Improving professional development relationships that support teacher learning

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Danielle M. Lillge
{"title":"Improving professional development relationships that support teacher learning","authors":"Danielle M. Lillge","doi":"10.1108/etpc-12-2018-0121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nCurrent top-down literacy reform mandates have reenergized attention to professional development (PD) outcomes. Still, questions remain about why English teachers struggle to apply their learning. Refocusing attention on understanding the complex yet critical relationship between professional development (PD) facilitators and teachers offers one explanation.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nUsing a telling case from an interactional ethnography, this paper illustrates how through their language-in-use teachers and facilitators can productively resolve conflicts that, if left unaddressed, can prevent teachers from acting on their professional learning.\n\n\nFindings\nA set of discursive moves – flagging, naming, soliciting and processing – provide a toolkit for surfacing and successfully resolving conflict in PD interactions.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThese moves offer a way of prioritizing the importance of teacher–facilitator relationships in future research aimed at addressing the longstanding conundrum of how best to support English teachers’ ongoing professional learning.\n\n\nPractical implications\nTeaching facilitators and teachers how to collaboratively address inevitable conflicts offers a needed intervention in supporting both teacher and facilitator learning.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPrevious research has affirmed that facilitators, like teachers, need support for navigating the complexity of professional learning interactions. This paper offers a language for uncovering why teacher–facilitator interactions can be so challenging for teachers and facilitators as well as ways of responding productively in-the-moment. It contributes to a more capacious understanding of how these relationships shape diverse English teacher learning.\n","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-12-2018-0121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose Current top-down literacy reform mandates have reenergized attention to professional development (PD) outcomes. Still, questions remain about why English teachers struggle to apply their learning. Refocusing attention on understanding the complex yet critical relationship between professional development (PD) facilitators and teachers offers one explanation. Design/methodology/approach Using a telling case from an interactional ethnography, this paper illustrates how through their language-in-use teachers and facilitators can productively resolve conflicts that, if left unaddressed, can prevent teachers from acting on their professional learning. Findings A set of discursive moves – flagging, naming, soliciting and processing – provide a toolkit for surfacing and successfully resolving conflict in PD interactions. Research limitations/implications These moves offer a way of prioritizing the importance of teacher–facilitator relationships in future research aimed at addressing the longstanding conundrum of how best to support English teachers’ ongoing professional learning. Practical implications Teaching facilitators and teachers how to collaboratively address inevitable conflicts offers a needed intervention in supporting both teacher and facilitator learning. Originality/value Previous research has affirmed that facilitators, like teachers, need support for navigating the complexity of professional learning interactions. This paper offers a language for uncovering why teacher–facilitator interactions can be so challenging for teachers and facilitators as well as ways of responding productively in-the-moment. It contributes to a more capacious understanding of how these relationships shape diverse English teacher learning.
改善支持教师学习的专业发展关系
当前自上而下的扫盲改革任务重新激发了对专业发展(PD)成果的关注。然而,为什么英语教师很难将他们学到的知识应用到实践中,这个问题仍然存在。重新关注理解专业发展(PD)促进者和教师之间复杂而关键的关系提供了一种解释。设计/方法/方法本文通过互动民族志中的一个生动的案例,说明了教师和辅导员如何通过使用语言有效地解决冲突,如果不加以解决,这些冲突可能会阻碍教师的专业学习。一组话语动作——标记、命名、请求和处理——提供了一个工具包,用于显示和成功解决PD交互中的冲突。研究局限/启示这些举措为在未来的研究中优先考虑教师与辅导员关系的重要性提供了一种方法,旨在解决如何最好地支持英语教师持续专业学习的长期难题。教学促进者和教师如何合作解决不可避免的冲突为支持教师和促进者的学习提供了必要的干预。原创性/价值先前的研究已经证实,辅导员和教师一样,在复杂的专业学习互动中需要支持。本文提供了一种语言来揭示为什么教师与促进者的互动对教师和促进者来说是如此具有挑战性,以及如何在当下有效地做出反应。它有助于更广泛地理解这些关系如何塑造多样化的英语教师学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: English Teaching: Practice and Critique seeks to promote research and theory related to English literacy that is grounded in a range of contexts: classrooms, schools and wider educational constituencies. The journal has as its main focus English teaching in L1 settings. Submissions focused on EFL will be considered only if they have clear pertinence to English literacy in L1 settings. It provides a place where authors from a range of backgrounds can identify matters of common concern and thereby foster broad professional communities and networks. Where possible, English Teaching: Practice and Critique encourages comparative approaches to topics and issues. The journal published three types of manuscripts: research articles, essays (theoretical papers, reviews, and responses), and teacher narratives. Often special issues of the journal focus on distinct topics; however, unthemed manuscript submissions are always welcome and published in most issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信