100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 56 pages.
suitable, and realistic” while also being rooted with peers in everyday class-room life (p. 104).As pointed out by City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009), professions such as medicine have embedded their learning experiences in collaborative prac-tice via “instructional rounds” for some time. Through specified processes and protocols, physicians work together to develop their knowledge of practice, in practice. The educational community, in recent years, has more intentionally borrowed these approaches to connect teacher professional development to “the actual work of teachers and students in classrooms” (p. 157). Oftentimes, these learning events are mediated by peer teacher “coaches” who engage colleagues in what has been called a “local proof route” to teacher learning (Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006), focused on “small trials” where educators with shared problems can “learn from small mistakes rather than large ones” (Morris & Hiebert, 2011, p. 6). Such “job-embedded coaching” is often
Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Developmentdesigned to build capacity among willing teachers and to create exis-tence proofs that could be used to demonstrate high-quality practice to others . . . [using] local practice and individual learning to foster organizational learning, moving learning processes beyond abstrac-tions into practical activities. (Gallucci, 2008, pp. 555–565)In addition to concretizing policy and theory of what shouldhappen in what ishappening, situated and social teacher learning allows teachers to learn from and with people who can not only say they have worked with students but are still working with students, seeking to improve instruction in actual class-room settings (see also Intrator & Kunzman, 2009).This sociocultural framework helped us better examine the ways in which the HTLs brought the studio classroom to life (Research Question 1), as well as the obstacles to rooting teacher learning in peer collaborative practice (Research Question 2). Additionally, it provided a helpful lens through which to explore the potential impact of teacher leader “modeling” in naturalistic set-tings (Research Question 3) and whether, overall, a trial-and-error approach to teacher learning could be enhanced by localized HTL studio classroom activities.MethodIn light of the documented gaps between idealized visions of teacher lead-ership and the actual work of teacher leaders within schools, this study’s primary research questions examined studio classroom manifestations and impact, as well as the related supports and obstacles to HTLs. As such, it seeks to answer the call for “close in, fine grained studies” of teacher leadership (Coburn & Russell, 2008, p. 226) by focusing on one specific model of teacher leadership rather than the broad “distributed leadership” category. Our quali-tative inquiry held the primary goal of understanding the beliefs and practices of HTLs and their administrators in relation to the studio classroom across schools and within districts. Participants, as well as data collection and ana-