Collaborative and team approaches to professional learning



Yüklə 35,82 Kb.
tarix29.09.2018
ölçüsü35,82 Kb.
#71083

Collaborative and team approaches to professional learning

Introduction

In Chapters Two and Three, we proposed principles for carrying out effective practitioner research to enhance the professional learning of individual staff, and suggested ways of involving students or pupils in this. Now, having considered in Chapter Four the importance of a whole school or whole college approach to professional learning, we examine the potential for identifying the learning needs of teams and link this with possible collaborative approaches to in-house research. This chapter therefore:


  • describes some of the practicalities of effective practitioner research,

  • considers how to avoid research overload,

  • discusses the potential for team approaches to identifying learning professional needs, and proposes ways in which these can be effectively practised,

  • describes how collaborative professional learning can be encouraged and developed,

  • stresses the importance of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to be involved and

  • discusses collaborative learning across institutions.

The practicalities of effective practitioner research

In carrying out an in-house inquiry, whether as an individual, with one

colleague or in a group, the first requirement is that it shall be of high

quality, genuinely and professionally operated. The principles already

described in Chapter Two need to be applied and every precaution taken

to observe professional courtesies. For example, if an investigation into the

underachievement of male students in modern languages is to be researched,

permission should clearly be gained from the Head of Languages. In fact,

in one post-statutory college in the West Midlands of England, written

permission of this kind has to be obtained and then shown to any affected

person each time a stage of the research is carried out.

Rigour must be applied to each of the methods used in carrying out

the research which usually means prior training is involved. Any kind of

superficiality is totally unacceptable. A good example here is of Learning

Walks. This is a method which is not really used by professional researchers

but has become a valuable tool in practitioner in-house investigations. As

noted regularly, informal learning is hugely important and therefore relaxed

or incidental observations, informal and unplanned discussions, and walks

around the school or college are all crucial parts of a culture where learning

is occurring and should be seen as normal. However, they should NOT

be confused with structured observations, interviews or learning walks!

These informal and valuable aspects are important but cannot be used as a

basis for proper assessments of or judgements on practice or performance.

A Learning Walk is a structured process, a specific 'Iearning Journey'

(Middlewood and Piper-Gale, 2011: 37). 'The focus of the walk is carefully

chosen and questions formulated before the walk takes place. The focus

must be adhered to 'avoiding publicly stated comparisons or anecdotes — and

most, importantly, being judgemental' (ibid.: 38). As with other research

methods, only when the data on the chosen focus has been collected and

analysed should any conclusions be drawn.

Other fundamental procedures need to be adhered to in all inquiry processes. Middlewood and Abbott (2012: 171) proposed a set of 'golden rules' for researchers and included, as relevant here:


  • 'Ensure you know which data you need to collect before deciding upon the method of collecting the data.

  • In sampling, decide first on which people and then on how many.

  • Ensure you keep the presentation of your data separate from your analysis of the data.'

Such procedures help to ensure that the outcomes of the in-house inquiry that uses them will have validity and thereby in many cases generalizability to some other situations and contexts.

This book is a good deal concerned with the use of in-house research to lead to improved professional learning and CPD because the precise focus for the learning can be identified through a rigorous investigation. However, it is vitally important to understand that the process of carrying out such an in-house inquiry is in itself a significant form of professional learning. Richard Parker recognizes this and notes its impact in the case study described in Chapter Seven. We note here some aspects of that learning (not in any specific order):



  • Clearly, some of the specific skills involved in carrying out research are learned — such as devising questionnaires for surveys, constructing schedules for observations, analysis of documents, creating time logs or diaries. When one reflects on how many separate occasions observations will be used in educational institutions, to take but one example, it is clear that such skills will not be wasted.

  • Participants learn to base their views about professional matters — and probably others as well — on evidence rather than make assumptions.

