Developing teacher professional development programmes through practice based research principle

This Guide focuses on how the use and application of research into teaching and learning practices has enriched teaching and learning opportunities. What follows is a review of the pedagogical models that have underpinned Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme design since the late 1980s, with a strong focus on using education technology to support CPD. The discussion is framed using three key pedagogical approaches that underpin CPD designs based on Pachler’s (2005) learning principles (simplified for student teachers):

• information transmission

• constructivism

• social interaction.

What follows is a description of information transmission which was the prevailing mode of teaching in schools and universities for centuries.

This Guide is intended for anyone in school leadership especially EdTech leadership because of the focus on pedagogy eg Strategic Leaders in Information Computer Technology (SLICT)

For guidance about undertaking school based research see the three research MESHGuides:

Research Methods: Developing your research design 

Research Methods: Doing a literature review

Research Methods: Considering Ethics in your research

Askew, S. and E. Carnell (1998) Transforming Learning: Individual and Global Change, Institute of Education, University of London series.

Biesta, G.J.J. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, Vol 50 Issue1 p75-87

Chandler. D. (1994) The Transmission Model of Communication http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html (last accessed 8th July 2016)

Crawford V.P. and J. Sobel. Strategic Information Transmission Vol. 50, No. 6 (Nov., 1982), pp. 1431-1451 Published By: The Econometric Society

Daly, C., Pachler, N. and Pelletier, C. (2009a) ICT CPD for school teachers: a literature review for Becta. London: WLE Centre. Available at: http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode =_re_rp_02&rid=17359 ( Last accessed 29th October 2011)

Daly, C., Pachler, N. and Pelletier, C. (2009b) ICT CPD for school teachers: a research report. Becta. London: WLE Centre. Available at: http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=17369

Hopkins, D. (1965 reversioned 2001) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Friere. P. (1968, reprinted 1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group, London

Lamb, T.E. and Simpson, M. (2003) Escaping from the Treadmill: Practitioner Research and Professional Autonomy, Language Learning Journal, 28(Winter 2003), 55–63.

November, A. (2009) Empowering Students with Technology, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA

Pachler, N. (2005). Theories of Learning and ICT. Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School: Second Edition. M. Leask and N. Pachler. London, Routledge.

Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York.

Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education. A Proposal to the National Science Foundation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Piaget, J. (1928). Judgement and reasoning in the child. Harcourt, Brace. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203207260

Piaget, J. (1951). The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.

Scardamalia, M. and C. Bereiter (1996) Engaging Students in a Knowledge Society. Educational Leadership, v54 n3 p6-10 Nov 

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, Basic Books.

Somekh, B. (1989). Action Research and collaborative school development. The In-service Training of Teachers: Some issues and perspectives. R. McBride. Brighton, Falmer Press.

Somekh, B. (1995). "The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology." British Education Research Journal: 339-355.

Saunders, L. (2002) Evidence-led Professional Creativity, GTC/IOE Joint Conference, Teachers on Teaching and Learning, London.

Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and Learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London and New York: Routledge.

Somekh, B. and N. Davis (1998). Using Information Technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning. London, Routledge.

Wenger-Trayner, E. and Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015) An introduction to communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its uses. Available from authors at https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice.

‘Information transmission’ is a popular phrase used to denote the mechanistic communication of expert knowledge that is one way only. The critique of this mode of teaching has become increasingly sophisticated over the years as knowledge about the complexity of communication grows. The phrase was first coined in 1949 by Shannon and Weaver who wanted to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone technologies in human communication.

However, Crawford and Sobel (1982), pointed out that information transmission only works when the expert speaker is motivated to give a full account of their expertise and when the learner has a common interest in the knowledge being offered and is, therefore, prepared to listen. Without common interests, information transmission is heard as ‘noise’ by the learner who does not retain the information given. Chandler (1994) complained that the information transmission model assumes communicators are isolated individuals. No allowance is made for differing purposes, differing interpretations, unequal power relations and situational contexts (often called differentiation). Information transmission is still the most widely implemented method of teaching in schools across the world. 

The traditional role of expert educators around the world is to pass on their expertise to students who learn the information and reproduce it for examinations and tests (Biesta, 2015). However, in the case of  ICT, Pachler (2005) warned of a general tendency to perceive the value of the new technologies only in terms of traditional information transmission: that is as a means of delivering facts to students. The key disadvantage of using this model with educators, who are the subject of this study, is that it reinforces the ‘deficit’ model of expert teacher of teachers giving new information to teachers who are only students with no experience in the topic being covered. This mode of CPD makes little concession to what the educators may already know.

This emphasis on the ‘sage on the stage’ pedagogic approach was beginning to change to the ‘guide on the side’ when digital technologies started to emerge in schools and universities in the 1980s. Digital technologies were a strong catalyst for breaking out of the information transmission mode because resources for teaching and learning were made more available not only to the teachers but also the learners who had primary access to learning materials on the developing World Wide Web. This opened the window of opportunity for access to research information that could inform practice within schools, colleges and universities with or without the help of expert support. However, a more interesting and potentially significant development has been the emergence of practice-based research in which practice is both informed and provoked research within educational settings, bringing together practitioners, as both consumers and producers of research material, with academic researchers themselves.

However, this requires a different pedagogical model resulting in a shift from knowledge transmission to a more constructionist and/or constructivist model as facilitated by social interaction supported by educational technologies which has led to a model of collaborative co-construction of knowledge.

We now trace how the interest in practice-based learning/research began to alter the views of teachers who were exploring the opportunities offered by edtech as  new forms of technology became available, joining groups of professionals in the UK in organisations like Technology, Pedagogy and Technology Associations (TPEA) as well as the MirandaNet Fellowship and Naace, all three organisations of edtech professionals

Constructivism and Constructionism 

In this MESHGuide we are now concentrating on one particular approach to CPD which educators who formed the MirandaNet Fellowship developed. This international professional organisation was founded by Dr Christina Preston in 1992. Central to that organisation was the argument that the constructivist approach is preferable in the CPD context, because pedagogical design acknowledges the human need to generate knowledge and meaning from learners’ own experiences.

Constructivism is not a specific learning theory and it is more appropriate to talk about constructionism (Papert, 1986) which was inspired by the constructivist and experiential learning ideas of Jean Piaget (1928, 1951). Papert's ideas were becoming well-known in the 1980s through the publication of his seminal book, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1980). Papert’s views about learning are particularly relevant as he developed the Logo language, a computer language that children could use to build mathematical concepts. He wanted the pupils to draw their own conclusions through creative experimentation and the making of social objects. The constructionist teacher takes on a mediational role rather than adopting an instructionist position. The mediational role is advocated strongly by Alan November in his book,’Empowering Students with Technology’ (2009). Teaching ‘at’ students - the ‘information transmission’ pedagogical model is replaced by assisting them to understand—and help one another to understand—problems in a hands-on way. Teachers who are themselves taught in this way with colleagues acting as mentors rather than experts are more likely to model this kind of teaching in the classroom.

Too often student teachers are still lectured about ‘doing’ rather than being given the chance ‘to do’. However, in in-service professional development, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the constructionist approach gained ground with the introduction of action research and practice-based research as methodologies for researching the effectiveness of teaching. But the constructivist practices of action research and practice-based research differ in detail.

In action research the teacher is encouraged to construct an understanding of say, the role of digital technologies in school, for example, by undertaking a negotiated project  that tackles a perceived challenge (Schön, 1983). As early as the 1980s, Somekh saw the potential for action research as a means of embedding digital technologies into teachers’ professional practice as well as influencing their school, regional and even national policy (Somekh, 1989; Somekh, 1995; Somekh and Davis 1998; Somekh, 2007). Hopkins described this process as turning reflection into a form of disciplined enquiry where the professional aims to understand, improve and reform (Hopkins, 1985, reversioned 2001). 

Criticism of the action research approach of the 1980s focused on the isolation of the teachers who were only involved in the design and production processes of a project in their own classroom. In England, government funded projects promoted the notion that teachers could reflect on their practice without leaving the classroom. Critics warned that lack of scholarship in these solitary programmes could result in teachers being unaware of relevant developments in their area of study (Saunders, 2002; Whitehead, 2006). For these reasons the term ‘practice-based’ research began to be used (Lamb and Simpson, 2003). This theory militated against the prevailing view of teachers as business managers rather than reflective and activist professionals influencing policy through research evidence (Sachs 2003).

In the case of practice-based research the teacher as the active agent forges together theory and practice into ‘praxis’, a high-level mode of professional operation where the practitioner does not only possess skills, but a deep knowledge and understanding of the theories that underpin practice. In The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), Freire defined ‘praxis’ as "reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it." In this interpretation, oppressed people can join together to acquire a critical awareness of their own condition, and, with their allies, struggle for liberation. ‘Oppressed’ in this sense means those who are excluded from power structures i.e. those who are the objects of a top-down process, rather than subjects in their own right. ‘The oppressed’ might seem a strong term to apply to education professionals, yet there is a sense in which globally teachers have their autonomy restricted in their classrooms as governments define national curricula and implement examination league tables as a measure of teachers’ effectiveness and accountability. 

Constructionism was widely taken up by the teaching profession in the 1960s and 1970s in order to break away from the paradigm where the teacher pontificated from the front watched by rows of pupils. But Askew and Carnell (1998) point out that in those decades the relationship between teachers and children was too cosy. World issues rarely intruded. In contrast, for Askew and Carnell, constructivism meant promoting transformative change both in the professional learning of the individual and within groups of professionals across schools, regions or even nations (Askew and Carnell, 1998). However, in the same decade managerialism in schools across the world halted some of these collaborative advances (Sachs, 2003).

The third learning method, ‘social interaction’, expands Freire’s notion of the wider value of collaborative learning in social and cultural contexts in order to take charge of the agenda (1968). In fact this was the approach of the mediaeval Trade Guilds which brought specialist craftsmen together to pursue a common agenda, but digital communication now made sharing ideas between members so much more possible without meeting face to face.

One of the approaches to using edtech to support CPD for teachers recommended by the Landscape Review [1]is a greater concentration on the role of groups of professionals who meet informally to exchange the theories and practices (Daly, Pachler and Pelletier 2009a). A key term for this kind of collaborative exchange is ‘community of practice’ (CoP) first coined by Etienne and Bev Wenger-Trayner to denote professional groups of people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour. For example: 

• a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression

• a group of engineers working on similar problems

• a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school

• a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques

• a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope. 

In a nutshell: communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. They share their publications and their overview on their website (Wenger-Trayner E. and B. 2015)  

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) developed the idea further by bringing into the learning community a knowledge creation tool. They developed a learning platform, called the Knowledge Forum, designed to assist CoPs of young people to think collaboratively about key questions in the curriculum. Their combined contributions led to identification of gaps in their group knowledge that they fill as a team. The knowledge base is left for the next group. Instead of learning the same information, the new class absorbs the knowledge that is there and digs deeper. This way the school owns a knowledge base in which a pupil has ownership.

This MESHGuide is focusing on the pedagogy used for the Continuing Professional Development(CPD) programmes developed by the MirandaNet Fellowship that demonstrate the application of practice-based learning to CPD. The MirandaNet professional organisation (1992-2023) has had a unique reputation in the market for independence, credibility and market leading research into technology and innovation.MirandaNet Fellows who are all educators and researchers offer an innovative qualitative research programme, called iCatalyst: in this programme  teachers in the classroom themselves become co-researchers in order to to define, measure and report on the impact of innovation on learning. Working with all key stakeholders, the MirandaNet researchers and co-researchers identify what they want to gain from their investment in digital technologies in terms of evidence of learning. Crucial to success is the methodology of collecting evidence of learning in the classroom and developing the  ability to measure the impact of implementation.

As co-researchers the participants build a professional community in order to amass the evidence they need to underpin the changes they want to make. Publishing case studies on the MirandaNet website built our Knowledge Hub where professionals shared and drove  knowledge to a global audience of like-minded professionals. The MirandaNet website has now been archived by the British Library in perpetuity so that other professionals can benefit from the MirandaNet Fellows commitment.

iCatalyst consists of two programmes: Sprint and Insight. Participants in Sprint work towards a short research report, developed in about one term, focusing on the value of one digital product or service. The study is undertaken by key teachers as co-researchers with the support of selected advisors and researchers from the professional communities. Insight  is a longer project where school leaders collaborate over a year to look in depth at how they are using digital products and services and how they can boost achievement.  A group of staff leaders define innovation strategy, review implementation and measure the impact on learning over the long term.

