Teacher development: teacher beliefs, diversified approaches, and processes

The studies in this issue report on developments in pre-service and in-service teachers, as well as university teacher-researchers/scholar-teachers involved in teacher development. Together they focus upon school/field practicum and short-term study abroad (SA) programs for pre-service teachers, collaborative inquiry, narrative inquiry, critical pedagogy, constructivist workshop, and overseas visits with reflective analysis for in-service or university teachers.

In this issue ‘Teacher development’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘professional development,’ which refers to ‘a process of continual intellectual, experiential and attitudinal growth of teachers’ (Lange, 1990, p. 250; Mohamed, 2006, p. 35). Teacher development embraces three approaches, as described by, ‘knowledge and skill development,’ ‘self-understanding,’ and ‘ecological change’ Hargreaves and Fullan (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992, pp. 1–2). In the context of educational change and teacher education ‘knowledge and skill development’ is related to skills associated with curriculum and teaching innovations, pedagogical knowledge, and new approaches to teaching, learning, and assessment (Lee & Shiu, 2008, p. 6), ‘Self-understanding’ to reflective practices and teacher identity development, and ‘ecological change’ is associated with the cultivation of communities of inquiry and change, as well as individual agency. Evans (2002, p. 130) considered teacher development as a process and defined this term as ‘an ideologically, attitudinally, intellectually, and epistemologically based stance on the part of an individual, in relation to the practice of the profession to which s/he belongs, and which influences her/his professional practice.’

The first three papers explore teacher beliefs. In, ‘The romance and the reality between pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the potential benefits of a short-term study abroad (SA) program and their practices,’ Angelia Choi-fung Tam studied the potential benefit of a short-term Putonghua (Mandarin) study abroad program for 14 pre-service teachers in the Chinese context. This program comprised three main components, namely, ‘language emphasis,’ ‘pedagogical development,’ and ‘sociocultural experiences.’ Qualitative analysis showed that pre-service teachers’ beliefs on the perceived potential advantages of SA could be categorized into ‘beliefs about target language learning,’ ‘beliefs about pedagogical development,’ ‘beliefs about cultural understanding,’ and ‘beliefs about student growth.’ These beliefs and practices were compared to one another for consistency. As regards the belief on Putonghua enhancement, although many pre-service teachers viewed the positive aspect of the SA program, a few felt ‘disappointed’ because they had a low Putonghua proficiency and could not perform satisfactorily in the examination. For the belief on Putonghua learning in out-of-class activities, several teachers felt ‘frustrated’ because of the time limitation in communicating with the local people. For the beliefs on pedagogical development, the pre-service teachers reported that they did not gain significantly from learning the traditional schooling practices in Mainland China. Nonetheless, many of these teachers found that their cultural understanding and promoting their personal growth had been positively enhanced. Tam’s study revealed that a language-rich environment guaranteed positive learning for only those pre-service teachers who were capable of transforming beliefs, which had been shaped by their educational background and teacher education experiences, into actions. Tam’s research recommended that future SA programs should consider the participants’ educational background and the use of reflective journals in facilitating teacher improvement.

The second paper, ‘What future teachers believe about democracy and why it is important’ by David Zyngier analyzed pre-service teachers’ beliefs about democracy, using a ‘critical pedagogical’ framework in the Australian context. Zyngier referred to the notions of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ democracy, which were connected with ‘teaching about democracy’ and ‘teaching for democracy,’ respectively (Davies & Issitt, 2005). Against the background, Civics and Citizenship Education was perceived as ‘thin democracy’ and the broad neoliberal agenda of ‘learning about but not for democracy.’ The majority of the 432 pre-service teacher respondents surveyed did not have a parental background of being active in politics. They believed that democracy pertained to ‘issues of personal freedom of opinion and free and fair elections.’ Only a minority had an orientation toward ‘thick democracy,’ which recognized ‘differences and social justice.’ Only a small percentage (approximately 20%) considered that Australia is ‘very democratic,’ whereas a large percentage (approximately 75%) believed that ‘indigenous Australians are not a full part of Australian democracy.’ Nevertheless, despite a divergence of views about the nature of democracy, over 70% of pre-service teachers concurred that they should disseminate the message of democracy to students but not ‘do’ democracy. This result, the author claims, calls for teachers and university educators’ to treat ‘thick democracy’ seriously by enhancing ‘voice, agency, inclusiveness, and collective problem solving’ in schools and teacher education programs.

The third paper, ‘Teacher’s empathy: Can it be predicted by self-efficacy?’ by Goroshit Marina and Hen Meriav emphasizes the importance of teachers’ socio-emotional competence. The study surveyed 543 teachers and 10 schools in Israel. The authors explore the connection between teachers’ empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and self-efficacy (Friedman & Kass, 2002) as a type of self-belief that contribute to teachers’ confidence and the ‘beliefs of individual teachers’ in their capability to plan, organize, and execute activities to realize educational goals (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). The results showed that teachers’ self-efficacy was a better predictor of their own empathy than their emotional self-efficacy. This result implied that emotional self-efficacy (ESE) may be complementary and contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy (TSE) and that both ESE and TSE are types of ‘self-efficacy beliefs.’ This study calls for more attention to be given to teachers’ emotions and their socio-emotional competencies; and echoes the next two papers which use narrative inquiry to focus on the emotional component in teacher identity development.

In, ‘I need to be strong competent,’ Rui Yuan and Icy Lee study emotions, and identities of a student teacher, Ming, in his three-month teaching practicum in the context of Mainland China. Five themes were identified: ‘excitement and anxiety,’ ‘shock and guilt,’ ‘joy and pride,’ ‘anger and frustrations,’ and ‘disillusionment and determination.’ These reflected Ming’s conflicting emotions that were associated with institutional constraints and ‘hidden emotional rules,’ particularly the pressures for him to conform in an ‘unequal power’ relationship with his mentor and ‘caring and friendly’ relationship with his students. Ming was perceived as an ‘outsider’ without professional autonomy. He endeavored to meet the demands of his mentor and school, as well as realize his personal belief in a ‘student-centered teacher,’ but, in doing so, was expected to suppress, hide, and control his negative emotions, such as ‘anger, shock, and disappointment.’ This led to Ming’s increasing frustrations and diminishment and disillusionment of his identity as an autonomous and professional teacher. The findings point to the importance of the ‘emotional dimension’ for student teacher‘professional agency’ and the need for enhancing university–school collaboration in the teaching practicum.

The sixth paper, ‘What the West could learn from the East: A reflective analysis’ by Yali Zou, Cheryl Craig, and Rita Poimbeauf reflect on their multiple trips to Hexie Elementary School in China. They adopt a narrative inquiry to understand ‘school life in China’ and employ a conceptual framework comprising ‘educational experience,’ (Dewey, 1938), ‘small stories,’ ‘seeing small/seeing big,’ (Greene, 1995) and ‘world traveling’ (Lugones, 1987). They relate these through three short stories: ‘teaching without words,’ ‘principal images,’ and ‘shared responsibility for failure.’ The first story highlights the frequent usage of facial expressions and long ‘wait time’ instead of words of praise and verbal feedback to students. The second story portrays the images of the principal of Hexie Elementary School as ‘a lead teacher/curriculum maker,’ ‘a teacher maker,’ and ‘an agent of a harmonious learning community,’ thereby reflecting the blending of Confucian philosophy and Deweyan pragmatism. The third story explores the notion of ‘group solution’ and a ‘cohesive community approach to responsibility.’

The final two papers focus on literacy education. Katia Ciampa and Tiffany Gallagher, from the USA, adopt a case approach to investigate teachers’ self-efficacy in literacy instructional and assessment practices. They used a collaborative inquiry model based on a four stages (Coburn and Stein (2010): ‘identifying the problem,’ ‘collecting evidence,’ ‘analyzing evidence,’ and ‘reflecting, sharing, and celebrating.’ In addition, the school district provided a professional learning program consisting of ‘introductory plenary session,’ ‘collective and flexible co-planning sessions,’ ‘in-class observations,’ ‘teacher moderation and forum.’ Their findings reveal that with the emphasis on assessment, teachers exhibited changes in literacy instructional and assessment practices. Thus, they planned with an end as a starting point, changed focus from grading to listening, adopted reflective practice as a tool for professional learning, and benefited from experiential learning in school-based professional learning sessions. Individual teacher’s self-efficacy and confidence were enhanced through collaborative inquiry and collective peer collaboration, several challenges were observed: inadequate cross-over between the elementary and secondary panels, as well as time and organizational constraints. Although the paper identifies the potentials of job-embedded, school- and inquiry-based professional development approaches, they necessitate the arrangement of time release for teachers to participate and rely upon trustful climate that enables a risk-taking and a supportive culture for experimenting in new instructional and assessment practices.

The final paper by Suzanne Porath, from the USA, analyzes the implementation of a constructivist workshop approach to teaching literacy, employing ‘collaborative reflection’ to collect the research data. They were inspired by Rogoff’s (1994) notion of ‘community of learners’ and implemented authentic deliberation of texts, as well as constructed and revised knowledge together with students. They changed the focus not only on the product but also on the processes of learning; thus, they paid considerable attention to listening to student voices and discerning evidence of learning in student-led discussions and dialogs. The workshop format was treated as an ‘epistemology’ instead of merely a pedagogical method in which teacher and students co-construct classroom content, structure, processes, and expected outcomes, as well as engage in a dialog. The research focused on how two third-grade teachers, June and Charlotte, managed the ‘conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political dilemmas’ of using a workshop approach that enabled students to make their choices in reading and writing (Windschitl, 2002, p. 132). The conceptual dilemma, arose from the shift from students’ fluent reading and accurate retelling to high-level thinking through discussion and writing. On the one hand, they resorted to reading aloud the core novel books and adopting model texts for strategy instruction. On the other hand, teachers arranged time for students’ independent reading of their selected books. Through the exploration of this constructivist workshop approach, June regarded reading as meeting the students’ own goals and needs, whereas Charlotte considered the value of students’ meaning-making of the text through the individual reader’s response and supportive discussion. The pedagogical dilemma refers to the tension between using the ‘purchased commercial version of the workshop model’ and developing a ‘localized responsive curriculum’ for teachers’ own classrooms. Charlotte and June also encountered a cultural dilemma as a result of moving from acting as an expert to becoming a ‘co-learner’ with their students. The teachers also faced political dilemmas as they moved from ‘monologic teaching to dialogic pedagogy,’ which upset the power dynamics of teacher, student, and the role of texts in teaching literacy; and they experienced conflicts in gaining acceptance from other teachers, being accountable to the parents, and soliciting their support and understanding of the benefit of this new workshop approach. The paper points to the importance for teachers who unpack and reflect on their own perspectives of teaching and learning, in understanding the epistemology of new approaches. Realizing these objectives the author claims, is possible through ‘collaborative reflection’ with an external colleague, such as a university researcher.

Overall, the papers in this issue provide useful insights into the experiences with and outcomes of innovative approaches to teacher development, examining particularly issues of product or process, and relationships tensions and dilemmas experienced by teachers who interrogate their beliefs, stances, and efficacies, as well as the context and support of the school/university/community leadership where pre-service and in-service teachers’ practices and learning are implemented, enacted, and situated.

John Chi-Kin Lee
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong