01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Teachers‘ Use of Informal Learning Opportunities: Frequencies and their Correlations with Individual Characteristics in Germany
Sebastian Röhl1, Jana Groß Ophoff2, Colin Cramer1
1University of Tübingen, Germany; 2University College of Teacher Education Vorarlberg
Presenting Author: Röhl, Sebastian
In teachers’ lifelong professionalization, informal learning represents a core aspect of continuous professional development in addition to organized in-service training. Informal learning opportunities that are usually initiated and controlled by the teachers themselves include, among other things, obtaining teaching-related feedback from students and colleagues, which is considered to be extremely effective for teachers’ learning (e.g., Hattie & Clarke, 2019; Ridge und Lavigne, 2020). In contrast to surveying the frequency of participation in continuing education and training courses, it has been difficult so far to measure the use of informal learning opportunities as comprehensively as possible, since many survey instruments list activities that are considered to be conducive to learning in a more or less random manner (Dobischat & Gnahs, 2008). For the teaching profession, Kwakman (2003) identified a variety of informal learning opportunities in a qualitative interview study, which in a multi-step process finally led to the development and validation of the Teachers’ Professional Development at Work (TPD) survey instrument (Evers et al., 2016) with the dimensions ‘Experimenting’, ‘Collaborating for School Development’, ‘Collaborating for Lessen Development’, ‘Keeping Up-to-date: Reading’, and ‘Reflecting and Asking for Feedback’. This study tests a German adaptation of this originally Dutch instrument and examines the relationships between the informal learning opportunity dimensions and exemplary demographic, dispositional, and job-related characteristics that are highly relevant for the use of learning opportunities (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Richter et al., 2011). The following research questions are addressed:
RQ1: Can the dimensions of the use of informal learning opportunities identified in Evers et al. (2016) be confirmed in a German translation of the instrument?
RQ2: How often do teachers in Germany use different dimensions of informal learning opportunities?
RQ3: To what extent do age, gender, the lack of a qualification for the teaching profession, general self-efficacy, and the takeover of tasks in the extended school leadership show effects on the frequency of using informal learning opportunities?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer the research questions, we used a quantitative online questionnaire survey. A representative sample with regard to age, gender and school type of N = 405 teachers from Germany was surveyed in fall 2019 by a German survey service provider. The online questionnaire was based on a German adaptation of the TPD (21 items, response scale 1 = never to 5 = always), supplemented by individual items to capture demographic and job-related characteristics. General self-efficacy expectancy was assessed by a scale from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999; 10 items, ω=.886).
Regarding RQ1, we used confirmatory factor analyses, following the usual cut-off values for the fit statistics (CFI ≥ .95, SRMR ≤ .08, RMSEA ≤ .05; Kline, 2016). To address the second research question, we calculated scale means and standard deviations. Finally, to answer RQ3, we estimated a structural equation model in which the frequencies of use are predicted by the individual characteristics of the teachers, controlling for school characteristics. We conducted structural equation analyses using the R package lavaan.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConfirmatory analysis of the factor structure of the TPD indicated the necessity for modification of the dimensions found in Evers et al. (2016) (Χ2(179)=431.8, p<.001, RMSEA=.064, SRMR=.064, CFI=.892). Based on an analysis regarding model misspecification (Saris et al., 2009), three double-loading items were removed, and the reading-related dimension was split regarding print media and Internet information. The final model with the dimensions ‘reflection and feedback’ (M=3.45, SD=0.64), ‘informing online’ (M=3.40, SD=0.77), ‘cooperation for lesson development’ (M=3.16, SD=0.77), ‘innovating and testing’ (M=3.01, SD=0.62), ‘cooperation for school development’ (M=3.00, SD=0.72) and ‘reading print media’ (M=2.91, SD=0.85) shows a good fit (Χ2(118)=212.7, p<.001, RMSEA=.048, SRMR=.046, CFI=.951).
Regression analysis revealed positive gender effects (gender: female) on the dimensions of innovating/testing (β=.17**), reflecting/feedback (β=.26***), and the forms of cooperation (school development: β=.15*; instructional development: β=.23***). In terms of age, there was a quadratic pattern for reading print media, indicating more frequent reception up to about age 50 with a subsequent decline (β=-.14*). Higher general self-efficacy expectancy exhibits positive effects on innovating (β=.21**) and school development-related cooperation (β=.19***).
Our findings show that a translation of the TPD can be applied in German-speaking countries with some adaptations. In particular, the use of online information sources seems to be moving away from the items relating to paper-based information sources in the previously used reading dimension. Using a representative sample, the study provides an insight into the frequency of use of informal learning opportunities in Germany, according to which teachers often seem to reflect on their teaching, seek feedback, and prefer online resources. Teachers' age only appears relevant for reading print media. Female teachers seem to use most informal learning opportunities slightly more frequently than male. In the presentation, we will discuss the comparability with findings from other countries and practical implications.
ReferencesCerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I. & Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and Outcomes of Informal Learning Behaviors: a Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9492-y
Dobischat, R. & Gnahs, D. (2008). Methodische Reflexionen und Verbesserungsansätze zum BSW-AES. In Weiterbildungsverhalten in Deutschland. Band 2: Berichtskonzepte auf dem Prüfstand (pp. 219–229). Bielefeld: Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung.
Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K. & van der Heijden, B. I. (2016). The design and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ professional development at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2015.1055465
Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Press.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O. & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008
Ridge, B. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020). Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback: A review of the literature. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 61. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5023
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A. & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing Structural Equation Models or Detection of Misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen: Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Freie Universität Berlin. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/%7Ehealth/self/skalendoku_selbstwirksame_schulen.pdf
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Flourishing or Floundering? Exploring Ukrainian Elementary School Teacher Understandings of Their Professional Experience
Ulana Pidzamecky
University of Glasgow
Presenting Author: Pidzamecky, Ulana
Brief Abstract
This empirical study investigated Ukrainian elementary schoolteacher perceptions of their professional flourishing within the current education environment in Ukraine. It involved 12 teachers from different parts of the country and explored the relationship between professional and personal flourishing. In addition, the research attended to the contexts of state and society within conditions of ongoing neoliberal education reform since Ukraine declared independence in 1991. Teacher opinions were also solicited about the relationship between professional flourishing and continuous professional development (CPD) in this dynamic climate. Their views were elicited as well about a preferred educational future for the evolving democracy of Ukraine under the impact of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic and the Russian invasion in 2022.
Main Research Question and Sub-Questions
1. What does it mean to flourish professionally for Ukrainian elementary school teachers?
a. What do they feel might enable or impede their sense of professional flourishing?
b. What are their views about continuous professional development (CPD) in relation to professional flourishing?
c. How do they see their role evolving under democratic reforms in Ukraine and what is their ideal vision for the country's educational future?
Theoretical Considerations
To better understand contemporary Ukrainian elementary school teacher views on their flourishing as professionals, the concept of flourishing (Turban & Yan 2016; Huta & Waterman, 2013, 2014) and, with it, the related notion of capabilities (Nussbaum, 1988, 1997, 2000, 2006, 2011; Sen, 1979, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1999), were reviewed and applied as a theoretical frame. In conjunction with this, the paper also considers how neoliberal thinking and policy technologies have impacted education (Lebovic, 2019; Rustin & Massey, 2015; Olssen & Peters, 2005; Harvey, 2005)—and education in Ukraine, in particular—in the shift from the Soviet to Western political space; following which ensues a discussion of teacher professionalism and professionalization as brought about by neoliberalism, with emphasis on the post-Soviet space and Ukraine, specifically, through the lenses of globalization (Savage, 2017; Rizvi, 2007) and Europeanization (Fimyar, 2010; Gawrich et al., 2010; Creed, 1998).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
The structure of this empirical investigation (Hedges, 2017) was the following: qualitative approach (Creswell, 2017; Cleland, 2015; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Gay & Airasian, 2003), interpretivist/constructivist paradigm (Scauso, 2020; Hay, 2011; Bevir & Rhodes, 2003), subjectivist stance (Moon & Blackman, 2017; Ratner, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2000), narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen 2016; Stanley & Temple, 2008; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), and template analysis (King 2004, 1998). Data was collected by means of the ZOOM online meeting platform using a combination of semi-structured focused discussions (Munday, 2006; Warr, 2005; Bromley & Fishcher, 2000), visual data instruments (“River of Experience” (Cabaroglu & Denicolo, 2008; Richardson, 2003; Pope & Denicolo, 1990) and auto-photography (Bailey & Harken, 2014; Pain, 2012; Colier & Collier, 1986)), and semi-structured individual interviews (Price & Jewitt; King, 2004; Mischler, 1991). Data collection began several days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and lasted four months. Data collection was conducted within the ethical context of crisis zone research, which recognizes that, although victims of humanitarian crises are a vulnerable group and therefore are worthy of added protection, such protection should not be to the extent that they are prevented from participating in research in which they have volunteered to be involved (Mazurana et al., 2013; Helbardt et al., 2010; Mfutso-Bengo et al., 2008).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn answer to the main research question—what does it mean to flourish professionally for Ukrainian elementary school teachers? —the data indicated a blend of elements, namely,
• To persevere – that is, as an individual, to guard self-respect and foster capaciousness when faced with upheaval at any level, personally or professionally, recognizing and addressing ‘the ironies of policy and the ironies of practice’ (Hoyle & Wallace 2007, p. 9) by ‘keeping things vital’ (Cammarano & Stutelberg, 2020, 5), that is, continuing to move forward. The teachers studied demonstrated that a stoic disposition, sustained heutagogical approaches (self-determined learning), and concerted efforts (or an outward stance) formed a synergistic defense against uncertainty, unexpected shifts, and even danger. Collectively, they appeared to subscribe to the view that fear is a bad advisor, and that courage is not a heroic personality trait limited to the few.
• To innovate – that is, to master the roles of leader and coordinator of the educational process, engage in ‘principled infidelity’ (Hoyle & Wallace 2007, p. 9) when veering away from traditional curricula, methods, established philosophies, and policies in order to embrace new ones; to brave change agency as an expression of decentralization politics; and to act as early adopters of Education 4.0 technologies through entangled pedagogies.
• To cultivate identity – that is, to reflect on the continuum of national education history continuously and critically in order to envision a path forward for learners that does not sacrifice cultural identity in the name of Europeanization and globalization; to seek and develop diverse forms of professional community where professional identity can safely be interrogated, adjusted, adapted, and finessed for the benefit of self and society; and to model democratic principles in teaching and learning inside and outside the classroom.
ReferencesClandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories. stories of teachers. school stories. stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176665
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-31).
Fimyar, O. (2010). Policy why(s): Policy rationalities and the changing logic of educational reform in postcommunist Ukraine. In I. Silova (Ed.), Post-socialism is not dead: (Re)reading the global in comparative education (International Perspectives on Education and Society, 14, pp. 61-91). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3679(2010)0000014006
Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2007). Educational reform: An ironic perspective. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207071383
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, (pp. 256-270). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119.n21
Mfutso-Bengo, J., Masiye, F., & Muula, A. (2008). Ethical challenges in conducting research in humanitarian crisis situations. Malawi Medical Journal, 20(2), 46-49. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v20i2.10956
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Education and democratic citizenship: Capabilities and quality education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600815974
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy. From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345. doi:10.1080/02680930500108718
Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (1990). Adults learning – Teachers thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insights into teachers’ thinking and practice. Routledge. http://bit.ly/39FQBrp
Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 7(3), 256-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708607303606
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well‐being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (Oxford, online edition), (pp. 30-53). Oxford Academic. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/10.1093/0198287976.003.0003
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Knowledge brokering
Sigrun Staal, Ane Linn Dahl-Nielsen, Trond Haugerud, Magnar Ødegaard
Østfold University College, Norway
Presenting Author: Staal, Sigrun;
Dahl-Nielsen, Ane Linn
Knowledge brokering’ illustrates how knowledge can move between research communities and contexts outside of academia (Olejniczak, 2017; Ward et al., 2009). The term is also present in governmental documents in Norway, most recently in National Strategy for Research on Education 2020-2024 (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2020) and the state budget for 2023 (Finansdepartementet, 2022). In the strategy, the Norwegian Ministry of education states that “[…] all activities that promote the use of research can be labelled knowledge brokering” (p. 15, our translation). Based on this, it is hard to see how the concept of knowledge brokering differs from terms like knowledge transition (Kumar & Ganesh, 2009; Lavis et al., 2003), knowledge mediation (Montalt-Resurrecció & Shuttleworth, 2012), and knowledge transaction (Patsarika & Townsend, 2022). To understand what knowledge brokering entails, it becomes necessary to study the term conceptually.
The ability to apply knowledge in contexts outside of its domain of origin is an epistemological challenge (Leppälä, 2012). Still, this is required in professional school and kindergarden development and projects driven by research-based decisions. We will focus on knowledge brokering between academic institutions and primary schools, considering school development.
Conceptual framework
When it comes to development in the educational sector, it is not possible to point our finger at something as the result of the process, as we work with immaterial objects. These objects must be constructed socially. Through situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and sociocultural approaches (Säljö, 2007), it becomes apparent that language plays a definite role in meaning-making and is understood as a medium by which we construct the objects we work on.
Statement of the problem
What can ‘knowledge brokering’ entail in the relationship between academia and primary schools, regarding professional development in both sectors?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe will apply discourse analysis to examine how ‘knowledge brokering’ is used in various documents and discuss its possible content. We will use Wartofsky’s (1979) perspective on 'model’ as an analytic taxonomy.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSignificance of the Research
As the potential for collaborative development between academia and primary schools seem to be unfulfilled, this research will contribute to seeing this relationship in new ways.
Our view on ‘knowledge brokering’ is highly optimistic. We argue that this field has the potential to advance the way we understand the application of knowledge in the social sciences.
ReferencesFinansdepartementet. (2022). Meld. St. 1. Nasjonalbudsjettet 2023. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-1-20222023/id2931224/
Kumar, J. A. & Ganesh, L. S. (2009). Research on knowledge transfer in organizations: a morphology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971905
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2020). Forskning, kunnskaps megling og bruk. Strategi for utdanningsforskning 2020–2024. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/8b5e5ebb145540f581c9996ef164acfb/kd_strategi-for-utdanningsforskning-2020-2024.pdf
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355
Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J. & Group, K. T. S. (2003). How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
Leppälä, S. (2012). An Epistemological Perspective on Knowledge Transfers: From Tacitness to Capability and Reliability. Industry and Innovation, 19(8), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2012.739759
Montalt-Resurrecció, V. & Shuttleworth, M. (2012). Research in translation and knowledge mediation in medical and healthcare settings. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 11.
Olejniczak, K. (2017). The Game of Knowledge Brokering. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(4), 554–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017716326
Patsarika, M. & Townsend, S. (2022). Interdisciplinary Service Learning as a Critical Knowledge Transaction Space in University-Community Engagement. The Educational Forum, 86(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1859661
Säljö, R. (2007). Læring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv. Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Ward, V. L., House, A. O. & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-12
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models. Representation and the Scientific Understanding. (R. S. Cohen, Ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9357-0
|
