- Email: [email protected]
Professional learning and educational change: an essay review of Teacher Learning for Educational Change
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
Book review Professional learning and educational change: an essay review of Teacher Learning for Educational Change Garry F. Hoban; Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia, 2002, 190pp., ISBN 0 335 20953 X
Discussing educational change sometimes resembles doing the laundry—there is always a pile of dirty clothes to wash and even after clothes are washed, dried, ironed and put away, there is an inevitable realisation that it is only a matter of time before those clean clothes will be back in the laundry basket, ready for another round in the washing machine. Educational change often suggests the same sort of drudgery associated with doing laundry and the same sort of niggling question about whether it really is possible for educational practice to be constantly improved through the addition of the educational equivalent of a new brand of laundry powder. My point in using this somewhat cynical metaphor is to be very clear at the outset that the strength of Garry Hoban’s book, Teacher Learning for Educational Change, is that in building a framework for professional learning and change by drawing on complexity theory, Hoban provides much more than new laundry powder and takes educational change well beyond drudgery. If we accept that the educational practice in schools will never be quite where it wants to be, then schools will always be going through cycles of change. Further, if we accept that we are in an era of ‘fast change’ of which schooling is an inextricable part, then the pressure for change in schools can be intense. Nevertheless, there are many ways of perceiving, initiating, managing, sustaining, challenging or rejecting change. The increased recognition of the centrality of teachers and their doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.11.001
professional learning to educational change is heartening (Calderhead, 2001; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999), and it is in this sphere that Hoban’s book offers fresh insights and challenges. Hoban’s central argument that is that careful attention needs to be paid to teachers’ professional learning in order to enable and sustain educational change. More particularly, Hoban argues that we need a conceptual framework that can guide longterm professional learning and support educational change. Hoban’s significant contribution involves creation of a conceptual framework that builds on systems thinking and complexity theories. He calls this framework a professional learning system (PLS), and to help explain the notion of a PLS he presents his argument in two main sections. The first section draws on the literature of systems and complexity thinking, as well as professional learning, to develop a conceptual framework for thinking about learning and change. The second section provides case studies and ideas that illustrate PLSs in action. Two of the case studies were written by other authors: Jan Turbill discusses a professional learning context in the United States and Rob Walker describes a form of teacher learning in New Zealand. In reviewing this book, I focus on two thematic questions: 1. How does Hoban’s work extend thinking about teachers’ professional learning? 2. How do Hoban’s ideas about PLS extend thinking about educational change?
Extending thinking about professional learning A refreshing strength of Hoban’s book is that it is grounded in problems of day-to-day practice
ARTICLE IN PRESS 100
Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
and driven by Hoban’s analysis of his own teaching and subsequent efforts to examine the notions of student learning, teacher learning and ways that the two can be coherently connected. Hoban strongly criticises models of professional learning that are mechanistic and that operate on the na.ıve assumption that attending a professional development workshop will lead to changed and improved teaching practice. Critiques of ‘injection’ models of professional development are not new, although much professional development continues along these lines and the reasons for this might be worth teasing out. Here I consider some of the alternatives to familiar mechanistic models by viewing them in the light of Hoban’s framework of a Professional Learning System. For example, the notions of reflection (Grimmett and . Erickson, 1988; Schon, 1987), action research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000) and professional learning communities (Sachs, 1997; Toole and Louis, 2001) have been central to the reconceptualisation of professional learning and professional development in schools over the last two decades. What has marked these conceptions has been a focus on practice-based inquiry and collaboration by way of understanding, changing, improving and justifying professional practice. Teachers have been cast as learners in this rethinking of teacher professionalism (Sachs, 2000). The notion of a PLS that Hoban develops builds on these ideas in interesting and novel ways. Hoban uses the metaphor of a spider’s web to conceive of a PLS. The web, with its interlocking parts and intricate design, is representative of a complex system, and it is the notion of a complex system that is central to Hoban’s theoretical ideas and conceptual framework for professional learning. Central components, features and conditions of complex systems that Hoban discusses in relation to educational practice include the following: *
*
*
Complex systems are self-organising and involve on-going adaptation. Within complex systems, reality is dynamic and knowledge is not set in concrete. Classrooms are examples of complex systems, and within a classroom teaching and learning
*
are in a dynamic relationship. The interrelationships among pedagogy, curriculum and assessment are part of this dynamic complexity. Change within educational practice is itself complex.
