Three Forms of Professional Development Used By Literacy/English Teacher Educators: Informal, Formal, and Communities of Practices
Author(s):
Clare Kosnik (presenting / submitting) Clive Beck (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Network:
01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Format:
Paper

Session Information

01 SES 02 A, Learning Networks

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-02
15:15-16:45
Room:
B032 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Maria Assunção Flores

Contribution

 

Teacher educators are a distinct group of faculty in higher education (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996; Labaree, 2004) because they must bridge theory and practice; attend to the requirements of a number of external bodies (e.g., college of teachers; government departments); be cognizant of new school district/government initiatives; connect academic courses to practice teaching (over which they often have little control); develop a coherent course for student teachers who come to the program with markedly different prior experiences; and model effective teaching. This is a complex and challenging mandate!

Teacher educators’ knowledge and skill are critical to quality preservice teacher education. In our large-scale research study, Literacy Teacher Educators: Their Backgrounds, Visions, and Practices, we are studying 28 literacy teacher educators (LTEs) in four countries: Canada, the U.S., England, and Australia. We have completed two of three phases of the study that has as its goal:

         to study in depth a group of literacy/English teacher educators, with  attention to their backgrounds, knowledge, research activities, identity, view of current government initiatives, pedagogy, and course goals.

In this proposal, we report what we have learned about the professional development (PD) and knowledge required for LTEs to fulfill a complex and challenging mandate.

The Green Paper on Teacher Education in Europe (Buchberger, Campos, Kallos, & Stephenson, 2000) was one of the first to recognize the importance of PD for teacher educators. In this seminal work the authors argued there needs to be “coherent initial as well as a continuous in-service teacher education for teacher educators” (p. 58).

Earley and Porritt (2012) draw on the Training and Development Agency’s definition of PD for teachers, which captures many elements of effective PD for teacher educators. They define PD as “reflective activity designed to improve an individual’s attributes, knowledge, understanding and skills. It supports individual needs and improves professional practice” (Training and Development Agency, 2012). Bubb and Earley (2007) state that PD involves both “formal and informal learning experiences” (p. 4). Similarly, Schon (1983) argues that both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action are important forms of professional learning.

The logical question is: what kind of PD is needed for teacher educators to survive and thrive in a challenging context? There is an array of PD processes for teacher educators: participating in induction courses, being mentored, pursuing individual needs, joining existing research groups, and attending conferences (Livingston, McCall, & Morgado, 2009). Looking across the forms of PD, we grouped the many processes into three broad categories: formal, informal, and communities of practice (COP). We recognize this division is somewhat arbitrary and some processes fit more than one category.  However, we have found the framework useful in analyzing data and weighing the issues.

For professional development to be useful there must be a match between the genuine needs of the participants and the opportunities for learning. Goodwin (2012) notes that apart from the what and the how of teacher educators’ PD, we need to address why acquisition of a new body of knowledge in necessary (p. 45). Goodwin (2008) has advanced our understanding of the knowledge required for teacher educators by identifying five types of knowledge: personal; contextual; pedagogical; sociological; and social. These categories are useful in drawing attention to the complex knowledge base required; the next logical step is to position them in the disciplines. Boyd and Harris (2010) argue that each content area must be considered separately because each discipline places different demands on teacher educators (p. 9). Kosnik et al. (2014) built on Goodwin’s work by identifying four spheres of knowledge relevant specifically to LTEs:  research; pedagogy; literacy and literacy teaching; current school and government initiatives.  

