Professionalization of teachers in language interventions:
an evaluation of the professionalization trajectory implemented by the
city of Amsterdam
Second Master Thesis: Research Master Child Development and Education Student: BSc Barbara Wolff (6162452)
First Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ron Oostdam Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ruben Fukkink
1 Table of Contents
Abstract ... 2
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Language interventions and professionalization trajectories in Amsterdam ... 7
2.1 Target group for language interventions in Amsterdam ... 7
2.2 Criteria for funding ... 8
2.3 Format of language interventions in Amsterdam ... 9
2.4 Professionalization of language intervention teachers ... 11
2.4.1 Theme meetings ... 12
2.4.2 Coaching on the job ... 14
3. Studies on professionalization ... 15
3.1 What works: content ... 15
3.2 What works: form ... 17
3.3 Actors in professionalization ... 19
4. Method: the research project ... 22
4.1 First research question ... 22
4.2 Second research question ... 24
4.3 Participants and recruitment ... 25
4.4 Procedure ... 30 4.5 Instruments ... 32 4.6 Analysis ... 33 5. Results ... 37 5.1 Teachers... 37 5.2 Policy makers ... 65 5.2.1 Rotterdam ... 65 5.2.2 The Hague ... 67 5.2.3 Utrecht ... 68
6. Discussion & conclusion ... 70
References ... 83
Appendix 1: teacher interview guideline ... 87
Appendix 2: expert interview guideline ... 89
Appendix 3: policy maker interview guideline ... 90
Appendix 4: codebook teacher interviews ... 91
2 Abstract
This study evaluated a teacher professionalization trajectory that has been
implemented by the city of Amsterdam, subsidized with Dutch governmental funds. This trajectory exists since 2006 - 2007 and aims to support teachers that teach one of the Dutch language interventions (Schakelklas, Kopklas, Vakantieschool Taal) in primary education. Language interventions are offered to children with language arrears, but with a normal intelligence. This study will investigate whether this specific professionalization trajectory for language intervention teachers is seen as effective by the teachers their selves. Therefore twelve teachers (n=12) that currently follow the professionalization trajectory were interviewed. Furthermore, two experts (n=2) and four policymakers (n=4) from the larger Dutch cities were interviewed on professionalization in relation to language interventions. The interview guideline was based on eight characteristics put forward by previous studies on professionalization. Results were qualitatively analysed and indicated that although teachers found the trajectory to contain interesting information, the lack of (qualitative and quantitative) differentiation across the teachers and the obligation for them to follow the trajectory, diminished the relevance and value of this professionalization trajectory.
3 1. Introduction
In any situation where the quality of a school is at stake, we tend to focus on the functioning of the teachers in that school. This is not surprising because school effectiveness research has indeed pointed out that student outcomes depend to a high degree on the quality of instruction (Creemers, 1994; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; MacKinsey & Company, 2007; Marzano, 2007; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung & Davis, 2009; Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010; Van Veen, Zwart, Mierink & Verloop, 2010). Therefore, educational policy makers and school heads are prone to invest in ways to guarantee or increase the quality of teachers. A very common investment in teachers’ quality is to provide
professionalization programs to them. We will investigate such a professionalization program here. In doing so, the following definition of teacher professionalization is held: teacher professionalization involves all the processes and activities that are explicitly designed to increase the knowledge and attitudes of teachers in order to improve their teaching so that pupil-learning will eventually be improved (Guskey, 2003).
However, the difficulty of professionalization does not only lie in the implementation of professionalization but also in the evaluation and monitoring of professionalization. How do we define what is effective professionalization? Is professionalization effective when we are able to attribute an increase in student outcomes to teacher learning? Or, can effective also be defined as an increase in teaching skills, without comparing professionalization gains to pupil outcomes? A study where the influence of professionalization programs on both pupils and the individual teachers is investigated is the large-scale review study of Van Veen et al. (2010). 11 meta-analyses and 34 articles were studied in order to
4 investigate what characteristics of professionalization trajectories are most effective. Examples of characteristics are the place of the trajectory, the quality of the input and the degree of active learning.
The current study evaluates a specific professionalization program by asking the involved teachers. We will use Van Veen et al., (2010) characteristics as a guideline through our research. In doing so we aim to make use of the existing knowledge on effective characteristics of teacher professionalization, and to possibly add new effective characteristics of professionalization.
The professionalization trajectory that will be studied here is organized for language intervention teachers (LI-teachers) in Amsterdam. This trajectory has been implemented by the municipality of Amsterdam since 2007. The official name is ‘the professionalization trajectory of Amsterdam’, we will mostly refer to it by ‘the trajectory’. The Dutch ministry of Education finances language interventions to cities with a high rate of pupils with language arrears. A part of this fund contains a subsidy for the professionalization for all teaches that teach such a language intervention, the LI-teachers. In order to be guarantee these governmental conditions, the municipality of Amsterdam in its turn obliges every LI-teacher to follow the professionalization trajectory in order for their school to receive the municipal language intervention subsidy.
But, what are language interventions? The city of Amsterdam implements three types of language interventions (see chapter 2 for a description of these language interventions) for schools with a high rate of pupils with language arrears (but with a normal intelligence). Professionalization is considered as part of language intervention funds. Until now, the professionalization trajectory of Amsterdam departed from a uniform approach, all LI-teachers were obliged to follow a
5
standardized and general professionalization program. An external party, hired by the
municipality, provided the trainings and meetings. Throughout the years, teachers have not been involved in determining the content of the professionalization trajectory. Nevertheless, it is valuable to know how LI-teachers evaluate the
trajectory, because teacher involvement is seen as an important factor in the success or failure of a teacher professionalization program. “Thus, teachers will accept the necessity of alternative professional behavior sooner when they themselves are enabled to evaluate good practices in their own school and the effects of their behavior” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2006, pp. 427). We will therefore evaluate the professionalization trajectory by interviewing LI-teachers (n=12) about their experiences and opinions. For this reason the central research question here is:
To what extent does the professionalization trajectory of Amsterdam support
language intervention teachers?
In addition, experts (n =2) are asked whether the content of the trajectory may be considered as effective.
Furthermore, because the professionalization of LI-teachers is part of a national policy we are also curious to know how other Dutch cities deal with the national language and professionalization policy. We will therefore also interview policymakers (n=4) of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht, the four largest cities of the Netherlands. It is expected that these interviews can provide insights in the way the other three cities spent the governmental funds for language interventions and professionalization. In other words, it is interesting to obtain insight in how these cities design and organize teacher professionalization in relation to language interventions. The second research question is therefore:
6
How do the large Dutch cities (G4) deal with the formulated governmental
agreements on language arrears and what is the role of teachers in
professionalization policy?
Results on this part of the study are expected to be useful in the further development of the professionalization trajectory of Amsterdam.
In the next chapter we will zoom in on the language intervention- and
professionalization situation in Amsterdam. We will do so by discussing the (general) Dutch national agreements on language education and professionalization that form the foundation for the trajectory of Amsterdam in its current design. Thereafter, we will describe the language interventions and the target group of children that these teachers teach. Before presenting the method and results of this study, we will discuss previous research on the topic of teacher professionalization in chapter three. The discussed studies will be the theoretical framework of this study.
7 2. Language interventions and professionalization trajectories in Amsterdam In 2012 the Dutch state formulated several agreements with the municipalities on language arrears. These agreements, for which the municipalities received financial assistance, accounted for the larger thirty-three municipalities in the Netherlands (amongst which Amsterdam)1. One of the key points of these agreements was the improvement and strengthening, as preventive as possible, of Dutch pre-school and primary school language interventions for children with language arrears. According to the agreements, municipalities should invest in - and support - teachers that teach these language interventions, the LI-teachers.
Although these agreements are made on a national level, cities implement different policies in order to achieve the goal of preventing and eliminating language arrears. Below we will introduce the main motives that the municipality of
Amsterdam has for the implementation of these language interventions. We will first provide a short description of the language interventions in Amsterdam and its target pupils.
2.1 Target group for language interventions in Amsterdam
Around 1525 pupils (about 2.5% of the total amount of primary school pupils in Amsterdam) are currently following one of the language interventions taught by 130 LI-teachers. In Amsterdam, three types of language interventions exist: ‘kopklassen’, ‘schakelklassen’ and ‘vakantieschool taal’. These interventions were, respectively, implemented between 2002 and 2006 and do still exist now. The common purpose of these language interventions is to improve language skills of children with language arrears but with a normal intelligence. This way all children should be able to successfully pursue their school career in regular classes, without language arrears
8 being an obstacle. Ideally, children are able to follow a higher form of secondary education than had been possible without the language intervention (Mulder, Van der Veen, Paas & Elshof, 2011).
Although the municipality of Amsterdam is actively involved in the language intervention policy, the allocation of children to the interventions is the responsibility of the teacher in regular education. The municipality provides the following
guidelines for the allocation of children to a language intervention. First, language intervention pupils should fall in the range of normal intelligence. Second, pupils should have language arrears and no learning disorder. It must be noted that the municipality of Amsterdam does not specify the term language arrear. Third, pupils should be motivated to follow a language intervention, however the specifics of this motivational factor are not specified. Finally, parents should be willing to actively support their child during the intervention year; they should show a high degree of parental involvement. In other words, parents of children in language interventions are expected to help their children with their homework.
2.2 Criteria for funding
The municipal subsidy for language interventions is twofold. It consists of funds for both language interventions and a belonging professionalization trajectory for LI-teachers. There are several conditions for schools to meet in order to receive subsidy. Firstly, the LI-teacher is obliged to follow the professionalization trajectory. Second, the school should provide a clear plan for (the continuation of) the language
intervention and its goals and the type of language arrears present in the school. Third, schools should agree with the obligation to facilitate a specific classroom for the intervention(s). Fourth, parents should consent and be willing to support their children during the intervention. Finally, when pupils return to regular education they
9 should be able to reintegrate: no other arrears, in for example mathematics, should have emerged. If needed, help should be provided to them in order to stimulate pupils’ re-integration in the regular educational program.
2.3 Format of language interventions in Amsterdam
The following three language interventions are implemented in 117 classes in primary schools in Amsterdam.
Kopklas
A ‘kopklas’, translated as a ‘top class’, is an extra year of schooling after primary education (after grade 6). 12-year-old pupils are assigned to the top class in order to improve their language skills so they can apply to the appropriate level of high school. The goal is to avoid that these children underachieve in high school because of their lacking language skills.
Top classes are located in several high schools in Amsterdam. A special curriculum is developed in which several themes are central per period2. Much attention is paid to involve parents in this project. In Amsterdam there are eight top classes including a total of 120 pupils (10 to 15 pupils per class).
Schakelklas
A ‘schakelklas’, translated as ‘switch class’, is for children in grades 1 to 4 (age 5 to 9 years old). In a switch class pupils are given, during one school year, intensive language classes in a small group. After this year of remedial education, pupils are expected to return to a mainstream primary education class, without being held back in class due to their arrears in language. The curriculum of the switch class is similar to the regular curriculum but with extra emphasis on language skills. Therefore pupils
2
10 are expected to be able to reintegrate in regular education after a switch class year. There are part-time and full-time switch classes. It is up to the schools to decide whether a part-time or a full-time switch class is implemented. In a part-time switch class pupils frequently return to their regular class but spend minimally 12 hours a week in their switch class. In a full-time switch class children stay in their switch class the whole week. In Amsterdam there are 61 part-time switch classes and 44 full-time switch classes during all school hours. There are 105 switch classes with an average total of 1300 pupils (a maximum of 15 pupils per class). An intervention that is very similar to the switch class and the top class is the sprint class. There is only one sprint class. Therefore we will not further elaborate on - and investigate - this intervention.
Vakantieschool taal
‘Vakantieschool taal’, translated as ‘holiday school’, is also remedial language education. In order to overcome language arrears, pupils take extra language classes after school and during weekends and holidays. These classes are for pupils of grade 5 and 6 (10 to 12 years old). The pupils participating in this project go to school for twelve hours a week during school holidays and receive 1.5 hours of extra lessons per week during the rest of the year. This intervention focuses on the improvement of Dutch language proficiency by working in a thematic way, meaning that for about two weeks to a month, language lessons are organized around a central theme such as “money”, where pupils learn everything about Dutch banks, the process of making money, etcetera.
In addition, much attention is paid to involve parents in this project. Teachers get a special training course. In Amsterdam there are seven holiday schools totaling
11 105 pupils (a maximum of 15 pupils per class). Figure 1 shows which intervention accounts for each primary school grade.
