education and urban society ie schools and ai 2011l

http://eus.sagepub.com/Education and Urban Society

http://eus.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/06/0013124510392569The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0013124510392569

published online 20 December 2010Education and Urban SocietyGertruida Maria Steyn

Appreciative Inquiry ApproachReframing Professional Development for South African Schools: An

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Education and Urban SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

at UNISA Univ of South Africa on June 8, 2011eus.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eus.sagepub.com/

http://eus.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/06/0013124510392569

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Education and Urban SocietyXX(X) 1 –24

© The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013124510392569http://eus.sagepub.com

392569 EUSXXX10.1177/0013124510392569SteynEducation and Urban Society© The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1University of South Africa, Pretoria

Corresponding Author:G. M. Steyn, Department of Further Teacher Education, University of South Africa, P O Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa Email: [email protected]

Reframing Professional Development for South African Schools: An Appreciative Inquiry Approach

G. M. Steyn1

Abstract

Often research on the professional development (PD) of staff is framed within a problem-based context that focuses on the PD-related problems experienced by staff. This study pursued a different approach by using the appreciative inquiry (AI) theoretical perspective to study the positive ex-periences of staff in respect of PD and their desire to improve the practice of PD even further. A qualitative study was carried out among four schools with maximum variance. The findings reveal the main aim of continuing PD, the changing attitudes engendered by PD, the prominent role of the principal and the requirements for effective PD programs including the selection of facilitators, appropriate venues and the timing and duration of workshops, as well as feedback on workshops. The study provides evidence that an AI approach may be used as a basis for identifying guidelines on improving PD practice. The article concludes with implications of the findings for principals of schools.

Keywords

change, educational policy, educational reform, leadership



2 Education and Urban Society XX(X)

Introduction

All organizations and professionals need to learn to cope with the demands, challenges, and changes that are rapidly taking place in their environments (Retna, 2007, p. 127; Vemić, 2007, p. 209). Being a young democracy with a rapidly changing socioeconomic environment, South Africa is no exception (Munonde, 2007, p. 12). Bloch (2008, p. 19) believes that, unfortunately, South African schools do not meet the requirements for a developing country and therefore “routinely outperform in all standardized tests for literacy and maths.” Paton (2006, p. 1) is of the opinion that “poor quality teaching is the key reason why the education system is failing so many schools.” As a con-sequence, South African schools are recognized as being “in crisis” (Bloch, 2008, p. 19; Paton, 2006, p. 1) and in “a state of disaster” (Bloch, 2008, p. 19). This therefore implies that “the quality of teaching and learning is under challenge” (Doring, 2002, p. 1).

Literature shows that quality teaching depends on the professional devel-opment (PD) of staff and that they play a key role in implementing educa-tional policies (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Desimone, Smith, & Ueno, 2006; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006; Vemić, 2007). Staff are also required to develop professionally to deal with the challenges created by those poli-cies. Munonde (2007, p. 13) believes that education officials in South Africa have provided teaching staff with inappropriate development programs and have not succeeded in helping teachers to implement new curriculum devel-opments. Therefore, “teacher professional development as a continuing pro-cess is increasingly regarded as critical in creating more effective schools and in raising the standards of students’ achievements” (Moswela, 2006, p. 629).

The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 16; 2007, p. 16) maintains that continuing professional training and development (CPTD) requires con-ceptual and subject content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge for effective teaching and learning to take place (Brandt, 2003; Desimone et al, 2006; Mundry, 2005). In particular, the Policy Framework has been planned to prepare teaching staff to address the challenges and demands that South Africans face (Republic of South Africa, 2007, p. 1). CPDP ultimately endeavors to support learners in “learning well and equipping themselves for further learning and for satisfying lives as productive citizens, for the benefit of their families, their communities and our nation” (Republic of South Africa, 2007, p. 25). It is the responsibility of the South African Council for Educators (SACE), the statutory body for South African teachers, to imple-ment and manage the CPTD (Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 17).



Steyn 3

Registered teachers are required to accumulate PD points by choosing approved PD activities that address their professional development needs (Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 17; 2007, p. 20).

This study responds to the appeals that are being made to refocus on the professional development of teachers. It looks at how a diverse sample of teaching staff experienced PD in a positive light and the strategies they sug-gested for improving themselves. This study therefore focuses on the follow-ing two questions based on the appreciative inquiry approach:

Research Question 1: What are the positive experiences of teaching staff in respect of their PD?

Research Question 2: What strategies may be introduced to improve their PD?”

Theoretical FrameworkIn this article, the researcher uses different theories as a lens for understand-ing principals’ and teachers’ positive experience of PD and the strategies that they recommend to support their PD. These include the appreciative inquiry technique, the interpretativist framework, and professional development literature.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)In Cooperrider and Srivasta’s seminal work (1987), they developed the AI technique that focuses on what works well in situations and organizations. This approach represents a fresh way of looking at the world (Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004). Instead of focusing on problems, AI attempts to build on that which works well in organizations and situations (Billings & Kowalski, 2008; Bushe, 2007, p. 37) and therefore approaches issues in the world in “a significantly different way” (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006, p. 1). Similarly, Calabrese, Hummel, and Martin (2007, p. 278) regard AI as “a research per-spective, research method and world view” that is based on the premise that humans construct meaning socially. To this end, AI researchers try to con-struct a “new lens for seeing old issues” (Bushe & Kassam, 2005, p. 164). The principles and processes that AI theorists advocate lead to positive trans-formation (Bushe 2007; Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Preskill & Catsambas, 2006) because AI builds on people’s basic strengths and involves an inquiry that begins with appreciation of that which is positive. AI is applicable, pro-vocative, and collaborative (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). This approach




has also been successfully applied to education (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006, p. 7). The AI model consists of a D cycle as depicted in Figure 1.

1. Discovery (inquire). During this phase the focus is on an apprecia-tion of what exists, “the best of what has been and what is” (Dunlap, 2008, p. 26; Lehner & Hight, 2006, p. 143). The idea is to “build on the positive core” (Schutt, 2007, p. 27). People describe their personal experience of a phenomenon (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Elleven, 2007; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004), in this case the PD of teaching staff. The researcher then attempts to uncover and rein-force the positive in a phenomenon/situation (Bushe & Kassam, 2005).

2. Dream (imagine). During the second phase the emphasis is on imag-ining what could be; this involves the creation of a new vision for the future (Dunlap, 2008; Elleven, 2007; Lehner & Hight, 2006). By establishing new ground, new possibilities can emerge (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004).

3. Design (innovate). The third phase focuses on what should be by coconstructing how it could be and what is possible (Bushe & Kas-sam, 2005; Dunlap, 2008; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004; Schutt, 2007).

4. Destiny (implement). The last phase involves creating what will be (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004). The idea in this phase is to identify obstacles that need to be dealt with (Schutt, 2007).

Discovery(Inquire)

Appreciating whatis; the best of what

Dream (Imagine)Imagining what

could be;envisioning results

Design (Innovate)Coconstructing;what should be

Destiny(Implement)Identifying

obstacles; sustaining

Figure 1. The AI D modelSource: Preskill and Catsambas (2006, p. 15).



Steyn 5

Interpretive Paradigm

Knowledge can be constructed through “people’s intentions, values and rea-sons, meaning and self-understanding” (Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005, p. 20). The research in the study was based on an interpretive paradigm with its focus on experience and interpretation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005). In particular, this study was based on the under-standing of participants’ experience and perceptions of PD in their teaching environment with a view to identifying strategies to improve PD opportuni-ties. In this investigation both the interpretive paradigm and, in particular, a constructive-interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) were used to identify the PD experience of staff and create guidelines for improving PD. The focus group interviews generated rich and deep descriptions of their experiences and raised strategies for improving their PD (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005). The data collected revealed particu-lar themes and categories.

Professional DevelopmentOn one hand, teachers learn their work informally through what they experi-ence in the workplace (Maaranen, Kynäslahti, Krokfors, 2008). “The fact that teachers learn throughout their professional life is beyond argument” (Doring, 2002, p. 2). Formal learning, on the other hand, occurs through “professional development courses, workshops or other activities with planned aims, objectives and pedagogical content” (Maaranen et al., 2008, p. 134). In this regard, Doring (2002, p. 2) succinctly states, “During the last decade significant literature on PD has emerged that has shed light on effec-tive PD programs to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills for the sake of improved learner performance.”

Workshops, seminars, and conferences are viewed as more traditional approaches to PD (Boyle et al., 2005; Lee, 2005). Boyle et al.’s study (2005) indicates that longer term PD is now the preferred model. Moreover, PD is most effective when it includes follow-up through supportive feedback, peer mentoring, and staff interaction (Bernauer, 2002; Moore, 2000). Where PD is designed for teachers at the same school, they may discuss professional issues, observe colleagues, share practice, and also integrate what they learnt (Boyle et al., 2005; Lee, 2005). These programs of a more collaborative nature also appear to be more effective than previous PD programs (Gray, 2005; Lee, 2005) and have resulted in improved communication, respect, and trust in a collegial school atmosphere (Bezzina, 2002). Hirsch’s study on effective PD has revealed important characteristics of PD learning (Hirsch, 2005) including individual beliefs that play an important role in the




improvement process. The most effective PD programs succeed when they change teachers at the level of their beliefs.

Previous studies by Steyn and Van Niekerk (2005), Steyn (2008), and Steyn (2009) indicate that factors, including the following, play a role in the effective implementation of PD:

• The role of principals and teachers: Principals who engage in con-tinuing PD set an example for their staff and assist in contribut-ing to the schools’ success by promoting a climate of renewal and improvement (Drago-Severson, 2007; Moswela, 2006; Rodriguez-Campos, Rincones-Gomez & Shen, 2005). This however implies that they first need to be trained themselves to acquire new knowl-edge and skills to lead teacher development activities (Moswela, 2006). They need to monitor and evaluate the teaching processes; this means that they need to know the training needs of teachers to take appropriate action (Moswela, 2006). Teachers should also be committed to their own development (Moswela, 2006). An impor-tant challenge is to select appropriate PD that aligns with the views, beliefs, and experiences of teachers (Hirsch, 2005; Nielsen, 2008; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006).

• Recognition of teachers’ needs: Fratt (2007) regards a needs assess-ment as an important first step. This is confirmed by studies by Lee (2005) and Desimone et al. (2006), which indicate that teach-ers’ needs and expectations should be determined by teachers and principals and that teachers should also be “partners of the whole process—planning their own learning experience, implementing practices, providing feedback, and evaluating the programme” (Lee, 2005, p. 46).

• Requirements of PD programs: A number of aspects can play a role for programs to be effective.

– The choice of facilitators: Research supports the need for spe-cialist facilitators whose expertise should be based on practical experience (Mewborn & Huberty, 2004; Munonde, 2007; Vincent & Ross, 2001). Moswela’s study (2006, p. 628) among teachers in Botswana reveals that teachers prefer colleagues in the same school to outsiders or consultants since they are “familiar with the actual problems that the teachers experience.”

– PD focus and content: It is important that teachers value the content of programs and realize that it is possible to integrate what they have learnt into their classroom practice (Harwood & Clarke, 2006; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005). The main focus



Steyn 7

should be on the acquisition both of subject and pedagogical knowledge and skills for the sake of improving their teaching practice (Hodkinson, Colley, & Malcolm, 2003; Lee, 2005).

– Appropriate venues for PD programs: The location and setting of PD programs are “key parts of authentic practice” (Hodkin-son et al., 2003, p. 316). A one-size-fits-all approach to choosing venues may not be suitable because the type of PD program will determine the most appropriate venue (Brandt, 2003; Desimone et al., 2006).

– Timing and duration of PD: Planning for sustained PD is impor-tant if it is to be effective (Fratt, 2007). A major challenge for PD is to identify a suitable time for it (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005). The study by Gray (2005) found that PD providers are often not receptive to the time preferences of teachers. Research-ers differ on the suggested length of PD programs, with some suggesting that short courses may be effective (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005), whereas others regard them as “a band-aid that won’t solve the problem” (Kusielewicz in Fratt, 2007, p. 58). Other researchers believe that lengthier programs are more likely to lead to teacher change (Continuing Professional Devel-opment of Teachers, 2006; Lee, 2005). A study by Hodkinson et al. (2003) offers an entirely new perspective on PD programs. They believe that short and long programs “played a significantly minor role in the learning of most teachers” (Hodkinson et al., 2003, p. 4). Instead, a requirement for success is that the content of PD programs should be integrated into teachers’ own teaching (Hodkinson et al., 2003).

– Feedback and monitoring: Feedback and monitoring are crucial after the implementation of PD to have a clear understanding of what emerged (Fratt, 2007; Munonde, 2007). These will also pro-vide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of PD programs so that adjustments may be made.

Research MethodThe study was based on the interpretivist theoretical framework and filtered though the perspectives of AI and continuous professional development. A qualitative study facilitated the process whereby participants described their lived experiences of PD as well as guidelines for improving continuous PD. The study used a phenomenological approach to understand and construct




participants’ personal meaning from their “lived experiences” (Creswell, 2007, p. 52). A convenient purposive sample of four schools with maximum variance was used in the study. They were a primary school (School A, a Quintile 4 school), another primary school (School B, a Quintile 5 school), a combined school (School C, a Quintile 1 school), and a high school (School D, a Quintile 5 school; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Quintile 4 and 5 schools are viewed as “rich” schools, whereas Quintile 1 and 2 schools are regarded as the poorest of schools (Rademeyer, 2007, p. 5)—see Table 1. Information-rich participants were selected by principals in the four schools (Patton, 2002). Data were collected through individual and focus-group interviews to facilitate the collection and to increase the richness and quality of the data (Daymon & Holloway, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The four focus groups consisted of teachers, heads of departments (HOD), and deputy heads in each school. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr each. For the sake of clarity, a follow-up focus-group interview was held at School A. Personal interviews were conducted with three principals (Schools A, B, and D). The principal in School C preferred the deputy head and an HOD to be present during her interview. All interviews were held at the individual schools in the study.

Before each interview, the researcher briefed participants about the focus of the study. Participants granted their permission for the researcher to take down field notes and tape-record the interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Fourteen questions were posed during the interviews. For the purpose of this article, in particular with the focus on the AI perspective, the following ques-tions are covered: What is your view of professional development for staff in schools? Which development programs have you attended in the last 3 years of your career? Which of them were worthwhile? Other questions related to the role of the principal and teachers in PD and to certain logistic and struc-tural requirements necessary for PD programs to be effective. A natural flow of conversation then followed after each question. Since some of the partici-pants preferred to answer the questions in Afrikaans, their responses were translated into English. All the interviews were then transcribed.

For this article, the transcripts and field notes were read, reread, seg-mented, and inductively coded (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2007) considering the AI approach to the data analysis. Significant comments were then grouped into categories and units of meaning were grouped into these major categories.

Trustworthiness, using Lincoln and Guba’s model (1985), was ensured by tape-recording and transcribing interviews verbatim to ensure an accurate reflection of the participants’ views and by cross-verifying data provided by



Steyn 9

participants from different post levels. The field notes made after each inter-view were also checked to verify the interview data.

FindingsThe theoretical framework revealed a number of categories and subcatego-ries in the data analysis. They were the main aim of continuing PD, changing attitudes as a result of PD, the prominent role of the principal, and require-ments for effective PD programs (“identifying top achievers as facilitators,” “choosing appropriate training facilities,” “planning the time and duration,” and “getting answers through follow-up on workshops”).

Table 1. Types of Schools

Type of school Location of the schoolSocioeconomic status

of the school

School A: A parallel-medium primary school with 627 learners (previously a Model C school)

Urban, within a middle-class community

52% of learners from previously disadvantaged groups

A Quintile 4 school where many learners are exempted from paying school fees

School B: An Afrikaans-medium primary school with approximately 1 400 learners (previously a Model C school)

Urban, within a more affluent community that includes wealthy and middle class families

A Quintile 5 school where only 8% of learners are exempted from paying school fees

School C: A combined school (Grade R to 12) with 1635 learners

Located in a peri-urban informal settlement

The majority of parents are unemployed

A Quintile 1 school where all learners are exempted from paying school fees

School D: An English-medium high school with 670 learners (previously a Model C school)

A rural school that includes middle class to affluent families

A Quintile 5 schoolOnly 8% of families are

exempted from paying school fees

Source: Steyn (2009, p. 122).




The Main Aim of Continuing PD

There was agreement among participants of all schools (A, B, C, and D) that continuing PD is of the “utmost importance,” that “there is a lot of value in workshops,” that “we [professionals] need training on a continual basis”; and that “it is something that is necessary for teachers to develop; teachers have to be lifelong learners.” The principal of School B succinctly suggested that the main aim of PD should be to “ignite something” in the staff. The princi-pal of School D elaborated on the necessity for development and growth:

Although some teachers qualified years ago, they can never say that they have had enough training. They must keep on doing their own research and reading about education, and talking about it, and attend-ing workshops because it is essential to keep abreast. It is important for everyone from beginner teachers to school principals.

A deputy principal of School C explained her school management team’s positive experience of PD: “We are all students from Mathew Goniwe [an education management training institution]” and this is “totally different.” She added, “On a daily basis you are given tasks which you are required to implement in the school. It is more like a hands-on training.” The other schools (A, B, and D) are more privileged schools and have not been included in the Mathew Goniwe management training project mentioned by School C. As such schools A, B, and D have to rely on compulsory, official programs or take the initiative to identify their own professional development programs to meet the needs of their schools.

Participants in all schools also mentioned that continuous changes in the curriculum require them to keep up-to-date because “without this we will stagnate.” One teacher explained, “We get used to our own ways and now we learn different approaches . . . I want to know more than before.” Participants at the privileged schools (A, B, and D) also referred to some examples of valuable workshops that they attended, including a workshop on assessment presented by the National Union of Educators (NUE) “where teachers learnt about rubrics,” a course on bullying “which was excellent” and a workshop for middle managers. In the latter instance, the HOD said that they had become “aware of the educational challenges we come across, and problems we are faced with.” By implication these responses show that participants favor training that is practical, “hands-on,” and has content that will help them to improve their practice.



Steyn 11

The principal of School B explained that the school was affiliated with Kids Development Academy (KDA) that presents courses to schools enrolled in their program. According to him, it was very expensive but offered “unbe-lievable courses the idea being to . . . do everything ‘new and differently.’”

The findings reveal participants’ appreciation of PD programs (discovery) according to AI (Dunlap, 2008; Lehner & Hight, 2006; Schutt, 2007) as well as sustaining (destiny) PD for the sake of continuing PD of staff. These find-ings also reveal how participants understand their lived experiences of PD (interpretive paradigm; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005; Patton, 2002). The preferred content of PD programs is also in line with the literature on PD (Hodkinson et al., 2003, p. 316; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005; Lee, 2005). Participants’ positive attitude to the PD programs that they attended was clear.

Changing Attitudes as a Result of PDMany participants at the four schools described the importance of being positive about workshop attendance. Without a positive attitude “they would not benefit from it [a workshop].” Workshops should also change the atti-tudes of staff. The principal of School D said, “You must go with enthusiasm and come back with enthusiasm. I don’t want a teacher to go with a negative attitude and come back with a negative attitude. But if a person goes with a negative attitude and comes back with a positive attitude, that is great.” Another principal (School B) mentioned in particular that, after a workshop, a delegate should be able to say, “Yes, I am in education.” He sees John Maxwell’s book, The difference maker, as being about attitude. “I have an obsession about attitude in life. If the teacher can be positive and can become excited about what he or she is doing, he or she will have the right impact.” Yet another principal explained his stance as follows: “Such programs should lead to a paradigm shift in people. They are working with children and they need to stay positive.”

The excitement about professional development at workshops was sup-ported by all schools. One teacher (School A) for example said that at the end of a day her head was throbbing, but that she had learnt so much. “Even the children were excited about what I had done.” The enthusiasm of teachers is “contagious.” This view was endorsed by a principal (School B) who believed that teachers were in the position to “convey their enthusiasm to children.”

However, the reality is that some workshops do not meet the expectations of staff and that this influences their attitudes regarding workshop attendance. One HOD of School A criticized some teachers for tending to be negative




about workshops run by the Department of Education “without any good reason.” A teacher in the same school, however, defended teachers’ negative attitude by saying there was a lot of repetition in workshops: “It is often just different soundtracks, but the same content.”

A few participants expressed positive views on the fact that teachers accu-mulated points for attendance as required by the National Policy Framework. One HOD of School D said that he understood the reason for this requirement because it would oblige staff to attend approved PD programs. Another HOD (School A) believed that younger teachers at her school were often unwilling to attend programs. If they were compelled to accumulate points, they could be motivated to do so. The principal of School B, however, said that the main aim of the Department of Education should not be to get teachers to accumu-late points but to equip them with knowledge and skills. “Their main purpose should rather be to change their [staff’s] attitudes.”

According to the above, participants revealed the appropriate attitudes that exist (discovery), those that could exist (dreaming; Elleven, 2007; Schutt, 2007), as well as those that should exist (designing; Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004) for PD to be positive in terms of the AI paradigm. The responses of participants also indicated their understanding of the effect of PD programs on the attitudes of staff (interpretive paradigm; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005; Patton, 2002). However, Hirsch (2005), Nielsen (2008), and Van Veen and Sleegers (2006) believe that an important challenge is to select appropriate programs that align with staff’s views, beliefs, and experi-ences so that staff have the desired attitudes before and after the presentation of such programs. It was clearly implied that the principals’ attitudes toward PD pointed to the important role that they can play in encouraging the PD of their staff.

