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 <”

Referring explicitly to others’ messages

Direct references to contents of others’ posts

“In your message, you talked about Moore’s distinction between...”

Asking questions

Students ask questions of other students or of moderator

“Anyone else had experience with WEBCT?”

Complimenting, expressing appreciation

Complimenting others or contents of others’ messages

“I really like your interpretation of the reading.”

Expressing agreement. General, no names used

Expressing agreement with others or content of others’ messages

“I was thinking the same thing. You have hit the nail on the nail on the head.”

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Category

Indicators

Group Cohesion (Inclusive expressions; language that fosters group commitment and a sense of belonging)

Definition

Example

Vocatives

Addressing or referring to participants by name

“I think John made a good point.” “John what do you think?”

Addresses or refers to group using inclusive pronouns

Addresses the group as we, us, our group

“Our textbook refers to...” “I think we veered off track.”

Phatic, salutations

Communication that serves a purely social function, greetings, closures

“Hi all.” “That’s it for now.” “We are having the most beautiful weather here.”

Table 6.3. Cognitive presence classification and indicators. (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p. 57) Category Triggering (Evoking an idea, problem or issue)

Exploration (Proposing ideas and direct inquiries)

Integration (Bringing arguments together and tentative conclusions)

Resolution (Resolving problems and commitment to a position)

Indicators

Examples

Recognises the problem

“It has been argued...”

Puzzlement

“However…” “Why do you think that is?”

Divergence

“Another reason I think that might be is…”

Information exchanges

“Here’s the file you asked for.” “Where did that idea come from?”

Suggestions

“It is too complicated… why don’t we...”

Brainstorming

“How about…aren’t we forgetting…just a thought...”

Intuitive leaps

“That reminds me of…”

Convergence

“We had trouble getting cooperation.”

Synthesis

“We addressed these issues.”

Solutions

“I think that’s why we were successful.”

Apply

“A good test would be...”

Test

“Once implemented we will…”

Defend

“I want to because…” 107

DAVEY ET AL.

THE PRACTICE

The regional facilitator is an e-learning facilitator responsible for beginning, shaping and moderating a community of inservice teacher educators who are e-learning advisers from around the country. The group was aware of the growing popularity of social software tools in educational arenas, and in their role as e-learning facilitators they were keen to trial these tools in their own professional learning community and to discuss the capabilities of such tools as vehicles for facilitating critical reflection in that community. Their online conversations and offline journal entries were analysed for indicators of both engagement with the community and reflective/criticallyreflective practice using Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) social presence and cognitive presence indicators respectively. The tools and the inservice teacher educators’ use of them were then compared across these two groups of indicators. The specific social software tools in the study were chosen to include examples of all asynchronous and synchronous text and multimedia-based environments, shown in Table 6.4. Table 6.4. Software tools evaluated Asynchronous Text ‘Read and Write’

Multimedia ‘Listen and Watch’ ‘Speak and Do’

Synchronous

Wikis. A wiki is a collaborative space where anyone can publish and those with permissions can edit material already published, or add new content of their own. The power of the wiki is that it permits users to edit a document from different locations.

Chats. Online (text) chat communication can be either a direct one-to-one chat through computer-to-computer, or a group chat using synchronous conferencing.

Podcasts and Vodcasts. A podcast is an audio file, and a vodcast is a video file, placed in public or private online archive environments. They are usually downloadable, for listening to or viewing on portable media players and computers.

VoIP. Social software that uses voice over internet protocol (VoIP), which allows you to make telephone calls, audio calls and videoconferences, person to person, or to a group over the internet. Skype was the VoIP package used in this study. Skype and other VoIP environments also have a chat forum which can be run simultaneously with its voice/video conferencing.

The tools compared. Grant (2006) argued that participating in wikis supports a community of practice model of learning for a number of reasons. Individuals come together, bringing new experiences to the group. They develop a repertoire of shared practices and they produce a product that all have actively contributed to. The wiki itself is the site of participation, and has the archive ability that acts as a record of

108

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

that community’s practices and thus an easily reviewed evidence base for future reflection. Using a wiki was reported as a positive experience for the inservice teacher educators for similar reasons. The enablers they reported were that it was an effective context for: – discussing existing practices; – bringing new experiences to the group; – creating a resource bank though the hyper-linking function; – asking questions of each other based on reflective practice; – referring back to archived content. In terms of the technical features that especially enabled such activity, the use of hyper-linking was the feature within the wiki that was used most frequently, though other features they appreciated were the ability to: – create new pages; – hyperlink to other pages and web resources; – edit work already written; – add photos; – contribute to discussions; – return to use archived contributions. It should also be noted that the group tended to use the wiki not so much for collaborative development of a formal document, such as a report, but more informally, as an easily accessible archive of their thinking and ideas, answers to each other’s questions or problems, and active links and references to readings and resources. In this respect, the wiki documents, when transcribed, looked more like an archived discussion board or collective blog than a collectively authored formal document. The problematic aspect of the wiki tool was editing and constructing in a synchronous environment. They found this a clumsy activity in which contributions were often over-written and lost. They felt that the wiki was a more useful idea-sharing text medium than chat, largely because of its asynchronous nature. A wiki, being text-based and asynchronous, was seen as more collaborative, and the fact that conversations that all inservice teacher educators contributed to could be archived, gave much more flexibility. Group chat was dependent on everyone being online at one time, and conversations tended to talk past each other or over each other with a delay factor while waiting for an answer. This delay became frustrating. Instead, the group chose to use chat only as a supplement to the more favoured Skype conversations, the two running side-by-side. This allowed a free-flowing audio conversation, and a substantive option to post and share relevant text such as web links or comments without interrupting the speaker. The chat forum running in conjunction with the VoIP of Skype was thus seen as a very enabling tool. The text conversations were saved by community members as reference, and the synchronous factor of talking, brainstorming and building the cognitive presence of the community instantly that came from verbal discussion and debate was highlighted as most valuable. Podcasts were felt to be the least enabling option in terms of facilitating professional learning amongst themselves, though they saw significant promise in 109

DAVEY ET AL.

their use by and for students in classroom teaching and learning situations. There were also bandwidth and other technical issues. By the end of their experiment, even this technologically skilled group was still grappling with ways to get podcasting working efficiently and effectively for their teachers. The strength of their online professional learning community was felt to lie in what one of the group expressed as the “mutual engagement of people who share their expertise and knowledge for solving problems”. Accordingly, they decided that VoIP audio conferencing in tandem with a chat forum best accommodated that dynamic cut and thrust of synchronous verbal conversation and discussion that is necessary to generate true engagement, and that the wiki environment best met the needs for asynchronous idea-sharing, formal deliberation and an archive or evidence base of their collaborations. As one inservice teacher educator reflected: The combination of Wikis, Skype and chat were all necessary to gain the greatest professional learning. The ability to have a web browser open as well, let us share any site we were talking (chat) about…For the first time in years, I believe we have found a way of communication with other advisers that has engaged us and extended our professional practice. Social and cognitive presence in online professional learning. The challenge for participants in any community of inquiry is to adequately communicate their thoughts and understandings through sustained discussion. Arguably, there is a greater challenge for members of an online community of learners to communicate their social or cognitive presence by sustaining discourse and reflection in a textbased synchronous and asynchronous environment, or possibly through VoIP interactions, than in face-to-face situations. Being present

Me again...just watched the inclusion video...awesome...so many possibilities. Check out this podcast to discuss the use of social tools in the current presidential campaigns and the possibilities for teachers to use these tools to support learning. Here is the podcast and here are the show notes. Great concise readings, thanks J. I love the idea that Furl allows users to review and comment on resource. Really encouraging critical thinking!! [The conversation] heightened the awareness and ensured I spent more time looking at possibilities more closely and promoting it with teachers. Hey buddy would you check out my Podcasts for me and tell me if they explain Action Research procedure from a teacher’s point of view. This is good...and why I wanted a critical friend to listen to them first. Thanks. … Come to think about it 4 all at once could also be off putting in terms of too much all at once, and then the thought of listening to them all at once. What do you think?

110

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Of the 12 indicators from the Garrison and Anderson (2003) social presence framework (see Table 6.2) used as a proxy for engagement in a learning conversation, the Open Communications category recorded the highest numbers of interactions in this particular community of practice. Sharing resources and asking questions of each other and the facilitator, and referring explicitly to others’ messages recorded the highest number of interactions in the Open Communications category. Of the 10 indicators from the cognitive presence framework (see Table 6.3) used as a proxy for reflection and reflective practice, the Exploration category recorded the highest numbers of interactions from the e-learning community. Within this category, information exchanges, suggestions, and brainstorming recorded the highest number of instances. Over half of the recorded interactions took these forms. Wenger (1998) described the concept of a community of practice as the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations. Using tools such as wikis, podcasts, chat and the VoIP applications, the members of the online community did a lot of sharing of ideas, a considerable amount of solution finding (mostly of a practical nature), but not much building of innovations. However, they also did a lot of reflecting about: possibilities for the tools’ pedagogical potential for their teachers; reading of professional research around online learning; and thinking around what works and does not in sustaining their own professional learning conversations online. As a matter of engagement and social presence, there was a particular focus on asking and answering each other’s questions, sharing links to professional resources and bonding with other members of the group. As a matter of reflective practice and cognitive presence, there was a preponderance of exploratory information exchanges and, to a lesser extent, brainstorming of ideas and suggesting of solutions to largely technical problems. But there was also a significant amount of commitment to future action and acknowledgement of thinking around future practice – a reflection indicator not included in Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) classification, but featuring in several others (Caspi & Blau, 2008; Maurino, 2007; Swan & Shih, 2005; Williams & Humphrey, 2007). Rourke, Anderson, Archer, and Garrison (1999) believed computer mediated conferencing supports high levels of responsive, intelligent learning conversations. For learning conversations to be beneficial and useful to all members of the community, the facilitator needed to build a relationship with the community members that fostered learning for all concerned. The attention was on the learning through the conversations, not on the end appearance of the tool used. No one member of the community was an expert, rather all were learners, acknowledging this was an important attribute in developing relationships. Disclosing and putting oneself ‘out there’ in an archived environment broke down barriers and led the way for others to do so too. In particular, the facilitator found that she fostered social presence best through: – beginning each new reading/posting activity with an informal greeting; 111

DAVEY ET AL.

– – – – – – –

using self-disclosures; establishing netiquette early in the piece for each tool; modelling appropriate online behaviours; responding to each interaction in a positive and valuing manner; responding to the interactions so that every participant received a reply; responding to the interactions of the participants with further questions; providing links to the research readings.

And that she fostered cognitive presence best through: – providing research-based readings to challenge thinking and practice; – asking questions when responding to the interactions of the participants; – stimulating the discussion by asking “how can we put this into practice?” and “what tools are you using with your teachers’ type questions?” – challenging the robustness of resources and applications; – presenting the group with expectations; – answering questions; – setting up opportunities to use the tools. CONCLUSION

The vignettes above thus provide some understanding, through practical examples, of what mentoring for critical reflection might look like as a matter of inservice teacher education practice, and practical evaluations of some commonly used reflection-fostering frameworks and tools. Each of the vignettes articulates one group’s experience using a particular conceptual tool to improve a common problematic aspect of their inservice teacher education practice: how, as one of them expressed it, to have “learning conversations that matter”. At a practical level, the action research studies evaluated a few specific tools or frameworks commonly used in facilitative teacher education. In evaluating these tools or frameworks, we as a group came to the conclusion that the main enabling aspects were: – the way in which the tools/frameworks could provide a common language and shared discourse for critical discussions of practice, and thus a clearer understanding of both the content and process of professional learning. They helped professional learners make sense of their professional experience. – the way in which the tools/frameworks provided practical mechanisms for data gathering and analytic/conceptual frameworks by which practitioners could clarify their own dilemmas of practice, and could begin to resolve them through a critically reflective investigation of that practice. They helped practitioners with structured processes for conducting critical, evidence-based self-inquiry. – the way they provided frameworks for scaffolding professional learning and allowed professional learning mentors to move the relationship towards greater autonomy and empowerment for the professional learner. They helped participants manage the shifting power relationships and relative points of reference and deference that exist in a professional learning relationship. 112

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

At a deeper level, however, the experience also involved us in challenging some of our own, and certainly some of our teacher colleagues’ tacit assumptions about the nature and purpose of inservice teacher education itself. In particular, we have come away from the studies more convinced than ever of two things. First, that the relationship between an inservice teacher educator and a teacher is better conceived and described as mentoring or facilitating than it is as teaching. Inservice teacher educators are not engaged, as their preservice counterparts are, in the activity of teaching groups of students in formal, timetabled classes or lessons, held in tertiary institutions, and as part of a predetermined course of study leading to the award of formal qualifications. The inservice teacher educators that were the participants in this project most often work with individual or small groups of their professional peers, in relatively informal professional dialogues, usually held in the teachers’ schools, and seldom, if ever, for the purposes of formal qualification. As a consequence, the relationship is not, in essence, a pedagogical one, and thus needs to be studied within the theoretical frameworks and discourses of mentoring, facilitation and reflective practice in preference to those of teaching and pedagogy. And, secondly, that mentoring colleagues in the processes of critically reflective practice is becoming the main purpose and modus operandi of inservice teacher education. Inservice teacher educators more often facilitate practitioner colleagues’ inquiries into their own practices, than they deliver pedagogical skills workshops or transmit information about the latest curriculum development or policy change. Accordingly, the knowledge base of inservice teacher education is increasingly constituted as knowledge of critical reflection and how to support reflective practice in others. In other words, the professional learning that inservice teacher educators engage in themselves, and the professional learning that they are charged with fostering in others, is learning founded in the modes and methods of critical self-inquiry based on the establishment of mutually beneficial professional relationships with colleagues. Inservice teacher educators foster reflective practice best by being reflective practitioners themselves. To this extent, the studies described above have confirmed and deepened our understanding that reflective practice and subsequent professional learning is a complex process that involves more than just thinking about practice, and more than just a teacher or teacher educator self-improving in isolation. It involves a collaborative unpacking of tacit assumptions and a willingness to challenge and have challenged deeply-held beliefs and routines of practice. It involves a mentored gathering of evidence of current practice and examining it in the light of new knowledge. It involves conscious and close attention to our professional language as much as our professional actions. It involves taking into account, and being responsive to, a wide range of contextual considerations. It does not skirt the discomfort of cognitive dissonance that precedes any change in practice and action, and it is at its most effective as a social activity. For teacher educators and teachers alike, professional learning through critical reflection is not achieved rapidly, it is not achieved comfortably, and it is not achieved alone.

113

DAVEY ET AL.

REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2006). Web2.0: A new wave of innovation of teaching and learning. Edcause Review, 41(2), 32–44. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323–346. Dalton J., & Anderson, D. (2007). PLOT: Professional learning online tool. Retrieved from http://www. plotpd.com.au Fisher, R., & Sharp, A. (1998). Getting it done: How to lead when you’re not in charge. New York: Harper Collins. Garmston, R., & Wellman, B. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/ publications Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CTinTextEnvFinal.pdf Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership of learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Grant, L. (2006). Using wikis in schools: A case study. Futurelab. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/discuss/05discuss01.htm Kotze, D., Myburg, J., Roux, J., & Associates. (2002). Ethical ways of being. Pretoria: Ethics Alive. Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. Bybee (Ed.), National standards & the science curriculum. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt. Retrieved from www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm Maurino, P. S. M. (2007). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 241–260. Ministry of Education. (2008). Ki Te Aotearoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431. Piez, B. (2003). Practice: Applying research on presence to guide online discussions. The Sloan consortium. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/details3.asp?LE_ID=35 Reio T., & Crim S. (2006). The emergence of social presence as an overlooked factor in asynchronous online learning (pp. 964–971). Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International conference, Columbus. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful web tools for classrooms. California, CA: Corwin Press. Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching leadership. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Archer, W., & Garrison, D. R. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.

114

MENTORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Thomson, C. (2004). How to make ‘what works’ work: A role for RTLB. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 13, 249–269. Timperley, H. S. (2001). Mentoring conversations designed to promote student teacher learning. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 111–123. 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. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Williams, R. S., & Humphrey, R. (2007). Understanding and fostering interaction in threaded discussion. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 129–143. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271 (EJ683696).

115

CHRISTINA THORNLEY AND TREVOR MCDONALD

7. INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING Mentoring Leaders of School-Based Inquiry Projects

In pursuit of more equitable outcomes for students, the curriculum reforms of the early 1990s in New Zealand have required schools to develop strategic plans that align their strengths and needs with goals and activities designed to achieve growth and improvement in teaching and learning (Ministry of Education, 2008a). In support of this change, the Ministry of Education has funded professional learning programmes to address the goals identified by schools (Ministry of Education, 2008b). Alongside the planning and review processes required of schools, increased attention has been paid to the research literature on effective professional learning for teachers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Robinson & Lai, 2006; Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003). Despite this, many instances remain where the programmes have not met the goals of schools, or the needs of school leaders, teachers or students. It has been suggested that this has occurred because professional learning programmes have failed to take account of the needs of teachers as learners (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, 2004; Putnam & Borko, 1997) or the complexity of the work that they do (Kincheloe, 2003). Some also suggest that an over-emphasis on schoolwide goals has meant that the teaching, learning and curriculum dilemmas faced by teachers have not received sufficient attention (Goodson, 1994; Grundy, 1998). Others believe that without close scrutiny of the knowledge, skills (Education & Science Committee, 2008; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007) and perspectives of students (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh & Teddy, 2009; Cook-Sather, 2002), any planning can at best be approximate to their actual needs and restricted in its impact. Discussions about professional learning recognise knowledge as central to the endeavour of teaching (Borko, 2004; Grossman, 1990; Hashweh, 2005; Shulman, 1987) and are typified by an acknowledgment that through teacher education, professional learning and teaching experiences, teachers acquire knowledge about learning, pedagogy and curriculum. However, teachers are not portrayed as passive recipients; instead they are shown as interacting with and transforming knowledge acquired from various sources in an iterative process of assessment, planning and teaching that constitutes their practice (Shulman, 1987; Timperley et al., 2007). As the quest for change that leads to improvement has intensified, the knowledge that helps teachers to make robust decisions about the relationship between their evolving practice and the learning of individual students has also been conveyed as very important. Recent trends towards professional learning programmes where teachers are supported to undertake classroom-based inquiries have been advocated for their J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 117–131. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

relevance to teachers’ knowledge and practice and their potential responsiveness to the nuances of student learning (Ministry of Education, 2008a). Such inquiries make extensive use of data about teaching and learning, they are centred on problems of practice identifiable in the inter-relationships between practice, learning and achievement, and are therefore ideal sites for professional learning. Rather than driving the professional learning programmes, the goals in schools’ strategic plans assist teachers in prioritising the problems of practice most urgent for attention. Where these inquiries embody the qualities of research, are systematic, draw on evidence, document action, integrate knowledge with that from external sources, theorise and produce new understandings, they have potential for improving not only the practice of teacher participants but also that of their colleagues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998; Read, 2004). Concurrent with research into inquiry learning, attention has been focused on the nature of professional learning provision. While the research literature discusses a range of options, the role of mentor appears to be characterised by qualities conducive to enhancing teacher inquiry. In simple terms, a mentor is expected to have knowledge and experience that can be imparted to the mentee for the benefit of their practice (Musanti, 2004). Mentoring is often associated with the provision of professional learning for novice teachers, but it is an approach that can be used with novice professional learning providers building their knowledge, skill and expertise necessary for mentoring teachers (e.g., Poglinco & Bach, 2004; Shank, 2005). In some instances, mentoring has been used in preparing teachers to lead professional learning experiences for their colleagues in schools. Mentoring is an individualised approach to professional learning (Vaughn & Coleman, 2004) that takes account of the school context, teachers’ knowledge and practice, and student learning and achievement. It involves a range of tasks designed to enhance a mentee’s ability to set goals, become more reflective, and refine their practice (Musanti, 2004; Riddle Buly, Coskie, Robinson & Egawa, 2004; Shank, 2005; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004). These tasks include shared planning, modelling, observation, and feedback in professional learning situations (Poglinco & Bach, 2004). While mentors are seen to bring knowledge to the task, their own need to learn about the unique context for these inquiries necessitates that they are learners “rather than experts with all the answers” (Riddle Buly et al., 2004, p. 60). In mentoring, professional learning providers must focus not only on understanding about the teachers and students but about the role of school leaders involved in the inquiry projects. They must be concerned with the ways schools’ systems function to support inquiries, including the routines in place for gathering, disseminating and interpreting data and leadership, teaching and learning. The mentor must learn about the culture of the school, the likelihood that innovation is encouraged, whether decisions about reform and review are informed by evidence, and if it is a place where people work and learn together (Putnam & Borko, 2000). The inquiry project discussed in this chapter explored the role of mentoring as a professional learning approach used to support emerging leaders as they took increasing responsibility for the leadership of inquiry projects in their schools.

