Collegial In-Service Teacher Collaboration as Professional Development: Transcending Traditional Dichotomies
By Noriko Ishihara, e-mail: ishi0029@umn.edu, and Magara Maeda, e-mail: maed0012@umn.edu
Introduction
In-service teachers' opportunities for professional development include program-wide workshops, summer institutes, and licensure renewal training. How much these opportunities lead to actual teacher learning is an empirical question, however. It may be that teacher learning and professional growth vary as a result of, for example, the level of interest or relevance of the topic and the level of opportunity for teacher reflection (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). We might ask what forms of professional development effectively contribute to continuous teacher learning.
As opposed to programmatic staff development activities, self-directed teacher collaboration can be a way of facilitating effective professional development (Richards & Farrell, 2005). In fact, past literature offers evidence of successful collaboration between language teachers (e.g., Bailey, 1996; Boshell, 2002). In this article, we introduce the informal but systematic teacher collaboration between ourselves: Ishihara, an ESL/EFL teacher, and Maeda, a Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) teacher. Our long-term peer-based collaboration has been fruitful as a result of our differences in backgrounds, experiences, and statuses and our similarities in teaching principles and educational-cultural backgrounds. Our multiple perspectives (e.g., as ESL and JFL teachers, native-speaking [NS] and nonnative-speaking [NNS] teachers, language learners, teacher educators, and researchers) have expanded our horizons, fostering an enhanced understanding of complex issues in language learning and teaching. This article describes the nature of our collaboration and identifies the positive characteristics that facilitate our professional development. We provide an alternative model of professional development that transcends traditional dichotomies (e.g., NS vs. NNS teacher) but has yet to be documented in language teacher education. We argue that the multiple perspectives that emerge in our collaborative dialogue show how we transcended the labels conventionally imposed on us, such as NS versus NNS teacher, English versus Japanese teacher, teacher versus learner, and teacher versus researcher.
Nature of our Collaboration
The aim of our collaboration has been to enhance our reflective teaching informed by current knowledge in second language acquisition (Brown, 2001) and to refine our understanding and practice in L2 research. We are in-service teachers of two different languages; Ishihara is in ESL and Maeda in JFL. Unlike cases of collaboration between teachers of the same language, we teach different languages while sharing our L1/L2 and much of our cultural-educational backgrounds. This makes Ishihara a NNS teacher and Maeda a NS teacher in our instructional contexts, although each of us is also somewhat experienced in teaching the other language. Maeda is currently teaching as well as engaging in teacher education and research, and Ishihara is for the time being focusing on L2 research. Maeda is deeply engaged in her everyday teaching and brings practical issues to discuss, which keeps Ishihara close to teachers' practical concerns. On the other hand, Ishihara is better able to access theory as a result of her focus on research, which helps with a connection between theory and practice in Maeda's teaching.
We had weekly 2-hour collaboration meetings during the academic year 2003-04 (and less extensively thereafter), during which we discussed issues in our teaching/research. For example, implementing content-based instruction in her fourth-year Japanese course, Maeda brought her challenges to share, whereas Ishihara used Maeda's JFL expertise in revising her research-based pragmatics curriculum. In addition, we exchanged individual reflections and responded to each other by e-mail and in face-to-face meetings. For the purpose of researching the process of our teacher collaboration, in 2003-04 we tape-recorded our entire dialogue, and after three consecutive meetings reflected on our learning and monitored our collaboration (Ishihara & Maeda, 2005).
It is important to note that in our collaborative dialogue we decided to go beyond an often-used model of cooperative development (Edge, 1992). In this model, one takes the role of a speaker whereas the other is that of an understander. The understander mirrors the speaker's point by probing and asking clarification questions to facilitate the speaker's articulation of the issue and refrains from giving suggestions. In discussing our manner of collaboration, we decided to employ this model to facilitate articulation; however, on the basis of our trusting collegiality and friendship, we also elected to add another step of exchanging opinions openly and offering critique. Although a lack of tact and respect could undermine our self-esteem, we wanted to use each other as a resource to arrive at more effective solutions to our issues. Yet, we respected each other's position and avoided becoming confrontational at all times.
Characteristics of our Collaboration
Through reflection on our collaboration, we have identified several characteristics that contributed to our success. First of all, we committed to this systematic collaboration for an extended period. Gaining new experiential knowledge, connecting it to already-existing theoretical knowledge, and internalizing it naturally requires a significant amount of time. Therefore, we believe that our sustained collaboration has been conducive to our fundamental professional development. Second, unlike some mandated staff development workshops, our collaborative meetings were self-initiated completely on a voluntary basis. Our genuine interest in teaching and research kept our collaboration sustained, focused, and productive, as did our intrinsic motivation for personal and professional growth.
Another notable feature of our collaboration was its recursive nature. In our long-term commitment, a discussion of most issues took more than several meetings to settle while we visited and revisited the same issue. This recurrent structure facilitated reflection and promoted internalization of the newly acquired knowledge (see Ishihara & Maeda for a theoretical explanation of this process). In addition, reflection on our practice, (re)examination of the pedagogical issues, and articulation of our beliefs were undertaken through a process of problem solving which led to a tangible outcome (e.g., an immediate solution, a new perspective useful in our teaching or research, a change in belief and practice). Our similar teaching principles and nonhierarchical peer interaction in a nonthreatening environment were also facilitating factors for open discussion and constructive criticism despite the fact that we teach different languages in different contexts. Last but not least, throughout our collaboration, we constantly drew on our multiple perspectives, which we discuss further below.
Multiple Perspectives in the Collaborative Dialogue
Analysis of our recorded and transcribed collaborative dialogues has shown that our experience and expertise emerged through our multiple perspectives, as, for example, an ESL teacher, a JFL teacher, a NS teacher, a NNS teacher, a language learner, a teacher educator, and a researcher. We never found ourselves confined to one or even a few of these categories; rather, both of us represented all of these categories. In dialogue, our perspectives dynamically shifted, allowing us to draw from all our experience and expertise (Maeda & Ishihara, 2004). While doing so, we transcended conventional dichotomies or statuses often imposed upon us, moving beyond simply being a ESL or JFL teacher, a NS or NNS teacher, a teacher or a researcher, and so forth. Such multiple perspectives empowered our professional selves and reinforced our collaboration with a synergetic effect. This notion of multiple perspectives has the potential to be applied elsewhere for effective collaboration between teachers with varying expertise.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that finding time and staying committed to voluntary collaboration is a challenge in any teacher's life; however, we feel that our desire for professional development and our intrinsic interest in research functioned as an incentive for systematic and sustained collaboration. Our discussion of each other's immediate concerns has given us an invaluable opportunity to broaden our knowledge and deepen our philosophical view of language learning and education. We argue that such an informal form of self-directed collaboration can be a legitimate form of teachers' professional development. As this type of systematic collaboration is time– and energy-consuming, perhaps teachers need some sort of institutional support, such as funding or time allocated specifically for professional collaborative dialogue. We hope that our collaboration has provided an alternative form of professional development for teachers and teacher educators aspiring to develop personally and professionally.
References
Bailey, F. (1996). The role of collaborative dialogue in teacher education. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 260-280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boshell, M. (2002). What I learnt from giving quiet children space. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers' narrative inquiry as professional development (pp. 180-194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Edge, J. (1992). Co-operative development. ELT Journal, 46(1), 62-70.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Ishihara, N., & Maeda, M. (2005). The collaborative dialogue as co-learning: Language teacher collaboration for professional development. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Maeda, M., & Ishihara, N. (2004, April). A unique model of collaboration: Drawing on our multiple perspectives beyond the NS-NNS status. In B. Brady (Chair), Learning from Models of NEST/NNEST Collaboration. A colloquium conducted at the 38th Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA. Available upon request.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T., S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Noriko Ishihara is currently a PhD candidate in second languages and cultures education, curriculum, and instruction at the University of Minnesota. Her areas of interest include teacher education, the teaching of pragmatics, and learner subjectivity in language learning.
Magara Maeda is currently a PhD student in second languages and cultures education, curriculum, and instruction at the University of Minnesota. Her areas of interest include foreign language instruction, teacher education, and language teacher cognition.
