The Teachers’ Satisfaction Towards Their Continuing Training Impact of a Professional Development Model Focuses on Teachers and School
The limitations that have been found in systems training to conduct effective preparation of teachers have stressed the importance of in-service training emphasizing the influence that it has on the teacher’s qualification (OECD, 2005). The collective work among teachers in organizing and implementing this training, namely that which develops within the department, has proved crucial to ensure that quality research has highlighted important requirements for success learning in communities (Senge, Luke; Cambron-McCabe, Smith, Dutton & Kleiner, 2005; Day, 2007). This pilot study which sought to validate a CPD model for PE teachers based on their specific needs for educational intervention and the benefits of recruiting based training communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). The study took place in a Middle School of the Peninsula of Setúbal, Portugal. One purpose was to determine how this model influenced the teachers’ satisfaction in the face of it, especially by contrast with the classic program, held outside the school context, with an intervention of a specialist unknown to the school, in the form of a brief course and without followup (Branco, 2004). Teachers were pleased with the training. Greater awareness of the difficulties to teach in some cases caused a slight decrease in teachers’ satisfaction.
In 2007 the new legal regime for amending the statue of teachers’ career (EM, Law No.15/2007, 19th January) caused much constraints to peer review. Supervision is still seen as a form of inspection and control of teachers and not a form of enrichment and professional growth. Formosinho, Machado & Oliveira-Formosinho (2010) shows the differences between performance evaluation and assessment of merit. However the new evaluation system promotes professional development opportunities that would tell the trend of continuing training for teachers in recent years: short-term courses/workshops; top-down; out of context and without follow-up. This kind of continuing training must improve for the continuing professional development (OECD, 1998; 2005; 2009; Marcelo, 1999; Guskey, 2002; Day, 2007; Day & Sachs, 2004; Veiga Simão & Flores, 2009) but this is a challenge for the majority of public Portuguese schools. We accepted to propose it to the PE teachers!
We designed a CPD model based on Wengers´ communities of practice (1998) as suggested by the OECD (2009:49) at the TALIS report where “professional development is defined as activities that develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher”. The pilot study was conducted in a middle school of the Península de Setúbal, with a group of seven PE teachers and one hundred and six students during de third period of academic year 2008/2009. The training was based on the features reference by the international literature (Howey & Laughan, 1983):“Ownership” (the teacher is acting in decisions); “Collegiality” (sharing of problems and solutions); “Practicality” (focused on teaching practice); and“Change over time” (development throughout life). One purpose of our study was to verify whether the CPD model improved the professional performance of PE teachers’ and their satisfaction with the training to teach.
Our study included three phases: first the teachers’ training needs diagnosis; second the training process, centered on practices; and third the training assessment. At the first phase, on one hand, we applied an individual questionnaire for:
1. to do the individual training needs diagnosis in specific subjects;
2. to do the characterization of the continuing training held in the last five years;
3. to measure the satisfaction with training held.
And we did also an initial interview with the representative of the PE Group for understand the group and school dynamics to do the characterization of the context and to know about their specific needs to work with your colleagues. On the other hand the collective training needs diagnosis of PE group about educational intervention such as: instruction, management/organization, climate and discipline (Siedentop, 2002). In the procedures we used the Cogniscope, an adapted version of the Cognisystem (Flanagan, T., 2007) a process for solve problems with the collaborative work. The supervision techniques used were: the autoscopy and the Panel discussion (Ribeiro & Onofre 2009). For data processing we used de SPSS 18.0 and the content analysis (Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S., 1994).
INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE NEEDS DIAGNOSIS
With the first application of the questionnaires to teachers we might characterized the continuing training held over the last five years.
The contents were:
• Information and CommunicationTechnology;
• First Aid;
• Sexuality Education in School;
• Teacher Performance Evaluation;
• Didactics of Physical Education and Sport; and
• Master in Physical Education.
The modalities of training were:
• Study circle;
• Training workshop;
• Seminar; and
• Singular Subjects of Higher Education.
The training entities were: Higher Education Instituitions; Training Centers (CFAEs); Unions; Manz; and Schools.
Teachers identified as training positives:
• Contents motivating/interesting;
• Contents to suit your needs/gaps;
• Credits; • Desire to meet professional;
• Experts competency;
• Training schedule; e
• Training modalities.
And the training negatives were:
• Contents little suited to their needs/gaps;
• Characteristics of the experts;
• Training schedule;
• Training time; and
• Lack of credits.
The training activities most appreciated were:
• Panel discussion;
• Working in pairs;
• Case analysis;
• Learning by doing;
• Exchange of experiences/materials.
They appointed as main purposes:
• To acquire new skills, knowledge and competencies;
• To improve the quality of teaching and student learning;
• To perfect skills already acquired;
• To obtain credits to progress all over the career;
• To increase self-esteem, culture and general well-being in the profession.
The last training held had some consequenses:
• Improve their professional practises;
• Progression all over the carrer;
• Improving student learning;
• Increasing the effectiveness of their pedagogical intervention;
• Increased self-esteem, well-being and motivation for the profession.
After this individual characterization we did the collective training needs diagnosis of PE group about educational intervention and the teaching differentiation was placed at the base of the training needs as priority and establishing relations with students motivation; managing conflicts among students; identification of the major error and feedback more relevant; capture students’ attention during all instruction periods and with retention of learning (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Teachers’ Satisfaction Towards Their Continuing Training Impact of a Professional Development Model Focuses on Teachers and School
Figure 1: Collective Training Needs Diagnosis of PE Group about Educational Intervention
In the second phase (the training process) we recorded one lesson of each teacher. At the beginning of the program we recorded one lesson of each teacher and at the final too to compare and identify differences before and after the training programme. We recorded with two cameras: one focused in teachers’ activity and the other in the practice of selected students.
We also took field notes. For data processing we used the Task Structure Observation System – TSOS (Siedentop, 2002). The training programme had presence sessions and independent work on the teaching practices focused in teaching differentiation. In the training program they used several supervision techniques: autoscopy; selfobservation; peer observation; case analysis; self-study; education among peers; panel discussion; demonstration (Ribeiro & Onofre, 2009); and the collective portfolio (Johnson, R.; Mims-Cox, J.; Doyle- Nichols, A., 2006). At the 3rd phase (training assessment) we applied again the individual questionnaire to teachers to measure the degree of satisfaction with their training at the pedagogical intervention and compare the results before and after the training program.
We made also a final interview with the Representative of the PE. The proceeding data and the supervision techniques were the same at the first phase over the collective portfolio.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The individual training contents held were far from the concerns about the best way to teaches and to students learn due in part to the inadequacy between professional training demand and supply (Branco, 2004). In the last years the Education Ministry priorities were almost in new information and communication technologies and the specific subjects were to background.
The teachers who did training in PE were most satisfied than the other teachers that didn’t do it. In this pilot study teachers could talked about the themes that concern their practices and discuss about how to solve their collective problems to improve student’s learning as recommended by O’Sullivan (2007). With the quantitative data results we can see at the left side the initial teachers’ satisfaction mean values and at the right side the final teachers’ satisfaction: three increased, two decreased, and two remained. The results would not be very significant because the period of the time training in this pilot study was very small (about two months). Teachers were pleased with the training. Greater awareness of the difficulties to teach in some cases caused a slight decrease in satisfaction of teachers.
Table 1: Teachers’ Satisfaction mean values before and after the CPD program
Table 1. The Teachers’ Satisfaction Towards Their Continuing Training Impact of a Professional Development Model Focuses on Teachers and School
However teachers found many solutions to facilitate the resolution of teaching differentiation such as:
• Multimedia resources;
• Adaptation of materials;
• Valuation of success;
• Reduced games;
• Decomposition of tasks;
• Experience of the teacher;
• Student involvement and accountability;
• Negotiating goals for students of higher educational levels;
• Reduction of transition times;
• Criating routines;
• Definition rules; and
• Changing context.
