Advertisement

A Collaborative Classroom-Based Teacher Professional Learning Model

  • Dace Namsone
  • Līga Čakāne
Chapter

Abstract

This article reviews the Latvian experience of exploring a teacher continuous professional learning model, with an emphasis on teacher collaboration for professional learning. The developed model focuses on lessons taught in real-life classrooms and their subsequent analysis. The model consists of a set of regularly scheduled workshops in a period of a school year. It is based on the idea of a multiple activity cycle of “observe–reflect–write–discuss” conducted several times during every workshop. Every participant has an opportunity to experience two roles: that of a leader, teach a demonstration lesson to his/her colleagues, and that of a learner, observe, analyse and reflect on a colleague’s lesson. The sessions were led by experienced education practitioner coaches.

The model was implemented during the period from November 2011 to April 2015. The teams consisted of experienced, committed teachers from the “Science and Mathematics” project as well as primary school teachers from the national innovative experience schools collaboration network. Surveys from teachers and feedback from expert coaches and teachers demonstrate that the model enhanced the development of teaching, reflection and collaboration skills. The research concludes that the initial science and mathematics teacher learning model can successfully be transferred for professional development in other subjects.

References

  1. Anderson RD, Michener CP (1994) Research on science teacher education. In: Gable D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. McMillan, New York, pp 3–44Google Scholar
  2. Barber M, Mourshed M (2007) How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Co. Retrieved from: http://www.smhc-cpre.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top-sept-072.pdf
  3. Bybee R, Fuchs B (2006) Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science. J Res Sci Teach 43(4):349–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. France I, Namsone D, Cakane L (2015) What research shows about mathematics teachers’ learning needs: experience from Latvia. In: Society, integration, education, vol 2, pp 45–55. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol2.457
  5. Fullan MG (1991) New meaning of educational change. Teachers Colleague Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Fullan MG (1996) Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan 77(6):420–423Google Scholar
  7. Fullan MG (2011a) Learning is the work. Unpublished paper. Retrieved from: http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396087260.pdf
  8. Fullan MG (2011b) Whole system reform for innovative teaching and learning. In: Innovative teaching and learning research. Findings and implications. Retrieved from: http://www.itlresearch.com/images/stories/reports/ITL%20Research%202011%20Findings%20and%20Implications%20-%20Final.pdf
  9. Fullan M, Langworthy M (2014) A rich seam: how new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hargreaves A, Fullan MG (2012) Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers Colleague Press/Ontario Principal’s Council, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Hattie J (2012) Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact of learning. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstein A, Mamlok-Naaman R (2014) Case studies on PROFILES teacher training (CPD) and ownership. In: Bolte C, Holbrook J, Mamlok-Naaman R, Rauch F (eds) Science teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe. Case studies from the PROFILES project. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, pp 161–164Google Scholar
  13. Kemmis S, McTaggart R (2000) Participatory action research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kozliak EI (2000) Chemical education in countries of former Soviet Union. J Chem Educ 77(7):870–875. doi: 10.1021/ed077p870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Namsone D, Cakane L (2012) Experiences from Latvia – science teachers learning from other teachers to improve teaching and reflection skills. In: Bolte C, Holbrook J, Rauch F (eds) Inquiry-based science education in Europe: reflections from PROFILES project, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Berlin, pp 127–129. Retrieved from https://ius.uni-klu.ac.at/misc/profiles/files/Profiles Book 2012_10.pdf
  16. Namsone D, Cakane L, Logins J, Volkinsteine J (2012) Science teachers’ learning team – a powerful tool to improve inquiry teaching and reflection skills to focus on teachers individual needs. In: Bolte C, Holbrook J, Rauch F (eds) Inquiry-based science education in Europe: reflections from PROFILES project, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, pp 124–126. Retrieved from https://ius.uni-klu.ac.at/misc/profiles/files/Profiles Book 2012_10.pdf
  17. Namsone D, Cakane L, France I (2015) How science teachers learn to reflect by analyzing jointly observed lessons. LUMAT 3(2):223–236Google Scholar
  18. Olson J (2003) School technology education: the search for authenticity. In: Jenkins EW (ed) Innovations in science and technology education, vol VIII. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 299–323Google Scholar
  19. Pavlova M, Pitt J (2003) Technology education in the Russian Federation: is the perspective clear? In: Jenkins EW (ed) Innovations in science and technology education, vol VIII. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 249–276Google Scholar
  20. Roehrig GH, Luft JA (2004) Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. Int J Sci Educ 26(1):3–24.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosentholtz SI (1991) Teachers workplace: the social organization of schools. Longman group, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanders WL (1998) Value-added assessment. Sch Adm 55(11):24–32Google Scholar
  23. Sanger MJ, Brincks EL, Phelps AJ, Pak MS, Lyovkin AN (2001) A comparison of secondary chemistry courses and chemistry teachers preparation programs in Iowa and Sant Petersburg, Russia. J Chem Educ 78(9):1275–1280. doi: 10.1021/ed078p1275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Driel J, Beijaard D, Verloop N (2001) Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. J Res Sci Teach 38(2):137–158. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Volkinsteine J, Namsone D, Cakane L (2014a) Latvian chemistry teachers’ skills to organize student scientific inquiry. Probl Educ 21st Century 59:86–98Google Scholar
  26. Volkinsteine J, Namsone D, Logins J (2014b) Teachers’ learning team as a tool to improve scientific inquiry teaching. In: Bolte C, Holbrook J, Mamlok-Naaman R, Rauch F (eds) Enhancing inquiry-based science education and teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe: insights and reflections on the PROFILES project and other projects funded by the European Commission. Berlin, Klangenfurt, pp 157–161Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations