 |
Investing
in the power of teachers
to improve teaching and learning. |
     |
|
  |
Project
#22 October
1997 I
- Introduction
In 1996, Saskatoon Public School Division No. 13's teachers assigned to the Academically Talented program (AcTal) decided to examine the development of collegiality in specialized education programs and approached the McDowell Foundation for support. We hoped that this research would enable us to make a difference in our classrooms and to further our understanding of the concept of collegiality. Background to the study Saskatoon Public School Division No. 13 has provided congregated classes for designated academically talented students in grades 5 through 8 since 1932. Currently the program is housed at two schools: Caswell Community School and Greystone Heights School. The following people were involved in this study:
In the past, contact between the AcTal teachers in these two schools has taken the form of informal and formal meetings, and phone conversations. During these meetings we have discussed a wide range of topics related to the AcTal program. The meetings were usually called because of urgent needs or daily concerns. There was rarely time for development and nurturing of collegiality which might lead to a higher degree of effective teaching or program development. The McDowell Foundation grant seemed to be a way in which we could structure our meetings and arrange time for reflection and collaboration. It was hoped that the McDowell Foundation support would enable us to delve more deeply into bigger and more fundamental issues. The development of collegiality and a greater understanding of the concept seemed to be central to this process and thus became the focus of our study during the 1996-97 school year. The teacher/researchers chose to use a case study/action research methodology in conducting this project. The case study method as described by Merriam(1988) is said to be (a) particularistic, (b) descriptive, (c) heuristic and (d) inductive. She describes these characteristics as follows:
This case study is intended to be instrumental in its purpose. Stake suggests that instrumental case studies occur when "a particular case is studied to provide insight into an issue or refinement of a theory...The choice is made because it is expected to advance our understanding of that other interest." (p. 37). In the case of this study the other interest is the development of collegiality. Because the teacher/researchers were involved continuously in all aspects of the situation under study and in teaching on a daily basis, the project clearly followed an action research model as well. The group was not only reflecting upon its own unique qualities but responding to outside demands and often initiating undertakings as well. Research Questions
Procedures In order to answer the questions posed, we employed a number of both formal and informal strategies. Formal gatherings of the group consisted of retreats and after school meetings. The first retreat in September 1996 had among its proposed agenda items: (a) an overview of the project, (b) an opportunity to discuss professional needs and goals, (c) a time to identify groups (companion teacher groups) who would like to work on these goals and needs, (d) and a discussion on how we would keep data. A meeting in December was held to share interesting insights, and to revise plans and procedures accordingly. Teachers met informally on school days, after school and by e-mail to share thoughts, program ideas and day to day concerns. The final retreat in June 1997 became an opportunity to discuss and synthesize the findings. Data Gathering Data for analysis came from the teacher/researchers' notes, observations and contributions in group discussions that took place in all the previously mentioned situations. These notes were primarily kept in personal journals and meeting notes (no official minutes were kept but members often kept their own comments on the proceedings). At the end of the year the teacher/researchers agreed to reflect individually in writing on the four original study questions posed. These writings were read at the closing retreat and synthesized by the group. In September 1997, the group met to summarize the findings and to develop a list of recommendations. Limitations and ethical considerations Because of the nature of action research and case study methodology some limitations arise. The most significant limitation in this study was the difficulty (in fact, futility) of maintaining the anonymity of the research sites and personnel involved in this study. Because of this limitation and the ethical issues surrounding this, the scope of the study was limited to the experience of the action researchers/participants: the AcTal teachers. The participants, however, believe the integrity of the study was not affected adversely. The project began with planning meetings in June 1996. In late August, at the beginning of the next school year, the nine teachers met again to flesh out more details and time lines for the coming year. The first important decision was to hold a retreat of the AcTal teachers at Anglin Lake in mid-September. The group departed after school on Thursday and was together Thursday evening and most of Friday before returning home. Substitute costs were covered by the project budget. This retreat provided time for the teachers to reflect on the project and the upcoming year. It allowed the group time for valuable informal discussions regarding issues particularly related to the project and to teaching gifted students in congregated classrooms. At this time as well, two teachers new to the program had time to discuss their particular concerns. A number of key ideas emerged from time together during the retreat. One was that we felt a strong need for further retreats. Time away together was really necessary to our evolving through the process we had undertaken. The retreat also allowed us