  • They learn not to assume that the obvious 'answer' is not always the right one and that because something was true previously, it does not automatically that it is true forever. Herr and Anderson (2008) describe how a US school's staff were convinced that the poor test scores in the school were the fault of the students who missed the most classes. However, the data from the attendance figures and test scores showed that was very little correlation, with some regular attendees scoring poorly; this forced the teachers to examine their own teaching more closely to find the reasons.

  • They learn that usually one set of evidence or data may not be sufficient and triangulation is needed by getting evidence from at least one other source. This can simply be another point of view. Interestingly, two quite separate examples in later chapters show that if the viewpoint of primary pupils or secondary students had been sought with regard to the colour of the learning environment, instead of just those of the designers/architects, a more effective learning stimulus could have been in place much earlier!

  • As far as learning in groups is concerned, participants learn about sharing ideas, open-mindedness, interdependence, power sharing as well as gaining in individual and collective confidence.

Of course, many of the above are life 'lessons' which can sound trite, but educationalists at all levels are first and foremost individual human beings and often such 'lessons' have to be experienced in a professional learning context for them to acquire meaning there.

Avoiding research overload

In a research-engaged school or college, which was discussed in Chapter

Two, there may be a risk especially before the desired culture is fully

established that some staff will feel they are being 'hounded' by too many

requests to become involved in research. We have heard the groan of 'Oh

no, not another questionnaire!' being uttered in more than one institution!

However enthusiastic the person proposing the research is, and however

willing people are to help, there Will be occasions when that enthusiasm and

willingness will be sorely tested. Since it is essential that all participation

in in-house research is entirely voluntary, it is important to bear in mind

this factor, and plan the whole approach with the possibility of people

becoming jaded in mind.



What are the considerations to be noted?

First, an overload of anything is not really welcome! If so many people

are investigating practice and procedure at the same time, at least three

consequences are likely:



  1. People will only feel their workload is being added to and schools and colleges are already very busy and often stressful places anyway.

  2. There could be such an excess of data and findings accumulated that no one will have time to read all the ensuing reports and some will inevitably be ignored or abandoned.

  3. People may become disenchanted and the desired culture will not develop.

Second, we need to remember the purpose of the practitioner research in

the first place — to improve practice where needed and to do this through

enhanced CPD and professional learning. The research is not an end in

itself. Although this sounds obvious, remembering the investigation is a

means to that end needs constantly to be stressed. Indeed, if an excess of

research occurs, can any programme of CPD/professional learning cope?

For an individual to improve in practice, one step at a time would seem

to be appropriate. Therefore, in putting forward a request for help with

research, the emphasis should first be on the area to be investigated and

how the help can be given as second.

Third, there clearly needs to be an overall strategy and plan for

implementation for professional learning and CPD, as discussed in the

previous chapter. Such a plan will involve timing, with a schedule for

carrying out a programme over a specified period. Of course, plans are

never set in stone and situations may occur when something has to be

delayed or brought forward, but overall priorities will be clear and the

research and consequent programmes can be managed effectively. An

external inspection, for example, might highlight unexpectedly an area of

concern in a specific area of practice and the school or college leaders feel

that this needs to be investigated earlier than had been planned.

Fourth, not only does there need to be this overall strategy and plan

in terms of areas of practice in general, but it is essential that detailed

records are kept of every single piece of practitioner research, indicating

for example where the research was done, how many people were involved,

what kind of research methods were used. Of course, because of the

anonymity of the in-house investigation respondents, the actual identity

of participants is not recorded, but consulting the records would quickly

show, for example, which subject areas, which staff in particular roles

had been involved and need to be avoided for a period perhaps; similarly

for pupils and students.

While much of this is being described in negative terms, it is of course

good practice that such records are used positively, for example in finding

out when a particular issue was last addressed, whether the person

concerned has now left the staff and other such matters. In this way, the

records become a valuable record of school/college improvement and a tool

for future improvement.



Collaborative approaches to in-house research

We mentioned in Chapter Three that many students, perhaps most, in

beginning in-house research prefer to work in small groups or teams. This

is because as beginners, it is easier and reassuring to work with others and

learn together as the work takes place. Above all, working in a team gives

confidence to a novice and in many cases where students are concerned; they

may prefer to continue to carry out their inquiries in this way. Of course,

this way of working can be just as useful for anyone beginning the activity

for the same reason. We know of support staff in schools or colleges who

have strongly preferred to start like this, and sometimes teachers, although

if they are carrying out the work for an accredited programme, they need to

ensure that they seek permission first from the appropriate higher education

authority. Universities, if they permit collaborative research for a course,

insist on it being possible to be clear on submission of work that specific

parts are attributable to individual members of a group.

Of course, teams for in-house inquiry can equally be of mixed role

composition, such as a blend of teachers, administrative and support staff.

Indeed, there are some topics which are best tackled by' such a mixed team,

especially when a working relationship is being investigated. It is worth noting what can be the benefits of using a team approach to some in-house research:


  • As noted, it can give greater confidence to the people concerned, especially if one or more of those involved is beginning research for the first time.

  • Obviously, the workload can be shared — very important for busy people!

  • The scope for the investigation can be much greater or wider if several researchers are involved.

  • Therefore a larger amount of data can be gathered.

  • If the team is carefully chosen, a greater range of research skills can

be used, with the burden not falling on just the one person. Thus,

people who are comfortable with quantitative research and 'number

crunching' can link with those more at ease with qualitative data.

Those who are good at interviews can link with those who prefer

surveys and there are also writing skills and data analysis skills to

be utilized. One considerable benefit here is that members of the

research team can develop specific skills other than those which

are perhaps more natural to them by working with each other. It

is sound advice to beginners to 'play to your personal strengths'

initially and then develop others as you progress. This learning

can be formally structured if required. For example, someone

nervous about carrying out an interview with someone senior

in the institution can perhaps act as an observer at an interview

carried out by the person who is happy to do it. (This must be with

the permission of the interviewee of course, with the normal ethic

'rules' applying.)

However, for a team approach to in-house inquiry (or indeed any form

of team research) to be effective, it is essential that a strongly consistent

approach by all team members be followed. For this to happen, we suggest

that:


• A rigorous debate occurs about the methods and the sampling to be

used and agreement is then reached in which everyone understands

why those methods and samples have been chosen and that it

is essential that everyone then follows the same procedures in

applying them in the same way.


  • A similar debate should occur about who does what in terms of

dealing with respondents. Who should interview whom? Should

friendships be irrelevant? Is it appropriate for gender or ethnic

issues to be taken into consideration? As long as these are all aired

openly and honestly, then all members will be clear about the

consistent approach to be taken when agreement has been reached.


  • A similar debate should underline the strict ethical guidelines

that will be followed by' all team members in carrying out the

investigation. There will probably be context-specific issues here that

must be agreed, for example, how interviewees will be addressed

by name. Simple though this sounds, even trivial, one interviewer

addressing an interviewee in a much more familiar manner than the

others can cause problems in terms of responses elicited.

We would recommend that the agreed 'rules' are written up and

recorded and all team members have copies for their regular

reference.

Collaborative professional learning and CPD

As shared learning is an important feature of effective schools and

colleges which should be encouraged, specific plans to enable this to

happen should be in place. These involve 'support between at least two

colleagues on a sustained basis', (Cordingley et al., 2004:2). While shared

learning in an informal sense remains a vital part of an organization's

learning culture (e.g. chatting with colleagues about a particular

child, class or strategy), we are here concerned with more formalized

collaboration. Some research (Kasi et al., 1997) has indicated that the

very nature of team work is in itself a significant learning experience

for all team members. However, because teaching is inherently an

individual practice, we need to note carefully any prerequisites for

effective collaborative professional learning.

• Sufficient time being available. This is both easy to state and often

difficult to achieve, but without the time, the sharing may remain

at a superficial level, the worst example of which is simply some

people copying from others what they see as good practice. While

some initial benefit can accrue from this, only with the intense

scrutiny and debate involved in 'real' sharing can lasting changes be

achieved.



  • Willingness to share. The sharing needs to be primarily voluntary,

rather than forced or contrived, so that the sharing is a genuine

two-way process and so that trust becomes a crucial ingredient in

the whole process. If the collaboration is managed via a top-down

approach, there is a risk of the 'contrived collegiality' (Hargreaves,

1994) resulting, with the possibility of a long-term negative impact.

• Enthusiasm of those participating. King (2011) found that

enthusiastic people taking part in a collaborative learning project in

the Republic of Ireland strongly influenced others, including some

who had previously been unwilling to be involved. Given the time,

willingness and enthusiasm, King found that the ensuing changes in

practice showed 'evidence of deep learning which is a prerequisite

for sustaining practices' (ibid.: 152).



  • Recognition of the individuality of each learner. While each individual

in a team will equally have scope for learning, it is important that

each person be seen as an individual learner with their own learning

needs. This may depend on age, stage of career, experience, as well

as perhaps capability and ambition. In other words, while teams may

work as groups in learning, each single person has the right to be

treated as the unique individual that they are. Although people are

different, they should have equality of status as a learner. Slater (2004)

suggested that it was crucial that people were seen as of equal status

so that the input from any individual was equally valued, whatever its

ultimate contribution to the final outcome.



  • Awareness of different favoured learning styles of people. One

obvious recognition of differences between people is that people

often have preferred learning styles through which they learn most

effectively. In collaborative or team approaches to professional

learning, where different team members for example have different

preferred learning styles, this needs to be acknowledged. Where

the learning is to occur in a semi-formal context, then it is clearly

helpful if people have had the opportunities to find out which is

the style most appropriate to them, using diagnostic tools. Such

tools include visual, auditory, kinaesthetic (VA K) testing, emotional

quotient (EQ) testing, a brain hemisphere diagnosis or a neuro-

linguistic programming analysis. Of course, where a school or

college has attained the stage where it sees itself as a professional

learning community (as in Chapter Two), then such analyses will

be the norm, enabling appropriate delivery for example of more

formal learning. These styles are not rigid of course and learners

often develop several effective ones, but in an initial team approach

it is important that these differences are recognized, to avoid some

learners being unintentionally neglected.



What are some of the benefits of shared professional learning?

• There is a greater likelihood of consistency of effective practice

emerging. Morris and Hiebert (2011) argued that only through

jointly developed teaching practices could teaching be continuously

improved, and while many would not go as far as this, there is no

doubt that students and pupils benefit from a consistent approach

and attitude to teaching and learning in their specific school or

college context. Consistency in no way of course means uniformity!



  • The learning is context-specific. If leaders for example are

comprehensively aware of the local context, and thus can analyse

the needs, attitudes and strengths of colleagues, the ensuing

learning can be the most relevant and effective for all those

concerned (Zhang and Brundrett, 2011). Collaborative learning

means that all those involved share the same knowledge of the same

clients and stakeholders and can therefore focus more coherently on

their specific learning needs.

• By its very nature, shared learning is challenging. It is more

challenging than individual learning because the internalization

which occurs in individual learning has to be externalized for

others to share and critique as appropriate. Some people will deal

with this more confidently than others, at least initially. When

staff do debate learning processes and then challenge each other's

views of them, the end result will almost certainly be that overall

a deeper kind of learning will emerge. These processes, likely to

include trial and error, reflection, experimentation and others,

lead to participants gaining confidence into how these fit their

own developmental needs and which are adaptable in their own

practice.

Approaches to shared or team professional learning

Where in-house inquiries have led to a specific issue being identified as

one for improvement in practice across several related practitioners, such

as those in a subject department, it makes sense for a team approach to

professional learning or CPD to be considered. If, for example, a classroom

issue such as quality of teacher questioning, use of group work, effectiveness

of teacher feedback, needs addressing, the teachers concerned would

undertake shared professional learning or CPD. This might be relatively

formalized CPD With an 'expert' on the topic leading the development

sessions, or it might be organized internally with those involved committed

to their own development. In either case, given that all those have the same

role (in this case classroom teachers) the following questions could be the

starting point:

• WHAT are we trying to improve?

