13
This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University] On: 08 October 2014, At: 17:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK British Journal of In-Service Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie18 Teacher's Role in educational change R. Vandenberghe a a University of Leuven, Centre for Educational Policy and innovation , Belgium Published online: 12 Sep 2006. To cite this article: R. Vandenberghe (1984) Teacher's Role in educational change, British Journal of In-Service Education, 11:1, 14-25, DOI: 10.1080/0305763840110103 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305763840110103 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teacher's Role in educational change

  • Upload
    r

  • View
    237

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teacher's Role in educational change

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 17:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of In-Service EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie18

Teacher's Role in educational changeR. Vandenberghe aa University of Leuven, Centre for Educational Policy and innovation , BelgiumPublished online: 12 Sep 2006.

To cite this article: R. Vandenberghe (1984) Teacher's Role in educational change, British Journal of In-Service Education,11:1, 14-25, DOI: 10.1080/0305763840110103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305763840110103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Teacher's Role in educational change

Eggleston, J. (1979), Teacher, Decision Making In The Class-room. London, R./T.P.

Gorbutt, D., 'Redesigning teacher education at North EastLondon Polytechnic', in fir. J. Teh. Ed., 1975, V I , N 1 ,pp.44-54.

Hargreaves, J. and Grey, S., 'Changing teachers practice:innovation and ideology in a part-time B.Ed, course',in Journal of Education for Teaching, May 1983, Va,Nz,pp.161-183.

Hoyle, E., 'Professionalisation and deprofessionalisation ineducation', in Hoyle, E. and Megary, J. (eds) (1980),Word Yearbook of Education 1980. Professional Develop-ment of Teachers, London, Kogan Page.

MacDonald, B. and Lomax, P., "What teachers say' in Br. J.of In-Service Ed., Autumn 1981, V8 , N 1 , pp.38-41.

Nash, R. and Ducharme, E., 'The paucity of the invest-ment model and other misunderstanding' in Journal ofTeacher Education, January 1983, V34, N 1 , pp.33-36.

Nisbet, J., 'Educational research, the state of the art', inDockrell, W.B. and Hamilton, D.F. (eds) 1980 RethinkingEducational Research, London, Hodder and Stroughton.

Page, H., Pyle, D.W., Bowen, D., 'Evaluating B.Ed, coursesfor serving teachers' overview of a U.K. project', un-published paper, Humberside College of Higher Education,March 1984.

Pyle, D.W. and Sayers, T.A., 'A B.Ed, course for servingteachers: an evaluation of the 1st year', in British Journalof In-Service Education, Autumn 1980, V7 N 1 , pp.10-37.

Rogers, C.R. (1979), Freedom to Learn, Colombus Ohio,Charles E. Merril 'Publishing Co.

Stones, E., (1979), Psychopedogogy London, Methuen.

Taylor, E., Gibbs, G. and Morgan, A. (1980), Study methodsGroup, Report No.7: The Orientations of studentsstudying the Social Science Foundation Course MiltonKeynes, The Open University.

Teacher's Role in educational change

R. VandenbergheUniversity of Leuven, Centre for EducationalPolicy and innovation. Belgium

1. IntroductionSchool personnel, particularly teachers and prin-

cipals, are a vital link in school improvement efforts.At the classroom level teachers are significant, if notthe most important players. It is clear that change willnot take place without the support and the commit-ment of teachers. And according to Crandall, 'failureto understand the relationship of teachers to theschool improvement process can result in a corres-ponding failure to improve the level of educationprovided by our schools' (Crandall, 1983, p.6). Inother words: educational change and improvementdepend on what teachers think and do. This is a verysimple statement. But an analysis of the process-sideof this statement will make clear that simple state-ments can be very complex.

If the teacher plays a central role in educationalchange and school improvement, then it is import-ant to consider the working conditions as a maindeterminant of the change process. We assume thateffective educational change in practice cannot occurwithout improvements in the teacher's work life.14

After having analysed these conditions, Fullan con-cludes that they have deteriorated steadily over thepast two decades (Fullan, 1982, p.107). It is a factthat teachers are valued less by the community andthe public than they were even a short time ago. Theteaching profession is considered as a clear-cut andflat career (at least in the European tradition). Never-theless, it is remarkable that, due to the economiccrisis, during the last two years more youngsters goto the teacher training college. Teacher stress andalienation from the profession appear to be at an all-time high. The fact that a lot of teachers want toleave the profession is a clear indication for thealienation phenomenon. The National EducationAssociation conducted polls in the US in 1967 and1979. It is worthwhile to compare the results of thetwo polls. One of the questions was the following:'Suppose you could go back and start over again.Would you become a teacher?' The answers can besummarized as follows:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Teacher's Role in educational change

Certainly wouldteacher

Probably would

Probably woulda teacher

Certainly would

Not sure

become a

not become

not

1967

53%

25%

7%

2%

13%

1979

30%

29%

22%

10%

10%

(Cit. inFullan, 1982, p.111).

In 1967 over one-half of the respondents werepositive that they had made the right choice. In1979 it is only one-third. Most striking is the findingthat in 1979 one out of every three teachers 'probably'or 'certainly' wished that he or she had never becomea teacher.

Nowadays schools and teachers are confrontedwith a broad range of educational goals and some-times unclear expectations. In a lot of West-Europeancountries, elementary and secondary school teachersare involved in 'large-scale projects'. A large-scaleproject can be considered as a 'bundle of innovations'(Van den Berg & H. Vandenberghe, in press). Theproject 'Renewed Primary School' which started in1973 is an illustration of a large-scale project. Themain goals of the RPS are related to the followingthemes.

— Enhanced integration and interdependence betweenthe kindergarten (2-5/6 years) and the elementaryschool (6-12 years).

— Increased and more effective individualizationduring the elementary grades, particularly inrelation to reading and arithmetic.

— Enhanced contact and collaboration among class-room teachers and between classroom teachers anda remedial teacher, so that pupils with specialproblems in regular classrooms will be workedwith more effectively.

— Increased emphasis on the socio-emotional andcreative development of the pupils.

— Better interdependence with resources in thecommunity environment, in terms both of thepupils going out into the community to learn andof people from the community being used asresource-people on an ad-hoc basis within theschool.

The philosophical theme of this innovation-bundle is more interdependence among educationalresources to support a more individualized, humanizedand effective response to pupil.

From this example, it is clear that a large-scaleinnovation project is characterized by its multi-dimensionality; a number of important objectivesmust be accomplished simultaneously and coherently.Each innovation, as part of a reform, points tosignificant objectives. The implementation of allthese innovations leads to difficult tasks for theschools and teachers involved. One can hardly over-estimate the difficulties created by broadly formu-lated objectives and unclear expectations found inmost policy documents.

A fourth issue related to the working conditionsof the teachers concerns the ambivalence of youthabout the value of education. It is sometimes verydifficult for teachers to understand the reactions ofyoungsters; it is even more difficult to fight againstpupils' decreasing motivation.

In summary, one could say that the involvementof teachers in large-scale innovation projects and theconfrontation with demotivated pupils and studentscould lead — at least for a part of the teaching pro-fession — to stress and alienation from the profession.This, combined with the fact that teachers are sociallyvalued less than some years ago, creates intolerableconditions for sustained educational developmentand satisfying work experiences.

Making an analysis of the teacher's role in educa-tional change, implies a deeper understanding of thesubjective world of teachers. It is a necessary pre-condition for engaging in any change effort withthem.

2. How teachers construct 'meaning'Teachers involved in a change project always have

typical questions and reactions. One can use thesequestions and reactions as a basis for the constructionof the 'subjective world' of teachers. According toDoyle and Ponder it is important to analyze thedecision-making process which appears to underlieteachers' reaction to change proposals (Doyle &Ponder, 1977-78). Teachers give a meaning to a varietyof messages intended to modify and improve theirpractice. The decision-making process — and also theconstruction of meaning — is in fact an evaluativeprocess which is a central ingredient in the initialdecision teachers make regarding the implementationof a proposed innovation (see 2.1).

In a next section (2.2) we will explore teacherconcerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizingstaff developments (Hall & Loucks, 1978a; see alsoVan den Berg & Vandenberghe, 1981; Vandenberghe,1983). Here we accept the assumptions of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that the individualteacher is the primary target of interventions designed

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Teacher's Role in educational change

to facilitate the change in the classroom and thatindividuals involved in change go through stages intheir perceptions and feelings about the innovation(see: Stages of Concerns).

Another attempt to understand the typical reac-tions teachers have when confronted with an innova-tion, is to look at the teachers' preferences forthe organization of in-service training. The teacher,for instance, will certainly premise that the in-servicetraining must be such that it leads to a real implemen-tation of the change proposals. In other words: theteachers agree on condition that the in-service trainingbe centered on their practice. In section 2.3 we willexplore the meaning of the demand of a 'practice-centered' in-service training (Vandenberge, 1978).

In a last section (2.4) we will look at factors whichencourage or discourage participation in an innovationproject. Teachers agree to start with a project fordifferent reasons. But it is also important to knowwhy teachers are prepared to make supplementaryefforts during the implementation stage.

2.1 How teachers evaluate change proposalsIf one listens carefully to the way teachers talk

about innovations and also about proposals for in-service activities, it soon becomes clear that theconcept 'practical' is used frequently. Doyle and

Ponder have made an analysis of what they call the'practicality ethic'. According to them, the study ofthe 'practicality ethic' is the study of the perceivedattributes of messages and the way in which theseperceptions determine the extent to which teacherswill attempt to modify classroom practices (Doyle& Ponder, 1977-78, p.3). More specifically, the term'practical' is an expression of teacher perception ofthe potential consequences of attempting to imple-ment a change proposal in the classroom. Recommen-dations — and also innovative proposals — perceivedas practical are ones which a given teacher will mostlikely try to incorporate into classroom procedures.Those perceived as impractical have little chance ofbeing tried. Studies of the formation of teacherexpectations further suggest that teachers are proneto make judgements rapidly, with minimal experienceor evidence (Brophy & Good, 1974). This means thatteachers will judge the practical merits of an innova-tion very soon after exposure to it.

The major question is: what determines practi-cality? Or: what attributes of an innovation tend toelicit the perception of practicality from teachers?A teacher comes to the conclusion that a changeproposal is practical on the basis of three criteria,namely, instrumentality, congruence and cost. Themeaning of these criteria is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Classificatory scheme for the 'practical'

Instrumentality

1. How specific and clear thecurriculum communicatesprocedural content?

2. How well the curriculumtranslates principles, objectivesand outcomes into appropriateprocedures?

Congruence

1. How well the curriculum fits in 1.with the way the teachernormally conducts class?

2. How closely the nature of thesetting under which thecurriculum was tried previouslymatches the teacher's own school 2.situations? And how crediblethe experiential credentials ofthe person making the recom-mendations are? 3.

