2.3. Teacher learning communities
2.3.2. International perspectives of teacher learning communities
29
new roles, for example in curriculum leadership, and in creating and sharing stories of individual and community success (Darling-Hammond, 1998, Stoll et al., 2006, Hargreaves et al., 2013 and Chow, 2015).
2. 3 .1. 7. Group as well as individual learning is promoted
This characteristic of TLCs seems to integrate both individual and collective learning. Stoll et al. (2006) explain this characteristic in relation to the TLC that is within the school. “All teachers in a TLC are learners with their colleagues, and collective learning is evident through collective knowledge creation whereby the school community interacts, engages in serious dialogue and deliberates about information and data, interpreting it communally and distributing it among them” (Stoll et al., 2006, p. 227). Teachers learn in interaction with students, colleagues and external experts. Henze et al. (2009) also state that when teachers learn in interaction, they engage in different learning activities such as communicating with students in class, sharing new ideas and materials. According to these authors, learning in interaction also involves teachers’ joint work as subject committees in preparing lessons, co- teaching and writing teaching methods. However, the literature on teacher learning communities and social learning theories seems to focus on collective learning as if it is only group learning that occurs in TLCs. Individual learning is promoted when teachers interact with the resources such as books. In relation to group and collaborative learning, Ciampa and Gallagher (2015) argue that TLCs support collaborative learning performance in individual knowledge development and also in group knowledge sharing (p. 885).
This section has explored the definition of the concept of teacher learning communities and the characteristics of a PLC/ TLC. The following section discusses TLCs in relation to the empirical studies undertaken on TLCs internationally.
30
are formed as per education policies of a country. This is evident from the research undertaken in tandem with a development project initiated by a Scottish Education Authority, The Highland Council. In Scotland an Associated Schools Group (ASG) is a subject specific teacher network. These were established in 2006 to 2007 on the basis of the Scottish Government Framework for learning teaching. The ASG brought “together secondary school teachers in English, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Languages, Science and Social subjects and each group was coordinated by a subject leader. The groups adhered to some characteristics of TLCs such as collaborative practices which were then taken back to teachers’ classroom and wider school community” (Priestly et al., 2011 , p. 275). The findings of this study suggest that the model enjoyed a degree of success in inculcating changes. However, it emerged that more needs to be done to address systemic issues, such as the pervasive influence of a narrow attainment agenda shaping classroom practices (Priestly et al., 2011, p. 265). Furthermore, the findings also suggest that where strong leadership was less evident, the teachers reported that it was the source of frustration for participating teachers and was the reason for disengagement of some teachers from the groups. This situation suggests that leadership in TLCs is an important aspect; it can promote engagement or disengagement of TLCs’ members. Leadership in this study is highlighted because leadership plays an important role in the formation and the functioning of the TLC.
Many international research studies on teacher learning give a great deal of evidence that teachers learn when they are members of learning communities. For example, McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) studied school-based learning communities for more than 15 years. The findings of their study show that school-based communities are uniquely situated between macro or system level directives and the resources and micro realities of teachers’ classrooms (Lieberman & Mace, 2008). In their letter which was addressed to the president of United States, Lieberman and Mace (2008) analysed two different situations that prevail in two schools, namely Brandeis and Mills (Lieberman & Mace, 2008). In the first school Brandeis, teaching strategies were individualized, dependent on teachers’ choices. In contrast with this, Mills’ teaching strategies were collectivized, interdisciplinary and project based. In this comparison, Lieberman and Mace (2008) find that teachers of Mills school learnt better than teachers of Brandeis school. This is in line with PLC findings of the study which was conducted by Henze et al. (2009) in Netherlands, which suggests that teachers who learnt collaboratively kept engaged in specific professional learning activities for longer periods and
31
felt more often confident at a start of the innovation compared to those teachers who learnt mainly individually (Henze, Verloop & van Driel, 2009, p.196).
There is also evidence from international literature on teacher learning that describes learning in professional learning communities that are outside the school context. Lieberman and Mace (2010), in their evaluative literature based on teacher learning in the 21st century, wrote about the National Writing Project (NWP). The NWP has existed for more than 30 years in more than 200 sites in United States of America. From these 200 sites, Lieberman and Wood (2000) studied two sites of NWP, one urban and one rural. The study found that “the practices that occurred during the summer institute, helped teachers see that working together was a powerful way to learn about their own and other practices because during the institute, teachers learned to share their best strategies, learn from others, become writers themselves and be open to learning as a lifelong process” (Lieberman & Mace, 2010, p.78).
In some countries, such as Canada, United States of America and New Zealand, online professional learning communities are assuming an increasing role in teacher professional development. This increasing role of online of professional learning is evident in Mackey and Evans (2011), who explore networks of practice for professional learning in New Zealand.
The online professional learning communities “employ communication technologies to foster collaborative process, interaction and social construction of knowledge” (Markey and Evans, 2011. p. 2). Another study on online professional learning communities, found that communication via computer platforms enabled the mutual sharing of information among the teachers, as well as the planning and documenting of tasks and teaching units (Elster, 2010).
International studies (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Butler, Schenellert & Kimberly, 2015;
Halbert & Kaser, 2012) on TLCs seem to put more emphasis on TLCs that are within the school context. In these school-based TLCs the teachers learn different types of knowledge through collaboration with each other. For example, the findings of the study on TLCs undertaken in East Melbourne, report that teachers identify student needs, pose questions, develop criteria for monitoring progress, and they also draw resources to enhance their own learning and embed new powerful ideas in practice (Halbert & Kaser, 2012). In other TLCs in the international context, teachers engage in TLCs in order to learn to implement mandated agendas of the education administrators. Butler et al. (2015) put it in this way; teachers’
engagement in TLCs is a valuable means of fostering educational changes. This came from their study in a school district in Western Canada. The education leaders were seeking to
32
advance adolescent literacy in subject- area classrooms. Some of the findings of this study showed that 28 of 40 participants reported that they learn: “how to better ground practice in theory, principles, knowledge or values” (Butler, Schenellert & Kimberly, 2015, p.15).
