2.3. Teacher learning communities
2.3.1. Characteristics of PLCs
2.3.1.1. Shared values and vision
According to Thomas (2006), TLCs have a shared vision and sense of purpose which is centrally important in the TLCs. In the South African context, policy states that a shared vision and clear focus on ensuring learning for pupils, constitutes highly quality teaching and learning (DBE and DHET, 2011, p. 14). In other words, members of a TLC take ownership of the values. A shared value base provides a framework for “shared collective, ethical decision making” (Stoll et al., 2006, p. 226).
24
2. 3.1.2. Collective responsibility
Collective responsibility in a TLC suggests that members of the TLC come together to build a collective understanding of how all their learners learn, and to improve it (DBE & DHET 2011, p. 14). The international literature also states that members of a TLC consistently take collective responsibility for student learning (Stoll et al., 2006). A study on TLCs suggests that collective responsibility helps to sustain commitment, to put peer pressure and accountability on those members who do not do their fair share, and to ease isolation (William, 2007, Stoll et al., 2006). The literature (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Servage, 2009) on teacher learning communities states that “communities or teacher networks provide the social and intellectual context in which teachers at all points along the professional life span can take critical perspectives on their own assumptions as well as theory and research of others and jointly construct local knowledge” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 283).
Agreeing with Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), Servage (2009) states that teacher learning communities are the sites of learning that provide some professional autonomy when the learning content is pre-determined. The question is: Who determines the content that should be learnt in teacher learning communities? Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) further highlight that when a group of teachers and others come together to learn, there are issues related to negotiating agenda, sharing power and decision making, representing the work of the group, and dealing with the inevitable tensions of individuals and collective purpose and view point.
2. 3.1. 3. Reflective professional inquiry
Reflective professional inquiry in the context of TLCs refers to what Stoll et al. (2006) call reflective dialogue, which includes serious conversation about serious education issues or problems involving the application of new knowledge in a sustained manner. The literature states that conversations include frequent examining of teacher practice and joint planning for curriculum development. Furthermore, during the interaction, the “tacit knowledge is then converted into shared knowledge” (Stoll et al., 2006, p. 226).
2. 3. 1. 4. Collaboration
One body of research documents collaboration as an important characteristic of a TLC.
According to Stoll et al. (2006, p. 227), collaboration involves teachers in developmental activities with consequences for several people going beyond superficial exchange of help, support, or assistance. Hermansen and Nerland (2014) highlight that the ways in which new
25
pedagogical ideas are operationalized depend on how teachers negotiate and invest meaning into what is being introduced, and existing practices. The DBE (2015) in the South African PLCs Guide for Schools states that effective PLCs encourage opening up one’s classrooms through peer learning, team teaching, observations and mentoring. Hargreaves et al. (2013) maintains that observing peers teaching is a core TLC practice because it supports the de- privatisation of practice, fosters accountability among participants and focuses directly on classroom teaching and learning.
The success of collaboration in TLCs depends on its nature. Hargreaves (1994) identifies two types of collaboration, namely collaborative cultures and contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 1994). The following Table 1 shows Hargreaves’ (1994, p. 192-199) explanation of the nature of collaborative cultures and contrived collegiality.
26
Collaborative cultures Contrived collegiality
Spontaneous. Collaborative cultures emerge from the teachers themselves as a social group. They may be administratively supported and facilitated by helpful scheduling arrangements by educational leaders.
Collaborative working relationship evolves from and is sustained through teaching community.
Administratively regulated. Contrived collegiality does not evolve spontaneously from initiative of teachers, but is an administrative imposition that requires teachers to meet and work together.
Voluntary. Collaboration arises not from
administrative constraint or compulsion but from the perceived value among teachers that derives from experience, inclination or non-coercive persuasion that working together is both enjoyable.
Compulsory. Contrived collegiality makes working together a matter of compulsion as in mandatory peer coaching, team teaching and collaborative planning arrangements. Teachers are forced in one way or other to attend the collaborative meetings.
Development-oriented. In collaborative cultures, teachers work together primarily to develop initiatives of their own or to work on externally supported or mandated initiatives to which they themselves have a commitment. In collaborative cultures, teachers most often establish the tasks and purposes for working together, rather than meet to implement the purpose of others. When they have to respond to external mandates, they do so selectively, drawing on their professional confidence and
discretionary judgement as a community.
Implementation- oriented. Under the condition of contrived collegiality, teachers are required or persuaded to work together to implement the mandates of others. Such mandates may take the form of the national curriculum, accelerated learning programmes or co-operative learning strategies.
Pervasive across time and space. In collaborative cultures teachers schedule activity that can be administratively fixed as taking place at a designated time in a designated place. Their meetings and planning sessions may form part of collaborative cultures but they do not dominate the arrangements for working together.
