|
Article Excerpt
1. Introduction
In recent years, Dutch secondary teachers have been confronted with the implementation of various educational reforms. One of these reforms, amongst other things, aims at fostering active and self-regulated student learning (ASL). Students are expected to master lifelong learning by actively taking part in their own learning and regulating their own learning. As a result of these changing expectations, the role of the teacher is also shifting from the dominant role of transmitter of knowledge to the additional role of coach who guides and supports self-regulated student learning (Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2006; van Eekelen, Boshuizen, & Vermunt, 2005). Teachers have to learn how to do this and, according to Bolhuis (2000), this requires different knowledge, different skills, and above all different beliefs about learning and teaching. Given that teacher learning is recognized as a crucial factor for successful educational change, professional development programs are being implemented in schools to promote teacher learning. Reciprocal peer coaching is one such professional development program.
Over the years, it has been increasingly acknowledged that professional learning is a social enterprise in which professionals rely upon the expertise and support of one another to adopt innovative new practices (Borko, 2004; Glazer & Hannafin, 2006; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Ladyshewsky, 2006; Murray, Ma, & Mazur, 2008). It is also now widely understood that teacher learning can be enhanced when it is situated within the actual context in which it will be needed (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Reciprocal peer coaching provides teachers with a combination of both of the above as the teachers involved in such a process must regularly discuss their efforts to support student learning with each other, experiment with alternative instructional methods, and exchange feedback derived from observations of each other's classrooms.
Researchers and professional development experts have proposed different peer coaching processes. Some propose cyclical processes; others talk about multiple stages or phases (Ackland, 1991; Engelen, 2002; Gallacher, 1997; Kohler & Ezell, 1999; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Wong & Nicotera, 2003). However, the relevant models often encompass only desired as opposed to real learning activities. That is, a preconference, experiment, and postconference cycle--for example--may be more of an ideal than actual reality, which is in keeping with the results reported by Engelen (2002): In her study, coaches did follow an intensive training program in the necessary coaching skills but that didn't mean that they fully applied the recommended phases and/or the major specific functions of successful coaching. Stated differently, all the activities teachers undertake within the context of a reciprocal peer coaching trajectory can potentially produce professional growth, but the most crucial activities can vary from person to person and situation to situation. In this study, reciprocal peer coaching is defined as a configuration of activities that a dyad of teachers can undertake in the workplace with the intention of supporting each other's teaching. Reciprocal means that the teachers take turns being the coach and the individual being coached. They work in partnerships, equally supporting and learning from each other (see also Murray et al., 2008). The specific configuration of activities can vary from dyad to dyad or situation to situation but must nevertheless contain some core activities to qualify as reciprocal peer coaching. The relevant configuration of activities should include at least the following. The teachers should
* regularly discuss their efforts to support student learning,
* experiment with instructional methods, and
* take turns being a teacher coach and a coached teacher.
Observation is also an important element of reciprocal peer coaching, but the teachers in our study were not always able to do this due to overly full schedules, sudden changes of schedule, working part-time, and so forth. This did not mean, however, that the teachers could not plan their lessons together or discuss each other's experiences during a coaching conference. Those cases in which the teachers did not observe each other's lessons but managed to organize a coaching conference to discuss their experiences were therefore included in the present study.
The main purpose of this article is to explore which characteristics of a reciprocal peer coaching program stimulated or inhibited the professional learning of 28 experienced teachers. To do this, the associations between specific characteristics of the peer coaching context and teacher learning as perceived by teachers and their students were analyzed.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Identification of Relevant Peer Coaching Factors
In the literature on peer coaching or other interaction-based professional development programs, various factors that can stimulate or inhibit learning have been identified. However, the various factors have been studied from widely differing perspectives and in very different contexts. Some scholars provide clear empirical evidence for only a small number of factors (e.g., Engelen, 2002; Gallacher, 1997; Rink, 2005; Swafford, 1998). Other scholars perform a meta-analysis of results of many studies and report on these (e.g., Ackland, 1991; Glazer & Hannafin, 2006) or consider the prerequisites for effective peer coaching in more theoretical or, in contrast, more pragmatic terms (Gottesman, 2000).