Interestingly, the findings of this study also report that:
The vast majority of teachers seemed comfortable with their positions as agents within the district-level initiative, they were taking actions, on their own and together, to have impact in their schools, and perceived themselves as capable of achieving valued goals for students’ and colleagues’ development (Butler,
Schenellert & Kimberly, 2015, pp.15- 16).
The above quote seems to suggest that teachers are agents of change within a TLC that is initiated by the education authorities. In most cases the TLCs are seen to be successful when they are initiated by teachers themselves.
The next section discusses the South African context of teacher learning communities.
2. 3. 3. South African perspectives of teacher learning in teacher learning communities
This section draws from the local studies on teacher learning communities and South Africa Education policies. In South Africa, there is evidence that teacher learning communities are flourishing in some schools. Teacher learning in TLCs as a model of CPD seems to have gained momentum in the last 15 years. For example, Graven’s (2002) study of the community of Mathematics, investigated teacher learning in relation to preparation for curriculum change and Maistry’s (2008) study focused on Economic and Management Sciences (EMS) teachers.
These two studies were initiated by the researchers, and used Wenger’s (1998) model as a theoretical framework to understand how learning happens in a community of practice. The findings have highlighted the potential that teacher learning communities have for teacher development. For example, in the study of Economic and Management Science (EMS) teachers, “Teachers were able to describe the new EMS curriculum in more practical ways and could articulate benefits they had identified” (Maistry, 2008.p.137). This evidence from EMS teachers tells us that these teachers learnt curriculum knowledge and content knowledge in a socially situated way. These two studies focused on primary school teachers. There is
33
also a recently published book, edited by Brodie and Borko (2016) which brings together a range of recent South African studies on professional learning communities. Many of these PLCs include university academics and NGOs as well as teachers.
In South African policy documents, teacher learning communities are also referred to as clusters or teacher networks, which are generally initiated by the DBE for the purpose of supporting and monitoring policy reform. The literature on teacher clusters in the South African context reports that clustering started as early as the 1980s and early 1990s among non-governmental organisations (NGOs), teacher organisations and subject associations (Jita
& Ndlalane, 2009, p. 58). After 1994, teachers’ clusters were formed in various subjects. The clusters are led by the subject advisors and cluster coordinators. The clusters seem to be considered as a reform unit for facilitating the moderation of continuous assessment. There have been studies on clusters that were conducted in Mpumalanga province (Jita & Ndlalane, 2009; Jita & Mokhele, 2012; De Clercq & Phiri, 2013; Jita & Mokhele, 2014). One of these studies suggests that in the Mpumalanga province there are clusters that are not only used for CASS moderation only but they are also used for school-based, in-service education. This was evident from the findings of a study on cluster approach to professional development, which reports that teachers in their clusters (Mathematics and Natural Science) were able to collaborate and share their experiences (Jita & Mokhele, 2014, p.12). A key question is to what extent clusters in fact display the characteristics of PLCs and thus can be said to actually be operating as PLCs.
Furthermore, the South African study on teachers’ experiences of the grade ten Economics curriculum, undertaken by Mtshali (2009), also gives evidence that some South African teachers are members of clusters that seem to operate like TLCs. Mtshali (2009) states that Economics clusters were established in terms of the DBE (2001) with an aim of monitoring continuous assessment of grade 12. The findings of this study reveal that Economics clusters offer teachers a platform to share common problems and experiences by way of discussing and arranging team teaching. Drawing from the experiences of the participants in the study, Mtshali (2009) made several recommendations. One of his recommendations is that the Department of Education, in consultation with organisations who have an interest in Commerce education, should consider establishing a teachers’ association that administers the teaching of Economics in various regions, such as the National Council on Economic Education (NCEE) in the United States of America.
34
There is increasing attention paid to teacher learning communities as a major lever for improving teachers’ work (DBE & DHET, 2011). Servage (2009) notes that PLCs as a model of continuous professional development (CPD) have emerged within the public policy contexts that are shaping educators’ experience with public education in some very deliberate ways. This is evident from the South African context of PLCs. In South Africa, using PLCs as a model of CPD stems from the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development (DBE & DHET, 2011). PLCs are communities that provide the setting and necessary support for groups of classroom teachers, school managers, and subject advisors, to participate collectively in determining their own developmental trajectories, and set up activities that will drive their development (DBE and DHET 2011, p.14). The ISPFTED states that the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD) will support the work of the PLC by developing activities and material that can help to sustain their work, and the District Teacher Development Centre (DTDC) will serve as the central meeting venue for the PLCs as they will be adequately resourced to support PLC activities (DBE & DHET, 2011, p.14).While these international studies suggest that PLCs should be initiated by teachers, the ISPFTED policy seems to suggest that the PLCs in South Africa are initiated by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). This is evident from the recent DBE document entitled ‘Professional Learning Communities: A guideline for South African schools’ (DBE, 2015) which provides the guidelines to set up, maintain and ensure PLCs work effectively.
As mentioned earlier in Chapter One, the DBE (2015) identifies nine role players of the PLCs According to the DBE and DHET (2011) the role of teachers in the PLCs is also linked to Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS). IQMS evaluate an educator’s performance, identify specific needs for support and development, and provide support for continued growth, to promote accountability and to monitor an institution’s overall effectiveness (Mestry, Hendricks & Bisschoff, 2009, p. 479). The PLCs are linked to IQMS, in that the IQMS will help teachers identify their professional development needs and then engage in PLCs to address these needs.