3. How compatible the curriculumis with the teacher's self-imageand preferred way of relating topupils?

Cost

How much of a reward theteacher will receive for usingthe curriculum, whether it be interms of money or recognitionand student enthusiasm andpotential learning?

How easily the curriculum canbe broken down into smallerunits for short-term trials?

How much time and effortare required to implement thecurriculum?

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Teacher's Role in educational change

The criteria of instrumentality, congruence, andcost would seem to define the fundamental contentof the 'practicality ethic'. This is confirmed byFullan, who presents the same criteria. According tohim teachers use three main criteria:

'— Does the change potentially address a need?Will students be interested? Will they learn?(see congruence)

— How clear is the change in terms of what theteacher will have to do? (see instrumentality)

— How will it affect the teacher personally interms of time, energy, new skill, sense ofexcitement and competence, and interferencewith existing priorities?' (see cost)

(Fullan, 1982, p.113)

In an analysis of initial assessments of the innova-tion by teachers in 12 sites, Huberman and Milesalso describe some data which are clearly related tothe two foregoing analyses (Huberman & Miles,1982, p.88-94). One dimension of the initial per-ceptions is called 'personal f it ' . It is interesting tosee that Huberman and Miles too came to theconclusion that: 'There was, in effect, a very quickassessment of the innovation when users first saw orheard of it — a sort of 'trying on' the requisite skillsand materials, much as one mentally tries on a dressor a suit in a store window. More carefully appraisalscame later, but these early assessments were hardto shake'(1982, p.93).

Behind the responses concerning the 'goodness ofpersonal f i t ' were three somewhat distinct judgments.'First, users connected goodness of f i t to congenialways of relating to pupils. This point emerged morefrequently when the fit was poor, often in cases ofhigh-prescriptive innovations' (see Doyle & Ponder:congruence). 'A second meaning relates to thefamiliarity of the innovation. A good fit occurs whenthe project demands skills that are 'in my routine' or'are under my belt' (see Doyle & Ponder: congruence).'Finally, there is a normative or philosophical dimen-sion; goodness of f i t means it 'sounded like what Ibelieve in' or 'what these kids really need' (see Doyle& Ponder: congruence; Fullan: need) (Huberman &Miles, 1982, p.94).

The three illustrations presented until now, makeit clear that the incentives and disincentives from theperspectives of the teachers help explain the out-come of change efforts. According to Fullan: 'Need,clarity, and the personal benefit/cost ratio must befavourable on balance at some point relatively earlyduring implementation. Ambivalence about whetherthe change will be favourable is nearly always expe-rienced prior to attempting it. It is only by tryingsomething that we can really know if it works. The

problem is compounded because first attempts arefrequently awkward, not providing a fair test of theidea. Support during initial trials is critical forgettingthrough the first stages, as is some sign of progress'(Fullan, 1982, pp.114, own italics) .

2.2 A concerns-based approach (Hall &Loucks, 1978a)

The development of the Concerns-Based AdoptionModel (CBAM) is based on extensive experience witheducational innovation in school and college settings.First, we will describe some of the underlyingassumptions. Second, we will pretend the so-calledStages of Concerns (SoC).

A first assumption is that one should consider aneducational change as a process, and not as an event.The reality is that change takes times and is achievedonly in stages. During that process positive and nega-tive experiences are valued. Sometimes the innovationundergoes several modifications (Hall & Loucks,1978b).

Second, the individual must be the primary targetof the interventions. Other approaches, such asOrganisational Development, view the school as theprimary unit of intervention. The CBAM, however,emphasises working with individual teachers inrelation to their roles in the change process.

Third, change is a highly personal experience. Thisis an important assumption because one can oftenobserve that change facilitators or principals pay toomuch attention to the content and/or the technologyof the innovation. They ignore the perceptions andfeelings of the people experiencing the change process.Since change is brought about by individuals, theirpersonal satisfactors, frustrations, concerns, motiva-tions, and perceptions generally all play an importantpart in determining the success or failure of a changeinitiative. In other words; teachers as well aspromoters- of educational innovations should beaware of the fact that the implementation of aninnovation implies always a learning process, whichtakes times. When it comes to change, we have a lotto learn (Fullan, 1982, p.119).

Fourth, the change process is. not an undifferen-tiated continuum. Individuals involved in change gothrough stages in their perceptions and feelings aboutthe innovation, as well as in their skill in using theinnovation. To deliver relevant and supportive in-service training, change facilitators need to diagnosethe perceptions and the feelings as well as the wayteachers are using an innovation. We limit ourselves toone aspect of the change process, namely the concernsof individuals about the innovation (for further infor-mation about CBAM, see Hall & Loucks, 1978b: Hall

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Teacher's Role in educational change

& Loucks, 1977; Hall, Loucks & Rutherford, 1975,Hall, Zigarmi & Hord, 1979).

In the CBAM, the concept of 'concerns' has beendeveloped to describe these perceptions, feelings, andmotivations. Research studies have initially verified aset of stages that teachers appear to move throughwhen they are involved in innovation implementation.These Stages of Concerns about the Innovationprovide a key diagnostic tool for determining thecontent and delivery of staff development activities

(Hall & Loucks, 1978a). Research in other countries— for instance in Belgium and the Netherlands — hasmade it clear that teachers working in anothercultural context, demonstrate the same concerns astheir American colleagues (Van den Berg & Vanden-berghe, 1984; Vandenberghe, 1983).

Seven Stages of Concerns were identified (seefigure 2). Apparently a person's stages of concernmove through the progression from self, to task, toimpact.

Figure 2: Stages of Concern about the innovation ̂

REFOCUSING: The focus is on exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation, including thepossibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideasabout alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the innovation.

COLLABORATION: The focus is on coordination and cooperation with others regardinginnovation.

use of the

4 CONSEQUENCE: Attention focuses on impact of the innovation on students in his/her immediate sphereof influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for students, evaluation of student outcomes,including performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase student outcomes.

3 MANAGEMENT: Attention is focused on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best useof information and resources. Issues related to efficiency, organizing, managing, scheduling, and timedemands are utmost.

2 PERSONAL: Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meetthose demands, and his/her role with the innovation. This includes analysis of his/her role in relation tothe reward structure of the organization, decision making and consideration of potential conflicts withexisting structures or personal commitment. Financial or status implications of the program for self andcolleagues may also be reflected.

1 INFORMATIONAL: A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more detail about itis indicated. The person seems to be unworried about himself/herself in relation to the innovation. She/heis interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner such as general characteristics,effects, and requirements for use.

0 AWARENESS: Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is indicated.

Original concept from Hall, G.E., Wallace, R.C., Jr., & Dossett, W.A.,/4 developmental conceptualization of the adoption• process within educational institutions. Austin, Research and Development Center f orTeacher Education, The University

of Texas, 1973.

Data gathered in several studies make it clearthat an individual teacher does not have concerns ononly one stage at a time. There is a concerns' profile,with some stages being relatively more intense andother stages having lower intensity concerns. Itappears that during the initiation of an innovation(and during the first implementation period) Stages18

-0, 1 and 2-concerns will be most intense. As imple-mentation begins. Stage 3, Management concerns,becomes more intense, with Stages 0,1 and 2-concernsdecreasing in intensity. In time, the Impact concernsof stage 4, 5 and 6 become the most intense. Thedevelopment of the intensity of concerns is pre-sented in figure 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Teacher's Role in educational change

Figure 3: Hypothesized Development of Stages of Concern

/ /V

100

o° o°

3 4

Stages of Concern

NonuserInexperienced User

Experienced User+ + + + + + + Renewing User

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Teacher's Role in educational change

A staff developer or change facilitator can collectinformation about teachers' concerns in severalalternative ways. The simplest is 'informal conversa-tional assessment, let teachers talk about the inno-vation and in particular about their feelings, positiveand negative experiences, questions and maybe abouttheir frustration. According to Hall and Loucks:This seat-of-the pants assessment can be used toconfirm or up-date more formal data and is mostvaluable to the experienced facilitator who wants tokeep in 'real time' contact with the progress of anadoption process' (Hall & Loucks, 1978a, p.11).

More formally, a change facilitator can ask awritten response to the question: 'When you thinkof (the innovation), what are you concerned about?'The CBAM-researchers have developed a procedurefor scoring this simple assessment device (Newlove &Hall, 1976).

The most formal and precise measure of Stages ofConcerns is the SoC Questionnaire (Hall, George &Rutherford, 1977). The questionnaire consists of35 items, each of which has a Likert scale (not trueof me now . . . very true of me now) on whichrespondents indicate their present degree of concernabout the topic described in the item.

In their paper. Hall and Loucks (1978a) summarizesome key principles concerning staff developmenttaking into account the basic assumptions of theCBAM and data about the (development of) Stagesof Concern. A diagnosis of the current concerns ofteachers involved in an innovation project makes itpossible to attune interventions to the needs and theexpectations of these teachers. Differences amongteachers are accepted. Personal concerns for instanceneed to be recognized as a legitimate concern becausethey are a real part of the change process. In otherwords: 'It is okay to have personal concerns' (Hall& Loucks, 1978a, p.25). It is the responsibility ofthe change facilitators to accept these early concerns,or the individual will not be able to resolve these andmove on to for instance Impact concerns.

Another implication, related to the first one,concerns the fact that those who present the inno-vation must attend not only the innovation's techno-logy, but also the teachers' concerns. During theinitiation stage and also during the beginning imple-mentation, change facilitators emphasize only thetechnology of the innovation. They talk about theunderlying principles, about the advantages for pupilsor students (which is related to the impact concerns),about the existing material, etc . . . neglecting theconcerns of a nonuser or an inexperienced user. Thesetwo categories are less interested in general principlesand learning outcomes; the real questions they have

are related to the daily activities in the classroom(management concerns) and to the survival as aprofessional (personal concerns). In other words:change facilitators mostly have impact concerns (thefocus is on relevance of the innovation for studentsand on the coordination and cooperation with othersregarding use of the innovation). However, it does notnecessarily follow that the teachers will have impactconcerns too. This difference will certainly be presentat the beginning of a change effort. As Hall & Louckspoint it out: 'Teachers' concerns may not be thesame as those of the staff developers' (1978a, p.25).

A third implication regards the development of theconcerns. Because change is a process, entailingdevelopmental growth and learning, it will take time.'One-shot programs will not implement a program;long-term follow-up is necessary. — Policy and decisionmakers must also become aware of this fact, and, inresponse, stop assuming that their decrees and man-dates will result in instantaneous cures out in thefield' (Hall & Loucks, 1978a, p.25).

2.3 The meaning of a 'practice-centredin-service training

In 1972, we organized, in collaboration with the'Christen Onderwijzers-verbond' (union of teachers ofthe primary) an inquiry about in-service trainingactivities. A written questionnaire was seiit round.2044 completely filled in questionnaires came intoaccount for computation. This investigation hasalready been reported amply (Vandenberghe &Vermeulen, 1973-74; Vandenberghe & Vermeulen,1974; Janssens, 1975; Vandenberghe, 1978).

In a subdivision of the questionnaire the teacherswere asked to classify on a six-point-scale the thirteenproposals concerning staff development activities ofthe 1ST (1 = very little preference; 6 = very muchpreference). For each proposal the number of teacherswho gave one of the three highest scores of preference(notably 6, 5,4) was examined.

Table 1 shows in descending sequence the rattoof approval of each proposal.

The 1ST in the shape of a direct interventionwithin one's own school situation is clearly pre-ferred by a large number of teachers (76, 1%). Thisgeneral tendency is confirmed by the answers toquestions about wishes concerning the interventionin the 'practical' (see further on).

Some four proposals group themselves obviouslyround a 'practice-centred' 1ST, namely assisting atpractice lessons and discussing them, training skillsintensely, exchanging one's experiences about apreviously accomplished task and assisting at demon-strations by experienced teachers in their own classes.

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Teacher's Role in educational change

These IST-activities have a number of joint character-istics: for the teachers they bear a clear relation totheir own activities in their classes and they supposethat the teachers are directly concerned in them. Inother words, it is as if the teachers themselves can seeto it that the IST-activities are in a rather close relationon the one side with the way they used to teach up tonow and on the other side with their own conceptionof good teaching (see the criterion congruence in theclassificatory scheme by Doyle & Ponder).

Some five proposals enjoy the definite preferenceof only a small number of teachers, namely listeningto lectures followed by discussion, visiting exhibitionsof didactical equipment, following courses via TV,doing researches in one's own class led by an educa-tional psychologist and visiting other schools. Someof them take place outside the school. It is perhaps

therefore that they are considered as less useful.Important is the ascertainment that only one half ofthe teachers appreciate highly a working methodmentioning explicitly the collaboration with aneducational psychologist. Yet, as to its content, thisdescription is very akin to the working method thatenjoys the preference of 76% of the teachers (seetable 1). Perhaps in this description more attentionwas given to. 'in one's own school' than to 'experts',whereas in the other description the term 'educationalpsychologist' could have been more decisive.

Following written courses and assisting at lectureswithout discussion are considered by only one thirdof the respondents as very important. In the light ofthe foregoing we can suppose that both these pro-posals are considered as activities that have onlylittle to do with the teachers' concern.

Table 1: Preferences of primary school teachers (N=2,044) for variants in thestaff development activities

Order of preference

1. Collaborating with experts in one's own school

2. Assisting at practice lessons and discussing them

3. Training skills intensely

4. Exchanging with colleagues one's experiences about a previouslyaccomplished task

5. Watching demonstrations in one's own class

6. Listening to lectures followed by discussion

7. Doing researches in one's own class led by an educationalpsychologist

8. Visiting other schools

9. Visiting exhibitions of didactical equipment

10. Following courses via T.V.

11. Listening to lectures

12. Written courses of staff development

13. One or two teachers of one's school following staffdevelopment courses and informing the whole school team

% teachers having given thescores 6,5 and 4

76.1

63.8

62.7 -

62.0

59.9

53.2

53.1

49.5

48.8

46.5

28.3

27.7

20,8

Thus far we have no unanimous interpretation ofthe little interest in the thirteenth proposal. Is acolleague with whom one collaborates every day notconsidered as a 'tutor'? Or is this possibility ofcollaboration not yet integrated in the conception ofthe primary school teacher's role?

As a conclusion we can say that the teachersprefer a 'practice-entered' 1ST, preferably in theirown schools and in connection with their own'practicals'. These ascertainments must not lead tothe rather naive conclusion in our view that IST-activities only make sense when they start from a

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Teacher's Role in educational change

diagnosis of the teachers' problems or if after thisdiagnosis one considers alternative solutions, etc.This reminds us clearly of the Problem-solving-strategy which is propagated in literature in anoften unvariegated way. Nevertheless, in our opinion,the foregoing means that teachers must indeedreceive answers to the question as they feel them intheir daily practice. On the other hand, the Problem-solving strategy easily gets an administrative andbureaucratic character whereby the experts of IST-activities, as it were, force on the teachers the pro-blems and the way of thinking about their ownmission (H.D. Sieber, 1976-77).

The answers to the other questions concerning theintervention in the 'practical' confirm the tendencyto see the IST-activities in connection with theproblems met with in the daily class practice.

81% of the respondents think that an IST-courseis only useful when it is followed by an interventionin the 'practical'. It supposes that the teachers arewilling to get advice from outside. Also most of therespondents (91.6%) find this necessary.

Another question about the guidance of the'practical' has relation to the persons who have tosupply it. 53.2% of the respondents think that thehead teacher is the first to be considered for thattask. In the second place the inspector is referredto and in the third place special responsibles for1ST. The head teachers themselves have a somewhatdifferent opinion about it. There are in proportionfewer head teachers than teachers who find that thehead teacher is the first one responsible for theguidance in the 'practical'. This guidance belongsobviously less to the conception the head teacherhas of his function. He himself refers rather to theinspector.

The question concerning the function of inspectorand head teacher in the general pedagogical anddidactical intervention has proved to be of littlerelevance. 70% of the respondents think that bothhave to play an important part. However, we noticeda difference between older and younger teachersconcerning the help they hoped to get from theinspector. In proportion there are fewer youngteachers (younger than 26 years) who think that theinspector has to fulfil an important task in thepedagogical and didactical intervention than is thecase with the older ones. We notice the same tendencyin the opinion about the inspector's task in theintervention in the 'practical' as a special form of1ST.

In another question the problem of the inter-vention in 'practicals' is specially applied to the caseof new teachers. 46.3% of the respondents consider

it as a task for colleagues who are not head teacherbut 41.1% as a task for the head teacher. Here too thepronouncements differ according to age: 60% of theteachers of 26 years or younger are in favour of anintervention by colleagues not head teachers; 29%prefer an intervention by the head teacher; only 2%choose the inspector. According to the teachers olderthan 35 years it is the head teacher who ought tobe considered for it in the first place.

This data will probably have made clear that forthe present we can maintain the starting-point,namely the explicit wish of participation in a 'practice-centred' 1ST.

2.4 Teacher participation in educationalinnovation

In this last section, we will try to explore importantfactors which emerge during the implementationstage and which encourage or discourage continuedparticipation. If successful implementation occursit is in large part due to the efforts of teachers. Butwhy (and how) are these changes being broughtabout? In other words, we are interested in factorsthat contribute to success (Crandall, 1983, p.7).

We find an answer to the question in a paper byDawson (1981). She reports data from an intensiveone and one-half year study of educational changeprojects in five schools. The five schools participatedin basic skills or career education projects developedcollaboratively by the schools and a team from aregional educational laboratory (Research for BetterSchools). We will compare these data with findingsof the DESSI-study. (A study of DisseminationEfforts supporting School Improvement). Crandallsummarizes some findings in an article (Crandall,1983).

First: Dawson found that many participantsbecame committed during the implementation. Forinstance, they became convinced that it was importantto increase student engage time (in order to increasethe basic skills) or to teach career education. Someother participants developed a sense of having investedso much in the projects, that they could not with-draw without feeling that their efforts had beenwasted (Dawson, 1981, p.15). Also Crandall in theDESSI-study discovered that commitment developedafter implementation, after teachers were activelyengaged in using a new practice (Crandall, 1983,p.7). But he emphasizes the fact that teacher com-mitment, has a positive influence in interaction withother factors. So, 'we found that with clear, directleadership from building and central office administra-tion, training by a credible person in the use of apractice that was known to be effective, teachers

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Teacher's Role in educational change

tried the new practice, mastered it, saw results withtheir students, and developed a strong sense ofownership. And this with little or no early involve-ment in problem solving, selection, or decisionmaking' (Crandall, 1983, p.5, own italics). Increasingcommitment during the implementation of a changeproject refers to the fact that for teachers involvedthe innovation gets more and more meaning. Fromworking with the innovation, from discussions withother teachers, from positive and negative experiences,the underlying principles become more and moreclear; they find out what the innovation means fortheir daily teaching activities.

Increased internal communication is a secondfactor that influences positively a continued par-ticipation in a change project. According to Dawsonmany teachers experienced the increased interactionamong teachers and between teachers and administra-tors as very supportive. During the projects meetings,teachers had the opportunity to share ideas aboutstudents reactions, about the use of materials, aboutteaching strategies, etc . . . Participation also increasedpeople's knowledge of other classrooms, particularlyin the basic skills schools (Dawson, 1981, p.15).

We too found that, having the opportunity fordiscussions about the innovation, sharing ideas andlooking collaboratively for solutions is very importantfor teachers involved in a large-scale innovation project.After having analyzed 24 schools involved in theRenewed Primary School-project in Belgium, itbecame obvious that in schools with a high degree ofimplementation, the possibility for an ongoingnegotiation process, was valued very much (Van denBerg & Vandenberghe, 1984, ch.8).

The importance of interaction among teachers isconfirmed by Fullan. 'Within the school, collegialityamong teachers as measured by the frequency ofcommunication, mutual support, help, etc . . . wasa strong indicator of implementation success. Virtuallyevery research study on this topic has found this tobe the case . . . Significant educational change consistsof change in beliefs, teaching style, and materialswhich can only come about (except for the oddreligious-type conversion) through a process ofpersonal development in a context of socialization'(Fullan, 1982, p.121).

Third: teachers' attitudes toward participation isinfluenced by perceived relationships between projectand school or classroom goafs (Dawson, 1981, p.16)(see Doyle & Ponder: congruence). The experiencethat a proposed innovation can solve a studentproblem will influence positively continued participa-tion. Teachers feel that they can master a situation;they experience a sense of efficacy. A growing

congruence between the innovation and the schooland classroom situation, together with a belief thatthe teacher can help even the most difficult or un-motivated students, have a positive effect on con-tinued participation (see also Berman & McLaughlin,1978, p.32).

Fourth: all teachers know that the costs of par-ticipating in a change project are often very high.Participating implies extra meetings, extra preparationtime, use of new materials, etc. (Dawson, 1981,p.17). In many cases personal costs are high andstudent benefits for instance are low. That situationwill mostly lead to non-implementation or at leasta lot of problems will arise. A change facilitatorcan solve these problems by giving concrete andcontinuous help. Direct and clear support from theprincipal is also important (Crandall, 1983, p.9).

In this last section we have explored four factorswhich have a positive or negative influence on con-tinued participation. Other factors can be added, suchas the organization of in-service activities (see 2.3),the relationship between external and internal changefacilitators, the role of the principal, support structuresin the school, etc . . .

It becomes clear from the foregoing discussionthat change in educational settings is possible andthat teachers are prepared to engage in change processif supportive conditions are created. Although wehave already explored some of these conditions, wewill try to complete the picture in the next section.

3. Some practical implicationsAs we already pointed out, teachers engaged in a

change process, have to go through a learning process.They have to learn new skills; they have to acceptnew principles, they have to try out new materials,they have to master new insights, etc . . . Innovationmust be considered as a process and not as an event.From that point of view a permanent clarification ofthe innovation is a pre-eminent activity during theimplementation. This is certainly the case with large-scale innovations, as appears from a number of re-search results. ' . . . highly structured innovationsinvolving only a small amount of change (such ascomputer-assisted instruction) required specificitybefore implementation, but less structured innova-tions (such as open education) achieved specifityduring implementation ...

Moreover, Berman & McLaughlin's case studyanalysis of unstructured innovations suggestedthat achieving specificity involved learning-by-doingactivities in which individuals become clearer aboutthe project's philosophy as well as its operationalobjectives. In other words, clarification is a process

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: Teacher's Role in educational change

whereby each user develops his or her understandingof — and belief in — the innovation as it evolvesduring implementation. Insofar as staff becomeclear in their own terms, specification can occuralmost as a post hoc codification of shared under-standing among participants' (Berman, 1981, p.273).

Individual teachers are very important players inthe innovation game. Nevertheless we should keep inmind that they are members of an organization. Inother words: their role is complemented by otherroles such as the principal, the central office admini-strator, the inspector, the change facilitator, theparents, the pupils, etc . . . We have already under-lined the importance of an organizational structurewhich creates opportunities for discussions andprofessional activities among teachers.

Cox found that principals who were active insuccessful school improvement made it clear to allinstructional staff that the successful implementa-tion of the innovation was a top priority. There wasa clear communication towards the teacher aboutfhe importance of the adopted innovation. Theseprincipals were also able to make available all therequisite materials. They give teachers time to actuallyuse the new practice through help with classroomscheduling and through facilitating schoolwidescheduling. In other words: structural changes sup-ported the individual efforts. And teachers, parentsand central administrators were working in a realistictime frame and did not feel pressured by prematureevaluation (Cox, 1983, p.10). In summary: con-sideration of change, discussions about the under-lying principles, implementing new practices areexperienced as a regular part of the job.

Lastly, it is important to look at some character-istics of an effective in-service training. From theRand Studies (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978) wealready know that concrete, teacher-specific andon-going training is necessary. The most effectivetraining experiences are those that involved trainingat several points in time (see also: Louis, 1983).Further, external change facilitators or principals —or in general: those who are responsible for thein-service training of teachers engaged in changeproject — should offer relevant, practical advice on a'on-call' basis. On-the-spot assistance seems to be veryeffective. Regular project meetings organized in theschool provide an opportunity to share successes,problems, and suggestions and is also a vehicle forbuilding the staff morale and cohesiveness importantto effective implementation (Berman & McLaughlin,1978,p.29).

From a more general point of view, research onin-service training has made it clear that for maximum

effectiveness the following components should beincluded: presentation of theory or description ofskill or strategy; modeling or demonstration of skillsor models of teaching; practice in simulated andclassroom settings; structured and open-ended feed-back (provision of information about performance),and coaching for application (hands-on, in classroomassistance with the transfer of skills and strategies tothe classroom) (Joyce & Showers, 1980).

ReferencesBerman, P., Educational change: an implementation paradigm

— In: Lehming, R. & Kane, M. (Eds), Improving schools,Using what we know. London, Sage Publications, 1981,253-286.

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M.W., Federal programs support-ing educational change, vol.VIII: implementing andsustaining innovations. Santa Monica, Rand Corporation,1978.

Brophy, J.E. & Good, T.L., Teacher-student relationships:causes and consequences. New York, Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1974.

Cox, P.L., Complementary roles in successful change. Educ.Leadership, 1983 (41), nr. 3, 10-13.

Crandall, D.P., The teacher's role in school improvement.Educ. Leadership, 1983 (41), nr. 3, 6-9.

Dawson, J.A., Teacher participation in educational innova-tion: some insights into its nature. (Paper presented atthe annual AERA-meeting, Los Angeles.) 1981.

Doyle, W. & Ponder, G.A., The practicality ethic in teacherdecision making. Interchange, 1977-78 (8), nr. 3, 1-12.

Fullan, M., The meaning of educational change. New York-Toronto, Teachers College Press — Ontario Institute forthe Studies of Education, 1982.

Hall, G.E., Loucks, S.F. & Rutherford, W.L., Levels of useof the innovation: a framework for analyzing innovationadoption. J. Teacher Educ., 1975 (26), 52-56.

Hall, G.E. & Loucks, S.F., A developmental model fordetermining whether the treatment is actually imple-mented. Amer. educ. Res. J., 1977 (14), 263-276.

Hall, G.E., George, A.A. & Rutherford, W.L., Measuringstages of concern about the innovation: a manual for theuse of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, Univ. of Texas,R. & D. Center for Teacher Education, 1977.

Hall, G.E. & Loucks, S.F., Teacher concerns as a basis forfacilitating and personalizing staff development. Austin,Univ. of Texas, R. & D. Center for Teacher Education,1978a.

Hall, G.E. & Loucks, S.F., Innovation configurations: analyz-ing the adaptations of innovations. Austin, Univ. ofTexas, R. & D. Center for Teacher Education, 1978b.

Hall, G.E., Zigarmi, P.K. & Hord, S.M., A taxonomy ofinterventions: the prototype and initial testing. Austin,Univ. of Texas, R. & D. Center for Teacher Education,1979.

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: Teacher's Role in educational change

Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B., Innovation up close: Afield study in twelve school settings. Andover, TheNetwork, 1982.

Janssen, S., Bijscholing van leerkrachten uit het lager onder-wijs. Verslag over de bespreking van de resultaten vaneen enquête. Pedagogische Periodiek, 1975 (82), 211-220;(In-service training of primary school teachers. Report ofdiscussions of the results of an inquiry).

Joyce, B. & Showers, B., Improving in-service training: themessages of research. Educ. Leadership, 1980 (37),379-385.

Louis, K.S., Dissemination systems: some lessons from pro-grams of the past. — In: W.J. Paisley & M. Butler (Eds),Knowledge utilization systems in education. Dissemina-tion, technical assistance, networking. Beverly Hills —London, Sage Publications, 1983, 65-88.

Newlove, B.W. & Hall, G.E., A manual for assessing open-ended statements of concern about an innovation. Austin,Univ. of Texas, R. & D. Center for Teacher Education,1976.

Sieber, S.D., The organizational dilemma of educationalchange models: toward a solution. Interchange, 1976-77(7), nr. 2, 39, 49.

Van den Berg, R.M. & Vandenberghe, R., Onderwijsin-novatie in verschuivend perspectief. Tilburg, Zwijsen,1981.

Van den Berg, R.M. & Vandenberghe, R., Grootschaligheidin de onderwijsvernieuwing. Tilburg, Zwijsen, 1984.(Large-scale innovation in education).

Van den Berg, R.M. & Vandenberghe, R., Large-scale innova-tions in education. Leuven, Acco, in press.

Vandenberghe, R., Meaning of the demand of a 'practice-centred' in-service training. Brit. J. In-service Educ.,1978 (5), nr. 1 , 33-42.

Vandenberghe, R., Studying change in primary and second-ary schools in Belgium and the Netherlands. (Paperpresented at the annual AERA-meeting, Montreal, 1983)ED 233 439.

Vandenberghe, R. & Vermeulen, P., Bijscholing van leer-krachten uit het basisonderwijs. Een verkennend onderzoeknaar hun wensen i.v.m. organisatie, vormgeving en inhoud.Tijdschrift voor Opvoedkunde, 1973-74 (19), 270-281.(In-service training of primary school teachers. An explora-tory examination of their wishes concerning organization,activities and content.)

Vandenberghe, R. & Vermeulen, P., Bijscholing van leer-krachten uit het lager onderwijs. Pedagogische Periodiek,1974 (81), 327-372. (In-service training of primary schoolteachers.)

Schoolteacher Fellowship

Penny Birt and John Stringer

The James Report, in 1972,1 gave precedence, bothmetaphorically and in fact, to the 'third cycle' ofteacher education — 'in-service education and train-ing', INSET. It commended a 'notional three percent of teachers theoretically entitled to second-ment for one term in every seven years'. The Govern-ment White Paper, 'Education — a Frameworkfor Expansion'2 welcomed the report's findings,aiming at a target of 'three per cent release by 1981'.Estimates of the cost of such an exercise ranged fromLord James's own modest £20m, through the DESfigure of £35m, to the £100m anticipated by JohnTaylor CEO (Leeds).3 It was hardly surprising thatthis commendable exercise never got off the ground,and secondments, for whatever purpose, have'beendrastically limited.

So it was with considerable awareness of our goodfortune that we found ourselves seconded for theMichaelmas term, 1983, as Schoolteacher Fellows inthe Departments of Arts and Science Education,respectively, at the University of Warwick. Fundinghad come from a forward-looking independentschool for one of us, and from a Leverhulme TrustScholarship for the other. Our places in school hadbeen taken by other staff, with, in one case, a 'knock-on' effect temporarily reshuffling the managementstructure of a school. We acknowledge our debt to ouremployers, to all those who were to bear additionalburdens in our absence, and to the University for theincomparable opportunity to 'study . . . our ownparticular subject' and to find out what is happeningin other fields of studyi4 We were free to 'spend our

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014