MirandaNet Fellows, founded in 1992 by Professor Christina Preston, had a unique reputation in the market for independence, credibility and market leading research into technology and innovation. As mentioned, Fellows, all educators, offered an innovative qualitative research programme, iCatalyst, working with teachers as co-researchers to define, measure and report on the impact of innovation on learning. Working with all key stakeholders, the MirandaNet Fellows identified what they wanted to gain from their investment in digital technologies in terms of evidence of learning. Crucial to success was the methodology of collecting of evidence of learning in the classroom and the ability to measure the impact of implementation.

As co-researchers iCatalyst participants build a professional community in order to amass the evidence they need to underpin the changes they want to make in the Knowledge Hub [2].

All those involved benefited from a well-organised programme: teachers and senior managers gained a deeper and shared understanding about the strategies they might adopt to introduce systemic change and improve pupil achievement. The practice-based research methodology gave the school time to reflect on the use of technology and analyse its use, effectiveness and impact. Using this knowledge schools could see a positive  impact on their policies and work practices collaboratively. This offered the school a rare chance to review best practice and the way they deployed innovation to enhance learning. The agenda was generated by the staff and they could use the results in their strategic planning as well as their reports to governors and government organisations; teachers also gained accreditation and could publish for a global audience in a range of modes. In addition, leaders, trainers and advisers were also supported in developing these practice-based research programmes that drew on theory as well as practice. 

Accreditation provided evidence of the co-researchers’ effectiveness as teacher mentors; company representatives who also joined the projects as co-researchers gained professional development and valuable research and development information. A learning company used this knowledge to improve their understanding of education as well as for marketing their product and for evidence of their learning in entering for awards. These MirandaNet associate companies gained  valuable feedback on their products and quantified evidence of learning.

Finally all the participants who published in the MirandaNet Knowledge Hub received a MirandaNet Fellowship and pupils were awarded a World Ecitizen certificate for sharing their achievements internationally.

Teacher leaders could follow up with a 30 point Masters module with De Montfort University by expanding on the evidence they had collected. Mentoring about the analysis and reporting of evidence took place face to face and online. Members of associate companies could also elect to join the programmes and gain accreditation for effective research  and development with teachers.

The principles of iCatalyst can still be adapted to effect change at school level, or at regional or national level. Three examples of the iCatalyst professional development programme follow using collaborative learning that illustrate the different levels.

The following detail about three exemplar projects covers:

• the challenges for the funders and the participants;

• the ways in which the iCatalyst process helped to define the issues and create the solution;

• the methods used to collect evidence;

• the results.

The first project is Elapa: Digital Technologies in South Africa:building a learning community in Free State province: 2001-2004 in order to train advisors to introduce digital technologies into schools and colleges in order to upskill the population of the region.

The second is the Bodhi Project funded by the Podar charity who were expanding their schools into the rural areas of India, MirandaNet was invited to run a programme for forty principals who met termly over two years from 2010-2012 to identify ways of improving teaching methods and sharing them with new staff.

The third is ICT tools for Future Teachers, a 2009 Becta funded programme.  This government agency for information and Communications Technology (ICT), decided that they required research-based advice to support effective ICT use by teachers now and in the future. Professors Christina Preston and Marilyn Leask, both members of the MirandaNet Fellowship, were asked to undertake this research. They worked with fifty expert teachers and advisers focusing on five questions:

• What in the views of practitioners, are the characteristics of effective technology-based tools and resources and how do they help teachers do their work well?

• What are the characteristics of effective non technology-based tools and resources and how do they help teachers do their work well?

• Where do practitioners go to find out about and access new tools for learning and teaching?

• What are the key challenges faced by practitioners in doing their job well?

• The future – what ICT tools would help? What digital solutions are needed? If these solutions do not exist, could they be created? What would their characteristics be, and how and when would they be used?

More of the projects that were undertaken between 1998 and 2000 can be found here on the archived MirandaNet Fellowship website.

https://mirandanet.ac.uk/about-associates/associates-research/

https://mirandanet.ac.uk/examples-of-icatalyst/

The model outlined here was evaluated with participants with positive results and it was developed based on research into effective CPD.

Teachers who have been trained to teach via a transmission mode may find CPD which requires them to implement a cycle of active reflection: think, plan, do and test then repeat the cycle may be uneasy with the requirement to be actively engaged in developing new pedagogical approaches. However, their students will have to adapt to a rapidly changing world throughout their lives and teachers have a role in preparing them for this.

Examples of methods for CPD which have long lasting impact are welcome but must be backed up with sound research into their effectiveness