118

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

THREE MENTORING STORIES: RECOGNISING, UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONDING

This chapter uses the stories of Mark, Ani, Jackie (all names are pseudonyms) and their mentors to investigate the following questions: – What actions do effective mentors take as they support others in leading inquiry projects in schools? – What conditions are conducive to the success of mentoring for those undertaking inquiry projects? At the outset, the three inquiries were similar in two respects. They were all intended to change teachers’ practice in a manner that could improve student literacy achievement and they all used programme logic models (McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006) to develop professional learning plans. These plans were constructed by the professional learning leaders with their mentors and recorded the intended ultimate and intermediate outcomes for teachers and students in relation to the key literacy objectives for the professional learning inquiry projects. These objectives were aligned to the wider goals of the school and informed by evidence about the leadership, teaching and learning of all participants in the inquiry project. Activities to support mentoring, teaching and learning were recorded, along with details of the data collection and analysis to be undertaken for all participants to inform reflection and the refinement of the inquiries as they progressed. These leaders of professional learning each held middle management positions in the schools in which they were based but they had not previously been responsible for the professional learning of colleagues. Three mentors worked with the leaders, although one worked with two of the leaders in two different primary schools, and the other two mentors worked together with the third leader in a larger secondary school. These stories have been chosen for the ways in which they illuminate important contextual and personal differences that the mentors had to take cognisance of in order that they could support Mark, Ani and Jackie in their professional learning inquiry projects. Mark and his teachers had been embroiled in discussion over a problem of practice that had proven resistant to change and they needed alternative ways to proceed. The close interaction between Mark and his mentor was needed to move the teacher group into a cycle of inquiry that led to successful outcomes that could be emulated in the future. Ani’s story shows how her mentor helped her to build her knowledge and skill to lead an inquiry with successful outcomes for students and teachers. The problem of practice that originated from the teachers Ani worked with became a significant part of a wider school inquiry project. Jackie was the newly appointed literacy leader in her school, leading an extensive professional learning inquiry created in support of the school’s strategic plan. Jackie’s story tells how she developed skills and knowledge to lead an inquiry through which teachers from all levels and curriculum areas began to embed literacy teaching in their content and instruction.

119

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

Inquiry One: Addressing a Long-Standing Dilemma Mark led a syndicate of junior class teachers with parallel classes who were concerned that on entry to school many of their students’ oral language skills and knowledge did not offer a sufficiently strong foundation for the literacy instruction they received. Although these teachers agreed about the root cause of the struggle many students faced, they did not agree about how they should address their students’ difficulties. As a result, a variety of intervention programmes had been tried, different teaching approaches and assessment tasks were used, and the teachers remained divided over how to resolve the situation. Mark introduced this problem of practice to Judith, the resource teacher available to primary schools with concerns about the underachievement of their students in literacy. She attended some of the teacher meetings where further discussion was held with reference to student data. Mark explained that he and his teachers had already changed their practice a number of times in their attempts to enhance their programmes. They discussed the fact that the school was involved in several other professional learning programmes and decided that this inquiry would not be viewed as a whole school priority. For this reason, they decided that it should be self-contained and not reliant on strong support from the school leaders whose focus was already on maintaining the momentum of the other programmes. However, Judith viewed the situation as an ideal opportunity for professional learning that reflected the immediate needs of teachers and students in the junior part of the school. She offered to mentor Mark so that he could lead his teachers in this inquiry. To begin the inquiry project, Judith led Mark through a careful appraisal of the context for this work. They discussed the current strengths, professional learning priorities and goals of the school and the teachers. They also reviewed data about the students in his syndicate. Judith explained how this information could be used in creating a professional learning plan based on the intervention logic model that would assist them in taking a more systematic approach to the professional learning. Judith and Mark talked about how the inquiry project should lead the teachers to reflect on their knowledge, beliefs and practice in relation to the students’ learning. The intention of the inquiry project was to move the teaching and assessment to be more consistent across the syndicate and to adopt an evidence-based approach as a means to facilitate collegial conversation and deepen the collective understandings of Mark, Judith and the teachers about how to improve the teaching and learning. After they had conducted the teacher consultation in the early data gathering phase, Judith commented that “one key finding was that the teachers did not have a common understanding of some key concepts relating to oral language”. Judith helped Mark to see that without a shared knowledge of early literacy and oral language, it would be difficult for the teachers to reach a consensus when interpreting the data and making decisions about next moves. Judith suggested that while she would help Mark by providing expertise in inquiry and literacy, she believed the teachers might respond well to the involvement of the speech

120

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

language therapist as someone who they knew and respected for her knowledge of oral language development, their teaching and their students. Mark, the teachers, Judith and the speech language therapist worked together in the next stage of the inquiry project. They: – met, clarified and discussed some key understandings about oral language acquisition and more specifically phonological awareness. The expertise of a teacher who had undertaken postgraduate study was also drawn upon in these meetings; – agreed upon a common assessment tool for the teachers to use for diagnostic and summative information; – planned teaching that was more consistent with the evidence and goals of the inquiry and responsive to the students’ learning. Over the duration of the inquiry project, Mark led the teachers in planning, sharing resources to support the teaching, holding ongoing discussions using evidence of the students’ achievement and reviewing the implementation of their professional learning plan. During one of the inquiry project meetings, some teachers offered new solutions from other professional learning that they had attended. Although these were of interest to members of the group, in contrast to previous times the ideas were set aside in favour of adhering to the goals, intended outcomes and actions of their existing professional learning plan. This action ensured that the data to be gathered about the teaching and learning related to their inquiry and could be carefully evaluated on the basis of the original goals for the inquiry project. At the end of the inquiry cycle, the assessment tool showed that on retesting, the students were making ‘very pleasing progress.’ So the decision was made by Mark and the teachers to use the tool with all new entrant students to identify the skills that as a syndicate they regarded as central to students’ progress, and to retest in six months. Throughout the inquiry project, Judith demonstrated the ability to take notice of the teachers as individual learners, appraise the context for her work, engage people in productive ways and reflect on how the processes and outcomes of her work resulted in success for Mark, the teachers and their students. As she explained, the mentoring process required her to be a learner as well as an expert: My learning from this is that even with a group of teachers who do not share a common understanding about literacy teaching, and do not communicate frankly about their differences, progress can still be made towards more unified teaching practices when agreement can be reached about what they see as the problem. In this case it would not have been enough for me to support Mark in leading the [inquiry project]. Suggesting the use of an expert outside person helped the teachers in several ways. They set aside their differences to work with her. She assisted them to clarify the problem, provided an appropriate assessment tool, gave feedback on its use, and on teaching methods. The [inquiry project] helped teachers focus on the problem, rather than their differences.

121

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

Inquiry Two: Expanding the Scope Ani was a syndicate leader in a primary school whose literacy goals aimed for improved student writing. Ani’s school had effective data-gathering systems so that goals reflected the achievement of students and the teachers’ practice. The problem of practice that Ani and her teachers identified related to their desire to enhance the way that their young students could write about personal experiences. Ani and her mentor Judith reviewed the available data relating to the students’ current writing and agreed that Ani would conduct this inquiry project within her syndicate, in accordance with the school’s professional learning priorities and specifically to foster improvement in students’ personal writing. Judith mentored Ani as she implemented her inquiry project. Although Ani quickly assumed the leadership role, Judith provided support in numerous ways. She helped her to gather and interpret data from observations conducted by Ani or the teachers, analyse and make comparisons over multiple data sets and prepare for meetings where Ani led evidence-based conversations with the teachers. She supplied professional readings to develop their knowledge of the relevant research literature and she gave feedback about any changes in practice and learning that she observed, always focusing on the desired outcomes of the professional learning plan. As Ani observed, the inquiry project quickly made an impact: By the end of the term, there had been significant shifts in teacher practices. Throughout the observation lessons and peer observations, I had observed more teacher focus on voice and audience purpose. Learning intentions were clearly and realistically discussed with the children [so they knew] where their next learning step would be. Individual learning needs were being met and feedback had become an integral part of the lesson, not tagged on if time allowed. Children were writing with more voice. The data that we collected showed increased achievement levels by our children and teachers were becoming excited by what the children were achieving and were more confident about teaching writing. There were fewer reluctant writers. However, Ani encountered an unexpected turn of events when the new school year started. With some staff changes and a significant increase in newly enrolled children with low oral language scores and limited writing skills, some of the teaching reverted to previous practice. At this point, Ani needed Judith’s expertise to help her move the inquiry project forward and refocus the planning and instruction toward the intermediate outcomes on the professional learning plan. Together they met with the teachers and decided upon further professional learning actions to include in the professional learning plan. The teachers wanted more observations using the protocol they had developed together, more feedback on classroom instruction, further opportunities to revise and build their collective knowledge of student writing such as revisiting writing progressions (Ministry of Education, 2007), and discussion of professional readings about assessment. As Ani reflected on their review of progress with Judith she identified the benefits of a recursive approach based on the professional learning plan:

122

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

By refocusing our inservice meetings on learning progressions and next steps as well as reading and discussing relevant research I felt we were back on track. By [five weeks later] teachers were talking about their writing programmes and discussing how the children’s voice was coming through in their writing. The discussion around feedback was back on track. The peer observations and feedback had also helped get teachers focusing on their teaching practices. Around this time, one of Ani’s colleagues who had the same mentor had started a similar inquiry project with a syndicate of teachers who taught older students. Ani and Judith discussed the potential benefits of combining these inquiries, an idea that also appealed to the professional learning leader and teachers in the other inquiry project. Using the same mentoring approach, and working the syndicates together, further positive outcomes were achieved. Junior class teachers who had previously taught the older students commented favourably on their work and progress, thereby helping other teachers to feel positive about the change in their practice. One new teacher was amazed to see how quickly, on entry to school, students developed their writing skills with closely focused instruction and useful feedback. Ani explained how the students also became more involved in the inquiry project: Senior children were buddied with junior children and worked with them once a week. The development of interclass buddy writing sessions weekly clarified how important this oral interaction was…Translation of the skills taught to assist the younger children was noted in the writing of the older children themselves… Writing became more purposeful for the children. They talked about audience and the purpose for writing…they talked about writing to each other, their parents and teacher…positive attitudes developed. Findings from the student focus group interview conducted at the end of the inquiries highlighted the students’ increased level of awareness of the ways in which teachers could help them to improve their writing. Benchmarked assessment of the students’ writing showed accelerated achievement growth for students across both syndicates not only in the domains of voice, audience and purpose, but also in spelling, an area that had not received particular focus during the inquiry project. Inquiry Three: A Secondary School Conducting a School-Wide Inquiry Project The overall inquiry project leaders (and authors of this chapter) were mentors to Jackie. When she became the literacy leader responsible for professional learning in that area of her secondary school, the goals for improved literacy achievement were already established and the problem concerning how to embed literacy teaching appropriate to students’ learning and curriculum demands across the content areas had been identified. In preparation for her new role, which would take her into year level classes and content areas that she had not taught, Jackie wondered: – how could she use the existing structures and support to maximise outcomes from the inquiry project? – how could she engage all of the teachers in this common focus for their professional learning? 123

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

– what knowledge would she require for working across content area classes for students from 11 to 18 years? Jackie and the deputy principal who held responsibility for professional learning and curriculum met with her mentors to consider ways to proceed with this inquiry project. While the ultimate outcome was clear from the school’s strategic plan, her own questions remained as she and her mentors prepared the professional learning plan. As they did this, she became aware that her knowledge of inquiry processes, in particular gathering, comparing, synthesising and interpreting data about the school structures, the teachers’ practices and beliefs, the demands of the curriculum and the students’ learning and achievement was insufficient to undertake the task she was assigned. The mentors responded to this by providing and discussing evaluation research literature that was relevant to her problem of practice (e.g., Education Associates Ltd, 2006). They also showed Jackie how she could use a constant comparative approach (Charmaz, 2000) to drive the data analysis component of her inquiry. They discussed how these activities could be included in her plan, leaving her to reflect on her options and make her final decisions. Jackie was aware of the senior management’s focus on developing and maintaining structures to make professional learning integral to teaching practice and this was reinforced by the frequent presence of the deputy principal at mentoring and planning sessions. As part of this focus each content area leader was required to contribute to the annual writing of the Variance Report that was used as the basis for the school’s self-review. The report recorded analyses and reflections on the variances between the strategic goals and the teaching and learning in the content areas. Jackie, the deputy principal and her mentors examined the Variance Report. While there were reports of changes in practice, it was not possible to tell how this had impacted on the students’ day-to-day learning in the classrooms. This discussion led Jackie to believe that she needed more information from the students themselves. One of Jackie’s mentors conducted a student focus group with her, so that students from a range of target classes across each of the year levels and the range of content areas were interviewed as a group. They were asked about the literacy work they did in school and out of school, whether they felt successful, what they had learned and still needed to learn, and how teachers could help them to improve their reading and writing. Their ideas were recorded for their review and further discussion. When Jackie read their comments, she saw the disjuncture between the literacy learning opportunities that teachers perceived they provided and those that were recognised and valued by the students. These findings were subsequently shared with all of the teachers. In Jackie’s words: The impact of this was overwhelming. [The] staff were forced to acknowledge literacy as a whole school issue as the student voice represented students from age 11 to 18 years, across all learning areas. The results were relevant to our school context and provided a base for all staff to ask questions about where to next focus professional development… Inadvertently, the sharing of student focus group data in all cases promoted 124

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

the idea of a learning community. The sharing of information turned literacy into a shared problem of practice. Because all of the staff had a direct impact on creating classroom experiences that the student reflections were based on, they all had a level of responsibility to make changes to enhance student achievement so that it aligned with the strategic plan. The student voice had become a change agent. Based on these initial findings, three factors informed a decision made by the school leaders to expand the capacity for more literacy leadership within the school. These were the school’s goal to spread literacy teaching in content areas, the high level of interest generated by the focus group findings, and the teachers’ increased awareness of the diversity of the content area literacy demands. In the first phase, Jackie’s inquiry project was conducted with a small group of teachers, her mentors working alongside to provide curriculum area literacy expertise. With Jackie, they convened a number of group seminars focusing on the curriculum and assessment literacy demands the students encountered across levels and curriculum areas, and they modelled teaching, their instruction reflecting those literacy demands of the classrooms. These activities created points for discussion as the students’ learning was analysed in relation to the school’s goals. As it was intended that in the next phase these teachers would themselves become mentors for further cross-curricula groups, maintaining the profile of the inquiry project school-wide was important. For that reason, the deputy principal remained involved, building her own knowledge of content area literacy, seeking updates on progress of the professional learning, attending seminars and observations, offering counsel as appropriate, and providing a leadership profile for the inquiry project. Jackie was aware of the complexity of her role and the numerous tasks that were central to her effectiveness. She explained these: …building up that literacy base and being able to articulate it with examples from outside of year seven and eight…it was also critical for me to have the content knowledge about data and how to align data collection [from multiple sources] with theory to collate themes that [related to] the problems of practice. While the new learning for Jackie was challenging at times, she moved quickly to the point where she conducted student focus groups, wrote and analysed literacy diagnostic assessments, conducted observations and gave feedback to content area teachers. She would check with her mentors for advice, but built her own knowledge through her constant referral to the curriculum tasks, the teachers’ curriculum knowledge, the students’ work and comments, the classroom observations, and the professional readings to which she had access. She communicated frequently with her team of teachers, reflecting on their progress with the professional learning plan, sharing her beliefs, knowledge, and importantly her new learning. The deputy principal, whom Jackie also described as her mentor, helped her to capitalise on what she saw as “the spirit of collegiality and continuous learning” that operated at all levels of this school. 125

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

DISCUSSION

These three stories illustrate the complexity of mentoring teachers to lead professional learning through school-based inquiry projects, given the unique contexts of schools, the distinctiveness of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and the individuality of their students’ learning and achievement. However, the potential of mentoring as an approach that accounts for the variables associated with schools and those who work and learn within them can be argued from successes reflected in these stories. For Mark, Ani and Jackie, the fact that their mentors enabled them to lead their inquiries, responding to the various and sometimes unexpected events, resulted not only in new learning for them as inquiry leaders, but increased the likelihood that the teachers with whom they worked continued their engagement in the professional learning that held benefits for them and many of their students. Judith demonstrated the ability to appraise the circumstances surrounding Ani’s inquiry project and participate in evidence-based problem solving that led to the resumption of progress halted as a result of the summer break and changes in teacher and student participants. In Mark’s inquiry project, her reading of, and reflection on, the teachers’ diverse beliefs concerning the relationship between oral language and literacy development were equally crucial. In the same way, Jackie’s mentors understood the vastness of the intended inquiry project for her school, recognising that to build teachers’ literacy knowledge using student voice (Cook-Sather, 2002) would add precision to the literacy instruction that they might embed in their content areas. Each of these examples points to the importance of knowledge for the role of mentor. This was not only the knowledge that mentors brought to the inquiry projects, but knowledge that the mentors acquired through their participation in the inquiry process where evidence about the schools, leaders, teachers and students informed their decision making. The ability to combine and act upon varied elements of knowledge was essential to ensuring that the resulting professional learning accommodated the needs of the various participants and their particular contexts. The knowledge that the mentors exhibited to fulfil their roles can be thought of as falling into the following domains: content and pedagogy, professional learning, school change, and inquiry processes (Borko, 2004; Grossman, 1990; Hashweh, 2005; Shulman, 1987). The stories illustrated not only the scope of knowledge, but the manner in which it had to be used simultaneously, as the mentors made decisions sometimes moment by moment, observing and reflecting on the evidence amassed by schools as part of their regular practices along with the evidence accessed through the processes of the inquiry project. Even where the inquiries had similarities in scale and focus, as in Judith’s work with Mark and Ani, the success of an approach that did not respond to the particular needs, beliefs and goals of the teachers in these syndicates would have been unlikely. Each of the mentors was committed to inquiry as the means to offer professional learning experiences that were authentic to their teachers’ daily classroom activity. They saw that it accommodated the diversity of literacy acquisition in primary schools and the range of subjects in secondary schools along with the varied priorities of individual teachers in each context. The mentors also understood that besides their knowledge and expertise in literacy, they needed to understand professional learning 126

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

processes generally and more specifically how to assist their mentees in leading their teachers to improved practice. Understanding how to conduct inquiry and how to mentor the leaders of professional learning through what was essentially a research process was a major component of their work. The mentors created opportunities for their mentees to learn about and through the inquiry processes and demonstrated in this way that all participants are learners. As Jackie and her mentors read the Variance Report, Judith talked with Mark’s teachers, and Ani observed the way that some teachers’ practice reverted. It was through the inquiry process that knowledge previously held by many of the teachers in these inquiry projects was challenged. The leaders of professional learning all needed mentor support when it came to managing multiple sets of data and evidence. For Mark, this task was not so demanding. He and his teachers were initially using their regular literacy assessments, then moved to a pre and post-test that offered comparative information for individual students. By contrast, Judith had to assist Ani in mapping teacher observations and student writing samples against the writing progressions (Ministry of Education, 2007) at numerous points over the duration of the inquiry project. Jackie explained that she needed to manage the multiple data sets to map student learning and achievement against curriculum assessment demands along with teacher observations against the Variance Report and strategic goals. This process was challenging, requiring her to learn about research processes and also literacy in each of the content areas of secondary school. To differing extents, each inquiry project showed that the leader was learning about literacy as part of the process, through systematically examining the relationship between teachers’ practice and student work. However, the mentors also introduced professional readings to help the leaders and the teachers make sense of what they were encountering in their inquiry projects, thereby building their knowledge of literacy content and pedagogy. For the mentors and the leaders of professional learning, taking a systematic approach to the inquiries was fundamentally important. To this end, the professional learning plans performed an important function in each of the inquiry projects. From the outset, they aided in the conceptualisation of the projects as inquiries. Their format required activities for the professional learning to be linked with the research or inquiry activities, making it less likely that unplanned actions would impede the progress. In the case of Mark, where the teachers had tried so many different approaches previously, it was apparent that the plan helped them to maintain their focus so that the inquiry was seen through to fruition and able to be adequately evaluated for its impact. Ani’s use of the plan illustrated its capacity to accommodate learning as cumulative and recursive for all of the participants from leaders to teachers and students as learners. As most of the leaders of professional learning were unfamiliar with this type of planning, the mentors were involved with co-planning and modelling their development and use. Their unfamiliarity with creating and using the professional learning plans was most noticeable with respect to decisions about the manner in which the data would be analysed and used to review and refine the plans. The leaders came to see the plans as part of the natural cycle of improvement. 127

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

Developed and reviewed, they were dynamic and flexible, able to be based on the strengths and needs of learners and centred upon an authentic problem of practice. The plans allowed the mentors to maintain a research-like quality to these inquiry projects, where data were analysed and interpreted so that the findings could be used to create new understandings. As the plans were developed, it was necessary to consider the role and activity of all participants in the professional learning and data-gathering activities. The involvement of key people – such as the students in giving voice to their ideas about their literacy learning, and the deputy principal as a professional learning participant and leader – was shown to be essential in the school-wide inquiry project. In the two inquiry projects that were confined to the syndicate level, other leaders in those schools would have needed to be involved to ensure their capacity for a school-wide impact. These inquiries are testament to the idea that small-scale professional learning that benefits students and teachers can be realised independent of high levels of support and direction from school principals or other senior leaders. While in each case the inquiries were squarely focused on the relationship between teaching practice and student achievement, in two of the stories the inquiry projects were initiated and managed at the syndicate rather than whole school levels. However, to meet the school-wide scale and intention of Jackie’s inquiry project, her mentors had to assist her to capitalise on substantial structures for gathering, analysing and using data along with strategic planning and review processes. The stories also challenge any perceived reliance on established whole-school learning communities as essential enablers for school change that result in improved outcomes for teachers and students. They show that even where the principal was not involved, and where the teachers did not already learn together, important progress could be made and positive outcomes for teachers and students could be achieved when smaller-scale communities were built as part of the inquiry project process. However, it is accepted that prospects for widespread change are restricted where there are no systems for data analysis and the transfer of it from one level to the next or where there are not communities that help colleagues to support one another and reflect on carefully planned and systematically implemented inquiry work. Analyses of the different professional learning inquiries point to a number of characteristics and actions that have been identified as personal to the leader of professional learning and contextually reflective of the school in which they lead their inquiry project. These characteristics and actions have been grouped in Table 7.1 to emphasise the fact that small-scale inquiries can be successful where the mentor assists the inquiry project leader to acquire the characteristics and undertake the actions recorded in the left-side column. Such inquiries remain important and have been shown to produce outcomes that may be priorities for one or more teachers but not necessarily all teachers in a school. It is recognised that these inquiry projects may be enhanced where they can capitalise on the contextual characteristics and actions from the right-side column, but are by no means dependent upon them for success.

