Chapter 2 section 2.4, so here I only highlight the domains of this model that were used in this study. According to this model, teachers’ professional growth (change) is a gradual, continuous process which occurs in four distinctive spheres of influence of a teacher, namely: the external domain (ED), the personal domain (PD), the domain of practice (DP) and the domain of consequences (DC). Changes in teachers’ knowledge in these domains can only be achieved through the processes of ‘reflection’ and ‘enactment’, which are exemplified by the linking
181
arrows on Figure 7.1. The various process links of reflections and enactments between the domains reveal the complexity of the teachers’ change or growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).
Figure 7.1: The interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth: Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002, p. 951)
The authors of this model argue that the term ‘reflection’ is the process by which an active teacher cautiously and continuously reflects on new experiences provided by the professional activity. On the other hand, ‘enactment’ is used to emphasise the specific action taken to demonstrate a new idea, belief or a new pedagogic practice acquired by the teacher, as modelled by the professional activity (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).
7.3.1 How the IMTPG was used to analyse the teacher knowledge change
Due to the complexity of the IMTPG and the scope of this study, it was necessary to analyse the data in five levels. Guided by research question 3 and the principles of teaching FAL, I carefully read the interview responses and mapped the domains of knowledge onto the literacy knowledge. As a result, ‘seven specific aspects’ in the personal, propositional and practical
182
domains of teacher knowledge were generated. These aspects were the coding criteria for the nature of teachers’ change.
Table 7.1 presents the seven aspects of the three domains of teacher knowledge - the criteria used to engage with the data.
Table 7.1: Aspects of the domains of teacher knowledge generated to analyse the data Domains Aspects of the teachers’ domains of knowledge
1.Personal Knowledge
a) Beliefs about the ideal literacy lesson, roles of the teacher and the learners b) Teachers’ personal teaching experiences
2. Propositional Knowledge
a)Theories of emergent literacy b) Principles of bilingualism c)Theories of reading 3.Practical
Knowledge
a) Opportunities and strategies for building vocabulary, oral sentence fluency and writing b) Classroom management to enhance meaningful teaching & learning
These explicit aspects of the domains of teacher knowledge were identified, marked with different markers and then tagged to the teachers’ statements (views) on ‘what’ they said about their learning. The main purpose was to gain insights into which of and how the domains of teacher knowledge changed (or did not change), within the 18 months of learning from the ACT programme. Where the teachers’ knowledge had changed - according to what the teachers said, validated by classroom observations and other contextual evidences - the ‘nature’ of change was certain. The findings are offered in section 7.4 to 7.6.
In the next levels of analysis, it is important to understand the difference between the four domains of the IMTPG – which is the tool of analysis and the four domains of change (defined changes which were coded within the domains of the IMTG). These integrated concepts should not be confused with the three domains of teacher knowledge (plus their aspects) coded from the data.
The second level of this analysis was to give the IMTPG an empirical underpinning. Each of the marked teachers’ statements were read again for clarity and to identify the recurrence of aspects. Then identified statements from the teachers’ stories were ‘pegged’ to the four change domains of IMTPG, namely: external source of information or stimulus, which for this study is the ACT programme (in the external domain), teacher’s personal knowledge (in the personal domain), teaching of English literacy (in the practice domain) and salient outcomes of the new knowledge or teaching (in the domain of consequences), as presented inside the domain circles
183
in Figure 7.2. The arrows (routes or pathways of change) within the teachers’ four domains are connected by the nine arrows (1-9) also illustrated in figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: The IMTPG illustrating the change mediating processes within the domains. Adapted from Clarke &
Hollingsworth (2002, p. 957)
The nine arrows (routes of change) illustrate the reflection and enactment processes which facilitate change in each domain of the IMTPG (see fig 7.1 and 7.2). In addition, the arrows indicate the direction of specific knowledge change experienced. For instance, mediating process link 1 represents a specific action or concept/s such as a balanced approach of reading, which was reflected by the teacher ‘in’ the personal domain ‘from’ the ACT programme (in the external domain). The use of meaningful group work modelled by the ACT programme (in the external domain) was enacted ‘in’ the domain of practice during EFAL lesson (shown by arrow 3). The arrows (route of change) and domains of the model are presented in an interactive manner to illustrate the complexity of teacher learning (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Justi &
van Driel, 2006; Opfer & Pedder, 2011).
This complex coding presented a methodological challenge on how to determine specific nature of change since the three domains of teacher knowledge had seven aspects and so several