Introduction
In education, effective teaching depends on those professionals who are willing to keep abreast of educational initiatives world wide, to undertake enquiry in order to enhance their knowledge, interests and skills, and to propose and carry out curricular changes. In turn curricular changes almost inevitably involve new contents as well as new teaching strategies. But new teaching strategies are extremely difficult to learn, especially when these cut across old habits and assumptions, and invalidate hard won skills (Stenhouse, 1975: 25). It seems wrong then to think that teachers are in the best position to develop new strategies independently on the basis of common professional skills.
In Modern Foreign Language (MFL) teaching, for example, active participatory approaches are particularly valuable in assuring learning acquisition (The World Conference on Education in Jomtien, 1990), and allowing learners to reach their fullest potential (Bevan, 1994). From this viewpoint, teachers are not simply transmitters of knowledge. They support, encourage and promote students' participation in their own learning. Pupils then develop skills, share ideas with peers and teachers and also construct their own knowledge. Such an approach calls for proactive teachers, professionally prepared and open-minded to changes in technology, contents
and techniques; teachers ready to change their routines in lesson planning, to discuss with colleagues both subject and technological issues. Most importantly, they have to be able to regain control of their own teaching after reflecting on it. To attain these conditions, they need to be provided with support and opportunities for training while in service (INSET), and mainly, to have freedom to introduce and implement the new approaches and techniques they have learnt during the training. This imperative applies to all subject areas. There is some evidence that teachers are more responsive to professional training after they are in-service rather than before. As a result, the profession is shifting towards the conception of in-service education as continuous
professional development (Ben-Peretz, M, et at. in Day, C et al., 1990).
The means of identifying, practising, determining and evaluating INSET has to be formal, structural and elaborated (Baker, 1986: 8-11). It is indispensable to know firstly: how INSET is considered effective. One of the five conditions for the effectiveness of INSET is that all teachers are involved in the process of identifying their own and their colleagues INSET needs. It has to be a team-decision rather than an imposed package decided by others. A more practical method which is feasible to be used in the evaluation and follow up of INSET may be the practice of classroom observation. Nonetheless, given the inherent difficulty in evaluating outcomes in direct ways (e. g., observation) there exists, in practice, the need to rely on indirect instruments (e. g. ) post-INSET questionnaires. To Easen, et al (1989 1985), change is the clue for assessing INSET effectiveness, provided that it is not merely a question of learning new skills, but rather a matter of finding meaning and satisfaction in new ways of doing things. Assessing the effectiveness of INSET, in terms of changes in practice in the increasingly effective schools seems to be a question recognised by many providers as central to their 'raison d'etre' (Thompson, 1993: 50). Yet, it seems that very few try to quantify the effectiveness of the teaching and learning processes offered between trainers and trainees as adult professionals. The evaluation of INSET could be done also through self-review. Schools should have formal structures for evaluating the success of their training policies at all levels. The self-review is paramount for school development, due to the fact that there can be no development without reflection on practice (Shaw, 1992: 65-66). This applies both to the school and the teams within it as an essential part of the school development planning cycle. The structure, which provides that reflection and enhancement of school, team, and individual's performance consists of:
1) planning for school development,
2) audits of schools training needs,
3) appraisal meetings
4) performance indicators
(Shaw, 1992: 65-66)
As observed, many schemes coincide in principle, some are just an emulation of others with different wording. One of the most practical and complete, nevertheless, seems to be that of Blackburn & Moisan (1986) (see 6.1 below, Ch. 6). They propose that INSET should be seen as a process rather than as an event, a process of:
1) needs identification,
2) planning,
3) delivery,
4) evaluation, and
5) follow up with 'teachers at its heart'
(Blackburn & Moisan, 1986: 35,36).
Simple but effective actions should be taken by schools seeking to make INSET more effective in practice. Teachers might well improvise when problems like the above mentioned occur. They ought to be prepared to tackle the feasible constraints arising in a follow up activity, i. e. being patient in the delay of the benefits of training. Even more, they should not reject traditional approaches because the `INSET aim is not to change abruptly but systematically the methods or techniques which are not leading to good outcomes (Cane, 1969)
In short, it appears that INSET has had little or no follow-up support to use the ideas learnt in the INSET (Fullan, 1982: 272). Possibly, many of the INSET experiences have failed to be evaluated and followed up given that they do tend to be 'on the one shot' type. Therefore, the heads' role in INSET is determinant because evidence has shown that the effectiveness and follow-up of INSET in secondary schools depends particularly on the leadership of the head, and the school atmosphere. In turn, it should be a rule of thumb that the providers (e. g., the LEAs, HEIs, etc. ) decide when INSET is/is not effective by assessing/evaluating and following up it. The INSET activity and the trainer are often evaluated but that is not the case with the trainee. INSET has had to overcome financial problems in the form of fewer secondments, insufficient funds and LEAs budget shortages(Greaves, 1995: 16).