The Prominent Role of the PrincipalAll participants in the four schools agreed that principals play a vital role in the PD of their staff and in identifying their development needs. The princi-pals in particular had very strong views regarding the PD of their staff. According to the principal of School D,

“A principal can never distantiate [sic] himself from development. The management team should get the staff together on an ongoing basis to train the staff . . . It should be done according to a plan, a development plan, a professional development plan . . . A principal who is worth his salt plans at the end of the year for the new year.”



Steyn 13

He added,

I want to see that the principal or deputy principal goes out for a work-shop and then comes back and trains his own staff. That is ideal. We did that before with OBE [Outcomes Based Education]. We had our own workshops where we came together and we discussed the material . . . That I like.

Two other participants believed that school principals should attend courses to establish whether they were worthwhile.

The principal of School C, the underprivileged school, explained how she empowers all staff to enrol for formal qualifications. Many of the staff in this school is less qualified compared to the qualified staff at the other three schools. For example, her SMT [Senior Management Team] members were enrolled at Matthew Goniwe for training. According to her, school leaders “should be on a more superior level academically.” They would then be able to “lead and manage their departments with more confidence” because they would be “empowered . . . When you have higher learning, you have confi-dence, your self-esteem grows and you are motivated and this rubs off on the people.” The principal of School D explained his responsibility regarding PD when he said that he identified suitable development programs for staff. However, principals have to be careful when doing this so that all staff mem-bers have the opportunity to attend such programs. He added,

If you are a principal you have to identify teachers’ needs. But you alone cannot identify needs; the teachers should also identify their needs . . . It is of the utmost importance. They should inform the prin-cipal of their needs. “These are my needs and if my needs are met then changes may happen in the classrooms.

Explaining the role of leadership regarding PD, the principal of School B expressed his view as follows: “If you are a four-out-of-ten [4/10] leader, you can do whatever you want, your organization will also be a 4/10 organiza-tion”. According to him, the leader cannot be left behind. When he first real-ized that he had to develop himself before developing staff, “it was so exciting . . . The secret is for the principal also to develop. If the principal does not develop, the school will not grow.”

All participants’ views of the important role of principals in respect of PD point to the D model of AI, that is, discovery, dream, design, and destiny (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). Their views also reveal a clear understanding




of the vital role that principals do play, could play, and should play in PD. The literature on PD confirms that principals who are involved in PD set an exam-ple for their staff and thereby contribute to the success of their schools (Drago-Severson, 2007; Moswela, 2006; Rodriguez-Campos et al., 2005). However, apart from the important role that principals can play, it is also necessary to consider other requirements for effective PD programs.

Other Requirements for Effective PD ProgramsThe findings on the requirements for PD programs revealed the need to

• identify top achievers as facilitators • choose appropriate training facilities • plan the time and duration of the program • get answers through follow-up on workshops

Identifying Top Achievers as FacilitatorsParticipants of all schools regarded workshop facilitators as extremely important. One teacher remarked that “you could sink good programs with poor presenters.” Based on their experiences, participants prefer facilitators who are “knowledgeable,” “top performers,” “subject specialists,” and “experts in their field.” The principal of School B also believed that it is important to identify people with a “record of success” to present PD pro-grams. He added, “A person from a nonperforming school can’t tell you what to do at your school if there is no proven record or evidence of his or her achievements over many, many years.” This was supported by the principal of School D who said, “If the person has no background or the person wasn’t a principal or teacher himself that is very difficult to accept.” The deputy head of School B even went as far as wanting to see potential workshop facilitators’ CVs and accreditation. Although there were some exceptions, the participants at all schools believed that many presenters of official PD programs lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience. The com-ment from the HOD of the underprivileged school (School C) supported this view: “I don’t want Johannes teaching Johannes” and “It won’t help to choose ‘any Tom, Dick, and Harry’ who doesn’t have ‘passion’ for the topic or has not had success in it.” His principal, who followed the same line of thinking, respected facilitators like Professor X (name withheld by researcher) in the respected university designed program offered by Matthew Goniwe because “She has been in the squatter camp, she has been there as a teacher



Steyn 15

in the black environment and she serves as a model for us. That kind of per-son has walked, has felt and has experienced.”

Participants’ responses revealed that they understood the importance of current best practices (as exemplified in the actions of Professor X) and their preferences as to what facilitators could and should be were in accordance with AI. Based on their experiences, they had a clear understanding of what makes an effective facilitator and who they would prefer to present PD pro-grams in future. These findings are corroborated by Vincent and Ross (2001), Mewborn and Huberty (2004), and Munonde (2007).

Choosing Appropriate Training FacilitiesAll participants concurred that the environment in which workshops take place is important. However, based on their experiences, they had varying views on feasible venues. The principal of School D preferred using his own school environment but realized that it could be expensive if facilitators had to “go from school to school.” School B’s principal felt that venues did not need to be “exotic” and that it was unnecessary to “go overboard.” He felt that the focus should not be on recreation or a “holiday atmosphere,” but that the venue should be conducive to learning. A teacher from School A pre-ferred the teaching centers previously used for training teachers. In line with this, a deputy head from School C favored resource centers such as those found at district level. She also referred to the resource centre at Goniwe,

that is fully equipped . . . There is another place where they [Matthew Goniwe] created a Model Grade R class and when they do training for Grade Rs they do it in that kind of environment. So the Grade R teacher knows what class should look like.