Figure 1. Type of intervention per grade
2.4 Professionalization of language intervention teachers
As stated, every LI-teacher in Amsterdam is supposed to follow the
professionalization trajectory in order for their school to receive the municipal language intervention subsidy. A consequence is that some experienced LI-teachers have been following the trajectory for several years, sometimes as long as seven years. It must be noted that the municipality has subsidized professionalization for LI-teachers for seven years, but whereas the trajectory was voluntary until July 2012, the trajectory has been obligatory for all LI-teachers since September 2012.
The municipality of Amsterdam provided the following, relatively broad, goals of the professionalization trajectory. The primary goal of the trajectory is to
support LI-teachers in their teaching practice. It is therefore interesting to investigate
whether LI-teachers feel supported by the professionalization trajectory. A further description of the trajectory suggests the following causal relationship: “The trajectory is supposed to enhance the content knowledge and teaching skills of teachers of the language interventions, and thereby increasing the learning outcomes
12 of their students and the cooperation between school and parents”.3 It is interesting however, that municipality of Amsterdam has not monitored or investigated the relationship between pupil outcomes, parent participation and the trajectory. We will provide a closer look on how the above mentioned goals of the trajectory are pursued. Although the municipality decides the content of the
professionalization, an external educational company is hired for the provision of four
theme meetings and two coaching on the job meetings. In the following paragraphs I
will explain the content of these meetings.
2.4.1 Theme meetings
Theme meetings take place in a large conference room in the central library of Amsterdam (OBA), and last three hours. The sub groups in which the LI-teachers follow these theme meetings are based on the type of intervention and the grade teachers teach. For example, all switch class teachers of grade 4 are in one group. The idea of the theme meetings is that they would increase the subject specific knowledge (language education) of teachers. In addition to the language meetings, there is one parent involvement meeting because supportive parents are assumed to be an important condition for (a successful) language intervention.
Concerning the content of the meetings, in 2008 ‘reference levels’ have been established in order to provide a Dutch national agreement on learning standards of primary education. Although the name of the reference levels is new, the idea of learning/output standards is not new. In 1999 several output standards were formulated by the Dutch Educational Council (Oostdam, 2013). These reference levels form the starting point of each theme meeting, they range from 1F, which is the aimed language level at the end of primary education, to 2F at the end of vocational
3
13 education, and 3F and 4F after high school education. Within these reference levels, there are four language domains that are measured.
1. Oral language skills: conversational skills, listening and speaking.
2. Reading skills: reading different types of texts: business, fictional, narrative and literary texts.
3. Writing skills.
4. Knowledge of glossary and concepts.
The professionalization trajectory builds on these language domains throughout the theme meetings by combining different domains to each other: reading and writing (meeting 2), oral language skills and glossary and concepts (meeting 3).
The schedule of the meetings is:
Meeting 1: Reference levels of language education from kindergarten to grade 6. Meeting 2: Reading and writing in order to learn
Meeting 3: oral language skills and glossary
Meeting 4: parent participation and the language domains
In appendix 5 we will give an oversight of the goals, content and routine of the four theme meetings.
2.4.2 Coaching on the job
For every theme meeting there is one coaching on the job meeting. During such a meeting a coach works with the teacher on teachers’ concrete learning questions. In addition, the idea is that teachers work, together with their coach, on what they have learned during the theme meetings. Coaching is thus supposed to serve as the link between content knowledge (theme meetings) and the actual teaching practice. For
14 the parental involvement domain (meeting 4) there are either two coaching on the job meetings or one coaching on the job meeting and a (school) team workshop.
Colleagues of the LI-teacher must thus be willing to participate in such a meeting. Furthermore, the trajectory is supposed to consist of the latest knowledge in the field of language learning (keeping up to date): reading, writing, talking and parental involvement. In order to evaluate these points teachers are asked to share their opinion on the design and the content of this trajectory.
3. Studies on professionalization
As stated in chapter one, many studies are yet conducted on professionalization. In this chapter we will therefore present what is pointed out by previous research on teacher professionalization. We depart from the idea that professionalization related characteristics can be divided into the categories content and form. First the relevant
15 studies on content related characteristics will be discussed. And then relevant studies on form related characteristics will be presented. In doing so, eight characteristics that serve as a theoretical framework for the evaluation of the professionalization
trajectory that is studied here will be presented.
3.1 What works: content
The content of the professionalization program should be relevant to teachers; teachers should be able to increase the quality of their instruction in order to eventually increase pupils’ performances. But this content is more likely to be relevant to teachers when there is a focus on the subjects that pupils are learning at the time of the professionalization. This focus will lead to positive outcomes of teachers’ instructions and classes (Van Veen et al., 2010). Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal (2003) also argue that teacher professionalization should directly be related to what pupils learn (at the moment of the professionalization) and the problems pupils face during the learning process: “it is important that research in teacher learning continues to make progress toward a linkage between teacher and student learning, which to date has proved to be a difficult relationship to establish” (Fishman et al., 2003, p. 644). This focus on relevant subject specific content during a
professionalization trajectory is the first characteristic in this study.
Furthermore, in order to improve the relevance of the professionalization program, the intervention should be consistent with the school’s policy. The goals, content and design of the intervention should also be consistent with the ideas of the teachers and their school organization; in order to obtain permanent
professionalization effects, the organization of the school should be orientated towards teacher learning (Van Veen et al., 2010). Little (2006) stresses the
16 school board is seen as relevant, in which leadership is seen as important, and where the importance of a shared focus on vision, responsibility, decisions, working and learning plays an important role. In the present study, we will therefore take the organization and situation in the school concerning teacher learning, this is the second characteristic.
Concerning the content of the trajectory, several studies point out that the offered content should be evidence-based (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010; Bierman, Domitrovich, Nix, Gest, Welsh, Greenberg, Blair, Nelson, & Gill, 2008; Yoon et al., 2007). The examples of learning and teaching should be concrete and challenging on an academic level (Knapp, 2003). In addition, permanent access to the newest
insights should be offered, and expertise of colleagues within and outside the school should be used (Little, 2006)” (p.25). The quality of the input is the third
characteristic of this study.
