|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 1 (June, 2006) Kevin WATSON and Fran STEELE Building a teacher education community: Recognizing the ecological reality of sustainable collaboration
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 1 (June, 2006) Kevin WATSON and Fran STEELE Building a teacher education community: Recognizing the ecological reality of sustainable collaboration
|
Introduction
In recent years there have been repeated calls to reform both pre-service and in-service teacher education (Darling Hammond, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf & Wubbels, 2001; Russel & McPherson, 2001). Many of the suggested programs have advocated increased collaborations between university, teachers and pre-service teachers, for example in the form of Professional Development Schools (Darling-Hammond, 1994), Internship schemes (Benton, 1990; McIntyre & Hagger, 1992; Furlong, 2000), and Professional Learning Communities (Grossman, 2001). Studies have shown that those reforms that promote a greater degree of collaboration between universities and schools in pre-service teacher education can enhance educational outcomes for pre-service teachers (Wang & Walberg, 2000; Martinez & Coombes, 2001; Ginsberg & Rhodes, 2003; Sherman, 2004). It has also been found that learning communities of teachers are effective in promoting teacher professional development (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Bruce & Calhourn, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Overall, research findings imply that building community is an effective strategy for enhancing educational outcomes for those involved.
Often the effort toward reform has dealt separately with pre-service, beginning teacher and in-service teacher education. Bulajeva (2003), Poom-Valickis, Saarits, Sikka, Talts and Veisson (2003) and Buchberger (2000) have advocated that pre-service teacher education should be repositioned as part of an overall system of teacher education with less identifiable borders and greater interaction at the edges. It was not suggested that teacher education should lose its identity and become part of a blurred picture, but that it should be nested in a larger, more cohesive view of teacher education. Bulajeva (2003) conceptualised teacher education as an open and dynamic system of closely interrelated components such as: pre-service teacher education; induction into the profession; in-service teacher education and professional learning; self-education; school development and improvement and research. This is an ecological view of teacher education, which recognises the interconnectedness of the parts to make the whole. It regards teacher education as multiple, over-layered learning communities, each identifiable yet connected to each other, impacting on each other with each informing the identity of the others.
This recognition of the need for community building within a teacher education continuum is consistent with the argument developed by Renshaw (2002) who saw community building as an ongoing, evolving process that occurred over a long period of time and as having a profound impact on not just learning but on the quality of learning that could take place. Renshaw (2002) saw building a learning community as a way of networking social capital. The success of one member of the community is dependent on the success of other members. Promoting self learning, and promoting the learning of others, becomes networked throughout the community. The result is that the community, as a whole, benefits and individuals also benefit at an enhanced rate through mutual support. Consequently, membership of a learning community provides access to a variety of social capital (Renshaw, 2002). Such capital includes knowledge, skills and 'know-how'. A purposeful dissemination and sharing of such capital can be a useful community-building tool with individuals recognising their increased capital and actively enhancing the community learning process. This cycle of capital enhancement can be powerful in the social learning process, particularly when such processes are acknowledged as being complex and treated with the respect generally accorded such intricate social structures (Renshaw, 2002) and promote enculturated change.
Like Crowther (2001), Renshaw conceptualised the process of learning through building a professional learning community as acting as a change agent, with ecological ripple effects that are difficult to identify, let alone measure. Community building becomes a process that provides a supportive climate that is not only receptive to change and change initiatives, but actively promotes an expectation of change as a consequence of learning. Looking for change and responding to change initiatives becomes enculturated, with the effects of change integrating into many different aspects of the community's world in unidentified, elliptical and convoluted ways. Consequently, a mature learning community is interactive, interdependent, complex and potentially powerful in its capacity to operate at a number of different levels in a number of different ways and actively assimilate change as part of its identity and impart this identity to its members. Thus the underlying principle of the model evaluated by this paper is that the building of a mature teacher education community will stimulate change and result in significant professional learning.
While the formation of learning communities has resulted in demonstrated outcomes, the process is complex and difficult. Grossman, Wineburg and Woolworth (2001) observed the development of a learning community of English and history teachers in a school and university collaboration, and found that many tensions had to be negotiated before a mature learning community was formed. A study of the development of learning communities in 50 NSW schools (Aubusson, Steele, Dinham & Brady, 2006) also highlighted the difficulties, even when funding and a structured model was provided. The nature of school organization and the isolation of teachers inhibited knowledge sharing and the development of the mature community (Hargreaves, 2000; Huberman, 1990; Siskin, 1994). A successful model of teacher learning through community needs to take into account the inhibitory factors inherent in school structure.
At present, reform initiatives incorporating collaboration and community are influencing models of pre-service teacher education, particularly in science. Studies (Stevens, 1996; Wang & Walberg, 2000; Hammrich, 2004; Watson, 2005) highlight the importance of in-school experiences and show that the participation of teacher education faculty staff during in-school experience has a positive influence on the learning outcomes for pre-service teachers (Sherman, 2004). It is also the case that the experience of working with pre-service teachers can generate a sense of community among staff members that have traditionally had few opportunities for collaboration and professional interaction (Hough & Paine, 1997; Hastings & Squires, 2002). Stevens (1996) maintains that as teacher educators strive to reform the pedagogical experiences of science classrooms, they must involve pre-service teachers. In doing so, teacher educators will be promoting an expectation of change and reform as part of the teaching process. In this way pre-service education students can act as agents of change in the reform of science education (Hammrich, 2004). Essentially, the involvement of pre-service teachers is becoming recognized as a pivotal component in the social futures of teacher education (Watson, 2005).
This paper evaluates a model of teacher education that positions pre-service teacher education within a continuum of teacher development. Implicit in the education of the pre-service teachers is the need to encourage these students to see themselves as part of a wider education community, and to act as change agents in that community. Explicit strategies to increase community interactions were incorporated into the teacher education model, with the aim of enhancing professional learning at all levels of the education spectrum (school, university and systems). The operation of the model is elaborated below and the piloted community building strategies are described. The question this paper asks is; how effective is the implementation of this model of pre-service and in-service teacher education in building a sustainable learning community in terms of the strategies employed? The findings are discussed in terms of an ecological approach to teacher education.
Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 1 (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.
