COLLEAGIAL INTERTERACTION AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

Azita Manouchehri

University of Texas-Austin

Manouchehri@teachnet.edb.utexas.edu

Abstract: This study sought to examine the impact of the use of peer teaming and peer supervision as a professional development strategy on the practices of two 7th grade mathematics teachers. It became evident that although teachers were provided the opportunity to interact, neither one of them felt it necessary to provide professional suggestions that could impact the peer's practice. Teaching was perceived by the teachers as an individual practice whose direction and content was determined by personal preferences of each teacher, and depended upon his own personal judgment. Findings of the study suggest that while peer teaming and supervision techniques hold some promise for motivating change in teachers' practices, questions concerning the substance of change are of concern.

Teaching has been described as an isolated and private profession. Lortie (1975) proposed that teaching is marked more by separation, both physical and intellectual, than by interdependence. Other researchers have made similar assertions as they studied the lives of teachers (Hargreaves, 1994; Romberg, 1988; Noddings, 1993). In a general sense, it is reported that teaching is viewed and practiced as a solitary occupation that occurs behind closed doors.

The increased interest in teacher development has lead to augmented efforts to highlight the potential of peer collaboration and dialogue on improving teaching. Eisener (1983) and Rosenholz (1989) suggested that in order for teachers to grow as professionals, schools should be transformed into communities in which self renewal through collaborative networks supports instructional improvement. Many researchers have proposed models of professional development built around collegial interaction (Hargreaves, 1994; Little, 1987, 1990).

Calls to restructure schools to facilitate more professional and collegial environments have thus increased (Fullan, 1993). More and more professional development activities are designed to provide opportunities for teachers to engage in collaborative investigations of school curriculum and pedagogical innovations. Renewal programs such as peer supervision, and team planning are now established to foster teacher development (Hawkey, 1997; Wasley, 1991; Zahorik, 1987).

Surprisingly, in spite of the widespread agreement on the impact of collegial interaction on teacher change, there is limited literature on the dynamics of such interaction. The literature on the role of interaction between teachers and its contribution to professional development of teachers is slim (Mitchell, 1997). Examining the potential of professional discourse on teacher change was the primary aim of the current study. The goal was to investigate the context and the content of two teachers' interactions in order to develop an understanding of the distinctive contributions that teacher peers make in the process of improving teaching.

Research Questions and Setting

Two questions framed the research effort:

1. How is collegial interaction carried out among teams of teachers?

2. What do colleagues learn from each other and how is that knowledge manifested in their practice?

The research was conducted in a Midwestern public school district serving nearly 600 middle level students. The middle level mathematics teachers of the school district were involved in the first year of implementing a reform-based textbook. The mathematics coordinator of the school district had sought incentive funds to plan a full year of professional development activities for the teachers as they taught the new textbook. The project had several components. It supported bi-monthly workshops for teachers. Release time (one hour a week) was provided for the teachers to form peer meetings and to discuss issues that concerned the implementation of the new textbook. Teachers had release time two instructional periods a month to observe each other's teaching and to provide one another with feedback on their instruction. I served as the external evaluator to the project. I was asked to investigate the impact of the program on teachers' practice. The data for this research report comes from a larger study of, 10 pairs of teachers involved in the project.

Data Collection

Data collection techniques were participant observation and informal and semi-structured interviews with the teachers. I also participated in the staff meetings scheduled for the mathematics faculty, and the professional development meetings planned for the mathematics teachers. The peer teachers were observed, 10 times during their team planning time. Teachers' classrooms were observed 5 times during the entire data collection period. In addition, as teachers engaged in peer observations I attended those sessions with the teachers and participated in their post observation discussions. The data was collected over a period of 7 months.

The Participants

The team of teachers I discuss in this paper consisted of Gary and Ben. Each teacher had over, 10 years of classroom experience. Both teachers taught 7th grade mathematics. Ben and Gary knew each other well and were familiar with one another's classroom practices.

Opportunities for interaction between the teachers were frequent, as their classrooms were adjacent to one another. Both teachers also served on several staff committees together. This allowed them further "dialogue" time in addition to the monthly mathematics faculty meetings, staff meetings scheduled once a semester, and the planning meetings that occurred weekly.

Findings

Teachers' Interactions

The primary purpose of the peer teaming was to provide the teachers with an opportunity to exchange constructive ideas concerning the implementation of the new curriculum, and to allow them time to examine teaching and learning issues in collaboration with colleagues. It was envisioned that the time would be spent on sharing professional information about those teaching strategies that contributed to successful implementation of the program. However, such conversations did not occur between Ben and Gary. Although problems associated with teaching certain activities were discussed, these discussions were contrived and did not focus on analyzing elements that contributed to difficulties or successes they experienced in class.

The exchange of ideas was, for the most part, limited to "coverage" of the materials. Issues that concerned individual teacher's pedagogy were not addressed. Moreover, discussions about student's learning, or the strategies students used in the course of completing activities were limited. The teachers made references to those activities that were well received by the students, however, aspects of students' cooperation, nature of the students' interactions, and reasons that they felt contributed to the success of the activity in class were not discussed. In a general sense, implementation tips that were shared by teachers were limited to quick references to whether an activity was completed within a specified amount of time or not. Ben and Gary's interactions and dialogues also centered around discipline issues, and students' personal problems. They exchanged "stories" about particular students or the events that had caused disruption in class.

In a general sense, the teachers' collegial interactions were affective based. Teachers provided encouragement and emotional support for one another, supported one another's pedagogy even if they fundamentally disagreed with each other's practice. At the initial level of contact, teachers came together to describe their daily experiences, and to share stories. In further contact, teachers both volunteered and solicited narrative of their daily experiences. However, this exchange did not intend to originate particular discussions about teaching or learning mathematics.

Teachers' reactions to, and reflections on, one another's practice followed a general pattern consisting of two levels. At the first level of collegial interaction and on a public sphere, the teachers provided emotional support for their peers as they listened to one another's stories or observed each other's classrooms. As the teachers observed their peer's teaching, or heard their stories, often times they began to reflect on their practice as they examined specific aspects of their own work in light of what they had seen or heard. This reflection happened in private and in their conversations with the researcher. Teachers did compare and contrast their teaching styles. They also identified areas in peer's practice that they felt were in need of improvement. However, neither one of the teachers took the initiative to offer his perspective to the peer, to openly question their choice of pedagogy, or to solicit specific information on the theoretical basis for their practice. Public discussions concerning peer's pedagogy were avoided.

Ben and Gary exhibited a genuine acceptance of the pedagogical decisions made in their classrooms. This "accepting approach" to peer teaching served as a major barrier in their ability and willingness to directly confront the peer's practice or to even attempt to address aspects of the peer's teaching that needed refinement. Even when there was an opportunity to offer constructive criticism, both teachers were fearful that they might jeopardize the relationship. In a general sense, Gary and Ben avoided professional discussions. Their dialogues did not intend to engage either one in intellectual deliberation about learning and teaching issues.

Influence of Peers on Improving Practice

Ben and Gary entered the collegial team process without a vision of how the peer could help improve their teaching. Neither Ben nor Gary entered the peer teaming process with the expectation to benefit from collegial interactions. The peer teaming procedure was assumed more as an opportunity to socialize rather than discuss professional issues. The notion of influencing practice was not deeply rooted in their conceptualization of the professional exchange as each teacher recognized his peer as one who knew what was most appropriate to do in his classroom. Neither one of the teachers felt it necessary to provide professional suggestions that could potentially impact the peer's practice. In fact, neither one of the teachers expected the peer to offer professional perspectives that lead to a change in their intellectualization of teaching. Teaching was perceived by both Ben and Gary as an individual practice whose direction and content was determined by personal preferences of each teacher, and depended upon his own personal judgment. In spite of this, they continued to come together, visited one another's classrooms, and maintained a positive outlook on the value of such collegial interaction in the workplace.

Observation and Feedback

Gary and Ben's observations and feedback were marked by non-specificity, and positive feedback. Their post observation discussions had an incidental nature and were very informal. Neither one of the teachers provided written feedback on what they had observed during the session. Moreover, neither one of the teachers tried to question how the peer introduced mathematical concepts to students, how they synthesized ideas in class, or ways in which they responded to students' questions. Although numerous occasions for providing critical feedback on specific aspects of the peer's practice were present, instances of such exchange did not occur between them. In spite of their visible differences in how they implemented the same lesson, neither one was influenced by, or tried to influence, the activity of the peer.

Inherent in Ben and Gary's analysis of each other's teaching was an understanding of, and a compassion for, the "uniqueness" of what they did as teachers. Although they shared instructional materials, they were hesitant to recommend to each other even those pedagogical practices that they believed crucial in facilitating learning. Moreover, they did not attempt to convince one another of the validity of their chosen instructional strategies. In effect, neither Ben nor Gary tried to impact their peer's practice. In a general sense, the collegial proximity for them did not contribute to refinement of peer practice. Observation and feedback or critique of one another's teaching did not appear to be a natural part of their professional lives.

Final Comments

The notion of teacher growth in the presence of collegial interaction is an intuitively sensible assumption. However, this research provided some evidence that collegial interaction may not lead to positive teacher development. Although the teaming process was intended to invade the isolation among teachers, this physical proximity did not naturally provoke intellectual collaboration.

To initiate and sustain a culture in which teachers work with peers to improve both self and peer's practice, the teachers need to first believe that they have the right, and the potential, to influence the profession. This requires them to adopt a new paradigm on the very nature of the profession and how the roles and responsibilities of colleagues are defined in advancing that profession both at local and global levels. The teachers need to also learn how to engage in collaborative reflection on both self and peer practice in ways that improve teaching and that facilitate teacher growth.

References

Eisener, E. W. (1983). The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(4), 4-13.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the post modern age. London: Cassell.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature review and agenda for action. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325-335.

Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator's handbook: Research into practice (pp. 491-518). New York: Longman.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy. Teachers' College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, A. (1997). Teacher identity: A key to increased collaboration. Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 1-14.

Noddings, N. (1993). Professionalization and mathematics teaching. In Grouws, D. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 197-208). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Romberg, T.A. (1988). Can teachers be professionals? In Grouws, Douglas, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.) Prospectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 224-244). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Rosenholz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

Wasley, P. (1991). Stirring the chalkdust: Three teachers in the midst of change. Teachers College Record, 93(1), 28-58.

Zahorik, J. A. (1987). Teachers' collegial interaction: An exploratory study. Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 385-396.