10 SES 17 E, Research on Teacher Induction and Early Career Teachers
Following the transform on the demands of teaching and learning, how to encourage teachers to professional develop their entire career has become a raising issue. As a major instrument for teacher development, professional learning community (PLC) has been discussed in many countries ( Hord, 1997; DuFour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
In Japan, traditional implementations focus on not only the supervisor for the novice teachers, but the building of school-based professional learning community. Professor Sato Manabu extended the model to the community based student learning centered developing project, and named as "school as learning community (SLC)".
SLC was adapted and experienced in the U.S. ( Lewis, Perry, Hurd, & O'Connell, 2006), the Europe countries (Hart, Alston, & Murata, 2011; Lofthouse, McElwee, King, & Lofthouse, 2017), and Asian countries (Saito, Murase, Tsukui, & Yeo, 2015).
In Taiwan, since 2012 a wave of button up teaching and learning revolution including the SLC has been aroused in public and private schools, aimed on changing the lecture based instruction in the classroom. The SLC was taken into consideration of parts of local government and provided funding for the pilot project during 2012-2015.
The background of the study is the 2019 national curriculum standard reform in Taiwan recently.The new national curriculum standard implicates into worldwide curriculum reform context, and focus on "competency-based reform" in all levels of education stages.
There were some literature of SLC discussing about the role of the local education authority (Saito etc. ,2014), but lack of theoretical concern and macro curriculum framework scope. In this article, the researchers argue that the domestic education authority plays a crucial role on the institutional support of the transform of the teacher's practice in the classroom.
The purposes of the research show as follows. 1. To investigate the role of local government in the SLC. 2. To analysis the relationship among the participants of SLC via collaborative governance framework. 3. To conclude the possible ways for the local government for the sustainability of SLC reform. 4. To make practical suggestions for the units transferring the teacher training projects from abroad.
The research argues that the practical knowledge based collaborative actions between the government and schools' teachers, principals, and scholars are crucial for SLC sustainability.
The past cases showed that the coercive way from the local education authority would not lead to satisfied outcome (Saito et al.,2015). However the schools still need the momentum (from government) to put the reform on the way.
On theory perspective, the collaborative governance model developed by Ansell and Gash (2008) and Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) point out the framework and the effect of interactions among different levels and sectors actors.
The knowledge sharing, network building, and commitment attaining influence not only the projects ongoing, but the reform later. (Sullivan &Skelcher, 2002; Forrer, Kee, &Boyer, 2014; Larkin, Cierpial, Stack, Morrison, & Griffith, 2008).
The result shows that to some degree, all the case cities had collaborative governance behavior. However the resource and scope of the jurisdiction affected the implementing of collaborative working.
Different from the cases in other public policies, sharing understanding of the partners is considered as the most important element in the partnership. Especially the mechanism which is help for the constructing and transfer of the pedagogical content knowledge in the SLC is seen as the key for the continuous grow of the teacher professional learning project and beyond.
Values identify and opportunity to make own choice during the process is emphasized both by the government staff and teachers.
Finally, trust and dialogue among the partners shaped the partnership through all the collaborative governance in the cities.
On the demand of method, multiple cases study approach is used to construct the study (Yin, 2002; Stake, 2013). Firstly, the researcher constructed the focus of the topics via surveying the documents of local governments and Teacher Training Register and Record system to capture the diffusion and sustainability of the cities and counties. Three case jurisdictions are selected according to the adoption and sustained promotion of SLC. On the data collecting stage, the curriculum leaders of case cities are invited to participate in the interview focus on collaborative governance process. Each case city has 5-7 interviewees participated into the 30-60 minutes face-to face interviewed by the researcher. There are all 19 participants invited into the research. The records are translated into the transcript to apply for content analysis. For the data analysis, the grounded theory coding method is applied in the research. The transcript is open coding firstly, and aggregated into topics, concepts, and axis.There are 216 codes are identified. The cross analysis of cases and axis is made and counted for the description of the collaborative process in the local level. Finally, the qualitative data is used for replying the research question about the factors affecting the SLC development through hermeneutics' method. Chapters of the key transcript are quoted in the report to explain the result of the research.
The main results show as following: 1. The case cities have the distinctive features of collaborative governance. All three jurisdictions, to some degree, have multiple participants, the relative equity power relationship among members, collaborative behavior and ability, and some types of the SLC network. The local governments play crucial role in the teacher professional learning project establishment of SLC case. However the variance identified by the code counting shows that the preference and degree of the collaborative governance are affected by the scope and resource of a jurisdiction. 2. In different jurisdictions, a common feature of collaborative governance model can be recognized through the relationship of the SLC partners. Firstly, the sharing understanding of the members built on the base of pedagogical content knowledge sharing in the cross schools lesson study process in Taiwan. Secondly, Commit for the formal actions emerged after the formal declare of SLC project. However, different from the former reform, values identity and teacher's autonomous development are emphasis during the process. That's quite differing from common collaborative policy. Finally, the research also mentions that the trust and dialogue among teachers, principals, and administrators in SLC is quite difficult to sustain without a key person to coordinate. Besides, the key role of the resource person from outside ( Saito etc., 2014) is pointed in the research. 3. For the local government, the suggestion for the effective use of limited resource to achieve the goals of teachers' professional learning is provided through the case of SLC. The importance of trust and network building and suspending are emphasized in the research. Finally, as a diffusion model internationally, SLC can provide a case for the cross countries teaching professional learning project development, especially on the demand of the value of learning-centered developing model.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 597-604. DuFour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., &Balogh, S. (2012).An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29. Forrer, J., Kee, J., & Boyer, E. (2014). Governing cross-sector collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hart, L. C., Alston, A., & Murata, A. (Eds.). (2011). Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. Now York: Springer. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab. Larkin, M., Cierpial, C., Stack, J., Morrison, V., & Griffith, C. (2008). Empowerment theory in action: The wisdom of collaborative governance. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 13(2), 2-2. Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O'Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi delta kappan, 88(4), 273-281. Lofthouse, R., McElwee, S., King, C., & Lofthouse, C. (2017). Lesson Study: an Opportunity for Collaborative Teacher Inquiry. Teachers and Teacher Educators Learning Through Inquiry: International Perspectives, 63. Saito, E., Murase, M., Tsukui, A., & Yeo, J. (2014). Lesson Study for Learning Community: A guide to sustainable school reform. Routledge. Saito, E., Murase, M., Tsukui, A., & Yeo, J. (2015). Lesson Study for Learning Community: A Guide to Sustainable School Reform. London: Routledge. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. Sullivan, H., &Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries: collaboration in public services. Macmillan International Higher Education. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Some networks have already started to plan their chairperson(s).
But at the moment chairpersons are only pencilled in, as we will still need to check for time conflicts between presentation and chairing duties. EERA office will work on this in due course and then officially let chairpersons know about their chairing duties.
Meanwhile, thank you for your patience.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.