• WHY are we trying to improve it? (This may seem very obvious

but we believe it is possibly the most important question. Who is

the improvement for? How will it help them? To achieve what?

These sub-questions are the start of the debate about professional

learning, its purpose and professionalism as such.)


  • What common goals are we aiming for?

  • What scope for individuality exists within our common proposal? (Or must we all do the same?)

  • How will we evaluate the effectiveness of our new practice?

Where the learning involves people with different roles (e.g. teachers and teaching assistants), the first three questions above would be the same and then:

  • What specific focus is there for us — as teaching assistants (TAs)? As Teachers?

  • What aspects of the relationship (between Teachers/ TAs) will need adjusting in the light of the changes?

  • How will we evaluate — together and separately — the effectiveness of our new practice?

In this mixed role learning, it is crucial that each role holder understands

the implications of any practice change for those in other roles. An obvious

method to adopt here is in the form of role play or role-swapping, where

the teacher becomes the assistant for a while, and vice versa, really getting

to grips with the reality of any change's impact and not just seeing it from

their own perspective.

In their research into the development of extended schools with a

community emphasis, Middlewood and Parker (2009) found several

examples of teams of people with a large range of roles to serve the diverse

clients. Many of these adopted a team approach to most of their professional

practices including their review and appraisal and their training and

development. One such team used the following approach (adapted):

Given the focus for development has been identified, for example, the need

to improve our one-to-one sessions with individual students, through a

survey of students, the first thing is for each of the team members to

write down how they approach and manage these sessions. They do not

identify pluses or minuses, it is simply descriptive.

Step Two. Each person swaps the papers on which this is written. This

surprises some people but we see it as crucial. We cannot defend our

approach because it is not ours! When you hear your own work read

out by someone else, it is sometimes humbling and you can more readily

notice any weaknesses that way. While listening to each one, including

your own, you make notes on them — carefully putting two columns of

www ('what works well'), and ebi ('even better if').

Step Three. We clarify any queries-whether anyone feels misrepresented

(they only have themselves to blame as they wrote it!).

Step Four. Together we list on a chart all the www's and discuss at

length — so that what should emerge is the amalgam of the very best

parts of current practice that we shall not want to lose in any changes

we propose.

Step Five. Then we list all the ebi's and here the focus is on change! The

self-criticism is fierce and we often need to go back to the first list to

remind ourselves how much good already exists!

Step Six. Finally we agree what changes we will try to implement in

our practice. We note any reservations that individuals have and record

them, noting that person X will be able to alter something because of

specific circumstances.

Step Seven. We do a final summary list — very important — of how we feel

the students will gain from the changes.

Step Eight. We agree dates for implementation and for meeting to review

the new practice, asking people to keep notes at the time they occur of

any issues that arise.

One of the strengths of this kind of approach is that everyone has the

chance to learn from someone else; there are no 'stars', and everyone feels

supported. The new learning that has occurred has been developed from

current practice, especially the 'best bits' of it, and the debate that took place

enabled challenges and diversity of views to be addressed. Individuals have

a chance to learn of effective practice without their own being denigrated

and are more likely to be positive about the proposed change.

A by-product from successful collaborative professional learning is

often that new relationships are formed and developed and that these can

sometimes then be used in other areas of the school or college practice.

For example, where two or three colleagues have found they have enjoyed

working and learning together, they will have discovered each other's ways

of working, how to complement each other's skills, and how to learn from

each other. Given that, they may well volunteer to work together in another

aspect of the institution's development, or be asked to do so by a leader

who has seen how effective they have been. Case Example SA is a good

illustration of this happening.

CASE EXAMPLE 5A - RECOVERING FROM A FALSE START

A large Sixth Form College (providing for 16—19-vear-olds) in the

South East of England has also a significant number of adult

education classes, in the daytime and evening. Janet was Adult

Education Co-Ordinator and studying part time for a Masters' degree

in Business. For the HRM Module, she wanted to investigate whether

the development interests of associate staff were better managed

through the curriculum areas to which they were attached or by forming

separate department for all personnel in the college, who were not

teachers, Attempting to collect date in a survey questionnaire, she was

surprised at the apathy; opposition and even hostility, she received.

'People felt they would be seen as disloyal and also maybe it was

personal!' said Janet,

She had done plenty of reading on the topic but was giving up the

Survey, when a small number of staff approached her and the group

(a science technician, a language assistant, the Librarian and a subject

HOD) set about the inquiry because of their interest.

A series of workshops and seminars followed, with each of them dealing with a presentation on;

My job: what I do.



  • What I like and what and don't like about it.

  • How do I develop in the job and learn to improve.

  • How my learning needs are met.

Gradually other staff — teaching, clerical, technical and support —

asked to join ('if only to tell others how important their job was!' said

most) until more than twenty were attending and raising all kinds

of questions. '('We learned so much about each other; the college

and about learning itself!) Interestingly, questions arising were less

about the functional aspect of roles, but about motivation and job

satisfaction. This led to others undertaking reading on these topics

and reporting back.

Eventually, a report was produced for the perusal of the college

leadership — not an official one, as the Whole thing was voluntary

When the leadership team Offered to organize the workshops, the offer

was refused! ('We felt it would alter the dynamics for it to be official.')

However, a number of issues in the report were effectively addressed

and the seminars continue. Presenters include staff from all parts of the

college and on a relationship level, Janet said, 'People I'd never spoken

to previously are now good - friends and some of them are following

accredited courses together ag well.'

Ironically, the original issue of subject area or separate department

has actual/y never been resolved, but as Janet said, 'It probably doesn't

matter as our learning needs are being met now anyway — by us! '



Opportunities for everyone

In the conventional teaching school and colleges of the twentieth century,

there was for the most part, a clear assumption that only teachers and

lecturers could be involved in investigating their own professional

practice and following up with any appropriate training or development.

Other employees in the institution were there to support these key staff,

whether directly (such as assistants and technicians) or indirectly (such as

administrative and premises staff). However, the roles of such personnel

and their part played in the overall learning of students and pupils have

been significantly developed and, in developed countries primarily, their

importance has been increasingly acknowledged (Emira, 2011; Bush and

Middlewood, 2013; Graves, 2013).

In an inclusive culture to support learning across a school or college, the

contribution of everyone will be recognized and therefore the professional

learning and training and CPD of every single person is important. If any group

of people is neglected, this will signal that learning is only relevant to particular

employees and ultimately that the members of that group can continue

doing things in the way they have always done, regardless of the constantly

changing environment within which school or college exists. It therefore is

crucial that when opportunities for improving personal learning are offered,

no one should feel excluded. In any case, in an institution where everyone

recognizes that it is a focus on learning which binds them all together, all work

is ultimately seen as a contribution to the key purpose of learning, whether

the daily work involves cleaning the building, providing meals, maintaining

equipment or keeping records, work which can sometimes — superficially — be

seen as more remote from student learning. It follows that all people should

not only have access to the opportunity for relevant professional learning

and development, but also to investigate what changes might be needed in

work practice and how to address these most effectively. In Chapter Seven, in

an extended case study, the principal of a large community college describes

how this inclusive culture was striven for as a matter of principle and attained

through insistence on the right of everyone to be involved.

Those working in schools or colleges with children or young persons

with special learning needs often provide some of the best examples of

collaborative learning. Brian, a deputy head and Acting Head at an all-

through special school in the Milton Keynes area of England, said in an

interview for this book, that:

If you go into most of our classrooms and see several adults involved with

the pupils there, you would usually find it impossible to tell which were

teachers and which were other staff, such as assistants or carers. They are

all working — and learning — together for the benefit of the pupils.

In such a case, as far as professional learning is concerned, Brian's

statement that everyone has expertise which deserves support and the

development of that is crucial. 'There is no hierarchy of knowledge here,'

he said, 'so What an assistant brings back from a structured programme, an

in-house seminar, or a specific inquiry is as valued as the detailed expertise

that a teacher might bring back from attending a Masters course.' Case

Example 5B (below) is based on such an inclusive approach.

CASE EXAMPLE 5B - NO ONE ALWAYS KNOWS BEST!

The special school for children with learning difficulties of various

kinds, physical, emotional, behavioural and mental, became

concerned that the activities and general atmosphere at morning break

and lunchtimes was unsatisfactory and sometimes having a negative

effect on subsequent lesson behaviour and attitude. After the issue

was identified at a general staff meeting, a group of six assistants

and lunchtime supervisors volunteered to 'look into it'. They decided

to carry out observations of the current situation first and devised

observation sheets, which they checked for usefulness with a teacher

doing a Masters at that time.

Over two weeks, behaviour was carefully noted, both quantitatively

(through tick boxes for numbers of incidents, for example) and

qualitatively (through personal notes made).

With the observation data collected, the task of analysis began,

which turned into a much bigger one than anticipated. When variables

such as the weather; location, facilities, staff on duty and so on, were

considered, some patterns were discernible. Jean, the senior teacher

with overall responsibility for behaviour, helped and eventually the

patterns were agreed. 'Easy solutions were not an option', the teacher

sad, 'because whilst one proposal might solve this part, the problem

would simply appear to move somewhere else'. It was then decided to

interview a sample of both pupils and staff, to discern their perceptions

of the data and seek proposals. The pupil focus groups were all led by

assistants or supervisors, and the staff groups by teachers.

The feedback from the pupil focus groups showed pupils' clear

recognition of the situations as described by the data, whereas the

staff groups — especially the teachers in them — shared much greater

surprise at the data. 'It appeared that the assistants, supervisors and

pupils were more aware than the teachers of what was going on' said

Jean. 'We only tended to focus on the aftermath.'

The resultant proposals included:



  • Some new equipment for specific use of more physically able pupils (to avoid over-usage on facilities for the least physically able);

  • Specific training provided for two of the assistants;

  • A change in break times:

  • An amendment of staff duty rotas.

The situation was regularly monitored and formally reviewed after a year from the original observation. It was found to be significantly improved.

Collaborative professional learning across institutions

By the final decade of the twentieth century, it was becoming virtually

impossible for schools — and for many post-statutory colleges as well —

to be effective as isolated institutions. Fullan (1998: 2) described the

change as the walls round the schools as 'tumbling down metaphorically

— as government policy, parent and community demands, speaking

corporate interests and ubiquitous technology have all scaled the walls of

the school'. In many developed countries, policymakers, leaders and others

saw the dangers and impracticalities of schools operating in comparative

isolation. Many factors contributed to this outlook and included:



  • A realization that education alone was not a panacea for all societal problems and an integrated approach was essential.

  • Research showed the huge number of influences on learning in a life and formal schooling was only one, albeit very important.

  • Pressure on public services, including education, especially via pluralist, multi-ethnic societies.

  • Realization that the huge sums of money expended on those at disadvantage were not paying dividends and there was a need to move from remedial to preventative approaches.

  • The lack of coordination and cooperation between various public services became increasingly clear, exposing a lack of clear accountability when problems occurred.

All these meant that communities were better served by institutions

working together for common causes and in the case of education,

institutions working together to provide a more effective service to all

those in a community. The initiatives of Every Child Matters (England

and Wales) and No Child Left Behind (United States) were overt attempts

to address some of these issues. While political will altered with different

administrations, the impetus and requirement for schools in particular

to work together remained, and indeed was supported by various formal

structures for collaboration, even in the basically competitive or quasi-

market markets that exist.