to explore in depth what were the most important issues: math for the gifted learners, the need for some input into staffing and a need for recognition of and support for our unique program. Several times throughout the year the group met as a whole and in smaller parts including, in some cases, grade alike pairs. Of course, within each school informal gatherings occurred. Continually some of us began to write and share reflective journals but not surprisingly finding time became a major challenge. Two members of the group presented a progress report to the Learning From Practice Conference in November while the remaining group members attended as conference participants. June found the group retreating once again (at Anglin Lake) to attempt to distill our observations in order to complete our final report. It is worth noting a few events which undoubtedly affected the project. Caswell became a community school just as the project began. This had some bearing, it is believed, on adding to the uniqueness of the school's climate and AcTal program within it. As well, a position paper was written suggesting ways to meet the needs of exceptional math students. This influenced the focus of many of our discussions and resulted in a written response, prepared by two colleagues, to this new policy. Also, one member, Sue Brooks visited a school for gifted students in Texas. Her observations, as well as a number of readings unearthed during the project, contributed even more food for thought. It is significant to note, in closing this portion of our report, that the project became a living organism, evolving in form as we proceeded through the year and struggled with ways to make the most out of this experience. In the end, we think we arrived at several insights and discovered many more questions. The participants identified a number of specific factors as aiding in the development and enhancement of collegiality. Before exploring the results of our participation in this study, it may be worthwhile to clarify the group's understanding of collegiality or what it means to be a colleague in a specialized educational setting. The assumption is often made that a high level of collegiality naturally occurs inside specialized educational programs that are housed within schools. This assumption may be made because it is assumed that the program's staff have the same training, background and beliefs about the program. However, this notion about the foundation of collegiality may be too restrictive. Certainly, a colleague is "an associate, one who shares a common profession" (Kargut,1997), but there are additional factors which appear to be necessary for the development of collegiality. A. The Development of Collegiality True collegiality goes well beyond the acquaintanceship mode that many teachers frequently encounter and are satisfied with in their working relationships with other teachers. In many ways, our profession encourages autonomy and those who are wayward spirits tend to take advantage of this by doing their own thing in the classroom and developing with peers pedagogical relationships that may be personally superficial. Perhaps potent collegiality could be likened to a fruit salad consisting of bananas, oranges and red peppers. Individually, each fruit has distinctive characteristics in taste and texture. When combined at the right time in a glass bowl, they take on a hybrid identity that delights the senses: the tart juice of the oranges envelops the smooth comfort of the banana and the crunch of the pepper. So it is with a successful working relationship between teachers in a school setting. Collegiality can only develop when individuals are 'ripe' for this kind of relationship to occur and when each person recognizes in the other the potential of a kindred spirit. There must be a sense of trust implicit in the initial acquaintanceship; there must be a sense that you can 'see' (hence the glass analogy) into that person and intuit the possibility of a bond (Stephanson, 1997) or "a sense of connectedness" (Forbes, 1997). Frequently this bond begins with a shared understanding of what is important in our profession, and in the case of specialized programs such as the AcTal program, it may also include "perceived similar basic philosophies" (Forbes, 1997) about how the needs of the students in the program can best be met. From this basis can evolve a sense of belonging which may be fundamental to the development of collegial relationships. It is through the experience of being a part of a like-minded group or team that the pedagogical belief system of an individual can be validated and supported. B. Proximity as a factor which develops collegiality The concept of proximity was repeatedly identified by participating teachers as being significant in the development of collegiality. In our discussions of collegiality, however, proximity was understood to be significant in two distinct ways: physical proximity allowed teachers frequent and informal interactions with colleagues, and ideological proximity allowed for the development of empathy and trust. The possibility of working in close physical proximity with a colleague was seen as advantageous to the development of collegiality by many teachers in the project. Sue Kargut described how "it seemed much easier to know what was going on in a colleague's room when I taught at Caswell where all four AcTal classrooms were arranged around a wide common hallway. Students were always using the shared space as an extension of their classrooms, and classroom doors were open to casual visits dropping off an article of interest or setting up an informal meeting "(1997). The arrangement at Greystone Heights is less desirable to her, as there is a great distance between some of the classrooms and we only see one another without the presence of our students. Physical proximity encourages teachers to have "easy, informal access" (Brooks, 1997) with one another to