation back towards reflection. In this regard, they felt that conversations could become more “substantial”, and “substantive”, by re-prioritising reflection as the form, and self-improvement of practice as the purpose, of the conversation. “For me”, wrote one lead teacher in her journal:

94

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

the most useful thing has been the examples of language to use. And the reinforcing of the fact that being supportive shouldn’t mean I’m the only one who ends up doing any work (that’s actually being the mug!!!!). I am beginning to feel more confident in my role and am now able to divert discussion away from the ‘moan bonding’. We still have this – people need to express how they feel openly and know they are being listened to – but now I am moving them on – past this, I hope – still lots to do here – and I’m starting by being hopefully a positive role model and not only looking for the negatives. As the saying goes – build your bridge and get over it!! Confidence and self-efficacy. The final two enablers relate to the contribution engaging in reflective dialogue with colleagues and the regional facilitator about facilitation itself had made in regard to the lead teachers’ emotional comfort in the teacher educator role. Though two of them had been lead teachers for some time, the others were newer to the role, and while some had other leadership positions in their schools, such as deputy principal or syndicate leader, others were teachers in their first position of authority in the school. None had had any professional development of substance in teacher education or specifically in facilitation, and as a result most of them initially wore the mantle of lead teacher with some discomfort and even anxiety. For this reason, the regional facilitator invested a lot of energy into modelling and building a group relationship among the lead teachers. They reported this as providing a “supportive” and “safe” base from which to venture out and experiment with the tools, and generating a feeling of both self-value and being valued by others. The substantive dialogue framework and tools were useful in this partly because of the self-awareness of how they previously interacted with the teachers, partly because of the growing self-confidence they felt in their identity as facilitators as the techniques seemed to work, and partly because of the permission the advocacyinquiry mantra gave them to not set themselves up, and to resist being set up by the teachers, as the expert or authority who knew everything about ICTs, teaching or learning. “Building [our] relationships with each other” said one of the lead teachers, “means we now have confidence to talk in front of the group... It develops a cohesive group, lots of activities that build relationships across the group, and provides a supportive environment…[in which] I feel valued.” Problems The chance to practise. The regional facilitator reported that the most problematic forms of dialogue were the telephone follow-up calls. With one lead teacher, for example, she had difficulty trying to contact them by phone and as they were not able to confer before her power hour, the power hour was cancelled because the lead teacher did not feel sufficiently confident to lead the power hour on their own without more regional facilitator help. She drew two conclusions from this incident. First, that there were some inherent difficulties with modelling some of 95

DAVEY ET AL.

the language techniques themselves in the context of a phone call. It was difficult, for example, to model wait time on a phone call, and also to probe for deeper responses. Since teachers are busy and often the calls were over a 2-minute break they had, it was not appropriate or realistic to use these occasions to model substantive dialogue in any meaningful way. The most successful observations were when the regional facilitator and lead teachers met face-to-face. The second conclusion drawn from the delays some lead teachers reported before trying out the tools in their power hours was that they needed more time and a more low-risk context to do their initial practising with the language techniques. Several of the lead teachers chose to try these out at home or in other situations before risking doing it ‘for real’ in formal power hours. Time. At one level, these and other timing issues were relatively minor and organisational. Meeting with the teachers regularly gave the regional facilitator the opportunity to model all of the language features repeatedly over time – particularly inquiry and advocacy techniques. But it took several such meetings before all the lead teachers felt confident enough to try them out in authentic situations. Growing confidence

It has all been a bit of a challenge. I am a good participant in a group but find facilitating difficult. You have modelled this beautifully. I have felt at all sessions that it’s been about our learning and reflecting on that. I am getting better at the open-ended questions where I don’t provide solutions. I’m also getting better at not being the one to sort everything out. But as my colleagues and I are all pretty determined people with strong points of view… It has been interesting sitting back and watching them. It has been reassuring for me to note that it is a common thing for [all] teachers to interrupt!! It is very challenging for a traditional ‘talker’. I have to consciously do it, and the reminders [from regional facilitator] are necessary. I am not confident here and [so] the more practice the better. Listening to myself talking will be interesting.

Moreover, across the six lead teachers, it took different lengths of time to see evidence of advocacy/inquiry techniques becoming naturally embedded into conversations, either at the lead teacher days or in the power hours. Their initial attempts with the techniques were felt by most to be “artificial”, “unnatural”, or going against their instinctive ways of interacting in such situations, and so it took some months before the techniques became embedded in each lead teacher’s personal repertoire. As the regional facilitator noted in her own journal after a later group meeting: 96

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

There was a shift from laughter at using the terms, to it being more of a natural part of the learning conversations across the group. This took time – the most significant shift has been in the more recent lead teacher meetings where the solutions/challenging questions happened with little direction from myself. It was more that they were sharing with each other, questioning and seeking clarity/paraphrasing, rather than earlier [when they shared] with me as facilitator, rather than each other. Intensity. Associated with this slow embedding was a feeling, articulated more by the regional facilitator on behalf of all of them than by lead teachers directly in their own reflections, that the workload and intensity of the conversations had increased as a subtle result of their growing awareness of the complexity of the facilitating task, and their mutual need to model or employ sets of initially un-instinctive behaviours. The model encourages quite “deliberate” and even “planned” use of the techniques. The facilitator, at least in the initial stages, needs to pre-plan the learning conversations and to invite discussion on the process as part of the process during them, all of which was felt to generate a level of intensity and selfconsciousness, until such time as the language became more natural. Certainly the regional facilitator considered this to be the case in her role as the lead teachers’ mentor in the process and her “increased sense of responsibility to be deliberate about what I was saying.” For all of them, moreover, being a (critically) reflective practitioner was ultimately empowering and confidence-building; but it was also hard work. VIGNETTE 2 – RESOURCE TEACHERS: LEARNING AND BEHAVIOUR, TEACHER-INTERACTION STYLES, THREE-LEVEL QUESTIONING AND SUBSTANTIVE DIALOGUE

In their work with teachers, Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour aim to establish common understandings, shared expectations and joint action around a student referral in collaboration with the referring teacher. In practice, however, this common understanding is not always jointly reached and the interactions with teachers can become more directive than collaborative in nature. As such, the relationship can present more in the expert-novice model rather than in the preferred collaborative partnership model, and instead of being empowering for the teacher, mentoring sessions can at times regress into a ‘rescue operation’ in which the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour ends up solving the student problem for the teacher, rather than the teacher being empowered to deal with it him/herself. In this action research group, the regional facilitator worked with a group of fellow Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour and one Specialist Class Teacher to challenge them as teacher educators to higher levels of critical thought, dialogue and self-review and to challenge how collaboratively they in turn interacted with their teachers. Using a teacher-type inventory, substantive dialogue, 97

DAVEY ET AL.

three-level questioning and similar strategies, the members of the group trialled and investigated their effectiveness in establishing a more collaborative way of interacting with teachers. How effectively, using these tools, could they build a more shared ownership with a teacher around the referral concern? THE THEORY

On becoming a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour, many teachers experience a major change in the way they have to work with others. Thomson (2004) described this as the dilemma of creating a collaborative rather than expert relationship with teachers: In a more directive expert model the interventionist finds and prescribes a pre-designed intervention that the teacher will find acceptable. In the collaborative model the interventionist works in partnership with the teacher to develop together an intervention of which the teacher will take ownership. (p. 259) In real practice, often the expectation of schools and teachers is that the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour will come in as the expert and give or suggest solutions to a referral problem. Because of this, the onus is largely on the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour to develop the relationship towards a more shared partnership. As a result, the collaborative model “requires a much higher level of skill, requiring not just technical knowledge of and competence in empirically based interventions but knowledge of how to use them strategically and skilfully. Skill and competence in communication and problem-solving are essential” (Thomson, 2004, p. 259). Frameworks and language tools such as those presented by Glickman’s (2002) teacher-types, Dalton’s (2007) substantive dialogue, Timperley’s (2001) learning conversations and Robertson’s (2005) three-level questioning, provided interaction frameworks and continuums that could be used to empower this teacher’s sense of ownership of problem issues, while at the same time providing the teacher and the teacher educator with a set of sub-skills to improve communication and to enhance critical reflection on practice for both parties. Glickman (2002) proposes that there are four major types of teachers that teacher educators interact with, defined according to their commitment and capacity to engage in higher order abstract thinking, and in her Professional Learning Online Tool resource for schools, Joan Dalton outlines a number of language sentence starter tools which might accompany Glickman’s teacher-type framework. The combined model trialled in this group’s studies is outlined in the Table 6.1.

98

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Table 6.1. Combined Glickman teacher-type and Dalton substantive dialogue framework Teacher type

Characteristics

Styles of interaction

Language tools example

Low-level commitment Low-level abstraction

Directive; give feedback; specify alternative; no/little teacher choice or decision making.

“I am concerned about ...because”

Type 2

High-level commitment Low level abstraction

Guided approach; teacher chooses amongst specific concrete alternatives mentor has offered.

“You could try…how would you go about using that idea?”

Type 3

Low-level commitment High-level abstraction

Collaborative approach; teacher and mentor share as equals to arrive at an agreed plan.

“What ideas do we each have?”

Type 4

High-level commitment High-level abstraction

Self-directed approach; teacher is self-directed; teacher/mentor work collaboratively.

“What will success look like for us?”

Type 1

THE PRACTICE

Gathering the Evidence The particular focus of each inservice teacher educator’s action research was to identify the aspects of their learning conversations (regional facilitator with the inservice teacher educators, and inservice teacher educators with their teachers) that challenged them into thinking more deeply about the way they work collaboratively with teachers, and about the role that a combined GlickmanDalton framework (in particular) might have played in that thinking.

99

DAVEY ET AL.

Classification and ‘pigeon-holing’

To get a teacher to ‘buy in’ I need to take a co-constructivist approach, get involved in discourse that challenges me and the teacher. Further to this, with Glickman’s approach [to] classifying the type of teacher, I think what is missing is the transparency – if I classify and treat them accordingly, I am not allowing for diversity . . . I would prefer to be open and offer options in how we could work in the collaborative framework – e.g., “I can tell you what to do; (or) I can offer choices to explore; we can explore together; you can use our time together as a sounding out session. By asking me to categorise teachers – I know I was uncomfortable about this and it is because I feel it is contrary to the collaborative relationship – but in saying that the awareness of different levels (in teachers’ as well and children) can mean a change in my approach. This research group gathered data in the forms of audio recordings of some learning conversations (inservice teacher educators with teachers and the regional facilitator with inservice teacher educators), reflective journal entries made about the learning conversations and their work with teachers, and the results of Glickman Teacher-Type Inventory questionnaires completed by both inservice teacher educators and teachers. The learning conversations in which the Glickman and Dalton tools were employed were analysed to identify: – whether participants in the conversations were reflective/self-critical about their practice; – what they were reflective/self-critical about; – when they were reflective/self-critical about collaboration; and – what they considered to be problematic and enabling in the frameworks. As a group, the Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour found the particular language tools contained in the Glickman-Dalton model they tried, and the fact of having the opportunity to formally self-study in and of itself, more enabling and fostering of both their collaborative relationships with teachers and improvement in their practice as inservice teacher educators, than Glickman’s teacher typology as such. And among those language tools, the investigation of the impact of different types and forms of questioning seems to have had the greatest impact on them as teacher educators. Some inservice teacher educators exhibited an initial reticence to take the Glickman teacher categorisation at face value, saying they felt it could be seen as imposing labels and judgements onto the teachers without the necessary ownership by the teachers themselves. In this sense, the very idea of categorising the teachers according to some externally prescribed set of descriptors was in conflict with the co-construction of solutions to problems of practice inherent in the collaborative model of mentoring they were expected or hoping to adopt. For others, the typology could be unduly inflexible and too constricting to be easily implemented in the chaotic immediacy of the actual mentoring situation in school. Teachers didn’t necessarily fit neatly into the categories implied, nor did they always 100

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

act according to type, which created problems for inservice teacher educators in determining how to respond when following the formula too closely. One inservice teacher educator, along with the group of heads of departments she was dealing with, found teacher-type labels to be too judgemental and thus limiting to use with colleagues. In this, they were commenting more on the actual language used for the labels, rather than the issue of categorising teachers per se, since overall they reported that they found the teacher quadrant and continuum enabling, especially as they “left room for you to decide what type of behaviours or practices would be reflected at each level”. Changes in practice

She [inservice teacher educator] feels more confident of simply allowing the conversation to develop – initially she was worried about ensuring that she was asking the right questions. She realizes now that the context of the conversation is [more] important, and [that] with level 4 teachers, it is not for her to be directing the conversation. She now has an agenda and makes clear what she wants to achieve, but then allows the teacher to direct the conversation. This is where she has gained the most confidence. She also feels that she is now able to comfortably move between a range of teachers. Helen realized the teacher was really hurt and angry and had a lot to ‘unload.’ She immediately dropped her ‘agenda’ and stopped and said, “Yeah, well that is a concern, isn’t it? If they haven’t built empathy with them they are not going to be great socially are they?” (and went on to probe why he was killing her fish – i.e., “do you think he is tactile, wanting to touch or do you think he’s wanting to kill?”). Her reflection was, “if I had started the conversation differently, we may have got here sooner” – she realized she was arriving at the conversation with a format – a solution, and she was guiding the teacher to it – and was not letting her voice be heard – As it was, because of the fish killing incident, the teacher harboured resentments toward the child, and found it difficult to see some positives in the child at all. On the other hand, the inservice teacher educators all found value in completing the inventory questionnaires and, if nothing else, it helped provide a common language for their ongoing discussion, even debates, about their mentoring practice. Their formal reflections in sessions with the regional facilitator often referred to the type as a short cut for inter-inservice teacher educator conversations and as a form of shared language and hence understanding. More importantly, perhaps, the typology provided a mechanism and mantra which foregrounded the need for their work with teachers to begin, and end, and be constantly defined by ‘where the teachers were at’, rather than what they knew as putative experts. If nothing else, it promoted the idea that a collaborative mentoring process should be guided by contextual responsiveness. 101

DAVEY ET AL.

While the typology was felt to be somewhat challengeable in regard to its labelling of teachers per se, it was nevertheless seen as appropriate and useful as a way of labelling and categorising particular teacher (language) behaviours during learning conversations. To this end, at least two of the inservice teacher educators were able to adapt the framework for themselves, to build in the flexibility they needed and to continue using it at least as a broad guide for their mentoring actions, as opposed to a recipe. Although they found problematic areas with the Glickman tool (especially the labelling), they were experienced and flexible enough as teachers/teacher educators to make shifts in their questioning approaches and to provide the appropriate questions for the diverse contexts in which they found themselves. This tended to be a common trait with all the inservice teacher educators’ learning conversations trialling the Glickman tool. The tool, however, acted as a catalyst for their thinking about their language and interaction styles, and all said they had not explored this inservice teacher educator-to-teacher conversational relationship facet before in their practice. For that reason they found it professionally challenging, thought-provoking, and useful to modify their way of thinking. One inservice teacher educator in particular adapted the Glickman instructional leader behaviour continuum template to include a tally of the number of statements and questions used per transcript and used this as a framework for analysing her mentoring practice with teachers. When completed, this gave her an overall view of the distribution of directive, collaborative, and non-directive comments and questions and interactions she used in the interview conversation with her teacher. If the inservice teacher educators were ambivalent about the teacher-type elements of the Glickman-Dalton model, they were far from so about its other aspects, especially its concentration on the power of questioning as the main tool in a mentor’s repertoire, and the specific language strategies suggested in Dalton’s substantive dialogue model. By far the majority of the inservice teacher educators’ comments on the models as enabling related to changes it encouraged them to make in their use of questions and questioning techniques in learning conversations with teachers. Early on, the Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour identified areas where they wanted to enhance their skills. Most chose the area of language tools and questioning, and this focus remained throughout the action research cycles. One inservice teacher educator, for example, used Robertson’s (2005) three levels of questioning to help her develop a set of collaborative questions that might engage the level 3–4 teacher (which was where most of her teachers were considered to be). Some reading on reflective interviewing also brought another to conclude: Questioning! – the skill to develop for Me! … Wow, after this exciting revelation I feel the need to further develop my knowledge and understanding of questioning, as a skill/tool to aid colleagues to reflect on practice and take ownership of the direction their future actions take – a change in Praxis. …our work as Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour encompasses all our interactions with teachers – at lunch one day a teacher was relating her 102

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

story of dealing with a child which included the child being humiliated in front of the class – I was appalled, but didn’t want to over-react and embarrass her – I asked her ‘in hindsight, what would you do differently?’ This caused her to go quiet and think... More recently, she has come to me with an article that suggests that teachers shouldn’t be disciplining children as it destroys the productive relationship between teacher and child – (a third party should deal with them devoid of the emotional response!) – in all, it was a powerful question that has helped her develop new possibilities… That same inservice teacher educator also reflected in her journal that her understanding of the Glickman and Robinson models and language tools was enhanced by re-reading these approaches and trying to relate their ideas to the transcriptions of real caseload situations. She gave an example from her practice: One real life example and benefit of thinking about questioning happened very soon after the second transcribed interview with “I”. The teacher was sharing a specific teaching practice with the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour – in a maths number-properties lesson, she had used a visual chart from the [Numeracy Development Project] notes to demonstrate cross-referencing, adding to 21 using a pattern, to the target student and his group. I asked the question “How has ‘D’ managed with the abstract part of the task?” The conversation quickly developed into analysing what stage the referred student might be at, and how best to present the task to overcome the imaging difficulties he, and others in the group, were having. We were closely examining the interface of learning in a very narrow area of the curriculum. In this instance, the language tool of high order questioning kept the inquiry process at a challenging level for both parties. Thus, when Glickman’s teacher types were seen as types of likely language behaviours to respond to, rather than as types of persons to define, and when this was put alongside the question types and language strategies that the model suggested were appropriate to those language behaviours, the inservice teacher educators were more comfortable about what to do in their role as collaborative mentors, and how to respond. It allowed the necessary flexibility to respond in the moment and to feel less tied by and to a recipe. All of the inservice teacher educators who were Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour inherently aimed in their teacher interviews to enable the teacher to shift or focus on the students’ needs in order to make positive change to the referral concern (in a strength-based manner, rather than a deficit-based manner) – as has been primarily emphasised in Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour training. Reflecting on reflecting.Finally, the inservice teacher educators commented on the power of the facilitated action research process itself, and the professional learning conversations with the regional facilitator as a form of professional learning. They had been involved in little professional development that focused on them and their role as mentors of colleagues before. Several stated that in the past they had 103

DAVEY ET AL.

concentrated in their own professional learning on developing a repertoire or tool kit of strategies and resources to improve student skills/interactions, and many tools to improve their teaching skills, but had previously given little thought to their own practices, relationships and interactions with teachers, or the language which they used in their role as professional mentors to their colleagues. The inservice teacher educators came away arguing not just that their work with teachers was improved when it was more collaborative, but that their own professional learning and development as effective teacher educators was too. Reflecting on reflecting

I now see reflection can be a joint exercise with one person posing questions to the other to prompt reflection…thereby taking the conversation to a deeper level and understanding. Listening to the tape was revealing – I could hear myself interrupting and finishing sentences thereby inhibiting the conversation. I could also see how I was operating in a directive way…in one instance I knew I had a goal and with the taping I could see many missed opportunities – of exploring the issue with the teacher – because I was steering the conversation to my end! In the past I saw reflection as a solitary process, but now I see that with the right questions reflection can be a tool that enhances the collaborative process. VIGNETTE 3 – WEB 2.0 SOCIAL SOFTWARE TOOLS IN VIRTUAL MENTORING

Much of the literature and research on effective inservice teacher education makes the assumption that the facilitation of it occurs in a series of synchronous, face-toface encounters between the teacher educator and teacher(s), facilitator and professional learner(s), mentor and mentee(s). But what if the geographic separation of the group means that such synchronous face-to-face social interaction is not feasible? Research on communities of practice and learning communities suggests that the higher the levels of discourse, interaction and reflection that occur among the learners, the greater the positive effects of the learning experiences on those learners (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Murphy, 2004; Reio & Crim, 2006; Wise, Chang, Duffy & del Valle, 2004). But what accommodations or adaptations need to be made to such professional learning discourses when the learning and reflection occurs in a virtual rather than face-to-face world? And how useful are some of the emerging collaborative software tools as the medium in fostering those interactions and reflections? In this third vignette, a regional facilitator worked with five of her inservice teacher educator colleagues in an online community to trial and investigate the ways in which four specific Web 2.0 (social software) tools might be used and be useful for their own professional learning.