The training assessment consisted of developing a collective portfolio. Teachers collected all documents and materials produced or shared, individual and collective reflections, texts of support, etc. They did the compilation of all procedures, methodologies and strategies used that could be used to solve other situations/problems and other contexts.
Learning based on the exchange of experiences to meet their needs, self-reflection on their practices and increase the possibility to observe other practices were referred as the main benefits of this model of CPD. In this particular study, teachers were able to identify a problem set as a priority that was the differentiation of teaching. The large number of students per class, the high number of classes taught by teachers, students and heterogeneity hamper the ability of teachers to conduct differentiated teaching quality. As negatives teachers mentioned the lack of time to participate in all sessions; the schedule time and the difficulty in conjunction with meetings of the PE Group; and the fact that it started only in the 3rd period, which did not permit the work to last as long as it should have and therefore was not more effective. These factors focus are real difficulties for implement the collaborative work in same Portuguese schools. We saw the teacher’s constraints and the difficulties to talk and to exposure their practices. Some Portuguese teachers have much work to do in this level: to think and work in a collective way.
BOGDAN, R. e BIKLEN, S. (1994). Investigação Qualitativa em Educação. Porto: Porto Editora.
BRANCO, A. (2004). Análise da Procura e da Oferta de Formação Contínua. Um Estudo com Professores de Educação Física dos 2º, 3º ciclos e Secundário da Península de Setúbal. Dissertação de Mestrado. FMH. UTL.
DAY, C. & SACHS, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In International handbook on the continuing professional development. Open University Press.
DAY, C. (2007). A reforma da escola: profissionalismo e identidade dos professores em transição. In FLORES, M. & VIANA, I. (2007). Profissionalismo docente em transição: as identidades dos professores em tempos de mudança. Cadernos CIEd, 2, 47-64. Instituto de Educação e Psicologia – Campus Gualter. Universidade do Minho.
FLANAGAN, T. (2007). CogniSystem I. Users Manual. A Handbook for Collaborative Design. Institute for the 21st Century Agoras.
FLORES, M. & VEIGA SIMÃO, A. (2009). Aprendizagem e desenvolvimento profissional de professores: contextos e perspectivas. Edicões Pedago, Lda.
FORMOSINHO, MACHADO & OLIVEIRA-FORMOSINHO (2010). Formação, Desempenho e Avaliação de Professores. Edições Pedago, Lda.
GUSKEY, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. In Educational Leadership, vol. 59, number 6, 45-51
JOHNSON, R.; MIMS-COX, J.; DOYLE-NICHOLS, A. (2006). Developing Portfolios in Education. A guide to reflection, inquiry, and assessment. Los Angeles. California State University. Sage Publications.
RIBEIRO, J. & ONOFRE, M. (2009). As percepções de Estagiários e Orientadores sobre a importância das Técnicas de Supervisão Pedagógica num processo de Estágio Pedagógico em Educação Física. In El Practicum más allá del empleo. Formación vs. Training. Actas X Simposium de POIO. Pontevedra. Espanha.
MARCELO, C. (1999). Formação de Professores: Para uma Mudança Educativa. Porto: Porto Editora.
MINISTÉRIO DA EDUCAÇÃO (2007). Decreto-Lei nº15/2007, de 19 de Janeiro. Estatuto da Carreira dos Educadores de Infância e dos Professores dos Ensinos Básico e Secundário.
OECD (1998). Staying Ahead: In-Service Training and Teacher Professional Development, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retaining Effective Teachers in Schools, 6, 169. ISBN.
OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning enviroments. First Results from TALIS. O’SULLIVAN, M. (2007). Creating and sustaining communities of practice among Physical Education Professionals. Irlanda: Universidade de Limerick.
SENGE, P.; LUCAS, T.; CAMBRON-McCABE, N.; SMITH, B.; DUTTON, J. & KLEINER, A. (2005). Escolas que aprendem. Um Guia da Quinta Disciplina para Educadores, Pais e todos que se interessam pela Educação. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
SIEDENTOP, D. (2002). Ecological Perspectives in Teaching Research. In Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2002, 21, 427-440.
WENGER, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning as a social system. In Systems Thinker