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
Previous Contents Next

Evaluation of the Model - Findings and Discussion

The question this study posed was how effective is the model of teacher education in building a sustainable learning community? The analysis of the data showed that there were a number of levels on which the strategies incorporated in the model interacted to affect the development of a learning community. These levels were:

The findings for each level are discussed in relation to the strategies designed to promote the building of community. Interactions between levels are then elaborated upon and a holistic description of the community is offered.

Pre-service teacher level

At the pre-service teacher level two types of community interactions were observed, those between pre-service teachers in the group, and those between pre-service teachers and the teachers in the collegiate.

In the course of the study the researchers observed many instances of pre-service teachers working together to complete assignments, design lessons and develop workshop presentations. This collaboration was facilitated by the proximity of the eight schools, and the closeness generated by working together as part of an experimental cohort. Teachers and pre-service teachers were asked in final interviews about how the workshops had contributed to the project. All believed the workshops were a valuable experience. Three pre-service teachers elaborated on the advantage of being able to get together as a group. One pre-service teacher wrote:

Working in a group was good. It gave the group an opportunity to get together. We could ask how Tuesdays were going ... how the seminar was going? It helped us to get to know each other ... we exchanged numbers and addresses ... we did become close.

Being part of the group selected for this study, and the associated attendance at and preparation of workshop activities, built a strong sense of community among the eight pre-service teachers. This enabled them to support each other during what was often a stressful time, and potentially provided them with a base of support for entering their first year of teaching.

From the pre-service teachers' perspective, the workshops were less successful at building relationships with other teachers. One pre-service teacher flagged some of the observed problems when she commented:

I didn't put pressure on my teachers (to attend) because you don't want to take up more of their time. Maybe there should have been more group building activities, getting to know each other, so that there was interaction between anyone who came. Schools were separated from each other and from the educators. Even at the last one they still weren't mixing.

At the workshops pre-service teachers sat in friendship groups and their supervising teachers remained in school-based clusters. No formal attempt was made to introduce participants or to exchange names. Very little time was allocated to open discussion, and it is likely that pre-service teachers used whatever time was available to converse with peers rather than introduce themselves to teachers from other schools. Thus, with hindsight, the design of workshops needed to encompass an allocation of time for greater mixing between students and teachers, possibly with the inclusion of 'ice-breaking' strategies. Lack of teacher attendance was a problem. Interviews with teachers indicated that busy lives and the need to find time after school were the main reasons for non-attendance. Given the current constraints on teacher time, it is not easy to identify an 'ideal' time to hold workshops.

Relationships between pre-service teachers and the department could be facilitated in other ways. The model explicitly encouraged pre-service teachers to work with the whole department rather than with one supervising teacher. All pre-service teachers in the study reported that they worked with more than one teacher. Four pre-service teachers worked with three or more. Every pre-service teacher believed that working with more than one teacher was beneficial, and that they learnt more by observing a range of teaching styles. All made comments typified by one pre-service teacher who said "working with the whole department helped me gain many teaching skills." The evidence from the study is that the pre-service teacher sharing component of the model was adopted by the faculties in the partnership, and enhanced the learning experience for pre-service teachers.

Overall, participating in the pilot study resulted in enhanced outcomes for the pre-service teachers. These students performed well in all assessment tasks undertaken and were regarded as 'superior' compared with other science students who were not part of the pilot study, that is, compared with those who were studying science in conjunction with another teaching discipline. This was the opinion of both the university teachers and potential employers who interviewed the students as part of their graduate teacher recruitment process. A similar improvement in outcomes resulting from participation in a collaborative program was observed elsewhere (Wang & Walberg, 2000; Martinez & Coombes, 2001; Ginsberg & Rhodes, 2003; Sherman 2004; Watson, 2005).

School department level

In an endeavour to facilitate community building, teacher educators visited schools on the weekday when pre-service teachers were present as well as during the block professional experience. Although this represents a large commitment of time, compared with other teacher education professional experience arrangements, in practice the time spent in each school was short. At the time of the visit, teachers and pre-service teachers were often unavailable because they had other obligations. When interviewed, the university staff commented forcefully on how little time the teachers had for anything other than their school duties. When asked in a final interview about whether the interaction with the university was useful, one supervising teacher commented "What interaction? The only interaction was when the university staff came to talk about the pre-service teacher. There hasn't been a tremendous amount of interaction due to how busy we all are." However, another teacher pointed out that "I haven't seen this much interaction before with other pre-service teachers who have gone through”.

Direct interaction between university staff and supervising teachers would appear to have had limited impact on the building of a cohesive community. Even though it represented a much larger investment of university staff time than is usual the staff were still spread very thinly.

Another strategy designed to increase interaction at the department level were the debriefing sessions. The following example of a debriefing session at one senior secondary school illustrates the way in which these discussions fostered interaction. Four teachers, who are here called Paul (head teacher), Margaret, Vernon and Colin, were present. This represented all the science staff. Both university staff members were participants.

The meeting took place in a café near the school. Discussion centred on the exemplary lesson taught by the pre-service teacher a week earlier. The intention was to develop an improved lesson that Vernon would subsequently teach to his biology class. The pre-service teacher (Sarah) outlined a lesson on photosynthesis that had begun with a concept map of the words heterotroph and autotroph. She had quickly found that the students had little to contribute. The teachers suggested various alternative ways of opening the lesson, until Paul suggested using a drawing of a leaf that students could label in their groups. This, it was decided, would give the students a chance to reveal what they knew, avoiding the mistake Sarah had made of assuming the students knew more than they did.

With some guidance from one university educator, discussion then moved to the next part of the lesson, a handout showing the structure of a leaf. Vernon suggested using a 'colour-in' leaf with a key linking colours to leaf structure. One of the university educators suggested that students would learn more if they constructed their own diagram, and Sarah mentioned that she thought colouring in was too easy and could be done without thinking. Paul quickly cut in, saying that there were times when colouring in was useful and a compromise solution would be to get students to colour in their own diagrams.

Sarah then described the cross-section she had set up on the microscope, and all the teachers discussed changes to this part of the lesson. Colin repeatedly brought the focus back to the purpose of the lesson. Sarah agreed that she had set too many outcomes to meet, and the students were not as familiar with the topic as she had expected. Some time was also devoted to designing an effective wrap-up for the lesson. Vernon took notes throughout and agreed that it would be a good lesson for him to teach.

The outcome of this debriefing session was regarded as positive by the participants. Everyone present exchanged views frankly and all ideas were given a hearing. There was one potentially awkward moment when the pre-service teacher appeared to criticise the colouring in idea put forward by Vernon, but a tactful intervention by the head teacher prevented any hurt feelings. This incident represented a positive example of community building, but it also highlighted the potential dangers. Handled well, the debriefing sessions could lead to increased department understanding and cooperation. However, there was a need to be vigilant about possible negative effects on staff relations if equity between the contributing members was not maintained.

In a conversation after the debriefing, Paul (head teacher) commented:

… that went really well, mainly because we were ready for it. As a staff we were ready to see how we could make Sarah's lesson better. I think the staff can see working with Sarah will help us all … we have a common focus.

Paul believed that the timing for professional learning and the desire for professional learning was coming from the staff themselves. It is possible that although Sarah provided a focus for the professional learning, the interaction was successful in this instance because the teachers were ready to learn. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) and Garmston and Wellman (1999) found that successful professional learning was more successful when initiated by staff. It may be the case that in future the teacher education model needs to take account of the readiness of school staff to take on a learning role. This may require improved communication with school staff about the model implementation.

At another school where there were four early-career teachers on staff sharing the load of the pre-service teacher, the staff attending the debriefing session were less amenable to restructuring the exemplary lesson in a student-centred fashion. The head teacher had helped design the lesson the pre-service teacher taught and which was subsequently criticized, by those at the debriefing, as teacher-centred. The young staff were vociferous about the fact that they had no time to develop student-centred lessons. The head teacher’s realisation that he had a problem with his own approach and with that of his staff led to his drawing back from supervision of the pre-service teacher. The interaction between participants during this session identified a problem that had to be addressed. Eventually, the head teacher increased his participation in the project and, during the following year, presented a workshop entitled "Moving from a teacher-centred to a more student-centred approach to teaching". This is an example of an action – withdrawal from supervising a pre-service student – having a ripple effect resulting in a seemingly unrelated outcome – presenting a workshop – some time later.

The two examples of debriefing as a strategy suggest that it can be effective in increasing pre-service teacher and teacher learning in some circumstances. This illustrates that if teaching staff are willing and ready to learn, participating in a common project, such as the education of pre-service teachers, can offer a focus and an incentive for community interaction. However, if tensions exist they may be highlighted in this forum. Although conflict may occur in a community building process it may be productive if resolved (Fullan, Bertani & Quinn, 2004; Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001), and more investigation is needed into the longer term effectiveness of these types of interactions and their contribution to community building. A further example of the equivocal nature of conflict is given below.

