Introduction

From 2012 – 2014 the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) team from the Cambridge University together with the Leadership for Learning and Research Network (LLRN) of the University of Malaya implemented the Teacher Learning Circle (TLC) intervention project in 10 primary schools in Selangor, Malaysia. This was a redeployment of an ongoing program in Hong Kong and a modified version of the Japanese Lesson Study. The TLC provided a platform where teachers could freely talk about their pedagogical practice, critique on teaching, and provide constructive feedback for improvement.   In the TLC teachers were also provided with workshops on the six key pedagogical principles, namely, Commence with a clear statement of learning objective; Focus on extended class discussion; Commit pupils in active learning; Encourage more pairing and group work; Provide more informing than corrective feedback; and, Use assessment for learning. And it aimed at building teachers’ pedagogical capacity for enhancing quality teaching and learning in schools. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact TLC among the participating teachers. And this was guided by the research question: “What does it take for teachers to innovate and improvise the way they teach in the classroom in order to provide effective learning experience to students without having to be bogged down by workplace and school factors?”

Related theories

McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) reported that teachers who were in-service and experienced, and participated in collaborative inquiry and cooperation with colleagues were actually exhilarated by their learning and aptly corroborated to form a body of wisdom about teaching and learning. In an earlier study, Rosenholtz (1989) had determined that the teachers were also able to increase their efficacy and adopt new classroom practices and behaviors. However, Bolam et al. (2005, p. 89) underscored that a learning circle could function efficiently only if there was mutual trust and respect, and willingness to support each other among the members. When a learning circle, thus, attains a stable state, Coburn and Russell (2008) declared it was the interactions that mattered most both as a medium and platform whether the teachers learned and altered their way of teaching for the better. The authors found that, in mathematics teaching, the teachers’ interactions occurred at three levels of depth namely low, medium and high. The low interactions dealt with the administration of a teaching learning session covering issues such as the organization of a classroom, text coordination, standards, assessments, and pacing; sharing of materials and activities; and, general discussions on the session. The medium talks captured issues on the quality of the sessions in terms of planning and execution and the effects they produced on the students, while the conversations of high level indulged in pedagogical principles; the approach taken to delivering lessons and its impact on student learning; and, issues related to the handling of the subject matter.

References Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining professional learning communities. London: General Teaching Council for England, Department for Education and Skills. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Longman.