Seminar 7: Models of Effective Professional Learning
Tuesday 21st February 9:30 - 5:00
Kings College London
Seminar Report
This seminar explored how professional learning could best be promoted within the
various political, organisational, social and emotional contexts within which teachers
work.
Heather Hodkinson:
Improving schoolteachers professional learning: workplace
practices and cultures, organisational structures and government
policy
Mary James, Alison Fox
& Robert McCormick:
How can networks support the professional learning of teachers?
Harry Daniels &
Anne Edwards:
Learning in and for interagency working
Paul Black:
Making teacher change happen
Mike Askew &
Jeremy Hodgen:
Relationships with/in primary mathematics: learning and working
with primary teachers
This report pulls together notes submitted by the rapporteurs of the 3 discussion
groups and the notes of general discussions following paper presentations and the
plenary session.1 A very wide range of issues were raised during the day and it will
not be possible to do all of them full justice in these notes – as always many of them
have appeared in previous sessions.
Definition of Professional Learning
During the course of the day, in presentations, group discussions and at the plenary, a
good deal of attention was focused on the nature of ‘professional learning’. Although
widely used it is often left unproblematised in terms of its precise meaning. As these
notes will make clear it is anything but a mundane concept and raises very powerful
questions as to the values which underpin it as an activity, the nature of control over
its constitution and boundaries, and the form(s) of evaluation which are pertinent and
appropriate for grasping its outcomes. One group encapsulated the nature of such
questions by asking itself:
1
With thanks to Adam Terry, Lorraine Foreman-Peck, David James and Meryl
Thompson.
… whether we had sufficiently problematised the concept of effectiveness in
professional development; what the change in terminology from ‘professional
development’ to ‘professional learning’ indicated; and how increased
expenditure on teachers’ professional development could be justified to policy
makers and the public.
In one form or another these questions recurred. A slightly despairing note could be
detected in one group’s plea: “What is professional learning about now?”
Effective Professional Learning
For everyone it was important to grasp that ‘professional development’ initiatives are
directly or implicitly established upon a foundation of some forms of values. In the
introductory comments which prefaced the day, Sharon Gewirtz reminded us that
throughout the seminar series:
… people have frequently remarked in discussions on relative absence of value
debate in policy and academic discourse. i.e. although there’s a lot of criticism
of value bases of current policy and its narrow conceptions of education success,
there isn’t much discussion about alternative conceptions of success. This is
important because we can’t address questions of effectiveness in isolation from
questions of purpose.
All of the participants at the seminar recognised the relevance of tangling with the
issue of ‘effectiveness’ in discussions of professional learning. There was, however,
no unanimity over what would count as an adequate definition of the term nor what
outcomes might be utilised as criteria for its evaluation. In many ways this is well
trodden territory in other fields. For example, there has been considerable discussion
in the literature over the values, meaning, composition and evaluation of
‘effectiveness’ in the whole school effectiveness debate. Nonetheless this does not
make it any less relevant to focus similar attention on professional
learning/development. Within the discussions there was reference to the
‘managerialisation’ of professional learning which attempted to tie it precisely to
specifically measurable targets and standards, and there was no unanimity as to how
to interpret such developments. Whilst it was broadly recognised that within demands
for professional accountability some expectations were entirely legitimate, how to
define such expectations was highly complex. One speaker said, ‘Successful
outcomes will always be specific to each individual’s professional development
purposes, and if there is no instrument in place to measure this success, then one has
to be developed. It is impossible to generalise on this.’ Another, reporting on their
own research commented, ‘…we have found it very hard to pin down comparable
levels of success … even just between disciplines …. Very different criteria have to
be used.’ Other very experienced practitioners made the following comments:


This really highlights the tyranny of what is and isn’t measurable; many of
these outcomes will be very long-term, will prove impossible to measure, or
will be impossible to tie back to original causes.
We also run the risk, in trying to measure specific outcomes, of then
promising them to people. There is then a need to deliver.

… we run the risk of selecting outcomes retrospectively, and it is not
sufficient to ask teachers simply if they fulfilled their aims. “Effectiveness”
is a very frustrating word.
Whilst such quotes do not help to resolve the dilemmas they do help us to appreciate
that we are grappling with very ‘real’ problems of great significance. Nowhere was
this more apparent than in the focus on the use of student outcomes as important
criteria in evaluating professional learning. This was seen as a crucial issue but one
which was surrounded by ‘wicked problems’. One group summarised the issue as
follows:
The group discussed the extent to which ‘effectiveness’ should be measured by
outcomes. Researchers and evaluators are under pressure to link funded
professional development to pupil outcomes. There was agreement that this was
the ultimate aim of professional learning, but that it implied very carefully
designed professional development programmes and great clarity on the nature
of outcomes and that it is now acknowledged that an impact on student
outcomes can often only be inferred indirectly.
The same group went on to comment:
In all cases, we were reminded, there is often insufficient attention given,
including by policy makers, to the existence and power of unintended
consequences. Similarly another constant in professional learning is allowing
for time and providing opportunities … for collaboration [and] for reflection.
A number of contributors pointed to ‘the impossibility of establishing causal chains’
and the fact that ‘many outcomes will be very long-term’. In reflecting on the whole
issue of ‘effective professional learning’ one very experienced representative of a
research team said: ‘When we were conducting our research, we were under pressure
to come up with outcomes that would demonstrate “effectiveness”. We didn’t even
know which outcomes we were looking for, and often couldn’t precisely define those
which we achieved. I think the best thing to do is to focus on the teachers’ own
perceptions of how – and how effectively – they feel they are developing and
learning.’