Another strategy intended to build community and address the problem of teachers having too little time to interact was the 'brown-bag lunch'. Brown-bag lunches took a variety of forms from cups of tea with principals to coffee shop discussions with pre-service teachers and lunch-table discussions with pre-service teachers, science teachers and teachers from other faculties. The reason for incorporating these discussions was so teachers' ideas could be discussed and personal professional learning experiences shared (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Garmston & Wellman, 1999). The discussions were very informal and ranged widely over a variety of topics. However, when possible the topic was brought back to pedagogy and issues of 'best practice' – or what became modified to 'good practice', as one principal argued "there is no such thing as best practice".

An example of such a discussion was initiated by one Head of Science who felt he had been criticised for promoting demonstrations as an alternative to student practical experiences. He argued that in the current climate of classroom practice, teachers could not afford to expose students to the slightest compromise of their safety. He cited examples that indicated student safety was becoming more important than student learning. He reinforced this view by saying that the science syllabus had become so content driven that the only way to get through it was to reduce the number of student experiments and replace them with alternate, shorter activities or by teacher demonstrations.

This view was reinforced by another Head of Science at another school who said "the idea of what constitutes an activity is being redefined". He suggested that "an activity is becoming anything that the kids or teachers do that doesn't involve reading, writing or the teacher talking”. He went on to ask the question "is a student discussion an activity"? Some people at the discussion were horrified at the idea, but the head teacher went on to explain further and mount an argument for his view. This led to another discussion, on another day, that centred on the idea of what constituted an experiment.

It would appear that 'taken-for-granted' views were being challenged and that traditional pedagogy was being questioned. Tensions were aired, often forcefully. The head teacher who felt his view on student-centred learning and use of demonstrations in place of hands-on activities, was not consistent with others participating in the project, initially withdrew support. However, he later presented a workshop seminar during which he said that his involvement in the project had caused him to rethink some of the views he had taken for granted. He also continued to supervise students in the project and encouraged other science teachers to do so. Although conflict was observed during the pilot study of 'debriefing' and 'brown bag' lunches, the long term commitment of teachers to the teacher education program was not affected. It is postulated that interaction led to gains in teacher learning through shared dialogue, and that these strategies have the potential to assist in the development of a mature learning community (Aubusson et al 2006).

In summary, the findings from this study indicate that facilitated discussions at the school department level can usefully contribute to community learning if the conditions within the department are conducive to cooperation and the sessions are conducted in an equitable and sensitive manner. This is consistent with the findings of Garmston (1998). However, it also became apparent that some relatively experienced senior teachers have firm views about teaching and the pedagogy advocated by this project was not consistent with their practice. Thus the project created tensions that then had to be resolved. The forging of a community requires time (Aubusson et al, 2006; Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001), which is in short supply for both teachers and university staff.

Inter-school level

Inter school interactions were promoted by workshops organised by the university staff, with an invitation extended to the entire collegiate community. Twenty teachers and pre-service teachers attended the first workshop, which was held directly after school. Teachers were asked to present on a topic of interest to them. One head teacher combined with a member of his staff to pose the question 'what is a practical?' in terms of the current school syllabus. This topic generated considerable debate, particularly amongst the teachers in the audience. Another head teacher brought in skate boards and toys and engaged the audience in a practical activity she used to teach about inertia. The third session was a PowerPoint presentation (by a head teacher) about activities used to engage students in senior physics. Between presentations there was an opportunity for food and open conversation.

At the end of the workshop those present were asked to record their views about the workshop. All of the written comments were positive, and are represented by one participant who wrote:

Today I was interested in hearing about the experience of other teachers, what things work, what doesn’t for them. … was interesting hearing about the different opinions regarding issues in teaching. … was reflecting a lot on my classes compared to what others were saying and comparing my lessons with what good lessons or pracs should be.

Similar comments were made on a formal evaluation sheet handed out at the end of the second workshop. Total attendance at this workshop was not as high as in the earlier workshop. On the whole, only teachers responsible for supervising pre-service teachers attended this workshop. Pre-service teachers gave the presentations, on topics including ‘misconceptions in science’ and ‘analogies’. Some comments about the outcomes of the session included “generate discussion and ideas regarding science teaching” and “learning, sharing science teaching ideas”. One respondent added “building a community” and another mentioned “interaction with other teachers”. Few comments were made in either workshop evaluation about changes or improvements. Two participants noted that more time for interaction between pre-service teachers and teachers should be allowed. Overall, the comments generated suggest that the workshop sessions were regarded as opportunities to learn about specific teaching strategies rather than a chance to get to know their fellow teachers.

