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:
-
People will only feel their workload is being added to and schools and colleges are already very busy and often stressful places anyway.
-
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.
-
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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |