ECER Conference
Crete, Greece22 - 25 September 2004
The professional learning of teachers and tutors: A complex process or a step-by-step event?
MARIA N. GRAVANI1* & PETER D. JOHN2
1Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, BS8 1JA, UK, E-mail address:
2Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth, Douglas Avenue, Devon EX8 2AT, UK, E-mail address:
*Correspondence Author:
Dr. Maria N. Gravani
GraduateSchool of Education
University of Bristol
35 Berkeley Square
BS8 1JA Bristol, UK
E-mail address:
Tel. +44 (0) 781 7921383 / +44 (0) 117 928 9000
Fax: +44 (0) 117 925 4975
1. Introduction
We are living at a time when information and knowledge is being produced at a rapid rate partly due to the new technologies. It is also the case that education systems see the value of continuous and lifelong learning in order to adjust to the rapid pace of change. At such times, there is a renewed concern with the teacher as adult professional learner, demonstrated through the current emphasis on ‘in-service training’, ‘continuing professional development’ and the wider concern with ‘the knowledge-based society’ and ‘lifelong learning’ (Eurydice, 2001; Hoban, 2002; Gravani, 2003; Hargreaves, 2003; Sachs, 2003). In response, institutions of Higher Education have broadened their involvement in professional and continuing education. Researches have also placed a growing emphasis on the importance of seeking to ensure opportunities for teachers’ continual learning and provide sufficient development resources and programmes to support these opportunities (Cohen & Ball, 1990; Darling-Hammond, 1990, 1996; Richardson, 1994; Sykes, 1996; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Tsafos & Katsarou, 2000; Fullan, as quoted in Borko et al., 2002).
Within this context what teachers learn should be as important as how they learn (John & Gravani, 2004) and emphasis should be placed on the processes by which they grow professionally as well as the conditions that support and promote that growth. As Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002, p. 947) point out, “the optimization of the outcomes of a process is facilitated by the understanding of that process”. Nevertheless, although understanding the internal dynamics of professional learning, its context and its occasions can only lead to the design of more reliable powerful and effective learning programmes and procedures, educational research often lacks insight into the subtleties of the processes of professional learning (Claxton, 1996 a; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). In particular, we still know very little about the ‘fine-grained’ processes that are at work during the organization and delivery of the courses and the ways in which different forms of learning and knowledge interact. Answers to these questions are vital.
The research reported in this paper aspires to illuminate some of the above issues by giving voice to the experiences and perceptions of both teachers and tutors as they embark (albeit from different standpoints) on a university provided in-service training programme in Greece. This exploratory study is therefore an attempt to extract from the findings those ideas and practices that, suitably adapted, could contribute to the re-organization of programmes for teachers that facilitate professional learning. In so doing, it leans on a research framework that views certain programme elements as being vital in unveiling the processes of professional learning. These are used heuristically only, since the ultimate purpose of the study is to allow participants’ voices to be heard.
2. Professional learning: a problem of definition
According to Freidson (1994, p. 15), “One cannot study process without a definition guiding one’s focus any more fruitfully than one can study structure without a definition. Professional learning has been proved difficult to pin down conceptually and even these who are generally regarded as leading writers in the field (Cervero, 1988; Claxton, 1996 a, 1996 b; McCulloch, Helsby & Knight, 2000; Hoban, 2002; Kwakman, 2003) do not define precisely what they mean by the term.Claxton (1996 a), for example, offers no definition of professional learning despite his incorporation of it into the title of the paper. His interpretation of professional learning is implicit in his outline of the rationale and the issues raised in the study reported. He refers to professional learning in education as being “a very particular kind of learning-or rather, encompasses a family of kinds of learning that is distinct both from that in other professional or technical spheres, and from academic learning” (Claxton, 1996 a, p. 5). He comments on its goal by arguing that it: “is certainly not merely an expanded intellectual understanding; it is a change in the practical, instinctive way in which one responds in front of a class, in a seminar, in a meeting” (Claxton, 1996 a, p. 5).