discuss curricular concerns and ideas, management strategies, or to occasionally seek reassurance. David Forbes felt that "whoever was closest got your attention. Can collegiality be measured in meters? "(1997). The reality of our situation was that we could only enjoy the benefits of physical proximity with other Actal teachers who were in the same school. This was overcome in part by the appreciation for the ideological proximity that was felt among several members of the larger AcTal team. This kind of proximity or ideological closeness could be described as teachers enjoying a "sense of belonging which evolves from a common understanding. There must be a feeling that the pedagogical belief system of an individual is fortified and supported by the relationship" (Stephanson, 1997). Sharing a set of common beliefs and values was reported to be evidenced by expressing a similar understanding about what was best for the students. Dennis Flaherty mentioned that approaches to discipline, and curriculum planning often reflected these concerns. Dennis also noted that our common understandings were apparent when we felt that the needs of gifted children were not being met or when we encountered a challenge in the operation of the program. Working through some of these difficult issues often gave us opportunity to clarify some of our own positions. The absence of consultant support is a specific example of this kind of common concern. Several teachers reported that a consultant is missed. "Because we have no consultant to encourage us or channel new ideas our way we have to be a self-reliant support group for each other in this challenging job" (Kargut,1997). Lorraine Stephanson discussed the benefits of shared understandings. She describes exploring new ideas that could be useful to her students, when "Sue would greet me in the staff room with a book that I didn't know I needed desperately until I saw it. That kind of interpersonal anticipatory understanding confirms and reinforces a sense of belonging and shared vision"(1997). The shared ideology was mentioned as energizing and important for growth. Lorraine wrote that "the sense of group identity can also impart a feeling of strength, to individuals" (June 13,1997). Sue Brooks also noted that " a sense of team and a feeling of being on the same wave length energizes and encourages staff, which may lead to improved performance" (1997). Dennis Flaherty described the respect that he felt for his colleagues, which sometimes lead him to "watch and ponder what they are doing, more than (those teachers) outside the program" (1997). Ideological proximity seemed to bring us together with passions for books read, artistic endeavours, thoughts about issues or problems, and a keen interest in students and other people in our lives. We also recognized a high level of excitability and intensity in our relationships. We tend to admire and respect one another with conviction. These traits are also provocative; because of these characteristics we can create disequilibrium in one another which we recognized as being essential for our growth. Challenging one another's statements, seeking clarification, and asking "prickly questions" (Loewn, 1997) were possible because we possessed requisite trust and empathy. Trust, in our view, develops when we encounter another who shares some fundamental beliefs and understandings about the nature of teaching, about students and learning. C. Teacher Practices that enhance collegiality In addition to being influenced by external factors, the development of collegiality is affected by the actions of the teachers themselves. The AcTal program is an organic response to the needs of gifted students; the objectives, teaching strategies and curricular adaptations have never been crystallized into a manual or any other formal document. The tradition and experience of those who have taught in the program is passed on orally to newcomers. For this reason, the teachers' practices are intrinsically linked to the development of collegiality in our program initially through opportunities to talk, and also through the evolution of the program and our response to the needs of our students, "I need my 'local' colleagues to survive the stresses of life as a teacher in this school" (Loewen, 1997). We make time to talk to other AcTal teachers to "alleviate the sense of isolation that may accompany the job" (Brooks, 1997). We need opportunities to celebrate successes, but also to "talk about the day to day existence with these kids ... They are a different sort and 'debriefing' is essential to understanding." (Stephanson, 1997) We note that it is important to have informal access to each others' rooms, to feel welcome popping in with a question, to see what interesting project may be underway or just to raid the candy jar. (Proximity plays a crucial role in this, as does the development of trust.) "The more I know about what theme Lorraine and Kit are teaching, the more chance there is that I will have a book, or a file, or a lesson idea to contribute. Likewise, the more my colleagues understand the complexion of my class and its individual members, the more support they will be able to offer me." (Kargut, 1997) Teacher talk has always been an important ingredient in the success of our program. We meet informally over the phone, in front of the photocopier, or gathering in the staff room on Fridays after everyone else but the caretakers have left the building. "After parent information meetings, we have been known to stand for an hour in the parking lot, on the point of going home, but needing to confirm impressions of how the session had gone and to savour the highlights of the evening." (Kargut, 1997) We have also scheduled more formal meetings to ensure that all AcTal staff from both buildings can get together; this McDowell project has allowed for regular meetings, "informal, rambling affairs which left the concrete sequential members of the group grasping for structure" (Kargut,1997). Also, we planned retreats "where the opportunity to reflect on others' thoughts and ideas [was] available without the stress and hassle of the impending bell" (Stephanson, 1997). Because we were able to drive two hours north of the city to chalets in the lake country, "the chance to be away from the demand and concerns of home and family, and to be social and intellectual with colleagues has been very helpful. 'Being away' is important. Being separated from other professionals is also important. We need to be distinct from regular classroom teachers to recognize the special abilities and traits that we possess that make us right for this kind of teaching." (Loewen, 1997) A component of this project which was identified at the outset was journal writing, teacher talk on paper to be shared with colleagues in dialogue journals or for personal reflection. At the wider system level some participants in this project have volunteered to sit on and chair the gifted subcommittee under the special needs umbrella in order to advocate for academically talented students throughout the city. These opportunities for talk allowed several common curricular concerns to surface. Discussions about underachieving gifted students and those with ADHD pulled us together as we struggled to find appropriate strategies and programming for these students. An election simulation designed by David Forbes has been adapted by several of us for use in our classrooms. The demands of our mathematically precocious students have prompted us to write a paper (see appendix), to volunteer to pilot a new program in the fall of 1997 (Interactions) and to make internal arrangements to provide grade 9 algebra for our grade 8 students if our high schools cannot accommodate them. Promotion and presentation of the program is largely dependent on the AcTal teachers. We organize and provide the core of evening information meetings for parents of prospective members of our program, and host a morning orientation for the parents and students at each school. As we meet to decide who will speak about what on these occasions, we redefine what we believe about the program and verbalize our understanding about the nature and needs of our students. The program is presented by the team in each school - a common focus that draws us into collegiality. D. External Factors Several external factors were consistently identified by the teachers of this project as having an impact upon the development of collegiality and therefore upon improved instruction. These factors included curricular and program concerns, identification of teachers appropriate for teaching gifted learners, stability of staff, the role of the consultant for gifted education, and central office vision and support for gifted education. Collegial bonds developed among many teachers of gifted as they worked together formally and informally to develop appropriate curriculum for their gifted learners, or as they shared their successes, concerns and frustrations. "The very fact that people (parents and students) have 'chosen' the program indicates a 'special public' which needs special acknowledgement or attention i.e, they have different expectations of 'us' which then draws us together" (D. Flaherty, 1997). "Education is a constantly evolving field, and our particular part of it has usually been on the cutting edge of change. We feel responsibility to maintain our position in the vanguard, but cuts to time, budget and support staff make this increasingly difficult" (Kargut, 1997). As teachers of the gifted, we are constantly asking ourselves what makes this program qualitatively different from the excellent classroom outside the program. We share literature and ideas and continue to challenge and question ourselves as individual teachers and as a group. Several program and curricular issues brought us together. The most significant of these was the new board policy on math acceleration. The AcTal teachers developed a written position paper in which we provided input into the shape of the policy, a kind of "immediate needs" collegiality. One of the key responsibilities of our School Board staffing personnel is the identification of teachers appropriate for teaching gifted children. Sue Kargut emphatically states that "Criteria for staffing positions in our program are critical because our success and the reputation of our program rest solely with the classroom teachers." A shared commitment to the AcTal program and the needs of gifted students promotes collegiality among such teachers, as does a common philosophy about the education of gifted learners, and similar experiences with these students. It is absolutely essential that parents and the students invited to the new grade five AcTal program know who their grade five teacher will be. It is also absolutely essential that new teachers to the program be identified early enough that they are sufficiently prepared for the parent information evenings in May, a most important public relations event for our program. Dennis Flaherty questions if "we have the right combination of expertise in a building to best serve our gifted students? ...when teachers are transferred from one school to another is it possible to build a team which combines complementary expertise and collegiality?" The development of a strong team within each school setting requires "a reasonable amount of stability in personnel i.e. not a high turnover rate." (K. Flaherty, 1997) Experience suggests that one or two years in the program is insufficient time to develop into a teacher of the gifted. The loss of the consultant for gifted education has had immediate implications for both the AcTal classes and the whole system. A knowledgeable consultant helped form policy and practice in gifted education, recognized problems and issues and set about discovering solutions with appropriate personnel. "Because we have no consultant to encourage us or channel new ideas our way, we have to be a self-reliant group for each other in this challenging job." (Kargut, 1997) We have, instead, had to "create the opportunities for ourselves that were once provided by a consultant." (K.Flaherty, 1997) This we have done by sharing journal articles and Internet findings, by having formal and informal discussions and gatherings and by arranging for guest speakers and professional development opportunities. A consultant arranged meetings, enhancing collegiality among all teachers interested in education of the gifted, in and out of the AcTal program. Through many classroom visitations, the consultant was also able to identify those teachers both committed to gifted education and able to work with gifted learners. In addition to receiving and disseminating information about upcoming conferences on gifted education in Canada and the United States, the consultant was a liaison with various departments in central office. "The integrity of the AcTal program is very dependent on collegiality between buildings as well as within, especially in light of there being no consultant. Increased 'solidarity' may be the necessary ingredient to drive curricular and staffing concerns." (Loewen, 1997) Central office support and vision for gifted education was seen as a most important external factor for collegiality and enhanced instruction. "Encouragement and acknowledgement of the group by administration is also essential for the development of collegial relationships. This could entail funding for yearly one-day retreats or encouragement to be a part of the decision making process with regard to policies which affect the program" (Stephanson, 1997). Many echoed the need for annual retreats, recognizing that this requires central office support both philosophically and financially. "We need one another to ensure that our personal (being also corporate) attributes are not extinguished by bureaucracy/complacency status quo thinkers." (Loewen, 1997) Several issues surfaced for possible joint discussions and decision making such as math enrichment and math acceleration for the mathematically precocious, choice of schools for housing the AcTal program (bus line and space considerations), funding for the AcTal classrooms, teacher/central office collegial decision making. Teachers in the AcTal program, as well as their students, require "respect for intellectual and critical responses to issues in education." (Loewen, 1997) Kit Loewen summarizes that "if we could cooperatively arrange for professional development, we would be able to recognize an evolving philosophy of gifted education in our system." In 1996, the teachers employed by Saskatoon Public School Division No. 13 assigned to teach in the Academically Talented program decided to examine the development of collegiality especially in specialized education programs. We hoped that this research would enable us to make a difference in our classrooms and to further the understanding of the concept of collegiality. Saskatoon Public School Division No.13 has provided congregated classes for designated academically talented students in grades 5 through 8 since 1932. In the past, contact between the AcTal teachers of Caswell Community School and Greystone Heights School has taken both the form of informal and formal meetings. There was rarely time provided for development and nurturing of collegiality which might lead to a higher degree of effective teaching or program development. This project began with planning meetings in June 1996. This was followed up with a retreat at Anglin Lake in mid-September. The time away together was unquestionably very supportive to the research process we had undertaken. The retreat also allowed us to explore in depth what we felt were critical issues in the AcTal program. Throughout the year the group met several times as a whole and in smaller groups including, in some cases, grade alike pairs. June 1997 found the group retreating once again (at Anglin Lake) to distill our observations into our final report. It is significant to note that the project in many ways became a living organism, evolving in form as we proceeded through the 96/97 school year, struggling with ways to make the most out of this experience. Humour, risk taking and trust were key characteristics of this organism and in the end, we had arrived at several rich and definitive insights and discovered many more intriguing questions. We suggest there are several factors that encourage the development of collegiality. Specifically time and proximity factors helped but several external catalysts such as curricular issues caused the teacher group to further coalesce. Concerns for improving staffing and instructional practices and support of each other all led to enhanced collegiality and hence improved our instructional practices. We developed a set of recommendations based on our year of study and reflection on the development of collegiality. We believe strongly that improved instructional practices (sharing of resources, higher quality teacher talk, focus on curricular issues) did occur specifically because of the emphasis on collegiality. Recommendations
Further research In conclusion we would suggest there is much to gain from further research in the area of collegiality. Further topics to explore include proximity issues, rural issues, inter-staff relationship issues and so on. Questions such as what does it look like and feel like when instruction has been improved and who decides when instruction has been improved should also be examined. While many forms of research methodologies may fit this topic, we have found our hybrid of action-research to be very worthwhile and we would strongly encourage future teacher/researchers to consider action research as a useful and productive methodology.
Accleration and Enrichment in Mathematics for Gifted Students
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