Pre-Service Teacher Training
In the current quasi-market setting of education, schools are conscious of the need to
compete with other schools for students (Adnett & Davies, 2003). Consequently, school policy is influenced by the desire to achieve respectable rankings in examination league tables and good inspection reports (Mangan et al., 2004). Failure in these can lead to the loss of students to better-performing neighbouring schools. Performance and revenue-maximising school managers are inclined to direct their efforts and resources to activities which give the highest pay-off in terms of enhancing a school's relative standing and attracting new students. The same forces are equally likely to influence attitudes towards a school's willingness to provide school experience placements to trainee teachers.
There have been a number of studies of the impact of trainees on schools. For example, a report by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) on Training Schools (Ofsted, 2003) identified a number of effects that involvement in ITT has on schools. Teachers, in almost all of the schools in the study, reported that involvement in training had improved:
their own teaching, by causing them to reflect upon and improve their practice; opportunities for staff development, including mentor training; teacher morale and the recruitment and retention of staff;
The report argues that a 'reflective and analytical approach to teaching' (p. 15) transfers to the general work of schools that have a substantial commitment to ITT. Beneficial scale effects are also likely as the number of trainees in a school increases. This may arise partly from economies in supervision and partly from the emergence of a training culture that permeates the general practices of the schools concerned. Resulting improvements in the school working environment may not only improve the retention rates of regular staff but also those of trainee teachers (Hayes, 2004). A study by Smithers and Robinson (2001) pointed out that 12% of participants on initial teacher training courses fail to complete their training, a further 30% do not enter teaching and 18% leave the profession within three years.
The small amount of research evidence on the relative effectiveness of beginning
teachers is ambiguous. A study by Bressoux (1996) indicates that newly qualified teachers (NQTs), who have completed their training, are only marginally less effective in the classroom than their more experienced colleagues. The research compared the effects of NQTs and experienced teachers on the performance of French primary pupils in mathematics and language. In mathematics, pupil test scores showed small but significant gains when taught by experienced rather than newly qualified teachers, although in language the differences were insignificant. Lee and Wilkes (1999), in a qualitative study, found that 'student teachers can have a positive impact in the classroom' (p. 249). Some 90% of respondents to a questionnaire stated that student teachers enhanced the learning environment of children. Suggesting a scale effect, the responses from teachers tended to be more positive the greater the number of trainees in school. Some interviewees remarked that trainee teachers quickly become indistinguishable from other colleagues. Lee and Wilkes note that Ofsted reports often comment positively upon the learning benefits from hosting trainee teachers: 'the partnership with ITE [initial teacher
education] makes a significant contribution to the school, enhancing the quality and
range of teaching and learning in the classroom' (p. 256).
Hanushek (2003a) argues that 'the most productive [educational] reforms are
almost certainly ones that improve the quality of the teacher force' (p. 2). Mentoring
trainee teachers is widely recognised as a potent vehicle for continuing professional
development. The resulting efficiency gains are captured partly by the school
students of the mentor teacher and partly by beneficial demonstration effects on
other staff. While evaluating the impact of mentoring per se has to be left to other
studies, we move on here to an empirical investigation of the statistical association
between the number of trainee teachers in a school and student performance.
Since the adoption of a more school-based model of teacher education in 1992,
schools have gradually become more engaged and more comfortable with their
enhanced role in training. Hitherto a supply-led, compliant-professional model has
tended to characterise relations between school and HEI training providers. In this
model the Teacher Training Agency sets targets for trainee numbers. HEIs approach
schools and altruistic school managers agree to help out by hosting trainees. In this
process HEIs try to apply stringent quality standards in choosing partner schools.
They look for schools that are big enough to offer trainees a wide range of experience
and which are effective schools measured in terms of student motivation, the quality
of teaching and learning and test and examination results. In this model HEIs lay
down standards for support and mentoring and schools do their best to meet these
requirements, within the resource constraints they face.
As more schools have come to recognise the valuable role that mentoring of
trainees can play in the wider professional development of teachers, a new demand-led
school-improvement model of school-based training has begun to emerge. In this
model schools view ITT as an integral part of school improvement strategy. They
actively seek partnerships with HEIs and monitor training in relation to school goals.
As this view takes over then it is likely that many more schools will want a slice of the
training action. There is now a general presumption that all schools have the right to
be involved in training partnerships, unless HEIs can present and successfully
defend clear arguments why they are unsuitable.
The Application of Teacher Education to Classroom Innovation
The process of learning to teach is complex and occurs over a professional lifetime
(Beynon, Geddis, & Onslow, 2001). The research suggests that new teachers
begin at individual points along a continuum of knowledge, competency,
and skill and they further develop these skills during their years of classroom
practice. Over time, teachers acquire both experience and expertise (Berliner,
1987). They continuously learn new strategies, which they add to their repertoire
of classroom behaviours. Sometimes they make substantial pedagogical
adaptations as a result and sometimes they do not. It is the fact that some teachers make few changes over time that concerns researchers (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). Hargreaves (1992) partially explained this by suggesting that the quality and flexibility of teachers' classroom work is closely tied with the course of his or her professional growth, the way he or she develops as a person and as a professional. Little (1993) suggested that one reason professional growth for teachers is problematic is because of the immediacy
of the classroom. Specifically, day-to-day events make it exceptionally difficult
for progress to be made by the teacher towards his or her own learning goals.
This immediacy of the classroom environment and the demands this puts upon
any teacher's time does not sufficiently account for the gap in expertise between
the teacher who makes considerable changes and the teacher who does not
(Sykes, 1999).
Professional development activities designed to enrich and further enhance
the professional growth of teachers have, in the past, been scheduled by administrators
to work around the classroom timetables and needs of teachers periods of inservice that rely on teachers to go back to their classrooms, and, in isolation, to implement that with which they have been presented during their professional development activities have yielded few positive results (Darling- Hammond, 1997). In a 1996 longitudinal study of the teaching profession, Darling-Hammond revealed the poor quality of teacher preparation and professional development in general. Fullan, Hill, and Crevola (2006) further document the lack of change in the teaching profession despite repeated attempts at reform. Current teacher development theories put the teacher as learner at their centre
(Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Little, 1993). Guskey (2000) expanded
on this theoretical assumption by suggesting that professional development
be seen as an intentional process. It needs to be purposeful and linked to
the classroom teachers' needs and practices, not as someone else defines it but
as they themselves perceive those needs to be. It needs also to be ongoing and,
most importantly, viewed as part of what Hargreaves (1992) called professional
growth, which should last one's entire career. Professional development in this
view is expected to lead to sustained change in teacher classroom behaviours. Jacobson
and Battaglia (2001) suggested that only when there is sustained change
will professional development be transformational in terms of teacher practice
and pedagogy. They further posit that this measure of success depends upon the
teacher being part of the process of setting identifiable goals and working towards
them. This begs the question of how professional development for teachers
must be structured and executed to ensure that it becomes transformational
for those teachers so that it leads to changes in both pedagogy and practice.
Mezirow (1985) has suggested that there are three kinds of adult learning-
instrumental (e.g., specific skill development), dialogic (e.g., learning together
in search of understanding), and self-reflective (e.g., through self-reflection
finding understanding which then leads to change in performance). Staff development
efforts in the past focused primarily on the first two kinds of learning.
Teachers went to workshops for a few hours or a few days to learn something
specific that had been determined by others that it was important to know or to
be able to do (McBride, 1989). The teaching and learning model used for these
events was the transmission of knowledge or skills, which was the same approach
most frequently being employed in the classroom (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999). However, there is now a growing awareness that for meaningful
change to occur, the emphasis must be on the third kind of adult learning.
Teachers must be provided with experiences that encourage and depend upon
self-reflection and are part of a continuous process directed toward professional
growth (Lieberman & Miller, 2001; McLaughlin & Oberman, 1996). Such
experiences might begin with a stimulus to learning directed towards pedagogy,
content knowledge, or classroom practice. It would continue with opportunities
to implement and practice that which was recently taught. Then there would be
the expectation that the learner, in this case the teacher, would reflect upon the
process. New knowledge of what works best in the classroom would be acquired
in this manner. Current learning theory emphasizing the role of scaffolding
of new learning would suggest that these opportunities would be more likely
to lead to change when it fits into already existing schema on the part of the
teacher as learner (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).
Conclusion
Learning occurs best in context or in experience, in real-life environments,
through constructivist knowledge creation processes (Kolb, 1984). Harris and
Grandgenett (2002), as well as Dickenson, McBride, Lamb-Milligan, and Nichols
(2003), in looking at various school-based initiatives focused on teachers,
dubbed this process "authentic" professional development. In the case of the
classroom teacher, this means his or her classroom is the focus of the new learning.
Others have referred to such learning in a variety of different ways. Whether
it is called "experiential" or "situational" (Kolb, 1984), "guided discovery"
(Brown & Campione, 1994), "workplace learning" (Retallick, 1999), "learning
along the way" (Sweeney, 2003), or "authentic" (Harris & Grandgenett, 2002),
the essential components are the same.
Harris and Grandgenett (2002) used the term authentic to describe the learning
occurring by classroom teachers when they participated in collaborative Internet
activities with their students. Learning about the Internet was something
new for teachers, yet they were allowing their students to participate in projects
only available online. Harris and Grandgenett, in turn, borrowed the term
from Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino (1999), who suggested that "authentic
learning allows students to engage in learning and meaningfully construct
concepts and relationships in contexts that involve real-world problems that are
relevant and interesting to the learner" (p. 1).
