thesisthoughts

Today’s workshop at N will be based entirely on materials brought by the teachers. We have an assessment  workshop  with written texts straight from the classrooms and then will have a workshop for peer evaluation of our new teacher narratives and  a rubric produced by one of the teachers. I am happy that the teachers feel comfortable bringing their materials to the group and that there are many pieces to choose from.

One message which is being communicated by the participants is that they are constantly surprised that they are now going back to classroom activities and teaching strategies from the past. They are realizing that it is legitimate to use “forbidden” activities from the Whole Language days.

I’ll write more after the session.

 

“… To foster such discussions, professional development leaders must help teachers to establish trust, develop communication norms that enable critical dialogue, and maintain a balance between respecting individual community members and critically analyzing issues in their teaching (Frykholm, 1998; Seago, 2004).  

This week I ran a workshop for my group at K. I was pleasantly surprised beforehand that so many of the participants did writing activities in their classrooms and sent me examples of student texts.

After thanking those that made the effort to send me material for the workshop, I explained that our aim is to learn from the students’ writing and to experience examining texts looking through “positive glasses” and not through the “groan, spelling mistake, terrible writing…” glasses. Our aim was to look at what the students KNOW about writing, rather than point out heir problems. I asked the teachers to treat the work of their colleagues with sensitivity and respect.

The workshop wasn’t bad and I had plenty of positive feedback from the participants but after reading the article by Borko, yesterday, I understood something that is starkly missing in the course – a real feeling of being a learning community. I can’t really blame the size of the group or the participants because in N the same situation exists (though less so).

I must spend a lot of time and energy at the beginning of the course forming a group, gaining trust from the teachers, hearing far more from them about what happens in their classrooms. I must also think hard to determine ways that the online section of the course (which incidentally has more discussion between the teachers themselves on their practice – through the use of teaching narratives) can help foster trust and security within the group.

I am worried that one of the teachers felt badly about the way questions were asked and the way others saw the work of her students. I have made a note to talk to her. I read here yesterday that if teachers come to a course sure that their practice is perfect, no learning will take place. It is my responsibility to help those teachers on their road to questioning and learning.

I used to give one teacher 15 minutes or so of each meeting to present something she does in her classroom. This was always popular with the participants but the time given was really was only to share ideas. I never dared use the time for the teacher to raise dilemmas or share difficulties or for the participants and I to critically evaluate the ideas or practices for the benefit of everyone’s learning.

This is an area which definitely deserves more thought and discussion.

That’s it for now…

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-15.

Here is another really new up to date report on the state of professional development (or professional learning), this time from the US.

 

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos,

S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher

development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development

Council.

 

The report can be found online here.

 

I found the report to be reader friendly and I was happy to see that it was compiled by academics in the field of Education (The School Redesign Network at Stanford Uni), rather than politicians eager to push schools and educators in a particular direction. There were many things I agreed with in the report and many others that caused me to feel uneasy or mark them with huge question marks.

 

The preface is called “Creating Effective Professional Learning Systems to Bolster Teaching Quality and Student Achievement”. Immediately I ran to the dictionary to see if I understand the word “bolster” correctly. There is a hint here that PL is something that someone else gives teachers, something external that will support them (or prop them up?). This statement boldly states that there are two aims in PL enriching the quality of teaching and also improving student achievement levels. Here in the preface I find my first real question: Can it be expected that all PL for teachers will positively influence student learning (and even academic achievement levels – as that is the only thing that matters it seems …)? Is that the goal of all PL?

A question to explore is the reasons teachers choose certain types of PL/PD. What are the expectations they come with? Are they expecting to achieve student achievement levels or are there other goals in mind?

 

The call is for “… high quality, sustained PL throughout the school year, at every grade level and in every subject…” (p. ii).

This of course is very desirable state of affairs but it seems that the report recommends that this PL be well defined and meet certain specifications.

A sentence I found very surprising was “… have become the norm in many countries that are our competitors…”. Of course I know how much importance is placed on the international examinations like PISA and PIRLS, but I have never thought of the other countries as competitors. I have never thought of it as a contest. Yes, I am always disappointed by the Israeli results and believe we should do everything possible to improve the reading and mathematics of our students, but only because that is our aim, not because we are in a race against Finland.

A document I should look up is the NSDC Standards for Staff Development.

The report takes for granted that PL is “… high intensity, job embedded collaborative learning that is most effective… “(p. iii).

 

It is interesting to see that the distinction between Professional Development and Professional Learning is a central issue in the report. It is even stated that “We recognize that PD does not always lead to PL, despite its intent.” (p. 1).

Easton (2008) and Fullan (2007a) are the sources quoted and I think they should be followed up quickly.

The report quotes Fullan (2007a):

“… external approaches to instructional improvement are rarely powerful enough, specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school” (p. 35).

The report explains that the most significant learning occurs within the context of a teacher’s work. It involves teacher assessments of student needs and teacher learning goals. (Easton, 2008).

“It is clearer today than ever that educators need to learn, and that’s why PL has replaced PD. Development is not enough. Educators must be knowledgeable and wise. They must know enough in order to change. They must change in order to get different results. They must become learners, and they must be self developing” (Easton, 2008, p. 756).

 

Must become? Weren’t educators (at least some…) always learners?

 

According to the report there is a clear link between professional learning and “excellent student learning” (p. 2). This link should be explored. In my personal experience, as I became more aware of my own learning and the processes I undergo as I learn, I am far more aware of the need to talk to my students about learning, about what helps or hinders their learning.

 

The report defines “high quality” or “effective” PD “as that which results in improvements in teacher knowledge and instructional practice, as well as improved student learning outcomes” (p. 3).

 I was glad to note that the report admits that the influence of teacher PL may not be immediately apparent in student achievement and that there is a need for other ways of examining PL.

 

The authors of the report based their work on quantitative experimental studies and also used qualitative and case studies. They clearly state that the latter should be regarded as “suggestive rather than conclusive” (p. 3).

 

Key Principles for PL Design:

Pl Content:

v     Focus on “concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation and reflection” (Darling, Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995, p. 598).

v     Focus on specific teaching skills and how to teach specific kinds of content.

v     Focus on student learning.

Saxe, Gearheart and Nasir (2001), identify 3 kinds of frameworks for teacher learning:

1.      Traditional PD workshops

2.      Community based activity learning for new teaching materials.

3.      Integrated learning (e.g. Integrated Math…) – content + pedagogy.

 

The report concludes: “Student achievement improved most when teachers were engaged in sustained, collaborative PD that specifically focused on deepening teachers’ content knowledge and instructional practices” (p. 5).

 

The authors call to link curriculum, assessment, standards and PL. (p. 6)

 

The report explores the importance of collaboration and communities of practice.

Knapp (2003) and Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) are cited.

 

This is certainly one of my central interests.

 

Putnam and Borko (2000) discuss the need for a situated approach to PL – grounded in teachers’ own practice.

 

Killion (1999) contends that PL which takes place inside schools deals with “real issues”.

 

Collaborative approaches are discussed by

Perez et al. (2007)

McLaughlin and Talbert (2001).

 

“Collaborative work in trusting environments provides a basis for inquiry and reflection into teachers’ own practice, allowing teachers to take risks, solve problems and attend to dilemmas in their practice” (p. 6).

Liebermann and Wood (2002)

Ball and Cohen (1995)

Bryk, Camburn and Louis (1999)

 

In the chapter “Design of Learning Experiences” (page six and onwards),

The authors explore the character of teacher learning.

They discuss active learning and “sense making” (Snow-Renner & Lauer, 2005).

 

“Active learning opportunities allow teachers to transform their teaching and not simply layer new strategies on top of the old.” (Cohen & Hill, 2001).

I find this distinction very helpful. When I get the time I will look for examples of times I took PL to the point of transformation and examples of learning I layered on top.

 

“PD that is sustained and intense has a greater chance of transforming teaching practices and student learning”.

Cohen and Hill (2001)

Desimone et al. (2002)

Garet et al. (2001)   “hands-on” “increasing sense of efficacy”

Weis and Pasley, (2006)

Knapp (2003)   “rigorous”, “cumulative”

 

 

“Suggestive” findings:

Conditions for TL which influences student learning:

v     Number of contact hours

v     80 hours or more (in science) are more likely to bring classroom change.

 

Yoon et al. (2007) – large study – the influence of PD on student learning is substantial between 30-100 hours.

 

Teacher Learning in Professional Communities (p.9)

“job embedded”

“collaborative teacher learning”

 

“… The literature increasingly describes how teachers learn by working with their colleagues in professional learning communities (PLCs), engaging in continuous dialogue and examination of their practice and student performance to develop and enact more effective instructional practices…” (p. 9).

 

The report admits that the distinctions between formal and informal and internal and external PL are becoming blurred.

 

The authors note that teachers are used to working in isolation and that this needs to change.

 

Joint Work in School Based Communities (p. 10)

Little (1990) discusses “joint work”.

 

Louis Marks and Kruse (1996) describe the conditions necessary for a professional community to evolve:

v     Smaller school size

v     Common planning times

v     Supportive leadership

v     Mutual respect

v     Strong professional knowledge

v     Climate suited to risk taking and innovation

v     Lower staff complexity (more staff actually teaching)

v     Empowerment of teachers

 

Hord (1997) describes:

v     Supportive and shared leadership

v     Collective creativity

v     Shared values and vision

v     Supportive conditions

v     Shared personal practice

 

Studies which deal with community in TD:

Achinstein (2002)

Grossman, Wineberg, and Woolworth (2001)

Hollins et al. (2004)

Horn (2005)

Little (2003)

 

Grossman, Wineberg, and Woolworth (2001)

v     Communal responsibility for individual growth

v     Formation of group identity

v     Norms of interaction

v     Productive use of difference and conflict

 

Little (2003) found that learning occurred as teachers learned to describe, defend and adjust their practices according to an emerging, collectively held standard of quality teaching (p. 11).

 

Qualitative studies explored by the authors:

Calkins, Guenther, Belfiore and Lash (2007)

Goddard, Goddard and Tschannen-Morgan (2007)

Supovitz and Christman (2003)

Vescio, Ross and Adams (2008) – review of increased student achievement

 

Peer Observation and Practice (p. 12)

Visiting and observation in professional communities –

Opportunity to receive feedback and assistance.

