Local area teacher groups : a new paradigm for human resource development in higher education

Abstract

We would like to conclude the thesis by rigorously distinguishing among what we consider three major models of teacher improvement that have been or can be envisaged: training, development, and growth. As a transitive verb, to train implies a trainee as its object. Therefore, as trainees, teachers both saw themselves and were seen by others as objects undergoing a process and being modified in predetermined ways as a result of the action described by the verb. Passivity, receptivity, and internalisation, identified as good student attributes, are expected of those studying to become qualified teachers, and of teachers who, as in-service trainees, voluntarily bear the mantle of passive, receptive, internalising students. The non-identity between the subject and the object-i.e., between the trainer and the trainee-necessarily entails a unidirectional flow of knowledge, always from an external expert to the novice-trainee. The experiential wisdom, common-sense knowledge, and practical existential competence of the trainees are seen as impediments to be overcome by the flow of the external expert’s superior ideas. These impediments must be removed before the worthwhile ideas can find congenial acceptance in the terrain of the novice’s intellectual makeup. The form and content of the knowledge to be imparted, the pace at which it is imparted, and the method through which it is delivered are all determined by external authority figures-i.e., the trainers. This mechanical, cumulative, externally provided conception of knowledge accretion, and the faith in its efficacy for improving classroom performance, are both challenged by ethnographically inspired theories of professional development, of which small local area groups of teachers are one manifestation. The concept of teacher growth encapsulates an organic metaphor, rooted in the intransitive verb to grow. Unlike training, growth connotes a primarily internally arising and internally directed process leading to increased presence, improved competence, and enhanced performance of its experiencers. As an intransitive verb, it suggests active agentive vigour, rather than the passivity of the object. This model discounts the importance of external sources of authority or knowledge. It posits knowledge structures inherent to the student and the student-teacher, introducing important changes in classroom dynamics and decision-making. At its austere best, the growth model considers external sources of knowledge and authority as possibly useful but dispensable-analogous to trace elements in soil that may influence but cannot determine the direction of plant growth. In other words, the growth model underscores the self-sufficiency of the professional-the possibility of a fully autonomous practitioner. The training model represents a crude, uncharitable attitude toward the objects of training. The growth model, on the other hand, is thoroughly dismissive of any knowledge or skill originating from outside the practitioners themselves. Both, we believe, represent extreme positions. Development, in contrast, is neither crudely uncharitable nor thoroughly dismissive. It strikes a middle path, absorbing essential features of both training and growth approaches. The developmental approach fosters organizational synergy, reflecting the capacity of the group to work together as a functional entity with capabilities beyond the sum of its individual parts. This indicates the group’s potential to develop resonant relationships within itself and with its environment. Development is seen as a process of spreading, shifting from old to new centres, involving both qualitative and structural changes over the lifespan of a group. These changes unfold through a dynamic process of balancing continuity needs and the need for challenges. For example, the focus in Teacher Development (T.D.) groups is on self-initiated change, helping teachers gain confidence and tap their internal resources. At no point is the value of input from external experts or researchers blindly discarded. What makes the exercise truly developmental is that the onus or responsibility for sifting and translating these inputs into practical procedures lies with the individual teacher or groups of teachers. This task is carried out with a realistic response to the local teaching/learning context. In other words, there is no restriction on exposure and no ban on essential imports. What the developmental model disapproves of is abject dependence on foreign aid in the form of ready-made external solutions to native pedagogic problems. While the growth model advocates the evolution of a teacher into an autonomous practitioner, the developmental model promotes a collaborative work culture that helps teachers develop through dialogue, sharing, and problem-solving among colleagues, friends, and students. The supportive model (Likert, 1961), as ensured by T.D. groups, envisages collective responsibility for professional improvement and the formulation of context-sensitive generalizations. Teachers see themselves not as objects being modified in predetermined ways, but as deliberate initiators of a process of progress. Professional development with these features is possible in small local groups, formed voluntarily by teachers concerned about their own and their students’ learning. The idea that the classroom is a research site and cooperation a mode is central to this vision.