(TOMEC97.231) Action learning and the professional development of

beginning teachers: Some preliminary observations

by Chris Tome

presented as part of the Symposium

(HOBAG97.229) Sustaining teachers' professional development: exploring

action learning and mentoring to maintain workplace learning

Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference

Brisbane, 1 December 1997

In this paper I intend to give a brief overview of the theory of action

learning. I will then outline some observations about a professional

development program for beginning teachers, using action learning, at a

rural public high school in New South Wales during 1997, in which I was

involved.

1 ACTION LEARNING

Generally, action learning is recognized as a specific regime of

workplace-based professional development that has arisen out of the

writings of Reg Revans (see, for example, Revans 1980; 1982 and 1983),

and been widely used, particularly in British industry since

approximately 1945 (Keys 1994). There exist some alternative uses of

the term, such as that reported by Pine (1989), but, in general, and

for the purposes of this paper, the term 'action learning' is used to

apply to the work of Revans and his successors.

Revans didn't ever offer an unequivocal definitional statement of

action learning (Henderson 1993, p 7; Mumford 1995, p 1; Zuber-Skerritt

1993, p 45), though he did offer a rationale for his development of the

concept:

When, in an epoch of change, tomorrow is necessarily different from

yesterday, and so new things need to be done, what are the questions to

be asked before the solutions are sought [?] Action learning differs

from normal training (education development) in that its primary

objective is to learn how to ask appropriate questions in conditions of

risk, rather than to find the answers to questions that have already

been precisely defined by others - and that do no allow for ambiguous

responses because the examiners have all the approved answers (Revans

1982, p 65 cited in Keys 1994, p 2).

A number of Revans' successors have attempted definitions of action

learning. One fairly succinct attempt, which catches well the essence

of the concept, is that offered by Gregory (1994, p 3):

Action learning theory propounds that professionals will learn in the

most effective way by focusing on actual organizational settings,

within a supporting and challenging framework of enquiry, by peer group

interactions and where personal empowerment can be encouraged through

learner interdependency. It is about individuals learning from

experience through reflection and action, usually to solve problems at

work. This process, which is individually focused, uses a learning

group, known as a 'set', which provides a forum wherein the set

member's ideas can be challenged within a supportive environment.

Action learning is an iterative, experiential process, involving a

cyclical notion of learning. The elements of the cycle are:

( an action;

( reflection - a consideration of the effects, successful and

( generalizing - the identification of new general learnings from this

( planning - on the basis of generalizations, how to act in the future

While all elements of the cycle are necessary for the action learning

process to take place, the notion of reflection is particularly crucial

to an understanding of action learning:

Action learning is based on the relationship between reflection and

action ( reflection is the essential link between past action and more

effective future action ( reflection is a necessary precursor to

effective action and ( learning from experience can be enhanced through

deliberate attention to this relationship (McGill and Beaty 1996, p21).

I'm not altogether comfortable with a number of aspects surrounding the

concept of action learning. In particular, I find that the terminology

fails to illuminate what is taking place; it is non-evocative. Indeed,

the term 'action learning' seems to me to be inadequate in representing

the complex range of processes embodied within the concept. The other

particularly inadequate term is that of 'set' which is conventionally

adopted to describe the group of people participating in the action

learning project. I much prefer the notion of an 'action learning

community' as suggested in the paper by Hoban, Hastings, Luccarda and

Lloyd (1997).

Much of the writing about action learning relies largely on

descriptions of particular successful projects, in a wide range of

industry settings, undertaken using action learning, without much in

the way of analysis or critique. It is often 'self-congratulatory'

(Wills 1993a, p 6). In some cases, the writing borders on proselytism -

spreading the word about the new way in which institutions can be

'saved', simply by adopting action learning as the principal form of

professional development (see, for example, Arkin 1996; Georges 1996;

Keys 1994; Meehan and Jarvis 1996; Mercer 1996 and Ready 1995).

Despite these qualifications, there are also appealing and attractive

features about action learning. The theoretical underpinnings of the

concept are based on sound educational principles which emphasise the

centrality of reflection as a prelude to action (see, for example,

Boud, Keogh and Walker 1985 and Schön 1987). The group dynamics, which

are integral to the process are based on the notion that the product of

group deliberations is in some way superior to the sum of individual

deliberations. There is an underlying conviction that individuals

working in a group using a particular range of strategies to arrive at

solutions to problems will achieve significantly better results than

those same individuals working on the same problems without the benefit

of the group processes that are part of action learning; the outcomes

are enhanced because of the group processes.

Another attractive feature of action learning is its 'emancipatory and

democratic' nature (Gregory 1994). A key element in the operation of

action learning sets is the equality of set members. There is a

determination that the hierarchical constraints that are present in

most organisations become unimportant in the action learning context.

Thus it is seen to be a means of empowerment of individuals within

organisations where it is employed:

action learning ( offers a democratic, liberating experience of

learning to those who would try it (McGill and Beaty 1996, pp 36 - 37).

Despite its sound educational foundations there appears to be very

little evidence of the use of action learning in an educational

setting. The one significant exception to this observation is the

reasonably widespread adoption of action learning in schools of

management in the higher education sector in both Britain and the

United States (see, for example Chan and Anderson 1994; Clarke and

Brennan 1993; Gregory 1994; Harrison and Miller 1993; Harrison, Miller

and Gibson 1993; Keys 1994; Martin 1994; Mercer 1996; Raelin 1995 and

Wills 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; 1993d and 1993e).

Frequently action learning is confused with action research. Both arise

from an assumption that learning is 'experiential and reflective'

 (Zuber-Skerritt 1993, p 46); both are 'based on the same learning

cycle' (McGill and Beaty 1996, p 32). But differences exist between

action research and action learning:

Action research is one of a set of new methods that seek to question

the traditional research paradigms copied from the natural sciences.

Action researchers reject experimental design ( in favour of bringing

research and the application of findings from research into one process

( the researcher is usually an active participant within the

application as well as in the investigative and evaluation phases.

Action learning as a process is more general an approach to learning.

Research is not the primary aim and the project may not involve any

formal research at all. The individual is undertaking learning through

the process of reflection ( McGill and Beaty 1996, p 32 based on Carr

and Kemmis 1986 and Zuber-Skerritt 1992).

As far as school education and the professional development of

schoolteachers are concerned, there seems to have been little use of

action learning. Gregory (1994, p 1), when comparing action learning

with action research, suggests that teachers have traditionally used

action research, whereas action learning has been the more-or-less

exclusive domain of those interested in management development. Gregory

(1994, p 1) is keen to see a more widespread generic use of both

techniques, because both traditions have the potential to make valuable

contributions, especially 'where consumers are looking for educational

opportunities offering not only academic challenge but enquiry directly

related to the world of work.'

There appears to be only one study of the use of action learning in the

professional development of teachers; that of Hoban (1996), which is

further reported on in the paper by Hoban, Hastings, Luccarda and Lloyd

(1997). Further, there appear to be no studies at all that specifically

examine the use of action learning as a professional development tool

for beginning teachers.

In the remainder of this paper I will outline some preliminary

observations from a small pilot project which I undertook during 1997

which specifically focused on the professional development needs of a

small group of beginning teachers, and the usefulness of action

learning within the process of professional development.

2 FOREST VIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ITS BEGINNING TEACHERS

Forest View High School serves the small farming, forestry and

timber-milling town of Forest View and its hinterland. Forest View is

approximately 200 Km west of Sydney, but because of the mountainous

terrain, is a rather more isolated community than its proximity to

Sydney would suggest. Forest View High School is a small school

operated by the New South Wales Department of School Education. There

are approximately 200 students at the school in Years 7 to 12. About

60% of the students live in the town of Forest View; the remaining 40%

come from farms and small villages in the Forest View hinterland. Some

of these students travel very long distances to school; up to 90

minutes of bus travel each morning and afternoon.