Since School D is underresourced, training at such a well-resourced center makes sense to encourage staff to also find ways to adapt and change their classroom environment.

The way in which participants experience PD relates to the 4D model of AI: discovery, dream, design, and destiny (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). Their responses also reveal a clear understanding of the venues they prefer, which is also supported by the PD literature. As such, the findings support the notion that the venue for PD is important but that the type of PD program will determine the most appropriate venue (Brandt, 2003, p. 13; Desimone et al., 2006, p. 183).




Planning the Time and Duration

Participants from all schools concurred that workshops should be carefully planned in advance, even a year ahead when school leaders are planning for the following year. Based on the experience at Matthew Goniwe, the deputy head of School D said that staff should be trained during holidays, “Take people for a whole week and teach them from morning till afternoon.” Her principal added, “Give people accredited activities” that lead to a qualifica-tion, “not only certificates of attendance.” For her, this could be an incentive to attend PD programs. Other participants also expressed their willingness to sacrifice their holidays to develop themselves professionally “as long as it [had] value.” One principal (School A) succinctly expressed his view on the appropriate time for workshops:

Not during school time, that is out of the question . . . School time is teaching time . . . It may be on weekends, on a Friday afternoon or a Saturday but never on a Sunday. The teachers need their rest as well. But it could also be during holidays because we are paid for a whole year, and ample warning could be given . . . Learners don’t come to school to sit in a free period or walk around. You rob them of a learning experience.

Participants also agreed that development should be “ongoing,” on a “con-tinuous basis,” and on a “regular basis, not haphazard.” This explains why School B participated in the KDA program. Teachers need to keep abreast of development and they should make use of every opportunity to develop themselves. As one HOD put it, “One cannot, dare not stagnate, because chil-dren may well require more than one was originally trained to do. You will be left behind if you do not keep up to date. Technology changes too much.”

As is the case with previous categories, it is clear from participants’ responses that all the aspects of the 4D model in AI were addressed: discov-ery, dream, design, and destiny (Preskill & Catsambas (2006). Again these responses reveal participants’ clear understanding of the appropriate time for PD as well as the necessity of continuing PD (Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005; Patton, 2002). In accordance with the PD literature, the findings also revealed the challenge of identifying suitable times for PD (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005) and the necessity of ongoing PD (Continuing Professional Development of Teacher, 2006; Lee, 2005).



Steyn 17

Getting Answers Through Follow-Up on Workshops

Many participants shared their positive experiences of, and need for, work-shop follow-up opportunities. For example, one teacher of School D men-tioned that they have “brilliant clusters” with “follow-up meetings” where they discuss coping mechanisms for dealing with new curriculum develop-ments. The principal of this school added that staff members need to “operate on the same level or mindset. In some instances where you find an individual learning alone, there is no collaboration, no-one is in sync, and the school becomes out of sync.” A successful school is one where everyone “speaks the same language.”

The deputy head of School C explained her experience of follow-ups on PD as follows: “We do the training in smaller groups and they [Matthew Goniwe] do follow-ups and assessments and evaluations at the schools . . . It should not be a top-down thing where they lecture.” This deputy head also expressed her gratitude for having opportunities to work with other principals during and after development sessions. “We share our challenges and even our difficulties and how one can come up with solutions. We build up one another.” Her principal supported this view, “There should be monitoring, there should be implementation, there should be evaluation and assessment.” The necessity of monitoring was also raised by other participants. Unfortunately follow-up opportunities and feedback were not common prac-tice in official PD programs.

A teacher of School D mentioned that private providers were open to being contacted after workshops, “You can pick up the phone and tell them what you are struggling with.” In line with this view, another teacher said, “If I run into a problem, I want to contact that person to get the answer.” The principal of this school expressed his view on the importance of follow-up as follows: “I would love them [facilitators] to make contact with the school . . . Make the person who attends the workshop feel important.” Another princi-pal suggested that schools of excellence should hold conferences together. “This could be a wonderful resource for the future.”

Corroborating the AI paradigm, the findings revealed how participants appreciated feedback (discover) and their suggestions on how feedback and monitoring could be (dream) and should be (design; Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). These responses also revealed their understanding of how feedback and monitoring had taken place or should take place after PD. The PD litera-ture endorses the fact that feedback and monitoring are vital after the imple-mentation of PD (Fratt, 2007; Munonde, 2007).




The findings of the research are depicted in Figure 2, which shows how the categories may be classified under the two main headings or components: “What is: assessment of current best PD practices” and “What should be: exploring, coconstructing, and sustaining.”

Implications for School PrincipalsThe findings indicate that it is important for principals to take the following aspects into account for the professional development of staff:

Staff need to learn more about their teaching practices, which implies that PD programs should be hands-on and practical. It means that principals need to have a clear understanding of teaching activities in classrooms and of the content of such programs to assist teachers in identifying suitable develop-ment programs.

The attitude of staff toward PD plays a crucial role in their development. This implies that principals should be exemplars of their own professional development and also attend PD programs for their own development. The principal’s enthusiasm regarding PD may motivate staff to be committed to their own learning and development. Furthermore, principals need to attend PD programs for teachers to understand new initiatives and to assist teachers in implementing such initiatives.

The main purpose of PD should be to change the attitude of staff regarding a particular area of their professional work and not to assist them to accumu-late PD points to be registered as a professional. This implies that a profes-sional development program should be designed in such a way that it leads to positive changes in teachers’ practice.

It is important that principals have a clear understanding of the profes-sional needs of teachers. This will enable them to identify suitable PD pro-grams for the teachers’ development. It implies that principals need to be up-to-date with all PD programs that are offered, both official and private. Teachers should be sent to participate in programs that are appropriate to their activities, which implies that principals must be informed of the changes in classroom practice associated with the different disciplines. What is of particular interest is that the findings reveal that, to a large extent, teachers prefer private PD programs, which has the additional implication that princi-pals need to budget for such development programs. Provision for the cost of private PD programs needs to be made from the school’s income generated from learners’ fees and not from the state funds in the budgets.

When planning for teachers to attend PD programs, principals should know who will facilitate such programs to ensure that facilitators are



Steyn 19

knowledgeable, subject specialists and experts in their field. Furthermore, the identified venues should be well resourced to enhance teacher learning. Resources used to offer the programs should be commensurate with school resources to avoid frustration if teachers are unable to access similar resources to improve their teaching.

What is: assessment of current best PD practices The main aim of continuing PD: “Hands-on training”, practice-based; valuable PD includes Matthew Goniwe training, rubrics, bullying, KDA programmes.

Changing attitudes as a result of PD:“Head throbbing”, contagious excitement

The prominent role of the principal: Principal enrolled SMT at Matthew Goniwe; more confidence and empowered when suitably trained

Requirements for effective PD:Facilitators: individuals who “have walked, have felt and have experienced”. Venues for PD: resource centres, Matthew Goniwe’s Model Grade R class. Timing and duration of PD: school holidays, Saturdays, such as with Matthew Goniwe and KDA. Follow-up : brilliant clusters with follow-up meetings to discuss curriculum issues; Matthew Goniwe does follow-up, assessments, and evaluations; opportunities to work with other principals; private providers offer opportunities for feedback.

What should be: exploring, coconstructing and sustaining The main aim of continuing PD: Should kindle staff’s imagination; keep “up to date”; do things “innovatively and differently”.

Changing attitudes as a result of PD: Essential to change attitudes: “Yes, I am in education”; staff should be positive before and after PD; convey enthusiasm to children.

The prominent role of the principal: Can’t distance himself from PD; should plan a year ahead for PD; secret: develop self; attend workshops and also train staff himself; identify teachers’ needs and PD programmes; growth of school depends on principal’s growth.

Requirements for effective PD: Facilitators: identify top performers, knowledgeable, subject specialists and experts with passion for topic. Venues for PD : Choose appropriate training facilities depending on type of PD. Timing and duration of PD : Not during school hours, should be valuable, should lead to a qualification; be regular and continuous. Follow-up:Feedback, monitoring, and assessment after each PD session, Collaboration between staff required

Implications for school principals: Hands-on, pr actical; attitude of staff; understanding of teachers’ needs; choice of facilitators; ongoing, follow-up.

Figure 2. Assessment of best practices and exploring, coconstructing, and sustaining future PD programs




Professional development should be ongoing and continuous and should occur on a regular basis. This also implies that principals should ascertain that suitable follow-up on development programs is available to enhance their effective implementation, the effects of which are to be monitored by the principal to intervene and/or encourage where appropriate.

ConclusionPD has the potential to affect positively on the work life of staff in schools. Research on the PD of staff is often framed within a problem-based context that focuses on the negatives and problems that staff experience in their PD. AI offers PD a new focus and a different approach when considering change. This study attempted to pursue the AI theoretical perspective to uncover the positive experiences of staff in respect of PD and ways in which they felt that future PD programs could be improved upon. By highlighting and determin-ing what is currently working well in PD, these positive experiences of the past can be built into future PD programs with a view to improving them. This study shows how teaching staff socially constructed meaning and inter-preted their perceptions of PD. The study also provides evidence that using the AI approach can be a basis for identifying guidelines for improving PD practice. Through AI, PD can create a sound school climate that nurtures both teachers’ and learners’ development and learning (Lehner & Hight, 2006, p. 150).

Implementing the findings of the study could benefit PD providers and teaching staff and also assist in improving the quality of PD programs. The study also suggests that PD providers will be able to expand the benefits of the approach if they integrate AI and its outcomes into the planning of PD programs. This has immediate implications for the approach to PD programs (igniting and changing the attitudes of staff toward PD), the principal’s role in developing staff, and the logistic and structural aspects of planning PD programs.

There is the risk of emphasizing only a small number of the factors influ-encing teacher learning, and there is also the risk of “assumed universalism,” that is, of assuming that a program that worked in one particular setting will also be appropriate in another setting (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005, p. 122). This implies that PD “needs to focus on maximizing the learning potential within the participatory practices of teachers, and recognizing that different teachers will respond differently to the same circumstances” (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005, p. 123).



Steyn 21

Successful PD is embedded in daily practice, is needs based, linked to learner needs, tailored to meet the specific circumstances or contexts of teachers, and sustained over a period of time (What is Professional Learning, n.d., p. 1; Lee, 2005).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Bernauer, J. (2002, Winter). Five keys to unlock continuous improvement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(2), 89-92.

Bezzina, C. (2002). Preparing a model of professional development schools in Malta. Curriculum and Teaching, 17(2), 73-84.

Billings, D. M., & Kowalski, K. (2008, March). Appreciative inquiry. Journal of Con-tinuing Education in Nursing, 39(3), 104.

Bloch, G. (2008, July 31). SA in the midst of an education crisis. The Star, p. 19.Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change:

What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27.