The fourth content related variable that will be investigated in this study is the theory of improvement. Every intervention needs to have a validated reasoning about the relationship between the characteristics of the intervention and the aimed results. This is called the ‘theory of improvement’. This reasoning should both relate to teachers’ learning (‘theory of change’) and pupils’ learning (‘theory of instruction’) (Desimone, 2009; Yoon et al., 2007)” (p.25).
3.2 What works: form
Concerning the form of the intervention, Van Veen et al. (2010) state that there are no strict guidelines for what works or not, but that it may be said that the content of the trajectory is most likely to be relevant for teachers when the professionalization trajectory takes place in the professional environment of the teacher. Van Veen et al., (2010) thus suggest an interaction between content and form. It may be assumed that
17 connections between teachers’ daily job and the professionalization may more easily be made when professionalization takes place in their working environment. The environment of the intervention is seen as the fifth characteristic of
professionalization. It is interesting to evaluate here whether LI-teachers perceive a difference in relevance between the theme meetings (held in a library) or the coaching on the job meetings (held in teachers’ professional environment, the school). Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, Roberts, Baldinger, and Risley (2010) explain that there is an interaction between the environment and the relevance of the content: “a good professionalization intervention engages teachers in inquiry about the concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection, and provides them with the opportunity to make connections between their learning and their classroom
instruction” (p.23)”. Within the current study these connections can be associated with the coaching on job meetings, in which knowledge form the theme meetings is aimed to be used in the actual teaching practice.
As stated, Van Veen et al. (2010) found that many studies stated that teachers should participate in active learning during professionalization interventions because this would be more effective than ‘passive learning’ (e.g. listening to a lecture). Examples of active learning are: observing expert teachers, being observed, receiving active feedback and discussion, studying pupils’ work and leading discussions. Active learning is more effective than passive learning (Van Veen et al., 2010) and is therefore seen as the sixth effective characteristic. The degree of active learning is the sixth characteristic that is studied here. Active learning is frequently related to inquiry based learning, in which analyzing, studying and discussing teacher practice related subjects play a central role” (Van Veen et al., 2010 p.24), it may therefore be related to another form-related characteristic: collaboration (measured in the variable
18 collectivity). Interaction, discussion and feedback between teachers are seen as important factors for a collective learning method; collectivity is thus strongly related to the (traits of) previous characteristic: active and inquiry based learning. We call this seventh variable collectivity.
The eight and last important characteristics for effective professionalization is the duration and permanence of the intervention: meaning over which period and for how many hours one works on his/professional development, An exact ‘tipping point’ or specific amount of hours does not exist because that depends on the
professionalization activity. However, several authors have determined a minimum of hours varying between minimally 14 hours (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scaloss, Shapley, 2007), 20 hours (Desimone, 2009), and 80 hours (Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Van Veen et al. (2010) conclude that every study studied in their review shows that there is need for a substantial amount of time: both duration and active hours. The highest degree of effectiveness will be reached when interventions are permanent, thus when there are follow-ups or collaborations, active learning and support over a longer period are offered/encouraged. In addition, teaching practices and student learning are more likely to be transformed by professional development that is sustained,
coherent, and intense (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle, 2000; Weiss & Pasley, 2006).
3.3 Actors in professionalization
Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 focused on what are proven to be effective content and form related characteristics of professionalization. Apart from these characteristic, it is also interesting to focus on the place the professionalization trajectory has in the LI-schools. The relationship between the municipality of Amsterdam and the schools (and teachers) is expected to influence the effectiveness of the trajectory. We stated
19 that the municipality takes on a large role in the implementation of trajectory: it determines the content and obliges the LI-teachers to participate. Theory on actors in professionalization can provide a broader perspective on how and why external parties, such as the municipality, choose to be highly involved – or not – with the implementation of professionalization in schools.
There are different ways in which professionalization programs can be used in order to obtain quality improvement in schools. In the case of this trajectory an external organization (the municipality of Amsterdam) takes a great responsibility for - and an active role in - the implementation of the professionalization trajectory. By referring to multiple studies, two contrasting aims of teacher professionalization, and their effects on teachers (involvement or not), will be explained in this chapter. On one hand professionalization can be used in order to increase the
individual quality of schools, on the other hand professionalization can be used in
order to increase equal quality across different schools (the case of municipality and governmental subsidized and implemented professionalization programs). Within the first approach, the idea is that the quality and the professional development of the teacher are key factors in the improvement of the individual schools’ quality. Within the second approach the teacher is seen as an executer of standardized and externally developed policy. Sleegers and Leithwoord (2010) describe the first approach as the inside perspective and the second approach as the outside perspective. I will shortly explain both approaches.
The outside perspective departs from the idea that an extern party (such as the municipality) takes responsibility for the professional development of teachers. In this approach standardized programs are used (Sleegers and Leithwood, 2010) and the individual wishes of teachers don’t have a central position in the
20 professionalization program. The control approach, that is strongly related to the outside perspective, departs from the idea that professionalization is used “only in so far as teacher learning realizes small procedural changes, not requiring fundamental new attitudes towards the profession of teaching” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2006, p.421). Contrary to these approaches Geijsel and Meijers (2006) formulate the commitment strategy in which teachers are ‘owner’ of their own professionalization.
When placing this approach in professionalization theory it may be said that this approach shows some resemblance with the outside perspective of Sleegers and Leithwood (2010) and the control approach of Geijsel and Meijers (2006). This is in line what was quoted before: if teachers feel engaged their professionalization will be more effective.
In this chapter we first discussed the characteristics that serve as a framework in order to answer our first research question: to what extent does the trajectory of
Amsterdam support language intervention teachers? These characteristics, put
forward by previous studies, are expected to express teachers’ ‘needs’. Thereafter we discussed the way in which several actors can function during professionalization. We will use this a framework to answer question two: How do the large Dutch cities
deal with the formulated governmental agreements on language arrears and what is
the role of teachers in professionalization policy? We know that the city of
Amsterdam takes on a large role in the professionalization, and that the school boards have a limited role. We will compare Amsterdam to other cities by investigating how the other cities organize the distribution of actors and responsibilities. By comparing the different cities we hope to be able to give recommendations for the future
planning of the professionalization in Amsterdam.
21 discussed the two different research questions, the participant groups, the creation of the research guideline and the procedure.
