characteristics of effective professional development for early career science teachers
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 17:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20
Characteristics of effective professionaldevelopment for early career scienceteachersShirley Simon a , Sandra Campbell a , Sally Johnson a & FaniStylianidou aa Institute of Education , University of London , London, UKPublished online: 11 Mar 2011.
To cite this article: Shirley Simon , Sandra Campbell , Sally Johnson & Fani Stylianidou (2011)Characteristics of effective professional development for early career science teachers, Research inScience & Technological Education, 29:1, 5-23, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2011.543798
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2011.543798
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 29, No. 1, April 2011, 5–23
ISSN 0263-5143 print/ISSN 1470-1138 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02635143.2011.543798http://www.informaworld.com
Characteristics of effective professional development for early career science teachers
Shirley Simon*, Sandra Campbell, Sally Johnson and Fani Stylianidou
Institute of Education, University of London, London, UKTaylor and FrancisCRST_A_543798.sgm10.1080/02635143.2011.543798Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 (print)/1470-1138 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis291000000April [email protected]
The research reported here set out to investigate the features in schools and sciencedepartments that were seen as effective in contributing to the continuingprofessional development (CPD) of early career science teachers. Ten schoolstook part in the study, selected on the basis of their reputation for having effectiveCPD practices. To gain different perspectives from within the organisations weconducted interviews with senior members of staff, heads of science departmentsand early career teachers. A thematic analysis of the interviews is presented,drawing on findings from across the 10 schools, and exemplified in more detail bya vignette to show specific features of effective CPD practice. The study hasrevealed a wealth of practice across the 10 schools, which included a focus onbroadening experience beyond the classroom, having an open, sharing, non-threatening culture and systemic procedures for mentoring and support thatinvolved ring-fenced budgets. The schools also deployed staff judiciously incritical roles that model practice and motivate early career science teachers. Earlycareer teachers were concerned primarily with their overall development asteachers, though some science specific examples such as observing practical workand sessions to address subject knowledge were seen as important.
Keywords: professional development; mentoring; science teachers; sharingculture
Introduction
In recent years both in the UK and globally there have been concerns about the qualityof science teaching in schools and its impact on the uptake of science by young peoplegoing on to further and higher education (Millar and Osborne 1998; Osborne and Dillon2008). The problem of young people’s declining interest in science was highlighted inthe data of the Norwegian Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) project (Sjøbergand Schreiner 2005), in which the attitudes of students aged 15–16 years towards schoolscience were surveyed in over 20 countries. The study showed an increasingly negativeresponse to the question ‘I like school science better than other subjects’ the more devel-oped the society. Concerns in the UK were reported extensively by a House of Lords(2006) Select Committee, which led to a number of recommendations for enhancingthe pay and in-service conditions of science teachers. The aim was to promote recruit-ment and retention of good teachers who would motivate young peoples’ engagementwith science. This report also placed emphasis on the need to provide professionaldevelopment opportunities that would model best practice and stimulate motivation forscience teachers in their career development. The House of Lords Report called upon
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
6 S. Simon et al.
the Training and Development Agency (TDA) to fund and support the ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) of science teachers through various initiatives,emphasising the role of senior and experienced teachers in modeling practice, and ofschools communicating with other schools to share best practice.
In the years following the House of Lords reports the TDA undertook the dissem-ination of effective practice in CPD. The research reported here arose from one suchTDA funded proposal to investigate the characteristics of effective CPD experiencedby early career science teachers. This TDA proposal was taken up by research teamsworking with the Science Learning Centres in England, which are government fundedcentres providing CPD for science teachers nationally. The authors worked with theScience Learning Centre in London (SLCL) to set up a study in London schools toexplore features of effective CPD for science teachers, as perceived by teachers in theschools.
The TDA focus was primarily on pre-service teachers and early career profession-als to establish a knowledge base of effective CPD practice that would inform therecruitment and retention of science teachers. In setting out to address the TDArequirement, the research team reviewed existing studies of professional developmentin science education, for example those involving assessment for learning (Black et al.2003) and cognitive acceleration in science education (Adey et al. 2004). These stud-ies included measures of effectiveness in terms of changes in student outcomes (Joyceand Showers 1988); however such measures were not required in this study, as thefocus was on identifying features of schools that were already known to have effectiveprofessional development. Factors leading to effective professional development thatwere found in these studies did inform our research, for example, Adey’s model showsthat time, support in classrooms, collegiality and senior management approval areimportant factors. It was of interest to see whether these and other factors were afeature of our schools. In summary, our focus was on schools and science departmentsthat had been identified by official inspection as having effective professional devel-opment practices, to determine the features occurring in these schools as perceived bysenior teachers and early career science teachers.
Professional development programmes that require teachers to change their beliefsand practices as part of the development process are more likely to be effective ifunderpinned by an understanding of teacher learning and educational change. Inaddressing the research brief, we were informed by a body of well-established inter-national literature on teacher learning (e.g., Bell and Gilbert 1996; Borko 2004; Clarkeand Hollingsworth 2002; Hoban 2002; Fraser et al. 2007) as well as research on CPDinitiatives (e.g., Bubb and Earley 2007) and educational change (Fullan 2001). We beginby presenting a brief review of key literature that has informed our perspective for thestudy, which includes models and research on ‘teacher learning’ and ‘professionaldevelopment’. It is useful to be clear about our interpretation of these terms, as therehas been much debate in the literature about their meaning and connotations; Hoban(2002), for example, rejects the term development as conveying a mechanistic, linearview of learning, characterised by one-off workshops that tend to reinforce existingpractice. Hoban argues for a paradigm based on complexity theory where teachersgenerate new ways to rethink and change existing practice within a professional learningsystem. We considered this view to be useful in the context of our study as it supportedour intention to interview people operating at different levels within the school commu-nity. A distinction made by Fraser and her colleagues (Fraser et al. 2007, 156–7) betweenthe terms teacher learning and professional development was also useful:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 7
Teachers’ professional learning can be taken to represent the processes that, whetherintuitive or deliberate, individual or social, result in specific changes in professionalknowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs or actions of teachers. Teachers’ professionaldevelopment, on the other hand, is taken to refer to the broader changes that may takeplace over a longer period of time resulting in qualitative shifts in aspects of teachers’professionalism.