Hoban suggests that models and theories of educational change have acknowledged the complex nature of change, yet we have not adequately theorised teachers’ learning as part of this complexity. In elaborating educational change as a complex system, Hoban includes professional learning along with other factors usually discussed at length in the educational change literature— school structures, politics, culture, context, leadership, and teachers’ lives and work. Hoban’s contribution is to suggest that there are dynamic links among these concepts, and to foreground professional learning as an integral link in any system of school change. Hoban’s point is not that professional learning has not been considered in the literature, but that professional learning must be considered as an evolving entity alongside other factors and influences often included in the change literature. Further, Hoban’s framework provides an example of a system within a system. Hoban argues that forms of professional learning, in and of themselves, can be constituted as complex systems with interdependent and dynamic parts that are inextricably linked to educational change. The conditions for a PLS that Hoban identifies are: * *
*
* * *
*
*
A purpose for learning. A conception of teaching as an art or profession. Conceptual inputs from outside the immediate circle of participants. Action by participants. Student feedback on action. Reflection by participants to make sense of events and inform future action. A sense of community to enable sharing of experiences. A time frame that is long term.
This list reflects elements of existing theories and models of professional learning. Hoban refers to
ARTICLE IN PRESS Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
the work of theorists who have made significant contributions to this field of study. The ideas . developed by, for example, Argyris and Schon (1974), Russell and Munby (1992), Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993), Grimmett and Erickson (1988), Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001), and Little and McLaughlin (1993) are among the antecedents to Hoban’s PLS framework. In and of themselves, there is nothing surprising in the conditions that Hoban identifies as keys to supporting and sustaining professional learning. Ideas embodied in the conditions are now commonplace in the academic literature concerned with professional learning, as well as in the vernacular of much school policy and practice (even if the level of resourcing makes actualising these ideas difficult). However, the significance of Hoban’s contribution lies in the way he conceptualises the relationship among these conditions: the connection is more than the sum of the parts. Rather, learning is the result of reciprocity between conditions and an associated ‘multiplier’ effect (p. 75). Hoban suggests that the dynamic interplay among conditions enables a form of learning that is cumulative and continuous. This dynamic is the critical component of a complex system, and again a place where Hoban’s metaphor of the spider’s web is useful. Drawing on existing theories and frameworks for professional learning is in many ways a strength of the PLS framework. The genealogical connections between reflection, action research and professional learning communities are part of the emergence of a complex system and on-going adaptation within that system. In drawing on language and concepts already in existence in the discourse of professional learning and teacher education, questions emerge about how this discourse might align with some of the language and concepts embedded in complexity theory. Hoban’s writing does cut across these discursive boundaries, but at times I sensed that the language of complexity science needed to be more continuously invoked to make explicit the links among the conditions Hoban identifies as central to a PLS and the key aspects of a complex system identified earlier in the book, such
101
as self-organisation, on-going adaptation and the nature of learning embedded in these processes. The ideas developed by Davis (2003) are useful at this point. When discussing the relationship between complex systems and learning, Davis draws on the discourse of complexity science to identify a set of conditions for complex learning. These include diversity among agents, redundancy among agents (redundancy refers to samenesses, commonalities and repetitions), ‘liberating constraints’ or a way of enabling redundancy and diversity to work together, and a distributed, decentralised control structure as a means by which agents within a system can affect one another. The language and focus of Davis’ work point to the way in which learning within complex systems is relational and collective. The generation of new ideas is dependant upon the inter-subjectivity between agents. My question with respect to the idea of a PLS is whether the relationship between agents and the consequences for the nature of learning could have been explained in more detail in both the conceptual and the descriptive parts of the book. This is not to suggest that relationships between agents (human and non-human) were not noted in the book, rather that more could have been made of the nature and patterns of these relationships with respect to the specificity of complexity science, in this case the emergence of new and complex learning as part of self-organising and adaptive systems.