Contexts for Professional Learning
Throughout all of the discussions during this seminar series there has been a very
strong theme which has placed emphasis on complexity, specificity, and context,
whether defined by subject, sector, national setting or specific local dynamics of race,
class, gender. To many this complexity acts as major obstacle to making
generalisations including making general recommendations for policy or practical
change. This represents fundamental epistemological challenge – recognising the
complexity of the social world but accepting the necessity of some kind of
generalisation, however tentative or qualified, by reference to context if one’s goal is
making things change for the better. The reflections which took place in this session
were no exception. For example, one group remarked that they ‘…began by posing
the question whether the presentations had outlined a secondary sector rather than a
primary sector model of professional development, but it was felt that the principles
applied in the same way.’ Considerations of the time, resources, spaces and
opportunities for the processes of professional development arose in various guises
throughout the day’s deliberations. It was widely recognised that the contextual
circumstances within which the ‘professional learning’ took place could be highly
significant. One group felt that ‘… there was an issue as to whether professional
learning requires particular “spaces” to be removed from teachers’ practice, or can
take place within that practice.’ There was broad agreement about the importance of
what other people described as ‘neutral spaces’ or ‘boundary zones’ and this was
frequently tied into discussions of time. As one speaker put it: ‘Teachers are tied into
very tight routines at their schools, and in our research we found that many of them
really valued spending some time off-site.’ This discussion was linked to a
consideration of the role of HE in relation to professional learning. Speakers for HE
were very sensitive to the fact that they could be assumed to have ‘vested interests’ in
this respect or were trying to ‘feather their own nests’. However, one contributor from
outside the HE sector made the following argument:
There was a sense, however, that the critical role of HE in this respect is not
supported, funded or appreciated as essential in a model of effective
professional learning in England, although there appears to be more
international emphasis on it. In particular a wider professional environment,
including the status that HE links can bring, can provide opportunities to extend
a teacher’s professional identity and encourage boundary crossing.
Research, Expertise and Control in Professional Learning
An abiding theme in discussions of ‘professional development/professional learning’
strategies and initiatives has been the question of control, expertise and leadership. At
its most basic it is a question of who should define the nature of the activity, what
constitutes the ‘needs’ of practitioners, and who controls the provision and nature of
the activities entailed. At the most general level one group summarised the situation
as follows:
Many of the initiatives in relation to professional development have been
Government-led. It was argued that policy-makers and Ministers need to absorb
what we know about professional learning. It is exceptional if a Minister takes
account of research evidence and respects the complexity of changing pedagogy.
… If, as one of the group put it, professional learning is about ‘refining values
in practice’ then this requires more emphasis on the latent repertoire of ideas
teachers have; on listening to them; and on supporting their sense of dignity and
professionalism.
The whole question of the interaction between research and practice was recognised
as complex and interwoven. In the plenary it was raised as to whether ‘… researchers
therefore should be practitioners themselves?’ This evoked a good deal of discussion
both in plenary sessions and in groups. Inevitably no firm conclusions were reached
but one group summarised some of the contours within which the relationship needed
to be viewed:
Many models of professional development presuppose the involvement of
academic researchers and subject and pedagogic experts in a network with
teachers, some of whom may be expert and exemplary, but some may be
relatively reluctant. The role researchers play is arguably more complex than
has been realized and has been insufficiently analysed in order that it can be
replicated. For example, the seminar [series] had provided examples of
researchers required to establish complex networks that interacted with
individual environments. This could include speaking and explaining the
purposes to headteachers, in effect advocacy, providing an off-site environment,
both physical and psychological, for professional learning, which supported
teachers in their learning but also created the conditions for professional growth,
for example by encouraging innovation and drawing on a teacher’s tacit
knowledge; visits to lessons to observe, give feedback and mediate as well as
collect data; and going on-line in ‘hot seats’ to answer questions.
The reference to ‘networks’ in this context was also something about which many
participants expressed ambivalent views. Whilst it was understood that expansive
networks could provide excellent and supportive environments within which to
consolidate ideas and exchange views and experiences others pointed to the power
and control elements which could enter into networks. As one group put it: ‘There
could be a ‘dark side’ to networks. They could be used to dominate.’ Others also
referred to the time and resources which were needed to establish networks and that
they could become victims of inertia and being driven by the particularities of specific
school development priorities. This point was linked to questions of leadership and
the inevitable discussion about questions of determining the weight and direction of
professional learning/development programmes. Once again it was fully recognised
that issues of accountability required that all programmes be reflective of national,
local and institutional criteria but that these should not be at the cost of ruling out
‘professional and personal’ elements within these developments. As more than one
person put it: ‘We also need to think in terms of psychic, emotional and intellectual
space. … the very best professional development results in you focusing on more
than just the single aspect you were concentrating on at the start of the day.’ Or as
another contributor said: ‘Do what sometimes appear to be the “deficit” models of
professional development … take account of the emotions which may lead to teachers
resisting or resenting development opportunities?’
Reflection on these kinds of issues brought us back to some of the issues about the
relationships between policy, research and practice which have permeated this series.
As Sharon Gewirtz said about policy critique and engagement in her introduction to
the day’s proceedings:
There is widespread scepticism regarding the value of top down political
initiatives and some scepticism about the stance of some of key policy agencies,
perhaps particularly in the English context. On the other hand, there are sensible
calls for academic researchers not just to be sideline critics or whinging sneerers
(as Blunkett would have put it), but to engage with policy makers or at least to
endeavour to translate their analyses into something that can be made practically
relevant.