- Email: [email protected]
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning J Imants, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands K van Veen, Leiden University, The Netherlands ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Teachers’ Professional Development
A central notion in theories of workplace learning is the intrinsic and mutual relationship between working and learning. In teacher learning as workplace learning, two themes come together: the content and organization of teachers’ work, and the content and process of teachers’ learning in the context of their classrooms and schools. During the last two decades, workplace learning has been an important item in discussions on vocational education and professional development in industrialized societies. These discussions cover the broad field of economic and cultural developments, technological and organizational innovations, knowledge economy and knowledge creation, and professional development and vocational learning in schools and work organizations. In discussions on teacher learning, workplace learning is a significant item for at least two reasons. Workplace learning is assumed to be a promising method for the development of productive learning contexts in teacher education and continuing professional development. Professional learning of aspiring and practicing teachers is expected to result in competences for the teaching of their students as productive workers and as productive learners in their future workplace contexts. In this article, teachers’ workplace learning is defined as changes in teaching practices in classrooms and schools that are mediated through individual teacher learning and problem-solving processes in the school (Ellstro¨m, 2001). In the field of education, professional development is the generic term under which teacher learning activities and programs are organized and discussed. Teachers’ professional development can be defined as those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students (Guskey, 2000). Recently, these activities and programs often build on workplace learning insights. This article aims to explore the relatively new field of teachers’ workplace learning in classrooms and schools, as it builds on, and adds new insights to teachers’ professional development in schools. The question is how and in what directions teacher learning can be promoted in the context of work in classrooms and schools. First, the state of the art in teachers’ professional development is briefly characterized. Next, recent general insights in workplace learning in combination with insights in teachers’ workplace learning is discussed.
Teachers’ professional development literature shows a range of insights regarding views of learning (acquisition vs. constructivism), designs (fragmented vs. ongoing and systematic), and opportunities (formal and informal, mandatory and voluntary, serendipitous and planned). The lifelong curriculum of teachers’ professional development seems fragmented and incoherent. The rationales for professional development also diverge considerably. A first rationale argues that most educational reforms require a great deal of learning on the part of teachers. Teachers need support and advice to understand the reform and work according to the reform. A second rationale starts from the nature of teachers’ work. Teachers play a crucial role in students’ learning, and professional development of teachers is assumed to be in the interest of the students and teaching as a profession. The first rationale assumes that teachers show personal inadequacies in need of repair, while the second rationale assumes that teacher learning contributes to fulfillment as a practitioner in support of students’ learning. Attention is increasing for teacher learning and teacher professional development programs situated in the workplace in contrast to off-site programs. These off-site activities entail workshops, conference sessions, seminars, lectures, and other short-term training events on subjectmatter issues and topics such as cooperative learning and classroom management. Design elements and conditions that can enhance the effectiveness of these activities are longer duration, connection with teachers’ work context, focus on subject matter, and emphasis on analysis and reflection (Smith and Gillespie, 2007). By identifying these design elements and conditions, it is a small step toward recent on-site professional development methods that are embedded in daily work in classrooms and schools. These work-embedded methods include training within the school or local context, and creating ongoing professional communities, study circles, and inquiry groups. In addition to this, workplace learning has brought about a shift: from a focus on individual teacher knowledge, skills,
and teaching competencies, including new instructional methods, to a focus on student learning and specific teacher problems; from off-site to on-site activities;
569
570
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
from single sessions or a short series to long-term and
ongoing sessions; and from a focus on change as something that is done to teachers, and programs that change teachers as passive participants, to change as a complex process that involves learning with teachers as active learners. As far as research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of learning activities that are embedded in daily work, it shows that teacher learning is promoted by a focus on subject-matter knowledge for teaching, understanding of students’ thinking, and instructional practices. Further, the process of meaningful learning is slow and uncertain, and some elements of teacher knowledge are easier to change than others. It takes time to develop a community. Teachers have little experience engaging in a professional discourse that is public and critical of their work and the work of colleagues. Finally, it should be noted that combining features of off-site and on-site activities in professional development programs seems to be very effective (Little, 2006; Smith and Gillespie, 2007). In general, several methods for workplace learning have been developed (coaching, supervision, and collegial consultation; mentoring and master–mate learning; development tasks and action research; and instruction and application in the workplace). These methods have been applied to (student) teachers’ professional development in schools. Besides, new methods for the evaluation of (student) teachers competences and learning are developed and applied (assessment instruments and portfolio). A recurring problem in teacher professional development is the gap between practice (school) and theory (university), and a central aim of these methods for workplace learning is to contribute toward bridging this gap. However, according to Eraut (2000), the problem of the theory–practice gap concerns the relationship between the codified professional knowledge (espoused theory) that is developed and taught at universities, and tacit teachers’ knowledge (theory-in-use) that is developed and transmitted in classrooms and schools. Bridging the theory–practice gap cannot be reduced to mutual adaptation of these sources of knowledge. Sound application of one or more of the aforementioned methods is not sufficient to link espoused theory and theory-in-use, because the problematic relationship between these diverse bodies of knowledge has deep epistemological and (micro-)political roots. Besides, the effectiveness of these methods depends on the conditions of the workplaces in which they are applied, which is discussed in the next sections. Despite an increasing body of knowledge on design elements and conditions, there is very scarce empirically tested knowledge about: (1) the effectiveness of teachers’ professional development programs, and (2) more in
detail, about what teachers learn, how they learn, and how this knowledge improves their practice. The current state of practice and research of teachers’ professional development is inadequate (Borko, 2004), and this constitutes a serious problem for policy, practice, and research. This does not mean that the design, learning principles, and beliefs of many programs are unreasonable or unsound (Wilson and Berne, 1999). In summary, the literature on teacher professional development in schools shows a shift toward workplace learning, though at the same time a lack of theoretical and empirical understanding is observed. In the next sections the analysis of teachers’ professional development is broadened by taking the mutual relationship between teachers’ working and learning as the starting point.
Perspectives on Workplace Learning The identification of professional development in workplace contexts depends on the perspective from which learning is analyzed. Generally, perspectives on workplace learning differ with regard to goals, outcomes, rationales, and managerial views. Workplace learning varies from adaptive to developmental, in terms of tasks, methods, and results, which are given or not given (Ellstro¨m, 2001). A broad range of possible learning outcomes for teachers in the workplace can be found, ranging from habitual reaction to reflective practice, and inquiry (Smylie, 1995). Four perspectives on teachers’ workplace learning are distinguished (Nieuwenhuis and van Woerkom, 2006): 1. In teacher education settings, workplace learning primarily is regarded as preparation for working, and qualification is the goal. This perspective plays an important role in studies of on-the-job training in initial teacher education. 2. In ongoing work settings in schools, teachers’ workplace learning is regarded as contributing to productivity of schools, often as nonformal learning and as an intrinsic quality of professional work. Development of routines is important in this perspective, besides development of improvements during the performance of work activities. This perspective can be helpful to understand the dynamics and outcomes of teacher induction and socialization. 3. In global market and knowledge economy settings, teachers’ workplace learning is closely linked to the vitality of the school, school improvement, and to educational reform. 4. In the individual perspective, teachers’ workplace learning is regarded as learning for life and individual professional development in community contexts.
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning
Teachers’ Workplace Teacher learning is located in diverging contexts within the school. Three interrelated levels are distinguished: 1. individual or personal learning by teachers or school leaders within the context of the school; 2. social learning in small groups or teams of teachers; and 3. learning that occurs across the school organization as a whole. According to Mitchell and Sackney (2000), it is the interrelatedness of conditions and processes at these three levels that explains successes and failures in school improvement and shared learning. Formally, the school as a workplace consists of diverging units that are charged with diverging tasks and responsibilities. Informally, the school contains several spheres of influence and interaction. For teachers, the work with students, inside and outside the classroom, makes up the core of their work. Opportunities to enhance students’ learning are the driving force for teachers to participate in professional development. For the large part of their working day, teachers work individually with (a) group(s) of students, rather isolated from their colleagues. The most meaningful work experiences that promote teachers’ workplace learning is therefore gained in the work with students, in the student-related work with colleagues, and in the interactions with the workplace conditions that are closely linked to the work with students and colleagues – the community of practice in which teachers participate. Teachers’ workplace learning is expected to be primarily located in the teachers’ own sphere of influence and interaction, and in the units in which the work with students is organized. School conditions and processes that are located in the administrators’ sphere can be assumed to affect teacher learning processes and results in an indirect way, more specifically, as mediated by processes of reinvention and reinterpretation by teachers in their own sphere. For example, an educational policy document of a school or district will not influence teachers’ professional development directly. Depending on how teachers interpret the school’s educational policy, this document will affect teacher learning indirectly in foreseen and unforeseen directions.
Workplace Conditions in Schools The educational systems in industrialized countries are characterized by restructuring and standardization of work in schools, aimed at improved student learning and the promotion of a new professionalism in the teachers’ profession. Simultaneously, tendencies of
571
bureaucratization and intensification in schools and teachers’ work have been identified (Ballet et al., 2006). It can be assumed that restructuring and standardization, combined with bureaucratization and intensification, will have significant and contradictory impact on the content, processes, and effects of teachers’ workplace learning in schools. This actual impact can be opposed to the formal aims of reform. This complex relationship between working and learning is elaborated in this section. In his review of general workplace learning research, Ellstro¨m (2001) distinguishes five groups of factors that can be assumed to be critical for facilitating or constraining the integration of learning and work: (1) the learning potential of the task; (2) opportunities for feedback, evaluation, and reflection on the outcomes of work actions; (3) formalization of work processes; (4) employee participation in handling problems and developing work processes; and (5) learning resources. These general factors reasonably summarize the results of overviews of workplace learning conditions in schools, with the exception of one group of factors. Schooling is a strongly moral and normative enterprise, and in overviews of workplace conditions for teacher learning, shared norms are often mentioned as a critical factor. Shared norms are added as a group of school factors to Ellstro¨m’s general overview. Learning Potential of the Task Generally, task complexity, variety, autonomy, and control are regarded as important determinants of the learning potential of the workplace. Traditionally, teachers’ work is viewed as complex, varied, and autonomous. Superficially, the school seems to be a favorable context for workplace learning. However, studies on intensification show tendencies of deprofessionalization in teachers’ work, starting from a combination of narrowing and formalizing the traditional teaching tasks, and simultaneously adding new nonteaching tasks to teachers’ work. These developments are accompanied by experiences of strong work pressure and negative emotions. Further, work redesign and task differentiation in schools only have weak links to aspired forms of teacher learning and student learning. To be an effective workplace learning strategy, redesign of work should focus attention on crucial problems of curriculum and instruction. Teachers strongly depend on routines because they make an enormous amount of decisions each day they work (Eraut, 2000). Teachers’ actions can be described as routinized when they no longer need to think about what they are doing because they have done it so many times before. In routinization, explicit knowledge is converted to tacit knowledge through repetition. Besides individual schemata, routines also are collective schemata for both understanding and acting: they supply teachers with shared understanding of who is doing what, and this
572
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
understanding allows teachers to correctly perform a practice. External and internal pressures can force teachers and schools to change their routines. Routines may restrict school’s responses to change, but they can also help the school to survive changes in environmental demands and expectations (Hoeve et al., 2006). Routines in teaching tasks have the potential to be impediments and opportunities for workplace learning. Opportunities for Feedback, Evaluation, and Reflection on the Outcomes of Work Actions Feedback on the results of work activities is considered to be necessary for learning to occur. Activities in which teachers reflect on student performance, work, and thinking can promote professional development. The effects of feedback can be cognitive as well as motivational. The function of feedback depends on the existence of clear goals. At the level of classrooms and schools, educational goals often are vague or inconsistent, and they can change during teaching. The problem of getting clear feedback on student performance because of unclear goals can be an obstacle for teacher learning in contexts where instructional tasks, methods, and results are given. However, inconsistent or unclear goals may promote analysis, evaluation, and reflection that are assumed to be important for innovative teacher learning. In schools, much information is available that could serve as feedback and promote reflection on the quality of teaching and learning, for example, school self-evaluation reports, reports by the inspectorate, files of student assessment outcomes, aggregated student test results, and teachers’ accounts of classroom experience (Little, 2006). Systematic use of this data on student performance, work, and thinking as sources for learning by individual teachers and teacher teams hardly occurs in schools. Formalization of Work Processes The daily educational and pedagogical practices in the school are important opportunities and constraints for teacher learning. This learning is focused on subject content, pedagogic and instructional methods, and classroom management (Scribner, 1999). Traditional forms of formalization (fixed regulations and procedures) of daily work processes in schools still tend to dominate instruction, classroom management, and organization in schools. For example, a persistent problem in education is the limited flexibility to deal with student diversity in schools and classrooms, notwithstanding inclusive aims. Moreover, images of how schools and classrooms should be structured and should function, as well as daily practices, build on traditional scientific management principles. A gap is existent between the innovative expectations on workplace learning in schools, and the highly
formalized instructional practices of aspiring and practicing teachers as contexts for learning. However, starting from the observations that work in schools is routinized and that the daily knowledge base of teachers is strongly tacit, a process of formalizing instruction and guidance practices can also contribute to teacher learning. Formalization of instruction and guidance can serve as the starting point for questioning existing instructional routines and making the tacit explicit and open for discussion. In that case, the aim is teachers getting a better understanding of (1) what and how their students learn and think, and (2) how student learning is promoted by teachers’ instruction and guidance. This learning by formalization should not be confused with simply replacing an old instructional method by a new one (Smith and Gillespie, 2007). Teacher Participation in Handling Problems and Developing Work Processes Learning is facilitated if teachers have access to and are able to successfully participate in problem handling and activities aimed at the development of improvements in instruction and guidance, both formally and informally. Teachers share positive perceptions of participation in decision making in schools with regard to instructional, pedagogical, and curricular topics, as opposed to administrative topics. Teacher participation in decision making can create frustration, anger, and distrust, when the implementation of decisions that were made is blocked or not promoted by school management. Teachers should be able to participate in all the steps of the cycles in which improvements are developed: planning, development, performance, and evaluation. When the majority of teachers is only expected to perform instructional tasks that are planned, developed, and evaluated by teacher leaders and managers, learning will decrease. Teachers’ collegial interactions vary in task interdependence and alignment (synergy in directions of aims and actions of different actors). High alignment and interdependence, for example, in the context of joint problem solving, are associated with richer and more stimulating learning environments for teachers. This collaboration can produce shared understanding and investment, thoughtful development, and a fair, rigorous test of selected ideas. Lower levels of interdependence and alignment occur when teachers exchange stories, tips, or materials. This can result in reinforcement of and emotional support for maintaining routines (Rosenholtz, 1989). Shared Norms Shared norms that affect teacher learning in the workplace can be distinguished in two types: norms regarding student learning and development, and norms
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning
regarding teachers’ work and relationships with colleagues. Collective focus on and shared responsibility for student learning are identified as important characteristics of teachers’ professional communities in schools. The absence of a shared conceptual and technical language or a common technical culture in schools has been assumed to be a serious hindrance for the development of these shared norms. However, precise analysis of teacher professional conversations shows that too deep a skepticism on the opportunities in schools for developing shared norms oversimplifies and underestimates the potential of teachers’ collegial practices for teacher learning (Little, 2006). Isolation from colleagues has a negative effect on teacher learning by creating invisible walls between teachers and diminishing the valuable role of collaborative activities (Scribner, 1999). This individualism, in which personal experience plays a central role, is regarded as a defining feature of the teaching profession. Strong traditional cultures are based on teachers collectively defending this individualism and existing conceptions of appropriate curriculum and instruction, even in the face of student failure. Besides, strong innovative and professional cultures can contribute to norms of collegiality and experimentation. Learning Resources Three resources for workplace learning are teachers’ prior knowledge, curricular and instructional materials, and time. Teacher learning by experience presupposes conceptual tools (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) and explicit knowledge about student learning and how student learning is promoted by instruction and pedagogic methods. These conceptual tools and knowledge are used to identify and interpret relevant experiences while teaching, and they play an essential role in workplace learning. Varied sources of instructional and curricular materials promote reinvention of instructional practices and lower barriers for experimentation. These practical materials provide opportunites for teachers to experience what works in daily classroom practice. However, when implemented superficially, the availability of the same sources bears the risk of counterproductive learning effects, because the anticipated student learning results are not realized in the case of superficial implementation. Time is an important resource for participation in formal learning activities, as well as for reflection as part of the ongoing work process, especially in combination with related factors, for example, school schedules. Professional development activities should be conducted often and long enough to ensure gains in knowledge, skills, and confidence. Formal availability of time for professional development is necessary but not sufficient
573
as a resource for teachers to learn. Meaningful and timeconsuming collaboration is often squeezed to margins of teachers’ worklives (on Sunday afternoons or weekly evenings in teachers’ houses). Daily work in schools should be scheduled and organized in such a way that teachers have a fair chance to take advantage of the time available for learning and development. Without these organizational protections, time for learning will disappear under the pressure of chains of incidents and daily routines. A complex trade-off occurs between time for production and time for learning in schools (Ellstro¨m, 2001).
Conclusions Before presenting the conclusions, it should be noted that many of the insights presented in this article lack a solid base of research, although some research had been done on these topics. The field lacks an explicit shared conceptual language, and empirical research often is lacking the rigor that is needed for generalizations. Nevertheless, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the previous analysis. Summarizing the evidence, two perspectives on teachers’ workplace learning and work-embedded professional development can be distinguished. These perspectives vary in assumptions on manageability and predictability of learning processes and outcomes in workplace contexts. In one view, teacher workplace learning is a specific activity that can be managed in the direction of formalized school outcomes and desired change. In the other view, teacher learning outcomes range from improvement in school performance to counterproductive effects on teaching and student learning. In this latter view, teacher learning is emergent, and steering opportunities for management to intervene effectively in this process are weak. An unanswered question is whether these perspectives are complementary or contradictory toward each other. Several potentially effective methods for workplace learning have been identified. The effectiveness of these methods should be regarded within the specific workplace contexts in which they are applied, and keeping an eye open for the conflicting epistemological assumptions of the diverging bodies of knowledge (espoused theories and theories-in-use) that they try to unite. Six factors have been identified for the integration of teachers’ working and learning in schools. Usually, these factors are regarded as objective characteristics of the schools in which they emerge. However, it can be assumed that the impact of these factors mainly is located in how they are interpreted and reinvented by teachers, and how teachers make sense of these factors in their daily work. The relationships between these factors and teacher learning are complex and paradoxical. These factors
574
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
play a multidimensional role in teacher workplace learning: they potentially promote opposite directions of learning (reinforcing routines or promoting innovations) and they can have opposite side effects on teacher workplace learning (commitment or isolation, empowerment or alienation, etc.). Traditionally, teachers have been regarded as passive participants in professional development and workplace learning programs, lacking knowledge and skills. Of late, teachers are more often regarded as active learners, and as agents in co-determining their working and learning goals, contents, processes, and outcomes. In this respect, the six factors for the integration of working and learning in schools also should be regarded as co-determined by the teachers themselves. Starting from insights in sensemaking in organizations and schools, all aspects of working and learning in schools can be regarded as part of an ongoing process of reinvention and reinterpretation by teachers and other agents in and around the school. Generally, high-commitment, flexible, and learningintensive work systems are assumed to promote the integration of learning and working, but scientific management principles still tend to dominate the design of many workplaces (Ellstro¨m, 2001). The same phenomenon seems to hold for schools. Rosenholtz (1989) distinguished learning-enriched and learning-impoverished schools. Rosenholtz and other researchers found far more learning-impoverished schools than learningenriched schools (Little, 2006). Workplace learning in schools has potential advantages, like facilitated transfer of learning, accommodation of different needs and learning styles, ability to tap collective knowledge, and the natural promotion of collaboration and school renewal. But there are also potential problems in workplace learning. Not all learning at work is good, as is shown by negative lessons learned by (student) teachers, reinforcement of existing biases, and refinement of poor practices (Bredeson, 2003). Moving all learning to the workplace might create too heavy a burden on the workplace. Effective professional development in schools implies the search for a productive balance and creative swing between adaptive and innovative varieties of individual and organizational learning, and on-site and offsite learning.
Bibliography Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., and Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: Analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12, 209–229. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher 33(8), 3–15. Bredeson, P. (2003). Designs for Learning: A New Architecture for Professional Development in Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ellstro¨m, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly 12, 421–435. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 113–136. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoeve, A., Jorna, R., and Nieuwenhuis, A. (2006). ‘Het leren van routines: van stagnatie naar innovatie’ (Learning from routines: From stagnation to innovation). Pedagogische Studie¨n 83, 397–409. Little, J. W. (2006). Professional Development and Professional Community in the Learning-Centered School. Arlington, VA: National Education Association. Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000). Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Nieuwenhuis, A. and van Woerkom, M. (2006). ‘Rationales achter werkplekleren’ (Rationalities for work-based learning). Pedagogische Studie¨n 83, 343–353. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman. Scribner, J. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 35, 238–266. Smith, C. and Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy 7, 205–244. Smylie, M. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In Guskey, T. and Huberman, M. (eds.) Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, pp 92–113. New York: Teachers College Press. Wilson, S. M. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In Iran-Nejad, A. and Pearson, P. D. (eds.) Review of Research in Education, 24, pp 173–209.
Further Reading Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy 19(3), 476–509. Conley, S. and Enomoto, E. (2005). Routines in school organization: Creating stability and change. Journal of Educational Administration 43, 9–21. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., and Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers Matter: Connecting Work, Lives and Effectiveness. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill. Hoekstra, A. (2007). Experienced Teachers’ Informal Learning in the Workplace. Doctoral Dissertation. Utrecht: IVLOS Institute of Education, Utrecht University. Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9, 133–145. Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning. European Journal of Teacher Education 26, 293–311. Little, J. W. and McLaughlin, M. W. (eds.) (1993). Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K., Marks, H., and Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal 33, 757–798. Meirink, J. (2007). Individual Teacher Learning in a Context of Collaboration in Teams. Doctoral Dissertation, Leiden University: Leiden. Reis, S. (2005). Learning to Teach Reading in English as a Foreign Language. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen. Spillane, J., Reiser, B., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387–431. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zwart, R. (2007). Teacher Learning in a Context of Reciprocal Peer Coaching. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Introduction
Teachers’ Professional Development
A central notion in theories of workplace learning is the intrinsic and mutual relationship between working and learning. In teacher learning as workplace learning, two themes come together: the content and organization of teachers’ work, and the content and process of teachers’ learning in the context of their classrooms and schools. During the last two decades, workplace learning has been an important item in discussions on vocational education and professional development in industrialized societies. These discussions cover the broad field of economic and cultural developments, technological and organizational innovations, knowledge economy and knowledge creation, and professional development and vocational learning in schools and work organizations. In discussions on teacher learning, workplace learning is a significant item for at least two reasons. Workplace learning is assumed to be a promising method for the development of productive learning contexts in teacher education and continuing professional development. Professional learning of aspiring and practicing teachers is expected to result in competences for the teaching of their students as productive workers and as productive learners in their future workplace contexts. In this article, teachers’ workplace learning is defined as changes in teaching practices in classrooms and schools that are mediated through individual teacher learning and problem-solving processes in the school (Ellstro¨m, 2001). In the field of education, professional development is the generic term under which teacher learning activities and programs are organized and discussed. Teachers’ professional development can be defined as those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students (Guskey, 2000). Recently, these activities and programs often build on workplace learning insights. This article aims to explore the relatively new field of teachers’ workplace learning in classrooms and schools, as it builds on, and adds new insights to teachers’ professional development in schools. The question is how and in what directions teacher learning can be promoted in the context of work in classrooms and schools. First, the state of the art in teachers’ professional development is briefly characterized. Next, recent general insights in workplace learning in combination with insights in teachers’ workplace learning is discussed.
Teachers’ professional development literature shows a range of insights regarding views of learning (acquisition vs. constructivism), designs (fragmented vs. ongoing and systematic), and opportunities (formal and informal, mandatory and voluntary, serendipitous and planned). The lifelong curriculum of teachers’ professional development seems fragmented and incoherent. The rationales for professional development also diverge considerably. A first rationale argues that most educational reforms require a great deal of learning on the part of teachers. Teachers need support and advice to understand the reform and work according to the reform. A second rationale starts from the nature of teachers’ work. Teachers play a crucial role in students’ learning, and professional development of teachers is assumed to be in the interest of the students and teaching as a profession. The first rationale assumes that teachers show personal inadequacies in need of repair, while the second rationale assumes that teacher learning contributes to fulfillment as a practitioner in support of students’ learning. Attention is increasing for teacher learning and teacher professional development programs situated in the workplace in contrast to off-site programs. These off-site activities entail workshops, conference sessions, seminars, lectures, and other short-term training events on subjectmatter issues and topics such as cooperative learning and classroom management. Design elements and conditions that can enhance the effectiveness of these activities are longer duration, connection with teachers’ work context, focus on subject matter, and emphasis on analysis and reflection (Smith and Gillespie, 2007). By identifying these design elements and conditions, it is a small step toward recent on-site professional development methods that are embedded in daily work in classrooms and schools. These work-embedded methods include training within the school or local context, and creating ongoing professional communities, study circles, and inquiry groups. In addition to this, workplace learning has brought about a shift: from a focus on individual teacher knowledge, skills,
and teaching competencies, including new instructional methods, to a focus on student learning and specific teacher problems; from off-site to on-site activities;
569
570
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
from single sessions or a short series to long-term and
ongoing sessions; and from a focus on change as something that is done to teachers, and programs that change teachers as passive participants, to change as a complex process that involves learning with teachers as active learners. As far as research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of learning activities that are embedded in daily work, it shows that teacher learning is promoted by a focus on subject-matter knowledge for teaching, understanding of students’ thinking, and instructional practices. Further, the process of meaningful learning is slow and uncertain, and some elements of teacher knowledge are easier to change than others. It takes time to develop a community. Teachers have little experience engaging in a professional discourse that is public and critical of their work and the work of colleagues. Finally, it should be noted that combining features of off-site and on-site activities in professional development programs seems to be very effective (Little, 2006; Smith and Gillespie, 2007). In general, several methods for workplace learning have been developed (coaching, supervision, and collegial consultation; mentoring and master–mate learning; development tasks and action research; and instruction and application in the workplace). These methods have been applied to (student) teachers’ professional development in schools. Besides, new methods for the evaluation of (student) teachers competences and learning are developed and applied (assessment instruments and portfolio). A recurring problem in teacher professional development is the gap between practice (school) and theory (university), and a central aim of these methods for workplace learning is to contribute toward bridging this gap. However, according to Eraut (2000), the problem of the theory–practice gap concerns the relationship between the codified professional knowledge (espoused theory) that is developed and taught at universities, and tacit teachers’ knowledge (theory-in-use) that is developed and transmitted in classrooms and schools. Bridging the theory–practice gap cannot be reduced to mutual adaptation of these sources of knowledge. Sound application of one or more of the aforementioned methods is not sufficient to link espoused theory and theory-in-use, because the problematic relationship between these diverse bodies of knowledge has deep epistemological and (micro-)political roots. Besides, the effectiveness of these methods depends on the conditions of the workplaces in which they are applied, which is discussed in the next sections. Despite an increasing body of knowledge on design elements and conditions, there is very scarce empirically tested knowledge about: (1) the effectiveness of teachers’ professional development programs, and (2) more in
detail, about what teachers learn, how they learn, and how this knowledge improves their practice. The current state of practice and research of teachers’ professional development is inadequate (Borko, 2004), and this constitutes a serious problem for policy, practice, and research. This does not mean that the design, learning principles, and beliefs of many programs are unreasonable or unsound (Wilson and Berne, 1999). In summary, the literature on teacher professional development in schools shows a shift toward workplace learning, though at the same time a lack of theoretical and empirical understanding is observed. In the next sections the analysis of teachers’ professional development is broadened by taking the mutual relationship between teachers’ working and learning as the starting point.
