欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > Education

Approaches to teachers’ Professional Development

发布时间:2018-06-12
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

Approaches to teachers’ PD

PD can include “formal or informal learning experiences throughout one's career” (Fullan, 1991: 326). Marsick and Watkins (1990: 12) state that “formal learning is institutionally-sponsored, classroom-based, and highly-structured, while informal learning is a category which includes incidental learning, may occur in institutions, but is not typically classroom-based... and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner”. Historically, professional development has included annual local, national, or international conferences, workshops, and courses (Little, 1993), while more recent forms of professional development include joining communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991), co-teaching, mentoring, coaching, reflecting on class lessons (Schifter and Fosnot, 1993), self-directed learning, and action research (Guskey, 2000).

The intentions for different approaches to PD are to meet individual needs and so attend to organisational/ government requirements. Consequently, those with intentions for product-based outcomes from PD (e.g. teachers gaining qualifications) would adopt transmission models of PD (e.g. training), and those focused on developing attitudes and beliefs about teaching would be more likely to opt for transformative models (e.g. enquiry/ collaborative action research) or translational models (e.g. self-direction) [Kennedy, 2005]. Clearly, knowledge acquisition is not situated exclusively within any one of these categories, but the recognition of the different underpinning influences, expectations and possibilities is useful in analytical terms for this study.

So is self-direction an approach for professional development?

Richards and Farrell (2005) provide a list of activities central to self-direction, equally applicable to PD, including: Self-enquiry (asking questions and seeking information to answer them); self-appraisal (assessing oneself on evidence from self and others along with critical reflection analysis to determine strengths and weaknesses); using experience as a stimulus for learning; meaning is personally constructed by the learner; learning takes place in a particular context and social setting and is socially constructed; planning and managing (setting short-term and long-term goals and selecting strategies for their achievement). [Adapted from Richards and Farrel, 2005: 14]. This does not imply solitary learning by a teacher. Villegas-Reimers (2003: 95) and (Candy, 1991: 367) argue that objective feedback is needed for self-direction to be effective as an approach to PD. In other words, the role of PD providers is not diminished since they facilitate and support the development.

Describing teachers’ PD for this study

In light of the multitude of definitions and approaches, and polarised categorisations of PD, rather than offering an operational definition for this study, I propose a set of premises which describe a transformational process of PD linking knowledge, beliefs and practices as discussed above which may be considered to be elements of a description of professional development:

  • Teacher PD improves teacher knowledge, that is content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, or both (Cohen and Hill, 2000; Meiers and Ingvarson, 2005; Porter et al., 2000).
  • Teacher practice, that is, what teachers do in their classrooms, is influenced by their beliefs about learning, which are based in their experiences of learning, to varying degrees (Anderson et al., 2005; Speer, 2005; swan, 2005).
  • Outcomes resulting from teacher practice influences teachers’ beliefs and future practice (Anderson et al., 2005; Speer, 2005; Swan, 2005).

Summary

This section has discussed the various perceptions about teachers’ professional development and their implications for developing a self-directed approach necessary to support the teachers I work with in their ability to develop their practices. It has become clear from the discussion that self-direction can be used as a transformational process teachers to support changes in their practices. In view of this, through this research I will attempt to find out how teachers in Pakistan can develop skills and attitudes for self-direction to support changes in their practice. Each of the perceptions explored illustrate the various ways through which such a practice can be made effective, and the perceived outcomes needed in order for such a PD to be effective, and these were synthesised into a description.

The description detailed above focuses on how self-direction needs to be conceptualised as a means for professional development that will be used by teachers who are given the opportunity to use their own classroom activities and experiences for professional development. The idea of using self-direction for teachers’ PD adds to the variety of approaches that teachers can adopt to change their practices whilst they are in action in their classrooms. This framework provides the foundation for exploring how such concepts can form the basis upon which teachers, out of their complex and busy schedules, can use SDL as a strategy for PD activities.

Through this study, I intend to develop a better understanding of how these components of PD can be realised through the use of self-directed approaches to learning so that teachers can be helped to change their practice instead of the top-down approach employed by many development agencies in teacher change activities in Pakistan. The key to the description of teacher PD presented here is its perceived effectiveness.

In the next section I discuss reflections and understandings of self-directed principles and approaches in order to investigate how this might be used as an approach to operationalising self-directed PD with Pakistani teachers.

Self-direction in learning

Self-direction has dominated the thinking of many adult educators in recent years (Candy, 1991: 5). There is a sense in which all learning is self-directed. We learn for ourselves; others cannot learn for us. In spite of this, self-directed learning has generated a large volume of literature discussing its definition, principles and practice. Next, I introduce the notion of self-directed learning, outline its development in ideas about adult learning and consider some models designed to describe it. In reviewing this literature, I am mindful of Merriam (1993) who suggests that attempting to define SDL precisely, in concrete terms, may trivialise the phenomenon, and so I do not attempt a precise definition but aim at elucidating the discussions in the literature.

Conceptions of self-direction

Self-directed learning may seem to be self-explanatory. However, there is no single, accepted definition, rather there is a confusion of terms used in various ways by different people.

“… self-directed learning is one of those amorphous terms that occurs in adult education literature but that lacks precise definition. … it is so broad as to be almost meaningless”. (Jarvis, 1992a: 130).

“A versatile concept, it has been co-opted to every purpose that adult educators espouse and pursue. The consequence of this is that the literature on self-direction is extensive, but it is also confusing. The lack of internal consistency precludes the possibility of developing a coherent theory of self-direction, or even of self-directed learning, from within the literature itself.”(Candy, 1991: 411).

Candy (1987) identified at least 30 different terms being used interchangeably with self-direction. He lists autodidaxy, autonomous learning, independent learning, learner-controlled/directed instruction, non-traditional learning, participatory learning, self-education, self-organised learning, self-planned learning, self-responsible learning, self-study and self-teaching, as examples. Oddi (1987: 21) describes the “plethora of terms used in reference to the concept” and Gerstner (1992) found 20 different terms including self-instruction, self-initiated learning, self-directed enquiry and autotelic enquiry. Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) note that the definition not only varies with individual writers but also over time with the same writers. They trace the changing definitions used by themselves and Stephen Brookfield as examples.

There is disagreement, for example, about whether self-directed learning is learning in isolation or with others. Knowles himself refers both to “the ability to learn on one’s own” (1975: 17) and to “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others …” (1975: 18) on consecutive pages in the same book. For some, SDL is an independent activity that may be carried out in a range of contexts using a variety of non-human resources. For example, learning at home, at the office or in a library using books, radio, video, newspapers and/or Internet resources. Adekanmbi (1990: 181) refers to it as “learning on his own”; Smith (1982, cited in Oddi, 1987) conceives it as a solitary activity; and Hiemstra’s initial definition included reference to learning “frequently carried out alone” (Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991: 24). Joblin’s (1988: 123) description of self-directed learners being “apt to close themselves off from others and/or the world outside themselves” also suggests isolation. This form of self-directed learning is not usually associated with educational institutions, and tends towards being informal.

Other writers insist that self-directed learning includes learning in association with others. Boud (1981: 25) declares that “autonomy in learning does not mean that students work on their own in isolation from others”. Brookfield (1981) details the important role peer contact has for independent adult learners throughout learning – from decisions to begin learning to reinforcement during learning and evaluation of what has been learned. In a later publication he declared “… it is evident that no act of learning can be self-directed if we understand self-direction as meaning the absence of external sources of assistance” (Brookfield, 1985: 7). He also cited Moore’s metaphor to make the point that the self-directed learner is not “an intellectual Robinson Crusoe, castaway and shut off in self-sufficiency” (Brookfield, 1986: 46). Hammond and Collins (1991: 25) are definite that “a co-operative learning climate is crucial in a self-directed learning course”. Brockett and Hiemstra (1991: 11) declare that “it is a mistake to automatically associate self-directed learning with learning in isolation or learning on an independent basis”. Adeola (1995: 39) insists that “self-directed learning rarely takes place in total isolation”. Garrison (1992: 146) goes even further and claims that “self-directed learning as an autonomous and isolated activity does not, or should not, exist in adult education”. For these writers self-directed learning can take place with others, formally or informally.

One feature of this debate has been the number of people who have identified two separate yet inter-related dimensions of self-directed learning – an internal and an external dimension (Brockett andHiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991; Garrison, 1992; Jarvis, 1992a; 1992b; Oddi, 1987; Pratt, 1988). Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) refer to the ‘personality characteristic’ and ‘instructional method’, and how discussions of SDL confuse these differences. The terminology is itself confusing . Personality characteristics or ‘learner self-direction’ are those personal qualities that lead to a "desire or preference for assuming responsibility for learning" (op. cit. 24). Instructional method or ‘self-directed learning’ is an external characteristic referring to "a process in which the learner assumes a primary role in planning, implementing and evaluating the experience" (op. cit. 24). For Brockett and Hiemstra, these two dimensions are linked and together result in ‘self-direction in learning’.

Garrison (1992) also draws attention to the internal and external dimensions. His external dimension refers to control of the learning process but his internal dimension refers to responsibility for constructing meaning rather than to the personal attributes. Brookfield (1988) also refers to ‘meaning construction’ as a key aspect of SDL:

“Self-directed learning ... is not merely learning how to apply techniques of resource location or instructional design. It is, rather, a matter of learning how to change our perspectives, shift our paradigms, and replace one way of interpreting the world by another.” (Brookfield, 1988: 103).

Clearly, writers on self-direction have an inherent emphasis on one or other of these dimensions. Candy (1991), in his comprehensive analysis of the literature, further develops the two dimensions concept. He distinguishes between self-direction as a goal, outcome or product of learning and as an instructional method, and goes on to define four distinct but related phenomena. Self-direction as a goal he labels as ‘self-management’, describing this as the willingness and capacity for personal autonomy in learning. Self-direction as instructional method he describes as learner control over how PD is organised which he labels as ‘autodidaxy’ (the individual, non-institutional pursuit of learning) (Candy, 1991: 23). While making this distinction he insists that the dimensions are inter-related.

The distinction is artificial. Goal and process are interconnected and together influence learners’ self-direction. However, this distinction does provide a useful framework for this literature review of SDL – a framework around which to shape my understanding of the large volume of literature on SDL. So I use it for analysis and throughout my thesis, while recognising its artificiality and the necessary interdependence of the goal and process dimensions of SDL.

Universalism of SDL

Essential to SDL is the supposition that all people can and want to accept individual responsibility for learning (Flannery, 1994). Autonomy is accepted as a universal value. Criticism of this in the literature focuses around issues of culture, gender and class. Self-direction has grown from humanistic perspectives on learning which emphasise the individual, representing “... a value system which relegate(s) the group to second place" (Tennant, 1986: 120). Flannery summarises views on cultural universalism: “In reality, learning theories based on individualism and autonomy reflect values and attributes that are primarily Western, middle class and male.” (Flannery, 1994: 22). Joblin (1988: 120) supports Flannery’s points by arguing that self-direction is more likely for those born into cultures which nurture it. These discussions recognise how culture affects individual motivation, ways of thinking, individual beliefs and values, and consequently impacts on the individual’s orientation towards learning (The American Psychological Association, 2001; Claxton, 1999; Matsumato, 1994; Schumaker and Carr 1997; Smith, 1990).

The fact that an edited volume on overcoming resistance to self-direction has been published (Hiemstra and Brockett, 1994) suggests that self-direction is not universal. Indeed, Jarvis (1992a: 131) questions the notion of self-direction, arguing that learners demonstrate “a greater propensity toward other-directed learning”.

One of the assumptions made about self-direction is that it applies to all adults, in all contexts, all of the time and that all adults, can or want to accept individual freedom in learning (Flannery, 1994). Some writers argue that this notion has grown out of humanist and existentialist philosophy and psychology with its emphasis on the notion of the self-directed or autonomous learner and the ethic of individualism (Tennant, 1986; Hartree, 1984). There is an emphasis on the uniqueness and individuality of each person, who has the freedom to determine their own values, principles and criteria for truth from their own subjective experience - the ideology of individualism (Candy, 1991). The purpose of adult education is "to enhance the learner's personal growth as the learner determines" (Flannery, 1994, p.21). Thisfocus on the individual human being "constitutes a moral axiom which places the individual at the centre of a value system which relegates the group to second place" (Tennant, 1986: 120).

This emphasis on the individual does not fit comfortably in some cultural contexts. Many cultures value the communal and collective over the individual. A second criticism of the notion of self-direction as universal focuses on gender differences in approaches to learning (Belenky et al, 1986; Gilligan, 1982). There are different emphases on affiliation, relationship, connectedness and communion between genders. Fine and Glendinnig (2005) say that women are interdependent rather than independent, the quality which is most often valued in self-direction. This difference is especially significant when self-direction is defined as learning in isolation rather than in association with others.

上一篇:Transformation in the Higher Education sector 下一篇:Filipino Work Values in Education