Professional Development in Education Issue 40.01
Editorial
Intervention and resource provision: crucial elements in professional learning
In the ideal world of the autonomous professional, the process of continuing learning is instigated through self-motivation and an intrinsic belief in the importance of the individual in identifying their own learning needs and fulfilling these. Professionals seek learning opportunities within their spheres of interest such as updating on new knowledge through identifying relevant areas of research, converting to a new area of specialism or improving their skills of practice. In an autonomous situation no coercion to engage in professional learning is needed because it is intrinsically accepted as part of the professional contract that exists.
However, whereas some decades ago in most countries it was sufficient for professionals in education to choose from a menu of available programmes to provide this learning, with little accountability for their impact or outcomes, in today’s performative world this is rarely the case. So at some point there will be one or more intervention to guide or require future professional learning.
Where professional learning requires some resource support (mentoring or coaching, release from current commitments to enable interaction with others, funding for learning opportunities outside one’s own institution) it is increasingly common for engagement to be denied. The best professional learning often requires collaborative activity which, unless it is conducted through on-line technologies, requires mobility to engage with intra- or inter-professional networks or to observe practice outside one’s own immediate workplace. But this requires personal or institutional investment in the process. For example, this journal has published a number of articles on Lesson Study, but the implementation of this is a high-resource exercise and needs commitment from the institution as well as the individuals involved to create release time to enable observation and feedback to take place. The intervention that enables this may be generated by peer collaboration but for the process to be in any way sustainable it would need the close involvement of senior leaders or resource managers.
Some professions place waypoints in their professional development trajectories, by requiring specific qualifications to be achieved or for updating to be formally demonstrated before re-certification to practise is made available. This is an intervention by a professional body to require professional learning of some sort. In teaching and learning contexts, the interventions may arise from the need to address policy change such as the introduction of a new curriculum. In these cases, the professional learning interventions may be policy-driven and outcome-related with resource allocation conditional on enacting specific change.
If, therefore, it is no longer possible or acceptable for a professional to operate entirely in an autonomous way, interventions become both necessary and significant. But who should intervene? And when and how often should they intervene? How should these interventions be conducted? And what should be the nature of the intervention? These are all contextual questions but will be central to the integrity and sustainability of the professional learning process being undertaken. When we read accounts of research into the benefits of funded professional development programmes, we have to be critical and ask whether change will be embedded within new professional practices or whether the sustainability of the initiative will become fragile when specific funding is withdrawn. This is not to be pessimistic about the ability of professions or individual professionals to engage in career long professional learning, but it is to address the reality of the overt and hidden costs necessary to maintain support for this, and to make explicit the onus on policy makers and leaders to ensure that the resources to sustain professional learning are made available.
In their study of what motivates teachers to engage in professional learning, Appova and Arbaugh make the point that in the USA (and elsewhere) “even with the plethora of resources and three decades of empirical evidence about effective teacher learning models, teachers continue to respond to PD with less than positive feedback” (p. 5) and they reiterate the OECD (2009) finding that teachers in most countries feel apathetic toward participating in the professional development activities that are available to them. The question of what motivates teachers (and other educators) to engage in learning is important and they argue that “ research on teachers’ motivation is extensive, but it mainly resides in the field of educational psychology, examines motivation through quantitative measures and conceptualizes teachers’ motivation separate from their professional learning” (p. 6). Drawing on a rich and inter-professional review of the literature, the findings of their research lead them to conclude that teachers’ motivation to learn rests on four theoretical pillars: teachereducation/ Professional Development, educational psychology, educational policy and andragogy. Their article makes a significant contribution to our understanding of how professional learning opportunities should be presented and how policy makers, leaders and professionals themselves might ensure maximum engagement in what should be a natural element of their professional status.
The article by Ingleby highlights these tensions honestly in the context of early years education in England. The ways in which Early Years Educators work are often significantly different from other phases of education and the need for effective continuing professional learning is equally strong. It is in many ways disappointing but not entirely surprising to read the findings of Ingleby’s research and the two themes that emerge from the voices of the participants will be familiar to many: that the ‘business facing’ agenda within the private settings that are common within this sector “can lead to CPD becoming a ‘low priority’” and that there is ‘resistance’ from the participants to the concept of CPD which may be regarded as a ‘nuisance’ controversially because it is ‘not paid’ (p. 26). Once again “the research participants appear to be less than complimentary about their experiences of professional development” (p. 29) and the challenge raised by Ingleby is to ensure that professional learning is perceived as being relevant and necessary for practice in Early Years settings.
Ingleby’s research identifies relationships between policy texts, events and practices and highlights structural challenges for the provision of meaningful professional learning opportunities. The next article by Spencer, Harrop, Thomas and Cain is again from England and also identifies structural factors as being significant, this time in the context of early career teachers. The restructuring of the education system in England in recent years has led to the demise of local authorities who, formerly, were active in supporting the professional development of new teachers, but at the same time the responsibilities of individual schools and clusters in taking over this role has increased. Arguably, the need for structured professional learning is strongest in the early career stages of teaching and, to ensure that retention does not become an issue, it is in the interests of schools to support new colleagues by systematically identifying and meeting their professional needs. The findings from this study are important because they throw light on the dangers of narrowing down the professional experiences of new teachers to those of the current school and the professional learning processes may become functional rather than constructively critical. The authors conclude that “for many ECTs, it seems, they do not even know what they are missing” (p. 43) and the message is clear for school leaders that if we want to retain and motivate new teachers as effective practitioners through continuing professional learning this needs to be actively addressed at school level to compensate for the declining support at regional level.
The article by Weinberger illustrates the complexity of ensuring that professional learning impacts in some way on practice. The findings of the previous article show that transferring the responsibility for providing professional learning opportunities from the meso-level to the micro-level does not necessarily result in positive outcomes and Weinberger’s article demonstrates that even in effectively planned professional learning there may still be a gap between organizational and pedagogical implementation. Two principles of influencing pedagogical change are discussed: the need for a clear vision of the change one wishes to make, and the communication of that vision, and the adoption of an evidence based culture for decision making. Weinberger argues that “most academic institutions, despite the wealth of intelligence and talent they command, lack the proper mechanisms for addressing these principles, and are therefore notorious for their staunch resistance to change” (p. 48). The fact that professionals may see themselves as expert in their field may be a barrier to changing perceptions and enacting more effective pedagogical practices. The need for leadership, and by definition interventions which are clearly communicated and justified, is one factor in narrowing the gap between strategic intent and pedagogical change.
It is important, therefore, to see leadership development as a significant element of professional learning for those in education. If leaders are able to understand, create and sustain effective cultures of professional learning within their institutions and across others, educators have a better chance of making professional learning work. The article by Aas and Blom looks at a development programme for principals designed and implemented collaboratively in Norway and Sweden. The issue of ensuring that pedagogical leadership is prominent in this process is discussed and the factors that form an essential part of effective leadership development programmes are considered. The insight into the collaborative experience in this article is interesting because it illustrates that the key factors that are essential for effective professional learning programmes at institutional and regional levels are also present at national level. Although the views of the participants on this programme will be those to be expected of self-motivated school leaders, the learning processes they engaged with and the ways in which they were able to change practice show that if this can be sustained and extended there will be strong benefits for the individual leaders concerned and the learners in their institutions.
The next article by G.V. Subitha sees leadership as a significant factor in improving the quality of teachers’ professional learning in India, but from a review of policy the author concludes that “policy documents in India do not identify the role of school principals in teacher growth and development” (p.85). There is a danger that we take a monocultural approach in discussing professional motivation for learning and the resource requirements of effective PLD provision. This article reminds us that our assumptions of teachers as professionals and of what we may think of as ‘effective’ learning environments are far from universal. The issues of centralised decision making, the locus and priorities of power, the resources available to individual institutions which are not run privately, and the cultural complexities of the professional and student population are key challenges in this highly complex nation. The author’s review of literature and policy documentation provides a fascinating insight into professional learning in India, but an overriding finding is that “CPD programmes designed for teachers as a lifelong learning initiative do not … have reach to the daily work of the teachers” (p. 77). It is clear that changes will be needed if professional learning support is to reach all professionals in India, but the barriers to this universal aim are arguably considerably higher than those that exist in more developed societies.
The next article by Lloyd and Davis brings us back to the tensions between performative systems and professional learning and argues for “a pragmatic model of professional learning that allows teachers to balance public accountability with professional autonomy” (p. 92). Included within this is an interesting consideration of the transformative and compliance forces which professionals continuously engage with and the article proposes a pragmatic model which allows teachers “to move beyond performativity and compliance towards meeting real learning needs situated in diverse contexts” (p. 93). Based in Australia, the authors outline the national requirements for teachers including “a minimum of 100 hours of professional development activities to be undertaken in the previous five years [prior to Registration]” (p.94) and they explain how this requirement is interpreted in different states. They conclude that “teacher professional learning can display a capacity for variance within performative requirements” and see this as a cause for optimism in that “it clearly demonstrates an ownership by individual schools, sites and systems to make teacher professional learning more purposeful and more directed to improving student outcomes in particular settings” (page 105).
The introduction of this ‘pragmatic model’ shows that the variety of professional learning models continues to expand. One such approach is professional learning through practitioner research and this is the context for the article by Bryan and Burstow. They focus on what has become known as school-based research or practitioner inquiry. The process of educators undertaking a critical evaluation of their own practice can be a very powerful form of professional learning and the article outlines the ways in which engagement with “research” in England has become a key requirement of “self-improving schools”. However, a great deal of lip-service is paid to the research process at practitioner level and the critical analysis of data collected systematically is often influenced by the micro-political context of the institution. The dissemination of findings from such research may also be affected in this way so the ethical implications of conducting school-based research need careful consideration. This article asks questions of those who engage in school-based research and of a profession which sees itself as intrinsically accommodating ethical values. The authors conclude that “our participants articulated significantly limited understanding of the importance of quality, rigour and trustworthiness in research” (p.117) and there seems to be a major requirement here for professional learning which raises these questions explicitly and which ensures that research undertaken by practitioners is done so ethically and appropriately.
The final article in this issue by Boylan, Coldwell, Maxwell and Jordan provides an extremely valuable overview and analysis of existing models of professional learning. Five models are considered in this analysis, chosen because they are “powerful in supporting the research, evaluation and design of professional learning” (p. 121). The article not only provides a useful insight into the various models but also provides a framework for the conceptual analysis of these and other models which will be of benefit to those interested in the ways in which models reflect the realities of practice.