Extending thinking about learning and change The focus in complexity science on the adaptive nature of systems and, in educational contexts, on the learning within and emerging from complex systems (Davis, 2003), presupposes a process of continual change. This is the form of change that is embedded in the link that Hoban makes between a PLS and educational change. This link is reasonable, yet leaves open numerous questions about the nature of change: Is it always positive? How is it driven within a complex school systems? Can it be orchestrated or is it a novel and, at times, unintended consequence of interactions within
ARTICLE IN PRESS 102
Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
systems? How does change in one part of a system connect with other interlocking systems and levels of systems? What do these connections mean for the scale and sustainability of change? Hoban addresses many of these questions at a conceptual level, which serves to open for discussion the value of complex systems thinking for educational change. However, I wondered if some of the questions pertaining to change could have been more tightly interwoven into the case studies and examples of specific practices. Four examples of professional learning systems are presented in the book. The first case concerns a small group of science teachers reflecting on their practice. The second case describes different approaches and conditions that underpinned a language and literacy professional development initiative. The third case offers a description of an approach to integrating computer technology into teaching practices, while the fourth case considers the networking associated with web-based technologies in relation to establishing and maintaining professional learning. Each of the cases provides numerous insights into the conditions for learning at particular sites and how that learning manifested itself in changed practice for some of the participants. Each of the cases also demonstrates particular complexities associated with the process. While there is an interesting diversity across the cases, I suspect more could have been made of the systemic, especially the collective capacity of agents (human and nonhuman), for learning and change, particularly of the ways in which this might differ from other theories of change that focus on the individual as the key locus of change (Fullan, 1993). It is of note, for example, that agents other than teachers, such as a researcher and expert consultants, played critical and on-going roles in three of the case studies, while a technological agent took on an important role in the fourth case. Further, it would have been valuable to consider the nature and scale of these changes in relation to other levels and components that are part of educational systems and linked to the ‘change frames’ (structures, politics, culture, context, teachers’ lives and so on) that Hoban discusses (pp. 37–38). I wondered, for example, whether the
flexing of collective agency influenced parts of pedagogical and curricular systems within schools other than the classrooms in which participating teachers worked. It is also worth speculating on ways in which a PLS, and the associated conditions for learning, might work as part of largescale systemic reform of, say, curriculum. Such reforms usually entail shifts and intersections across a set of fields, for example, policy, practice, administration, research, and syllabus design. I hope Hoban might address some of these ideas in the next iteration of professional learning research that he conducts. Clearly Hoban’s ideas and the ways in which he writes about them can cut across these fields. How the specific notion of a PLS and complexity science can be built into the language and practice of these intersecting fields will be central to the on-going descriptive and normative value of this framework. Any educational change and the systems that are part of that change are also bound by a set of ethical questions regarding the reasons for change, the processes by which change takes place and the value of the change. These questions are also embedded in the content and process of a PLS. As I read the case studies I wondered about the politics of the relationships between people, the values and beliefs underpinning their positions in the systems, and what these meant for decisions, for change and for the value attached to the change. A normative frame to make judgments about the ‘goodness’ of the processes of change and the changes themselves is important. Likewise, how questions of power, difference, and conflict are played out in the politics of relationships within PLSs are also important. Whether and how the value of change and the politics of change are incorporated into the language of complexity science, systems thinking and the framework of the PLS, would be a fruitful area for future elaboration. In explaining that professional learning is central to efficacious change in schools, and in developing a model that can explain and assist in the orchestration of professional learning and change, Hoban’s ideas provide critical insight into ways of lessening the gap between ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’ in school settings. Change in schools often seems partial, incomplete and contested. This in many ways reflects the complexity
ARTICLE IN PRESS Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
of change and the complexity of schools and classrooms. By drawing on complexity science and systems theories, Hoban provides a new model and conceptual lens for thinking about change and learning and the conditions that support both. The development of models such as Hoban’s are absolutely necessary in light of two seemingly competing and complex forces currently affecting schools: the ‘fast’ and broad social, technological and economic changes that fall under the umbrella of globalisation and that demand curricular and pedagogical responses, and the behemoth of school curriculum and pedagogy that often seems so reluctant to change. References . Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Calderhead, J. (2001). International experiences of teaching reform. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davis, B. (2003). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
103
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Grimmett, P., & Erickson, G. (1988). Reflection in teacher education. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). What makes a teaching community different from a gathering of teachers?. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection. London: Falmer Press. Sachs, J. (1997). Restless schools: Compliant, affiliating and inquiring communities. Forum of Education, 56(2), 59–69. Sachs, J. (2000). Rethinking the practice of teacher professionalism. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. Hauge, & J. Moller (Eds.), The life and work of teachers. London: Falmer Press. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Toole, J., & Louis, K. (2001). The role of professional learning communities in international education. Downloaded from http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/Papers/ JULYFINAL.pdf.
