The Successes And Challenges Of Implementing A Museum Learning Curriculum: A Study Of Teachers’ Responses And Engagement With Innovation

Author(s):

Richard Harris(presenting / submitting)Deborah Heighes(presenting)Ellie Francis-Brophy Gill Hopper Mel Jay

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 11 C, Teachers’ Beliefs and Innovation

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

17:15-18:45

Room:

B035 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Richard Harris

Contribution

The process of implementing educational change, from espousal to enactment is a complex one, often resulting in ‘policy fracture’ (Davies and Hughes 2009). Decision-making processes at all stages are important, but as Kelchtermans (2007, 472) rightly points out, any macro-policy measures ‘during their implementation get caught up in the process of interpretation and translation towards the particularities of the local context’ – a process that makes it crucial to understand the factors that determine the way in which a school implements a new policy. Within this context, teachers are especially important. According to Wermke (2011, 668) ‘Teachers are agents of change. They build relationships to other actors in the school system and they decide which models and ideas will sustainably be implemented in schools’. Yet numerous studies have shown that school-based innovations survive, thrive or fail depending on the staff involved in implementing the changes. As van Eekelen, Vermunt and Boshuizen (2006, 408) argue:

…the majority of such innovations (…) fail because the teachers – even after a considerable period of time and change – simply abandon the new behaviour and return to comfortable old routines.

The focus on teachers and how to support teachers in bringing about change has been a major focus of the Council of Europe’s Pestalozzi Programme (Huber and Mompoint-Gaillard 2011).

The school at the centre of this study provides an interesting model to examine as it introduced a highly unusual curriculum innovation, based around museum learning (ML). Such is the uniqueness of this case that it provides a strong spotlight on the challenges of introducing something that was beyond the experience of most teachers.

The study was an evaluation of the school’s innovative curriculum. The evaluation was effectively a ‘snapshot’’ during the winter/spring 2012/2013 as the school has been implementing ML since 2004. The overall aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which ML had become embedded in the school’s curriculum and to identify the factors which explain this level of embeddedness, and what might need to be done to further develop this curriculum model.

The research team was contracted to conduct an evaluation of the school’s ML curriculum between November 2012 and March 2013. The project was funded by the Arts Council England.

A range of data was collected, but for the purposes of this paper the focus is on the teachers, their attitude towards the ML curriculum, their understanding of it, and their willingness to engage with this innovation.

To examine these questions the evaluation focused on four areas:

Vision - What is ML and to what extent is there a shared vision?

Roles & structure - Who is involved, what is their role, how are these carried out?

Learning - How embedded is ML?

Teachers – What support is there for ML?

The theoretical framework for the study comes from work on teacher development, in particular theories relating to resistance to change and ways to bring about change. For example teacher beliefs are often identified as a major barrier to change (Korthagen et al 2001, Virta 2002). Even where change is discerned it often proves fragile (Ross and Smith 1992, Zeichner and Tabachnich 1981). Southerland et al (2011) categorise obstacles to change as relating to self, students and infrastructure. Korthagen et al. (2001) argue that change happens when ideas are restructured and new gestalts are constructed. According to Harris and Lázár (2011) this happens where there is a combination of challenge, experience (either real or vicarious) and reflection.

Method

In total 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted; these included ten interviews with teaching staff, one with a senior member of staff with responsibility for ML (who also taught) and one of the staff employed specially to support ML in the school. The teachers interviewed held different levels of responsibility within the school; some were subject leaders whilst others had purely teaching responsibilities. All the interviews, conducted on site, lasted between 30-50 minutes, were recorded and fully transcribed. The choice of sample was determined by the school and a good range of views were obtained as the sample included staff who had been at the school since its inception as well as newer members of staff, and staff who varied in their degree of enthusiasm for museum learning and grasp of innovation in practice. Some subjects, such as Science, History and English, were more heavily represented in the sample. The interview transcripts were analysed inductively, using a process of open and axial coding.

Expected Outcomes

The data analysis reveals a positive attitude towards ML from about half the staff interviewed. However a number of issues have hindered the successful implementation of ML, which relate mainly to Southerland et al’s (2011) ideas about self and infrastructure. 1. Vision Teachers operate with different conceptions of ML. A lack of an agreed working definition presents a challenge for the school in sharing practice, and in assessing the impact of ML. In many ways, the teachers have a clearer sense of what they see as the benefits of ML, albeit often expressed in broad terms. 2. Roles & structure The position of the two ML staff in relation to the overall school structure was unclear. Teachers were unsure whether the ML staff held any executive authority (e.g. finance/budget approval rights). It was also unclear to teachers whether these staff had any authority to make teachers engage with ML or whether their role was to support those who were interested. 3. Learning Where ML was thoughtfully integrated into the curriculum there were positive views about its impact. However it was clear from most staff, and other data collected, that ML was not an everyday facet of life in the school curriculum due to competing pressures. 4. Teachers Teachers were split between those who mentioned receiving ML training and those who did not. Of those who had received training there was some variation about the level and regularity. Those who said they had not received ML training were largely unaware of the types of ML happening in other classrooms. ML was more strongly embedded with those staff that had been through the period when ML was first introduced and received more training, and where there was a stronger ethos of collaboration within a department.

References

Davies, P., and Hughes, J. (2009) The fractured arms of government and the premature end of lifelong learning. Journal of Education Policy 24 (5): 595–610. Harris, R. and Lázár, I. (2011) Overcoming Resistance. In J. Huber and P. Mompoint-Gaillard (eds.) Teacher Education for Change: The Theory Behind the Council of Europe Pestalozzi Programme, 91-103. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Huber, J. and Mompoint-Gaillard, P. (2011) Teacher Education for Change: The Theory Behind the Council of Europe Pestalozzi Programme. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Kelchtermans, G. (2007) Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education Policy 22 (4): 471–91. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B. and Wubbels, T. (2001) Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Ross, D. D., and Smith, W. (1992) Understanding Preservice Teachers' Perspectives on Diversity. Journal of Teacher Education 43 (2): 94-103. Southerland, S., Gallard, A. and Callihan, L. (2011) Examining Teachers' Hurdles to ‘Science for All’. International Journal of Science Education 33 (16): 2183-213. Van Eekelen, I.M., Vermunt, J. D. and Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006) Exploring Teachers’ Will to Learn. Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (4): 408-23. Virta, A. (2002) Becoming a History Teacher: Observations on the Beliefs and Growth of Student Teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (6): 687-98. Wermke, W. (2011) Continuing Professional Development in Context: Teachers' Continuing Professional Development Culture in Germany and Sweden. Professional Development in Education 37 (5): 665-83. Zeichner, K. M, and Tabachnick, B. R. (1981) Are the Effects of University Teacher Education" Washed out" by School Experience? Journal of Teacher Education 32 (3): 7-11.

Author Information

Richard Harris (presenting / submitting)

University of Reading, United Kingdom

Deborah Heighes (presenting)

University of Reading

Institute of Education

Reading

Ellie Francis-Brophy

University of Reading, United Kingdom

Gill Hopper

University of Reading, United Kingdom

Mel Jay

University of Reading, United Kingdom

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for