128

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Table 7.1. Mentoring for inquiry-based professional learning Inquiry project leader characteristics/actions

School contextual characteristics/actions

Knowledge and Skills – Pedagogy and content – Professional learning, school change and facilitation – Inquiry processes

Structures and systems for professional learning – Focus on relationship between teaching practice and student achievement – Structures for gathering, analysing and using data – Strategic planning and review processes

Involve key participants – Students – Teachers – School leaders – Mentor Create and implement plans – Action/practice/pedagogy – Data gathering, analysis, reflection, refinement

Culture of professional learning, school leadership – Communities of practice and learning – Leadership for professional learning

Where the inquiry is intended to lead to school-wide outcomes, then the characteristics and actions of the school and the manner in which all members, including the leader of professional learning function as a community, will impact on the progress and outcomes. In such inquiries, it is envisaged that the mentor will have a more substantial role in assisting the mentee to understand, manage and respond to existing and evolving structures and the culture of professional learning in a manner that achieves positive and sustainable changes. For the mentor, the initial appraisal of the circumstances surrounding the proposed problem of practice, the participants and intended outcomes are essential components of inquiries intended to provide positive professional learning experiences. Understanding the leader of professional learning, their willingness and capacity to undertake certain actions within the confines of a small-scale inquiry project, or across the expanse of a school-wide inquiry project, as well as understanding the school as a dynamic context that could potentially support their leadership, must be a priority for the mentor. Ensuring that schools, their leaders and teachers match their professional learning intentions with corresponding levels of commitment and a range of relevant evidence about their current situation is a central element of the mentor’s role when supporting teachers to lead the professional learning of their colleagues.

129

THORNLEY AND MCDONALD.

REFERENCES 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-Bass. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing MƗori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 735–742. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. 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. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 19–36. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue and change in education. Education Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. Education Associates Ltd. (2006). Literature review: Conducting evaluation research to inform professional learning programmes. Dunedin: Unpublished. Education and Science Committee. (2008). Report of the Education and Science Committee: Inquiry into making the schooling system work for every child. Presented to the House of Representatives, Wellington, New Zealand. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press. Goodson, I. (1994). Studying curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Grundy, S. (1998). The curriculum and teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.), Understanding teaching (2nd ed., pp. 27–37). Sydney: Harcourt Brace. Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292. Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as the path to empowerment. New York: State University of New York Press. McDavid, J. C., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2006). Program evaluation and performance management: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education. (2007). Literacy learning progressions. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2008a). Schools planning and reporting. Retrieved from www.minedu.govt.nz/ educationSectors/Schools/SchoolOperations/PlanningAndReporting/SchoolsPlanningReporting.aspx Ministry of Education. (2008b). Ki te Aoturoa: Improving inservice teacher educator learning and practice: Te whakapakari I te ratonga whakangungu kaiwhakaako. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Musanti, S. I. (2004). Balancing mentoring and collaboration: Midcareer teachers constructing a new role. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 6(1), 13–24. Poglinco, S. M., & Bach, A. J. (2004). The heart of the matter: Coaching as a vehicle for professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 398–407. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In T. Biddle, I. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. Read, 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 Riddle Buly, M., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Egawa, K. (2004). What is a literacy coach? Voices From The Middle, 12(1), 60–62.

130

INDIVIDUALISED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING Robinson, V., & Lai, M. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Shank, M. J. (2005). Mentoring among high school teachers: A dynamic and reciprocal group process. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(1), 73–82. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning [and it’s about time]: What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge Falmer. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Best evidence synthesis: Professional development and professional learning. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Vaughn, S., & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting use of research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 25–38.

131

HIRIA MCRAE AND MARAMA TAIWHATI

8. TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO MƗori Concepts and Practices Supporting Teacher Education

BACKGROUND

In a number of tertiary institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand there are MƗori educators who are struggling collectively to ensure their autonomy over their cultural well-being. The purpose of the struggle is usually to assert the importance of the MƗori language and culture as valid frameworks of critical analysis based on a MƗori world view (G. H. Smith, 1997). This occurs in a range of contexts at many different levels including governance, management, administration, academic and student. This chapter presents a case of how a group of MƗori teacher educators in a tertiary institution is ensuring their cultural well-being is an imperative part of their collaborative practices with colleagues, teachers, students and wider communities. The chapter also provides an emerging framework describing a collaborative process based on MƗori protocol. Since the late 1990s there has been an emerging phenomenon of indigenous theoretical research frameworks in the Aotearoa New Zealand context labelled by some as kaupapa MƗori theory (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; G. H. Smith, 1997; L. T. Smith, 1999). One basic translation of kaupapa is a set of ground rules, customs and the right way of doing things (Barlow, 1991). Wood and Lewthwaite (2008) add that kaupapa MƗori theory derives from distinctive cultural epistemological and metaphysical foundations, and is a conceptualisation of MƗori knowledge. In summary, kaupapa MƗori theory stems from a MƗori world view, is based on MƗori epistemology, and incorporates MƗori concepts, knowledge, skills, experiences, attitudes, processes, practices, customs, language, values, and beliefs (Wood & Lewthwaite, 2008). Kaupapa MƗori theory can be viewed as a form of critical analysis driven by MƗori understandings, and asserts explicitly the validation and legitimation of the MƗori language and culture (G. H. Smith, 1997). G. H. Smith (1997) described a set of principles that could be used as a foundation for a kaupapa MƗori research approach. The first principle is tino rangatiratanga (self-determination principle) discussed in terms of sovereignty, independence, autonomy, self-determination and seeking more meaningful control over one’s own life and cultural well-being. The second principle, taonga tuku iho (cultural aspirations that assert to be MƗori), is both valid and legitimate, and encompassing the MƗori language, culture and knowledge. The transmission of MƗori knowledge is seen as being critical in curriculum development and pedagogy for MƗori education. J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 133–148. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

The third principle of ako promotes teaching and learning that is more aligned and unique to tikanga MƗori (MƗori cultural protocol). Kia piki ake i ngƗ raruraru o te kainga (socio-economic mediation principle) acknowledges that despite any socio-economic disadvantages or difficulties that MƗori may be experiencing, kaupapa MƗori practices and values aim to ensure that a collective responsibility involving the whole community will come to the foreground in order to ensure the overall wellbeing of the whƗnau (extended family structure). This fourth principle advocates drawing on cultural capital to overcome obstacles to see the realisation of collective goals. The fifth principle of whƗnau encompasses the cultural practices, values, and customs, which are organised around whƗnau and collective responsibility, and which are a necessary part of MƗori well-being and educational achievement. Finally, kaupapa, or the collective philosophy, aims to ensure that MƗori-centred initiatives within education are held together by a collective commitment and vision. It ensures that such initiatives are connected with MƗori aspirations to political, social, economic and cultural well-being. Although these principles are not seen to be definitive (G. H. Smith, 1997), a kaupapa MƗori theory approach presupposes that the validity and legitimacy of MƗori are taken for granted; that the survival and revival of MƗori language and culture is imperative and there is a presence of a collective struggle for autonomy at an institutional level over our own cultural well-being. The aim of this chapter is to provide an example of a kaupapa MƗori theory approach which supports positive collaborative practices in teacher education. To achieve this aim, it is necessary to provide definitions of tikanga MƗori and link these to findings from interviews with a group of MƗori teacher educators. A broad definition of tikanga MƗori will be provided as well as a description of five key MƗori concepts that have links to G. H. Smith’s (1997) principles. These five concepts are: whanaungatanga (the building and maintaining of relationships); manaakitanga (hospitality); aroha (love and care); kaupapa (an important issue or topic); and kotahitanga (unity). Pǀwhiri (the MƗori formal welcoming process) will be described and used as an example to illustrate tikanga MƗori in action in teacher education practice. Finally, an emerging framework developed from the inductive analysis of the interviews which identifies possible collaborative strategies for teacher educators will be explained. First we will examine tikanga MƗori. KEY MƖORI CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES

Tikanga MƗori Mead (2003) defines tikanga MƗori as being the accumulated knowledge of generations of MƗori that is part of the intellectual property of MƗori. The knowledge base of tikanga MƗori is a segment of mƗtauranga MƗori (MƗori knowledge). This base consists of ideas, interpretations and modifications added to by generations of MƗori. Mead (2003) states that when evaluating the practical aspects of tikanga MƗori, two words are important. These are tika (being right or correct) and pono (true or genuine). Tika is a base principle that applies to all tikanga, so the practice of a particular tikanga needs to be right or correct. By focusing on pono, a judgment 134

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

can be made on whether the practice of a particular tikanga is true to the principles of tikanga MƗori. Both principles are examples of taonga tuku iho cultural aspirations that assert MƗori protocol is valid and legitimate (G. H. Smith, 1997). Williams (2000, cited in Mead, 2003) argued that tikanga MƗori deals not so much with rules and regulations but with values which are subject to various cultural tests of appropriateness, correctness and adequacy. Pǀwhiri Barlow (1991) describes pǀwhiri as a complex set of interlocking principles and protocol where tƗngata whenua (hosts) and manuhiri (visitors) engage in a series of ritual encounters by the end of which the tapu (sacredness) of the visitors is reduced to a state of noa (normality) where all parties are free to socialise. These two overarching concepts of tapu and noa will be described in more detail later in this section. The basic phases of pǀwhiri, which can differ depending on the occasion or tribal protocol, include: – the wero (a ritual challenge performed by host warriors); – the karanga (a welcome call performed by host women and replied to by visiting women); – the whaikǀrero (an exchange of formal speeches performed by male hosts and visitors); – the karakia (a prayer or incantation to greater spiritual beings or ancestors to give blessings to the process); – the hongi/hariru (the pressing of host and visitor noses signifying peace and unity/shaking hands); – the hƗkari (the sharing of food to complete the process and bring everyone involved back to a state of normality). All of these phases take place most commonly at the marae (meeting place); however, pǀwhiri can also take place in schools and office buildings. The group of MƗori teacher educators host teachers, students, colleagues and other visitors at their work place marae and partake in all of these phases during the pǀwhiri they host. They also regularly participate in pǀwhiri as guests, hosted by schools and other organisations. A pǀwhiri is a very important event for both the hosts and visitors as in most cases it is the first time both the groups have met, or if the groups have met the ceremony symbolises the initial engagement of a new venture or relationship. The emerging framework described later in this chapter provides links to the practice of pǀwhiri in more detail, outlining a set of practices and questions that teacher educators could take into consideration when working with MƗori communities. Mead (2003) outlined the importance of pǀwhiri and the over-arching set of MƗori principles that are involved in each of these phases which are described in the following section. In the context of research, Thompson and Barnett (2007) stated that the practice of pǀwhiri, as a formal process of engagement, precedes research processes and ensures a safe pathway for researchers and participants. Durie (2006, as cited in Berryman & Bateman, 2007) “explores the marae Ɨtea (the large area in front of the 135

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

meeting house) as a metaphor for engagement, wherein particular aspects such as space, boundaries and time take on exacting significance and meaning” (p. 112). He talks about the notion of space, whereby a realistic degree of distance is necessary at the outset until a relationship has formed. Berryman and Bateman (2007) provided broad phases that expand on Durie’s (2006) notions of the importance of space, boundaries and time when initiating engagement with a new group in different situations and contexts. These are similar to those described by Barlow (2005), and include: – Starting/opening rituals; – Clarifying and declaring who you are/from where you have come; – Clarifying and declaring intentions; – Coming together as a group; – Building relationships and making initial connections; – Addressing a particular kaupapa or issue; – Concluding; – Sharing kai (food). All of these phases described above are important for both MƗori and non-MƗori when working with MƗori (Berryman & Bateman, 2007). A case study that provides an example of these protocols in action in teacher education practice will be described in the following section. Tapu/Noa Mead (2003) described a pǀwhiri as a very tapu event, and thus very formal and often very tense. There is concern about being correct because there is a sense of ritual to the ceremony. The visitors are tapu as it is the first time that they have set foot on the marae, which adds to the unknown and tentative nature of the meeting. From being very tapu, the ceremony aims to move towards a state of balance, in which human relationships are normalised so that people can meet more informally. This balanced state, as described earlier, is called noa. The first concept identified by the MƗori teacher educators, whanaungatanga contributes to this balanced state. As described by the principles of tapu and noa, both hosts and visitors have reciprocal obligations to ensure there is a balance in relationships. At times this reciprocal relationship can be unbalanced or fragile, signalling a need for relationships to be nurtured. The second key concept identified by the group, manaakitanga, is also strongly linked to the nurturing of relationships. Mead (2003) stated that all tikanga MƗori practices are underpinned by the high value placed upon manaakitanga – nurturing relationships, looking after people, and being very careful about how others are treated. The third key concept of aroha, Mead (2003) stated, is an essential part of manaakitanga and an expected dimension of whanaungatanga. All of these key concepts are important in human relationships. The fourth and fifth concepts of kaupapa and kotahitanga also strongly link to whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and aroha in the pǀwhiri process in working towards a common goal. The group of MƗori teacher educators described the process of pǀwhiri as being part of effective collaborative practices in their work. 136

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

Other research (Berryman & Bateman, 2007; Thompson & Barnett, 2007) also showed the benefits of pǀwhiri when initially engaging and working with others. These benefits are outlined in the following section. Protocols in Action in Teacher Education Practice: A Case Study In 2007 a group of New Zealand MƗori teacher educators was interviewed about their professional collaborative practices, specifically practices that have strong links to tikanga MƗori and MƗori concepts within the context of their work with colleagues, teachers, students and school communities. The MƗori concepts of mahi tahi (working together) and mahi ngƗtahi (collective responsibility) were two terms used by the teacher educator participants to describe collaborative practices in a MƗori context. The overall focus question was, “What are mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi (collaborative practices) and what do they look like in teacher education practice?” The findings from the interviews have contributed to the development of an emerging collaborative practice framework that could be used to sustain and maintain inclusive, supportive, constructive working relationships in teacher education environments. The findings also provide a case study about problems of practice as part of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project, a project funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Education. In their interviews, each educator made strong links between professional collaborative practices and examples of tikanga MƗori. Staff in the project taught preservice teachers, and had research commitments and caretaking duties on the faculty marae. It was a complex role; however, benefits for teacher educators included the reciprocation of support for preservice and inservice teachers, improved content and pedagogical knowledge from and in all three areas (preservice, inservice, and research) and the extensive networking opportunities. Two of the staff from the indigenous teacher educator group were chosen to be regional facilitators as part of the university’s team in the project. Their role was to identify a research focus that would benefit their colleagues’ teacher educator practice. Their research focus emerged at the national project conference in November 2006, when the local MƗori regional facilitators had a meeting with the MƗori regional facilitators from other national teams. The meeting discussion was about the two MƗori concepts of collaboration, mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi. The local MƗori regional facilitators found this discussion of interest, as they had both recently had interactions with colleagues at the university and other MƗori facilitators and had commented about their department’s successful collaborative practices. One possible important outcome that the local MƗori regional facilitators saw in exploring this focus was the development of a collaborative framework, with a set of protocols for working together with peers, teachers and students. At the time there were no formal induction processes operating within the department. In the past, new local MƗori teacher educators have been informally mentored by a more experienced colleague. An example of what this process had looked like in the past for the staff is summarised from four interviews with teacher educators who spoke about one colleague who they each saw as a mentor for them. They commented that the mentor supported their colleagues in solving their own 137

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

problems by giving their time and advice and exploring other options. They always felt what they shared was respected and kept in confidence. The mentor offered links of support to people and resources that they had gathered through their experience and networks. Other important collaborative relationships to note while the case study was being developed included the relationship with the university national facilitator. The national facilitators provided ongoing support to the local MƗori regional facilitators by meeting regularly and discussing the refining of focus and possible methods of data gathering. The research mentor, a senior academic, also supported with methods of data gathering. Both the national facilitator and research mentor gave pertinent advice on the choice of questions about collaboration for the inservice teacher educator interviews. The other research facilitators were available to share tools, and clarify appropriate methods of data collection. The final methodology process decided upon by the local MƗori research facilitators with the support of the team is outlined in the following section. METHODOLOGY

Research Questions The team had chosen to explore ways to improve inservice teacher educator practice through the use of critical friends. The overall question for the project was, “In what ways does a critical friend support inservice teacher educator engagement in collaborative relationships to optimise learning?” The head of school, national co-ordinator and the regional facilitators decided the specific focus question would be, “What are elements of collaboration (mahi tahi/mahi ngƗtahi)?” This question would contribute to exploring the sub question, “How can we sustain and maintain an inclusive, supportive and constructive working environment for local MƗori facilitators?” The same team decided on the interview questions and the research tools. Interviews As a result of advice from the national co-ordinator and research mentor, it was decided that semi-structured interviews would be conducted one-to-one with the MƗori teacher educators, rather than with a focus group. It was assumed that individual interviews would elicit more information from participants and they would have more opportunity to be heard than in a focus group situation. It was also agreed that it was an individual choice to be interviewed and any reporting about the interview data should be shared with, and approved by, all staff. Six staff members volunteered to be interviewed, including the two regional facilitators, the head of school and two other staff. Each interview was recorded and transcribed by the two local MƗori regional facilitators. As the researchers, transcribing the interviews gave the research facilitators an in-depth and intimate understanding of the data. Some of the interviews were also partially conducted in the MƗori language, and as fluent 138