Jane Mitchell Faculty of Education, Monash University, PO Box 6, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia E-mail address: jane.mitchell@education. monash.edu.au
Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
Book review Professional learning and educational change: an essay review of Teacher Learning for Educational Change Garry F. Hoban; Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia, 2002, 190pp., ISBN 0 335 20953 X
Discussing educational change sometimes resembles doing the laundry—there is always a pile of dirty clothes to wash and even after clothes are washed, dried, ironed and put away, there is an inevitable realisation that it is only a matter of time before those clean clothes will be back in the laundry basket, ready for another round in the washing machine. Educational change often suggests the same sort of drudgery associated with doing laundry and the same sort of niggling question about whether it really is possible for educational practice to be constantly improved through the addition of the educational equivalent of a new brand of laundry powder. My point in using this somewhat cynical metaphor is to be very clear at the outset that the strength of Garry Hoban’s book, Teacher Learning for Educational Change, is that in building a framework for professional learning and change by drawing on complexity theory, Hoban provides much more than new laundry powder and takes educational change well beyond drudgery. If we accept that the educational practice in schools will never be quite where it wants to be, then schools will always be going through cycles of change. Further, if we accept that we are in an era of ‘fast change’ of which schooling is an inextricable part, then the pressure for change in schools can be intense. Nevertheless, there are many ways of perceiving, initiating, managing, sustaining, challenging or rejecting change. The increased recognition of the centrality of teachers and their doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.11.001
professional learning to educational change is heartening (Calderhead, 2001; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999), and it is in this sphere that Hoban’s book offers fresh insights and challenges. Hoban’s central argument that is that careful attention needs to be paid to teachers’ professional learning in order to enable and sustain educational change. More particularly, Hoban argues that we need a conceptual framework that can guide longterm professional learning and support educational change. Hoban’s significant contribution involves creation of a conceptual framework that builds on systems thinking and complexity theories. He calls this framework a professional learning system (PLS), and to help explain the notion of a PLS he presents his argument in two main sections. The first section draws on the literature of systems and complexity thinking, as well as professional learning, to develop a conceptual framework for thinking about learning and change. The second section provides case studies and ideas that illustrate PLSs in action. Two of the case studies were written by other authors: Jan Turbill discusses a professional learning context in the United States and Rob Walker describes a form of teacher learning in New Zealand. In reviewing this book, I focus on two thematic questions: 1. How does Hoban’s work extend thinking about teachers’ professional learning? 2. How do Hoban’s ideas about PLS extend thinking about educational change?
Extending thinking about professional learning A refreshing strength of Hoban’s book is that it is grounded in problems of day-to-day practice
ARTICLE IN PRESS 100
Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
and driven by Hoban’s analysis of his own teaching and subsequent efforts to examine the notions of student learning, teacher learning and ways that the two can be coherently connected. Hoban strongly criticises models of professional learning that are mechanistic and that operate on the na.ıve assumption that attending a professional development workshop will lead to changed and improved teaching practice. Critiques of ‘injection’ models of professional development are not new, although much professional development continues along these lines and the reasons for this might be worth teasing out. Here I consider some of the alternatives to familiar mechanistic models by viewing them in the light of Hoban’s framework of a Professional Learning System. For example, the notions of reflection (Grimmett and . Erickson, 1988; Schon, 1987), action research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000) and professional learning communities (Sachs, 1997; Toole and Louis, 2001) have been central to the reconceptualisation of professional learning and professional development in schools over the last two decades. What has marked these conceptions has been a focus on practice-based inquiry and collaboration by way of understanding, changing, improving and justifying professional practice. Teachers have been cast as learners in this rethinking of teacher professionalism (Sachs, 2000). The notion of a PLS that Hoban develops builds on these ideas in interesting and novel ways. Hoban uses the metaphor of a spider’s web to conceive of a PLS. The web, with its interlocking parts and intricate design, is representative of a complex system, and it is the notion of a complex system that is central to Hoban’s theoretical ideas and conceptual framework for professional learning. Central components, features and conditions of complex systems that Hoban discusses in relation to educational practice include the following: *
*
*
Complex systems are self-organising and involve on-going adaptation. Within complex systems, reality is dynamic and knowledge is not set in concrete. Classrooms are examples of complex systems, and within a classroom teaching and learning
*
are in a dynamic relationship. The interrelationships among pedagogy, curriculum and assessment are part of this dynamic complexity. Change within educational practice is itself complex.
Hoban suggests that models and theories of educational change have acknowledged the complex nature of change, yet we have not adequately theorised teachers’ learning as part of this complexity. In elaborating educational change as a complex system, Hoban includes professional learning along with other factors usually discussed at length in the educational change literature— school structures, politics, culture, context, leadership, and teachers’ lives and work. Hoban’s contribution is to suggest that there are dynamic links among these concepts, and to foreground professional learning as an integral link in any system of school change. Hoban’s point is not that professional learning has not been considered in the literature, but that professional learning must be considered as an evolving entity alongside other factors and influences often included in the change literature. Further, Hoban’s framework provides an example of a system within a system. Hoban argues that forms of professional learning, in and of themselves, can be constituted as complex systems with interdependent and dynamic parts that are inextricably linked to educational change. The conditions for a PLS that Hoban identifies are: * *
*
* * *
*
*
A purpose for learning. A conception of teaching as an art or profession. Conceptual inputs from outside the immediate circle of participants. Action by participants. Student feedback on action. Reflection by participants to make sense of events and inform future action. A sense of community to enable sharing of experiences. A time frame that is long term.
This list reflects elements of existing theories and models of professional learning. Hoban refers to
ARTICLE IN PRESS Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
the work of theorists who have made significant contributions to this field of study. The ideas . developed by, for example, Argyris and Schon (1974), Russell and Munby (1992), Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993), Grimmett and Erickson (1988), Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001), and Little and McLaughlin (1993) are among the antecedents to Hoban’s PLS framework. In and of themselves, there is nothing surprising in the conditions that Hoban identifies as keys to supporting and sustaining professional learning. Ideas embodied in the conditions are now commonplace in the academic literature concerned with professional learning, as well as in the vernacular of much school policy and practice (even if the level of resourcing makes actualising these ideas difficult). However, the significance of Hoban’s contribution lies in the way he conceptualises the relationship among these conditions: the connection is more than the sum of the parts. Rather, learning is the result of reciprocity between conditions and an associated ‘multiplier’ effect (p. 75). Hoban suggests that the dynamic interplay among conditions enables a form of learning that is cumulative and continuous. This dynamic is the critical component of a complex system, and again a place where Hoban’s metaphor of the spider’s web is useful. Drawing on existing theories and frameworks for professional learning is in many ways a strength of the PLS framework. The genealogical connections between reflection, action research and professional learning communities are part of the emergence of a complex system and on-going adaptation within that system. In drawing on language and concepts already in existence in the discourse of professional learning and teacher education, questions emerge about how this discourse might align with some of the language and concepts embedded in complexity theory. Hoban’s writing does cut across these discursive boundaries, but at times I sensed that the language of complexity science needed to be more continuously invoked to make explicit the links among the conditions Hoban identifies as central to a PLS and the key aspects of a complex system identified earlier in the book, such
101
as self-organisation, on-going adaptation and the nature of learning embedded in these processes. The ideas developed by Davis (2003) are useful at this point. When discussing the relationship between complex systems and learning, Davis draws on the discourse of complexity science to identify a set of conditions for complex learning. These include diversity among agents, redundancy among agents (redundancy refers to samenesses, commonalities and repetitions), ‘liberating constraints’ or a way of enabling redundancy and diversity to work together, and a distributed, decentralised control structure as a means by which agents within a system can affect one another. The language and focus of Davis’ work point to the way in which learning within complex systems is relational and collective. The generation of new ideas is dependant upon the inter-subjectivity between agents. My question with respect to the idea of a PLS is whether the relationship between agents and the consequences for the nature of learning could have been explained in more detail in both the conceptual and the descriptive parts of the book. This is not to suggest that relationships between agents (human and non-human) were not noted in the book, rather that more could have been made of the nature and patterns of these relationships with respect to the specificity of complexity science, in this case the emergence of new and complex learning as part of self-organising and adaptive systems.
Extending thinking about learning and change The focus in complexity science on the adaptive nature of systems and, in educational contexts, on the learning within and emerging from complex systems (Davis, 2003), presupposes a process of continual change. This is the form of change that is embedded in the link that Hoban makes between a PLS and educational change. This link is reasonable, yet leaves open numerous questions about the nature of change: Is it always positive? How is it driven within a complex school systems? Can it be orchestrated or is it a novel and, at times, unintended consequence of interactions within
ARTICLE IN PRESS 102
Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
systems? How does change in one part of a system connect with other interlocking systems and levels of systems? What do these connections mean for the scale and sustainability of change? Hoban addresses many of these questions at a conceptual level, which serves to open for discussion the value of complex systems thinking for educational change. However, I wondered if some of the questions pertaining to change could have been more tightly interwoven into the case studies and examples of specific practices. Four examples of professional learning systems are presented in the book. The first case concerns a small group of science teachers reflecting on their practice. The second case describes different approaches and conditions that underpinned a language and literacy professional development initiative. The third case offers a description of an approach to integrating computer technology into teaching practices, while the fourth case considers the networking associated with web-based technologies in relation to establishing and maintaining professional learning. Each of the cases provides numerous insights into the conditions for learning at particular sites and how that learning manifested itself in changed practice for some of the participants. Each of the cases also demonstrates particular complexities associated with the process. While there is an interesting diversity across the cases, I suspect more could have been made of the systemic, especially the collective capacity of agents (human and nonhuman), for learning and change, particularly of the ways in which this might differ from other theories of change that focus on the individual as the key locus of change (Fullan, 1993). It is of note, for example, that agents other than teachers, such as a researcher and expert consultants, played critical and on-going roles in three of the case studies, while a technological agent took on an important role in the fourth case. Further, it would have been valuable to consider the nature and scale of these changes in relation to other levels and components that are part of educational systems and linked to the ‘change frames’ (structures, politics, culture, context, teachers’ lives and so on) that Hoban discusses (pp. 37–38). I wondered, for example, whether the
flexing of collective agency influenced parts of pedagogical and curricular systems within schools other than the classrooms in which participating teachers worked. It is also worth speculating on ways in which a PLS, and the associated conditions for learning, might work as part of largescale systemic reform of, say, curriculum. Such reforms usually entail shifts and intersections across a set of fields, for example, policy, practice, administration, research, and syllabus design. I hope Hoban might address some of these ideas in the next iteration of professional learning research that he conducts. Clearly Hoban’s ideas and the ways in which he writes about them can cut across these fields. How the specific notion of a PLS and complexity science can be built into the language and practice of these intersecting fields will be central to the on-going descriptive and normative value of this framework. Any educational change and the systems that are part of that change are also bound by a set of ethical questions regarding the reasons for change, the processes by which change takes place and the value of the change. These questions are also embedded in the content and process of a PLS. As I read the case studies I wondered about the politics of the relationships between people, the values and beliefs underpinning their positions in the systems, and what these meant for decisions, for change and for the value attached to the change. A normative frame to make judgments about the ‘goodness’ of the processes of change and the changes themselves is important. Likewise, how questions of power, difference, and conflict are played out in the politics of relationships within PLSs are also important. Whether and how the value of change and the politics of change are incorporated into the language of complexity science, systems thinking and the framework of the PLS, would be a fruitful area for future elaboration. In explaining that professional learning is central to efficacious change in schools, and in developing a model that can explain and assist in the orchestration of professional learning and change, Hoban’s ideas provide critical insight into ways of lessening the gap between ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’ in school settings. Change in schools often seems partial, incomplete and contested. This in many ways reflects the complexity
ARTICLE IN PRESS Book review / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 99–103
of change and the complexity of schools and classrooms. By drawing on complexity science and systems theories, Hoban provides a new model and conceptual lens for thinking about change and learning and the conditions that support both. The development of models such as Hoban’s are absolutely necessary in light of two seemingly competing and complex forces currently affecting schools: the ‘fast’ and broad social, technological and economic changes that fall under the umbrella of globalisation and that demand curricular and pedagogical responses, and the behemoth of school curriculum and pedagogy that often seems so reluctant to change. References . Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Calderhead, J. (2001). International experiences of teaching reform. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davis, B. (2003). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
103
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Grimmett, P., & Erickson, G. (1988). Reflection in teacher education. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). What makes a teaching community different from a gathering of teachers?. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection. London: Falmer Press. Sachs, J. (1997). Restless schools: Compliant, affiliating and inquiring communities. Forum of Education, 56(2), 59–69. Sachs, J. (2000). Rethinking the practice of teacher professionalism. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. Hauge, & J. Moller (Eds.), The life and work of teachers. London: Falmer Press. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Toole, J., & Louis, K. (2001). The role of professional learning communities in international education. Downloaded from http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/Papers/ JULYFINAL.pdf.
Jane Mitchell Faculty of Education, Monash University, PO Box 6, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia E-mail address: jane.mitchell@education. monash.edu.au