For others (Bottery & Wright, 1996; Bottery, 1998; Armour & Balboa, 2000; McCulloch, Helsby & Knight, 2000; and Kwakman, 2003), teachers’ learning is referred to as professional learning, in that a central element of it is giving priority to the needs of clients. In particular, Armour & Balboa (2000) view professional learning as a life-long process, the focus of which in the teaching profession is mainly upon the content of a particular subject and on diverse methods with which to teach it. McCulloch, Helsby & Knight (2000, p. 90), explain that professional learning encourages creativity, reflection, and consideration of the best forms of education for the different needs of children they teach. Instead of offering an explicit definition of the term, they mainly focus on describing its main characteristics. They see it as “situated, specific and practical in character”, and mostly taking place “in the normal workings of activity systems”. They further argue that the main form of professional learning is not through courses and conferences, although they have their place, and that its improvement is contingent upon the improvement of activity systems. Kwakman (2003, p. 152) ultimately concludes that “The process by which teachers acquire the new knowledge, skills, and values which will improve the service they provide to clients’ (Hoyle & John, 1995, p.17), teachers’ learning is strongly connected to professional goals which demand teachers to strive for continuous improvement of their teaching practices. From this principle, teacher learning is rather referred to as professional learning”. This pragmatic definition is adopted throughout this study. To avoid endless repetition the term professional learning is used interchangeably with the term learning and teacher learning.
3. Conceptualising professional learning: a research framework
3.1. Perspectives on professional learning
In proposing a model to guide inquiry in teacher learning for educational change, Hoban (2002) identified four theoretical perspectives on learning, each underpinned by a different assumption concerning the unit of analysis or focus for learning. His taxonomy will serve as the framework for this literature review.
3.1.1. A cognitive perspective
In cognitive learning theories the unit of analysis or focus for learning is in the mind of the individual. They originate from the work of Jean Piaget (1950) who believes that learning is a process of continually reworking an individual’s knowledge based on personal experiences. The cognitive perspective, therefore, explicates the process of personal knowledge construction and highlights the importance of an individual’s prior knowledge as a major influence on learning (Hoban, 2002). A key assumption of this view is the notion that learning is cumulative in nature. Nothing has meaning or is learned in isolation from prior experience (Shuell, 1986). The above assumption has a pedigree dating back to Dewey (1933, p. 34) who claims that “No one can think about anything without the experience and information about it”.
There are several critiques of a cognitive perspective on learning. The cognitive perspective, despite making headway in illustrating how personal knowledge construction occurs, offers no explanations on how identity is constructed and how social interactions influence the individual members of a community (Schoenfeld, 1999). Moreover, it does not explain how an individual learns completely new knowledge about which no prior knowledge exists (Solomon, 1994). If learning occurs through the reconstruction of prior knowledge, how is completely new knowledge generated? Finally, it does not explain why some individuals can perform complicated mental functioning in an authentic setting, but not repeat these processes in a classroom setting (Hoban, 2002). Different studies (Lave 1988 a; 1988 b) have shown that learning is context-bound in an authentic situation and therefore they project a unit of analysis other than the mind of the individual. This links up with the situated perspective on learning which is illustrated in the following section.
3.1.2. A situated perspective
This emphasizes the importance of the situation or context for learning based on the idea that the thinking of an individual cannot be separated from its context. It evolves from sociology and anthropology assuming that the unit of analysis or focus for learning is the individual-in-social-action. A sociocultural perspective on learning has been represented in various forms, such as situated cognition (Brown et al., 1989) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Putnam & Borko (2002, p. 38) identify three conceptual themes that are central to the situated perspective. According to them, “cognition is (a) situated in particular physical and social contexts; (b) social in nature; and (c) distributed across the individual, other persons and tools”.
The key assumptions of a situated perspective were criticized by Anderson et al., (1996) on the following grounds: first, learning is not always contextual, since skills can also be taught without being in an authentic setting; second, although the situated perspective assumes that knowledge cannot be transferred from one context to another, different amounts of knowledge can be transmitted according to the amount of practice and type of representation; third, it is not necessary for training to occur in an authentic setting as long as it is combined with concrete examples. This can be done through the use of video and information technology; fourth, instruction does not always have to take place in complex, social environments, as some training is best taught as component skills and integrated with practice. Moreover, Salomon (1993) challenges the situated perspective by arguing that it does not explain how a community generates its own collective knowledge and extends that knowledge. He argues that the collective knowledge of a community must be related to the knowledge that individuals bring to the group and that unless new members, who hold additional knowledge that is stored in their minds, join the community, it is unlikely that the information of the latter grows.
3.1.3. Theoretical pragmatism
A pragmatic approach to learning advocates that a cognitive or a situated perspective on learning can be used depending on ‘what works’ (Hoban, 2002). As identified previously, both perspectives offer valuable insights into the learning processes and they are useful for understanding particular influences, but they focus on different aspects. The cognitive emphasizes the importance of personal conditions for learning such as prior knowledge, and the situated stresses the importance of social and contextual conditions. As Cobb (1994, p. 13) proposes, we should be pragmatic about theories and use whichever one suits a particular purpose or use them in combination with one perspective constituting the ‘figure’ and the other the ‘ground’ of the learning process. Anderson et al., (2000, p. 13) try to find common ground between the two learning perspectives. They claim that both should inform educational research but a high priority should be given to research that moves toward merging the diverse perspectives within which educators currently work. Similarly, Merriam & Caffarella (1999), Claxton (1996 b) and Putnam & Borko (1997) advocate that learning is not unique to one theoretical perspective but should be viewed through multiple perspectives. They use a lens that draws together the tenets of different learning perspectives to look at adult and professional learning.
Putnam & Borko (1997) commenting on teacher learning propose an eclectic approach to this built on the personal nature of knowledge and beliefs as well as the social, situated and distributed nature of cognition. In the light of the above, they suggest the following six conditions for optimum learning: first, teachers should be treated as active learners who construct their own knowledge; second, they should be empowered and treated as professionals; third, they need to consider what ideas are essential in their learning and gain different expertise. This relates to the distributed nature of cognition; fourth, they also need to use a range of tools, such as information technology, to keep track of the vast information available; fifth, teacher education should be situated in classroom practice; and finally, educators should treat teachers as they expect teachers to treat students.
The above educators, despite favouring integrated and eclectic approaches to learning and arguing for the adoption of multiple perspectives, do not link them together into a coherent ‘learning system’. Hoban (2002) attempts to do so in the ‘systems thinking’ approach illuminated in the following section.
3.1.4. A ‘systems thinking’ approach
This does not consist of a new theory of learning but a way of thinking that brings together the core ideas of existing learning perspectives and underlines the interplay between them. It emphasizes the relationships among elements in a ‘learning system’, a term which is used to describe the ‘reciprocal spiral relationship’ (Salomom & Perkins, 1998) that emerges, when personal, social and contextual conditions for learning interact to improve each other in a way that a synergy is produced by their mutual influence. Hence, according to Hoban (2002), the unit of analysis or focus for learning in the ‘systems thinking’ approach is the ‘individual in related action’. “Learning is therefore distributed among influences on learning, rather than across a social setting (as in a situated perspective) or within an individual (as in a cognitive perspective)” (Hoban, 2002, p. 59) (italics and parentheses: emphasis in the original).
Hence the ‘individual in related action’ as a unit of analysis, by focusing on the relationships between different elements, acknowledges that individual learning is affected by different actions, such as a group discussion, or a practice setting, or by tools, like the video or books. “Any context, therefore, can be viewed as a learning system with multiple relationships among people, the setting and artefacts, much like a spider web, but not all need to be operational at one time or to the same extent” (Hoban, 2002, p. 60). In this respect, ‘action’ can be anything that provides insights or understanding, such as watching television or listening to a lecture. This contrasts with the notion that learning needs to occur in a community of practice, which is prevalent in the situated perspective.
3.2. Research framework
This study draws upon a set of ideas that cohere under the rubric programme development, particularly the work of Tyler (1949), Knowles (1980, 1990) and Brookfield (1986). In particular, it harnesses the key concepts of planning, diagnosis needs, design, climate and evaluation as heuristics to both guide data collection and structure analysis. With regards to planning, a cardinal principle of andragogy is that a mechanism must be provided for the involvement of all the parties in the planning of any educational enterprise. If this is not forthcoming, claims Knowles (1990), adult professional learners often only feel committed to any decision in proportion to the extent to which they have participated in making it. Diagnosing the needs for learning involves deciding about the procedures to be used for helping learners responsibly and realistically identify what they need to learn. Knowles (1990) compares designing a comprehensive programme to creating a work of art and argues that it consists of selecting the combination of learning units and learning formats that will most effectively accomplish the objectives of the programme and arrange them into a pattern. A climate conducive to learning is regarded to be a necessary prerequisite to effective adult professional learning (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1990; Bickel & Hattrup, 1995; Palincsar et al., 1998; Gravani, 2003). Knowles (1990) identifies two aspects of climate: physical environment, i.e. the typical classroom set up, material infrastructure, schedule fitting, and psychological climate, i.e. mutual respect, collaboration, supportiveness, openness. If every learning experience is to lead to further learning, then the evaluation process is vital. Kirkpatrick (1975) conceives of evaluation as four steps, all of which are required for an effective assessment of a programme. These are: reaction evaluation, learning evaluation, behaviour evaluation, and results evaluation.
4. Methodology
4.1 The context
Two in-service programmes organised for philologists (secondary teachers in Ancient and Modern Greek, Latin, History and Philosophy) at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, between December 2000 and June 2001, provide the focus for this study. These programmes are entitled: ‘In-service Training for Philologists’, organised by the Department of Philology (Division of Classics), and ‘Professional In-service Training for Philologists’ organised by the Department of Philosophy & Education in co-operation with the History & Archaeology Department.
The programme in the Philology Department offered 420 hours of in-service training in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Tragedy, Rhetoric, Latin Literature, Latin Language, Modern Greek, and Teaching Methodology of Ancient and Modern Greek. Training in Information Technology was also offered to thirty (30) experienced philologists from different parts of Greece. Ten (10) university teachers were involved in teaching the above subject areas. The programme was addressed mainly to those teaching in upper secondary schools the primary purpose being to up-date their subject knowledge in both Classical Languages. The participants in the programme, after being assessed through a written essay in one of the ten courses attended and taking exams in Information Technology, were awarded a Certificate of In-service Training (Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (), 2000 a).
In the Department of Philosophy and Education the 420 hours of in-service training was distributed similarly among the following subjects: General History and History of the Civilisation, Ancient and Modern Greek, Linguistics, Educational Theory and Research, Teaching Methodology of History, Greek Language, Ancient and Modern Greek Literature, developments in the Socio-Cultural and Economic Context, as well as Information Technology. Overall, forty-seven (47) university teachers were involved in teaching twenty-nine (29) philologists who attended the programme (, 2000 b). Again the course was aimed at updating their subject knowledge, informing the teachers on educational theory, research, teaching methodologies, and making them aware of recent developments and reforms in education. The method of assessment was identical in both courses.
4.2. Participants
Twenty-two (22) secondary teachers - eleven (11) from each of the two departments, examined - and twelve (12) university teachers - six (6) from each of the two departments, were randomly selected for the present study. The secondary teachers (sixteen (16) women and six (6) men) ranged in their teaching experience in both the Lower (Gymnaseo) and the Upper (Lykeo) secondary education from ten (10) to seventeen (17) years. They had extensive experience of teaching virtually all the subjects that a philologist would teach in a typical Greek school. Their prior experience of attending in-service courses also varied from zero to three months. The university teachers (three (3) women and nine (9) men) ranged in academic rank from Professor to Research Assistant and had different experience in university teaching. They also varied in their experience as classroom teachers and teachers in professional development courses, ranging typically from no experience at all to thirty-eight (38) years. Their areas of specialization included: Classical Studies, Pedagogy, History, Modern Greek, Linguistics and Information Technology in Education. To sum up, with regards to the choice of participants, the sample was opportunistic rather than stratified. According to this approach, every individual had an equal chance of being selected (Miles & Huberman, 1994).