This distinction has synergy with our interpretation of the work of Loucks-Horsleyet al. (2003), as these authors also refer to professional development in addressingbroader issues of designing programmes, as opposed to specific strategies for profes-sional ‘learning’ of teachers. In this study we are primarily concerned with professionaldevelopment, generally referred to in the UK as continuing professional development(CPD), as our focus is on the agenda set by schools in their provision for science teach-ers in their early and ongoing careers. However, embedded within perspectives onprofessional development are implicit views on teacher learning and how teachers canbest be supported in developing their practice.
In their review of effective practices in CPD in the UK, Porritt and Earley (2010)suggest that the language used in schools is important in order to avoid the encourage-ment of passivity that can arise from terms such as ‘provide’, ‘deliver’, ‘receive’ and‘run’, all of which suggest a mechanistic transactional process. They too argue for theterm professional development, with the caveat that ‘CPD leaders will want to decidewhich term is going to be best in their context to help bring about any necessary culturalchange’ (136). Our knowledge of the prevalence of such terms and views makes ussensitive to the ways in which CPD is set up in schools by leaders and how CPD issituated in the culture of the school. To investigate the characteristics of effective CPDfor pre-service and early career science teachers in schools it was important to focuson the perspectives of people at different levels within the school organisation. Weconducted interviews with senior members of staff, heads of science departments andearly career teachers, including newly qualified teachers (NQTs), and pre-serviceteachers. A thematic analysis of the interviews is presented, drawing on the findingsacross the 10 schools taking part in the study, and exemplified in more detail by avignette to show specific features of effective CPD practice. The proliferation of acro-nyms in this work is indicative of the times and a reflection of how our participantstalk about systemic processes; they work in complex social environments subject topolitical decision-making and a plethora of government initiatives.
Background
A study undertaken some years ago by Bell and Gilbert (1996), was based on a modelthat includes three intertwined domains of learning, the personal, professional andsocial, and focuses on how progress occurs in each of these three domains. The firststage occurs when teachers begin to see an aspect of their teaching as problematic(personal) and practicing in isolation as problematic (social), so they are motivated toseek out and try out new ideas in their practice (professional). As they progress in theirlearning they deal with feelings and concerns that come about as they behave differ-ently, for example loss of control, insecurity in subject knowledge, or uncertainty abouthow to intervene, and begin to change their ideas of what it means to be a scienceteacher (personal). They also begin to see the value of collaborative ways of working(social) and have confidence to develop their own ideas for classroom practice (profes-sional). Progressing further teachers feel empowered through increasing confidence
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
8 S. Simon et al.
(personal), they initiate or seek out collaboration (social) and eventually facilitate newkinds of professional development activities (professional). What makes this model sorelevant and enduring is that it arose from a study where teachers reconstructed theirunderstanding of what it means to be a teacher in fundamental ways. The model is rele-vant to all teachers, including science teachers, as they enter the profession and gainexperience. In the context of this study we were interested to identify ways in whichteachers made reference to CPD that fostered development personally, socially orprofessionally, both from the perspective of experienced teachers in their role ofproviding support, and by early career teachers accounting their experiences of CPD.As the TDA was concerned with identifying features of effective CPD, examples thatwould indicate advancement through the phases of this model would be particularlypertinent. As Gilbert (2010) has pointed out more recently, particularly supportive andchallenging professional environments may lead to faster development.
The link between the personal, professional and social aspects of teacher learningis prominent in studies of teacher change. Fraser et al. (2007) see change as comingabout through a process of learning that can be described in terms of transactionsbetween teachers’ knowledge, experience and beliefs on the one hand, and theirprofessional actions on the other. These authors also identify different contexts inwhich learning can take place, for example, formal opportunities such as those estab-lished for the teacher in CPD programmes, and informal such as incidental opportuni-ties which are spontaneous and unpredictable. Such distinctions were useful for ourstudy as teachers could make reference to a range of contexts in which learning couldtake place. Our knowledge of schools and science departments suggested that manyinformal opportunities lend themselves to teacher learning; it was of interest to seewhether our teachers would make reference to such opportunities and identify themas sources of effective professional development.
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002), also draw on both individual and professionalaspects of learning in their account of ‘professional growth’. From a cognitive perspec-tive teacher growth involves construction of knowledge in the personal domain of theindividual teacher, a perspective adopted in Shulman’s work on pedagogical contentknowledge (Shulman 1986). From a situated perspective teacher growth is constitutedthrough the evolving practices of the teacher (the professional domain). The need toconceptualise teacher learning from both perspectives is supported more widely in theliterature; Hoban (2002) draws attention to the importance of both cognitive and situatedperspectives in analysing teacher learning by taking into account individual processesas well as social and contextual influences; Borko (2004), in taking what she terms asituative perspective, also emphasises the need to consider both individual teacher-learners and the social systems in which they are participants. The recognition of bothcognitive and situated perspectives is important for understanding ways in which teach-ers may develop and be motivated. Science teachers do not operate in isolation, andmany initiatives to enhance professional development are school-based, it follows thatteacher learning can be perceived to take place through practices that are shared,discussed and evolved collaboratively within the school structure. We conceptualiseteacher learning as a complex combination of the individual teacher’s knowledgegrowth, the professional teacher practicing in a particular setting and the social teacherworking collaboratively with others in that setting.
The process of reflection has become an integral part of how we understandteacher learning and the provision of effective CPD. It occurs in many models, oftenas a fundamental process for stimulating change, as in Clarke and Hollingsworth’s
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 9
Interconnected Model (2002) where change is seen to occur through the mediatingprocesses of reflection and enactment. These authors’ use of the term ‘reflection’ orig-inates from Dewey’s notion of active, persistent and careful consideration where, forexample, a reflection and re-evaluation of outcomes can lead to an alteration inbeliefs. The idea of reflective practice became well established by Schön (1983), whoviews the reflective practitioner as an expert performer capable of skillful action.Experienced practitioners acting in their everyday practice demonstrate the kind ofknowledge, called ‘knowing-in-action’, that is tacit and which they depend on to workspontaneously. Schön used the term ‘reflection-on-action’ to indicate thinking aboutan event after it has occurred and it is this component of reflective practice that is usedin a general sense in the context of teacher learning. Building on Schön’s work, Ghayeand Ghaye (1998) provide insightful examples of reflective practice, particularly inrelation to the interpretation of standards for newly qualified teachers; they identifyfive distinct types of reflection-on-action, including critical reflection. Many otherauthors concerned with the nature of reflection have focused on different kinds ofreflection-on-action, for example, Hatton and Smith (1995) and Orland-Barak (2005)question what it means to be ‘critically reflective’. These authors suggest that criticalreflection occurs when practice is reviewed in the light of other forms of professionalknowledge. Reflection-on-action that critically examines practice can be constructivebut also unsettling. Ghaye and Ghaye (1998) link the process of critical reflection toempowerment, which is more likely to flourish in schools where there is no culture ofblame when things go wrong but a ‘culture of pride’ (116) and a collective commit-ment to continually ‘think again’ and improve children’s experiences. In our study wewere interested to see evidence of teachers talking in terms of cultural practices intheir schools, to determine whether effective CPD practices were seen to flourish inenvironments that were described in these cultural terms.