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

speakers of the MƗori language it was easier for the research facilitators to transcribe these data, as MƗori-speaking transcribers are very difficult to find. Each interview transcription was checked with the individual participant and each research facilitator. QSR NVivo7, a research software package designed specifically for analysing qualitative data, was utilised to assist in identifying possible themes emerging from the interview data and to group key findings. All the participant quotes included in this chapter are from the interview data. KEY THEMES

Key themes demonstrating concepts of mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi showed similarities. Some participants made specific links between the concepts mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi in relation to their own marae and the university marae. Some participants also commented on how mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi were practised outside of their work environment in their sports, with their family and their wider MƗori community. The comments made in the interviews by participants referred specifically to their role as teacher educators; however, due to the make-up of their positions, some of their comments were also applicable to their preservice teaching and research responsibilities. The strongest similarity between the participants’ statements was the description of examples of tikanga MƗori as being part of their teacher educator practice. When interviewed about their understanding and practical examples of mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi, all participants described concepts, examples and practices that link back to the marae setting and made reference to a number of tikanga MƗori practices. The themes are explained below, with the over-arching theme being tikanga MƗori. The other themes include whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, aroha, kaupapa, and kotahitanga. These are fundamental concepts, underpinning many activities in MƗori culture and society. One of these activities is the pǀwhiri or the formal process which takes place on the marae when two groups of people meet for the first time. The following section discusses each of these fundamental concepts and how participant responses reflect these aspects in their teacher educator practice. Tikanga MƗori Examples of tikanga MƗori described by participants included the importance of formal MƗori practices such as pǀwhiri, karakia, and mihimihi (introductions), when initiating work with teachers, students and schools. Being involved in pǀwhiri by either hosting at the faculty’s marae or being hosted by a school was an act of mutual respect for both the MƗori educators and the school they were working with, and set a foundation for a new working relationship. Even though staff were young in years, they ensured they maintained MƗori protocol by performing the male and female roles appropriately, for example, the women perform karanga and waiata (supporting song) after the males perform whaikǀrero and karakia. Examples of some of these practices of mutual respect, youth maintaining MƗori protocol, and different roles described in interviews include: 139

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

Mahi ngƗtahi…could be defined as formal, so we have practices like powhiri…formal practices…karakia and mihimihi…being respectful of [school] environment so if they’re…wanting a full-on powhiri to welcome us, then we’re a part of that,…some of them provide us with a kai and it’s staying for that, even though you may have something else on, so, when they’ve gone to the effort to look after you…you’re respectful of that. Te Ao MƗori (the MƗori world) in action. On the marae you would see how the male and female meant to work together to fulfil a Kaupapa. Youthful staff work together to fulfil a tikanga element. Manuhiri coming in will also feel that it is a warm place, we create that, the people there create that. Participants also commented that the practice of pǀwhiri was an example of things MƗori being in action, and implied that this is an important part of relationship building in teacher education practice. Whanaungatanga Whanaungatanga is also a fundamental element of the pǀwhiri process, where a group of people come together for a common purpose or goal. Whanaungatanga was also described by participants as being evident in other areas of their teacher educator practice, including building of relationships with schools and colleagues and also relating to others to identify strengths to fulfil a common purpose or goal: I was thinking the word that first comes to mind is whanaungatanga, about mahi tahi or mahi ngƗtahi where a group of you are working towards a common goal, common purpose and the reason why that, the term, the concept of whanaungatanga came to mind was, I like to refer to whanaungatanga as one, building relationships, but two, networking and using the best of people’s abilities and stuff. Some participants also commented about colleagues who nurtured whanaungatanga by daily practices such as regular catch-up conversations, meals and social activities together: …relatedness conversations…knowing where somebody’s from first and then having a kai and having those sorts of conversations over kai. …show interest in people’s personal lives…a lot of us are good friends as well as colleagues. …certain people within our team…try and get us together regularly. These practices are similar to those described about the concept of manaakitanga, which is also based on the nurturing of relationships.

140

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

Manaakitanga Mead (2003) stated that all tikanga MƗori practices are underpinned by the high value placed upon manaakitanga – nurturing relationships, looking after people, and being very careful about how others are treated. The MƗori staff described practices in their work which reflected elements of manaakitanga: …making it as comfortable as possible for people. When we’re here, and when we’re going out into schools. …it’s that whole notion of collaboration like empowering each other. …different roles in supporting. …acts within mahi tahi are probably more informal…incidentals, like providing a cup of tea or providing kai. …supporting and being a contribution and being of service…manaaki, unselfishness. When people walk in here people know that there is a life, a spark, that people are busy…people always get a “Kia ora” (“Hello”) and always get a welcome and always get “Oh can I help you, are you looking for someone?” It cannot be stressed enough that manaakitanga is always important no matter what the circumstances might be (Mead, 2003). This implies an element of unconditional need to care or support one another as opposed to an obligatory need to offer support. The unconditional element of manaakitanga is similar to aroha or love. Aroha (Love) Aroha is an essential part of manaakitanga and an expected dimension of whanaungatanga (Mead, 2003). These principles are important in human relationships. Staff responses reflect elements of aroha, concurring with Mead’s assertions: …the journey that each individual goes through and everyone is valued and acknowledged for what they come with and the contribution they make. …mahi ngƗtahi is an unselfish act of contribution. …contribute by just sitting there and listening. …you’re making a cup of tea, but you’re sitting there and you’re being there. These acts of whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and aroha contribute to a common goal or purpose, or in MƗori terms, working towards a specific kaupapa.

141

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

Kaupapa Barlow (1991) provides definitions for the widely used term of kaupapa. When a new house is built, the kaupapa of the house refers to such things as the ancestor after whom the house is to be named and identifies the theme of the house. In the context of the marae setting there are rules and policies associated with the administration of the marae, protocols, customs and procedures. In establishing the kaupapa, marae protocols are made explicit. Kaupapa is also used to describe the type of work, functions, goals, policy, practices and administration involved in organisations. The participants gave these examples which describe the concept of kaupapa: …mahi tahi I see as working together as a contribution to a collective end. It really never is about me. It’s about what this kaupapa is and the passion for getting something done. …working together to fulfil a common purpose and in all sorts of settings. …you’re taking the journey but you may not know all of the little parts to that journey. You contribute, so you may not know how all of the little parts fit together for a kaupapa but you will know about how your strength has contributed or the area of your strength has contributed to that kaupapa and you’ll also have an idea of the bigger picture. …by supporting each other, by talking with each other and by clarifying ideas around that kaupapa, we will make the kaupapa work and that for me is mahi ngƗtahi. …when I want to take ideas, others’ ideas and criticisms into consideration and have an open mind, and have a clear understanding of what the outcome is, I think [this] is key, and communication. …this idea of ngƗtahi will include wairua (attitude, spirit), MƗori and mana (integrity, prestige), by your being there you give MƗori and mana to the kaupapa, to the collective group sitting there as one, as a unity, as a unified group to progress a kaupapa. This final statement identifies the importance of having unity and each individual working together to progress and achieve a certain goal or kaupapa. Kotahitanga Barlow (1991) stated that traditional unity was fundamental to MƗori. Everybody contributed to the well-being of the tribe, and one of the main reasons for unity was to give everyone an equal share of the resources so that no-one suffered unduly. The concept of unity pervaded every aspect of tribal functions and activities. The participants described examples of unity and making a contribution to the whole: …mahi ngƗtahi probably links directly with my last comment in that mahi tahi is working together as one, it has its origin in the collectiveness of doing 142

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

something, so when a kaupapa is new it’s new to all of us, or new to the area, mahi ngƗtahi is a way that we all grow our knowledge of the little bits… …a group making a contribution to our iwi (tribe) could be mahi ngƗtahi. Manuhiri come and they will see a united front in terms of staff. It is fitting to complete the list of MƗori concepts identified in their descriptions of the MƗori collaborative practices of mahi tahi and mahi ngƗtahi with the concept of kotahitanga, as this concept can also describe interconnectedness. From the literature and participant comments, it is evident that the key concepts of whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, aroha, kaupapa and kotahitanga are linked, interwoven also by the over-arching link of tikanga MƗori and the fundamental principles of tapu and noa, tika and pono. The MƗori formal welcoming process of pǀwhiri was the main example of tikanga MƗori in action in teacher education practice. A framework (see Figure 8.1) combines all of these elements, attempting to link tikanga MƗori to the practice of pǀwhiri, to the key concepts identified from participant comments about MƗori collaborative practices, and as a means to identify possible collaborative strategies for teacher educators.

Figure 8.1. He anga mahi tahi/mahi ngƗtahi (A collaborative practice framework). 143

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

EXPLANATION OF HE ANGA MAHI TAHI/MAHI NGƖTAHI

Tikanga MƗori – Tapu/Noa, Tika/Pono Tikanga MƗori is a set of over-arching principles for the practices suggested in this framework that measure whether a practice or action is appropriate, correct and adequate according to MƗori protocol, values and beliefs. There are varying levels of sacredness and normality in each of these practices, which can be better explained in each stage of the formal MƗori welcome of pǀwhiri described below. MƗori Concepts The key MƗori concepts of whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, aroha, kaupapa, and kotahitanga were chosen to organise and explain the findings in the case study about MƗori teacher educators exploring and identifying collaborative practices from a MƗori world view. Certain MƗori concepts described here relate to each section of the central pǀwhiri section of the framework and can be seen in examples of positive collaborative practices presented in this case. Pǀwhiri As noted, six stages of a typical formal MƗori welcome make up the central part of the framework which offers a linear process for teacher educators to follow to support positive collaborative outcomes from a MƗori world view. This process could be followed by many different stakeholders involved in teacher education. Each stage of the pǀwhiri linear process is linked to examples of teacher educator practice, questions to consider, and intended outcomes. Stage One: Wero MƗori concepts: kaupapa and kotahitanga (a common purpose or goal is identified and background research begins). Examples of practice: – Researching the appropriate process to engage with a particular school or community, for example through a colleague or another established relationship; – Ensuring you are well prepared with your background information about the school or community, especially the MƗori community; – Ensuring you are clear about the reciprocal benefits for the school or community and your institution; – Clearly identifying roles and responsibilities of all involved. Questions to consider: – Who are the affiliated iwi from this area? – Who are key kaumƗtua (elders) connected with this school or community? – Who else will you consult with before you engage with the school? 144

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

– How do you plan to engage initially with your teachers or school? – Who can help you engage with this new school? – What information have you prepared to share with them? For example: clear project proposals; clear outline of potential initiatives; clear programme outlines; how do you know if the information is clear and relevant? Intended outcomes: – Mutual respect for both the teacher educator and the school or community; – A foundation set for a new working relationship. Stage Two: Karanga MƗori concepts: aroha, kaupapa, whanaungatanga (identification of common parties and initial communication). Examples of practice: – Holding face-to-face meetings at the school or venue chosen by the community is the preferred method of initial interaction; – Making initial communication by phone prior to the face-to-face meeting is also preferred; – Establishing appropriate protocol through these initial phone conversations and meeting the needs of the school; – Assuming the initial hui (meeting) will begin with some form of MƗori protocol including a pǀwhiri, a whakatau (shortened informal welcome), and a mihimihi; – Being prepared and knowing your role in the participation of the above MƗori protocol. Questions to consider: – Who will support you with your choice of initial engagement strategy? – Who will you meet with? – How do you know who the most appropriate point of contact is? – How will you maintain communication after initial engagement? – Who will decide how to maintain communication? Intended outcome: – Clear lines of communication. Stage Three: Whaikǀrero MƗori concepts: kaupapa, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga (discussion about common goals begins between parties). Examples of practice: – Clearly communicating an agreed understanding of the purpose of the initial hui with all parties involved; – Documenting agreements and sharing either by letter or email; 145

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

– Following up and clarifying these agreements closer to and/or on the day of the proposed face-to-face hui; – Setting the agenda in consultation with the host school or community and being flexible to their needs; – Nurturing relationships (they are still fragile at this point); – Being open and flexible to other parties joining the discussion at a later date. Questions to consider: – Who will decide the agenda of the initial face-to-face meeting? – How do you ensure there is equal input by all involved? – How are the goals and aspirations of all parties catered for? Intended outcome: – A common understanding of an agreed purpose or goal. Stage Four: Karakia MƗori concepts: aroha, kotahitanga, manaakitanga (goals are set and committed to). Examples of practice: – Agreeing aims and objectives and working protocols in a manner that is led by the school or community; – Continually reviewing and considering the needs and wants of the school; – Being committed to meeting the needs of the school or community; – Agreeing on benchmarks to identify when the goal has been met. Questions to consider: – What contributions will all parties make? – What choices will the school be offered in protocols and decision making? – Who will be involved in ongoing decision making? Intended outcome: – An agreed commitment to achieve the common goal or purpose. Stage Five: Hongi/Hariru MƗori concepts: whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, aroha (formal documentation of agreements is made). Examples of practice: – Taking responsibility for organising the documentation and monitoring the progress of an initiative or programme; – Taking responsibility for the ongoing reporting and communicating between participating parties, preferably face-to-face; – The school or community contributing to information gathering. However, it should be led by the teacher educators as a consideration for the complex organisation of a school or community. 146

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

Questions to consider: – How will agreements be documented and monitored? – How will contributions be monitored? Intended outcome: – Progress towards goals is monitored and clearly reported to all parties involved. Stage Six: Kai HƗkari MƗori concepts: manaakitanga, aroha, whanaungatanga (all goals are met, acknowledged and celebrated). Examples of practice: – Sharing final outcomes of a programme or initiative on site with the school or community; – Reporting that involves all participating parties, e.g., students, teachers, parents and the wider community; – Acknowledging everyone involved in an agreed manner; – Having a celebration such as a shared meal with presentations and possibly a performance to conclude a project. Questions to consider: – How will all parties know whether or not all goals have been met? – Who will decide what the next steps will be? – How will achievements be acknowledged? – What happens to goals that are not met? Intended outcome: – An ongoing working relationship between the teacher educators and the school or community. CONCLUSION

MƗori researchers, such as Durie (1994, Whare Tapa WhƗ Model), Pere (1994, Ako), Macfarlane (1997, Hikairo Rationale), and Bevan-Brown (2003, Cultural SelfReview) have provided frameworks based on MƗori concepts and principles and purport the importance of using such frameworks when working with MƗori communities. The emerging framework presented in this chapter will continue to be refined, tested and critiqued with willing participants. One important aspect that requires consideration for teacher educators in regard to the framework is that the pǀwhiri is a formal procedure that is undertaken between two groups of people. What is critical about this process is the importance of each of the stages. Should each of these steps not be considered and managed correctly (tika) and in its entirety (pono), then there are consequences. The consequences will be subtle, for example, meetings being 147

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

cancelled, people no longer participating, the project timeline being extended due to unexpected circumstances. Therefore attention to detail is critical when working alongside colleagues as well as with others. The framework provided is linear and there will be navigation through the different stages of pǀwhiri when developing, building and sustaining relationships in different communities. With the recent curriculum reforms in New Zealand in the form of the governmentmandated The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) for English medium classrooms and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (Ministry of Education, 2008) for MƗori medium classrooms, there is an emphasis on schools building stronger relationships. Our model, He Anga Mahi tahi/Mahi ngƗtahi may provide teacher educators with a framework for enhancing these relationships. REFERENCES Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga whakaaro – Key concepts in MƗori culture. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Berryman, M., & Bateman, S. (2007). Claiming space and restoring harmony within hui whakatika. In M. Levy, L. W. Nikora, B. M. A. M. Rua & W. Waitoki (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Maori and Pacific Psychologies Symposium (pp. 111–122). Hamilton, NZ: The MƗori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato. Bevan-Brown, J. (2003). Cultural self-review: Providing culturally effective, inclusive education for MƗori learners. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER. Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: MƗori health development. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press. Durie, M. H. (2006). Foundations for psychological and social interventions with Maori. Presentation at Compass Professional Development Seminar, Auckland Institute of Technology, Auckland. Macfarlane, A. (1997). The Hikairo Rationale teaching students with emotional and behavioural difficulties: A bicultural approach. Waikato Journal of Education, 3, 153–168. Mead, H. M. (2003). Tikanga MƗori: Living by MƗori values. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2008). Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Pere, R. R. (1994). Ako: Concepts of learning in the MƗori tradition. (Monograph of the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board). Wellington, New Zealand: National Library. Smith, G. H. (1997). The development of kaupapa MƗori: Theory and praxis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Thompson, K., & Barnett, A. (2007). Interpreting & practicing Kaupapa Maori research in a community setting: The in’s and out’s. In Proceedings of the National Maori and Pacific Psychologies Symposium (pp. 147–154). Walker, R., Eketone, A., & Gibbs, A. (2006). An exploration of kaupapa MƗori research, its principles, processes and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, l9(4), 331–344. Wood, A., & Lewthwaite, B. (2008). MƗori science education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(3), 625–662.

148

LEEANA HEREWINI AND SARAH-JANE TIAKIWAI

9. TE POUTAMA An Alternative Framework Examining MƗori Medium Inservice Teacher Education Practice

INTRODUCTION

According to Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success: The MƗori Education Strategy 2008–2012 (Ministry of Education, 2008a), the MƗori Potential Approach for MƗori education has three key underlying principles: 1. MƗori potential: all MƗori learners have unlimited potential; 2. Cultural advantage: all MƗori have cultural advantage by virtue of who they are – being MƗori is an asset, not a problem; 3. Inherent capability: all MƗori are inherently capable of achieving success (p. 19). This approach shifts away from deficit-based thinking and by placing MƗori cultural concepts, knowledge and values as a core part of realising MƗori potential, Ka Hikitia highlights that “culture and education are inextricably interwoven” (p. 20). The Poutama (stairway pattern) served as a starting point for exploring the complexities, the multiple layered roles, and functions of MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. As inservice teacher educators’ professional learning and practices evolve and change, it is envisaged that the Poutama will also change. The opportunity to engage in a national inservice teacher education practice project created a chance for the team to reflect on their practice as MƗori medium inservice teacher educators. According to the project, the fundamental purpose of inservice teacher educators is to “support teachers to learn and improve their practice in ways that will lead to improved student outcomes” (Ministry of Education, 2008b, p. 13). This in turn would support the Ministry of Education’s overarching goal of becoming a “world-leading education system that equips all New Zealanders with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 30). The project identifies a range of ‘black boxes’ that influence the ‘chain of influence’, where the: …chain links effective professional learning opportunities for inservice teacher educators to effective [their] practice, which in turn supports ongoing teacher learning and changes in teacher practice, leading to improved student outcomes. (Ministry of Education, 2008b, p. 14) What is not explicit or obvious in the chain of influence or the black boxes is the importance of the context and particularly the cultural context in which such J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 149–161. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

processes are able to operate. Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2008a) suggested that such a context is important and draws from the MƗori Potential Approach utilised in the government sector to highlight how this can be achieved. The positioning of the MƗori medium component within the project, combined with what was understood about inservice teacher educator practice, required the MƗori medium project to give consideration to the aspirations of MƗori. From this position it was suggested that in order for inservice teacher educators to be truly effective practitioners in MƗori medium settings, they must be able to draw upon te reo me ǀna tikanga (language and customs), and have access to advice and guidance from kuia/kaumƗtua (elders) and educationalists experienced in MƗori medium education (Herewini, Shepherd, Kuka, Hawera & Watson, 2007). Whilst the literature and theories underpinning inservice teacher educator practice were useful during the course of the project,1 the MƗori medium team identified the need to develop their own thinking that reflected the unique and diverse settings in which they were located. This thinking was in response to the desire of the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to understand and articulate more specifically what MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice looked like for them and the schools in which they worked. This chapter will describe the outcome of that thinking, the development of the Poutama2 – a theoretical and methodological framework that seeks to locate MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice within kaupapa MƗori3 and te ao MƗori (the MƗori world) understandings and ways of doing and being. During the course of the project the Poutama underwent several iterations. The chapter will describe the initial thinking behind the development of the Poutama as an attempt to locate MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice in the absence of any real understanding about what that means, both in regards to the settings and to the inservice teacher educators themselves – their knowledge bases, their understandings of their culture, and how they bring their culture to their understanding of inservice teacher educator practice. FRAMING THE MƖORI MEDIUM PROJECT: DRAWING FROM KAUPAPA MƖORI

Effective inservice teacher educator practice must take account of iwi/hapnj (tribe/sub-tribe) and whƗnau (extended family structure) in order to meet the needs and aspirations of these key groups so that “succeeding as MƗori captures and reflects that identity and culture are essential ingredients of success” (Ministry of Education, 2008a, p. 18). Bishop (2008) suggested that this type of success lies in the “sense-making and knowledge-generating processes of the culture that the dominant system has sought to marginalize for so long” (p. 457). The MƗori medium project sought to reflect this by positioning its thinking about the project in a way that critically reflects on, and contributes to, the advancement of MƗori education and the realising of MƗori potential. The development of an emerging theory in MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice (the Poutama) was one way in which to do this.

150

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

Throughout the course of the project, and particularly when the three strands of MƗori inservice teacher educators came together, it became apparent that the thinking around the project was not fully cognisant of, or responsive to, the needs and aspirations of MƗori medium education. For example, as noted earlier in this section, and as will be demonstrated in the analysis of the vignettes, the need to recognise te reo me ǀna tikanga MƗori was a significant factor in assisting MƗori inservice teacher educators in their practice. Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh and Teddy (2007) suggested that in classrooms, pedagogies that are “holistic, flexible and complex, that will allow children to present their multiplicities and complexities and their individual and collective diversities” are more likely to be reflective of MƗori cultural aspirations (p. 11). From a MƗori inservice teacher educator perspective, these complexities, multiplicities and diversities reflect the realities of their roles in MƗori medium settings. As the analysis of the vignettes will show, MƗori medium education cannot take for granted that there is equal or consistent proficiency in language, confidence and strength in cultural understandings, or even consistency in the understanding and application of and between the marautanga and curriculum documents. From this positioning, it is the project team’s view that while inservice teacher educator theory and practice – as utilised and advanced in the project – has helped inform MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice, what has been of more use and relevance has been the ongoing development of the Poutama, which has sought to capture some of the developing thinking about their practice as MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practitioners. As such, the MƗori medium team has sought to re-position MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice – not in complete disregard to what has been developed and shared in the project, but to reflect the unique positioning of and contribution that MƗori medium can make to understandings about inservice teacher educator practice. There were three phases of the project as shown in Table 9.1. Phase 1 was an exploratory period with Phases two and three building on the exploratory work. Based upon the findings of Phase 2 the Poutama was then developed and tested during Phase 3. Table 9.1. Phases of the research Phase

Duration

Phase 1

Exploratory

2005–2006

Phase 2

Consolidation

2006–2007

Phase 3

Consolidation

2007–2008

FINDINGS

Phase 1: Mahi Tahi/Mahi NgƗtahi (Collaboration) The pilot phase of the MƗori medium project centred on an aspect of MƗori medium practice to focus our thinking and to provide a context and relevance to the wider project (Herewini et al., 2007). In this pilot phase, we examined the 151

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

notion of collaboration in relation to mahi tahi (working together)/mahi ngƗtahi (collective responsibility). We considered what, if any, similarities there were between our understandings of collaboration and mahi tahi/mahi ngƗtahi and whether, in our practice as inservice teacher educators, we were practising in ways that were culturally distinctive. What we found is that there were quite distinct cultural understandings of the notions of collaboration and mahi tahi/mahi ngƗtahi which influenced the ways in which we practised as inservice teacher educators working in MƗori medium environments. While we recognised that collaboration is often used as a translation for mahi tahi/mahi ngƗtahi, we found that the practice of mahi ngƗtahi, for example, was dependent on understanding that the power relations between the groups involved in this process had been addressed (after Roa, 2005). As such, the complex layers that contribute to the understanding and thus effective practice of mahi ngƗtahi can often be overlooked when trying to replicate this through the practice of collaboration. Phase 2: Further Explorations of Collaborative Practice During Phase 2 of the project, collaborative practice was further unpacked. Inservice teacher educators were supported to examine an aspect of their practice, later termed a puzzle of practice. These puzzles, written up as cases or vignettes, were varied and highlighted issues of gender, engagement with schools, and challenging or difficult conversations. A range of artefacts was used to capture the puzzles of practice. Phase 3: The Foundation for the Poutama The purpose of this phase of the project was to consolidate and extend the learning derived from the previous two phases and further develop the thinking that had emerged through the course of inservice teacher educators being engaged in the project. In particular, this phase of the research focused on: – creating a culture of professional learning that supports MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to improve their practice; – creating leadership models that support MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to improve their practice; – understanding how improved thinking and practice builds sustainable MƗori medium inservice teacher educators’ professional learning communities; – understanding how participants engage in collaborative cycles of inquiry; – trialing and critiquing the Poutama as a way of thinking about and improving MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice; – strengthening the connections between MƗori medium inservice teacher educator professional learning and practice, teaching quality and student outcomes. The project also explored the principles of inservice teacher educator professional practice and professional learning, which has been reported on in previous project work (Ministry of Education, 2008b). 152

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

The Poutama as a Metaphor – Emergent Thinking about MƗori Medium Inservice Teacher Educator Practice During the case studies and analysis phase in 2007, thinking about an alternative way of conceptualising MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice began to emerge. Smith (1999) described this as the need to find the space to imagine our own future. For the project at that time, what was becoming increasingly clear was that the thinking informing the project, while useful, was not always appropriate for, or responsive to, the MƗori medium context. As a result, the authors developed an alternative framework to assist inservice teacher educators working in the MƗori medium context. The Poutama was the first attempt to reframe thinking around inservice teacher educator practice that focused on professional learning and professional practice from a specifically MƗori perspective. It placed emphasis on learning and practice that was grounded in MƗori realities, recognising that such realities are quite often diverse, multilayered, and at times, complex. Through the consolidation phase of the project in 2008, inservice teacher educators were asked to reflect on the initial Poutama and to consider it in relation to their practice and their understandings of being inservice teacher educators. The initial response from MƗori medium inservice teacher educators involved in the project was that the Poutama was a useful way of interpreting inservice teacher educator practice and that as a tool it reflected more clearly MƗori knowledges and practices. One important aspect of the Poutama was that it did not seek to prescribe what those MƗori knowledges and practices were. Rather, the Poutama was seen as having the flexibility to be interpreted in multiple ways, reflecting the diverse experiences of MƗori, whƗnau, hapu and iwi. Similarly, interpretations of the Poutama emerged in relation to its design. As we explored this metaphor further, we learnt more about the construction of this art form. Initially the Poutama was chosen as it represented visually and metaphorically a pathway forward and upward for MƗori medium education. The Poutama, as described in 2007, was a metaphorical representation of the aspirations held for MƗori medium education and the place that inservice teacher educators working in the MƗori medium context occupied in assisting in the achievement of this aspiration. Since then, a range of materials has been considered to explore the construction of the Poutama, and how some of the processes inform or add layers to understanding how the Poutama becomes useful in inservice teacher educator practice. Some of these materials draw on the more traditional visual images used by MƗori, including tƗniko (embroidery), tukutuku (ornamental lattice work) and harakeke (flax), with more contemporary visual images including the use of materials such as fiberglass and glass. The process of preparing materials like harakeke, for example, in the construction of taniko and tukutuku is as important as the final pattern that emerges, such as the Poutama. The collection of the raw materials and the preparation of such materials, such as dyeing, provide starting points for a number of analogies pertaining to MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice and learning. 153

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

The emphasis on appropriately preparing the raw materials, for example, aligns with expectations of MƗori working with/in their own communities to know how to respond appropriately in MƗori medium settings, placing emphasis on cultural practices. Whakawhanaungatanga (relationships, working together) is an example of the preparatory work undertaken by MƗori medium inservice teacher educators before the provision of professional services can be done. What is implied here is that inservice teacher educators working in MƗori medium contexts require preparatory work to assist them in appropriately responding to the diversity that exists in MƗori medium education. Often the preparatory work is implicit (by way of cultural understandings for example) but is an expectation of inservice teacher educators. Applying this example to inservice teacher educator practice, what emerges are questions about the preparedness of inservice teacher educators for the MƗori medium context – what skills do they possess? What are their limitations? What knowledge bases inform their practice? What is the range of attributes required specifically for inservice teacher educators working in MƗori medium contexts? The Poutama as a framework seeks to conceptualise the complexities of inservice teacher educator practice by highlighting the multi-dimensional and multi-faceted nature of our work. It is assumed that MƗori medium inservice teacher educators are able to position themselves at any point on the Poutama and the journeys can be mapped or tracked as they appear at various points. The mapping of practice takes into account a range of factors. These factors are unpacked in Figure 9.1. Student Achievement Professional practice

Professional learning

Figure 9.1. Te Poutama – Version 1.

154

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

As can be seen, the Poutama is made up of two sides, each represented by two key aspects of inservice teacher educator practice – professional practice and professional learning. What we found in the early phases of the project was that some MƗori medium inservice teacher educators were strong in one area or the other. We surmised that strength in both professional practice and professional learning were key in realising student achievement goals. Student achievement was placed at the pinnacle of the Poutama to highlight its importance in inservice teacher educator practice. Following the development of the Poutama at the end of Phase 2, MƗori medium inservice teacher educators who were a part of the project were encouraged to test it as a metaphor for inservice teacher educator practice. Early thinking around the Poutama attempted to align criteria with indicators of inservice teacher educator practice. Feedback from some of the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators indicated that the Poutama did not fully encapsulate the images inservice teacher educators had of their practice. Some saw this first Poutama as linear and hierarchical – a model which did not accurately reflect MƗori ways of thinking about inservice teacher educator practice or MƗori ways of practising as an inservice teacher educator. As a result, a number of discussions were held about the Poutama, and while there was general agreement around the thinking behind its development (i.e., the need for an approach that enabled inservice teacher educator practice to be considered within MƗori medium educational settings), there were different views as to how the development might be conceptualised and implemented in practice. Figure 9.2 draws from two responses to the Poutama positioning in inservice teacher educator practice. They reflect different experiences (professional, educational and tribal) and are examples of how these experiences inform the ongoing development of thinking around the Poutama. This conceptualising of the Poutama was provided by an inservice teacher educator who had been working in this position for the last three years. The Poutama, from their perspective, needed to be more cognisant of the multiple roles and realities that inform the way inservice teacher educators practise. The reflection of the Poutama tukutuku panel, as shown in Figure 9.2, represents the importance of reflection for inservice teacher educators in their practice. Specifically, this inservice teacher educator felt that the reflective Poutama illustrated many points in inservice teacher educator practice where they could, and perhaps should, engage in an active process of reflection – about their work, about their positioning as inservice teacher educators, about their role as inservice teacher educators in relation to the communities and schools in which they were engaging, and so forth. The ability for the Poutama to reflect upon itself also highlighted that the learning process for inservice teacher educators is ongoing and iterative. Learning can therefore be examined in ways which more broadly encompass theoretical and practical positioning.

155

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

Figure 9.2. Te Poutama – Version 2.

At a visual level, the Poutama was also seen to align with the stories of the ascension into the heavens by Tane or Tawhaki4 to retrieve baskets of knowledge (G. Smith, 1991). This alignment appropriately positions the Poutama in the educational setting, and ensures that the objective of aspiring to MƗori educational advancement and achievement is always uppermost in MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. Response of One Inservice Teacher Educator One inservice teacher educator, who had been in this role for ten years, brought a range of experiences and wealth of knowledge, skills and qualities to the role. Following the initial presentation of the Poutama, this inservice teacher educator went away and reflected on what was presented and discussed and then returned to the group with an alternative reflection. Their reflection, as presented here, notes the role that reflective practice has in MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. In preparing this response to the Poutama for this chapter, we were unsure as to how to present the reflection. In the end, it was decided that it was not for us to summarise – partly in case we left out some of the critical thinking that was evident in it, but mostly because we felt it was a good example of the depth of thinking that many of the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators had been engaged in about their practice as inservice teacher educators and that was now coming to the fore. A church window at St Mary’s Church in Tikitiki of a poutama was a catalyst to this reflection about inservice teacher educator practice. Using this as a starting point, the inservice teacher educator also drew upon stories, waiata (song/chant), whakataukƯ (proverb) and the analysis of MƗori words of the Poutama as a metaphor of/for inservice teacher educator practice in MƗori medium settings. 156

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

One kǀrero (story) this inservice teacher educator drew upon was the ascension of Tane to the heavens to obtain ngƗ kete o te wƗnanga (the three baskets of knowledge). One thing learnt from this kǀrero was the role that Tane played in highlighting how the search for knowledge was an activity undertaken by MƗori. This type of searching (after Smith, 1992) creates the space which has allowed the metaphor of the Poutama to represent inquiry or research. This knowledge was sought on behalf of everyone and it was seen that the gifts (of knowledge) were all essential to the survival and well-being of the group. From this perspective, this inservice teacher educator drew similarities to the MƗori medium inservice teacher educator context and reminded us: …as teacher educators that what we do is not about ourselves but about the collective – those teachers we work with, the students and their whƗnau, hapu, and iwi that we may all succeed as MƗori and that our learning is framed by this. A whakataukƯ, ‘kei hopu tǀu ringa ki te aka taepa, engari kia mau ki te aka matua,’ (hold fast to the parent vine, not the loose vine) was related to the role and function of a MƗori medium inservice teacher educator as presented in the Poutama. The central spine of the Poutama could be seen as the aka matua – serving as another reminder that, even though our focus is supporting teachers in their learning, ultimately it is about the child and her/his learning. The aka matua in this sense represents those teaching and learning practices which lead to quality learning for both teachers and children alike, helping them to attain their own Tikitiki-o-rangi.5 The aka taepa are the distractions ‘blowing in the wind’ – that is, they are seen as the quick fixes, the ‘formulas’, the ‘band-aids’ – and refer to the many strategies and initiatives which, over the years, have had little effect on changing teacher practice in the longer term. A third interpretation of the Poutama was given by examining some of the MƗori translations for the word ‘central spine’. Tuaiwi or iwi tuaroa – words used to describe backbone or spine of the Poutama – opened up further interpretations that could extend the metaphor of the Poutama in regards to MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. Iwi (from tuaiwi or iwi tuaroa) can be defined as bone, and also as nation or people (Williams, 1971, p. 80). In a cultural sense, it represents a group of people who trace their whakapapa (genealogy) back to a common ancestor who may give their name to the collective group or iwi. MƗori have the expression “one of my bones” to convey the idea of a connection by whakapapa. This enables the tamaiti (child) to be seen as a part of a larger entity, that is, their whƗnau, hapu, and iwi linked by whakapapa and sharing common dreams and aspirations. The importance of these ideas was noted by the inservice teacher educator: As MƗori inservice teacher educators and teachers, we have to always keep this in front of our mahi (work) – we cannot and should not distance ourselves from those dreams and aspirations. Tua (from tuaiwi or iwi tuaroa) conveys the meaning of both time past and future (Williams, 1971, p. 444), which allows us to see the tamaiti as part of a continuum, 157

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

a whakapapa, informed by their past and moving into the future. In this sense the tamaiti can be seen as bringing the knowledge from their tƯpuna (grandparents/ ancestors) and as creating their own learning/knowledge/stories for themselves and for their uri (offspring) in the future. Again this inservice teacher educator comments that MƗori medium inservice teacher educators need to be cognisant of both and ensure that the integrity of the learning/knowledge/stories that have come from our tipuna are honoured as we create our own learning/knowledge/stories that we will take with us into the future. The stitching, or tuitui, that is evident in the construction of Poutama, can also be interpreted in the context of the tamaiti being joined or ‘stitched’ to their whakapapa, whƗnau, hapnj and iwi. It is also evident in the expression tuia te muka tangata – a metaphor for the joining together of people with a common whakapapa. This inservice teacher educator commented that the Poutama is a fitting metaphor, reflecting the iterative nature of inservice teacher educator work as well as being a reflective tool for MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. They saw the Poutama as an appropriate cultural model as it incorporates ideas of growth, striving and improvement. Furthermore, the Poutama stressed that learning and inservice teacher educator practice are expanding, building layer upon layer and step upon step. The inservice teacher educator felt it important to emphasise that the child is the centre of the Poutama and, working on the assumption that inservice teacher educator work is an inquiry, they felt that each new inquiry (child) should then return to the centre for constant reflection on the impact on student learning. FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE POUTAMA

The contributions of the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators, as shown in the two responses presented in this chapter, highlight the evolving thinking that is occurring around the Poutama. When the Poutama was first constructed, it was evident that it would be a ‘work in progress’. In its first iteration, the Poutama was an attempt to conceptualise in a visually MƗori way the thinking and practice that was evident in MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice and that, while related to the wider project, was still quite distinct. By conceptualising in this way, it was hoped that a space would be provided for MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to think about and reflect on their practice as MƗori medium inservice teacher educators rather than as inservice teacher educators who worked in a MƗori medium environment. Since the initial development of the Poutama, the thinking has been further developed – through processes of reflection (as evident in the two responses provided above), as well as through discussion as a group. It was always intended that as understanding about inservice teacher educator MƗori medium practice and learning grows, so too will the Poutama. Following feedback from inservice teacher educators during 2008, a further representation of the Poutama was conceived in the form of a tukutuku panel. The traditional tukutuku panel is a 158

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

lattice-like frame made up of vertical stakes which form the back layer of the frame (that cannot be seen by the viewer); horizontal rods that form the layer of the panel (that can be seen); and flexible material which when threaded through the rods and stakes forms the patterns and designs. The patterns that make up the tukutuku panel, of which the Poutama is one, are what are visible to the viewer. These patterns are often repeated or are done in ways which tell stories appropriate to the place in which they eventually hang. Re-presenting the Poutama within the framework of a tukutuku panel is conceptualised in a multidimensional way, whereby sighting the back is as important as the outward view which is usually the only part seen by the viewers. The importance of this for the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators goes back to the notion of understanding one’s own cultural knowledge, background and positioning within the community that informs how MƗori medium inservice teacher educators practise. The ability to remove oneself – in the sense of maintaining ‘professional isolation’ – was not a reality for the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators and thus it was important for them to be able to visualise how much of an impact this ‘back view’ can have on their practice and their ability to effect change in the classroom. Additionally, it was felt that the presentation of the Poutama on a tukutuku panel enabled the repetitive patterning of the Poutama, where the reflection could be more easily seen and/or visualised. Again, this presentation reinforces the importance held by the MƗori medium inservice teacher educators of reflection as a part of their practice – a reflection that requires them to be cognisant of the intricacies and multi-faceted factors relating to their practice. At another level, the materials and processes which are used and followed to make the tukutuku panel were also viewed as powerful illustrations of MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. For example, the ‘preparatory phase’ of the tukutuku, which requires consideration of what type of harakeke is appropriate to be used (both in the construction and design), the choice of dyes, the choice of the hardboard and other materials can be likened to the preparatory skills required of inservice teacher educators. In MƗori medium settings, such ‘preparatory phases’ may include understanding the role that an ability or strength of knowledge in te reo (the MƗori language) and tikanga MƗori (MƗori cultural protocol), appropriate to the local context, may have in their work; and relationships and connections that need to be established in order for their work to be effective, including relationships with communities and whƗnau as well as schools and teachers. The gathering of harakeke or raw materials can be compared to the accrual of the skills required of an inservice teacher educator. For inservice teacher educators working in MƗori medium contexts, these skills are required to assist them in appropriately responding to the diversity that exists in MƗori medium education, as well as the challenges they often face of having to represent MƗori medium interests to their non-MƗori colleagues and counterparts. The back of the tukutuku, which shows how the stitching is formed like an X, suggests intersections or key points at which inservice teacher educators are able to mark their progress or their journey in regards to professional learning and practice. 159

MCRAE AND TAIWHATI

The binding or tying of the tukutuku gives many powerful images and can be thought of as the complexity and intricacies of inservice teacher educator practice. For example, the X could represent the many relationships and bonds the MƗori medium inservice teacher educator has when working in a particular iwi/whƗnau/hapu/kura (school) and the significance of these relationships in terms of allowing the MƗori medium inservice teacher educator to work in the school. The construction of the tukutuku panel and the positioning of the Poutama in this way serve as a reminder that what sits behind or underpins (unseen) one’s professional capacity is as important as the outward features that are seen. Furthermore, with the backing of the tukutuku this is unchangeable6 (personal identity); however, the pattern on the good side shown to the world may vary (professional identity). There might be different patterns which are constructed differently in order for an inservice teacher educator to respond to the context. The point to note is that the backing is constant. FINAL COMMENTS

As can be seen in this chapter, the development of the Poutama was undertaken to allow MƗori medium inservice teacher educators a space in which to begin thinking about their practice as inservice teacher educators that more appropriately reflected and responded to the MƗori medium environment in which they were located. During our exploration of inservice teacher educator practice, it became evident that at times inservice teacher educators deconstructed who they were, their inservice teacher educator practice, their contractual obligations and, over time, reconstructed themselves so that their personal identity aligned with their professional identity. The Poutama as a reflective tool enabled a culturally appropriate space from which MƗori medium inservice teacher educators could think about their practice in relation to these often conflicting and competing demands. The iterations of the Poutama, and the more recent development of the Poutama as a tukutuku panel, highlight the complex and multi-layered roles and functions that MƗori medium inservice teacher educators play as professional practitioners in local communities who seek to make a difference for the children in whose schools and communities they serve. We conclude by noting that the Poutama will undergo even more iterations as MƗori medium inservice teacher educators think about their practice in this way. The Poutama was not developed as a way of capturing MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. Rather, its intent was to open the space from which MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice could be explored, reflected upon, changed and improved. To this end, we see the Poutama developed here as being perhaps the first of many that will continually strive to make a difference for our children.

160

TIKANGA MƖORI KEI TE AO WHAKAAKO

REFERENCES Bishop, R. (2008). Te Kotahitanga: Kaupapa MƗori in mainstream classrooms. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln & L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 439–458). California: Sage. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kǀtahitanga Phase 3: WhƗnaungatanga: Establishing a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in mainstream secondary school classrooms (Report to the Ministry of Education). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Herewini, L., Shepherd, L., Kuka, T., Hawera, P., & Watson, T. (2007). INSTEP Waikato: MƗori medium (Progress Report to the Ministry of Education). Hamilton: School Support Services, University of Waikato. Ministry of Education. (2007). Statement of Intent: 2007–2012 (SOI). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11939& data=l Ministry of Education. (2008a). Ka Hikitia: Managing for success: The MƗori education strategy 2008–2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2008b). Ki te Aoturoa: Improving teacher educator learning and practice: Te whakapakari i te ratonga whakangungu kaiwhakaako. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Roa, R. (2005). How teachers develop effective learning relationships with MƗori students in the classroom. Unpublished Masters’ thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Royal, C. (2006, November). Kaupapa MƗori and MƗtauranga MƗori. Presentation at Waikiki, Honolulu. Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/methodology/59/ Smith, G. (1992, November). Tane-nui-a-rangi’s legacy…Propping up the sky…Kaupapa MƗori as resistance and intervention. Paper presented at NZARE/AARE joint conference, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research with indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. Williams, H. W. (1971). A dictionary of the MƗori language. Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.

NOTES 1

2

3

4 5

6

There were three phases of the INSTEP project. Phase 1 was an exploratory period with Phases two and three building on the exploratory work. Based upon the findings of Phase 2, the Poutama was then developed and tested during Phase 3. The Poutama is commonly referred to as the stairway pattern that appears in tukutuku in many whare (meeting houses) across Aotearoa. The pattern signifies growth and striving ever upwards. We refer to the Poutama as both an emerging theory and a metaphor for MƗori medium inservice teacher educator practice. While we acknowledge the challenges of positioning the Poutama in these different areas, we felt that this positioning reflected the experience of MƗori medium inservice teacher educators who are required to work in theoretical (mainstream) and cultural (MƗori) worlds simultaneously. As Charles Royal (2006) explains, “‘Kaupapa MƗori’ is used popularly by MƗori in a fairly broad way meaning any particular plan of action created by MƗori, expressing MƗori aspirations and expressing certain MƗori values and principles”. There are tribal variations as to who ascended into the heavens to retrieve the baskets of knowledge. Tikitiki-o-rangi has multiple understandings, a common one of which refers to the topknot of Maui and alludes to the attainment of something. In this context it refers to achieving one’s goal. Further work needs to be done to see if this holds true.

161

MEENAKSHI SANKAR

10. DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS Reflections from Evaluation Practice

INTRODUCTION

The Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project was designed as a research and development project to address policy and practice concerns about the consistency and quality of inservice teacher education provision in New Zealand. The project aimed to generate and deepen current knowledge about learning and practice of inservice teacher educators by drawing on the collective experiences of the providers and actively engaging in conversations that created dissonance (Spillane, Reiser & Reimer, 2002). A key feature of the project was that it focused on lifting current practice by encouraging practitioners to reflect on their own practice (using a number of different tools and resources) and modifying and adjusting it as appropriate to achieve better outcomes for teachers and students. In essence, the initiative supported professional learning of teacher educators and was based on the premise that the quality of inservice teacher education practice is a critical contributing factor to improving the quality of teaching. Within the sector there was a widespread belief that investing in high quality inservice teacher education creates an environment where ongoing teacher learning is promoted and supported, thus improving the quality of teaching, leading to improved student outcomes. This view was further supported by recent successful professional learning initiatives (Numeracy Development Projects, Te Kotahitanga and Te Kauhua) undertaken by the Ministry of Education in partnership with key stakeholders, which indicated that the quality of inservice teacher education practice was pivotal in promoting and supporting teacher learning that leads to sustained changes in teaching practice and improved student outcomes (Higgins with Bonne & Fraser, 2004). However, a high degree of variability in inservice teacher education practice was identified and there was a growing sense in the sector that practice was not meeting the needs of teachers in schools. Further, there was an insufficient level of crossfertilisation of learning across the sector taking place, impeding the evolution of a body of knowledge about what constituted good inservice teacher education practice. The project was designed as a research and development project as a strategy to overcome these issues. By drawing on the collective experiences of providers offering inservice teacher education services and actively engaging with them to create dissonance (Spillane J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 163–178. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

SANKAR

et al., 2002), the project aimed to generate knowledge about learning and practice of inservice teacher educators, including advisors, facilitators, and resource teachers. This was expected to contribute to: – consistency and coherence in inservice teacher education practice across New Zealand; – the development of nationally coordinated approaches to building the capacity of inservice teacher educators, owned and operated by professionals offering inservice teacher education; – the generation of a knowledge base about the practice of inservice teacher education through the production of learning materials.1 This chapter discusses some of the methodological complexities and challenges associated with the evaluation of the project and how these were addressed. EVALUATING A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

When faced with the task of evaluating what was essentially a developmental initiative, evaluators initially responded by taking the ‘tried and tested’ course of developing a programme logic model (Weiss, 2000) to establish logical links between activities and outcomes and develop a set of indicators to monitor progress towards outcomes. Such an approach required evaluators to treat the project as a well-defined initiative with clear boundaries and outcomes against which the project could be evaluated. Early conversations with project team members revealed that such an approach would be neither feasible nor aligned with the principles underpinning the project which was deliberately designed as an iterative and organic project. It became apparent to evaluators that there were features in the design and implementation of the project that were ‘messy’ and that conventional measurement-oriented approaches were not likely to be appropriate or useful. The evaluators recognised the need to take an alternative approach such as that offered by Stake (2004), in which he suggests that evaluation be treated as experience-oriented “to build upon experiential, personal knowing in real space and real time and with real people” and “steadfastly responsive to the chronological activity, the perceptions, and the voices of people associated with the [thing being evaluated]” (p. xv). The project grew organically and involved a number of actors who trialled and tested different approaches over the course of the project. This posed some challenges as conventional evaluation design and approaches did not readily lend themselves to the evaluation of the project. In order to progress the evaluation design, the evaluation team grappled with the following question: how could an evaluation framework be designed which would help further the process of programme development and at the same time provide the data required for a summative assessment to be made at a later stage? Evaluators drew on the action research and action learning principles of the project by debating these questions with the project team and suggested using evaluability assessment (Wholey, 1987) as a way to deal with the messiness and complexity of the project. Programme evaluability depends on the presence of goals, agreement of purpose and use of the evaluation, and agreement between all those involved in the programme 164

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

as to the criteria for successful outcomes. Evaluability assessment involves an assessment prior to a full-blown evaluation to establish whether a programme or policy can be evaluated and what might be the barriers to its effective and useful evaluation. In the context of the project, this process involved articulation of the logic underpinning an intervention, bringing together different perspectives of the programme across the different stakeholders, developing a framework for the evaluation, and identifying the evaluation questions and the different approaches that could potentially be used. Exploring these aspects in a systematic way helped build a true picture of the project, its objectives, goals and its overall intent from multiple perspectives and clarify the intended use and purpose of the evaluation. By asking evaluative questions and applying principles of programme logic, evaluators aimed to work with those engaged with the change effort to design a process that matched the philosophy of the project. Implementing Evaluability Assessment Wholey (2004) identified six key steps for undertaking an evaluability assessment: – involving stakeholders; – clarifying the programme intent; – exploring programme reality; – reaching agreement on any needed change in programme design and implementation; – developing evaluation design options; – reaching agreement on the focus and intended use of the evaluation – exploring evaluation feasibility, cost and timing. The rest of the chapter illustrates how each of the steps was implemented by developing an evaluation framework and plan for the project. The discussion also focuses on outcomes achieved with a view to identifying lessons for the future. Involving stakeholders. To facilitate the development of an appropriate evaluation design and use of the evaluation findings, the evaluators, along with the Ministry of Education, established two groups – a Working Group and a Reference Group – to provide ongoing input to the evaluation. The Working Group comprised evaluators from within the Ministry and policy staff responsible for implementing the project. Their primary role was to ensure that the evaluability assessment process was implemented in line with the plan and facilitating access to programme participants and project documents. The Reference Group, on the other hand, represented a wider range of interests from within the Ministry and the sector and was invited to provide ongoing advice to the evaluation. Clarifying the programme intent. This was a critical step as there had been some changes to staffing at the Ministry of Education in the period between policy design and implementation which influenced expectations from the project. There were also multiple interests in the project and there was no shared view or understanding 165

SANKAR

about the programme’s intent and purpose between the various stakeholders (including the Ministry of Education, inservice teacher educator providers and union representatives). Evaluators used two sources of data for clarifying programme intent. The first source was programme documentation including Cabinet papers, proposals submitted by participants, accountability documents such as contracts, milestone reports and other relevant policy documents that provided the wider context for understanding the drivers for the project. The second source of information was interviews with policy makers, programme managers, programme participants and sector representatives. The interviews focused on: exploring the intent and purpose of the project from a multiple stakeholder perspective; developing a better understanding of the design and implementation of the project at a regional level; expected outcomes from the project by regional and national stakeholders; and clarifying expectations regarding use of the evaluation. Questions explored during these interviews are listed in Figure 10.1. Guide for interviews with policy makers, programme participants, and sector representatives in the project – From your perspective, what were the drivers for the project? – How would you describe the current environment for inservice teacher education in New Zealand? – What is the intent and purpose of the project? – What is the relationship between the three objectives outlined in all relevant project documents? How are they expected to be achieved within the project? – What is the relative emphasis across the three objectives? – What are the structures and processes in place to support the implementation of the project? How well are they working? – What are the unique or distinctive features of the project from your perspective? In what way is it similar to or different from other initiatives implemented by the Ministry? – What is the intended use of the evaluation?

– What are the potential barriers to the evaluation? Figure 10.1. Interview questions – clarifying the programme intent.

Our conversations with the stakeholders revealed some distinctive features of the project that needed to be considered when developing a framework for the evaluation of the project. These can be summarised as: – The project emphasised explicit learning – The project encouraged inservice teacher educators to articulate their theoretical knowledge base, including frameworks and/or approaches that drove their personal professional practice. This approach 166

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

was based on the belief that the process of inquiry began with deconstructing the inservice teacher educator’s own everyday context which in turn allowed them to identify the inconsistencies or contradictions in their day-to-day practice and initiate change. – The project was designed to create a space for discussion on problems of practice – A key feature in the design of the project was the establishment of the national facilitators’ forum. The national facilitators were drawn from the sector and included a mix of private and public providers of inservice teacher education services. This group was a critical mechanism through which the intent of the project could be realised. The group met monthly over a two-year period to discuss, debate and challenge each other’s understanding of key concepts. Assessing the extent to which this group functioned as a cohesive group assumed significance for the evaluation. – The process of inquiry activated by the project was intended to change the status quo – Inquiry into personal beliefs and assumptions, asking hard questions of one’s own practice and critically reflecting on each provider’s interpretations of ‘evidence’ were steps built into the process to deliberately create dissonance. Participants actively undertook audio and video recordings and kept reflective journals to keep track of their interactions with teachers and school principals, and shared these with other teacher educators to find new and effective ways of working. The evaluation needed to consider these reflections when making judgments about shifts in inservice teacher education practice triggered by the process. Consequently, multiple expectations and uses for the evaluation were identified including: – informing ongoing improvement of the project and building on past experiences; – capturing lessons learnt for wider use in the Ministry about how research and development type projects work; – enabling participants to reflect on the value of the process and the changes that had occurred in their practice; – exploring the value of engagement and partnership as an analytic concept as the monthly forums established a process for facilitating deliberation and dialogue about practice. On the basis of information gathered from these sources, evaluators and programme stakeholders developed a shared understanding of the theory of change and used this to describe and communicate the relationships between the different activities of the project. The description of how the project actually contributed to achieving the intended objectives (shown in Figure 10.2) was then tested and validated with stakeholders to ensure that it was acceptable to users of the evaluation. It also allowed participants operating at different levels (e.g., national facilitators, regional facilitators, other inservice teacher educators – referred to as ISTEs in Figure 10.2 – teachers, participating schools, managers in institutions that delivered inservice teacher education) to understand their fit within the wider project and make sense of their role and contribution to the overarching objectives of the project. 167

SANKAR

Figure 10.2. Plausible theory of change.

Exploring programme reality. To build an understanding of the operational context for the project and understand the barriers, if any, to implementation, the evaluators interviewed participants at a regional level, reviewed accountability documents submitted by national facilitators, and talked to the implementation team. These interviews revealed considerable variability between programme intent and programme implementation. In the initial stages, it appeared that the project was defined quite tightly, particularly with regard to the timeline, resources, and the intended roll-out. However, the programme design was adapted as implementation occurred, owing to different interpretations of the intent and as participants had opportunities to clarify meaning. This led to different understandings of the programme and the emergence of the different focus during implementation. The interviews also revealed some inconsistencies in understandings across the system about good inservice teacher education practice and the role of participants in creating change for improvement (in keeping with the action research/action learning principles) underpinning the project. As a result, while the policy teams had the expectation that the sector would take over the ownership of the project, the sector representatives did not hold the same view. Another area of concern was with regard to the action research/action learning approaches used by participants. While there was an explicit commitment to action research, in some instances the process had become the outcome and the participants had lost sight of the fact that the puzzle or inquiry question needed to be grounded in improving teaching outcomes which in turn would lead to improved student

168

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

outcomes. The kinds of questions asked by evaluators of participants to explore these issues are listed in Figure 10.3. Guide for interviews with programme participants and implementation team within the Ministry of Education – How was the project implemented in your context? – What were the factors that influenced the design of your project? – What was the dominant focus of inquiry in your project? Why? – Some projects focused on examining issues to do with strengthening communications and relationships between inservice teacher educators and teachers. What were your observations about the nature of the relationship between inservice teacher educators and teachers that led you to consider this to be an area of focus? – Who is involved in your project? What structures and processes have been put in place to support implementation? How well are these working? – What outcomes are you working towards? How will you know when you get there? – What data or records are being held within your project to help you monitor and track progress towards these outcomes? – What mechanisms are in place to enable transfer of learning from the project about inservice teacher education practice to the wider institutional setting? How are managers being engaged in this project to ensure that benefits are sustained over time? – What are some of the challenges and rewards of participating in the project?

– What baseline information do you have about current knowledge, skills and attributes of the inservice teacher educators participating in your project to measure shifts or change in this regard? Figure 10.3. Interview questions – exploring programme reality.

Reaching agreement on changes needed in programme design and implementation. As noted earlier, an evaluability assessment raised a number of questions about design and implementation that were to be addressed if the initiative was to achieve successful outcomes. These issues were discussed and debated by the Reference Group and actions were taken to respond to these issues. Issues of particular concern for the Reference Group and the project team were: – lack of clarity around the role of materials in the project – it was expected that the process of inquiry facilitated by the project would generate rich material for informing future practice in New Zealand. However, this objective of the project was least clear to participants and needed to be emphasised if project goals were to be achieved. – a need to anchor inquiry into practice in a conceptual framework to ensure a focus on improving quality of teaching leading to improved student outcomes at all times. There were some instances where the process of inquiry had become an end in itself and was not directly related to lifting quality of teaching. 169

SANKAR

This was a source of concern and if left unattended could potentially erode the relevance and value of the project for the sector. – increased relevance and value of engagement with the Reference Group –the role of the sector in the project was not immediately apparent to the Reference Group members resulting in diluting their participation and interest in the project. Raising these issues early through the evaluability assessment allowed the Ministry to address these issues in a targeted way with programme participants and reemphasise the key objectives of the project. Evaluators worked with policy makers and implementation teams to find ways of integrating these issues and concerns into subsequent iterations of the project design. Developing evaluation design options. Applying the framework developed during the evaluability assessment highlighted different levels of change in inservice teacher education practice that the project was aiming to achieve: changes to the project participants’ own level of understanding and knowledge about their practice; changes to inservice teacher education practice more generally; increased consistency and professionalism throughout the sector; and contributing to a body of knowledge about inservice teacher education pedagogy. Achieving change in all these areas was expected to help achieve the overarching goal of effective, quality teaching which in turn will achieve improved student outcomes. The framework revealed a number of different strands for the evaluative inquiry, as illustrated in Figure 10.4. The strands are numbered to show the sequence in which the evaluative activities were intended to occur.

Figure 10.4. Applying the theory of change to the evaluation.

170

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

Using the framework developed for evaluating the project pointed to the need for a mixed-methods design and the methods outlined in Table 10.1 were proposed for consideration by the project team. Table 10.1. Key questions and proposed methods for the identified evaluative strands Evaluative strand

Key questions

Proposed methods

Understanding the role of project structures and processes.

How effective were the project structures, processes and systems in enabling the achievement of outcomes?

Qualitative interviews with national facilitators and project team members.

Knowledge, skills and expertise acquired within the project by national facilitators and regional facilitators.

How, in what ways and under what circumstances, has participating in the project changed the national facilitators’ and regional facilitators’ beliefs, attitudes and understanding and knowledge about inservice teacher education theory and practice? How can this be demonstrated?

Longitudinal in-depth case study research with four participants using the national facilitator as the unit of analysis; Review of milestone reports provided by national facilitators.

Impact on inservice teacher education sector including provider organisations.

To what extent has the project provided a unifying and strategic focus across the inservice teacher education sector to improve coherence and consistency of inservice teacher education provision?

Sector survey on completion of the project.

Changes to inservice teacher education practice.

What changes have occurred to inservice teacher education practice? What aspects of inservice teacher education practice have changed? What is different about the way inservice teacher educators are responding to or dealing with the situation?

Survey of inservice teacher educators who participated in the project; Survey of professional development coordinators in schools; Survey of school principals.

Contribution to inservice teacher education knowledge base.

To what extent has the project contributed to generating a ‘mode’ of inservice teacher education practice?

Survey of inservice teacher educators.

171

SANKAR

Evaluative strand

Key questions

Proposed methods

Impact on quality of teaching.

What changes have occurred to teacher learning as a result of inservice teacher educators’ engagement in the project?

Longitudinal case study research; Survey of teachers to determine the extent to which teaching practice is informed by student outcomes.

Impact on student outcomes.

Given the evidence of improved inservice teacher education practice, what impact can we discern on student outcomes?

Tracking student outcomes in schools where inservice teacher educators were working in depth.

Impact on student outcomes.

Given the evidence of improved inservice teacher education practice, what impact can we discern on student outcomes?

Tracking student outcomes in schools where inservice teacher educators were working in depth.

These areas were not mutually exclusive and there were strong interrelationships between them. While the evaluability assessment process generated questions for each area of the evaluative inquiry, it was not necessary that each line of inquiry be conducted in a separate evaluation. Evaluators looked to combining these questions within an evaluation in order to build a holistic picture of change. Reaching agreement on focus and intended use of evaluation – exploring evaluation feasibility, cost and timing. Successful completion of an evaluability assessment process requires reaching agreement and getting decisions from intended users of the evaluation on the proposed theoretical framework and methods that will be used to evaluate the programme. In the context of the project this was achieved in the following ways: – Two analytical workshops were held with both the Working Group and the Reference Group to discuss and debate the proposed approach and its limitations; – A workshop was held with the national facilitators to gain their buy-in and agreement on the approach. The workshops ensured that the interests of key stakeholders were maintained through the early provision of evaluability assessment ‘products’. As a result there were ‘no surprises’ towards the end of the evaluability assessment process. The discussions furthered the thinking of the evaluators and were incorporated into the evaluability assessment report that was drafted and signed off by the Ministry. The final report from the evaluability assessment phase was split into two parts – Part one documented the theoretical basis for framing the evaluation and the critical questions that ideally need to be asked for a robust evaluation, whereas Part two documented details about costs and timing associated with each of the evaluation activities proposed in the evaluability assessment report. These activities were 172

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

graded using a high/medium/low priority scale in consultation with the project team in light of their relevance to programme objectives, availability of resources, and feasibility in terms of quality of data. Activities marked as ‘high’ priority were then contracted through a separate process for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of the project. The process described above ensured that the subsequent evaluation of the project was relevant and purposeful in its focus. It established clear boundaries for the evaluation and allowed the project team to manage expectations regarding what the evaluation could or could not achieve. THE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

The formulation of a ‘theory of change’ model outlined in the evaluability assessment report helped identify key issues and their relative priority to aid decision making on the use of limited evaluation resources. The Ministry decided to focus the national evaluation of the project on the value of the project from a number of stakeholder perspectives – the Ministry, participants and the sector more generally. Accordingly, two particular issues were identified for the national evaluation: – understanding the role and contribution of project structures and processes2 (process evaluation); – identifying early indicators of change in two critical outcome areas – the practice of national facilitators in their sphere of influence and growing professional leadership in the sector. The decision to focus the national evaluation in this way was made in light of other project activities. For instance, each of the 12 participants was expected to produce a detailed research report documenting both the implementation of the project and the outcomes achieved in their contexts. Further, the Ministry had taken a number of steps to produce resource materials in the form of a publication (including audio and video clips) on the basis of the understanding of what constitutes effective inservice teacher education practice through the project. To avoid the duplication of efforts, the Ministry felt that it would be more useful for the national evaluation to look across the entire project to provide an assessment of the extent to which the project achieved its objectives and the extent to which the changes in practice identified in the project are sustainable. Evaluators used mixed-methods design to take advantage of the strengths of each approach to paint a rich picture of the value of the project for participants.3 The evaluation combined data from the research reports submitted by programme participants, key informant interviews, longitudinal case study research and a survey of key stakeholders from the inservice teacher education sector. The evaluation was conducted over an 18-month timeframe.4 The findings from the evaluation indicated that the project was a timely and invaluable intervention in bringing about awareness and understanding across the sector about what constitutes effective inservice teacher education practice. The value of adopting an inquiry approach in developing practice is well documented in Ki te Aoturoa – Improving Inservice Teacher Educator Learning and Practice.5 173

SANKAR

The evaluation further highlighted that the impact of the project could be discerned at a number of different levels – at an individual practitioner level; at a group level; at an organisational level; and at a sector level – to varying degrees. These levels were embedded within each other, suggesting that there was a time dimension to these impacts. The final evaluation report detailed the nature of these impacts by drawing on the qualitative and quantitative data. This analytical framework is illustrated in Figure 10.5.

Figure 10.5. Analytical framework for the evaluation.

Lessons Learned Our experience highlights four main points relevant to future planning and design of evaluations of messy, iterative interventions. Lessons learnt are grouped under four broad themes. Clarifying and defining evaluation purpose. The diversity of interests in the evaluation and complexity surrounding the implementation of the project meant that evaluators had to spend considerable time gaining a clear understanding of the purpose of the evaluation, including unpacking different priorities and perspectives of stakeholders and reconciling these to ensure the conduct of an effective evaluation. It became apparent very quickly that some stakeholders wielded more influence than others and were in a stronger position to affect an evaluation’s focus, criteria, and methods and to promote ease of access to data. Although developing consensus was important, supporting programme stakeholders to make pragmatic decisions about the evaluation to respond to their needs was a priority for evaluators. In the context of the project evaluation, 174

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

the evaluators achieved this through maintaining ongoing, extensive dialogue with key stakeholders, individually at first and then collectively, to discuss and debate the implications of stakeholder views and opinions. This process also helped manage differing expectations of the evaluation, particularly in areas where there were clear gaps in data. Stakeholders were constantly reminded that the programme had been underway for some time and there was little or no comparable baseline information available, for instance, on the current knowledge and skills of inservice teacher education practitioners before the start of the project. These processes ensured a level of transparency in decision making and built a shared understanding of the purpose of the evaluation from early on. An objective of the project was to develop and publish evidence-based professional learning materials, and in order to meet this objective the project team consciously included a member with strong communication and publishing experience. Since the broad parameters of the project were set prior to the appointment of the project team, the relevance and validity of including materials development was never questioned. Consultation with project participants highlighted lack of clarity around the role of material development in the project, particularly as development of materials at the same time as participants were developing knowledge about practice was seen as inappropriate. Designing the evaluation. Before a robust evaluation could be undertaken, it was necessary to identify the explicit or implicit theory or logic model that underpinned the design on which the project was based. An important function of an evaluation was to test the hypothesis that the project’s actions would contribute to the desired outcomes which, along with other contextual factors, were expected to have led to desired changes in practice. Developing a model of programme theory allowed evaluators to explore whether the failure to achieve objectives was due to faulty expectations or ineffective project implementation (Lipsey, 1993; Weiss, 1997). A review of project documents revealed that the relationship between inservice teacher education practice and teacher practice was implicit in the design of the project. What was missing was a shared theory of change which led to different interpretations and understandings of the purpose of the project. The evaluability assessment drew out these differences through consultations and key informant interviews with internal and external stakeholders, and articulated the policy theory as a theory of improvement with explicit links to student outcomes. This was an iterative process in which the initial model was modified and refined a number of times before reaching agreement. It led to the identification of critical assumptions regarding programme intent and purpose, programme inputs and expected linkages with outcomes. The formative nature of the approach also identified gaps in implementation that needed to be addressed early if the project was to achieve its intended outcomes.

175

SANKAR

Implementing the evaluation. The evaluation of the project used a mixedmethods design and drew on qualitative and quantitative methods and review of relevant documents to generate useful insights about the role and contribution of the programme to participants. However, the evaluation was started after the project had been implemented and this posed some limitations to evaluation design. For instance, the programme theory model indicated that changes to knowledge, skills and practices of participating inservice teacher education practitioners was a critical first step to achieving the programme’s intended outcomes. However, no baseline data were collected and no comparison group identified prior to implementation. As a result, evaluators had to rely on participant reflections about their past practice to make judgments about the extent of changes to current practice.6 Each time participants identified an area of change (e.g., use of evidence, approach to identifying professional development needs of teachers, ways of delivering professional development support to teachers) that was attributed to their involvement in the project, they were asked to illustrate using real life examples of how the same situation would have been dealt with in the past. These data were then tested and validated through interviews with key informants or sector representatives. In this way, evaluators were able to construct a persuasive story of changes to practice that were facilitated by the project. Disseminating findings and promoting use. Most evaluators have an expectation that the findings from their evaluation will be used in some form or other by policymakers and/or programme participants. As a general rule, evaluators actively seek to identify an intended audience for the report to ensure that the messages contained in the report are relevant and pitched at the appropriate level. A key factor that affects utilisation is the timing of the evaluation, as reports that are delivered late and/or do not respond to demands of the policy cycle are more likely to lie on the shelf. In the context of the project, evaluators built in reporting cycles at different points in the evaluation to allow the project team opportunities to shape and refine their messages based on the messages picked up by the evaluation team. For instance, the evaluation explored the role of project structures and processes and examined the extent to which these elements helped and/or hindered successful implementation of the project. The findings from the evaluation identified a number of underlying issues and concerns around project structures that if left unresolved could deter the project from achieving its outcomes. Strategies used in the evaluation that contributed to its use included: – presenting key findings early at a number of forums to provide opportunities for discussion and debate; – tailoring feedback to case study participants, documenting observations and reflections that are relevant for sustaining the change/gains from the project; – making the report available on the Ministry of Education website to reach and influence a wider audience; – presenting on key findings to education providers more generally; – providing a well-written report in plain English. 176

DESIGNING EVALUATION IN MESSY INTERVENTIONS

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter outlines learning from our experience of using evaluability assessment as a method for developing an evaluation framework for the project. The approach draws its conceptual model from Wholey’s (1987) principles of evaluability assessment. By engaging programme participants and key stakeholders in the process of developing and articulating the theory of change, evaluators and the project team were able to gain support and agreement for the evaluation. Using evaluability assessment also built momentum for the project and contributed to improving the Ministry’s overall approach to evaluating messy interventions. In particular, we anticipate that some of the questions guiding the learning from the project will focus on: – the usefulness of using theory of change for guiding development of an evaluation framework and plan for large, messy initiatives; – resources needed to develop and maintain internal capability to support programme and/or policy designers to ensure inherent logic and consistency; – challenges in maintaining meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly for experiential learning initiatives. NOTES 1

2

3

4 5 6

Learning materials are published educational resources for teachers and students such as books, folders, kits, CD-ROMS, DVDs and websites. INSTEP was a developmental project whereby participants learnt as they implemented the project in their contexts. Therefore, quality of guidance and support provided to them was a critical factor in achieving successful outcomes. The evaluation framework identified this as a critical enabling factor that needed to be fully explored for the future. Mixed-methods design intentionally combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand and explore key issues and hypotheses to be tested. The final evaluation report can be found at the following website: http://www.educationcounts. govt.nz/publications/schooling/50065/1 http://www.instep.net.nz/ Literature on the reliability of recall is limited. Available evidence suggests that although information from recall is frequently biased, the direction, and sometimes the magnitude, of the bias are often predictable so that usable estimates can often by obtained. Therefore recall can potentially be a useful tool in situations where no systematic baseline data are available. The utility of recall can often by enhanced through triangulation.

177

SANKAR

REFERENCES Higgins, J. with Bonne, L., & Fraser, K. (2004). Exploring issues in mathematics education, An evaluation of the Advanced Numeracy Project 2003. Wellington, New Zealand: learning Media. Lipsey, M. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In L. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them: New directions for program evaluation (No. 57, pp. 5–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21, 501–524. Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Programme theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities: New directions for evaluation (No. 87, pp. 35–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation: New directions for program evaluation (No. 33). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Wholey, J. S. (2004). Evaluability assessment. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical programme evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

178

JOANNA HIGGINS AND RO PARSONS

11. GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE THROUGH A SYSTEM-LEVEL NETWORK The strategic objectives of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project – strengthening the quality and consistency of inservice teacher education practice across the education system to ensure teachers’ access to high quality professional learning opportunities – were ambitious and challenging. In the design of the project, policy-makers adopted a research and development approach to improving the quality of inservice teacher education practice across an education system and made provision for the deliberate use of networks of practice at all levels of the system in order to achieve this. In this final chapter we examine the structures and processes at a system level that enabled the research and development approach adopted in the project. We are specifically interested in the role of system networks in knowledge building, in this case through inquiry into inservice teacher educators’ practice. The preceding chapters (aside from one discussing the overall evaluability of the project) have provided rich accounts of inservice teacher educators within their regional teams inquiring into their practice, using tools to generate evidence against which to judge the effectiveness of their actions. In many instances the tools were employed in social situations and included the perspectives of colleagues. The chapters have discussed: a) approaches to building capability in inservice teacher educators; b) accounts of inservice teacher educators in action; and c) accounts of inservice educators working in MƗori (indigenous) settings. Details of the conceptual models and tools developed, as well as the collaborative approaches employed, enable close examination of the processes of inquiry, including the place of leadership and challenges faced in professional learning in individual projects across New Zealand. Together these accounts contribute insights into facilitating system-level change in teacher education through interrelated networks of practice. The national group, representative of, and working concurrently to, all the regional work groups, conducted joint inquiry into inservice teacher education practice simultaneously drawing on, and informing, the regional work. This chapter is about the joint work of the national group and addresses the question: What enabled the project at a system level to play out the way it did? We contend that using a sociocultural approach enabled: the dimensions of inquiry to be framed by the context of practice; iterative phases of research and development; and social groupings to generate and distribute new ideas about both the types of knowledge needed by teacher educators, and how teacher educators learn. We begin by examining inservice teacher educators’ function as mediators of policy, and the changing demands of their role. We then discuss the role of networks in educational improvement and the challenges and successes of the networks of J. Higgins, R. Parsons and L. Bonne (Eds.), Processes of Inquiry: Inservice Teacher Educators Research Their Practice, 179–188. © 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

HIGGINS AND PARSONS

practice that facilitated the systemic generation of knowledge of inservice teacher educators’ work with teachers. INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATORS AS MEDIATORS OF POLICY

The relationship between policy and practice has been described as a dilemma (Cohen, Moffitt & Goldin, 2007). As Cohen et al. pointed out, given that policymaking is about addressing problems, policy-makers depend on those with the problems to solve them, while the problem-solvers depend on the policy-makers’ provision of resource to enable this to happen (p. 522). They concluded, “…more ambitious policies require practitioners to acquire new capabilities and to unlearn present capabilities” (p. 522). Building knowledge is at the heart of managing the dilemma between policy and practice. Recent work on policy implementation from a sense-making perspective emphasizes the importance of the interaction between policy-making and interpretation (Spillane, 2004; Timperley & Parr, 2009). As Timperley and Parr described the policy implementation process, “at each layer, those involved identify what it means for their work and pass their understandings to the next layer” (p.138). In a highly devolved system such as New Zealand‘s, developing an infrastructure that can effectively transfer ideas, knowledge and new practices is necessary to create the conditions for sustainable change and ownership of continuing improvement. THE CHANGING DEMANDS OF INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATORS

Over the previous two to three decades, models of professional development for teachers have shifted from a focus on responding to teachers’ needs based on their stage of teaching, to a focus on teacher-centred approaches examining dilemmas of practice in an effort to avoid “faddism and blanket implementation of favoured new instructional strategies” (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992, p. 5). Subsequent refinement of teacher-centred approaches has acknowledged the situated nature of teacher practice in which knowledge generated is shaped by the context of practice (Higgins, 2005). The shifts in policy approaches to the implementation of professional development also provide useful insights into the role of inservice teacher educators. Datnow and Park (2009) identified three approaches to policy implementation aimed at system change: technical-rational, mutual adaptation, and sense-making/coconstruction. An important factor in these three approaches is the extent to which contextual factors are considered, and consequently how teachers and teacher educators are positioned in the implementation process. Along with other researchers, such as Spillane, Reiser and Reimer (2002), Datnow and Park highlighted the importance of various actors within a system in shaping policy implementation. A sense-making, co-construction perspective positions inservice teacher educators as pivotal interpreters and sense-makers in their role as instructional leaders of teacher professional development.

180

GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE

As instructional leaders it is important for inservice teacher educators to build a knowledge base by examining the effectiveness of their practice in working with teachers. Although adding a dimension of inquiry into inservice teacher educator practice increases the complexity of the role, processes of inquiry remain at the core of improving their professional practice. Several chapters in this book have conceptualized the role as primarily that of a mentor or critical friend as opposed to that of teacher, while other chapters have highlighted the leadership aspects of the role. Interpretations of mentoring or critical friendship assumed this to be a multidimensional role that included provision of support as well as challenging practice with expert knowledge as a fundamental component. Irrespective of the finer details of their interpreted role at a system level, the role of inservice teacher educators is central to promoting the intent of policy in practice. THE ROLE OF NETWORKS OF PRACTICE

An increasing body of evidence identifies the pivotal role of networks of practice as a mechanism for promoting and supporting system change (Chapman & Aspin, 2003; Katz & Earl, 2010; Katz, Earl & Ben Jaafar, 2009). In their work on building and connecting learning communities, Katz et al. (2008) identified the importance of educational networks in education provision as “a new vehicle for achieving change” (p. 112). Chapman and Aspin (2003) described how networks are “able to function at the meso-level to strengthen interconnections and spread innovation across all levels – the micro, meso and macro-levels” (p. 654). They argued that: If we are going to raise standards in education there is a need to link policy both horizontally and vertically. Networks are one way of achieving this linkage. Networks provide a process for cultural and attitudinal change, embedding reform in the interactions, actions and behaviour of a range of stakeholders in education and the community. … Networks provide for an opportunity for shared and dispersed leadership and responsibility… Networks can also be capacity building, in so far as they are able to produce new knowledge and mutual learning that can then feed back and inform public policy. (pp. 653–654) Various terms are used in the literature to describe networks, including “networks of practice” (Cobb & McClain, 2006) and “networked learning communities” (Katz & Earl, 2010). The “theory of action for networked learning communities” proposed by Katz and Earl (2010, p. 28) showed that improvement in student learning outcomes depends on major changes in the practices and structure of schools, with the improvements emerging from the professional learning that occurs through interaction within, and across, schools in networks. They argued, “the influence of networked learning is based on knowledge creation theory – that learning and the creation of new knowledge by teachers and principals/headteachers leads to deep conceptual changes and new ways of working in classrooms and schools” (Katz & Earl, 2010, p. 28). In describing the operation of networks they pointed out that:

181

HIGGINS AND PARSONS

When the strength of the attachment between schools and networks is strong, school-level communities can upload their ideas and practices into the network – thus strengthening the networked learning community. In the same way, school learning communities can download and use ideas and practices from the network for local knowledge creation and sharing. Individuals are the connectors of schools to networks (and networks to schools), through active participation and through the construction of artefacts that serve as the link between the network and the school, with a two-way flow. (p. 29) They suggested that the key features – described as “enablers” – of successful networked learning communities include: focus; relationships and collaboration; capacity for collaborative inquiry; formal and distributed leadership; and joint work that challenges thinking and practice (p. 35). We propose that these ideas can also apply to building capacity in system-level networks such as in the Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project. DESIGN OF THE PROJECT

An important function of the project, as outlined in the evaluation, was “establishing a national group of practising inservice teacher educators to coordinate a coherent approach to developing inservice teacher education knowledge and expertise” (Sankar, 2009, p. 1) as a means of meeting the project’s objectives and fostering a joint approach to work. The system-level network, of which they were a part, served the function of bridging policy and practice. The network also ensured inservice teacher educators’ participation at multiple levels through their undertaking multiple roles, structured to foster collaboration across the system and at the regional levels. This multidirectional structure of both horizontal and vertical networks enabled ongoing knowledge-building and application across participating groups at both levels. Part of the inquiry, but distinct in its own right, was that of indigenous knowledge-building about inservice teacher education practice in MƗori settings. In examining the challenges of building supportive organisational structures from a system-level perspective we explore three themes: the systemlevel context, system-level implementation of the project, and system-level networked activity. THE CHALLENGES OF ENGAGING IN JOINT WORK IN A SYSTEM-LEVEL CONTEXT

Operating across a system is not without challenges. In a system such as New Zealand’s, where schooling and inservice teacher education provision are highly devolved, there are many potential considerations when a group of providers from across the country works together for the first time as a single entity: the competitive environment; breadth of institutional focus; and variation in institutional research and development focus and support, irrespective of the type of institution. This section explores these challenges to highlight the importance of relationships and joint work at a system level. 182

GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE

One challenge arising from New Zealand’s competitive contractual environment for the delivery of professional learning and development related to commercial sensitivities, resulting in an initial reluctance to share information within the national group, the members of which represented the different providers. The expectation that inservice teacher educators from different institutions would work together on a focus that required risk-taking and innovation was fundamentally at odds with the system setting within which they operated. From an individual inservice educator’s perspective this environment positioned them as competitors, yet in the design of the project’s system-level group they were positioned as collaborators through undertaking roles such as being critical friends to each other in the development of system-level frameworks. In overall terms the evolving nature of the project positioned the inservice teacher educators as contributors rather than as participants (Higgins & McDonald, 2008). This stance of contributor exemplifies the importance of four dimensions of teachers’ professional relations – “the structure of ties, access to expertise, trust and the content of interaction” – suggested by Coburn and Russell (2008, p. 204). Another aspect of the contractual environment was the challenge of accountability systems for the public funding, given the exploratory innovative nature of the work. Encouraging innovation alongside accountability against predetermined outcomes was challenging, as inquiry into inservice teacher education practice is relatively uncharted territory in terms of a focus of funded inquiry in education. The encouragement of innovation created its own challenges in interrogating the underlying principles of twelve disparate and complex national projects for their contribution to system-level activity and outcomes of the project as evidenced in the theory of improvement and the material resources (Ministry of Education, 2008). The next section will discuss the challenges that arose, including how theoretical framing was used to facilitate system-level implementation, and the synthesis of the findings of the twelve national projects and evaluation of the project. THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT APPROACH ACROSS A SYSTEM