Perspectives on Workplace Learning The identification of professional development in workplace contexts depends on the perspective from which learning is analyzed. Generally, perspectives on workplace learning differ with regard to goals, outcomes, rationales, and managerial views. Workplace learning varies from adaptive to developmental, in terms of tasks, methods, and results, which are given or not given (Ellstro¨m, 2001). A broad range of possible learning outcomes for teachers in the workplace can be found, ranging from habitual reaction to reflective practice, and inquiry (Smylie, 1995). Four perspectives on teachers’ workplace learning are distinguished (Nieuwenhuis and van Woerkom, 2006): 1. In teacher education settings, workplace learning primarily is regarded as preparation for working, and qualification is the goal. This perspective plays an important role in studies of on-the-job training in initial teacher education. 2. In ongoing work settings in schools, teachers’ workplace learning is regarded as contributing to productivity of schools, often as nonformal learning and as an intrinsic quality of professional work. Development of routines is important in this perspective, besides development of improvements during the performance of work activities. This perspective can be helpful to understand the dynamics and outcomes of teacher induction and socialization. 3. In global market and knowledge economy settings, teachers’ workplace learning is closely linked to the vitality of the school, school improvement, and to educational reform. 4. In the individual perspective, teachers’ workplace learning is regarded as learning for life and individual professional development in community contexts.
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning
Teachers’ Workplace Teacher learning is located in diverging contexts within the school. Three interrelated levels are distinguished: 1. individual or personal learning by teachers or school leaders within the context of the school; 2. social learning in small groups or teams of teachers; and 3. learning that occurs across the school organization as a whole. According to Mitchell and Sackney (2000), it is the interrelatedness of conditions and processes at these three levels that explains successes and failures in school improvement and shared learning. Formally, the school as a workplace consists of diverging units that are charged with diverging tasks and responsibilities. Informally, the school contains several spheres of influence and interaction. For teachers, the work with students, inside and outside the classroom, makes up the core of their work. Opportunities to enhance students’ learning are the driving force for teachers to participate in professional development. For the large part of their working day, teachers work individually with (a) group(s) of students, rather isolated from their colleagues. The most meaningful work experiences that promote teachers’ workplace learning is therefore gained in the work with students, in the student-related work with colleagues, and in the interactions with the workplace conditions that are closely linked to the work with students and colleagues – the community of practice in which teachers participate. Teachers’ workplace learning is expected to be primarily located in the teachers’ own sphere of influence and interaction, and in the units in which the work with students is organized. School conditions and processes that are located in the administrators’ sphere can be assumed to affect teacher learning processes and results in an indirect way, more specifically, as mediated by processes of reinvention and reinterpretation by teachers in their own sphere. For example, an educational policy document of a school or district will not influence teachers’ professional development directly. Depending on how teachers interpret the school’s educational policy, this document will affect teacher learning indirectly in foreseen and unforeseen directions.
Workplace Conditions in Schools The educational systems in industrialized countries are characterized by restructuring and standardization of work in schools, aimed at improved student learning and the promotion of a new professionalism in the teachers’ profession. Simultaneously, tendencies of
571
bureaucratization and intensification in schools and teachers’ work have been identified (Ballet et al., 2006). It can be assumed that restructuring and standardization, combined with bureaucratization and intensification, will have significant and contradictory impact on the content, processes, and effects of teachers’ workplace learning in schools. This actual impact can be opposed to the formal aims of reform. This complex relationship between working and learning is elaborated in this section. In his review of general workplace learning research, Ellstro¨m (2001) distinguishes five groups of factors that can be assumed to be critical for facilitating or constraining the integration of learning and work: (1) the learning potential of the task; (2) opportunities for feedback, evaluation, and reflection on the outcomes of work actions; (3) formalization of work processes; (4) employee participation in handling problems and developing work processes; and (5) learning resources. These general factors reasonably summarize the results of overviews of workplace learning conditions in schools, with the exception of one group of factors. Schooling is a strongly moral and normative enterprise, and in overviews of workplace conditions for teacher learning, shared norms are often mentioned as a critical factor. Shared norms are added as a group of school factors to Ellstro¨m’s general overview. Learning Potential of the Task Generally, task complexity, variety, autonomy, and control are regarded as important determinants of the learning potential of the workplace. Traditionally, teachers’ work is viewed as complex, varied, and autonomous. Superficially, the school seems to be a favorable context for workplace learning. However, studies on intensification show tendencies of deprofessionalization in teachers’ work, starting from a combination of narrowing and formalizing the traditional teaching tasks, and simultaneously adding new nonteaching tasks to teachers’ work. These developments are accompanied by experiences of strong work pressure and negative emotions. Further, work redesign and task differentiation in schools only have weak links to aspired forms of teacher learning and student learning. To be an effective workplace learning strategy, redesign of work should focus attention on crucial problems of curriculum and instruction. Teachers strongly depend on routines because they make an enormous amount of decisions each day they work (Eraut, 2000). Teachers’ actions can be described as routinized when they no longer need to think about what they are doing because they have done it so many times before. In routinization, explicit knowledge is converted to tacit knowledge through repetition. Besides individual schemata, routines also are collective schemata for both understanding and acting: they supply teachers with shared understanding of who is doing what, and this
572
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
understanding allows teachers to correctly perform a practice. External and internal pressures can force teachers and schools to change their routines. Routines may restrict school’s responses to change, but they can also help the school to survive changes in environmental demands and expectations (Hoeve et al., 2006). Routines in teaching tasks have the potential to be impediments and opportunities for workplace learning. Opportunities for Feedback, Evaluation, and Reflection on the Outcomes of Work Actions Feedback on the results of work activities is considered to be necessary for learning to occur. Activities in which teachers reflect on student performance, work, and thinking can promote professional development. The effects of feedback can be cognitive as well as motivational. The function of feedback depends on the existence of clear goals. At the level of classrooms and schools, educational goals often are vague or inconsistent, and they can change during teaching. The problem of getting clear feedback on student performance because of unclear goals can be an obstacle for teacher learning in contexts where instructional tasks, methods, and results are given. However, inconsistent or unclear goals may promote analysis, evaluation, and reflection that are assumed to be important for innovative teacher learning. In schools, much information is available that could serve as feedback and promote reflection on the quality of teaching and learning, for example, school self-evaluation reports, reports by the inspectorate, files of student assessment outcomes, aggregated student test results, and teachers’ accounts of classroom experience (Little, 2006). Systematic use of this data on student performance, work, and thinking as sources for learning by individual teachers and teacher teams hardly occurs in schools. Formalization of Work Processes The daily educational and pedagogical practices in the school are important opportunities and constraints for teacher learning. This learning is focused on subject content, pedagogic and instructional methods, and classroom management (Scribner, 1999). Traditional forms of formalization (fixed regulations and procedures) of daily work processes in schools still tend to dominate instruction, classroom management, and organization in schools. For example, a persistent problem in education is the limited flexibility to deal with student diversity in schools and classrooms, notwithstanding inclusive aims. Moreover, images of how schools and classrooms should be structured and should function, as well as daily practices, build on traditional scientific management principles. A gap is existent between the innovative expectations on workplace learning in schools, and the highly
formalized instructional practices of aspiring and practicing teachers as contexts for learning. However, starting from the observations that work in schools is routinized and that the daily knowledge base of teachers is strongly tacit, a process of formalizing instruction and guidance practices can also contribute to teacher learning. Formalization of instruction and guidance can serve as the starting point for questioning existing instructional routines and making the tacit explicit and open for discussion. In that case, the aim is teachers getting a better understanding of (1) what and how their students learn and think, and (2) how student learning is promoted by teachers’ instruction and guidance. This learning by formalization should not be confused with simply replacing an old instructional method by a new one (Smith and Gillespie, 2007). Teacher Participation in Handling Problems and Developing Work Processes Learning is facilitated if teachers have access to and are able to successfully participate in problem handling and activities aimed at the development of improvements in instruction and guidance, both formally and informally. Teachers share positive perceptions of participation in decision making in schools with regard to instructional, pedagogical, and curricular topics, as opposed to administrative topics. Teacher participation in decision making can create frustration, anger, and distrust, when the implementation of decisions that were made is blocked or not promoted by school management. Teachers should be able to participate in all the steps of the cycles in which improvements are developed: planning, development, performance, and evaluation. When the majority of teachers is only expected to perform instructional tasks that are planned, developed, and evaluated by teacher leaders and managers, learning will decrease. Teachers’ collegial interactions vary in task interdependence and alignment (synergy in directions of aims and actions of different actors). High alignment and interdependence, for example, in the context of joint problem solving, are associated with richer and more stimulating learning environments for teachers. This collaboration can produce shared understanding and investment, thoughtful development, and a fair, rigorous test of selected ideas. Lower levels of interdependence and alignment occur when teachers exchange stories, tips, or materials. This can result in reinforcement of and emotional support for maintaining routines (Rosenholtz, 1989). Shared Norms Shared norms that affect teacher learning in the workplace can be distinguished in two types: norms regarding student learning and development, and norms
Teacher Learning as Workplace Learning
regarding teachers’ work and relationships with colleagues. Collective focus on and shared responsibility for student learning are identified as important characteristics of teachers’ professional communities in schools. The absence of a shared conceptual and technical language or a common technical culture in schools has been assumed to be a serious hindrance for the development of these shared norms. However, precise analysis of teacher professional conversations shows that too deep a skepticism on the opportunities in schools for developing shared norms oversimplifies and underestimates the potential of teachers’ collegial practices for teacher learning (Little, 2006). Isolation from colleagues has a negative effect on teacher learning by creating invisible walls between teachers and diminishing the valuable role of collaborative activities (Scribner, 1999). This individualism, in which personal experience plays a central role, is regarded as a defining feature of the teaching profession. Strong traditional cultures are based on teachers collectively defending this individualism and existing conceptions of appropriate curriculum and instruction, even in the face of student failure. Besides, strong innovative and professional cultures can contribute to norms of collegiality and experimentation. Learning Resources Three resources for workplace learning are teachers’ prior knowledge, curricular and instructional materials, and time. Teacher learning by experience presupposes conceptual tools (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) and explicit knowledge about student learning and how student learning is promoted by instruction and pedagogic methods. These conceptual tools and knowledge are used to identify and interpret relevant experiences while teaching, and they play an essential role in workplace learning. Varied sources of instructional and curricular materials promote reinvention of instructional practices and lower barriers for experimentation. These practical materials provide opportunites for teachers to experience what works in daily classroom practice. However, when implemented superficially, the availability of the same sources bears the risk of counterproductive learning effects, because the anticipated student learning results are not realized in the case of superficial implementation. Time is an important resource for participation in formal learning activities, as well as for reflection as part of the ongoing work process, especially in combination with related factors, for example, school schedules. Professional development activities should be conducted often and long enough to ensure gains in knowledge, skills, and confidence. Formal availability of time for professional development is necessary but not sufficient
573
as a resource for teachers to learn. Meaningful and timeconsuming collaboration is often squeezed to margins of teachers’ worklives (on Sunday afternoons or weekly evenings in teachers’ houses). Daily work in schools should be scheduled and organized in such a way that teachers have a fair chance to take advantage of the time available for learning and development. Without these organizational protections, time for learning will disappear under the pressure of chains of incidents and daily routines. A complex trade-off occurs between time for production and time for learning in schools (Ellstro¨m, 2001).
Conclusions Before presenting the conclusions, it should be noted that many of the insights presented in this article lack a solid base of research, although some research had been done on these topics. The field lacks an explicit shared conceptual language, and empirical research often is lacking the rigor that is needed for generalizations. Nevertheless, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the previous analysis. Summarizing the evidence, two perspectives on teachers’ workplace learning and work-embedded professional development can be distinguished. These perspectives vary in assumptions on manageability and predictability of learning processes and outcomes in workplace contexts. In one view, teacher workplace learning is a specific activity that can be managed in the direction of formalized school outcomes and desired change. In the other view, teacher learning outcomes range from improvement in school performance to counterproductive effects on teaching and student learning. In this latter view, teacher learning is emergent, and steering opportunities for management to intervene effectively in this process are weak. An unanswered question is whether these perspectives are complementary or contradictory toward each other. Several potentially effective methods for workplace learning have been identified. The effectiveness of these methods should be regarded within the specific workplace contexts in which they are applied, and keeping an eye open for the conflicting epistemological assumptions of the diverging bodies of knowledge (espoused theories and theories-in-use) that they try to unite. Six factors have been identified for the integration of teachers’ working and learning in schools. Usually, these factors are regarded as objective characteristics of the schools in which they emerge. However, it can be assumed that the impact of these factors mainly is located in how they are interpreted and reinvented by teachers, and how teachers make sense of these factors in their daily work. The relationships between these factors and teacher learning are complex and paradoxical. These factors
574
Teacher Education – Post-Initial Professional Development
play a multidimensional role in teacher workplace learning: they potentially promote opposite directions of learning (reinforcing routines or promoting innovations) and they can have opposite side effects on teacher workplace learning (commitment or isolation, empowerment or alienation, etc.). Traditionally, teachers have been regarded as passive participants in professional development and workplace learning programs, lacking knowledge and skills. Of late, teachers are more often regarded as active learners, and as agents in co-determining their working and learning goals, contents, processes, and outcomes. In this respect, the six factors for the integration of working and learning in schools also should be regarded as co-determined by the teachers themselves. Starting from insights in sensemaking in organizations and schools, all aspects of working and learning in schools can be regarded as part of an ongoing process of reinvention and reinterpretation by teachers and other agents in and around the school. Generally, high-commitment, flexible, and learningintensive work systems are assumed to promote the integration of learning and working, but scientific management principles still tend to dominate the design of many workplaces (Ellstro¨m, 2001). The same phenomenon seems to hold for schools. Rosenholtz (1989) distinguished learning-enriched and learning-impoverished schools. Rosenholtz and other researchers found far more learning-impoverished schools than learningenriched schools (Little, 2006). Workplace learning in schools has potential advantages, like facilitated transfer of learning, accommodation of different needs and learning styles, ability to tap collective knowledge, and the natural promotion of collaboration and school renewal. But there are also potential problems in workplace learning. Not all learning at work is good, as is shown by negative lessons learned by (student) teachers, reinforcement of existing biases, and refinement of poor practices (Bredeson, 2003). Moving all learning to the workplace might create too heavy a burden on the workplace. Effective professional development in schools implies the search for a productive balance and creative swing between adaptive and innovative varieties of individual and organizational learning, and on-site and offsite learning.
Bibliography Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., and Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: Analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12, 209–229. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher 33(8), 3–15. Bredeson, P. (2003). Designs for Learning: A New Architecture for Professional Development in Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ellstro¨m, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly 12, 421–435. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 113–136. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoeve, A., Jorna, R., and Nieuwenhuis, A. (2006). ‘Het leren van routines: van stagnatie naar innovatie’ (Learning from routines: From stagnation to innovation). Pedagogische Studie¨n 83, 397–409. Little, J. W. (2006). Professional Development and Professional Community in the Learning-Centered School. Arlington, VA: National Education Association. Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000). Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Nieuwenhuis, A. and van Woerkom, M. (2006). ‘Rationales achter werkplekleren’ (Rationalities for work-based learning). Pedagogische Studie¨n 83, 343–353. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman. Scribner, J. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 35, 238–266. Smith, C. and Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy 7, 205–244. Smylie, M. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In Guskey, T. and Huberman, M. (eds.) Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, pp 92–113. New York: Teachers College Press. Wilson, S. M. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In Iran-Nejad, A. and Pearson, P. D. (eds.) Review of Research in Education, 24, pp 173–209.
Further Reading Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy 19(3), 476–509. Conley, S. and Enomoto, E. (2005). Routines in school organization: Creating stability and change. Journal of Educational Administration 43, 9–21. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., and Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers Matter: Connecting Work, Lives and Effectiveness. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill. Hoekstra, A. (2007). Experienced Teachers’ Informal Learning in the Workplace. Doctoral Dissertation. Utrecht: IVLOS Institute of Education, Utrecht University. Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9, 133–145. Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning. European Journal of Teacher Education 26, 293–311. Little, J. W. and McLaughlin, M. W. (eds.) (1993). Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K., Marks, H., and Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal 33, 757–798. Meirink, J. (2007). Individual Teacher Learning in a Context of Collaboration in Teams. Doctoral Dissertation, Leiden University: Leiden. Reis, S. (2005). Learning to Teach Reading in English as a Foreign Language. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen. Spillane, J., Reiser, B., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387–431. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zwart, R. (2007). Teacher Learning in a Context of Reciprocal Peer Coaching. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.