An important aspect of teachers’ professional development, particularly for earlycareer and pre-service teachers, is the role that mentoring plays in learning. Loughran(2006) points to the importance of mentoring in helping pre-service teachers studytheir own practice so that ‘alternative perspectives and possibilities become apparentand can be acted upon’ (170). Mentoring makes teacher learning a social process,which can be risky and uncomfortable as shortcomings and limitations are madepublic and open to scrutiny. Good mentoring needs to incorporate sensitivity andemotional support as well as critical commentary, models of practice and suitableclassroom contexts for learning (Calderhead and Shorrock 1997). A key aspect of ourinvestigation was to ascertain the experiences of professional development availablefor pre-service science teachers focusing on mentoring. Science departments that takeon pre-service teachers provide mentoring, but the quality can be variable. Studies ofhow departments operate socially (Siskin 1994) suggest that quite different environ-ments can exist, ranging from collaborative working and a commitment to sharedgoals, to split departments where groups of teachers have conflicting aims. As Searshas pointed out recently (2010), mentoring works best in collaborative systems. It wasof interest to see how mentoring was perceived in this study and how it depended oncultural factors, including a collaborative environment within the school and sciencedepartment.
For science pre-service and early career teachers, a major issue in their professionallearning is the development of subject knowledge, particularly as most science trainedteachers would be expected to teach across the sciences and many graduate in the sepa-rate sciences (Smithers and Robinson 2008). Further issues for science teachers include
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
10 S. Simon et al.
managing practical work in science or inquiry based science activities. These aspectsof teaching science are challenging for many science teachers to make purposeful andeffective (Abrahams and Millar 2008) and require particular support and professionaldevelopment for new teachers.
Research design and methods
As stated above, the aim of the research was to investigate professional developmentpractices in schools reputed to provide effective CPD, with a focus on pre-service andearly career science teachers. Our specific research question was as follows:
● How do teachers perceive school and departmental practices that contribute toeffective CPD for early career science teachers?
The project was initiated by identifying 35 London schools with a reputation foreffective CPD, as reported by official inspections and supported by recommendationsfrom teachers who work in partnership as mentors for pre-service teachers, or byconsultants employed by the national strategy for curriculum development. The deci-sion to focus on schools with effective CPD practice was determined by the dissemi-nation agenda of the TDA; the outcomes would be used to inform a wider body ofschools about typical practices for effective CPD. Eighteen schools were selectedfrom this set to represent different characteristics, for example, inner city and subur-ban locations across London. Each school had been reported by official inspections asbeing good, very good or outstanding. These reports were obtained from school websites, and typically stated ‘The school is successful in its concerted effort to securesuitable professional training and development opportunities as part of the school’sstrategy for improvement’. Of these 18 schools, 10 accepted our invitation to take partin the study, as shown in Table 1. These schools demonstrated a range of gender(many schools in London have only girls or boys). Some schools also had specialiststatus for science, technology or for training. Schools can apply for such status toobtain extra funds if they can demonstrate a particular expertise, but they also fulfilthe requirements of the national curriculum for all subjects and have professionaldevelopment programmes for all teachers.
Table 1. Schools taking part in the study.
Name Location Specialism Gender and age Inspection rating
A Suburban Technology Mixed 11–18 OutstandingB Suburban Science Mixed 11–18 OutstandingC Suburban None Mixed 11–16 Very goodD Suburban None Girls 11–16 GoodE Inner city None Mixed 11–18 Very goodF Suburban Technology Mixed 11–16 GoodG Suburban Science Mixed 11–18 OutstandingH Suburban Technology Boys 11–19 OutstandingI Inner city Training Girls 11–18 OutstandingJ Suburban Science Girls 11–18 Outstanding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 11
Semi-structured interviews were designed to address the research question andundertaken in each of the 10 schools by a member of the research team. Once a datehad been agreed for the visit, a schedule was organised so that four interviewees wouldbe available at different times in the day for the researcher to conduct individual inter-views. Interviews took place with either a member of the senior management team orthe CPD coordinator, the head of science, the subject mentor for pre-service teachers,and a recently qualified teacher in the science department. Where possible, theresearcher also interviewed a pre-service teacher. The design of the semi-structuredinterview schedule was based on the need to identify perspectives of effective practice.For staff in leadership positions, that is, senior managers, CPD coordinators and headsof science, the schedule included these questions:
● What are the key CPD issues in science for new teachers?● What constitutes highly effective CPD?● What systems are in place in your school/science department to support CPD?● Why do you think your provision in science has been identified as highly
effective?
The open questions were followed by probes to ascertain specific features ofsupport, mentoring, collaborative activity and provision for science. The interviewswere narrative in style, allowing for teachers to expand on areas they felt wereappropriate to portray their perceptions of effective CPD in the schools.
Likewise, for new practitioners or pre-service teachers, the interview question-stemswere:
● What in your view constitutes highly effective CPD?● What systems are in your school to support CPD?● Why do you think this provision in science has been identified as highly effective?● How do you know?
These interviews also included opportunities to probe for additional perspectiveson effective CPD practice. The interviews were conducted by all four members of theresearch team, who each took responsibility for different schools.
During each interview detailed notes were taken of interviewees’ responses andaudio-recordings were made to supplement the notes. Once each researcher hadlistened to the recordings and typed up the notes for the schools she had visited thesewere distributed to the other members of the research team for discussion. The analy-sis took the form of a grounded approach whereby for each interview, key factors wereidentified from the notes and extracted into a list, annotated by school. Our intentionwas to take a thematic approach once a master list covering all the factors had beencompiled. Though the identification of factors and themes was informed by ourknowledge of previous studies of CPD, such as that of Adey et al. (2004), and our ownextensive experience of CPD within the Science Learning Centre, our list was essen-tially grounded in our data. To organise the list as a team we decided that factors thatrelated to the whole school were listed under ‘school culture’, those related to thescience department were listed under ‘science department culture’, and others aboutsystemic practices for support were listed under ‘supportive systems and structures’.To create a master list of all the factors, each researcher added to the list in turn asthey examined their notes for each school. Where factors occurred that had already
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
12 S. Simon et al.
been identified, the school of origin was noted against that factor on the list, howevernew factors often arose for individual schools and these were added to the list by eachresearcher and annotated by school. The master list became several pages in length asall the schools and all the factors were captured for all the interviewees. There werealso critical roles exercised by key members of staff, such as advanced skills teachers(ASTs), that impacted on effective CPD practice, and so the heading ‘critical roles’was added to the list and factors relating to critical roles included. Most teachers withAST status spend some of their teaching time working outside their own school,usually on professional development activities relating to their subject, but also withteachers in their own schools.
The following notes from the interview with the head of science from School E aretaken from the recording of the interview. The factors she mentions that wereextracted on to the master list are shown in italics:
The head of science, V, had been head of the faculty for five years, and had taught inSchool E for 14 years. According to V, there was strong school leadership from thesenior management in the school which has impacted on professional development.Senior management use analysis of student performance results to provide a profes-sional development focus for the school. Recently, the need to improve literacy hasbeen identified for the school and this has been taken on as a whole school professionaldevelopment initiative.
The science staff in School E are ‘strong, very stable and with a wide range of expertiseand other responsibilities in the school’. Such strength and stability is reflected in goodretention of science teachers. In the last year only one member of staff (of 11) left thedepartment and one new teacher joined the school. Apart from this teacher only onemember of science staff has less than five years of teaching experience. Professionaldevelopment within the department has focused on new curriculum initiatives and theestablishment of new schemes of work to accommodate the changes in the sciencenational curriculum for 14- to 16-year-olds, and in particular to incorporate the new HowScience Works agenda (emphasising the nature of science) into their teaching. Thedepartment made a decision to remain working with their current choice of examinationsboard (AQA) as teachers were comfortable with its modular structure and they felt itsuited the students. Science teachers have also noted that science inquiry is a weakerarea of their teaching for 11- to 14-year olds and so this has been a further focus forimprovement through CPD. Much development occurs informally as there is an ‘open’culture in the science department, where teachers can freely observe each others’classrooms. V talked about ’open discussion throughout the department’.
Though the professional development for all science teachers is essentially internal,some teachers do go out on courses. V interviews members of department to set profes-sional development targets and CPD courses for individuals that will also benefit thedepartment. External professional development that members of the department haveundertaken is disseminated through faculty meetings every two weeks and alsoinformally at lunchtimes as the science department has a culture of eating together. V isgenerally reluctant to have teachers out of school for CPD courses ‘for the sake of thechildren’. It has to be linked to the teachers’ performance reviews and the schooldevelopment plan.
V explained that one member of the science department is an advanced skills teacher(AST). V’s view is that having an AST with non-contact time is critical also for internaldevelopment as ASTs can use this time to model strategies for less experienced teachersthrough team-teaching, for example concept development in science. The AST in V’sdepartment has been a local science advisor, a head of department in another school andan examinations board marker. She brings a wealth of experience to the department.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 13
V’s department has a strong tradition for mentoring newly qualified and pre-serviceteachers. Each term there are usually two pre-service science teachers in the departmentfrom the local university. There is also another pre-service teacher who is training withinthe school. V is a mentor for the school-based pre-service teacher and has delegatedmentoring of the university based pre-service teachers to her second-in-department, N.V characterises effective mentoring as including the following features:
● Pre-service teachers are given a ‘fair’ range of classes in terms of ability sets and yeargroups. If they teach a top ability set in Year 10, they will be encouraged to observelower ability sets in the same year.
● Pre-service teachers who have particular challenges are teamed with appropriate expe-rienced teachers, for example a pre-service teacher struggling with behaviour manage-ment strategies would be teamed with a teacher who uses a number of clearly observablebehaviour management strategies to good effect.
● Watching practical lessons, discussion of practice.● Open discussion of teaching and learning science that is considered to be ‘not hierarchi-
cal’, that is problems could arise for anyone. This openness promotes a willingness tohelp each other. As V expresses it: ‘We see the value of team work – without it, nothingworks’.
● Pre-service teachers shadow a member of the senior pastoral team for a day to gain adifferent perspective. They also shadow a student or class for the day. In the sciencedepartment care is taken to team up pre-service teachers with teachers who have exper-tise in a different specialist subject area so that they can readily discuss aspects of, say,physics with an experienced teacher. In this way pre-service teachers will be teamed upwith a teacher who has a strength in their area of weakness to show them good practicee.g. recently a pre-service teachers was teamed with a teacher who was considered to bea conscientious and effective marker.
● V also considers a good science mentor to be one who is ‘available and approachable’and ‘calm’. He or she needs to be organised with their own time so that they can findtime to discuss lessons with the pre-service teacher. They should be sufficiently flexibleto be open to new suggestions and different teaching styles. They should also be able tohelp the pre-service teacher see the bigger picture, such as an awareness of the impactthat a practical session that does not finish on time can have on other teachers andtechnicians.
The annotated master list of factors from across the schools was discussed withinthe research team and categorised to present major themes of effective CPD practiceunder each of the main headings described above (school culture, science departmentculture, supportive systems and structures, and also critical roles). These themes arereported in the results section below, and are followed by a vignette of one of theschools. This vignette has been chosen to highlight how particular themes are exem-plified by the interviewees in the school. To validate our interpretations a follow-upmeeting with representatives of science departments took place. The thematic analysisand vignettes for each school were shared with teachers and further details weresubsequently added to both analyses.
Results
In this section we present under six main themes the factors identified by all ourinterviewees as impacting on effective professional development of early career andpre-service science teachers. Most science teachers do not focus primarily on issuesrelating to their development as teachers of science, they are more concerned with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
14 S. Simon et al.
their development as teachers. However, there are some examples of science specificfactors which are included in the account.
Theme 1: broadening experience
Teachers, both senior and early career, identified ways in which the schoolencouraged them to take part in initiatives outside their department, for example,in cross-curricular contexts or in other schools. In one school this included exter-nal initiatives such as Raising Achievement Transforming Learning (RATL),where teachers from participating schools visit each other to observe and sharepractice. Some schools supported two to three days of external CPD for staff eachyear. Other experiences outside normal boundaries of departmental work includedworking alongside a teaching assistant in a different subject area, or working incross-curricular environments. The theme of broadening experience was a featureof effective CPD within science departments. Prominent within this theme wereexamples of new initiatives being welcomed, including taking part in researchprojects; two science departments were currently involved in a major researchproject based at the Institute of Education, London, on developing discussion andargumentation in science.
Other features of broadening experience included having outside speakers, forexample the local adviser for science, and exploring external CPD courses, includingScience Learning Centre courses, that were linked to identified needs. Sometimesdepartments were seen to be proactive in making community links, for example wherethe head of science or an advanced skills teacher (AST) in the department providedtraining for other schools, or teachers took part in initiatives with other schools,including primary schools. Further aspects of broadening experience within thedepartment included science subject knowledge twilight sessions (after school). Acritical feature of CPD enhancement within many departments was to devote time indepartment meetings to a CPD element, often focusing on feedback from those attend-ing CPD courses. Teachers also mentioned that CPD linked to whole school initiativeswas particularly effective for their development.
Teachers across the 10 project schools gave examples of how their professionallives were enriched by experiences that went beyond the preparation and teaching ofclasses. For early career science teachers in particular, the experience of beingsupported in their development by whole school initiatives gave them a positive feelabout being in the school. Links to universities, often where they trained, and havingscience ASTs to work with on specific factors such as developing subject knowledgeand modeling practical work were particularly appreciated.
Theme 2: capacity building
Another effective practice at the school level was perceived as planning for futurecapacity in the work force. Schools allocated resources as an investment for the futurethrough staff training or specific support in areas of study, for example, some schoolscontributed a percentage towards the fees for studying a masters. Another aspect ofbuilding staffing capacity was the school’s approach to training pre-service teachers,which was seen as an investment for the future, so training was a high priority for theschool. Some schools recruited good staff in advance of vacancies occurring, therewas a sense of looking ahead to maintain a good staffing level.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 15
Theme 3: supportive systems and structures
Some schools undertook whole school initiatives, where CPD was seen as a schoolenterprise involving all staff. Such schools included creative and high qualityschool in-service training, with a ring-fenced budget. In one school, staff develop-ment was timetabled for two teaching periods once a fortnight. In this case theschool day for teachers began later so that all staff could partake in professionaldevelopment. In another school, staff were organised into learning communitiesthat met together once a term. A school culture perceived as effective in CPD oftenincluded high expectations of staff in terms of taking part in training, sometimeslinked to performance. A feature of such schools was that teachers were expectedto train pre-service teachers in their classes, and to become a coach. In turn, therewere clear expectations of hard work and professionalism from pre-serviceteachers.
Supportive systems and structures were perceived as essential features of effec-tive CPD, for instance where a science department had systemic practices forproviding support for pre-service teachers and early professionals, such as focusedsupport for newly qualified teachers (NQTs). Attention would be given to mentortraining and effective mentoring of pre-service teachers would be shared across thedepartment. In these schools there was a willingness by members of the departmentto give up non-contact time to mentoring.
Theme 4: an open sharing culture
Most teachers made reference to an open, sharing culture as an important feature ofthe school for ensuring effective professional development. Features of opennessincluded an allowance of time for peer observations, for shared practice and promotinga sense that teachers were part of a community of learners. Where openness was afeature of school culture members of staff were committed to discussion of ideas andthere was a perception of a shared vision. Often the culture was seen as non-judgmental,and teachers were part of a ‘genuine learning community’. In such cases seniormanagement staff would learn from main scale teachers and practice was sharedthrough a school-wide programme of inter- and intra-department observation.
An important aspect of departmental culture that contributed to effective profes-sional development was seen to be an emphasis on being open, welcoming and inclu-sive. In many schools the science department made good provision in terms of spaceand resources for teachers, including pre-service teachers who were made to feel partof the department. Pre-service teachers were expected to attend department meetingsand be involved with department activities such as clubs as part of their development.Communication that was ‘non-threatening’ and helpful was seen as important, as wasan ‘open-door’ ethos.
An aspect of department culture perceived to be particularly effective was theexistence of a team focus that all members identify with. The department was seen asa cohesive team and NQTs and pre-service teachers felt part of the team. Where somestaff had responsibilities at the school level this was seen as a source of strength withinthe team. An important aspect of departmental culture was sharing practice andresources. Sharing could take the form of discussing practice and professional devel-opment experiences in meetings, including reflection on the impact of CPD. Informalmeetings also took place during lunchtime to share ideas. In some schools there wasan active area on the computer system for staff to share work. It was perceived that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
16 S. Simon et al.
the complexity of lesson planning for science and the need to keep abreast of scientificdevelopments encouraged a sharing culture.
Theme 5: mentoring and coaching for pre-service and early career teachers
Most teachers identified supportive systems as critical at the school level and manyschools had systemic practices for supporting new staff through mentoring and training.
Such schools were perceived to have a strong tradition of mentoring, with aperformance review each year and opportunities for training identified as important tomaintain staff progress. Priority was given to support newly qualified teachers(NQTs), with the recognition of the differing needs of NQTs, and good professionaldevelopment opportunities were provided for new staff. For both NQTs and pre-service teachers the organisation and management of an induction programme wascritical to their learning and professional development. For NQTs the best practicewas identified as induction beginning in the summer term prior to teaching in the newacademic year from September. A systemic approach to coaching and mentoring wasin place and NQTs were assigned to, or in some cases chose, a science mentor. Theyhad weekly support sessions with their mentor during the induction year. In someschools NQTs were coached by a teacher from another department, a practice thatcontinued into their second and third year of teaching. Other features of induction forNQTs included joint lesson planning and focused peer observations. For pre-serviceteachers good induction involved a system for identifying their needs which was thor-ough and timely. Their timetables would be drawn up based on these needs. Theyshadowed a class and were introduced to staff and pre-service teachers outside thescience department.
A particular feature of the induction programme that was perceived to be effectivefor both NQTs and pre-service teachers was the existence of a tailored supportprogramme that continued beyond an initial identification of needs and took the formof an ongoing systematic assessment of needs and allocation of resources and time.Such programmes involved setting agreed targets regularly in conjunction with theNQT or pre-service mentor and a formal programme of twilight (after school) sessionsthat might be attended by all early career teachers across the school. Schools wouldring-fence budgets to support early career teachers so they could attend courses andhave time and support to practice practical work in science. For pre-service teachersthe importance of working with a member of staff who demonstrated good practice inan area of weakness was seen to be important, as was having a timetable that includeda range of classes with different subject specialists in science. Good mentoring wasnot overbearing and mistakes were seen as learning opportunities.
Many early career teachers extolled the virtues of pairing and buddying systemsthat they experienced within their schools. For NQTs there were structures in placethat enabled the less experienced to work closely with more experienced scienceteachers. In addition novice teachers might be buddied with a teacher in anotherdepartment, with a specific science subject specialist or even with a science NQT inanother school. Often novice teachers would share a class with an experienced teacherand engage in joint planning. Pre-service teachers were often paired for planning andinvolved in team teaching. In some schools they would be buddied with an earlycareer member of staff with whom they shared a mentor, forming a triplet of support.Such systems clearly focus on collaboration as an important feature of CPD in termsof planning, teaching and sharing practice.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 17
Most teachers emphasised the importance of peer observation as a source ofeffective CPD, both in terms of being observed and observing others. Observationsof teachers’ own practice were supportive if they were not ‘graded’ for performance,but rather focused on development and identification of needs through reflection.Observations of other teachers were valued if they could be focused on particularskills or undertaken with teachers employing specific strategies. Some schools had asystem for video-recording NQTs’ and pre-service teachers’ lessons for joint reflec-tion with the mentor or for individual reflection. A useful source of learning camefrom discussing video-recorded lessons in which a more experienced teacher demon-strated good strategies. In most schools pre-service teachers were given a variety oflesson observations to see a range of styles as they determined their own style ofteaching.
Frequent feedback on progress was perceived to be an essential feature of effectiveCPD. Feedback might take the form of full formal feedback over a set number oflessons, but essentially it needed to be of high quality, appropriately pitched andconsistent across the school. Both oral and written feedback were valued, and neededto be balanced in terms of positive and critical features, as was target-related feedbackwhere teachers could work on specific aspects of practice. Feedback that was providedtoo long after the observation of practice was less valuable.
A supportive aspect of early career experience was team-working, where prioritywas given to establishing new teachers within the departmental team, stretching theirskills and rewarding their contributions. Team building activities included wholeschool off-site teaching and learning weekends, and residential field trips in sciencewere useful for teaming early career teachers with more experienced teachers. Relatedto the support of team-work was the importance of communication systems includingsharing resources through computer networks. Having protected time for meetingswith mentors was valued by both NQTs and pre-service teachers. An important featureof communication for pre-service teachers was the link with the higher educationinstitution (HEI) with whom they were partnered. Of importance was the dialogueestablished with the HEI tutor and the communication of progress and concerns tomaintain coordinated support. Links with HEI research projects were also perceivedas a source of support for pre-service teachers.
Theme 6: critical roles for professional development
There were four roles given to key personnel in the school that were perceived to becritical for professional development. The first of these was the CPD leader within theschool, where the most effective leadership was exercised by someone who washighly respected and had the authority to act when issues arose. This person was oftenin post for an extended period of time and had established a thorough knowledge ofstaff and their needs. The CPD leader would undertake the first formal observation ofall NQTs, organise mentor training at the beginning of the year, and undertake effec-tive pairing of experienced with inexperienced mentors. The CPD leader would alsoreview the feedback provided by less experienced mentors and have regular contactwith all early career teachers who were being mentored. A second critical role was thatof advanced skills teachers (ASTs), particularly in this case those specialising inscience. ASTs would often be role models for NQTs and pre-service teachers, whocould observe ASTs’ lessons and team teach with them. ASTs would also lead CPDsessions for NQTs and pre-service teachers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
18 S. Simon et al.
For pre-service teachers, two critical roles were those of professional co-ordinatingmentor (PCM) and the science subject mentor. Both these members of staff would beresponsible for having good communication with the partnered university and estab-lishing good relationships with university tutors. The effective PCM would organisetraining of subject mentors, pairing experienced and inexperienced subject mentorstogether, and carry out joint observations and feedback with inexperienced mentors.In addition, the PCM would carry out joint observations with each subject mentor todiscuss the progress of pre-service teachers. An effective PCM would collaborate withPCMs from other schools and organise cluster meetings for pre-service teachers at otherschools to broaden their perspective of teaching and learning. An effective subjectmentor was perceived as having multiple qualities that all contributed to effectiveprofessional development. These included being a good listener, having empathy with‘pre-service teacher’ status and being prepared to collaborate with all staff working withthe pre-service teacher. He or she would also be reflective, constructively critical withhigh expectations, and be prepared to give time. Other important features includedbuilding confidence, being meticulous with reports, being enthusiastic about mentoringand passionate about teaching.
In the discussion, we focus on how these themes and factors are important consid-erations for teacher learning and effective professional development, in particular forearly career teachers and their progress. Before this discussion, a vignette of oneschool has been chosen to illustrate some specific practices that have been highlightedas effective by the teachers in the school.
Vignette: School J
School J is a girls’ 11–18 school situated in a socially deprived urban area of SouthEast London. There are about 1460 students on roll, 19% of whom are eligible for freeschool meals. School J has specialist status for science and is also designated as aRaising Achievement Transforming Learning (RATL) school. Retention of scienceteachers at School J has been a fundamentally important issue over the last 10 years.Providing effective CPD for early careers teachers is considered a means of makingthe school ‘more attractive’ to teachers. The school has a CPD leader, a specificprogramme designated for early career teachers, and a ring-fenced budget per teacher.
We conducted interviews with four people at the school:
● F, an experienced teacher for 20 years and CPD leader for professional devel-opment of early career teachers in the school.
● K, an early career science teacher (2.5 years).● P, a newly qualified teacher (NQT).● M, an advanced skills teacher (AST) of science.
F has been the CPD leader for early career teachers since September 2008 and hasinstigated a CPD programme for these teachers, meeting them individually once aweek. Each early career teacher has a budget of £750 which is ring-fenced for theiruse and they are encouraged to take a full part in the decisions as to how they wouldlike to spend this on CPD. For example, K has used her money to go on an ‘expensivescience club course’. (A modern foreign language teacher spent time in Spain, and anEnglish teacher attended a residential creative writing course.) The teachers puttogether a ‘bid’ which goes to F and then to the deputy head for approval. K has now
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 19
started running her science club and she is also starting an exchange with an Americanschool. In F’s view the idea is ‘to give people pockets of money so that they candecide what to do with it’. The impact on retention has been positive, and at the timeof the interviews 12 out of 14 newly qualified teachers stayed in post after the firstyear, which is a high retention rate for School J. K pointed out that this ring-fencedsum is very motivating for early career teachers, but both K and F are aware of the‘unfairness’ of this approach for those teachers who have been teaching longer thanfive years and who are not eligible for this money.
The school has a strong internal programme for newly qualified teachers (NQTs).Every NQT is assigned a mentor who is chosen from the department in which theNQT is working and F considers it best if the mentor is not the head of faculty for tworeasons. First, the ‘busy’ heads of faculty may not be as available to the NQT asanother teacher and second, it is better not to have a mentor who is also the NQT’sline manager. F believes that the key professional development issues for NQTs inscience are initially those of behaviour management and managing practical work. Asnewly qualified teachers move into their second year of teaching, F identifies manag-ing their bigger workload and developing skills in teaching advanced courses post-16as most significant. As teachers are encouraged to choose their own CPD courseslinked to their performance management targets, F considers it of great importance tohave a good performance manager who can sensitively help novice teachers to iden-tify their weaknesses.
Overall, the school fosters the development of teachers in a number of innovativeways. Staff are grouped based on performance management targets into six differentlearning communities, which meet three afternoons a year for focused professionaldevelopment. In addition, the school organises a Hot Learning Week, during which allteachers must ‘advertise’ a lesson of their own for any other teacher to observe. Thislesson should be addressing one of the school development plan’s foci (e.g., assess-ment for learning or thinking skills). K, for example, found observing in Englishenlightening and she used some of what she learned in her science lessons involvinggroup work. In art she observed model making which gave her ideas to incorporate inher teaching of cells. In addition, curriculum leaders identify a teaching and learningfocus linked to the school’s development plan. The focus runs for fortnightly periodsat different times of year, during which teachers are observed by their line managersor another member of their department.
The science faculty consists of a friendly, supportive and cohesive team who arewilling to give up their non-contact time both to mentor others and develop them-selves. As a newly qualified teacher P has found the support ‘exceptional’ and feelsvery much part of a team. Her mentor is a very experienced teacher and she clearlyvalues his advice.
The department has ‘fought’ to keep its own work space where the large facultycan get together informally to discuss ideas.
The advanced skills teacher, M, considers retention at School J to be of majorimportance and key to that is effective CPD for early career teachers. Part of M’s roleis to coordinate a programme called Teach First within the school, an initiative whereteachers take an employment based route to qualification, being trained within theschool. The scheme has been set up for high attaining graduates and attracts extrafunding for training. M is responsible for organising the timetable for Teach Firstteachers so that they have the opportunity to ‘double up’ with other teachers, usingsome of the Teach First funding to ‘buy time’ – so that they are supernumerary for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
20 S. Simon et al.
about a quarter of their timetable. M found this model has worked well and that bothteachers benefit from:
● Reciprocal observations with the same class.● The Teach First teacher plans a lesson which their mentor teaches to their plan.● Joint reflections on teaching.
The science department meets twice a month but there are also informal meetingson a regular basis. M is responsible for leading discussion on teaching aspects of newscience curricula initiatives, for example, case studies in a course called twenty-firstcentury science. The science department buys in consultants to support the teachingacross the sciences where extra expertise is need, using money M has bid for under agovernment initiative. Finally, team teaching is encouraged within the science facultywherever possible; for example when there are two pre-service teachers, or TeachFirst teachers, who are ‘doubled up’ with other teachers for a about a quarter of theirtimetable.
M also explained that three-quarters of the science staff (of 15.7 teachers) lunchtogether on any one day and all join in at some stage during the week. To M this is akey element in the informal sharing of ideas which helps to keep the departmentcohesive and supportive to the benefit of all.
Discussion
In his recent review of the literature on the development of effective science teachers,Gilbert (2010, 275) notes that there are two core purposes for any teacher developmentactivity:
One is to be able to support the learning of science by pre-service teachers moreeffectively – to become a better teacher. The other is to improve personal motivation ofindividual teachers towards their work – to increase the likelihood of them continuing toteach science.
Our focus in this study was with the second of Gilbert’s points, as an investigationinto the impact of professional development on learning science was beyond the scopeof the study.
The analysis presented here demonstrates some recurrent themes that occur acrossall 10 schools and also some specific practices as portrayed by our vignette. A clearmessage is that effective CPD for science teachers is related to school cultural prac-tices as well as processes for development within science departments. Where schoolspromote broadening experiences, recognise the importance of capacity building, havean open, sharing culture, have high expectations and prioritise professional develop-ment by devoting time and resources to systemic supportive structures, then we aremost likely to see these features within the culture of science departments. It has thusbeen difficult to disentangle those features that contribute to effective professionaldevelopment in science from that wider school culture.
One feature of an open, sharing culture that our teachers valued is the opportunityto observe peers and be observed. For many teachers the learning that they experienceby observing a more experienced teacher and the reflective analysis they can under-take of their own practice with an experienced mentor observing their lessons is most
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 21
highly valued as a source of effective professional development. For science teachersin particular, observing experienced teachers managing practical work and addressingconcept development is invaluable. This aspect of professional development could bethe cornerstone of practice, but it is costly in time and resource. Schools would needto be able to include opportunities on teachers’ timetables for peer observation tofacilitate such observation.
The features that contribute to effective professional development that have beenidentified by teachers in this study reflect much of the international literature onteacher learning and professional development, for example, Hoban’s (2002) condi-tions for teacher learning arising from his study in Australian schools includecollaboration and reflection which are factors identified by our teachers. The impor-tance of peer observation and feedback is found to be a key factor of professionaldevelopment in other studies as indicated by Lovett and Gilmore (2003) andWindschitl (2009). In their conceptualisation of teacher learning and development,Lovett and Gilmore identify a school culture that promotes observation and anopenness that reduces isolation through sharing as an important feature. Hodkinsonand Hodkinson (2005) highlight the importance of school and departmental culturein contributing to teacher development, and also the role of collaborative learningthat includes ‘conversation and discussion, observing and taking an interest in whatothers do, and joint activity’ (116). Thus many of our findings are not new, what wehave uncovered reinforces the importance of what others have found. What is newabout our study is the way in which we have distilled and reported many practicesin London contexts that can be identified by other, similar, schools working with thesame constraints. Indeed other schools have identified with these practices andtaken ideas for further development from our findings. Moreover our findingsshould strengthen the message to policy makers about the key features that contrib-ute to effective professional development in schools and in science departments insimilar circumstances.
A focus of this research has been on the factors contributing to the professionaldevelopment of pre-service teachers. The issues for these teachers can be complex,as they are asked to constantly reflect on practice in order to learn. Yet pre-serviceteachers being asked to reflect on practice can be operating at different levels ofcriticality depending on their emergent professional knowledge. They are pressed tolive up to the expectation that good teachers are reflective teachers (van Manen1995), and yet they do not necessarily have adequate guidance as to how and whento reflect. Eraut (1995) suggests that pre-service teachers may have neither the timenor the disposition to reflect because they need to develop habitual routines andbecome familiar with a wide range of situations; the imposition to reflect may beperceived as a threat. Reflection is difficult for novice teachers as their lack ofexperience limits their ability to meaningfully reflect during a lesson. Work under-taken with pre-service teachers suggests that if reflection on practice takes place indiscussion with others, these teachers can find meaning where it was not initiallyobvious. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) point out that pre-service teachers learnwell when actively collaborating with more experienced teachers. Our findingscertainly support this view, as can be seen by comments made by teachers acrossthe schools and in our vignette. The use of video, exemplified in some of ourschools, has also been shown to provide a powerful means of stepping back andanalysing practice when novice teachers engage in a dialogue about what isobserved (Brophy 2004).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
22 S. Simon et al.
Conclusion
In this paper we have drawn on international literature sources and our own experiencein London to show how teacher learning can be conceptualised and professional devel-opment planned effectively. Teacher learning is a complex process, beginning with thepre-service teacher’s experience and continuing throughout a teaching career. Themotivation to learn comes from within a teacher as she or he reflects on the outcomesof practice, and perceives a need to change. Choices open to teachers who want to learnare often external courses they can attend, and though these can be beneficial and assistsome aspects of learning, they are unlikely to initiate fundamental changes in howteachers view teaching and change practice. Increasingly schools identify their ownneeds and initiate their in-house programmes of professional development, as our inter-view study has shown. It is important to note, however, that an agenda for change fromwithin a school may be dictated from senior management rather than be part of acommunity of practice with a shared vision and commitment to change.
Underpinning any approach to professional development is a perspective on teacherlearning, and this perspective needs to be recognised and taken into account in the wayin which the professional development is conceptualised. In a climate where teachershave to meet teaching standards and professional developers are subject to externaldemands that require particular models and content of professional developmentprogrammes, it can be a challenge to pay due consideration to the conditions, factorsand mediating processes that promote learning. The findings of the study presented heredemonstrate the complexity of the task of those who, like the staff of Science LearningCentre London, have a role to play in making provision for professional development.
ReferencesAbrahams, I., and R. Millar. 2008. Does practical work really work? A study of the effective-
ness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. InternationalJournal of Science Education 30, no. 14: 1945–69.
Adey, P.S., G. Hewitt, J. Hewitt, and N. Landau. 2004. The professional development ofteachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bell, B., and J. Gilbert. 1996. Teacher development: A model from science education.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning:Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Borko, H. 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educa-tional Researcher 33, no. 8: 3–15.
Brophy, J. 2004. Using video in teacher education: Discussion. Advances in Research onTeaching 10: 287–304.
Bubb, S., and P. Earley. 2007. Leading and managing continuing professional development.London: Sage.
Calderhead, J., and S.B. Shorrock. 1997. Understanding teacher education: Case studies inthe professional development of beginning teachers. London: Falmer Press.
Clarke, D., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 947–67.
Eraut, M. 1995. Schön shock: A case for reframing reflection-in-action? Teachers and Teaching1, no. 1: 9–22.
Fraser, C., A. Kennedy, L. Reid, and S. Mckinney. 2007. Teachers’ continuing professionaldevelopment: Contested concepts, understandings and models. Professional Developmentin Education 33, no. 2: 153–69.
Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Ghaye, A., and K. Ghaye. 1998. Teaching and learning through critical reflective practice.
Abingdon: David Fulton.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Research in Science & Technological Education 23
Gilbert, J. 2010. Supporting the development of effective science teachers. In Good practicein science teaching: What research has to say, J. Osborne, and J. Dillon, 274–300.Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Hatton, N., and D. Smith. 1995. Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition andimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Education 11, no. 1: 33–49.
Hoban, G. 2002. Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.
Hodkinson, H., and P. Hodkinson. 2005. Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning.Research Papers in Education 20, no. 2: 109–31.
House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee. 2006. Tenth Report of the SelectCommittee Science Teaching in Schools. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/lords-s-t-select/teaching/.
Joyce, B., and B. Showers. 1988. Student achievement through staff development. WhitePlains, NY: Longman.
Loucks-Horsley, S., N. Love, K. Stiles, S. Mundry, and P. Hewson. 2003. Designing professionaldevelopment for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Loughran, J. 2006. Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. London: Routledge.Lovett, S., and A. Gilmore. 2003. Teachers’ learning journeys: The quality learning circle as
a model of professional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14,no. 2: 189–211.
Millar, R., and J.F. Osborne. 1998. Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London:King’s College London.
Orland-Barak, L. 2005. Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: What remains ‘untold’.Educational Research 47, no. 1: 25–44.
Osborne, J., and J. Dillon. 2008. Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London:Nuffield Foundation.
Porritt, V., and P. Earley. 2010. Conclusion. In Effective practices in continuing professionaldevelopment: Lessons from schools, ed. P. Earley, and V. Porritt, 134–48. London: Instituteof Education.
Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.
Sears, J. 2010. Collaborative working: The heart of good mentoring. In How to be a brilliantmentor: Developing outstanding teachers, ed. T. Wright, 28–46. London: Routledge
Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher 15, no. 2: 4–14.
Siskin, L.S. 1994. Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools.Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Sjøberg, S., and C. Schreiner. 2005. How do learners in different cultures relate to science andtechnology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE. Asia Pacific Forum onScience Learning and Teaching 6, no. 2: 1–16.
Smithers, A., and P. Robinson. 2008. Physics in schools 1V: Supply and retention of teachers.London: The Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
Van Manen, M. 1995. On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching 1,no. 1: 33–50.
Windschitl, M. 2009. Cultivating twenty-first century skills in science learners: How systemsof teacher preparation and professional development will have to evolve. Paper presentedat the National Academies of Science Workshop on Twenty-first Century Skills, February5–6, in Washington, DC.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14