Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN UNIVERSITY-SECONDARY SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS:
WHAT MATTERS?

Joanne Deppeler
Faculty of Education
Monash University
PO Box 6, Clayton, Victoria 3800, AUSTRALIA
joanne.deppeler@education.monash.edu.au

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the features of a university school professional development partnership in Melbourne, Australia that were important for improving inclusive practices in three secondary schools. Barriers and facilitators to change will be presented from the view of the leaders in the schools as well as from the perspective of the university facilitators. Findings have helped us to better understand the impact of cultural and organisational features on the change processes and the challenges of university-school partnerships. Outcomes to date suggest the need to maximise conditions for teachers’ professional learning in schools by ensuring that relevant features of the partnership are clarified and organisational structures are in place prior to beginning a project.

Introduction

The improvement of inclusive practices in schools continues to be a high priority for the education systems in Australia. University-school collaboration is the professional development (PD) approach advocated by many educators for improving educational outcomes for students and the professional practices of teachers (Sheehan & Fullan, 1995, Ramsey, 2000, etc).   Over the last decade there has been a growth in university-school partnerships supported through Commonwealth funding (e.g. Australian Research Council of Research Strategic Partnership Industry Research Training (ARC-SPIRT) scheme, Quality Teacher Program (1999-2001), Teacher Professional Development In Support Of The National Literacy Plan, The Junior Secondary Literacy Intervention Project (1998), Innovative Links Project (1994-96)). The Learning Improves in Networking Communities (LINC) project bears much in common with these partnership models and is also closely aligned with work that supports professional learning through collaborative inquiry (Bray, 2002; Burbank & Burbank, 2003; Huffman & Kalnin, 2003; Mariage & Garmon, 2003; Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, Secules, & Goldman, 2000) . Collaborative inquiry models emphasise and actively involve educators in evidence-based research methods for observing and critically analysing the process of schooling and for experimenting with and generating new practices. A common theme running through an extensive literature on various models of collaborative inquiry is that the knowledge that is generated from the process must be mutually developed, informed by theory but reconfigured as a result of the practice, (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). The complexity of implementing inclusive practices in terms of knowledge use and knowledge production has suggested the need for a professional development model that involves the teachers directly in the process of inquiry. Collaborative inquiry was therefore proposed as the model to guide a professional development initiative developed in partnership between The Catholic Education Commission in Victoria (CECV) and Monash University. The project involved leadership teams in networked schools, and university facilitators in the systematic and collaborative examination and sharing of inclusive practices.

Previous professional development (PD) that has occurred through collaborative partnerships between schools and universities has explored the dimensions and tensions of these collaborative partnerships (Hayes & Kelly, 2000; Johnson, Johnson, Le Cornu, & Peters, 1999) including the complex dimensions of the university academic in the role of facilitator in the change process (Perry, Komesaroff, & Kavanagh, 2002) . Faulty assumptions and organisational conditions within the respective organisations can affect change processes and be problematic for the participants (Perry et al., 2002) . Meeting these challenges creates interesting tensions and dilemmas in enacting roles for both the leaders of the teams in schools and for the university facilitators.

This paper compares and contrasts the perceptions of the university facilitators with those of the principals and the leaders of the leadership teams about the conditions that influenced the change processes and levers for improving inclusive practices in three Catholic Secondary schools in Victoria, Australia. These schools were a part of a larger university- school partnership involving eight networked primary and secondary Catholic schools. The LINC project was aimed at improving the quality and status of inclusive practices and the outcomes of schooling for a diverse range of students and was funded through the ARC-SPIRT scheme and the CECV from 2001-2003.

The Study

Principals agreed on behalf of their school to participate in the LINC project and then asked senior staff members to volunteer to be part of the project. A leadership team was formed at each of the schools consisting of seven members. In all cases there was at least one senior leader of the school including a deputy principal and/or the leader responsible for and subject or year level coordination. While the principal supported the work of the leadership team he/she did not participate as an active member. The remaining members were classroom teachers of varying levels of experience and in some cases staff with responsibility for special education or pastoral care. The school-based professional development research was conducted in three phases each coinciding with each six-months of the project. Three members of the Monash research team acted as external facilitators to the leadership team and in the role of participant observer. The leadership team reported to the school community on the purposes and goals of the study and represented the whole school in examining conditions, determining the priorities and designing and implementing a program of school improvement. At the end of each phase each team member’s research report was graded and credited toward a unit in a postgraduate qualification in special education at Monash University.

Phase 1 Examination of Existing Conditions

The leadership team began with an examination of existing beliefs and school practices that may have been facilitating or acting as barriers to student learning and participation, using the revised   (Deppeler & Harvey, 2004) version of the British Index for Inclusion (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughan, & Shaw, 2000) as a set of values or ‘inclusion standards’. Along with their own views, each member of the leadership group surveyed a number of additional members of their school community including administrators and parents as well as teachers. Observation of classrooms, focus group meetings, document analysis and semi-structured interviews were used to assist teams to gather evidence about conditions. From this information, a school profile was developed and the leadership group identified the foci for school improvement. This process enabled schools to identify and build on existing good practice for responding to diversity and supported teams in the processes of systematically gathering and examining evidence to improve practice.

Phase 2 Examination of literacy practices

All three secondary schools identified the improvement of literacy for ALL, including the lower performing students as a priority. Improving transition networks between local primary and secondary schooling for students was also an important emphasis of the schools. As such, the initial focus for school improvement projects was narrowed to year seven. Teachers first conducted an audit of their current literacy practices and its effects on different children, in particular the consistency of practices and understandings across teachers and Key Learning Areas   (KLA)s and the match between specific practices on student engagement and performance on assigned tasks.

Phase 3 Innovation & Sharing

Priorities identified for school improvement were further refined and addressed by each of the team members in different and individual ways in the form of an action research project. Team members reported their findings to the team, to other networked schools in the larger study and to their colleagues through whole-school professional development.

Data Sources

Data relating to the professional growth of teachers and team leaders were gathered from a number of sources including: minutes of LINC team meetings, participants’ reflective diaries and research project reports, tape-recordings of meetings and discussions, classroom observations, interviews, telephone conversations and emails occurring between the Monash researchers and the teachers and the leaders. Participants also completed several common surveys, which asked them to reflect on the impact of the process on their knowledge, practices, sense of efficacy, outcomes for their students’ learning and on the nature and extent of collaborative work amongst colleagues in their schools. Student learning was monitored using direct observation, work portfolios, teacher assessment, interview, and focus groups. In addition to the common data collected from participants, leaders were also asked to reflect on school-wide practices and organisational conditions throughout the project and were interviewed at six-month intervals regarding their views on the barriers and facilitators to changing inclusive practices. Teachers that were engaged in classroom-based research collected data on student engagement and performance, and submitted written research reports and reflective diaries. The process of collecting evidence regarding student learning and engagement was integrated with teaching and therefore not only informed practice but also enabled teachers to closely monitor student progress.   Quantifiable data on the impact of the professional development on student literacy achievement was gathered by repeated measures of the (Developmental Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART) (ACER, 1994) . Outcomes from repeated measures were shared with the participants in each of the schools with particular attention to the lower performing students. Leaders collected data and were engaged in research related to school-wide practices and organisational conditions. Each of the researchers coded transcribed units of text from each of the data sources using captions to represent themes.   After initial coding, themes were compared and points of divergence and convergence were then discussed. Where differences occurred, our respective understandings were used as points for subsequent interviews, observations and topics for discussion with each of the team members and the team as a whole.   At six month intervals an external researcher not directly involved in the project conducted independent observation and interviews and reported findings to the Monash researchers.   These results were then coded and used for comparison with aforementioned data sources .

The LINC Model of Collaborative Inquiry

The LINC model of collaborative inquiry (Figure 1) uses an action research process. Members of the leadership team are supported to share reflections regarding progress on individual research projects and to discuss issues and questions about student learning and practice with each other, with members of other leadership teams, consultants and university facilitators. The collaborative process is cyclical - involving the examination of practice for the purpose of improving practice and then the examination of the validity of the beliefs and assumptions upon which the practice is based. School practices are examined against standards and priorities and goals are identified. Teacher state ‘best guesses’ about barriers to student learning and participation and then test their propositions.   ‘Best guesses’ may be about an individual student, classroom or school practices. As the data are collected and collectively examined ‘best guesses’ are refined for further testing and improvement.   Theory and evidence from published research is not only used to inform practice, but is also reshaped as a result of the process of designing, testing and improving practices in the specific context.

Figure 1: LINC Model of Collaborative Inquiry

Findings

What follows is an examination of the conditions that influenced the change processes presented from the views of the principals and the leaders of each of the LINC teams and from those of the university facilitators.

Phase 1:Uncertainty and Differences in Expectations

Facilitators were initially uncertain about their role as facilitators and highly aware of the need to develop credibility and rapport with members of the leadership team. They believed it was important to gain an understanding of the context of each of the schools as quickly as possible. Facilitators included organisational and leadership structures and the particular concern of the team members as important contextual features. Facilitators reported that with the exception of one or two teachers the majority of the members of the teams were committed to the aims of the project and were interested to work together.   It was readily apparent to facilitators that in each of the teams there were one or two members who were not fully committed and had only reluctantly agreed to participate after strong encouragement from the principal or another senior leader.   In all cases these teachers held senior leadership positions in the school (e.g. year level coordination). Facilitators felt a tension between the need to keep the team ‘on side’ countered with a need to remain non-directive and support the team in the collaborative determination of foci for their school’s project.

The partnership was formed upon the mutual and stated belief in inclusive educational practices - the education of ALL students within the school setting. While both the facilitators and the principals appeared to agree on the stated collaborative inquiry approach to improving inclusive practices there were marked differences in expectations as to how this might be enacted. Teachers more familiar with a prescribed sequence of traditional professional development versus action research orientated approach had an expectation that facilitators would play a more directive role in advocating particular inclusive practices.   Facilitators, on the other hand expected their role would be to assist teachers with the process of action research but at the same time stand back and allow LINC team to work out things for themselves. In addition, facilitators indicated there was a disparity between some of the school’s stated vision of inclusion and the practical approaches adopted in the school.

Leaders also reported that members of their teams were uncertain about the direction and organisation of the project, but were particularly concerned about research as the agenda. There were different assumptions about the value, purpose and ownership of the research process. The university facilitators were committed to theory informed practice and the process of action research. While many of the teachers already informally reflected on their practices, they resisted the systematic collection and recording of data and questioned the practical value for the time involved. Leaders raised questions regarding the purpose of the research and the need for evidence gathering as part of the work of the team, rather than the university. Team members questioned the team leaders and principals about the value of the action research weighed against what they perceived as already heavy workloads. Leaders were equally focused on supporting their staff to work as a team and felt that unresolved issues regarding the research process were impacting on team cohesion.

In response to the uncertainties and differences in expectations the Monash research team in consultation with the team leaders determined that support should take precedence over challenge. A number of network-wide seminars were therefore scheduled.   These seminars provided opportunities for university facilitators to clarify expectations regarding the LINC project, to share research findings regarding inclusive practices and collaborative inquiry and emphasise the value placed on action research. A seminar was also scheduled for the LINC teams to share progress with colleagues across the networked schools.   The Monash seminars helped remove barriers to our perceived isolation. I feel the overall partnership has been enhanced because the team now has a clearer understanding about what our school had taken on and I think the sharing of our LINC project with the other LINC teams made them quite proud of what they had achieved They now see themselves as part of a much larger support network.

Phases 2 & 3: Levers for Change

Flexible Organisational Conditions

Supporting collaborative inquiry and a professional learning community in schools required a number of organisational changes in both of the partner organisations.   The capacity and flexibility of both leaders and facilitators to enable and to legitimise these changes was perceived to be critical in maintaining teacher participation and commitment. Monash facilitators and the school leaders agreed on the need for and the challenge of setting aside time for the LINC team to meet. Data collected from other sources confirmed that the number of opportunities LINC teachers had for collaboration including opportunities for shared critical examination of practices and student work was a key lever to the change processes (Deppeler, 2004) . LINC meetings provided an important space where teachers engage in meaningful discussion. The team needed the mutual support of each other to help maintain focus and enthusiasm… to listen and talk to one another and discuss students’ work (Leader 2). There were times when LINC meetings are essential to maintain the momentum – even if the meeting itself was an occasion to let off steam (Facilitator3). Leaders reported making organisational changes to support the LINC teachers release from teaching duties in order to increase opportunities for collaboration (e.g. reorganisation of the timetable or the provision of substitute teachers). Facilitators reported travelling to the schools for unscheduled LINC meetings at the request of the teams.

Collaboration was not something embraced by all members of the LINC teams. Consistent with previous findings ( (Johnson, 2003) : work intensification due to extra meetings, loss of autonomy and interpersonal conflict were the complaints facilitators and school leaders most frequently received from the teachers. Tensions were created for leaders by being engaged as a participant collaborating with colleagues and also as a leader required to provide administrative support to the rest of the team. Leaders reported that they regularly had to deal with complaints and resolve conflict with other teachers who were not directly involved in LINC and who resisted the adoption of the inclusive practices advocated by the LINC approach. Leaders confronted resistance and negativism by initiating a range of activities directed at “making LINC the number one priority”, communicating the progressive outcomes of the project to the school community and integrating the LINC project with core school activities (e.g., allocation of whole-school professional development days involving LINC staff; writing of newsletters or educational magazine articles. Leaders believed the timing of these activities was crucial in “gaining support” of the wider school-community. Leaders emphasised participation in the project had substantively increased their workload particularly in Phase 2.

University facilitators maintained that the organisational support provided to LINC participants was well beyond that typically provided to on-campus postgraduate students but was vital in maintaining teachers participation and success in the project. The university provided administrative support that allowed LINC facilitators increased flexibility compared with that typically available to academics for some procedures (e.g. enrolment and extensions for submission). This level of support created a number of tensions for facilitators and placed increased demands on their time:

Every attempt has been made to integrate the universities requirements into the school activities and the teachers’ projects. We suggest evidence-gathering tools that can be used as part of teaching, we go to the school for meetings to discuss their research- we even organised their enrolment in a single day by taking paperwork to them (Facilitator 1) Sometimes this means negotiating with the university admin or at board of examiners for extensions - because we acknowledge the complexity of secondary schools we try whenever possible ‘to do whatever it takes’ to support their work . . . (Facilitator 1). This is not always easy. The trouble is the university is not organised in a way that allows it to respond quickly or easily to this kind of wor k (Facilitator 2) [From a LINC reference group meeting].

Facilitators felt torn between the need to respond to teacher’s requests for extensions to gather further data and the need to meet university deadlines for submitted work. These tensions were further increased by the competing and often conflicting schedules for submission of semester work at the university and the teaching and holiday periods scheduled at the schools and the distances of two of the schools from the university.

Using Collaborative Inquiry to Inform Teaching and Learning

Facilitators and school leaders were committed to the process of collaborative inquiry. Presenting evidence that teachers had collected involved them in challenging each other and their own assumptions about students and to critically reflect on literacy practices that were grounded in research. Both facilitators and leaders emphasised the benefit of action research that was directly connected to the students in the classroom and therefore the teachers could see the benefit for the more challenging students. “Modeling’ and providing ‘protocols’ for the giving and receiving of feedback to colleagues was believed by both partners to have enhanced the collaborative inquiry processes.

Throughout Phases 2 and 3 teachers were increasingly reliant on the collection and critical examination of evidence about student learning and teaching . Several projects involved the systematic collection of evidence regarding teacher knowledge and school-wide practices. For example, at least one member of each of the LINC teams conducted an audit of the number and types of writing tasks assigned to students across key learning areas. Other research projects evaluated the effectiveness of specific instructional practices on student engagement, and understanding. For example, teachers compared the effectiveness of a range of scaffolds on student writing performance, on participation and the learning of science concepts. The outcomes of the research projects completed in Phase 2 prompted further action and sharing of practices within Phase 3 . The initial ‘literacy audit’ projects resulted in further critical examination of teacher knowledge of genre or ‘text types’, the establishment of assessment criteria across all key-learning areas for examining student writing tasks and whole school staff development to support these changes.

Facilitators believed that the strong theoretical base for the pedagogical approaches investigated by the teachers had increased the likelihood that there would be clear evidence of success and consequently the likelihood that teachers would incorporate this knowledge into their everyday practice. Senior leaders emphasised that the evidence-based approach provided teachers with the needed tools to solve practical problems. Leaders did not believe that teachers were accustomed to using evidence to generate of new knowledge. Secondary teachers are practitioners they are not accustomed to gathering evidence for new practices, or even for ‘diagnostic’ purposes.   The focus has been on assessment for reporting purposes. (Principal 2).

Evidence regarding student engagement and performance was integral to the work of the teachers involved in LINC.   As such, any changes in student performance were readily apparent as part of the teaching learning process, and evident long before they were confirmed by other more formal measures. The analysis of the results of the repeated DART (ACER, In Press) reading and writing assessments confirmed the improvement in student performance reported by their teachers against national benchmarks. Facilitators and leaders agreed that the independent evaluation and confirmation of the student improvement by what was perceived to be a ‘higher authority” elevated the status of the LINC project and was the stated lever for the leaders to continue the partnership beyond the funded project period.

Teachers’ analysis of individual student’s written responses were used to further develop a shared understanding of the differing assumptions about student learning. For example, teachers critically examined individual students’ written responses that formed part of the DART assessment, in collaboration with an expert in literacy. This level of analysis contributed to a deeper understanding of written literacy, provided a language for the discussion and a basis to give each other feedback. One of the underlying themes throughout these discussions was, that what teachers did had an impact upon the learning of the students in their classrooms.   This in turn provided a context that allowed teachers to change their expectations for the achievement of the lower performing students.

Facilitators and leaders viewed the provision of the literacy expertise to be important for different reasons. Facilitators believed the timing of the expertise was crucial because it arose from examination of data and was therefore believed to be important by the LINC team members. Leaders emphasised content knowledge and indicated that the teachers shared a belief in the approach advocated by the literacy expert.