D'Abate, Eddy, and Tannenbaum (2003) have examined interaction-based professional development programs from yet another angle. Based upon their reading of the research on such development programs (e.g., mentoring programs, coaching programs), D'Abate et al. adopted a deductive-nomological approach to identify the main characteristics of interaction-based professional development programs. A total of 23 characteristics were included in the relevant nomological network and grouped into six categories: (a) characteristics of the participants, (b) characteristics of the interaction, (c) the purpose of the interaction, (d) organizational distance, (e) degree of structure, and (f) behavioral expectations exhibited during the developmental interaction or included in the formal development program (p. 366).
In light of the fact that the nomological network created by D'Abate et al. (2003) encompasses almost all of the prerequisites identified for effective peer coaching in the previous studies of interaction-based professional development programs, we took the characteristics they mentioned to be potentially important and adjusted the categories to fit the context and purpose of the present study--namely, identification of those characteristics that appear to stimulate or inhibit teacher learning from reciprocal peer coaching. Given that the teachers in the present study all came from the same organizational level, the category of organizational distance was omitted for the present framework. In addition, the category of behavioral expectations was subsumed under the category of interaction characteristics as behavioral expectations were considered critical to the interaction between the dyad partners and others involved in a peer coaching trajectory. Based upon the findings of Glazer and Hannafin (2006), van Eekelen et al. (2005), and Rink (2005), the category of participant characteristics was split into two categories, namely, dyad characteristics and individual characteristics. Teacher perceptions of learning goals for themselves, beliefs about teaching and learning, and personality characteristics were then included in the category of individual characteristics. The findings of Rink (2005) led us to also include dyad characteristics: the disparity between the teachers within a coaching dyad with regard to perceptions of learning goals for themselves, beliefs about teaching and learning, and personality characteristics. This means, for example, that we marked whether a teacher had more or less years of experience than his or her coaching partner and investigated if this was associated with teacher learning. Last, school characteristics are those aspects of the peer coaching project that are the responsibility of the school administration. An example of this category is the amount of time the school administration has available for professional development (see also Murray et al., 2008). Table 1 presents an overview of the five categories of characteristics of the peer coaching context used in the present study and also the studies from which they were drawn.
2.2. Teacher Learning
For purposes of the present study, teacher learning was considered any ongoing work-related process that leads to a change of cognition and/or behavior) In this study, the focus is on the teacher perceptions of their own changes in cognition and/or behavior. Given that the professional development of teachers can contribute to changed instructional techniques and improved student learning (Joyce & Showers, 2002), whether students also notice any changes in teacher behavior will be considered in addition to the teachers' own reports of learning as a result of coaching. In our analyses, teacher learning was limited to teacher behavior relevant to the large educational reform implemented in the upper grades of Dutch secondary education (i.e., Grades 10-12). The reform involved two components: the "Tweede Fase" ("Second Phase"), which brought about changes in the curriculum, and the "Studiehuis" ("Learning House"), which was intended to stimulate schools and teachers to adopt a new pedagogical approach involving self-regulation of student learning. The curriculum of several school subjects was changed, new school subjects were introduced, and learners could choose a specific combination of subjects (instead of a free choice from all examination subjects). Along with these mandatory changes, schools were encouraged to promote students' ASL, which requires students to gradually take control of their own learning process. Bolhuis and Voeten (2004) have operationalized this educational approach in terms of the self-regulation of learning, the active construction of knowledge, and the social nature of learning. In this study, we adhere to these three aspects of ASL. The relevant teaching activities are--for instance--the stimulation of students to formulate their own opinions and goals, the assignment of tasks for students to work on collaboratively, and the discussion of how to approach a particular task best with the students (rather than the simple provision of instructions) (see also Bolhuis & Voeten, 2004).
3. Method
3.1. The Reciprocal Peer Coaching Program
The main objective of the reciprocal peer coaching program is to foster active and collaborative teacher learning with respect to the stimulation of more active and self-regulated student learning. According to Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001), "Activities that are linked to teachers' other experiences, aligned with other reform efforts, and encouraging of professional communication among teachers appear to...
|
