Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University
College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005
(Continuing Professional Development for Teachers and
Leaders in Schools network)
THE MODEL OF TEACHERS’ COMPETENCE
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SCHOOL
Simonaitiene Berita
Institute of Educational Studies, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. Email:
[email protected]
Abstract
Methodology of the research is based on the life-long learning conception, learning
organization conception (Senge, 1990, Pedler, 1991) and its derivative – personal mastery
(Senge, 1990), social exchange theory as a basis for learning-in-partnership networks.
The object of the research is the model of competence development within the school
(institution).
The research theoretical approach, empirical base and methods. Lithuanian context,
Lithuanian education reform and teachers’ professional development require data
reflecting the reality of post-soviet country experiencing fast and essential changes – gap
of Lithuanian schools or equivalent achievements when analyzing similar organizations
development tendencies on a world scale, teachers’ competence development in an
organization, etc. Fixed deficiency of such knowledge forms the problem of the research.
The purpose of the research is to theoretically found the institutional teacher’s
competence development model and to define empirically its implementation
preconditions in Lithuania (post-soviet country experiencing fast and essential changes).
The article theoretically grounds the institutional teacher’s competence development
model, combining three parts: Teachers’ Action Research, Compiling (cumulating)
Teacher‘s Competence Portfolio and Learning in Partnership Networks within the
Institution. Specific methods, action means and necessary abilities are analyzed. Method
– scientific literature and secondary source analysis.
Respondents’ opinion collected by survey method will help to examine school’s context,
i.e. preconditions for teachers’ competence development inside institution: teachers’ view
to action, research, Compiling (cumulating) portfolio of competence, and Learning in
Partnership Networks.
Introduction
Teachers’ in-service training: situation in Lithuania. Members of the OECD review
team state that a great deal of teachers’ in-service training offered through local and
1
regional teacher centres is piece-meal, uncoordinated, and supply-driven rather than based
on the real needs of schools. And their recommendation was to encourage schools and
training providers to aim for school-based, whole-school training rather than send individual
teachers to training courses outside the school. Much greater use could be made of teachermentors and school-based training: it is much more effective than an assortment of short
academic courses delivered by university professors. (Reviews of National Policies for
Education - Lithuania: Examinator’s Report.-OECD, 2000)
The purpose of the research is to theoretically found the teacher’s competence
development model within the school (institution) and to empirically define its
implementation preconditions in Lithuania (post-soviet country experiencing fast and
essential changes).
The object of the research is the model of competence development within the school
(institution).
The MODEL is based on: Life-long learning conception, Learning organization
conception and its derivative – personal mastery (Senge, 1990, 2000; Pedler, 1991),
Social exchange theory (Emerson&Cook) as a basis for learning-in-partnership networks;
The concept of “communicated knowledge” North (1990), Action Research conception
(Lewin, 1946; Schon, 1983); Modern view on teachers’ carrier and competence
development (Constantino , 1996; Guskey, 2000; Donnelly, 2003).
The model combines three parts: Action Research, Compiling (cumulating) Teacher‘s
Competence Portfolio and Learning in Partnership Networks within the Institution. Every
part of the model combines few actual actions.
The main research question was – is it possible to apply this model in Lithuanian
schools? What problems or barriers can we meet applying this model in Lithuania?
Empirical data (Respondents’ opinion) were collected by anonymous survey in written
and secondary data analysis (the finding of researches from Institute of Educational
Studies (KUT) was used).
In the process of statistical analysis of the data the methods of descriptive statistics as
well as factorial analysis were applied. The data were processed applying the software
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS.
Sample
N = 283, female - 226(79,9%), male - 57 (20.1%)
• average - 38,7 years
• maximum - 66 years (1 respondent (0,4%)
• minimal - 21 years (3 respondents (1,0%)
• Mo = 46 years (21 respondent (7.4%)
The distribution of the respondents by professional qualification:
2
55 (19.4%) teachers
134 (47.2%) senior teachers
79 (27.8%) teachers supervisors
16 (5.6%) experts
All respondents have the diploma of higher education.
Geographical territory – three towns of Lithuania (Kaunas, Siauliai, Panevezys) and their
districts.
Development
Data
collecting
methods
Data analysis
and
interpretation
the
her
s’
Research
planning
and fullfiling
in
Journal/diary
Reflection
ing
Teachers’ Action Research
ktion
Self-evaluation
ulting
erv
Ob
s
e
ol
er
‘s
Po Co
rtf mp
ol i et
o
en
Sch
o
g
ar
in
g/
he
in
st
en
Li
enc
f
pet
Cum
mate ulating t
h
ri
of th al (evide e
e co m
n ce s
pete
nce)
Fo
r
m
co
u
rre lati
cti on
o
a
go n of nd
als th
e
no
tio
i za e
ral ienc
r
ne
Ge expe
s’
her
Co
m
f
tion o
olida
Cons itudes
att
c
Tea
on
ati g
m
or
in
Inf hear
S
ch
n
Cons
u ssi o
ip
D i sc
Te
a
rsh
tne
ar
n P rks
g i wo
nin Net
ar
Collaboration
ce
Le
Link Creation
the
arn
ol
Inter
a
Le
ing
m
o
Sch
Tea
c
e
e
th
e
m m
na ble
To pro
Te
a
enc
th
wi
Co
et
mp
hi
wit
n
Development
Fig. 1. The Model of Competence Development within the School (institution)
3
Results and discussion
1. Compiling (cumulating) Teacher‘s Competence Portfolio. This action is formalised
in Lithuania from year 2005 and teachers must compile Competence Portfolio for their
assessment and certification every five years.
Problems and barriers
Knowledge/skills level. Teachers have no knowledge, skills and practice how to compile
the portfolio, what evidence they must gather.
10 % of respondents have no grasp and understanding about this process and the structure
of Teacher‘s Competence Portfolio.
65 % of respondents have not enough knowledge how to compile Teacher‘s Competence
Portfolio.
Have you enough knowledge how to compile Teacher‘s Competence
Portfolio?
Not enough
65,3
Perfectly know
24,2
Have no grasp and understanding
10,5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig. 2. The percentage evaluation of the statement (N=283).
Attitudes level. Teachers don’t link this process with reflection on professional activity
and competence development. Only 20 % of respondents viewed compiling the portfolio
as possibility to reflect their professional activity. Other respondents found compiling of
CP as way to present and document their experience or competence.
4
Compiling the portfolio is a possibility:
To present the teacher's
experience
43.6
To document the
teacher's competence
35.8
To reflect a professional
activity
20.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
Fig. 3. The percentage evaluation of the statement (N=283).
They think that they can use portfolio only for bureaucratic assessment.
Sound illustration for this estimation is teachers’ answers to the question “Do you think
the compiling (cumulating) Teacher‘s Competence Portfolio is useful (practicable) for
teacher’s competence development?”
Do you think the compiling (cumulating) Teacher‘s Competence
Portfolio is useful (practicable) for your competence development?
Not useful
13%
Sometimes
44%
Useful
14%
Didn’t answ er
29%
Fig. 4. The percentage evaluation of the statement (N=283).
2. Teachers’ Action Research
Although this action isn’t formalised but Lithuanian teachers know about AR.
Action Research seminar and one year duration project for teachers/researchers was
organised by A.P.P.L.E. (American Professional Partnership for Lithuanian Education)
5
(in 1999-2000). About 200 Lithuanian teachers took part in this project and performed
action research in their schools and classrooms.
Besides, there are pedagogical study programmes based on action research, it means that
teachers who are university students at the same time, during the study year are carrying
out action research in his or her classroom.
But it is not good situation in common case.
Problems and barriers
In common case teachers understand AR very poorly, they have no knowledge and skills
how to organise AR either.
Second, and it shows level of attitudes, they ignore action research and the data
collecting methods such as observation, interview, action experiments and participantwritten cases as possibility to get deep and clear information about their own pedagogical
activity. They usually do quick survey in written and have no use for (they don’t
appreciate) all traditional stages of AR.
The ignorance of critical reflection is the next problem. Teachers imagine that they know
how to do this, but in the AR accounts written by teachers participating in the abovementioned APPLE project there was no reflection, there was no analysis of reasons and
outcomes, we found only factual report.
I want to point out - there is no tradition to have own carrier journal or keep a diary
between teachers as professional group.
In my dissertation survey (it was carried out in year 2000) one question was “Do you fix
any school or classroom event, problem or surprise in your carrier journal or diary?”
and 81 % of teachers states that they do not, so they have no possibility to come back and
think/reflect what happened in their classroom.
71 %
Principals
14 (29 %)
No
Yes
81%
Teachers
110 (19 %)
0
25
50
75
100
Fig. 5. “Do you fix any school or classroom event, problem or surprise in your carrier
journal or diary?” (N teachers=554, N principals=47)
3. Learning in Partnership Networks
6
Learning in Partnership Networks is conditionally the new concept. Usually we are using
the following understanding and definitions in school practice: “teachers’ collaboration“,
“team learning“ or “learning organisation“.
The concept of communicated knowledge, which North (1990) defines as „the
knowledge, which one person is able to transmit to another“ (p.74) is very important in
this context.
Our research objective was to identify the links for knowledge moving among the
teachers.
We were looking for evidence if the teachers have shared with colleagues his or her
“theory” based on teaching experience? And we found that about 60% of respondents
hadn’t shared their discoveries, generated ideas or generalised knowledge.
No
57.2
42.6
Yes
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Fig. 6. Have the teachers shared with colleagues his or her composed “theory” (model)
based on teaching experience? (N=601) (B.Simonaitienė, 2003)
One more illustration is the teachers’ answers to the question “How do you
understand teachers’ collaboration? What actions present collaboration relationships?”
There was the list of actions presented to respondents and they had to choose five
actions most associated with teachers’ collaboration.
7
give-and-take stuff (teaching or learning
material) among colleagues
friendly speech, look, compliment, thanks
75.3
33.2
sharing one's (new ) ideas
32.0
valid (deep) professional discourse
32.0
team w ork planning
30.4
give-and-take critical comments
27.1
suggestions to each other
22.7
team (collective) action research
19.8
problems presentation and discussion
private (amiable) conversation about new
w orking plans
learning together
15.0
13.0
12.1
mentoring
2.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
percentage
Fig. 7. The percentage evaluation of the statement (N=247) (Simonaitiene, 2004)
75.3 % of respondents state that teachers’ collaboration most associates with “give-andtake the stuff (teaching or learning material) among colleagues”.
It shows very poor understanding of the act of collaboration, or, may be, real teachers’
needs for collaboration, interaction, learning from each other and among the colleagues.
The act of Learning in Partnership Networks requires the communication skills. Are our
teachers good communicators? In this table you can see data of factor analysis. I want to
stress the third factor – F3. It linked 3 statements, which stress some disability of person
to give arguments and preference listening to talking, during the meetings or team work.
It is actually a big problem for teachers. And little remark - the teachers training
programs don’t integrate the disciplines which develop the communication skills.
Table 1
Factor analysis of item (N = 283)
Item ↓
Explained dispersion (%) →
I finish other people's sentences.
I speak candidly and openly, saying when I am stating
opinions rather than facts.
I find it difficult to express my feelings, except when
stresses build up and I'm angry.
F1
F2
F3
(19.5%) (17%) (16.8%)
0.78
0.06
-0.07
0.73
0.16
-0.09
0.63
-0.22
0.37
8
When people talk, I listen attentively; I don't think of
other things, such as my response, deadlines, the next
meeting, read, or talk on the phone.
When people disagree with me, I listen to what they
have to say and wait to respond.
When I talk, I am concise and to the point.
0.08
0.71
0.04
0.15
0.67
0.00
-0.19
0.65
-0.11
-0.03
-0.11
0.74
I prevent arguments during team meetings.
-0.19
0.20
0.67
During meetings, I prefer listening to talking.
0.34
-0.14
0.60
I get impatient when people disagree with me.
Note: Cronbach-α = 0,72; KMO=0,606; p = 0,000. the method of Principal Components,
VARIMAX rotation; total explained dispersion 53,3%.
(*Bulin, J. G. (1995). Supervision: Skills for Managing Work and Leading
People (p. 137). Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston)
Conclusions from the empirical research data:
1. Teachers have not enough knowledge, skills and practice how to compile the
portfolio, what evidence they must gather. Teachers don’t link this process with
reflection on professional activity and competence development. They think that
they can use portfolio only for bureaucratic assessment.
2. In common case teachers understand action research very poorly, they have no
knowledge and skills how to organise action research either.
3. Research data show very poor understanding of the act of collaboration, or, may
be, real teachers’ needs for collaboration, interaction, learning from each other
and among the colleagues.
4. For successful applying of The Model of Competence Development within the
School (institution) in Lithuania we must pay attention to knowledge and skills
level as well as attitudes level. At first teachers need some specific package of
knowledge, and practicum for actual skills development. Next stage is change of
attitudes and values’ system.
References:
1. Bulin, J. G. (1995). Supervision: Skills for Managing Work and Leading People (p. 137).
Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.
2. Constantino, P. M., De Lorenzo, M. N. (1996) Developing a Professional Portfelio: A
Guide for Preservice and Inservice Teachers. The Office of Laboratory Experiences
College of Education University of Maryland at College Park.
3. Cook, Karen (1990). Linking Actors And Structures: An Exchange Network Perspective.
Pp. 115-128 in Structures Of Power And Constraint. Calhoun, Calhoun, Marshall Meyer
and Richard Scott (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
4. Donnelly, R. (2003). ,,Teacher Development: Integrating the Use of Teaching Portfolios
with Experiential Learning in a Postgraduate Certificate for Academic Staff in Third
Level Learning and Teaching”. The journal of teachers’ professional development, 2:
245-263.
5. Emerson, Richard (1976) Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 335362.
6. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Corwing Press
7. Lewin, K. (1946), Action Research and minority problems. Journal of social issues. 2, p.
34-36.
8. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
(Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press.
9. Pedler, M, Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. (Eds). (1991). Self-Development in Organizations.
London: McGraw-Hill.
10. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitionier: How Profesionals Think in Action. New
York: Basic Book.
11. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
12. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).
Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Parents, Educators, and Everyone
Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday.
13. Simonaitienė, B. (2004).The teachers' collaboration as element of school as learning
organization activity // Education-line: European Conference on Educational Research,
University of Crete, 22-25 September 2004. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2004. p. [1-7].
URL: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003726.htm. [British Educational
Index]
14. Simonaitiene, B., (2003). Mokykla -- besimokanti organizacija : monografija (School Learning Organisation). Kaunas: Technologija, 2003. 156 p. ISBN 9955-09-536-9. In
Lithuanian.
10