22 4. Method: the research process
This chapter provides a description of how we investigated the two research questions. 18 (N=18) interviews with policymakers (n=4), teachers (n=12) and experts (n=2) were conducted. In paragraph 4.3 this research sample is specified. First, the research questions will be discussed separately.
4.1 First research question
To what extent does the professionalization trajectory of Amsterdam support
language intervention teachers?
This question focuses on the twelve LI-teachers in this sample and the two involved experts. As explained, for this question the presented characteristics will serve as an analysis guideline for the effectiveness of the trajectory of Amsterdam. More specifically, for every characteristic several sub-questions are formulated. These questions will serve as an interview guideline (see appendixes 1 and 2) for teachers and experts in order to answer the first research question. Below we will shortly present how these content and form related characteristics are operationalized. Content
1. Focus on relevant subject specific content
This characteristic is operationalized as the degree to which teachers say to have expanded their knowledge of the specific topic of language education and whether this knowledge was relevant for their individual situation.
2. Organization and situation in the school
This variable is operationalized as the degree to which the twelve LI-teachers in this sample find the content of the trajectory in line with the policy and the actual
23 situation in the school; thus whether other teachers and the management team in the school are oriented towards teacher learning.
3. Quality of the input
The quality of the input is operationalized as the degree to which the content is
challenging, concrete according to teachers, and evidence based, and based on the
newest insights in the field, according to experts.
4. Theory of improvement
We will operationalize this characteristic as the degree to which teachers and experts find that the learning goals are explicitly (enough) formulated, but also as the degree to which the experts find the goals realistically in line with the design of the
intervention. Whether goals are realistic overlaps with whether the design of the trajectory is evidence based.
Form
5. The environment of the intervention
This variable is investigated by asking teachers about the two environments where the professionalization took place: the library and the school, where teachers able to relate these environments to their actual teaching job? Etc.
6. The degree of active learning
This variable is operationalized as the degree to which teachers experienced to be able to take an active role during the theme meetings and the coaching on the job moments. Although receiving active feedback, participating in discussion, studying pupils’ work were part of the design of the intervention it must be checked whether teachers actually experience these This variable can be measured by asking teachers whether the three above mentioned forms of active learning were present in the trajectory.
24
7. Collectivity
The variable collectivity is studied in line with the previous variable of active learning: were there enough moments for interaction built in for teachers during the intervention?
8. Duration and permanence of the intervention
The variables duration and permanence are operationalized as the degree to which teachers find the number and period of meetings satisfactory in order to maintain the acquired skills. An example of an interview question is: Is the intervention long
enough for teachers to actually change or improve their teaching skills? Teachers are
also asked whether they experience that the professionalization is cumulative and
consistent of nature or rather sporadic an episodic.
4.2 Second research question
The second question is investigated through interviews with policymakers. The main themes of these interviews were:
1. The connection between the types of language interventions and
professionalization (is professionalization obligatory for language teachers?) 2. The involvement of schools and school boards with the language interventions
and the professionalization (involvement of actors – inside approach?) 3. The involvement of the municipality with the language interventions and the
professionalization (involvement of actors – outside approach?)
Policymakers are municipal officials that are occupied with the professionalization and language interventions in their city. Because the governmental agreements (Bestuursafspraken G4/G33) apply to all larger cities in the Netherlands, four policy
25 makers from (the largest cities) Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Amsterdam were interviewed about the implemented professionalization policy in their city. By doing so an up to date description of the current professionalization (in relation to language intervention) policies is collected. Because the policy of Amsterdam serves as starting point rather than a result, information gathered during the interviews is presented throughout this paper. As for the three other cities, separate paragraphs in the result section are presented.
4.3 Participants and recruitment
In this paragraph we will introduce the three research groups (teachers, experts and policymakers) and the way we recruited them.
Teachers
In total there are 123 LI-teachers in Amsterdam that follow the trajectory of
Amsterdam. Within this sample, teachers teach the discussed language interventions. 105 teachers teach switch classes (distributed over grades 1, 2, 3 and 4, see figure 1 p.11), 10 teachers teach holiday school classes, 8 teachers teach top classes. For this study, about 10% (12) of the total LI-teachers (123) is included. These twelve
teachers (n=12) were enrolled in the trajectory at the time of this study. Our sample is considered to be relatively representative because we included at least more than one teacher from the three LI categories. More specifically, the research sample consists of 8 switch class teachers, 2 holiday school teachers and 2 top class teachers.
26 Table 1. LI-teachers included in research sample (N of respondents and percentages)
Group Total number of teachers Teacher included in sample Percentage included in
sample per sub group
Total percentage included in research sample Switchclass Grade 3 39 3 7,6% Switchless Grade 3/4 14 - - Switchless Grade 4 21 3 14,3% Switchless Grade 4/5 2 - - Switchless Grade 5 9 1 11,11% Switchless Grade 5/6 11 1 11,11% Switchless Grade 6 9 - - Total switchclass 105 8 7,61% 6,50% Holidayschool 6/7/8 (total) 10 2 20% 1,60% Topclass (total) 8 2 25% 1,60% Total LI teachers 123 12 9,75%
The grouping of teachers in the professionalization intervention is based on the characteristics of their class: the type of LI- intervention they teach and the grade they teach, see table 1. As table 1 shows, the switch class group includes a very large group of teachers; 105 which is 85% of the total amount of language intervention teachers in Amsterdam, mainly because the switch class offers a wide range of grades. To provide for an accurate representation of the group of LI-teachers, more switch class teachers than holiday school and top class teachers were included in the research sample. Furthermore, the sample of the teachers was well distributed over
27 the city (see figure 2). It must be noted that the center and the south of the city are more wealthy districts than the other city districts. Therefore, there are very few language interventions implemented in schools in these districts.
Figure 2. Number of teachers interviewed per city district.
The described sample of LI-teachers, currently following the professionalization, was
recruited through their ‘coaches’ (the 13 coaches who provided the coaching on the
job meetings). Each coach coaches (around) ten teachers. Coaches forwarded an e-mail I had written to all the teachers: in this manner I could thus reach all 123 LI-teachers. A week later, coaches reminded the teachers of the e-mail in person.
Eventually, I received 20 names and e-mail addresses of teachers that were willing to participate in this study. After writing these teachers an e-mail, only 8 teachers appeared to be willing to participate in the study. Because this sample was too small and not equally representative for the different intervention groups, a second
recruitment round was done. During this round specific teacher groups that were still missing in the research sample were targeted. That is, holiday school teachers, top class teachers and switch class teachers grade 5/6 were directly sent an e-mail. The
28 table below (table 2) shows the characteristics of the participants included in this research sample, it must be noted that in order to guarantee the anonymity of the participants the names in this table are not their real names. However, fake names are assigned so that the reader is able to see the characteristics (in the table) that belong to teachers’ answers (result section). It may be interesting to attribute certain answers to characteristics such as age or experience of the teacher.
The fourth column shows teachers’ experience in teaching a language
intervention (expressed in number of years). Table 2 shows the diversity of the group, especially in terms of experience. There are LI-teachers included in this sample who have been teaching a language intervention since 2006 (since the first year language interventions were implemented), but there are also LI-teachers for whom this year was their first LI-year.
Table 2. Characteristics and distribution over interventions of LI-teachers included in the research sample
Name Age
General
teaching
experience LI experience Grade
Type of LI
intervention Gender
Ariane 29 years 5 years 1 year 5/6 Switchclass Woman
Ineke 52 years 30 years 2 years 5/6 Switchclass Woman
Manuel 42 years 19 years 7 years 4 Switchclass Man
Anna 29 years 4 years 1 years 5/6 Switchclass Woman
Marina 61 years 10 years 4 years 3/4 Switchclass Woman
Lena 48 years 26 years 6 years 3 Switchclass Woman
Peter 53 years 17 years 3 years 3 Switchclass Man
Ria 50 years 25 years 7 years 3 Switchclass Woman
Esther 30 years 8 years 2 years 6/7 Holidayschool Woman
Lisa 23 years 2 years 1 year 6/7 Holidayschool Woman
Hilde 59 years 30 years 6 years 8 Topclass Woman
29
Experts
Two experts, who are highly familiar with teacher professionalization and language education, were asked to share their opinion on the content and the design of the trajectory. Expert 1 has a background in the field of general linguistics. The subject of his dissertation concerned the language development of young children (University of Amsterdam). He worked as a lecturer and second language acquisition since 2005 and is Professor Dutch as a second language at the University of Amsterdam. He is (co-)author of various courses and textbooks in the field of (second) language acquisition. This expert is therefore expected to be able to provide insight in the way language interventions and professionalization are suitable for this type of pupil population and their LI-teachers.
Expert 2 has a background in teaching and has been a researcher at the
Kohnstamm institute of the University of Amsterdam for numerous years. Most of his publications are about language acquisition in primary education and
professionalization programs in both primary and secondary education, but he also performed some studies in the field of school quality. He is therefore expected to be able to give insight in the relationship between language education, suitable
professionalization and teacher quality.
For both experts accounts that it is interesting to study whether they find that the goals of the intervention are accurate and realistic for this type of teachers: whether there is a clear theory of improvement, and to check whether the intervention is evidence based.
Policymakers
The policymakers included in the sample are occupied with the professionalization and language intervention policy in their city, and are therefore well informed about
30 these topics.
Multiple policymakers from Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht were
approached through contact information that was gathered via the city of Amsterdam. When approaching these policymakers from the different cities, I was assigned, by the city itself, to the policymaker who was thought to be most involved with the language interventions and professionalization in his/her city. These LI-policymakers were approached through an e-mail about the content and the goals of the research. All policymakers that were approached were willing to participate in this study.
4.4 Procedure
Teachers
We visited the participating LI- teachers at their schools. In the first ten minutes the goal and the background of the study were explained. Teachers agreed to the making of interview reports and the recording of the interview under the condition of
anonymity. Thereafter, one-hour interviews were conducted. Because a semi-structured design for the interview was used, a paper guideline was followed. Since semi structured interviews often contain open-ended questions, discussions may diverge. Therefore, conversations were recorded (Cohen & Crabtee, 2006). The interviews were literally transcribed for analysis. Interview reports were sent to the 12 teachers in order for them to agree, disagree or provide additions. None of the interviewed teachers disagreed with the content of the report.
Experts
One expert was visited in his workplace, the other expert agreed to meet in a
conference room in the municipality of Amsterdam. In the first ten minutes the goal and the background of the study were explained. Agreements on anonymity,
31 interview reports and the recording of the interview were made. Thereafter, one-hour interviews were conducted. Again, a semi-structured design for the interview was used. This guideline included global questions about the LI-intervention and professionalization. Questions focused primarily on the choice and combination of professionalization topics and the quality of the intervention in terms of evidence based and newest insights in the field of language education.
Expert interviews were recorded and literally transcribed for analysis.
Policy makers
Policy makers were visited in their work place (the municipality of Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Amsterdam). In the first ten minutes of this visit, the goals and background of the study were introduced. Agreements on anonymity, interview reports (a condensed version of the transcript) and the recording of the interview were made. Thereafter, one-hour interviews were conducted (see guideline in appendix 3). Because a semi-structured design for the interview was used, a paper guideline with 17 open questions was followed during the interview. Since semi-structured
interviews often contain open-ended questions and discussions may diverge, the conversations were recorded (Cohen & Crabtee, 2006). The interviews were literally transcribed for analysis. And interview reports were sent to the policymakers in order for them to agree or disagree. None of the interviewed policymakers disagreed with the content of the report but some additional comments were made.
4.5 Instruments
Interviews are used because this method is expected to elicit comprehensive and truthful information about the professionalization intervention (Wengraf, 2004). The eventual aim of this study is to come to an extensive description of participant
32 answers and ideas. In order to collect this in-depth information the three participant groups were interviewed during a one-on-one structured interview. The semi-structured interview guide provides a clear set of instructions for interviewers and can provide reliable, comparable qualitative data (Cohen & Crabtee, 2006).
Teachers
before visiting the participating teachers at the schools, an interview guideline for the interviewer was developed. This guideline was based on the eight effective
characteristics, see appendix 1. The guideline was based on the above presented content and form related characteristics.
Experts
Experts were asked to study the summary of the trajectory and a fact sheet on the content and design of the professionalization trajectory of 2013-2014. Thereafter, the researcher asked, following a semi-structured interview guideline, the experts to give a constructive expert opinion on the design, goal and routine of the trajectory overall and per theme meeting. The experts were also asked to elaborate on the design and quantity of the coaching on the job meetings. The interview guideline for these interviews can be found in appendix 2.
Policymakers
Policy makers were asked to provide the researcher with information about their professionalization and language policy and to explain these interventions. The guideline that was used can be found in appendix 3. It must be noted that there was space for topics that slightly strayed from the interview guide, because it was expected that these side paths provided useable insights for the researchers.
33
4.6 Analysis
All interviews are transcribed literally. Therefore transcripts of the teacher interviews could be analyzed word for word. However, policymaker and expert interviews are analyzed in a less extensive way because these transcripts are used to obtain broader insights. Within this paragraph I will discuss the analysis that is done per participant group.
Teachers
In order to give an accurate description of LI-teachers’ experiences with the trajectory, transcriptions of the interview are analyzed in an extensive way: the program NVIVO is used to analyze transcriptions word for word. Answers were categorized by adding labels (codes and sub codes, see appendix 4 on page 91) to quotes. The analysis consisted of two steps: a deductive and an inductive analysis. Within the deductive analysis I used the effective characteristics discussed in
paragraph 1.4 as a model for analysis. Within the inductive analysis I put this model aside and analyzed the transcripts in an open manner. Below, I will explain the two steps.
Step 1: deductive analysis
The first step was the deductive analysis. The effective characteristics and the school organizational conditions (Van Veen et al., 2010) that are introduced in chapter 3, have led to the central variables in this study. Within this step of the analysis, these variables are seen as a model for analysis. This model is thus used in order to investigate how and to what degree these characteristics are present in the trajectory according to teachers.
34 organization of teacher quotes. Codes were assigned to the transcripts in the
following manner: first a general and categorical code was assigned, thus one of the eight characteristics. This first step was done in order to determine whether the characteristics were present in the trajectory. The seconds step was to assign one or more explanatory sub to the quotes. For example, for the following quote:
“If you are in a library it’s not possible to show such examples [B.W teacher refers to methods, books, and children’s work]. That’s too bad, because I think it is important to exchange examples from the classroom [B.W. with each other]”.
We would first code
1. Characteristic 5: The environment of the intervention Then I sub-coded
• Sub- code 1: where were the meetings held?
The meetings were not held in the professional environment of the teacher • Sub-code 2: was the type of environment of influence of the
relevance? It was not a good environment because in a classroom you can exchange examples/in the library you cannot exchange examples.
Coding in a deductive way mainly gave inside in the content of the trajectory (according to the teachers), in the way the trajectory was presented to the teachers (according to the teachers), and what the teachers thought about these specific characteristics (codebook on page 4, page 91).
35
Step 2: Inductive analysis
After the deductive coding, opinions on topics that were not included in the interview guideline were highlighted and studied. This coding was done in an open way; when transcribing the interviews we noticed that teachers referred to characteristics of the trajectory that were not included in the interview guideline. Each time such reference was heard, a notation was made. Because many teachers referred to characteristics such as the obligatory character of the trajectory, obligation could be coded in a similar way as the deductive analysis. I therefore added a ninth general code Effects
of the obligatory and fixed character of the program
In addition, whilst reading through the transcripts I also discovered emotions such as frustration and sentiments of powerlessness. These emotions were difficult to mold into codes. Therefore I gathered these quotes (about emotions) under a rather broad sub-code: obligation leads to sensitivity towards trajectory. In order to illustrate this inductive process I will present an example with the following code:
“When something is obligatory, you don’t really experience it as something you do for yourself […] when you don’t choose your own courses and the trajectory is obligatory, you don’t internalize the subject matter. It is not your process and you are forced to do it”
General code 9: Effects of the obligatory and fixed character of the program sub-code 9.2: Negative: “When something is obligatory, you don’t really experience it as something you do for yourself […] when you don’t choose your own courses and the trajectory is obligatory, you don’t internalize the subject matter.
36 your process and you are forced to do it”
Through this inductive analysis we were able to create general code 9 but could also add explanatory codes to the general codes that were yet determined. These sub-codes are integrated in the codebook (appendix 4, page 91, the categories that are found in this inductive way are indicated in bold).
Experts
Transcriptions of the interviews with experts were made. Quotes are selected that can serve to either support or nuance the answers of teachers.
Policymakers
It is interesting to know which type professionalization is used, what effects of language interventions are found and how great or small the involvement of
schoolboards and municipalities is in other cities because this gives us the possibility to compare and learn from the other large cities.
Transcripts are summarized interview reports that were sent to policymakers in order for them to agree or disagree with the content. These reports covered the essence of every policymaker interview. A description of the main findings is presented per municipality is given in the result section.
37 5. Results
In this section the results of the teacher interviews are presented and illustrated by quoting the most important teacher opinions. Expert quotes are given in order to support or nuance these opinions. Opinions are organized through the eight characteristics presented in chapter 3 and 4. It must be noted that, because of the inductive analysis, additional characteristics such as Effects of the obligatory and
fixed character of the program (characteristic 9) are added. After presenting the
results that are found in line with research question one, finding that correspond with question two are resented. Thus a description of the language interventions and the professionalization in other cities.
5.1 Results: teachers
As said, the eight characteristics are used as a guideline for the presentation of the results of both the teacher and the expert opinions. The variables are (again) divided into content and form related variables. In addition, each variable is discussed in a separate paragraph, the same enumeration as in chapter 3 and 4 is held. Expert opinions are, where possible, added to the ideas and opinions of the teachers.
Content related characteristics
Characteristic 1: Focus on relevant subject specific content
This characteristic was operationalized as the degree to which teachers say to have expanded their knowledge of the specific topic of language education and whether this knowledge was relevant for their individual situation. We will first discuss the content of the theme meetings and then the content of the coaching on the job meetings.
38
Theme meetings
We found that all teachers indicated the trajectory would be more useful if the
training would be more suited to their individual situation. In other words, the content was not always relevant to the LI-teachers. However, all teachers indicated that the content of the trajectory expanded their knowledge to a certain degree. In short, teachers indicated that they did learn ‘something’, but that it was not relevant to them for diverse reasons. The reasons given for this irrelevance are discussed below. The beginning LI-teachers stated that the trainings were not very relevant because they focused on theoretical information about the trajectory, although these teachers needed organizational and practical tips for the organization of their LI-class rather than theory on language education.
“Actually, I needed help with the organization of my switch class in general. I had no clue how to organize this class at all, no one told me how to do this.”
Ariane
A first implication is therefore that there must be differentiated between more and less experienced teachers: experienced LI-teachers indicated they did not need help with the organization of their classes, but had several learning questions based on what they had experienced before.
“ I already learned a lot about language education. I had specific learning questions that were not answered during the trajectory.”
39 Although there is a difference in what is relevant for experienced and inexperienced (first year) LI-teachers, it was found that both groups needed help with the translation from theory to their class practices. Teachers define this help as practical tips and reflection.
“I would like to get extra help with the translation of knowledge to practice. I really miss that. We are offered subject specific knowledge, but there is no follow up course in which we discuss and/or reflect with each other about obstacles and good practices.”
Ineke
Not only Ineke, but two other experienced (and all inexperienced) LI-teachers indicated that the knowledge was presented on a too abstract level. They wanted to learn how to use this information in order to improve their teaching.
However, although most teachers (11 out of 12) evaluated the theme meetings to be mostly irrelevant (due to the abstract level or the irrelevance of the themes), they did indicate that some aspects of the meetings provided them with new insights and new ideas.
“Although the information that was provided to us was very theoretical, I did gather some interesting ideas for lesson plans.”
Lisa “Although I have been a teacher for a very long time, I always learn
something new. I learn to reflect […] In the beginning I sometimes thought oh oh, but in the end I really learned many things. I just choose to focus on the things that are useful for me, for my class.”
40 Lena
“I think it was very good that we did all four language domains, because it prevented us from focusing solely on one aspect and thus creating a blind spot.”
Ria
Teachers thus indicated that the trajectory offered some interesting insights and ideas, but that it could have been more relevant if the trajectory would be less theoretical and would respond to what they considered relevant to their development. In addition, teachers find it difficult to translate the offered theory to their classroom practices: the ‘how’ and ‘why’ frequently lacked.
Coaching on the job
When asked about the translation of the knowledge to teacher practice, seven teachers referred to their coaches when asked about their ability to translate their acquired knowledge to their classroom practice. These teachers indicated that the coaches really helped them in this translation. When specifically asked about coaching on the job, eight teachers indicated to be positive about it. Whether teachers valued the coaching as useful or not appeared to be related to three factors.
1) The teacher and coach connected on a personal level “We really had a connection.”
41 2) The coach could adequately respond to the learning needs of a teacher.
“She was really, really competent, and an expert in comprehensive reading, I really like that.”
Manuel
3) The coach was able to see and formulate ‘points of improvement’ “The coaching was very valuable to me, when she first came I had no clear idea about a specific switch class learning question. But we figured out some more general learning question together.”
Ariane
Whereas almost all teachers see the coach as an important switch between theory and practice, four teachers who have been teaching the language intervention for over four years say that they see it as their responsibility to make this translation. It must be noted that three of these experienced teachers were not very positive about the coaching on the job in general.
“No I don’t really need help with this translation, I can do it on my own […] give me the theoretic information and I will do it on my own”.
Lena “I like to obtain new theoretical knowledge and then I can see for myself what I will do with it”.
42 “The only one who has a role in this translation is the teacher, right?”
Manuel
We can thus attribute difference in opinion on the effectiveness of the
professionalization to the level of general teaching experience. More precisely, the very experienced teachers seem to be most unsatisfied with the trajectory. The inexperienced teachers seem to learn most from the trajectory.
“There was a lot to gain for me, but this was especially because it was the first series of LI-training I underwent. Or at least, it was the first series of training I underwent for the municipality. Next year I would like to go into things a little deeper though.”
Lisa
The relevance of the offered knowledge is thus related to the degree of experience and former professionalization that teachers have followed, and to the ability of teachers to translate this knowledge to practice.
Furthermore, the relevance of the trajectory overlaps with the second characteristic: the organization and situation in the school. We established that the importance of themes (such as NT2 of parent involvement) differed across the school and neighborhood in which it was situated. What was relevant in one school could be not relevant in another school. The relevance of themes related strongly to the
location and therefore the type of pupils in a school. The relevance of professionalization themes will further be explained in the next section.
43 The first characteristic was investigated whether the trajectory was relevant to the individual LI-teachers. The second characteristic is studied in order to establish whether the trajectory responded to the environment of the teacher: their schools (and its neighborhoods). We will first present whether the trajectory was able to respond to the situation of the school, thus to the relevant themes in the school. Thereafter we will present whether the trajectory was in line with the organization of the school.
The situation in the school
A first important finding is that the relevance of the themes across the schools appeared to differ. LI-schools are located in different districts of Amsterdam and are therefore faced with different pupil population, and therefore different problems. According to all teachers, it is impossible for the uniform professionalization approach that was offered until now to serve all these different needs. We therefore asked teachers on what grounds a professionalization program, aside from experience and explicit learning questions, could differentiate and meet the situation in the school.
Many teachers responded that professionalization should not only focus on
their professional development but also on the population of pupils in their school.
Although all language interventions target the same group of children (those with a normal intelligence but with a language arrear) the classes that teachers teach differ a lot from each other. The main difference between these classes is whether children speak Dutch at home or not.
44 “But the foundation in South-East is in fact much broader because the children speak Dutch. Over here [B.W.: in New-West] children enter school with very low language levels. So we expect different things.”
Peter
In addition, in some districts (the South-East and West) parent participation appeared to be higher than in other districts (New-West; Geuzeveld and Osdorp and the North). Differences may thus be related to the city district in which the schools are located. A practical result of this difference is that some teachers needed more information and tips on the preparation of a quality NT2 (Dutch as a second language) lesson than others. The following quote illustrate this contrast between teachers:
“I heard of schools where parent participation was a real problem. Although it is certainly not perfect here, that’s not our case. There are no parents who don’t speak Dutch or parents that show no interest in their child’s learning. I would not be interested in a training about NT2 (Dutch as a second
language)”.
Ineke
It can thus be said that the priority subjects for teachers are diverse throughout the range of LI-teachers. In one school NT2 education is an important topic, whereas in other schools the topic of parent participation is more important. The type of
problems and/or subject present in different schools may thus be one ground for
differentiation in content during the professionalization trajectory.
Furthermore, teachers indicate that because of the general package of subjects that is offered to all teachers, little space for individual questions and learning desires
