Conditions or requirements of a successful collaborative action research

The elements that yield a successful and effective staff development program do not exist in isolation; instead they are interrelated and interdependent.

a) Many researchers agree that teachers’ development program should be based on their needs, as teachers can’t be treated as a homogeneous group. It is acceptable that the staff is made up of a number of individuals with different skills, attitudes and previous experience (Fullan 1993), and additionally their aspirations vary at different stages of their career (Huberman 1998). The needs of the veteran teachers most probably differ from the needs of the relatively inexperienced ones. Therefore the professional growth activities are processes which integrally involve teachers not only in the assessment of their own needs, interests and concerns, but also in planning, development and implementation of changes (Owens, Loucks & Horsley 1991; Fullan 1993).

b) Participating in a staff development program means that you are willing to make some changes. We all know that change is complex and any real improvement is likely to be associated with some pain or conflict. New equipments and materials are introduced, behaviors and practices change, and new beliefs and attitudes may also be encouraged (Fullan 2001a). Simply changing the first two without changing the third has nothing to do with real improvement. Therefore, the type of plan that brings about improvement at these three levels should be well led and managed, have teacher development built in and most importantly focus on pupils’ progress and achievement (Fullan 1993). In other words, the collaborative process needs managing if it is to happen well and critically at the same time.

c) According to the literature, effective staff development takes place “on the job” in their own workplace where there are many high quality opportunities, such as easily available case study meetings, collaborative projects, peer observations, discussions, a critical friend, etc. (MacGilchrist et al. 2008).

d) Establishment of collegial intelligence plays an important role, in order to develop a shared sense of purpose and commitment that may lead to change and improvement. Collegiality refers to “the existence of a high level of collaboration among teachers and between teachers and principal and is characterized by mutual respect, shared work values, cooperation and specific conservations about teaching and learning” (Sergiovanni & Starratt 2002, p. 330).

e) Collegial intelligence relates closely to reflective intelligence (MacGilchrist et al. 2008). The teachers need to learn together and reflect together critically about what is happening. Reflection is associated with thinking and is judged to involve the cognitive processes of both problem finding and problem solving (Leitch & Day 2000).

f) As the collaborative culture is characterized by a spirit of ongoing support for experimentation and risk taking, the existence of an expert, a facilitator, or a critical friend could mobilize the educational community to consider the change (MacBeath 2005). The critical friend “is the trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens and offers critiques of a persons’ work as a friend” (Costa & Kallick 1993, 50). He/she is the person who supports teachers’ in their effort to improve and create a positive atmosphere conducive to the learning process.

g) Generally, concerning the atmosphere, a successful collaborative action research effort should take place in a non-threatening atmosphere where there is support and encouragement of the headmasters and a warm climate between the participants and the researchers (Wagner 1997; Sergiovanni & Starratt 2002).

Collaborative Action Research as the Means of Teachers’ Professional Development is presented in the course: EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS: A STEP AHEAD

By focusing on recent theories of teachers’ learning and mentoring and the research data of a case study, a peer group mentoring model (PGM) was created and implemented to a junior high school of Eastern Thessaloniki in Greece with six teachers as mentees and the researcher in the role of the mentor. The research took place from October 2016 to May 2017. The peer group mentoring model developed in our study combines the technocratic and participatory mentoring models, concentrating particularly on the principles of the constructivism, transforming mentees into active learners.

Participants were involved in the mentoring relationship through the development of effective strategies, such as peer observation, collaborative culture and reflective process under mentor’s guidance.

Focusing on the participants’ professional needs and on the actual teaching in classroom, a new perspective with a direct and specialized training within the workplace was provided. The mentor, an expert teacher coming from the same school unit, provided continuous feedback and support to mentees, by involving them in teaching, observation, feedback and reflection as a group; as a result, the participants adopted innovations, changed attitudes and developed new relationships.

The peer group mentoring model is presented in the course: Mentoring at schools: new relationships are established

Full article : http://www.aijcrnet.com/journal/index/1147

References

Aspfors, J. & Fransson., G. (2015.) Research on mentor education for mentors of newly qualified teachers: Α qualitative meta-synthesis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 75-86.

Bullough, R.V., Young, J. R., Hall, K. M., Draper, R. J. & Smith, L. K. (2008). Cognitive complexity, the first year of teaching, and mentoring. Teaching and Τeacher Education, 24, (7), 1846-1858.

Devos, A. (2010). New teachers, mentoring and the discursive formation of professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, (5), 1219-1223.

Geeraerts, K., Tynjala, P., Heikkenen, L.T.H., Pennanen, M. & Gijbels, D. (2015). Peer-group mentoring as a tool for teacher development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38, (3), 358-37.

Ginkel, G., Verloop, N. & Denessen, E. (2016). Why mentor? Linking mentor teachers’motivations to their mentoring conception. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 22, (1), 101–116.

Harrison, J., Dymoke, S. & Pell, T. (2006). Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary schools: an analysis of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, (8), 1055-1067.

Κapachtsi, V. & Kakana, D. M. (2014) Traditional classrooms transformed into modern school environments through collaborative action research. International Journal of Elementary Education, 3, (3), 58-64.

Luo, W-H. (2013) An exploration of professional development programs for teachers of collaborative teaching of EFL in Taiwan: A case study. Asian Pacific Education, 23, (3), 403-412.

Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to Mentor –as-Praxis: Foundations for a curriculum in teacher Education. NY: Springer.

Pennanen, M., Geeraerts, Κ., Tynjala, P. & Markkanen, I. (2014). The Finnish Peer-Group Mentoring Model. Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.osaavaverme.fi/en/dissemination.