Teachers reported a range of views on the workshops. Of seven teachers interviewed at the end of the study only two had attended more than one workshop. Two teachers had not been to any of the workshops due to pressures on their time. Lack of time and family commitments were given as reasons why teachers were unable to attend workshops unless they were giving a presentation. A teacher who had attended both workshops summed up his views on their contribution to the project:

I enjoyed putting together my presentation and delivering it. Similarly, the two other members of my staff enjoyed preparing and delivering a talk. It took a bit of extra time but it was worth it. It was interesting and good to have the pre-service teachers there and I think it was good for them. The food was good. The disappointing thing is that unless they were presenting, the teachers didn’t go. I went to them, I was motivated. The pre-service teachers were there because they had to be and the teachers were there to support them … It is good to have dialogue across schools about ways of teaching, philosophy of teaching. Any time you can get people together that is fantastic but you don’t want to do it for one fifth of the audience.

The workshops provided an opportunity for some exchange of ideas about teaching across the schools. Teachers were pleased to see how other teachers approached lessons and to get ideas about motivating students. One teacher compared the practice in her school with that of others in the project, saying:

From this project we got to know that some schools actually do an activity as a demonstration. Now, does a demonstration teach you as much or not, or is it better? It made you think about things you had taken for granted before.

Another felt that she had gained some useful ideas on teaching senior chemistry, but added that the only teachers she had interacted with at the workshop were those with whom her school already shared resources.

In general, the evidence suggests that the workshops did offer an opportunity for teachers to get to know what their peers were doing, and to learn from them, but they were only partially successful in enabling the building of a strong, enduring relationship between the schools in the collegiate. As noted above, forming the mature learning community requires time and one strategy will not achieve all.

Systems level

The study spanned one year, which was not long enough for a full analysis at a systems level of community building. However, the following description of an incident that took place at the beginning of the year following the initial study, illustrates one of the possible outcomes of developing a community of learning.

The researchers wished to apply for further funds to expand the community to other subject areas. A meeting was held to discuss possible approaches and was attended by the principals of the eight schools. All agreed that they were not willing to expand the project unless they could guarantee that the graduates from the program, considered by all to be of high quality, would be available to their school. The recruitment procedures currently do not allow a school to employ a graduate directly, because each school must draw from a pool of graduates registered with the state Department of Education and Training. Graduates from the first year of the project were employed before the end of the year by private schools, and the schools that had ‘trained’ them missed out.

The group of principals asked the university staff members present for their support in overcoming this barrier to the project. The stance taken at this meeting resulted in another meeting being held between management of the university and representatives of the education departments concerned, at which it was decided that the system of appointments of new graduates needed to be reviewed.

This example illustrates both how highly the graduates of the teacher education model were regarded, and how the interactions between schools, and between schools and the university, allowed partners to combine in an area of mutual interest to influence the education community at the systems level.

A holistic view of the learning community

Although it was informative to consider the community building aspects of the project as acting at different levels, in reality each level interacts with other levels and all relationships within the community impact on each other (Senge, 1990). This is exemplified by the debriefing session described above. Although this activity was regarded as principally a department community building exercise, university staff were present and gently guided the process. Pre-service teachers were at the centre of the discussion, and could act as catalysts for change, providing a nucleus around which teachers and university staff created a language related to pedagogy. Thus this debriefing was an interaction at pre-service teacher, department and university/school levels. The fact that the student involved in the debriefing was subsequently a sought after graduate, is also a link between this aspect of community building and a wider systems impact of the project.

The workshops also acted as multi-faceted community building exercises, operating at the pre-service teacher, school department and inter school-levels to create a wider learning community. They provided a forum in which experiential learning about pedagogy could be shared, both formally and informally. For example, the brown-bag lunch discussions about activities arose independently but were linked to a presentation at a workshop about the nature of a practical. The workshop introduced a framework for dialogue at the inter-school level that was later taken up by department members, and resulted in staff sharing their understanding of this aspect of science teaching.

As recommended by Bulajeva (2003), the pre-service teacher component of the model could be visualised as part of a dynamic system of teacher education where reform is an ongoing process and professional learning is continually occurring. The wider learning community encompassed the eight schools of the collegiate, who were brought together around the common goal of the teacher education program. Following the initial structured meetings there were ongoing interactions, leading to unexpected, but contingent, outcomes such as the effort to influence recruitment policy at the systems level.

While much research remains to be done, and the strategies to assist community formation need to be refined, the model has demonstrated its potential, particularly in improving outcomes for pre-service teachers. There are indications of a fledgling learning community being formed, although time must elapse before this community can be regarded as mature.

 

Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 1 (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.