The system-level implementation also created a number of challenges that fit into two broad themes; firstly, the conceptualization of the activity as research and development, and secondly, a focus on inservice teacher educators’ own practice. Considering the way the activities were structured, as well as the associated processes, provides insights into how the project played out at the system level. A simultaneous focus on both the research and the development activities was important to the system-level generation of knowledge and its application. The research and development activities of the national network took place concurrently, involved the same group of contributors, and were frequently conflated so that it was difficult to separate out the research focus from the development focus. The fused focus enabled both knowledge-making and its application, and this fusion was both a strength and a challenge for the networked 183

HIGGINS AND PARSONS

activity while enabling the outcomes of the project to be achieved. For some networked activities the research was to the forefront, such as when inservice teacher educators inquired into their practice in order to address gaps around facilitator knowledge, while for other activities development was more the focus. The challenge lay in keeping these two aspects in balance as well as ensuring that the capability and capacity existed to realise the goals of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project as a research and development project. The capability of contributors to the national network of inservice teacher educators to conduct research was variable. This variation resulted from a number of factors. For instance, there were differing understandings of research and development as an activity. Some institutions had powerful system-level incentives for teacher educators to be engaged with research and development. These incentives often related to institutional funding and academic, as well as commercial, reputation building. Similarly, individuals had differing incentives, such as using the activity as the basis for work towards an academic qualification or promotion. There were also differing levels of support at the organizational level. The availability of advice about developing a plan, gaining approval from an ethics committee, data gathering, and writing research reports differed. The support required varied, with some of the contributors holding doctorates while others were still in the process of completing a postgraduate qualification, underscoring the challenges for the national group in leading research and development with multiple layers of involvement in the regional groups. An initial implementation challenge involved ensuring a focus on inservice teacher educators’ own practice. Thinking of their practice in terms of theoretical ideas facilitated the focus – examples of the use and development of these theories are evident in the preceding chapters. Enabling contributors to talk about their practice in theoretical terms was helpful in identifying the underlying ideas of common, often under-examined practices, as well as leading to the development of theory about inservice teacher educator practice – an outcome of the project. For their practice, another advantage of introducing theoretical framing was in addressing the theorypractice gap and ensuring that the theory emerges out of the practice rather than being artificially grafted onto it. The theoretical framing also lifted attention from technical data-gathering issues in creating records of practice to an analytical focus on what aspects of practice should be tracked and how data might best be represented to enable such an analysis to be conducted. THE CHALLENGES OF SYSTEM-LEVEL NETWORKED ACTIVITY

Shifting activity from a collection of regional projects to joint system-level networked activity was a key challenge. Two deliberate aspects to this transition were: firstly, collaborative approaches enabled by the organization of networks; and secondly, encouraging theorising about practice using sociocultural ideas to provide framing and language for the networked sharing of inquiries into practice. Using different aspects of sociocultural theory helped contributors to focus on their practice as well as discuss it with others. While the introduction of various theoretical 184

GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE

framings helped to lift up the discussion into a networked activity, this was not without challenges, given different levels of contributor knowledge and experience in employing sociocultural ideas to understand practice. These factors impacted on contributors’ levels of engagement in the generation of group ideas and in the use of these ideas to generate new insights into inservice teacher educator practice. An important aspect of the design of the project was the structure of networks of practice that facilitated system-level networked activity. Networked activity provided time for collaboration and access to expertise that resulted in the systemic generation of knowledge of inservice teacher educators’ work with teachers. In learning how to work collaboratively, the participants drew on knowledge and understanding about leadership in learning. At the heart of the collaborative work was the notion of inquiry. The networked inquiry was challenged by the initial reluctance of some inservice teacher educators to review and develop their existing practice which included shifting from a position of defending the status quo. The deprivatising of practice through sharing video footage with the whole group required the group to work through norms and processes for critiquing practice – in some instances being critiqued by competitors in the system-level inservice education commercial and academic environment. The system-level network provided a context for learning about, and conducting, joint inquiry. THE PROJECT’S OUTCOMES

The outcomes of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project were twofold: 1) the project’s impact on contributors which is described in the independent evaluation, aspects of which are discussed in Chapter 10 of this volume; and 2) the tentative “theory of improvement” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 17). Impact on Contributors Meenakshi Sankar undertook a two-phased evaluation of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project (Sankar, 2009). A key focus of the evaluation was to ascertain the extent to which the project objectives had been achieved. The evaluation also involved a sector survey and longitudinal case studies of four vertical networks that included the national facilitator, two regional facilitators, up to four inservice teacher educators, and teachers and school leaders. Sankar (2009) reported that those involved in the project described it as an “invaluable investment in building capability of [inservice teacher educators]” (p. 3). The participants acknowledged the challenges associated with a system-level research and development approach in the New Zealand context. However, they valued the opportunity to work collaboratively and engage in the process of knowledge building, as well as the recognition of the importance of their role in the education system. The key design elements identified by Sankar (2009) enabling the project to achieve positive outcomes reflect the network “enablers” identified by Katz and Earl (2010): 185

HIGGINS AND PARSONS

– – – – –

a research and development approach; leadership by a core group of national facilitators; an inquiry approach within communities of practice; management by a project team located within the Ministry of Education; the concurrent development of learning materials – Ki Te Aoturoa (Ministry of Education, 2008); – additional support through, for example, the provision of research mentors, online communities and international speakers. (Sankar, 2009, p. 26)

Through the opportunity to inquire into aspects of their practice over an extended period of time, participants in the project developed a shared understanding of the role and purpose of inservice teacher educators: The evaluation findings suggest that there is a more sophisticated understanding of the role of [inservice teacher educators]. Whereas in the past [inservice teacher educators] were seen as purely facilitators of professional development, now they were increasingly seeing themselves as agents of change and as facilitators of learning. Through the project [inservice teacher educators] have developed a shared understanding of three key aspects to their role as teacher educators: [inservice teacher educators] as pedagogical leaders; [inservice teacher educators] as change agents; and [inservice teacher educators] as inquirers. These roles combined with their pedagogical content knowledge were felt to constitute effective [inservice teacher educators] practice and were critical to effecting change in teaching practices leading to improved student outcomes. (Sankar, 2009, pp. 5–6) Sankar concluded that the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project had an impact at a number of levels: individual (inservice teacher educator), group, organisational, and sector. These levels were seen as “embedded within each other suggesting that there may be a time dimension to these impacts” (p. 55). Towards a Theory of Improvement The most significant outcome of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project’s research and development activities is the tentative theory of improvement for inservice teacher educator practice. The five principles of the theory of improvement propose that effective inservice teacher educator professional learning and practice: …lead to improvements in teacher practice and student outcomes. …are underpinned by inquiry and research evidence. …are developed through collaborative relationships. …are influenced by and responsive to context and culture. …provide and build leadership in a range of contexts. (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 22)

186

GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE

These principles are conceptualised as interacting with three resources that inservice teacher educators draw on in the context of their professional practice: self, others, and artifacts. Inservice teacher educator practice involves a dynamic interaction between the principles and resources in the active construction of meaning (Ministry of Education, 2008). Inservice teacher educators are described as: …active agents in their learning. They use their knowledge of the principles to make the best use of the resources available to them, and they use these resources to enact the principles within their practice. This involves inservice teacher educators, both collectively and individually, continually making sense of and building coherence between the principles and resources. It also involves self-regulation, as inservice teacher educators monitor the impact of their learning and practice on teachers and students and adjust their practice accordingly. As a result of this sense making and self-regulation, inservice teacher educators may adapt or reframe the principles and resources. (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 23) Although underpinned by the research and development activities of practitioners in their contexts of practice, the theory is tentative and evolutionary. Its value lies in its contribution to the knowledge base about the influence of inservice teacher educator practice on the effectiveness of teachers’ classroom practice and outcomes for diverse learners, and the dimensions of practice that appear important for that role (Ministry of Education, 2008). Stein, Smith and Silver (1999) identified the emergence of a paradigm in professional learning and development that placed new demands on inservice teacher educators: “If professional developers are to be effective in supporting the transformation of teachers, they, too, must undergo shifts in their knowledge, beliefs, and habits of practice that are more akin to a transformation than to tinkering around the edges of their practice” (p. 262). The chapters in this book illustrate the many ways in which the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project provided opportunities for participants to reflect the sentiment of the project’s whakataukƯ: “crossing a threshold that leads to a path to the future”. In the words of one of the regional facilitators captured by Sankar (2009, p. 33) in the project evaluation: “Let me put it this way. There is no going back”.

187

HIGGINS AND PARSONS

REFERENCES Chapman, J., & Aspin, D. (2003). Networks of learning: A new construct for educational provision and a new strategy for reform. In B. Davies & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), The handbook of leadership and management (pp. 653–659). London: Pearson Education. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2006). The collective mediation of a high-stakes accountability programme: Communities and networks of practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(2), 80–100. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235. Cohen, D., Moffitt, S., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515–548. 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. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: The Falmer Press. Higgins, J. (2005). Pedagogy of facilitation: How do we best help teachers of mathematics with new practices? In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 137–144). Melbourne: PME. Higgins, J., & McDonald, G. (2008). Sociocultural theory: Its use and interpretation in New Zealand. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 507–515. Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 27–51. Katz, S., Earl, L., & Ben Jaafar, S. (2009). Building and connecting learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Katz, S., Earl, L., Ben Jaafar, S., Elgie, S., Foster, L., Halbert, J., et al. (2008). Learning networks of schools: The key enablers of successful knowledge communities. McGill Journal of Education, 43(2), 111–137. 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. Sankar, M. (2009). Evaluation of the Inservice Teacher Education Practice Project (INSTEP) (Report to the Ministry of Education). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237–269. Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2009). Chain of influence from policy to practice in the New Zealand literacy strategy. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 135–154.

188

GLOSSARY OF MƖORI TERMS

ako

teaching and learning

aroha

love and care

hƗkari

sharing of food

hapnj

sub-tribe

harakeke

flax

hariru

shaking hands

hongi

the pressing of host and visitor noses, signifying peace and unity

hui

meeting

iwi

tribe, nation of people

iwi tuaroa

backbone of the tribe

kai

food

karakia

prayer or incantation to spiritual beings or ancestors

karanga

a welcome call performed by host women

kaumƗtua

elders

kaupapa

set of ground rules, customs, the right way of doing things; an important issue or topic

kia ora

Hello!, thanks!

kia piki ake i ngƗ rauraru o te kƗinga

socio-economic mediation

kǀrero

story

kotahitanga

unity

kuia

elders

kura

school

mahi

work

mahi tahi

working together

mahi ngƗtahi

collective responsibility

mana

integrity, prestige

manaaki

unselfishness

manaakitanga

hospitality 189

greater

GLOSSARY OF MƖORI TERMS

manuhiri

visitors

MƗori

a person of MƗori descent (the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand)

marae

meeting place

marae Ɨtea

the large area in front of the meeting house

marautanga

curriculum based on MƗori philosophies and principles

mƗtauranga MƗori

MƗori knowledge

mihimihi

introductions

ngƗ kete o te wƗnanga

the three baskets of knowledge

noa

normality

poroporoaki

dedication

pono

true or genuine

poutama

stairway pattern

pǀwhiri

the MƗori formal welcoming process

tamaiti

child

tƗngata whenua

hosts

tƗniko

embroidery

taonga tuku iho

cultural aspirations that assert to be MƗori

tapu

sacredness

te ao MƗori

the MƗori world

te reo MƗori

the MƗori language

te reo me ǀna tikanga

language and customs

tika

being right or correct

tikanga MƗori

MƗori cultural protocol

tino rangatiratanga

self-determination

tƯpuna

grandparents/ancestors

tua

back, other side

tuaiwi

vertebrae

tuitui

stitching

tukutuku

ornamental lattice work

uri

offspring

190

GLOSSARY OF MƖORI TERMS

waiata

song/chant

wairua

attitude, spirit

wero

a ritual challenge performed by host warriors

whaikǀrero

an exchange of formal speeches

whakapapa

genealogy

whakatau

shortened, informal welcome

whakataukƯ

proverb

whakawhanaungatanga

relationships, working together

whƗnau

extended family structure

whanaungatanga

the building and maintaining of relationships

whare

meeting house

Spellings and translations of some MƗori words may vary according to the context in which they are used, and iwi (tribal) affiliations. The spellings and translations included here are those agreed to by the authors of the chapters in which the terms appear.

191

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Delia Baskerville was a specialist secondary school drama teacher prior to her appointment as a Lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Education. She helped implement the Arts Curriculum in the Wellington Region and continues to work in preservice and inservice teacher education. She was a regional facilitator on the New Zealand Ministry of Education Inservice Teacher Education Practice project. Her research interests include drama for social change, critical friendship and culturally responsive pedagogy. Delia is currently involved in a New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Teaching and Learning Research Initiative project, investigating the potential of an arts e-learning environment to provide quality arts teaching and produce successful learning outcomes for students. Linda Bonne is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Education at Victoria University of Wellington. Her doctoral research uses mixed methods to investigate the relationships between primary students’ mathematics self-efficacy, their theory of intelligence, and their achievement in mathematics. Other key areas of interest are the roles of instructional leadership and teacher professional learning and development in embedding a mathematics reform. Ronnie Davey is a Principal Lecturer in the School of Literacies and Arts in Education, College of Education, University of Canterbury. She brings a background of 20 years teaching English in secondary schools and 15 years in preservice and inservice teacher education and has a particular interest in all areas of literacy including writing pedagogies and new literacies. She has a national profile in English education, and was president of the New Zealand Association for the Teaching of English from 2001–2008. Over the last decade, she has served on project advisory, development and writing groups for many Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority initiatives that involve English. With a background in English for speakers of other languages, she also has a strong commitment to cross-curricular literacy. Her other research interests include the pedagogies of teacher education, professional identity and self-study/action research. She serves on the Editorial Boards of three international journals in Education and/or English Education. Vince Ham, Director Research, CORE Education, was one of the founders of CORE Education, a not-for-profit educational research and development organization based in Christchurch, New Zealand. Vince has particular research interests in educational research methods, especially action research, the professional learning of teachers and teacher educators, and the use of information 193

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

and communication technologies for teaching and learning. He has been a member of numerous policy advisory groups for the New Zealand Ministry of Education, notably in the areas of general research strategy, professional learning for teachers, and the national strategies on e-learning. He has led the research teams evaluating several large scale teacher and teacher educator professional development initiatives, and numerous studies of the impact of e-learning in schools and higher education. Vince is a frequent speaker at national and international conferences, and serves on the Editorial Boards of four international journals in education. Leeana Herewini, Ko Ngapuhi me Ngati Kahungungu ngƗ iwi, has worked as an adviser employed by School Support Services, at the University of Waikato, for the last seven years. Leeana has a long-standing interest in gifted and talented education and mathematics education; she has always worked in bilingual or immersion settings. From 2006 to 2008, she was involved with the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project. Involvement in the project allowed time and space for MƗori medium inservice teacher educators to examine and explore facets of inservice teacher educator practice appropriate to MƗori medium settings. Joanna Higgins is a teacher educator whose studies from a sociocultural perspective include the teaching of elementary mathematics incorporating four interrelated areas: children’s learning; teachers’ understanding and practice; the process of facilitation; and the links to policy. She is an Associate Director of the Jessie Hetherington Centre for Educational Research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. From 2006 to 2007 she was the national research coordinator for the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project. Margaret Lamont is currently Programme Director of the Bachelor of Teaching conjoint degree and the e-Portfolio Project, at Victoria University of Wellington College of Education. She is currently conducting research in the areas of professional learning for inservice teacher educators and the implementation of an e-portfolio in the university’s pre-service teacher education programmes. She is particularly interested in the processes of critical reflection and inquiry in teacher, and teacher educator, professional learning; and the ways in which new digital technologies can enhance and support this aspect of learning. Trevor McDonald has been a primary, secondary teacher and tertiary teacher at the Dunedin College of Education and University of Otago. With Christina Thornley he is now director of Education Associates Ltd. In this role he has worked as a researcher, literacy professional development provider and as an educational consultant in New Zealand and North American schools. With Christina Thornley he is now programme developer in San Diego Unified School District’s Striving Readers’ project, a five-year federally funded research and

194

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

development project focusing on raising literacy achievement amongst struggling adolescents. Alyson McGee is Senior Research officer at Centre for Educational Development (CED), Massey University, where one of her key roles is to support advisers in their professional learning and widening their research skills in evidenced-based practice. Alyson was also a joint contract director for the Inservice Teacher Education Practice project at CED which involved developing, supporting and evaluating the CED project during 2007 and 2008. As an editor for the 2008 CED book Talk about Learning, Alyson wrote two chapters for this book and supported advisers to write about their professional learning. She has published widely around the project at CED, a recent publication being a co-written article “Teacher educators inquiring into their own practice”, in the international journal, Professional Development in Education (2009, 35(1)). Hiria McRae has been a lecturer and advisor at the Wellington College of Education – now the Victoria University Faculty of Education – since 2002. She has taught in primary MƗori medium classrooms at both Kura Kaupapa MƗori (total immersion schools) and English medium schools. She specialises in teaching preservice and inservice teachers in the areas of: MƗori medium education; Te Reo MƗori (MƗori language); Pnjtaiao (Science education); Hangarau (Technology education); MƗtauranga Taiao (Education for Sustainability). Hiria is currently completing her PhD focusing on MƗori student success in science education from a place-based perspective. Ro Parsons is Chief Education Adviser Schooling Policy in the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Ro has led strategic policy projects related to curriculum, assessment and effective teaching; mathematics education; teacher professional learning and development provision; and MƗori Language Education. She is currently working in the Best Evidence Synthesis Programme. Ro’s key areas of expertise include: policy development, implementation and evaluation; school and system improvement; educational leadership and management; teacher professional learning and development; and evaluation. Meenakshi Sankar is a Senior Consultant at Martin Jenkins, a New Zealand-based consulting firm providing strategic management support to clients in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. She has specialist skills in policy research and evaluation, understanding of social and community development issues and monitoring effectiveness of policy interventions. Meenakshi has also published a number of papers reflecting on her experiences in implementing evaluation projects in the public policy context in New Zealand. She co-edited the first publication of the South Asian Evaluation Journal sponsored by UNICEF’s Regional Office of South Asia. The journal captures current practices in 195

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

determining effectiveness of development initiatives with a view to promoting debate on its implications for Results Based Management systems. She also lectures to students of evaluation and delivers workshops and presentations on evaluation theory and practice at national and international forums. She has extensive experience in applying a number of theoretical models for framing evaluation inquiry including programme theory, utilisation focused evaluation, realistic evaluation, empowerment evaluation and objective based evaluations. Marama Taiwhati is a Lecturer in Te Kura MƗori at Victoria University. She is currently completing her postgraduate research on approaches to supporting gifted and talented MƗori learners in mainstream classes and MƗori medium educational settings. Marama’s area of research is underpinned in MƗori education and MƗori achievement. Marama has worked as a facilitator delivering the Numeracy Development Project, MƗori medium and Te Reo MƗori Curriculum Guidelines. Christina Thornley was a primary teacher with a research interest in early literacy acquisition, curriculum development, and teachers’ professional learning. In the late 1990s, she joined the University of Otago where she and colleagues developed, launched and taught in a newly established teacher education programme. She remained there until late 2002 when she and Trevor McDonald set up Education Associates Ltd and began their work as educational consultants in New Zealand and the USA. Thornley’s more recent research work has focused on adolescent literacy, teacher-researcher partnership projects and in-school professional learning. She currently works with McDonald as a programme developer for a United States Department of Education Striving Readers Project implemented in the San Diego Unified School District. Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai, Waikato, Te Rarawa, Ngati Awa, Te Arawa, has a background and strong passion and interest in MƗori education. In 2002 Sarah-Jane graduated from the University of Waikato with a PhD in MƗori Studies, where her thesis examined constructions of MƗori academic success. She has worked in both university and wananga settings as well as in and for tribal organisations, more recently supporting research mentoring, capability and capacity building. Sarah-Jane, along with her husband, is a director of Kiore Enterprises Ltd – a company specialising in research and resource development.

196