Hord (1997) connects this with student learning.

 

I must look up Critical Friends Groups (National School Reform Faculty)

—– Dunn, Nave & Lewis, 2000

 

Developing Student Groups (p. 12)

When teachers work together in professional learning communities they can work together to experience that learning in the classroom.

v     Killion (1999; 2002a,b)

v     Hollins et al. (2004)

 

Learning from Professional Communities beyond the School (p. 13)

v     Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995)

v     Fullan (1991)

v     Lieberman and Wood (2002) – NWP

 

School Based Coaching

Can make a connection between what is learned in external PD and what is practiced in the classroom.

 

Mentoring and Coaching During Induction (p. 15)

“A special subset of coaching and mentoring strategies…”

-          used in more than 30 states

-          is the primary source of PD in the first few years of teaching

 

PD in the US and Abroad (p. 18)

Today “there is greater understanding of what constitutes high-quality PD, and while more such opportunities are gradually being offered in the US, surveys find that well-designed opportunities are not representative of most US teachers’ PD experiences” (p. 18).

(Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007)

Quality PD as described here “are commonly available in nations that have been recognized as high achieving… PISA, TIMSS (mathematics)…”

 

This report focuses on nations which have top achievement levels in international examinations.

 

Common features in high ranking countries: (p. 18)

-          many opportunities for formal/informal development

-          time for PL and collaboration in school hours

-          PD activities in teachers’ work context and ongoing

-          School policy which involves teachers in decision making

-          Induction programs for new teachers

-          Time for meetings

-          Formal training for mentors

 

There has been no causal relationship found between high student achievement levels and the characteristics of PL. – there may be some connection.  (p. 19)

 

E.g. In Japan – lesson study approach (used in Israel in mathematics PL)

 

Formal PD

“Relatively few countries have established national PD requirements” In Singapore, Sweden and the Netherlands 100 hours + collegial planning are required (OECD, 2005; Barber & Mourshed, 2007).

 

These countries support teachers in higher studies and provide financial support. In Israel, teachers studying towards an MA or a Med can also apply to the Department of Education to receive assistance.

 

Singapore’s Investment in PL (p. 23)

1.      Learning Circles – problem solving – 4-10 teachers

2.      Teacher led workshops – teachers present their ideas and work

3.      conferences

4.      well-being program

5.      website

6.      publications (Tripp, 2004; Sallen, 2006)

 

“Since 2004, the Australian government has been sponsoring the Quality Teacher Program… three levels:

1. Teaching Australia (formerly the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership)
2. National Projects
3. State and Territory projects…”

 

Teacher Induction (p. 25)

PD programs for new teachers and inductory programs are mandatory in Australia, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

“Mentor teachers and coaches play a key part in launching new teachers into the profession and some countries (including Israel, Switzerland, France, Norway and England) require formal training for mentors” (OECD, 2005).

 

Teacher Involvement in Decision Making

In Finland teachers are involved in developing syllabi, selecting textbooks, developing curriculum and assessments.

 

 “In Finland… scholars attribute the academic success of their students in part to an emphasis on teachers’ professional learning and the high status of teachers as professionals” (p. 28).

Well, I guess that explains why Israeli students do so poorly… here teachers are considered lower than low!

 

The Status of PL Opportunities in the US (p. 30)

“Yoon and colleagues (2007) found in their review of research that PD of 14 hours or less showed no effects on student learning, while longer duration programs – averaging 49 hours of engagement around a specific topic or teaching strategy showed positive and significant effects on student achievement” (p. 34).

 

Supports for PD (p. 36)

-          Time in regular work hours

-          Release time for PD

-          Scheduled time

-          Stipends

-          Full or partial reimbursement for college fees

-          Full or partial reimbursement for workshop or conference fees

-          Full or partial reimbursement for travel…

Job Embedded PL (p. 39)

Research: “Most effective forms of PD are directly related to teachers’ instructional practice, intensive and sustained, integrated with school reform efforts, and that actively engage in teachers in collaborative professional communities”

“… other responses suggest that the intensity of teacher collaboration is minimal in most US schools…” (p. 40).

Another Lens on PL Opportunities: The NSDC (National Staff development Council) Standards Assessment Inventory (p. 54)

Survey:

v     Opportunities for PD and collaboration

v     School leadership

v     Equity

v     Teacher influence and collaboration

 

Questions which may lead to improvement in the US

Conclusions (p. 61)

This book describes another example of university-school collaboration project aimed at teacher learning.

A unique feature here is that the teachers determined the direction of inquiry and not the academic researchers.

The term collaborative here is used to describe the way the teacher researchers learned to work with the uni researchers AND how they learned to involve their students more in their whole language classrooms.

The authors discuss the production of knowledge about teaching and quote Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993, who explain that often knowledge about teaching is formulated in academic frameworks and then transmitted to teachers.

Pappas and Zecker also cite Gitlin (1990) who points out that most in most educational research, issues studied are almost never initiated by teachers. This balance of power in research implies that teachers have nothing to contribute from their professional knowledge.

“Teacher research promotes a new, distinctive way of knowledge of teaching because it privileges teachers as those with the authority to know about teaching” (p. 4).  

“Showing and talking about particular features of their teaching that were working well gave the teachers feelings of accomplishment and demonstrated strategies that others might try… On the other hand, airing difficulties or vulnerabilities in inquiries afforded opportunities to obtain new ideas or directions to consider” (p. 6).

The theory that all humans construct knowledge through social interactions = “socioconstructivist perspective on literacy” (p. 7).

• Wells, 1994b
• Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992

Vygotsky – 1962, 1978

• Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995
• Moll, 1990
• Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989
• Wells, 1994a, 1994b, 1998
• Wertsch, 1985, 1989, 1991

Pappas, C. C., & Zecker, L. B. (2001). Introduction: Creating collaborative relations of power in literacy teaching-learning. In C. C. Pappas, & L. B. Zecker (Eds.), Teacher inquiries in literacy teaching-learning: Learning to collaborate in elementary urban classrooms (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, 193-231 (1996)
DOI: 10.3102/00028312033001193
© 1996 American Educational Research Association

Articles

Collaboration as Dialogue: Teachers and Researchers Engaged in Conversation and Professional Development

Caroline Clark, Pamela A. Moss, Susan Goering, Roberta J. Herter, Bertha Lamar, Doug Leonard, Sarah Robbins, Margaret Russell, Mark Templin and Kathy Wascha

University of Michigan

 This article, in both form and substance, seeks to reconceptualize the role of collaboration in professional development. The nature of collaboration and collaborative relationships in professional development research is reviewed, and an alternative conceptualization is offered. Because our work spans multiple sites, we are able to highlight the particularities of our experiences across sites and to contrast the individual stories of each teacher and researcher as opposed to essentializing our story into generalities about these groups. Writing about this work together required the construction of a narrative form that could incorporate and honor the voices of everyone. The story/data is presented as a Readers Theatre—a written script, based on meeting dialogues and interactions. This format highlights the problem of writing in collaborative research, as well as the differences in collaborative experiences among teachers and researchers. It also seeks to challenge traditional conceptions of the roles of teachers and researchers as theorizers about and disseminators of knowledge.

Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind”

• Kenneth A. Bruffee
• College English, Vol. 46, No. 7 (Nov., 1984), pp. 635-652   (article consists of 18 pages)
• Published by: National Council of Teachers of English

 

 

 Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100724

Learning through on-line discussion: what are the

opportunities for professional development and what are

the characteristics of on-line writing?

Michael Hammond

 

 

University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Online Publication Date: 01 October 1998

To cite this Article: Hammond, Michael (1998) ‘Learning through on-line discussion:

what are the opportunities for professional development and what are the

characteristics of on-line writing?’, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 7:3, 331

— 346

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14759399800200041

URL: h

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759399800200041

In this letter to the new president of the US, Lieberman and Pointer Mace call for a move from traditional PD for teachers to a model of PD based on the collaborative learning  from teacher experience and knowledge. The authors explain that “Teachers work in isolation and only rarely have a chance to observe their colleagues or talk about their teaching work” (p. 226).

“But professional development, though well intentioned, is often perceived by teachers as fragmented, disconnected, and irrelevant to the real problems of classroom practice” (p. 226).

The authors claim that traditional top down forms of PD do not recognize the particular needs of classes, the teacher’s own knowledge and that there are varied ways of achieving successful learning in schools. (p. 227).

“Instead of creating the conditions for teachers to teach each other, support their peers, and deepen their knowledge about their students, teachers are being given a “one size fits all” set of professional development workshops that deny the variability of how teachers teach, and how they and their students learn” (p. 227). 

The article also explains the social aspect of learning, that people learn through interaction with others. “They learn through practice (learning as doing), through meaning (learning as intentional), through community (learning as participating and being with others), and through identity ( learning as changing who we are). Professional learning so constructed is rooted in the human need to feel a sense of belonging and of making a contribution to a community where experience and knowledge function as part of community property. Teachers’ professional development should be refocused on the building of learning communities” (p. 227).

  The NWP is quoted as a successful model of PD through teacher collaboration (of course the teacher as writer is also involved here).

Another example is the networked communities in the UK (studied by Jackson, 2006; Jackson & Temperley, 2007). “The school networks helped to create practitioner knowledge (from teachers’ experience), public knowledge (from research and theory), and new knowledge (from what was created together). (p. 229).

“These networks of teachers from different schools managed to raise achievement for students, taught the participants how to work collaboratively linked yo “rigorous and challenging joint work”, and managed to build trust in helping make teaching public as they developed and distributed leadership among the teachers (Earl, Katz, et al., 2006)” (p. 229). 

 See: Networked Communities

http://www.ncsl.org.uk/networked/networked-leo-search.cfm

http://www.nlcexchange.org.uk

Gallery of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org

 ”Living archive” of teaching practice

http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/insideteaching/

“The teacher communities described here exhibit the best we know so far about effective professional development. They focus on instruction; are sustained and continuous, rather than short term and episodic; provide opportunities for teachers to lern from one another both inside and outside the school; make it possible for teachers to influence how and what they learn; and engage teachers in thinking about what they need to know (Hawley & Valli, 2007)” (p. 233).

 Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226-234. Retrieved from http://jte.sagepub.com  

 

While writing this thesis I was running a professional development program for teachers of grades two to six. The name of the twenty eight hour course was “Improving Literacy in a Heterogeneous Class”. The teachers voluntarily signed up.  I began the course by asking the fourteen teachers participating to fill in a questionnaire about themselves, their teaching experience and their expectations of the course. I included a list of possible topics and asked them to mark those most relevant and important to them. I was not surprised to find that the most pressing topic for all of the participants was the teaching of writing and supporting struggling writers.  I opened the third meeting by asking the teachers to write for ten minutes in silence, the topic being an experience they have had teaching writing. I told them that we would be discussing those pieces after the writing period was over.  One teacher immediately left the room, a toilet or coffee break I assumed. Another took out her cell phone and began clicking furiously. Others doodled quietly in their notebooks, began listing points or began to fill lines with Hebrew script.  I sat and watched them, uncomfortable with the squirming that was going on in several of the seats. Each minute that went past was like five, my watch didn’t seem to move. I forced myself to wait ten minutes, resisting my urge to cut the time down to seven or eight minutes.  Silence was kept in the room for most of the time, although occasionally there were embarrassed giggles or a whisper.  When the time was up, some of the teachers were still busily writing their narratives and were sorry to stop. Others looked relieved and were waiting to get on with the seminar.  In the discussion that followed I was interested in hearing what had happened to the participants in those ten minutes, what they had felt and what they had experienced and done in that time.  Many of the teachers commented that they are unused to writing on demand and that they felt uncomfortable. Some confessed that they are not used to writing at all. Several remarked that the time limit and the expectation of sharing their writing pressured them. At least two of the teachers didn’t write at all in the ten minute period. Only two or three confided that they enjoyed the writing experience.  We looked in detail at what had been done in that time and saw how the writing process is different for different people. Afterwards we discussed the implications for these differences in our classrooms. One of the teachers who didn’t write anything, an experienced grade six teacher, explained to the group that she isn’t a writer. “People are either born writers or they aren’t, I’m not” she said. The group discussed this statement. Is it true? If it is, what does it mean for the teaching of writing? I added that this is one of the major misconceptions held by struggling writers in our classes.  I asked the teachers if anyone was willing to share their text with us. Two of the first volunteers started to tell their story without looking at the page. I stopped them and reassured them that it is clear to everyone that this is the roughest of rough draft but that we want to hear what is on the paper.  Two of the pieces we heard were well structured, interesting stories. We were amazed by the writers’ style and clarity. At the end of the session I explained that our next meeting would not be face to face, that we would be meeting on the virtual campus. Each teacher was required to do three things, firstly to revise her story about the teaching of writing (or write another story) and to post it on the assigned private discussion board. The second task was to reflect on the teaching story and on the experience of writing one, I supplied possible directions for this. The third task was to read stories from other group members and respond.  It took ages and lots of encouragement for the first teacher to post a story. She wrote about a poetry anthology she had successfully produced at her school. The poems were all connected to Israel’s sixtieth birthday. This teacher told how she had created a poetry unit suitable for each different age group, chosen appropriate poetry to teach, and encouraged the children to write. Every child in the school had writing published in the festive booklet. She told her story modestly but proudly and expressed her personal excitement and satisfaction with the project. A few days after this story appeared, comments began to appear, most of them congratulating the teacher on her success in the project but also on being the first to contribute a story. Questions also appeared. Gradually a few other stories appeared on the site and the discussion was lively.  Unfortunately only five of the participants took part in the discussion. At our next meeting, I devoted time to the oral reading of those stories posted on the campus and gave those teachers time to share their experiences with the group. I was sure that my enthusiasm, together with showing the participants that it is possible to complete the task, would motivate the others to write and share their stories. A few weeks later, I am still waiting… Although I know that time is a central factor in any work I do with teachers, here I know that the type of task assigned was significant in the low rate of participation.  I am continually aware that these teachers have not been asked to write anything of this nature for a very long time, some of them since they were at school. Another factor is that in a twenty eight hour course many of the teachers do not know each other and may feel vulnerable as a result.  I have tasted this kind of work with teachers and find it far more meaningful than choosing a topic, planning a lecture or a workshop, giving them my knowledge or experience and going home.  When I read the stories written, I was greatly aware of what I have been learning, that every teacher has something to say, that each teacher possesses professional knowledge which can be a wonderful starting point for collaborative learning. S, a second year teacher, had been very quiet and reserved in the first two sessions. We discussed writing in the third meeting and I brought examples of authors talking about the writing process and about how laborious composition is. Suddenly, S shyly told the group that she keeps a personal diary and that because she lives alone she comes home and pours her day into writing. She confessed that writing is an important part of her day. The narrative S wrote and posted was written in very simple language but told a very powerful story of her battle to get her second grade pupils to write. She told us how she used to spend each Sunday morning hearing stories from her class about what they had done on the weekend. She was frustrated that it was always the same children who related experiences and that many remained silent. She told that it was difficult for many to choose just one experience to share.  One day, S gave her pupils special notebooks and told them that they were going to write what they wanted to share from their weekend and that afterwards those that want to can tell their story. She was shocked by the result. Firstly, everybody wrote, including those who usually don’t share and her struggling writers. Secondly, many more children were willing to tell their stories. S, excited by this lesson, decided to continue.  In the weeks that followed, S asked her pupils to write every Sunday morning and was happy that the children wrote willingly and that the texts produced were more and more complex. More and more pupils asked to share their work. As a result of the reflection S did when writing her narrative for our group, she started asking the class to write on other occasions, after recess for example. Another addition was that she herself started writing while her class was busy with their heads down. She used the time for reflective writing on teaching issues. In the weeks that followed, writing became an accepted mode of communication in S’s class. When children were involved in an argument or had a problem, she asked them to first organize their thoughts by writing them in the notebook and that afterwards she would be happy to listen to them. It worked. When S got to school after her day off, she would find a pile of notes waiting for her on her desk. Subject teachers who taught the class were surprised when they began to receive written communication from the young children.  S received positive feedback on her work from the members of our group and also heard ideas for continuing and expanding her work. I found it very satisfying that through this activity she realized that she has something significant to share with a group of experienced teachers. Many of the veteran teachers certainly had something to learn from this shy and nervous early career teacher. I realized that S was similar to her shyer pupils, those that only dared to share a story when they had it firmly on paper.  There is no tradition of composing teacher narratives and collaborating on them in this part of Israel. There are presently no formal options for professional learning through dialogic writing and discussion. Despite the fact that this small scale experience was only partly successful, I am optimistic that significant learning frameworks can be established for Israeli teachers in this direction.  In order to succeed, I believe teachers need to know ahead of time that this will be the framework of the seminar and that they know they will be committed to experience the writing and discussing of teacher narratives. A mix of experienced and early career teachers is likely to be preferable – building on the enthusiasm and burning need for collaboration amongst newer teachers and the experience and knowledge of veteran educators.  I have already taken the first few steps. I have surprisingly managed to convince the coordinator of language and literacy in the northern area of Israel, that this is the way we should be going in our PD for next year. Most of the courses we will be offering will deal with the teaching of writing and they will all be structured around teacher collaboration and the writing and sharing of narratives.  If we begin with a respect for the knowledge the teachers bring with them and their honest desire to raise the achievement levels of their pupils in writing, I hope they will sign up and then be open, flexible and active participants.

TI: Teacher Learning: the Key to Educational Reform

AU: Lieberman, Ann; Pointer Mace, Deslree SO: Journal of Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 59   NO. 3   ,pp.226-234 AB: This letter to the next president of the United States recommends the transformation of teacher in-service learning as a powerful means of education reform. Too often, professional development is perceived by teachers as being idiosyncratic and irrelevant. The authors recommend a reconceptualization of professional learning for practicing teachers, in which educators are involved in learning communities, these communities evolve over time, and they revolve around norms of openness, scholarly rigor, and collaborative construction of professional knowledge. The authors describe three such environments of professional learning—the National Writing Proje ct, the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and the Quest Project for Signature Pedagogies in Teacher Education—and recommend that the incoming chief executive should capitalize on the strengths of such programs and extend them to many more teachers nationwide. KW: teacher learning • communities of practice • professional development • online networks

TI: Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences

AU: Zwart, R.C.; Wubbels, Th.; Bolhuis, S. SO: Teaching and Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 24   NO. 4   ,pp.982-1002 AB: Just what and how eight experienced teachers in four coaching dyads learned during a 1-year reciprocal peer coaching trajectory was examined in the present study. The learning processes were mapped by providing a detailed description of reported learning activities, reported learning outcomes, and the relations between these two. The sequences of learning activities associated with a particular type of learning outcome were next selected, coded, and analyzed using a variety of quantitative methods. The different activity sequences undertaken by the teachers during a reciprocal peer coaching trajectory were found to trigger different aspects of their professional development KW: Learning process; Learning activity; Activity sequence; Reciprocal peer coaching; Professional development

 

TI: Interaction in Online Courses for Teacher Education: Subject Matter and Pedagogy

AU: McCrory, R.; Putnam, R.; Jansen, A. SO: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 16   NO. 2   ,pp.155-180 AB: This article explores results from a research project studying teacher learning and faculty teaching in two online courses for teachers in a master’s degree program. We focus on the interactions among students in online small-group discussions. We argue that three aspects of the online cours es impact the way students enter into discussions online, and consequently, what they have opportunities to learn: (a) the subject matter itself, (b) the representations and media through which the subject matter is engaged, and (c) the tasks students are asked to carry out online. In addition, we argue that students’ disposition to engage in constructive discourse (or not) is an important and only partly controll :able factor in what happens in online discussion. KW: Educational Technology; Collaboration; eLearning;Professional Development;Teaching Methods;Multimedia

TI: ‘That’s not treating you as a professional’: teachers constructing complex professional identities through talk

AU: Cohen, Jennifer L. SO: Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,  2008   VOL. 14   NO. 2   ,pp.79 – 93 AB: Public debates about the role of teachers and teacher performance place teachers at the center of a range of national and local discourses. The notion of teacher professional identity, therefore, framed in a variety of ways, engages people across social contexts, whether as educators, parents, students, taxpayers, voters or consumers of news and popular media. These highly contested discourses about teachers’ roles and responsibilities constitute an important context for research on teachers and teaching, as researchers and educators ask how changes to the teaching profession affect teacher professional identity. This article investigates the identity talk of three mid-career teachers in an urban, public school in the USA, to better understand how the teachers used language to accomplish complex professional identities. Research approaches to teacher identity often focus on teacher narrative as a key tool in identity formation. The analysis presented here extend s our understanding of language as a resource in teacher identity construction by using discourse analysis to investigate how speakers use implicit meaning to accomplish the role identity of teacher. The analytical lens draws on an interdisciplinary framework that combines a sociological approach to teacher as a role identity with an investigation of language as a cultural practice, grounded in the ethnography of communication. The analysis focuses on how teachers use specific discourse strategies – reported speech, mimicked speech, pronoun shifts, oppositional portraits, and juxtaposition of explicit claims – to construct implicit identity claims that, while they are not stated directly, are central to accomplishing teacher as a role identity. The analysis presented here focuses on the particular implicit role claim of teacher as collaborator. Findings show that, in their identity talk, the teachers strategically positioned themselves in relation to others and to institutio nal practices, actively negotiating competing discourses about teacher identity by engaging in a counter discourse emphasizing teachers’ professional role as knowledge producers rather than information deliverers, collaborative, rather than isolated, and as agents of change engaged in critical analysis to plan action. Awareness of how these counter discourses operate in the teachers’ conversation helps us better understand the cultural significance of identity talk as a site for the negotiation of the significances for the role identity of teacher. In addition, the notions of role identity and implicit identity claims offer an accessible way to talk about the complexity of teacher identity, which can be helpful for increasing awareness of the importance of teacher identity in teacher education and professional development, and in bringing teachers’ voices more prominently into the debates over education KW: discourse analysis; id entity talk; secondary school teachers; urban schools; teacher characteristics; role identity

 

TI: Teachers reflecting on their work: articulating what is said about what is done

AU: Marcos, Juan Jos; Snchez, Emilio; Tillema, Harm SO: Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,  2008   VOL. 14   NO. 2   ,pp.95 – 114 AB: Teachers’ written reflections on their work, which report on a change in their practice, were the object of this research. Taking teachers’ articulation of their plans and actions in teacher journals as our source, this s tudy’s aim is twofold: (1) to describe how teacher reflect in a self-initiated and non-framed way on their own practice, and (2) to review teacher self generated reflections in reference to models of reflection. In this way, we tried to disclose what precisely teachers write (said) when reflecting on their work (did) in order to appreciate their way of describing what matters in their work; and position this in reference to models that conceptualise (“talk”) on how to actualise (’walk’) reflection. This ‘double’ articulation of reflection is gauged in two ways, i.e., on: a) completeness, that is, whether it includes relevant components of reflection (models) to be found in the literature, and on b) recursiveness, that is, whether the written account gives evidence of an integrated cyclical, i.e., recursive process of re-view, which appraises and looks back on what has been accomplished. The results show that teachers do not work along the lines identified in current refl ection models (i.e. providing clear problem definition, searching for evidence, planning for change, and reviewing plans). Instead, many teachers use a narrative and valuing appraisal of their accomplishments; not so much cautiously reviewing their actions but prospectively commenting on plans and solutions for future action. The data lead us to be cautious about the prominence of reflection models as advocated in the literature to be applied to teachers’ written accounts of their practice. KW: teacher reflection; action research; teacher research; self-studies; reflective action; professional development

TI: Making Connections: Grounding Professional Development in the Developmental Theories of Vygotsky

AU: Eun, Barohny < SPAN class=”heading abbreviation”>SO: The Teacher Educator,  2008   VOL. 43   NO. 2   ,pp.134 – 155 AB: Professional development is grounded in the developmental theories of Vygotsky in an attempt to better understand the mechanism underlying teacher development. The rationale for the use of Vygotskian framework is provided in the context of describing the various models of professional development. Within this theoretical framework, it is argued that concepts formulated by Vygotsky that are relevant to the education of students in school settings are also applicable to the professional growth of teachers in their work places. Various implications for effective professional development are presented by linking the developmental aspects of professional development and major tenets of Vygotsky’s developmental theori es.

TI: Fitting the Methodology with the Research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography

AU: Hamilton, Mary Lynn; Smith, Laura; Worthington, Kristen SO: Studying Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 4   NO. 1   ,pp.17 – 28 AB: Sharpening our approaches to methodology in self-study research can strengthen our work and clarify questions that arise for readers unfamiliar with this research genre. Our article considers three methodologies – narrative, auto-ethnography and self-study – that privilege self in the research design, believing that addressing self can contribute to our understandings about teaching and teacher education. We address two questions: In what ways, if any, does the methodological choice affect the inquiry of the researchers? When, if ever, might self-study be the best choice for inquiry? For this, we use one selected work to explore the critical elements of these methodologies to determine usefulness. This is not a discussion to determine which approach is better; rather it is a discussion to explore w hen one method might be privileged over another and why KW: methodology; research design; self-study; narrative inquiry; auto-ethnography

TI: Balancing Acts: Negotiating authenticity and authority in shared reflection

AU: Calderwood, Patricia E.; D’Amico, Kathleen M. SO: Studying Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 4   NO. 1   ,pp.47 – 59 AB: In this self-study, a teacher educator and an experienced teacher analyze an unexpected shared opportunity to mentor pre-service elementary educators. Our partnership arose during a graduate course on literacy development for elementary students, serendipitously captured during an extended electronic conversation with the pre-service candidates. We uncovered an interplay between authenticity and authority that generated enhanced professional development for each of us and for the teac her candidates who were enrolled in the course. As well as reflections on our own practices, implications for teacher education development and pedagogy are noted. KW: teacher education; professional development; collaboration

 Information from the Israeli Macam center

The authors describe the collaboration that they found effective in their own professional development.

“Together, we create a deeper, clearer understanding of her classroom environment than either of us could hope to do individually” (p. 41).

“There is another reason Tracy and I have chosen to collaborate on this project. In terms of professional development, it doesn’t get any better than this. Our collaboration around real questions that affect real students…requires that we draw from previous learning spanning our entire professional landscape: From literature on best practices to research methodology, everything comes into play. We share a sense of urgency to do this work well because, if we do, we might make a difference in the lives of students. Moreover, we share the hope that our work will contribute to the national conversation about reading and writing instruction and, in so doing, provide support for others” (p. 42)

Another private text becomes public…

The authors describe the traditional PD programs they had attended. They explain that they were passive consumers and that they took no part in their design. Rosewarne goes as far as to say that she remembers nothing from four years of inservice PD – not even the theme. (p. 44).

The authors cite Jack Mezirow (1981) who argues that once a significant change has taken place, one that causes a person to look differently at life, there is no return. The authors reveal:

“Once we realized that our stories were important and our questions worthy of research, there arose a pervasive need for more opportunities for collaboration and growth” (p. 45).

This and similar forms of collaboration are grounded in “a belief that the knowledge and stories of classroom teachers are important, an understanding that teachers-with the right kinds of skills-could make a significant contribution to the knowledge base of our profession” (p. 45).

 The authors are aware that this kind of reflective collaboration demands flexibility and personal exposure and involves the possibility of getting hurt.

“It is a risk to question what feels comfortable and normal in our classrooms. However, as teacher-researchers, we began to see how knowledge grows and how we could be a part of that developing conversation”  (p. 45)

“By finding safe communities of educators, we were able to stay alive in our professional knowledge building. And, by finding mentors and collaborators, we were able to create opportunities for growth as we observed students, discussed observations, and thought hard about beliefs and practice” (p. 46).

“Because we collaborate, there is a sense of safety, and the feelings of alienation that have been reported by many experientially open teachers are kept at bay. Our work energizes us and helps us gain perspective on ways to engage students” (p. 46). 

Bowers Sipe, R., & Rosewarne, T. (2005). Learning to love the questions: Professional growth and perspective transformations. The English Journal, 95(2), 41-46. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Image: http://www.cuslight.org/Portals/ConcordiaMilwaukee/images/teachers_meeting.jpg

If I had the time, this is one of the articles I would translate into Hebrew for my colleagues.

I can’t get my hands on the book by Lucy Calkins (2003) called The Nuts and Bolts of Teaching Writing, I can’t understand why not. Anyway, Ray quotes Calkins from page 3 of that book:

“Decades of work in the teaching of writing have convinced me that wise methods of teaching usually do not emerge ex nihilo from a single gifted and talented teacher. Wise methods of teaching do not come from our genes alone but from our communities of practice” (p. 100).

This of course connects with the discussion between Parr and Bellis in “Responding to the forum: A professional conversation” (2005). .

In this article Graham Parr cites Etienne Wenger (1998) in order to explain that it is almost impossible to isolate the professional knowledge of any particular teacher. “Our knowing-even of the most unexceptional kind-is always too big,too rich, too ancient, and too connected for us to be the source of it individually” (p. 41). 

Parr continues to argue for the evaluation of “quality teaching” and not the search for the “quality teacher” (p. 42).

“A focus on the quality teaching … believes in the value of the collective before the individual. It begins by appreciating that the richest teaching and learning happens in collaborative, nuanced and multifarious dynamics” (p. 42).

All of these remarks certainly reflect the way I view myself and my own professional knowledge. Often S, an experienced teacher at my school, compliments me on my ideas, my plans or the way I handle different situations. I always remark that much of my success is based in the significant learning I did as a young, and not so young  teacher, working alongside her. “You taught me that” I answer and usually she is surprised.

Ray describes the work of Lisa, a first grade teacher and remarks:

“Lisa’s ever-evolving sense of values as a teacher of  writing has developed inside a larger community of practice as she has read professionally, interacted with colleagues, and learned from her own experience” (p. 100).

Ray presents a long list of reasons why Cauley, a first grade pupil, is doing well in writing. One of those reasons is that Cauley’s teacher, Lisa, has spent a good deal of time and effort reflecting on the pupil “as a writer” (p. 105).

Lisa, Cauley’s teacher, uses her own writing experience in her teaching. Just as she uses quotations about writing by famous writers, she also illustrates a certain point by telling something that has happened to her as a writer. (p. 108)

 Ray, K. W. (2004). Why Cauley writes well: A close look at what a difference good teaching can make. Language Arts, 82(2), 100-109. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/pubs/journals/la  

Bellis, N., & Parr, G. (2005). Responding to the forum: a professional conversation. Idiom, 41(2), 39-45. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au