During my search for literature and theory to assist in the formulation of the research questions and to guide in developing the methodologies, I realised the propositions or explanatory understanding of teacher learning described by the complexity learning theory (Opfer &
Pedder, 2011) were the appropriate concepts for this study. Though the concepts provided an impeccable way of understanding teacher learning, they were not detailed enough as tools for multiple data analysis. So, I decided to use the complexity theory at a macro level due to its strength in explaining the teacher learning phenomenon.
There are a number of reasons which made the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) a useful analytical tool for this study. Firstly, the fact that the model assumes a non-linear approach and accords to the existing evidence of teacher change offered by several scholars (Guskey, 1986, 2002) makes it essential. It builds on the four domains from Guskey’s concepts of teacher change, but with different interactive variables which match teacher learning as a continuous complex process. In addition, good theories and conceptual frameworks seek to make sense of a given phenomenon and build on existing theories (Maree, 2012).
46
Secondly, the model identifies specific mechanisms of change which motivated me to apply it as my lens to understand teacher change, which is the focus of this study. The model recognises and clearly explains specific change sequences and growth networks and recognises distinctive and individualised teacher growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). Thirdly, from my research of various theoretical frameworks and applications, I realised that there are several studies which support teacher development, a professional growth process, using current theories. In particular, I found only one article which applied this model to explore science teacher change from a continuing professional development programme, in the Netherlands. The fact that it is empirically grounded makes this model powerful and an appropriate analytical tool to understand the kind of teacher change experienced by the three FP teachers during their 18 months of learning from the ACT programme offered at UKZN.
According to this model, teacher change can be interpreted in different ways, which echoes the interpretivist approach. However, for this particular study, teacher change is seen from a
‘growth or teacher learning’ perspective. The definition of teacher learning is detailed in Chapter Two, section 2.2. “Change as growth or learning [is where] teachers change inevitably through professional activity, teachers themselves, learners who work in a learning community” (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p. 948).
This model assumes that teachers’ professional ‘world’ is established by four major domains namely, the external domain; personal domain; domain of practice; and domain of consequences. When a specific change occurs in any of these four domains, it influences another domain through growth networks. This change linkage in the four domains is facilitated through the processes of “reflection” and “enactment” which are represented by linking arrows (growth network) in Figure 2.3.
47
Figure 2.3: The interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth: Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002, p. 951)
The various pathways of reflections and enactments between the domains reveal the complexity of the teachers’ change or growth. Any form of professional change experienced in any of the domains is influenced by the contextual factors (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).
The authors of this model argue that the term ‘reflection’ is the process by which an active teacher cautiously and continuously reflects on the new experiences provided by the professional activity. On the other hand, ‘enactment’ is used to describe the specific action taken to demonstrate a new idea, belief or a new pedagogical practice acquired by the teacher, as modelled by the professional activity (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). The specific change sequence is presented by interlinking arrows which are either reflective or enactive links connecting two or more domains.
2.6.1 Nature of the teacher change: Growth networks and change sequence
Teacher change takes two forms - a growth network and a change sequence of two or more domains (the definitions are provided below), with either a reflective or enactive links connecting these domains, where empirical data supports both the occurrence of change in each domain and their causal connection (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002. p. 958). This implies that when change occurs in one domain through the process of reflection or enaction, this change
48
may be experienced in another domain. According to Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002), growth networks refer to a teacher change which is ongoing and lasting. Such a change demonstrates more than two linkage networks through the process of reflection or enaction within the domains involved. A change sequence, on the other hand, presents a single linkage which quickly disappears (or is temporal). This kind of distinction is crucial for it helps to identify and distinguish the kind of change that the teachers experience. Some teachers may experience a change sequence, which is temporal, while others may experience growth networks which are sustainable. The model explains teacher learning and change in complex ways because it takes into account the following factors:
Teacher change is not linear in nature, but is a gradual, continuous and complex process.
The process of change consists of several routes by which change in one domain leads to change in another.
Teacher change occurs through the processes of reflection and enactment that link the four domains.
Any form of teacher change occurs within the benefits and limitations experienced in the teacher’s context of learning and practice.
However, in this study, it was not possible to incorporate the aspects of growth networks and change sequence to distinguish the kind of change experienced by the teachers, due to the time factors. The data were only collected for 18 months, which was a short duration to identify the teachers’ change as lasting (a growth of network) or temporal (change sequence). Thus, to identify the kind of teacher change, I designed similar criteria to code the nature of teacher change from the beginning to the end of the programme. Details of the application of this model are presented in Chapter Seven, section 7.3. If this model is accurate, then teacher learning is a vital and on-going process in teachers’ professional lives and the following requirements need to be taken into account, in order to refine the current professional development programmes:
Teacher change is a complex and slow process which depends on contextual learning opportunities. Therefore, a professional development activity should not expect a uniform response from the participants. For this study, this model provided an opportunity to capture the nature of the individual change which teachers experienced during the teacher learning process and which was aligned to the two presentations of change (growth networks or change sequence).
49
The participants should receive regular feedback on their learning progress. Since the model assumes complex approaches to understanding teacher learning, I used multiple methods of collecting data and three different analytical tools to capture, as much as possible, the teachers’ perceptions and actual practices.
Professional development activities should provide continuous follow-up and support, as well as positive encouragement. The ACT programme, through the delivery of mixed mode materials, encourages active participation through classroom-based assignments and tasks. This positively influenced the FP teachers towards achieving their goals of higher professional qualification and improving their pedagogical experiences.
However, the programme does not offer any other form of follow-up after the formal 18 months of learning.