104

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

THE THEORY

Initially, the internet was predominantly seen as a medium where people searched for and read information, hence the name Web 1.0 or the ‘read web’. However, as the power and the sophistication of the web extended the notion of a second generation web, Web 2.0 or the ‘read-write web,’ has emerged. In Web 2.0 environments, people not only search and read, but they also speak, watch, discuss, listen and collaborate. More than an information source, now, the web is becoming “a collaborative medium, a place where we could all meet” (Richardson, 2006, p. 1). The various software tools that enable participation in this collaborative readwrite, speak-listen, watch-do-and-discuss medium are collectively known as social software. There is a growing list of such tools, including blogs, wikis, podcasts, vodcasts, video conferencing, peer-to-peer telephony networks, social bookmaking aggregators, RSS feeds, online photo and audio galleries, and so on. However, as Alexander (2006) states, the tool is only as effective as the uses people put it to, and its value only as great as the value of the things they do with it. Studies are now emerging about the professional use of such software in a variety of online learning environments, and the ways in which they might contribute (or not) to the objective of any quality online learning environment, the purpose of which is to create a cohesive educationally rich community (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). A good learning community is a dynamic, intellectually stimulating environment, “with the appropriate balance between reflection and discourse” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 26). Blogs and wikis, it is claimed, engage their readers through the inherently collaborative nature of the software by raising ideas, asking questions, placing photos and using hyperlinks. They encourage their readers to think, and to respond by stimulating interaction to posts, amendments to posts, and to generally help participants to co-construct, share and debate in professional and other learning contexts (Alexander, 2006; Richardson, 2006). In a traditional learning environment, the social presence of the community can be gauged by the interactions between learners, the cohesiveness of the group, the verbal clues, the paralinguistic cues, the fast-paced conversations, the body language, the motivations and the social equity enacted. Socially, emotionally, and educationally, face-to-face oral communication is a very rich medium. By contrast, in an online environment, where learners are geographically spread and asynchronously logging onto the community, the measurement of social presence needs to evaluate non-verbal, text-based clues that promote rich dialogue and support the learning community (Reio & Crim, 2006; Wise et al., 2004). Garrison and Anderson (2003) group these clues or indicators of engagement and reflection into two classifications: social presence and cognitive presence. They define social presence in an online community as: “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry, to project themselves socially and emotionally as ‘real’ people, through the medium of communication being used” (p. 29). They define cognitive presence as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection, and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (p. 29). Piez (2003) expands on the latter, suggesting that cognitive presence is demonstrated by reflecting on the factual and theoretical knowledge that is presented into the discussions. 105

DAVEY ET AL.

Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show the key social presence and cognitive presence categories used in the analysis of the group’s online language and interactions. Table 6.2. Social presence classification and indicators (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 57) Category Expressions of Emotion (Affective expressions and feelings)

Open Communications (Interactive exchanges among participants; recognitions of the presence of others)

106

Indicators

Definition

Example

Inherent expressions of emotion

Conventional or unconventional expressions of emotion, repetitious punctuation, conspicuous capitalisation, emoticons

“I just can’t stand it when……!!!!!” “ANYBODY OUT THERE?”

Use of humour

Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatement, sarcasm

“The banana crop in Calgary is looking good this year. -”

Self-disclosure

Presents details of life outside of class

“Where I work, this is what we do…” “I just don’t understand this question”

Continuing a thread

Using reply feature of software, rather than starting a new thread

“Software dependent, e.g., ‘Subject: Re’ or ‘Branch from’”

Quoting from others’ messages

Using software features to quote others’ entire message, cutting and pasting selections of others’ messages

“Software dependent, e.g., ‘Martha writes:’ or text prefaced by less than symbol