Forest View High School is a relatively new school. It was formed in

1993 when Forest View Central School, which catered for students from

Kindergarten to Year 12, was split into two new schools; Forest View

Public School (K - Yr 6) and Forest View High School (Yr 7 - Yr 12).

There are 25 teachers at Forest View High School, including the

principal, the deputy principal and three head teachers (heads of

department). For several years the staff has been very stable in its

composition with a mixture of long-serving (in excess of 10 years) and

relatively recent arrivals to teaching (1 - 5 years). That situation

changed significantly in 1997 when four beginning teachers were

appointed to Forest View High School; one teacher of Mathematics, one

of Home Economics and Computing Studies, and two teachers of Physical

Education, Personal Development and Health. The appointment of these

four new teachers constituted the most significant concentration of

beginning teachers in the school, or its predecessor school, in recent

history.

As the deputy principal, I was asked to take on the responsibility of

jointly supervising these new teachers in their first year of teaching.

That arrangement of joint supervision was made because of the

relatively high proportion of beginning teachers in the school, and

because only one of the new teachers had a head teacher trained in the

same key learning area (Mathematics). Each of the new teachers was also

supervised on a day-to-day basis by one of the school's head teachers.

I was given particular responsibility for those aspects of the work of

the new teachers that specifically related to their status as beginning

teachers. So, issues relating to their induction into the teaching

service of the New South Wales Department of School Education became my

particular brief.

2.1 The induction of beginning teachers at Forest View High School in

1997: the first six months

In 1997 Forest View High School was one of those provided with

additional funding from the Training and Development Directorate of the

New South Wales Department of School Education, amounting to 15 relief

days, to allow a structured induction program for beginning teachers to

be run in the school. Within this symposium, Carter (1997) will outline

the details of the rationale behind the selection of the schools chosen

to be part of the project.

The induction program envisaged by the personnel from the Training and

Development Directorate included mentoring as a significant component.

I argued, however, for a different model to be used, as the situation

at Forest View High School did not readily lend itself to a mentoring

model. In particular, in a secondary school setting, mentoring

frequently carries with it an implication of subject-specific

expertise. Of the four beginning teachers at Forest View High School,

only the teacher of Mathematics had other Mathematics teachers to work

with. The teacher of Home Economics and Computing Studies was the only

person with expertise in one of those subjects, and the two beginning

teachers of Physical Education, Personal Development and Health

constituted the school's entire staff allocation in that area. These

three beginning teachers had no-one else within the school to whom they

could turn for subject-specific advice.

I was keen to try an action learning program, using myself as the

facilitator of an action learning set with the four beginning teachers

belonging to that set. I was, however, reluctant to begin the year

using action learning, partly because of my own uncertainty about the

technique: I had read widely about it, but had not ever used it. I

decided, therefore, to devote the first half of the year to a fairly

conventional induction program, and to try the action learning program

in the second half of the year, by which time I felt that I would have

a better understanding of the group dynamics and personal interactions

of the four beginning teachers.

During the first half of the year the four beginning teachers and I met

in regularly-scheduled after-school meetings, once a fortnight, for

about an hour. The content of the sessions was initially determined by

me, and was arrived at in two ways. I felt it was important to deal

with issues that were currently receiving a lot of emphasis within the

teaching service as a whole. A good example of this was the

Department's revision of its guidelines relating to child protection,

which contained certain mandatory requirements for teachers. We spent a

couple of our after-school meetings examining child protection issues.

The second source of content was the kit Induction of beginning

teachers (New South Wales Department of School Education 1996a),

together with its companion booklet Information for beginning teachers

(New South Wales Department of School Education 1996b). The kit

contains 22 modules covering such issues as 'Surviving the first days

and weeks', 'Professionalism and legal responsibilities of teachers',

'Department policies', 'Working with Aboriginal students', and so on. I

asked the teachers to choose modules of interest to them, and we then

spent some of our sessions examining some of the modules which they had

chosen.

The after-school meetings did not always take place according to

schedule. Some were cancelled because of other urgent matters which had

to be dealt with, for example, whilst others had only some of the

beginning teachers present because of absence or other commitments.

However, we did meet reasonably often and as well as examining a number

of the modules chosen from the Induction of beginning teachers kit, we

also canvassed some issues that were of concern to the beginning

teachers. Generally one or more of the new teachers would ask me for

information or advice over some matter of concern, and I would give the

information required or make some suggestions as to a particular course

of action that the new teacher might try. So, these meetings were very

much dominated by my input, and there was very little interaction among

the beginning teachers. Most of the interaction was between me and one

or several of the new teachers.

I also met informally with each of the beginning teachers frequently

during their early days in the school. These meetings were sometimes

initiated by me, but more usually by one of the teachers. The issues

that we discussed tended to be either about curriculum, particularly

curriculum-planning, or about management of student behaviour,

especially about the management of specific, difficult, students. I

also visited a number of classes taught by the beginning teachers. My

visits were on the basis of invitation, though I had made it clear to

the beginning teachers that I expected to be invited to visit their

classes. The visits were specifically designed to assist me in writing

the probationer's report which each beginning teacher has written on

them during their first year of service, and on which the issuing of a

Teacher's Certificate - the official 'licence' to teach in a public

school in New South Wales - is based.

In June a one-day district-wide induction program was held for all the

beginning teachers in public schools in the district which included

Forest View High School. (In New South Wales public schools are

organised into districts, headed by a district superintendent. The

district which includes Forest View High School contains six other high

schools, one central (K - 12) school, and approximately 50 primary

schools. The area of the district is significant; it takes about four

hours to drive from one end of the district to the other). I had been

co-opted by the district superintendent to coordinate that one-day

program. That coordination proved to be complementary to the induction

program I was involved in at Forest View High School.

The first area of complementarity came about when I asked the beginning

teachers at Forest View High School to suggest to me things that they

felt should form part of the program at the district-wide training day.

The two suggestions that they made concerned the issue of management of

student behaviour in the classroom, and the issue of using a range of

alternative teaching and learning strategies with students. I was able

to arrange facilitators to present high quality workshops in both of

those areas. The feedback provided by the participating beginning

teachers at the end of the district-wide induction day indicated that

these two sessions were very well received and had a lot of relevance

to those beginning teachers present. They were also the two areas in

which the district's beginning teachers indicated that they felt most

vulnerable and in need of assistance. Interestingly, the third session

that was rated as being particularly useful was that led by the

district's Aboriginal community liaison officer on strategies for

successfully teaching Aboriginal students; something which had been

included on my initiative.

The second area of complementarity between the beginning teachers of

Forest View High School, and those from the other schools in the

district, came about because of the feedback provided by all the

participants through a questionnaire that I issued at the end of the

district-wide program. From the responses on the questionnaires it was

apparent that some schools offered very little support for their

beginning teachers. Some of these teachers were not aware of the

supervision arrangements which applied to them in their schools; some

had no knowledge of the procedures relating to their probationary

period; and some had no knowledge of the support personnel available at

District Office. An alarming number reported on incidents of harassment

which they had experienced in their communities, and of the general

lack of interest on the part of their school leaders to attempt to deal

with that issue. The feelings of a number of the participants were

captured in a remark written by one of them on the feedback

questionnaire:

I am not receiving enough support from my school in handling all my

problems. I really feel out of my depth.

The feedback from the district-wide induction program gave me some

basis for comparing what was happening with the beginning teachers at

Forest View High School compared to their colleagues at other schools

in the district. I came away from the district-wide induction program

with some concerns over the plight of the beginning teachers in other

schools in the district, but feeling fairly happy, indeed, almost smug,

about the beginning teachers at Forest View High School. I felt that at

Forest View High School there was a valuable school-based induction

program in place. I believed that the beginning teachers there had been

given a great deal of support in the school, and that I, personally,

had been as supportive and helpful as could reasonably be expected. I

also felt that I knew these young teachers well, and that I was a

reasonably good judge of their professional strengths and weaknesses. I

felt that, in my supervision, there were some elements of mentorship,

though the relationship was still clearly one of supervisor and

supervisees. But, on the whole, I was satisfied that the beginning

teachers at Forest View High School were relatively fortunate in the

experiences they had received at the start of their teaching careers.

2.2 The induction of beginning teachers at Forest View High School in

1997: the second six months

In the second semester of 1997 I met with the four beginning teachers

early after the return from the vacation and briefly explained the

theoretical background to action learning. I outlined my understanding

of the processes employed, explained that I was interested in trying

out the action learning model using the four new teachers as the action

learning set, and asked them to think about that possibility. I made it

clear that participation was entirely voluntary. By then their

probationary reports had already been drafted, and the beginning

teachers had been shown a copy of the reports that applied to each of

them. They had been invited to suggest any changes that they considered

should be made to the reports, though none did so. So, in some ways, as

all four had been assessed as being satisfactory, and as having

successfully completed their period of probation, there was no

compulsion to participate in any further professional development

activities designed for beginning teachers.

To my surprise, each of the four new teachers agreed to participate in

the trial of action learning as a professional development technique.

We tentatively agreed to hold four sessions; two in Term 3 and two in

Term 4, and agreed on a definite date for the first session. The plan

was that the sessions would take a whole day, and the release for the

teachers and for me would be provided through the funds allocated by

the Training and Development Directorate. We also agreed that the

sessions should take place away from the school, so that there would be

no distractions or interruptions.

We then held the first session about mid-way through Term 3. The second

session in Term 3 had to be abandoned because of the illness of one of

us. However, a second session was held early in Term 4. It is intended

to hold one further session before the conclusion of the 1997 school

year.

Each of the beginning teachers was issued with instruction prior to the

first meeting. They had to come to the meeting having done some

preparation. Essentially, they knew that each of them would take a turn

at presenting to the others a problem or issue causing concern. The aim

then was that the other members of the action learning set would help

the person presenting in arriving at an action plan designed to

overcome the problem, or satisfy the concern that had been articulated.

My role was to act as facilitator, and, supposedly, to keep out of the

discussion and formulation. The sessions were taped, and transcripts of

them have been made for the purposes of analysis. There was also

agreement that the specifics of the discussion that took place would

remain confidential. Each participant understood, however, that I would

be writing a paper based on the generalities of the action learning

sessions. Each participant has had the opportunity to read this paper

and to suggest changes where there may have been some inadvertent

compromising of the principle of confidentiality.

Our first meeting took the entire day, with breaks for coffee and

lunch. The four beginning teachers presented the meeting with problems

and issues that were unresolved, and causing frustration, annoyance, or

difficulties. A wide range of issues was aired at the first meeting.

One of the teachers spoke of the frustrations of being expected to

teach a program which was designed by a more experienced colleague, but

which was not meeting the needs of the students. Yet the junior teacher

felt that he/she lacked the experience, and hence the credibility, to

change the course content, because to do so would be seen as a

challenge by the more experienced teacher. A second issue that was

raised was how to deal with a more senior colleague who permitted

students to behave in a manner considered unacceptable by the junior

teacher, which resulted in damage to the classroom and the resources

used by the junior teacher. The issue of intimidatory behaviour by

students was also raised. So too were the problems associated with

teaching students with a wide range of capabilities and behaviours, so

as to successfully include all without allowing the poor behaviour of

some to eclipse the learning within the class. The final issue

canvassed concerned the challenge of balancing the day-to-day and

short-term demands of teaching with the long-term need to plan and

implement relevant, useful and interesting curricula.

As facilitator, I kept the focus of the group on the need to produce a

concrete and realistic action plan for each of the problems/issues that

had been raised. The group showed a considerable degree of

self-discipline, and in each case, following a lot of discussion, an

action plan was worked out. Each action plan was quite specific, and

was viewed as a means of finding a solution to each of the

problems/issues presented.

The second meeting took place six weeks after the first - the interval

was longer than ideal, but necessary because of the earlier illness of

one of us. The preparation required of the beginning teachers was a

little different than for the first meeting. They were required to

report back to the group on the their implementation of the action

plan, and whether or not the problem/issue raised at the first meeting

had been successfully dealt with. Each member then had to present

another problem or issue to the group, and with the assistance of the

members of the group arrive at an action plan for dealing with that

problem/issue. The final thing I asked each of the beginning teachers

to do at the second meeting was to evaluate the action learning

technique in the light of the two sessions that had been held.

When reporting back on the implementation of their action plans, three

of the beginning teachers had been able to carry out most of their

plans, though sometimes in a modified form. The fourth had taken some

steps in implementing the plan, but for a variety of reasons, had been

unable to complete it. The success rate in finding solutions to the

problems and issues that had been the focus of the first meeting was

very high. Four of the five problems/issues raised had been resolved by

the second meeting. However, the reasons for their resolution were

sometimes independent of the action plans of the beginning teachers;

solution sometimes came about because of factors completely external to

the action plans devised at the first meeting.

The range of problems and issues raised at the second meeting was

equally as broad as at the first. One of the beginning teachers spoke

of the difficulties encountered when working with another colleague

with a vastly different approach to all aspects of the shared work.

Another raised the problem of persuading reluctant students to

participate in class activities. The final problem raised by two of the

beginning teachers related to curriculum planning and programming.

The evaluations of the action learning processes by the beginning

teachers had, in fact, started prior to our second meeting. The day

after our first meeting, two of the beginning teachers approached me

independently at work and offered some feedback on the previous day's

meeting. I made a note of their comments, mainly to see if their

opinions remained much the same after further experiences with action

learning. The first (Teacher 1) said:

Yesterday was just so good. I went home and worked on my action plan

until really late. We should have been doing this all along instead of

what we've been doing in our afternoon meetings.

The comments of the second (Teacher 2) were very perceptive and equally

as positive:

I wanted to let you know I thought yesterday was fantastic. There would

be nothing to stop us, when we face a new problem, all getting together

to work out a solution - an action plan - when the problem occurs.

At the second session, following the presentations, each of the

participating beginning teachers was asked to provide any comments

about the action learning process, both positive and negative. Those

comments ranged from the highly positive to the slightly negative.

Some of the positive comments arose out of particular aspects of Forest

View High School. One of the teachers (Teacher 3) suggested that

because the faculty groupings within the school were so small, there

was no regular forum for airing issues of concern. Consequently, it was

up to individuals to deal with these issues on an individual basis.

Another commented that in a small school such as Forest View High, it

was usual for teachers to 'do their own thing', and that this sometimes

meant that problems got too big for individuals to handle without

assistance, particularly if they were also inexperienced. The action

learning sessions meant that 'we've brought some things out in the open

that would relieve a lot of stress [because] we weren't dealing with

[the problems]' (Teacher 2).

The teachers saw benefits from meeting with colleagues from across the

key learning areas 'because you can see that the problems you're having

aren't specific to your area' (Teacher 3). When asked whether the

benefit came just from airing the problems and issues, or from arriving

at the solutions, one of the participants (Teacher 1) said that the

whole process was 'motivating', but it was the action plans that were

particularly useful. This teacher commented that after our first action

learning session he/she had gone and drawn up an action plan for other

issues which were causing concern, and had put some of those plans in

place.

One participant (Teacher 4) felt that the strategies weren't

particularly relevant in meeting that participant's needs; that he/she

would probably be able to come up with the same sort of strategies

developed in an action plan, without having to go through the group

processes implicit in action learning:

I don't think it's got any relevance for me. Whatever strategies we

come up with - [in] an action plan - if I did have any problems, I'd

just do it the way I would anyway. It might be good as far as hearing

ideas goes, but ( I'd prefer to be at school.

That participant (Teacher 4) went on to say that if another session was

scheduled then he/she would probably like to be included.

Another participant (Teacher 3) commented that he/she felt comfortable

with the general support network that existed within the school, but

that he/she had a tendency only to associate with teachers from a

similar background or with similar views. The action learning sessions

were an interesting contrast where different ideas were considered;

ones which wouldn't usually be encountered within the friendship and

support network already established by this particular beginning

teacher.

When I asked the beginning teachers to compare the professional

development experience of two action learning sessions with that of the

after-school meetings that had constituted the in-school professional

development activities for the first half of the year, the response was

unequivocal:

Teacher 2: What we were doing in the first half of the year was a total

waste of time, because we didn't have a chance to think about anything.

It was just too structured.

Teacher 1: And at that time of the afternoon, if you've had a bad day,

you really couldn't care less. You might think twice about it the next

day and think, 'I probably should have contributed this or that,' but

at the time you couldn't care.

The participant (Teacher 4) who had earlier commented that action

learning was not especially relevant to him/her, commented:

I can see the benefits of this ( I'd prefer to do this rather than what

we were doing at the start of the year ( I think this is a lot better.

When asked whether they considered the action learning was better than

a mentor scheme, the response was a unanimous 'definitely!' The

participants valued highly the equality that was an implicit part of

action learning. To them, a mentoring relationship implied notions of

superiority and inferiority, which was not the case with action

learning.

When asked whether an action learning program run by beginning teachers

themselves, without the involvement of others, was a feasible option,

the opinion was quite clear that it was a good idea. It was felt that

it may be necessary to have an outsider commence the program, but that,

once it was underway it would become self-supporting. Involvement of

beginning teachers from more than one school was also seen as being a

good thing, and something that was worth trying.

The participants made a number of valuable suggestions:

Teacher 1: If you started earlier in the year with this type of thing -

I think the problems that would have come up for me at the start of the

year would have been more personal, teaching issues that other people

could give you ideas on how to overcome

Teacher 2: The trap might be that you might tend to talk just about

your problems rather than get to solutions(

Teacher 3: If [the group was made up of] a couple of people from

different schools, especially in a rural area, it would be good as a

support unit ( realising that there are other people in similar

situations really helps.

3 CONCLUSIONS

In hindsight, my reluctance to use an action learning model for the

professional development of the beginning teachers at Forest View High

School is difficult to understand. All of the literature on action

learning, whether 'self-congratulatory' (Wills 1993a, p 6) or not,

reports similar findings to what took place at Forest View High School

in the second half of 1997. It is clear that the beginning teachers

benefited from participating, even though that participation amounted

to only two action learning sessions. Even the participant (Teacher 4)

who questioned the relevance of the processes employed considered it a

significantly superior alternative to the traditional professional

development activities that took place in the first half of the year,

and which, I suspect, would be the form of professional development

most frequently employed for beginning teachers.

The obvious benefits gained by the beginning teachers following their

involvement in the action learning program, however truncated, which

was used at Forest View High School, have caused me to question the

complacency I displayed towards the issue of professional development

of beginning teachers. There was, clearly, no reason why I could

assume, as I had at the end of the first semester for 1997, that all

was well with regard to what was happening with the school's four

beginning teachers. Obviously, their professional development needs

were not being as well met as I had assumed. All it took was two

sessions of action learning to show just how inadequately they had been

dealt with prior to then.

The conclusions which can be drawn from a small project such as this

are limited by the lack of sophistication of the analysis, the small

scope of the project, and the limited time in which it operated.

Despite those limitations, however, it is clear from this pilot study

that there is a definite role for action learning in meeting the

professional development needs of beginning teachers in the schools of

Australia. This is not to say that action learning has all the answers,

or even that it is applicable in all circumstances. What is clear,

however, is that action learning is a process worthy of further study

and exploration, and that it would seem to have applicability to, and,

perhaps, complementarity with, other professional development

strategies used with beginning teachers.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Arkin, A. (1996). Lessons from life. Personnel management, 2(2), 41.

Boud, D, Keogh, R, and Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning

experience into learning, Kogan Page, London.

Carr, W, and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through

action research, Deakin University, Geelong.

Carter, M. (1997). School-based induction and mentoring of beginning

teachers. Paper delivered at the Australian Association for Research in

Education Annual Conference, Brisbane.

Chan, K C, and Anderson, G C. (1994). Academia - industry fusion:

Action learning for teaching enterprise. Industrial & commercial

training, 26(4), 28 - 32.

Clarke, B, and Brennan, S. (1993). Exporting, small firms and training.

Management development review, 6(2), 33 - 39.

Georges, J C. (1996). The myth of soft-skills training. Training,

33(1), 48 - 54.

Gregory, M. (1994). Accrediting work-based learning: Action learning -

a model for empowerment. Journal of management development, 13(4), 41 -

52.

Harrison, R, and Miller, S. (1993). Doctors in management: Two into one

won't go - Or will it? Part 1. Executive development, 6(2), 9 - 13.

Harrison, R, Miller, S, and Gibson, A. (1993). Doctors in management -

Part II: Getting into action. Executive development, 6(4), 3 - 7.

Henderson, I. (1993). Action learning: A missing link in management

development? Personnel review, 22(6), 14 - 24.

Hoban, G. (1996). A professional development model based on

interrelated principles of teacher learning, Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Hoban, G, Hastings, G, Luccarda, C, and Lloyd, D. (1997). Faculty based

professional development as an action learning community. Australian

Science Teachers' Association Journal, 43(3), 49 - 54.

Keys, L. (1994). Action learning: Executive development of choice in

the 1990s. Journal of management development, 13(8), 50 - 56.

Martin, V. (1994). Designing a "healthy" diploma in management studies.

Health manpower management, 20(3), 19 - 22.

McGill, I, and Beaty, L. (1996). Action learning. A guide for

professional, management and educational development, Kogan Page,

London.

Meehan, M, and Jarvis, J. (1996). A refreshing angle on staff

education. Personnel management, 2(14), 38 - 39.

Mercer, G I. (1996). The global citizenship MBA orientation program:

Action learning at the University of Michigan Business School. Journal

of business ethics, 15(1), 111 - 120.

Mumford, A. (1995). Learning in action. Industrial & commercial

training, 27(8), 36 - 40.

New South Wales Department of School Education. (1996a). Induction of

beginning teachers, Beginning Teachers Induction Program, Training and

Development Directorate, NSW Department of School Education, Sydney.

New South Wales Department of School Education. (1996b). Information

for beginning teachers, Beginning Teachers Induction Program, Training

and Development Directorate, NSW Department of School Education,

Sydney.

Pine, D. (1989). Action learning. Psychology today, 23 (July/August),

25 - 26.

Preston, A P, and Biddle, G. (1994). "To be or not to be?": Making a

professional career choice. International journal of career management,

6(1), 28 - 32.

Raelin, J A. (1995). Reformulating management education: Professional

education, action learning, and beyond. Selections (Autumn), 20 - 30.

Ready, D A. (1995). Educating the survivors. Journal of business

strategy, 16(2), 28 - 37.

Revans, R. (1980). Action learning. New techniques for action learning,

Blond & Briggs, London.

Revans, R. (1982). What is action learning? Journal of management

development, 1(3), 64 - 75.

Revans, R. (1983). The ABC of action learning, Chartwell-Bratt,

Bromley.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner, Jossey-Bass,

San Francisco.

Wills, G. (1993a). Your enterprise school of management: Actionable

learning. Journal of management development, 12(2), 36 - 41.

Wills, G. (1993b). Your enterprise school of management: Dream-time is

reality. Journal of management development, 12(2), 52 - 60.

Wills, G. (1993c). Your enterprise school of management: Learning

SWOTs. Journal of management development, 12(2), 25 - 35.

Wills, G. (1993d). Your enterprise school of management: Questions are

the curriculum. Journal of management development, 12(2), 7 - 14.

Wills, G. (1993e). Your enterprise school of management: The expert

phoenix. Journal of management development, 12(2), 42 - 51.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education -

Examples and reflections, Kogan Page, London.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1993). Improving learning and teaching through

action learning and action research. Higher education research and

development, 12(1), 45 - 58.

20