Method

We interviewed participants twice over the period April, 2012 to August, 2013. Each semi-structured interview was approximately 60 – 90 minutes in length. We asked the same questions of all participants but added probe question . Most of the questions were open-ended. The first interview had five parts: background experiences; qualities (in their view) of an effective literacy educator; identity (e.g., your academic community); turning points in your career (personal and professional); and research activities. The second interview had four parts: framework and goals for your literacy course(s); pedagogies used and reasons for using them; assignments and readings; and how and why your views and practices have changed over the years. Interviews were done either face to face or on Skype and were audio-recorded and transcribed. Much of our methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2009). We used a grounded theory approach, not beginning with a fixed theory but generating theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2009). As the analysis progressed, we identified key themes and refined them – adding some and deleting or merging others – through “constant comparison” with the interview transcripts. For data analysis we used NVivo, going through a number of steps: • We did initial coding. Some codes arose straightforwardly as answers to our interview questions (e.g., opportunities for PD) while others emerged unexpectedly (e.g., importance of international research collaborations). • We then collapsed nodes and created sub-nodes (parent node of qualities of an LTE was divided into sub-nodes of knowledge requirements, dispositions, experiences as a classroom teacher, and own talents and strengths). • Given the sophistication of NVivo, we were able to conduct queries to see relationships between the biographical data and other data (e.g., number of years in HE and being part of a COP). NVivo allowed us to draw upon and develop both qualitative and quantitative data. • Throughout the process we referred back to the literature.

Expected Outcomes

1. This study indicates that PD is necessary for both new and experienced faculty. All three forms of PD – formal, informal, and communities of practice – came into play for all 28 participants: each process had value and a place in supporting their development as teacher educators and researchers. 2. Faculty must continue to grow in four spheres of knowledge: research methods, pedagogy for higher education, developments in the field of literacy, and government and school district initiatives. The study reveals the sheer scale of knowledge required to be an effective LTE and in turn the comprehensive model of PD required. 3. It appears from our data that PD for teacher educators is not conducted systematically; rather, it is quite ad hoc with much of it occurring through learning while doing. Universities and schools of education could do more to support their LTEs in this respect. PD should not be seen as an “add-on;” rather it should be viewed as an integral part of the life of an academic – recognized, supported, and rewarded. 4. The most common type of PD for the new LTEs in our study was informal. Although valuable, informal PD has limitations because it is often dependent on the goodwill of colleagues and has a strong trial and error component. Induction programs should outline to new faculty the three PD processes and four spheres of knowledge, with examples of what each looks like in practice, how to go about accessing formal PD, and strategies for becoming part of a COP. For mid- and later-career faculty, informal PD was still a major part of their work but many had greater participation in formal PD and COPs, usually because of the networks they had established. COPs can play a key role in helping all LTEs grow and develop; however, they are time-consuming to establish and nurture.

References

Boyd, P., & Harris, K. (2010). Becoming a university lecturer in teacher education: Expert school teachers reconstructing their pedagogy and identity. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 9–24. Bubb, S. & Early, P. (2007) (Second edition). Leading and managing continuing professional development. London: Sage. Buchberger, F., Campos, B., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (Eds.). (2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe. Umea, Sweden: Thematic Network on Teacher Education. http://tntee.umu.se/publications/greenpaper/3.pdf. Ducharme, E., & Ducharme, M. (1996). The development of the teacher education professoriate. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledg base for the preparation of teachers. (pp.691-714). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2010). Effective practices in continuing professional development: Lessons from schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Goodwin L. (2008). Defining teacher quality: Is consensus possible? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D.J. McIntryre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. (3rd ed. pp. 399-403). New York: Routledge. Goodwin, L. (2012). Teaching as a profession: Are we there yet? In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development. (pp 44- 56). New York: Routledge. Guyton, E., & McIntyre, J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 514-534). New York: Macmillan. Guzzetti, B., Anders, P., & Neuman, S. (1999). Thirty years of journal of reading behaviour. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(1), 86-92. . Kosnik, C., Dharmashi, P., Miyata, C., Cleovoulou, Y., & Beck, C. (2014). Beyond initial transition: An international examination of the complex work of experienced literacy/English teacher educators. English in Education (forthcoming). Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven: Yale University Press. Livingston, K., McCall, J., & Morgado, M. (2009). Teacher educators as researchers. In A. Swennen, & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators (pp. 191 – 203). Dordretcht: Springer Academic Publishers. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A Guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Training and Development Agency. (2012). Retrieved on October 23, 2013. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120203163341/http://tda.gov.uk/home/teacher/developing-career/professional-development.aspx

Author Information

Clare Kosnik (presenting / submitting)
University of Toronto, Canada
Clive Beck (presenting)
University of Toronto, Canada

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.