Brandt, R. (2003). Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1), 10-17.

Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. OD Practi-tioner, 39(4), 30-35.

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 41, 161-181.

Calabrese, R. L., Hummel, C., & Martin, T. S. (2007). Learning to appreciate at-risk students: Challenging the beliefs and attitudes of teachers and administrators. International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 275-291.

Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. The Education Bureau, Gov-ernment of Hong Kong. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeid=1309.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivesta, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organisational Change and Development, 1, 129-169. Retrieved from http://www.appreciative inquiry.org/AI-Life.htm




Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research in public relations and mar-keting communications. London, UK: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative mate-rials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 179-215.

Doring, A. (2002, February 3-7). Lifelong learning for teachers: Rhetoric or real-ity? Challenging futures? Changing agendas in teacher education. Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from http://scs.une.edu.au/CF/Papers/pdf/ADoring.pdf

Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn; Principals as professional devel-opment leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125.

Dunlap, C. A. (2008, February). Effective evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Performance Improvement, 47(2), 23-29.

Elleven, R. K. (2007, Summer). Appreciative inquiry: A model for organizational development and performance improvement in student affairs. Education, 127, 451-465.

Fratt, L. (2007, June). Professional development for the new century. District Admin-istrator, 43, 57-60.

Gray, S. L. (2005). An enquiry into continuing professional development for teachers. University of Cambridge, UK: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

Harwood, T., & Clarke, J. (2006, February). Grounding continuous professional development in teaching practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching Inter-national, 43(1), 29-39.

Henning, E., & Van Rensburg, W. (2005). Finding your way in academic writing (2nd ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.

Hirsch, S. (2005). Professional development and closing the achievement gap. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 38-44.

Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (2005, June). Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 109-131.

Hodkinson, P., Colley, H., & Malcolm, J. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 113-318.

Lee, H.-J. (2005, Spring). Developing a professional development programme model based on teachers’ needs. The Professional Educator, XXV11, 39-49.



Steyn 23

Lehner, R., & Hight, D. L. (2006, Spring). Appreciative inquiry and student affairs: A positive approach to change. College Student Affairs Journal, 25, 141-151.

Lewis, J., & Van Tiem, D. (2004). Appreciative inquiry: A view of a glass half full. Performance Improvement, 43(8), 19-15.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: SAGE.Maaranen, K., Kynäslahti, H., & Krokfors, l. (2008). Learning a teacher’s work. Jour-

nal of Workplace Learning, 20(2), 133-145.McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education. Evidence-based

inquiry. 6th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Mewborn, D. S., & Huberty, P. D. (2004, June). A site-based model for professional

development at the elementary school level. Pythagoras, 2-7.Moore, K. B. (2000, November/December). Successful and effective professional

development. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 15(3), 14-16.Moswela, B. (2006, November/December). Teacher professional development for the

new school improvement: Botswana. International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 25, 625-632

Mundry, S. (2005, Spring). Changing perspectives in professional development. Sci-ence Educator, 14(1), 9-15.

Munonde, L. C. (2007). Effective teaching and learning in secondary schools of the Thohoyandou district through continuous professional development programmes. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Africa.

Nielsen, T. (2008). Implementation of learning styles at the teacher level. Education + Training, 50, 155-166.

Paton, C. (2006, September 8). Education in crisis: A lot to learn. Financial Mail, p. 1.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative

enquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Rademeyer, A. (2007, September 5). Pandor wys die armste skoolgroepe [Pandor

shows the poorest school groups], Beeld, p. 27.Republic of South Africa. (2006). National policy framework for teacher education

and development in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.Republic of South Africa. (2007, May 4). National policy framework for teacher edu-

cation and development in South Africa (Vol 503, No 29868). Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.

Retna, K. S. (2007). The learning organization: A school’s journey towards critical and creative thinking. Retrieved from http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/taper/pdf/200712/retna.pdf




Rodriguez-Campos, L., Rincones-Gomez, R., & Shen, J. (2005). Secondary princi-pals’ educational attainment, experience, and professional development in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 309-319.

Schutt, D. A. (2007). A strength-based approach to career development using appre-ciative inquiry. Broken Arrow, OK: National Career Development Association.

Steyn, G. M. (2008). Continuing professional development for teachers in South Africa and social learning systems: Conflicting conceptual frameworks of learn-ing, Koers, 73(1), 15-31.

Steyn, G. M. (2009). Teacher’s perceptions of the provision of continuing profes-sional development programmes in South Africa: a qualitative study, Acta Aca-demica, 41(4), 114-138.

Steyn, G. M., & Van Niekerk, L. J. (2005). Professional development of teachers: Critical success factors. Koers, 70(2), 125-149.

South African Council for Educators. (2007). Professional development: Promoting the development of educators and enhancing the image of the teaching profession. Pretoria, South Africa: Centurion.

Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a con-text. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85-111.

Vemić, J. (2007). Employee training and development and the learning organization (UDC331.363. iFacta Universitatis). Economics and Organization, 4, 209-216.

Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, personality types and multiple intelligence online. Learning Organisation, 8(1), 36-43.

What is Professional Learning? (n.d.). Department of Employment, Education and Training. Retrieved from www.deet.nt.gov.au

Bio

G. M. Steyn is a professor in the Department of Further Teacher Education, University of South Africa and teaches postgraduate students in the field of human resource management in education. She has published several articles in scientific journals, chapters in books, and presented papers at conferences.



education and urban society ie schools and ai 2011l

Documents