Fixed in time and space. Contrived collegiality takes place at particular places at particular times. This is part of its administrative regulation.
Predictable. Contrived collegiality is designed to have relatively high predictability in its outcomes.
However, this cannot be guaranteed.
Unpredictable. Because, in collaborative cultures, teachers have discretion and control over what will be developed, the outcomes of collaboration are often uncertain and not easily predicted.
Table 1: Differences between collaborative cultures and contrived collegiality (adapted from Hargreaves 1994, p. 192-199)
The collaborative cultural perspective involves collaboration that emerges from teachers themselves. Collaborative cultures involve evolutionary relationships characterised by openness, trust and support among the participating teachers (Hargreaves, 1994; Jita &
27
Mokhele, 2012). The contrived collegiality is characterised by administrative regulation of the teacher collaborations, where district officials of education departments provide instructions and set agendas and goals of such collaboration (Jita & Mokhele 2012).
Collaborative cultures seem to be an important ingredient of effective TLCS. This is evident from several international studies which examine collaborative activities. For example, Chow’s (2015) study findings reveal that difficulties associated with development of TLCs arose mainly from the lack of culture of collaboration.
Some researchers such as Servage (2009) and Jita and Mokhele (2012) use the term contrived collegiality to refer to micro-political perspectives, and collaborative culture referring to cultural perspectives. Jita and Mokhele (2012), in the study on institutionalising teachers’
clusters in the South African context, use Hargreaves (1994) for developing analytic work on micro-political and cultural perspectives for understanding human relationships. In line with Hargreaves (1994), Servage (2009) states that the micro-political perspective is in favour of contrived collegiality. The micro-political perspective posits that the ideology regulates professional behaviour from within by shaping how teachers construct their professional identities. The learning activity in the micro-political perspectives tends to be managerial driven so teacher learning community may have limited activities that best lend themselves to standardisation such as assessment, reporting practices, interventions protocols and pedagogical best practices (Servage, 2009).
2. 3. 1. 5. Regularity
This characteristic talks about regularity of the meetings or workshops for the TLCs. The members of TLCs meet regularly. The meetings can be formal and informal. The research study conducted by William (2007) on changing classroom practices suggests that members use their established goals; they meet regularly to engage in discussion about tasks and topics in order to effect changes in teaching and learning. The international research studies show that technology can be used instead of physical meetings of TLCs. TLCs have expanded into the digital realm, and have become on-line learning communities (OLCs) (Calhoun & Green, 2015, p. 56). According to Calhoun and Green (2015) the online teacher learning communities use voice over the internet protocol technologies, such as Skype and Google Hangout, for visual exchanges of information. Conversation is also conducted through text.
This regularity of meetings of TLC members is another aspect that differentiates the TLC as a
28
model of professional development from the traditional CPD models which normally have once off sessions with teachers.
2. 3. 1. 6. Leadership
Leadership support and opportunities for distributed leadership are additional characteristics of TLCs. Distributed leadership means that leadership is distributed amongst the members of the TLCs. Priestley, Miller, Barrett and Wallace (2011) highlight the importance of teachers’
political participation in the decision making process. In relation to decision-making, the literature states that the organisation of TLCs can allow greater or lesser participant choice and decision- making power. Table 2 shows three examples of different landscapes of subject leadership in teacher learning communities
Congenial leadership Shared leadership Paternalistic leadership An accommodating
imperative
A learning imperative A managerial imperative Concern for people and
relationships
Concern for growth and empowerment
Concern for control and accountability
Bereft of leadership Open boundaries for leadership Closed boundaries for leadership Private and individual
knowledge
Distributed and hierarchical knowledge
Centralized and hierarchical knowledge
Haphazard and ineffectual Transformational Transactional Evasive in Exercising power Exercising power with and
through
Exercising power over
Table 2: Landscape of Leadership in TLCs (Adapted from Chow, 2015)
The TLCs outside of the school context have facilitators who are described as servant leaders who highlight the value of members’ contributions, and guide teachers into a state of interdependency and reciprocity (Calhoun & Green, 2015, p. 60). According to literature the TLCs have a “facilitator, but not a guru” (William, 2007, p. 40). William (2007) then elaborates that a facilitator in a TLC is someone who needs to be in charge to make sure that the meetings happen, that there is a room available, that the refreshments are provided, that the agenda is followed and so on. However, it is important not to set the expert person as an expert whose job is to tell the rest of the group what to do (William, 2007, p. 40). Hence distributed leadership is suggested to be a “powerful lever” (Priestley et al., 2011, p.269) in developing innovation in TLCs when leaders assume collegial figures rather than authoritarian leaders. The literature suggests that in order to enable the TLCs to grow into collaborative learning and knowledge sharing communities, there should be adequate infrastructure for team learning opportunities. These are possibilities for members to play
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.