This paper presents our preliminary findings and identifies some significant factors and some of the problems of teacher professional development. Some implications for professional development providers are commented upon.

The Centre for Advanced Qualifications (AdQual), Auckland College of Education, offers professional development programmes for teachers. The programmes aim to stimulate and promote the ongoing learning of teachers by providing advanced qualifications. It is believed that acquiring higher professional qualifications is not only a tangible expression of a teacher’s commitment to professional development but also contributes to the professionalisation of educational practice.

AdQual programmes and courses are delivered in a number of ways. This paper begins an exploration into the differences in the teachers’ and the lecturer’s perceptions of the effects of one professional development course on educational assessment held in schools, involving all teaching staff, (school-based) and the same course delivered on the college campus for individual teachers (campus-based). This small research project did not identify the students’ perceived differences in the effects of the delivery of the course as highly significant and research is ongoing. However, the lecturer’s perceptions of the differences in the effects of the two different modes of course delivery were of sufficient interest for us to document at this stage of the research.

The New Zealand Education Act of 1989 devolved much responsibility to individual schools with the two major foci being self-management and self-improvement. The responsibility for funding of professional development programmes which was once centralised in a national Department of Education (now defunct), has largely moved to individual schools. The expectations of New Zealand teachers to participate in professional development programmes have also changed – primary teachers are now bound by a collective employment contract which states that principals must attest to the competency of each member of staff. This competency is assessed against a set of explicit performance standards (New Zealand Education Institute Te Riu Roa, 1998, pp. 54-56). Two standards for experienced teachers read, ‘demonstrate a high level of knowledge of relevant curriculum, and of current learning and assessment theory’ and ‘demonstrate a commitment to their own ongoing learning.’

Many schools identify two separate approaches to professional development within their planning. These are school or whole-staff development and personal development. Sometimes these are seen as being quite separate while in other situations both are viewed as interdependent, with an assumption that the well-being of the school is integrally linked to the learning of the individuals within it.

Staff of the Centre for Advanced Qualifications (AdQual) are conscious of the difficulties in providing successful professional development programmes to teachers. Teacher evaluations of modules have raised awareness of some of the dilemmas that have also been identified by theorists. Fullan (1990 p. 4) remarks that ‘a great deal of wisdom, skill, and persistence are needed to design and carry out successful development activities.’ Tobin (1988, p. 483) is in agreement and states that the pathway to successful professional development is, ‘tortuous and a successful journey along it requires patience, perseverance, time, and in many cases a tolerance of failure’. Baird (1988) comments that teachers’ learning may require changes in attitudes, perceptions, conceptions, and beliefs as well as behaviours – a very demanding process.

Mindful of this research, the following principles underpin the Centre’s programmes:

• an acknowledgment of the professionalism of teachers;

• consideration of teachers as emotional beings but responsible and active learners;

• offering opportunities to build on teachers’ prior knowledge, skills and abilities;

• actively involving teachers in critiquing, researching, and reflecting upon their and others’ practice;

• offering opportunities for teachers to share and improve their decision-making processes; and

There is much research that shows that coherent and long-term plans for organisational development and improvement are needed but there is agreement that these plans should be developed by the school community and should link individual teacher’s needs to school needs and provide realistic and differentiated staff development which allows teachers to build on their existing personal and professional strengths and grasp learning opportunities (Douglas, 1991; Fullan, 1990; Hargreaves, 1994; Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991; Newton and Tarrant, 1992). (Bell, 1991 p.4) states, ‘Therefore, if the organization can harmonize the individual’s interests and wishes for personal and career development, with the requirements of the organization as derived from its educational aims, it will improve both individual and organizational performances. The more integrated the two aspects of professional development are the more likely there will be a productive outcome.’

With the responsibility for, and choice of, teacher professional development programmes being held by individual schools and the government’s encouragement of school-based professional development we became interested in researching the effects of school-based and campus-based courses. A paper on assessment, comprising fifty hours face-to-face teaching, delivered over a semester and after school hours was chosen for our study. This paper, which had been taught for a number of years by the same lecturer both in schools as part of whole staff development, and on campus as personal development, gave us the opportunity to research the perceived effects of the two different modes of delivery of the course. We surveyed the students in the different courses and interviewed the lecturer about the effects of the two modes of delivery.

a) Student questionnaire

A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was completed by the teachers in two classes studying the assessment paper in 1999. The group taught in the school comprised 12 teachers and the other group taught on campus was a group of 15 teachers.

The questionnaire response was 75% from the school-based course and 60% from the campus-based course.

b) Lecturer interview

An interview was held with the lecturer, the interview structure being guided by the principles of professional development within the Centre as outlined above.

Student responses to the questionnaire indicate very few differences between the effects of the two modes of delivery. However, one significant difference related to school management and collegial support for, and acknowledgment and implementation of, new understandings gained through studying the paper. School-based teachers commented more positively about the effects of this aspect of the course. This outcome is possibly related to the more insular learning experiences of the individual teachers from various schools with perhaps fewer opportunities to follow up with discussions and sharing of experiences that could occur with the school-based option.

Another difference was the opportunity to mix with a range of colleagues from across the education sector which was provided by the campus class. This opportunity was viewed as a positive effect by the campus-based teachers and one that the school-based teachers did not have access to.

The lecturer interview expanded and enhanced the data obtained from the students.

Individual teachers enrolled in the campus-based course usually, "to update their own assessment practice, sometimes as a need identified by appraisal."

The lecturer felt most teachers were prepared to take time to critique and reflect upon their practice, to take responsibility for their learning. However she did notice a difference between the groups in teacher readiness to engage in assessment as a relevant professional issue. "There was one beginning teacher who withdrew from the school-based course with his principal’s agreement because his focus was on classroom management not assessment… I felt there were greater discrepancies in the range of readiness and engagement within the school-based groups. In the school some teachers appeared to turn off while others appeared reticent, particularly when it came to reading and discussing research. These teachers seldom asked questions. They were often passive in the group and their limited contribution in joint assignments was an issue raised by their colleagues. Such behaviour was not as obvious in the campus-based courses."

Campus-based courses are held in a lecture room which contributes to the formality of the course. The neutrality of this environment appeared to remove not only some of the troublesome physical factors, for example, size of room and chairs, deficiencies of equipment, presence of teachers’ children, interruptions by demanding parents, but some personal factors also. "The number of interruptions and the challenges of keeping everyone on task were markedly more pronounced in school-based courses. The school environment kept impacting on my work in the school. The environment and the perceived informality of the course also affected attendance and punctuality. Often the principal or some member of the management team was delayed while other teachers were occupied with parents, children who had not been collected from the school, or after school crossing duty. Often school-based teachers slumped into chairs sapped of energy and desperate for a hot drink. I had to plan some very interesting beginning activity to draw their energy together and get focussed on the topic. Of course the campus teachers were also tired but once they arrived at the lecture room they seemed more able to focus quickly on the task, and the interruptions from the outside world were very few. The school-based teachers come directly from the classroom to the venue, usually the staffroom. Not only do they bring all the everyday classroom ‘stuff’ with them, but they often see the staffroom as a place of rest and relaxation and then to ask them to sit and read and reflect is almost too much! Scaffolding to get teachers interested and engaged, seems to be more crucial in school-based courses.… It would seem that when teachers come into a campus-based course their expectations are of a formal course. I felt that the teachers behaved as if they were coming to a class, there appeared to be more of a degree of rigour and academia about these courses. Teachers usually came prepared, having critiqued the required readings and thought about the links to their practice. They were also more likely to have accessed the library and sourced additional materials."

The personal interactions were also different between the two groups. "I seem to get much closer to the people in the school than those who come onto the campus. I actually become part of their school life, and get to know some of them as friends. So there is emotional involvement. I’m their guest and they are hosting me. There is much more sharing of food and informal conversation."

Differences in the range of abilities in the group members were also noted by the lecturer. " A wider range of abilities, experiences, prior knowledge was more evident in the school-based teachers–it was like teaching in a very mixed ability classroom which meant my teaching skills were really stretched. Sometimes the ‘politics’ of the school seemed to hinder interaction. Teachers sometimes seemed reluctant to speak out and ‘expose’ themselves and their teaching practice in front of their colleagues. This did make things quite difficult especially when so much of the work is done in small groups and involves the unpacking and discussion of research and the sharing of ideas. Sometimes it seemed to me that the teachers would have preferred that I lecture at them so they would not have to respond."

The lecturer commented on her role as a facilitator and guide during school-based courses being more demanding, especially in regard to assignment work, "I would find that the teachers in the school-based courses valued and demanded more input, clarification and support for their assignments. They required more reassurance than the campus-based course teachers and seemed less willing or able to take risks. Sessions often meant moving around groups several times to assist members. However it was generally easier for school-based teachers to form groups for assignment tasks and to work collaboratively on these, especially if teamwork was already part of the school culture."

A further observation the lecturer made was about the teachers’ comments on the process of sharing their learning from the course with their teaching colleagues and within their school. "Teachers in the campus-based group often commented on the frustrations they felt when trying to share their new found enthusiasms and strategies with their schools. Some schools had formal expectations where teachers were required to report back on their learning. Some individuals managed to enthuse their teaching team which lead to some professional development within the area of assessment. However, most of the campus-based teachers remarked on how difficult it was to maintain their enthusiasm in the face of day-to-day life in the school. They’d get all fired up after class but found everyone was ‘too busy’ and things tended to fizzle out. However, those teachers in the school-based group commented that the support and interest of their colleagues was ongoing between teaching sessions. These teachers obviously talked about what they were doing especially when it came to assignment work which was generally done in groups. I guess the opportunities to work together were more frequent and easier to organise because informal discussion is a normal daily process. As the management team was involved with the course they were aware of the various projects going on and therefore their support was more direct."

Implications

We feel that this research is of interest to teacher professional development providers as it begins to highlight some significant factors that may affect the ‘where’ of professional development. Much is written about models and processes of teacher professional development but there is scant New Zealand research that comments on the factor of location. We feel that the current push by the New Zealand government for school-based professional development programmes without the necessary research into its benefits or challenges is a concern. Professional development is a highly complex activity and the context is a significant contributing factor in that complexity. If effective and meaningful professional development programmes are to be delivered in schools then many factors need to be considered and school management needs to be aware of them.

This research highlights the following factors as significant:

• the suitability of the venue and the effects of the learning environment;

Professional development is a process which stimulates and promotes the ongoing learning of teachers. This research indicates that the ‘where’ of professional development is a significant factor contributing to the effectiveness of such programmes.