University Credit for Teachers’ Work

University credit has provided both advantages and disadvantages but when connected to evidence-based inquiry appears to be important for promoting teachers critical analysis and understanding and for generating changes at both organisational and pedagogical levels. The nature and requirements of the work structured the direction and the outcomes for each of the partners, and created conditions of both pressure and support for the participants. Facilitators and leaders agreed the fully funded support provided an important incentive for teachers’ initial and continued participation in the project, but also created pressure to document their work and make any progress evident.   The formal submission of research reports for university assessment appeared to have had an impact upon teachers’ professional growth. Facilitators believed that for many teachers their important insights about student learning and practice occurred after and during the process of analysing their data and presenting their written findings to their colleagues. Facilitators indicated that teachers needed encouragement and scaffolded support to appreciate their own importance in the discovery of solutions to problems and for analysing and reporting their findings. This supportive role was countered with the academic responsibility for ensuring that teachers’ submitted work was original and met university requirements for submission. The writing of reports for university submission was believed by principals to have been a key lever in generating changes at both organisational and pedagogical levels.

The LINC team presented their research findings to the staff. Their reports allowed them to present the material professionally – it was not just about sharing the results but convincing others about the advantages of changing practices (Principal 3). The team used their work (submitted) as a basis for rewriting assessment across the key learning areas for years 7 and 8 (Principal 1).

Leaders perceived the opportunity to submit work for university credit produced conditions for competition as well as collaboration among members of the LINC team and created resentment among other staff members not receiving credit and “doing the LINC teachers work”.   Leaders accounts make note of social pressure and some alienation or marginalisation of members of the LINC leadership team from their colleagues.

Long-term Partnership

The longer time available for the LINC project was considered to have contributed to a greater level of understanding and respect between partners and to have strengthened the links between networked schools. Both partners indicated that the two-years duration of the project allowed sufficient time to bring about and capture the impact of changes to teaching practices on student learning and participation.

Conclusion

Consistent with previous research our findings support the success of using collaborative inquiry as model for professional learning and for improving student outcomes in inclusive classrooms. Our findings reinforce the importance of the roles of both the facilitators and the leaders in supporting the collaborative-inquiry process. However conditions in both the school and university context can challenge the partnership and create tensions for facilitators and leaders. The findings have helped us to better understand the impact of these conditions on the change processes and suggest the need to clarify expectations particularly the values placed on the research process when negotiating future partnerships. Partners will also need to ensure that relevant organisational conditions that enhance professional collaboration and learning are in place prior to embarking on a project. Negotiating and meeting the challenges of university-school partnership will inevitably create tensions for the participants; change is never accomplished smoothly or easily. In spite of these issues, both facilitators and leaders in this study overwhelmingly agreed that the benefits far out weighed the challenges.   The creation of long-term opportunities for university and other professional educators to work together in problem-solving teams should make it possible to turn the principles of inclusion into practical realities.

References

ACER. (1994). Developmental Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER).

ACER. (In Press). Investigating the links between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes: Volume1: Funded by Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, through the Quality Teacher Program 2001 - 2003 Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Manchester: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education Centre for Educational Needs, University of Manchester.

Bray, J. H. (2002). Uniting teacher learning: collaborative inquiry for professional development. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, 83-91.

Burbank, M. D., & Burbank, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499-514.

Deppeler, J. M. (2004). Learning Improves In Networking Communities (LINC): A University and School System Professional Development Project Report. Clayton: Monash University.

Deppeler, J. M., & Harvey, D. H. P. (2004). Validating the British Index for Inclusion for the Australian Context: Stage One. The International Journal of Inclusive Education: Special Issue: Working with the Index for Inclusion across diverse contexts, 8(2), 141-153.

Hayes, M., & Kelly, M. (2000). Transgressed boundaries: reflections on the problematics of culture and power in developing a collaborative relationship with teachers at an elementary school. Journal of Curriculum Inquiry, 30, 451-473.

Huffman, D., & Kalnin, J. (2003). Collaborative inquiry to make data-based decisions in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 569-580.

Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher Collaboration: good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29(4), 337-350.

Johnson, B., Johnson, K., Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (1999). Diverse insights into the challenges of university-school collaborative research, paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Education, Hong Kong SAR.

Mariage, T., & Garmon, M. (2003). A case of educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 215-234.

Perry, C., Komesaroff, L., & Kavanagh, M. (2002). Providing Space for Teacher Renewal: the role of the facilitator in school-university partnerships. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 243-257.

Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, C. L., Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S. R. (2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact