Developing a New Vision of Teaching and the Skills to Attain It

James J. Gallagher
Michigan State University

Framing a New Model of Professional Development
In 1986, my colleagues and I were approached by the staff development team of a major teachers' union in Michigan. They asked if we would work with them to apply the findings of Michigan State University's Institute for Research on Teaching to problems of practice, especially regarding teachers' professional development. More specifically, the union wanted to collaborate with us on developing a model of professional development for its members based on our then-novel ten years of research on teaching and to pilot test it with one or more willing school districts. We worked with the union leaders for over a year to formulate what we came to call the Support Teacher Program. We then implemented the plan with one school district for a period of twelve years. This experience was the source of substantial professional learning and reward for my colleagues and me. It also benefited the teachers in that district in many ways that will be described in the following pages. Most importantly, it benefited the students in terms of the practical matter of increased achievement on state-mandated external assessments, as well as in many more lasting, but less tangible ways.

Program Design
The program was designed to foster the professional development of a small set of teachers within local districts who would act in a dual role as part-time teachers and part-time staff development leaders. They, in turn, would provide professional development for their peers. We decided to call these people "Support Teachers" as an indication of their role in supporting peers' improvement in teaching. For both the union officials and us, it was important that the Support Teachers be released from teaching duties for part of each day to carry out the responsibilities of their new role of supporting their teaching colleagues in improving their instructional techniques and effectiveness. It also was important for Support Teachers to continue to teach on a daily basis to maintain their credibility with their peers and to have ongoing "reality checks" on the expectations they would have of their co-workers and advice that they would give them.

It took considerable effort to find a district that was willing to commit to this model of professional development because of the monetary cost-with Support Teachers working with a reduced teaching load, replacements for a portion of their classes would require added expenditures for professional personnel.

After much recruiting, a medium-sized, mid-western city school district joined us in this program, with both the local teachers' union and the district's central administration giving their support to the program. It was agreed that we would work with middle school science and mathematics teachers, because of our collective beliefs that this would be both an important and manageable place to try out this model.

Eight middle schools were operated by the district. Initially, the science and mathematics teachers in four of the schools agreed to participate; these schools ranged from central city to suburban and from 100 percent African-American to 90 percent Caucasian in their student population. A mathematics teacher and a science teacher in each of the four participating schools were selected to fill the Support Teacher roles. It was agreed that each would continue to teach three classes per day and be relieved from three. This meant that in each building, a full-time replacement would be hired to teach the three mathematics classes and the three science classes no longer taught by the two Support Teachers.

Defining a New Professional Role
The role of the Support Teachers was proposed as having the following three dimensions:

1. To develop new knowledge about teaching, learning, and professional development. In order for the Support Teachers to assume a leadership role, it was essential for them to be knowledgeable about current theories, practices, research and development in science and mathematics teaching. Therefore, continuing professional learning was an important characteristic of Support Teachers.
2. To improve their own teaching. Even though the eight Support Teachers were recognized as being among the best teachers in each of their respective buildings, it was important that they work through the process of changing their own teaching for at least two reasons. First, if they were to expect their peers to improve their teaching practice, then Support Teachers should also be willing to work to improve their own practice -- the vernacular description being leaders "should be able to walk the talk." The importance of this aspect of teacher leadership should not be underestimated. Second, using the example of psycho-therapists in training having to experience psycho-therapy, we felt that it was essential for Support Teachers to work through the process of changing their own practice so that could better understand the difficulties entailed in doing so. In that way, they could better understand the responses of their colleagues as they went through a change process.
3. To develop leadership and supervisory skills needed to support peers in improving their teaching. We recognized that the culture of teaching has many attributes of leaderless societies. As a result, most teachers have not developed the skills and propensities to step forward and assume a leadership position among their peers. To fulfill the expectancies of this new position, Support Teachers would need to assert a supportive leadership among their peers.

Each of these dimensions of the Support Teacher role required considerable learning on the part of the new recruits for these positions.

We actually began our professional development of the Support Teachers on a cold, snowy February day in 1988, with the plan that we would meet with them for two full days of work and study about every three weeks from then through May. We also agreed to have a week long retreat with them on campus in August to prepare them to "hit the ground running" when they initiated their formal positions as Support Teachers with the opening of school in September. Thus, we had nearly seven months of preparation time with more than 20 full working days (over 150 hours) together during that time to prepare for the new role.

Follow-up work was planned as well. Beginning in September, it was agreed that we would meet with the Support Teachers two days per month for the first year of the program to continue their professional development and to work through problems that would inevitably arise as they put this plan into action. These monthly meetings continued for 12 years although they reduced to one day per month after four years.

Characteristics of the Support Teachers
As indicated previously, all eight of the Support Teachers had been recognized as among the best and most professionally dedicated teachers in the district by their peers, administrators, and the union officials. All were experienced, with at least 15 years of teaching, ranging up to 25 years. The gender split was 50/50. One Support Teacher was African-American, the rest were Caucasian. This racial balance approximated the racial balance of middle school teachers in the district. As we got to know them, we found that they were indeed dedicated and creative teachers. Also, it was evident that they varied substantially in their content knowledge, with some having rather limited knowledge beyond the level taught to their students, while others were very well grounded in their subject matter content. Further, all of the support teachers were of a similar mind that an important part of their role, as teachers, was to present students with science content information and to give quizzes and tests that checked to see that they had learned it.

Most Support Teachers went somewhat beyond this "cultural transmission" view of teaching to give some emphasis to helping students develop logical reasoning about science and mathematics content. An example occurred early in the program while observing Support Teachers at work with students. There were five observers in Linda's classroom, one of the Support Teachers. The observers included her three science Support Teacher colleagues, a graduate assistant with the project, and me. We were there as part of an agreed-upon procedure to observe each Support Teacher at work with their own classes. As the lesson began, Linda introduced the textbook definitions of mass as the quantity of matter and weight as the Earth's gravitational attraction on an object. These definitions then were used as a basis for discussion of the difference between mass and weight, with Linda urging students to come up with their own words to describe the two concepts and difference between them.

It was apparent that Linda was striving for students to understand these difficult concepts. It was even more apparent that students, members of a "tracked" class of high achievers, were struggling with this task and were becoming frustrated with their lack of clarity about the difference between mass and weight and their inability to express their ideas effectively. However, she persisted in her efforts to make the students reflect on the definition and come up with examples from their experiences (real or vicarious) from which they could give meaning to the two concepts and distinguish between them. Some students showed considerable anxiety about not being "given the answer" and by Linda's persistence in requiring them to make sense of this difference between mass and weight in their own words. In response to this high level of anxiety, one student took a $5 bill from his wallet and said to one of the Support Teachers seated near him, "I will give you this if you tell me the answer!"

Other Support Teachers demonstrated similar efforts at teaching reasoning and understanding about science and mathematics. However, most instruction was whole-class and teacher-centered. There was very little opportunity for students to engage in first-hand, experiential learning of mathematics or science. The textbook was central in instruction.

In addition, there was little evidence that teachers had a belief that all students could learn. In casual conversations and in classroom observations, it was evident that ethnic and social class stereotyping was present. Moreover, when behavior and attendance problems surfaced in a discussion, it was not the "habit of mind" of the teacher to view these as "problems needing a solution" and no effort was made by the group to seek resolution. It recurrently appeared that these teachers perceived themselves as victims of a social system and a school district that they had little influence in shaping. This was a recurring and moderately serious problem for the Support Teachers. Coming to know their peers over time, it was evident that this was a nearly debilitating problem for some and a ready excuse for inaction by others.

As we began to work with the Support Teachers, we probed the reasons and goals for experienced, successful teachers wanting to work on this project. All saw the changing demography of schools and the changing popular culture as a source of concern. All indicated that they were seeking help in dealing with changing values and attitudes of students. Their perception was that students were not learning as well as they perceived they had in the past. Nor did they see their students as being as interested in learning mathematics and science as had been the case previously. All said, "We want help in motivating our students."

The plea was, "Help us to make these students more responsive to our efforts at teaching them." It was not until a few months into the program that the Support Teachers recognized that it was not possible to make students more responsive unless the teachers themselves first changed their outlook and approach to teaching. It is also significant to note that a few of the Support Teachers' peers never did grasp this fundamental idea, even after twelve years of the project.

Professional Development Activities for Support Teachers
In response to Support Teachers' request to work on student motivation, we suggested that we might be able to alter students' engagement in learning if teaching were changed. Thus, at the outset of the program, we made a decision to focus on improving teaching and the development of the Support Teacher role. We also made the decision not to enter into curricular or program reform. Our rationale for focusing on teaching, and not on curriculum or program, was grounded in our personal experience and in research that showed that program or curriculum change may lead to changes in instructional content, but frequently does not bring about a change in pedagogy. A long history of work has demonstrated that teachers typically put their energies into learning the new content and materials that the new program brings, while they continue to use familiar teaching approaches, even when the program is designed around, and for, different ones.

To foster attainment of our goal to change teaching, we prepared a large notebook of readings for the Support Teachers. It consisted of three parts: (1) Readings on Science Teaching and Learning, (2) Readings on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, and (3) Readings on Leadership, Supervision and Support. The notebook was very thick and it came as a shock to the Support Teachers who had not had a history of professional reading, especially at the level and intensity that the notebook implied. The articles that were selected for inclusion in the notebook all had a clear connection to the daily work of Support Teachers. In addition, they were of a length and writing style that would be usable by practicing teachers. Moreover, the articles selected were chosen to advance the project leaders' agenda for instructional improvement and teachers supporting their peers.

Our plan for initial professional development of Support Teachers was to work with them in the district for two days about every three weeks, from February though May as stated previously. One day of each visit would be spent in a day-long seminar. During the other day, we would work with teachers in one of the four schools in which they taught. Early school visits were more to "get acquainted" with the physical and social setting of the building, administrators, the Support Teachers' peers, and the "culture" of the school and the departments in which the Support Teachers worked.

During later visits, Support Teachers were observed and videotaped as each taught a lesson to one of their classes. Observations were by subject matter teams that included the other three Support Teachers, the MSU professor for that subject, and a graduate student assisting on the project. Thus, the experience was daunting for each of the Support Teachers as their turn came to be observed and videotaped by this group.

The seminars were an important part of the professional learning for the Support Teachers and for the MSU leaders. Our general approach was to assign two or three articles from the notebook as readings for the period between meetings, and then to spend a couple of hours in collective discussion about these articles. Some articles were read by both mathematics and science Support Teachers and the discussion group typically numbered 12. Most articles were read only by the mathematics or the science team and discussed in smaller groups of six. Reading and analysis of research articles and articles dealing with theory and philosophy of teaching and learning were not part of the experience of these teachers. Thus we spent some time helping teachers with the techniques of reading this literature and in learning new concepts and terminology about educational practice. We also were careful to help the Support Teachers to make connections to their own teaching as we worked through articles. Both the difficulty and importance of this approach are illustrated in Vignette 1.

Vignette 1: The Turning Point

The work in schools, especially the classroom observations and videotaping, was also important in teachers' professional development. It also was an important part of my own professional development as a university faculty member involved in teacher education, staff development, and research. (See Vignette 2.) It had a similar influence on the other members of the university-based team. Several other articles also provided important influences on Support Teachers' thinking, include articles by Showers, 1985; Glickman, 1985; Osborne and Cosgrove, 1983; and Arnauden and Mintzes, 1985.

Vignette 2: Matt's Story

Recognition of the efficacy of Matt's teaching, and its common bond to most other science teaching, was a step in helping Matt and other Support Teachers come to grips with an important feature of instructional improvement. It helped Matt feel his teaching was partly sound, and it gave him two other ways of moving beyond the perceived criticism. First, it allowed him to recognize that he was not alone in not providing support for building understanding. Second, it gave him a vehicle to begin to determine ways of learning how to improve his teaching.

The "Mercedes' Model" for Teaching and Learning
Since that time, I have elaborated and clarified this formulation into the model that is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The "Mercedes" Model for Teaching and Learning

Teaching science can be thought of as having three components: (1) helping students "build" a base of science knowledge on which understanding and application can occur, (2) aiding students in developing understanding of the elements of that knowledge base, and (3) assisting students in applying their knowledge.

It is important to note that each of these components requires different teaching strategies, (See Table 1.) Familiar, traditional teaching strategies are found in column 1 related to "building students' knowledge base." Newer teaching strategies such as group work and writing to learn are found in column 2, "developing understanding." The strategies in column 3, "applying knowledge," are not part of our common teaching vocabulary and are in need of further development.

Table 1: Teaching-Learning Activities to Achieve Different Educational Goals

The center and right-hand columns of Table 1 present significant challenges to teachers regarding the application of what may be new techniques for teaching. Some professional development resources that were not available when we did this work, but have since proved quite helpful in similar work, include Johnson, 1994; Driver et al., 1985; White and Gunstone, 1993; Wiggins and Mctigue, 1998; and Gallagher, 1996.

The Summer Program
In the middle of August 1988, the Support Teacher team spent a week in a university-based retreat with the MSU team that had worked with them since the previous February. The eight Support Teachers lived together in one of our more elegant dormitories, each suite having its own living room, bedroom, bath and kitchenette. The group resided in pairs in these facilities for four nights-Monday through Thursday. The days were filled with sessions oriented toward their imminent initiation of the Support Teacher program in their four schools with their peers when school opened a couple weeks later. As noted earlier, we wanted the teams to be able to "hit the ground running" when they began. Therefore, the content dealt with daily, weekly, and monthly schedules of work; organizing their resource rooms; interacting with peers and administrators; planning and conducting departmental meetings; working with individual teachers to support their improvements in teaching; etc. However, as illustrated in Vignette 3, it was only when the Support Teachers got together on their own to share concerns and develop their own action plans that they began to feel comfortable with their roles.

Vignette 3: A Breakthrough

The success of the Support Teachers' independent actions on that Tuesday night was very pleasing to us and to them. It set a resolve among the group members that they should meet as a group, at least once per month, independently of the MSU team to work out their own resolutions to problems and to maintain the solidarity of the group. These meetings continued over most years of the program.

Implementing the Program: Skeptics and Resisters
As the Support Teachers began their work, a feature that was observed in each of the eight departments was the presence of one person who offered active resistance to the program and to the Support Teacher. A few persons across the eight departments were skeptics about the potential impact of the program. Others were jealous of the "freedom" that the Support Teachers enjoyed with only three classes. These skeptics gave little recognition of the demands of the position and the work that Support Teachers were doing. This was not a serious problem, however, because these individuals were not strongly negative about the program. Gradually, over time, the skeptics came to appreciate the work that was being done and they entered into effective collaboration with their respective Support Teacher.

The resisters were a problem. They did not relent. The program continued for 12 years, ending in June 2000, when the district came into a serious financial crisis. After all that time, three of the original eight resisters remained in their positions, the other five had retired. All of the resisters were unyielding in their lack of cooperation with the Support Teachers, despite the efforts of the Support Teachers, the union, the administration, and the MSU team. The depth of the resistance is illustrated in the following vignette.

Vignette 4: Resisting Change-At What Cost?

An Important Lesson about Teacher Change
In the early years of implementation, we continued to meet for two days per month through the first years of implementation. In these meetings, we continued to have seminars on one day each month and we spent the other day "working at the elbows" of the Support Teachers in their schools to help them in practical ways with the implementation of their new roles. This put us in contact with their teaching peers, their administrators, and their students. The Support Teachers' confidence that we were grounded in the realities of the day-to-day work in the district helped create a culture of honesty, where they felt free to share their frustrations, as well as their successes. (See Vignette 5.)

Vignette 5: A Teacher's Insight

Post-Script
When a major budget crunch came to this district in the Spring of 2000, with a critical shortfall of funds, the school leaders made a first-round response by canceling all programs that were not involved in direct instruction of students except the Support Teacher Program. However, under the realities of the budget constraints, this program also was eliminated to save its annual cost to the district of approximately $250,000. Its importance to the district was recognized in terms of the value for professional development of the middle school teachers, having been expanded from four to six of the eight schools and to the improved achievement of students on external standardized measures in both mathematics and science. It was compelling evidence of the higher achievements of students on standardized tests that made it possible for this highly visible, high cost program to stay in place for such a long duration in an environment where programs often last three years or less.

There are many other important lessons that we learned and priceless vignettes to relate about this wonderful experience with these Support Teachers over twelve years. Working with them has been a personal and professional treasure for me and my colleagues. I have shared a few of the lessons as vignettes in the hope that others can see the benefits of long-term, professional development activities for all parties concerned-the teachers, their peers, the staff development personnel, and others not directly involved as the culture of the schools change because of extended interactions. But most of all, the work has had a positive effect on students as they have had better experiences in school, learned more, and achieved better on whatever measures were used because of the long-term professional growth of teachers and those who educate them.

It is interesting to note that all four of the original science Support Teachers continued for the duration of the project or until their retirement. One retired at the end of year 10 and a second retired at the end of year 11. When the project ended, the third science Support Teacher retired, leaving only Linda from the original four. The mathematics Science Support teaching team had more turnover, yet Mary, Linda's mathematics counter-part at the same school, also remained after the program closed. Both returned to full-time teaching.

References

Arnauden, M.W. and Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students' alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69, 5: 721-723.

Driver, R., Guesne, E. and Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children's Ideas in Science. Philadelphia, PA: The Open University Press.

Gallagher, J. (1996). Improving Teaching and Learning Using Assessment in Middle School Science: A Resource for Teachers and Those who Teach Them. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Glickman, C.D. (1985). Observing skills. In C.D. Glickman, Supervision of Instruction (pp. 207-231). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's Ideas in science (pp. 170-192). Philadelphia, PA: The Open University Press.

Osborne, R.Y. and Cosgrove, M.M. (1983). Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 9: 825-838.

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 7: 44-48.

White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London, UK: Falmer.

Wiggins, G. and McTigue, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiske, M. (1998). Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

TE-MAT Home    About TE-MAT    Database Overview    TE-MAT Descriptors    FAQs    Contact TE-MAT   

TE-MAT
Teacher Education Materials Project
A Database for K-12 Mathematics and Science Professional Development Providers