Sometimes, collaborative professional learning emerged naturally from

various partnerships or federations. For example, Abbott et al. (2014)

found that researching school-to-school partnerships in a large urban

area, most schools in an effective partnership had developed joint CPD

or some form of learning without it being an original part of the official

plan. Furthermore, this joint learning was above all found to be effective

when it was 'mutual learning' with each school staff learning from the

other, even though the structure of the partnership was based on one

'successful' school supporting another. This mutual learning is perhaps the

key to effective cross-organizational collaboration. In England, various

partnership structures which the national governments have established —

and provided funding for — have involved the idea of a 'good' supporting

a weaker or a leader among a group of schools (e.g. the 'Leading Edge'

groupings). Research such as that of Arnold (2006), Connolly and James

(2006), Rutherford and Jackson (2008), has indicated that such notions

encourage initial resentment in some cases, and that the collaboration

flourishes with the recognition that everyone has something to learn from

someone else. Leadership by a school or college in such cases is therefore

best limited to one school or college being the main administrator or

facilitator of the group. Perhaps some resentment is inevitable in a

competitive environment, because of the conflict between collaboration

and competition (Stevenson 2007).

In cross-organizational learning therefore, the professionalism of

teachers and other educationalists involved is shown to be key in that it

is this that develops the necessary mutual learning. In arguing that an

'absence of dependency' was essential for successful collaboration, Arnold

(2006) was simply stressing what lies at the heart of professional learning

per se, that everyone has something to learn and to offer and returns us

once more to the notion that the best teachers are also highly effective

learners. Where the staff of two or more institutions therefore collaborate,

the potential for this is considerable — subject to good organization of course. The scope for informal learning in such a context is also of course considerable. Case Example SC describes a situation where collaboration across schools outside of the normal transition arrangements was established and unforeseen learning as well as the planned outcomes occurred. Four schools (two First Schools for 4—9-year-olds, a Middle School for 9—13 and an Upper School for 13—18) liaised annually as the pupils moved from one school to the next, but the schools felt they could learn much more from each other than the usual curriculum coordination.

CASE EXAMPLE 5C EVERYONE GOOD AT SOMETHING

The four schools in a city in the north of England believed there was

much more they could learn from each other than merely what stage

in the subject curriculum pupils had reached. Trevor, PD coordinator at

the Middle School, explained that, 'We wanted to avoid any hierarchy to

remind ourselves that we are all dealing with the same children, only at

different ages. It sounds obvious, but often children felt as if they were

starting ail over again each time they moved schools.'

A programme of collaborative development was agreed and each

school was asked to state:

'What are we really good at?'

It was agreed that these topics would be chosen not by the school

leaders but by a survey via questionnaire to all staff (subjects were not

allowed to be mentioned!)

One of the primary schools chose parental involvement and the

other support for special needs pupils as their very best strengths, the

middle schools chose assessment for learning and the upper school

use of technology.

A programme of visits, teacher exchanges and workshops in

schools run by staff from other schools was arranged. 'There was huge

scepticism from some teachers', commented Trevor, 'especially over

the suitability of practice for one age group being applicable to another.

We heard comments about parents of children that age not being the

same and so on. It was of course, about learning the principles behind

the specific practices and then about adapting them to practice in the

new context. It was a tremendous success, not only in the structured

programme but also in the relationships that developed across the

schools. Secondary staff were particularly impressed by the primary

approaches they adapted.'

The evaluation showed that not only in specific outcomes, for

example Upper School attendance at parents' evenings increased by

20 per cent, but in other areas, such as:

• Respect and admiration for the work done by teachers of different age children grew enormously.

• Realization that traits, in child development could be tracked through the child's school career.

• Understanding that some professional learning was common to all staff, regardless of the ages of the children they taught.

Furthermore, Trevor added, 'Our actual transition arrangement improved through our understanding of the children and staff.'

Summary of Chapter Five



This chapter has:

  • described some of the practicalities of effective practitioner research,

  • considered how to avoid research overload in a school or college,

  • discussed how a collaborative approach to in-house inquiry can work,

  • discussed the principles and practice of shared professional learning,

  • briefly noted the need to ensure inclusion of everyone in these practices and considered the issues involved in collaboration across different institutions.

Yüklə 35,82 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə