0

ContinuousProfessionalDevelopment,it’sallinthegame

Aseriesofstudiesondifferentperspectivesforcontinuousprofessionaldevelopment(CPD)ofteachers

LiesjeReynders

1

©copyrightLiesjeReynders,Heerlen2015Printing:Datawyse|UniversitairePersMaastrichtISBN9789052911182

2

ContinuousProfessionalDevelopment,it’sallinthegame.

Aseriesofstudiesondifferentperspectivesforcontinuousprofessionaldevelopment(CPD)of

teachers

DISSERTATION

toobtainthedegreeofDoctorattheOpenUniversity,ontheauthorityoftheRectorMagnificus,Prof.mr.A.Oskamp

inaccordancewiththedecisionoftheBoardofDeans,tobedefendedinpublic

onFriday18December2015,at13:30hoursby

LiesjePaulieReyndersborninGenkon11November1981

3

Promotor

Prof.dr.JosephKesselsProf.dr.MarjanVermeulen

Overigeledenvandebeoordelingscommissie

Prof.dr.MarcVermeulenDr.MarcelvanderKlinkProf.dr.MienSegersProf.dr.RobMartensProf.dr.RobPoell

4

CONTENTS

Chapter1 GeneralIntroduction 8

Chapter2 Teachers’ParticipationinContinuingProfessionalDevelopment.TheI-ChangeModel

15

Chapter3 StimulatingTeachers’ContinuousProfessionalDevelopmentintheNetherlands

31

Chapter4 HowtomotivateteacherstotakepartinCPD:thedeficiencyversustheappreciativeapproach

50

Chapter5 ThedesignofaCPDgame 67

Chapter6 Generaldiscussion 89

References 108

Summary 123

Samenvatting 132

Dankwoord 142

5

6

CHAPTER1Generalintroduction

7

1.1 Introduction

Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for teachers is importantnowadays.DifferentcountriesusedifferentstrategiesinordertosupportCPD(Cheng & Yeung, 2010; Gerard, Varma, Corliss, & Linn, 2011; Pedder, Opfer,McCormick,&Storey,2010).NotonlygovernmentsfocusonCPD,manyschoolboardsandschoolleadersincorporatestaffCPDintheirmissionstatements.InadditionmanyresearchersfocusontheparticipationofteachersinCPDaswell(OECD,2008;Deneire,VanPetegem,&Gijbels,2009;Nabhani&Bahous,2010;Van Eekelen, Vermunt,& Boshuizen, 2006; Vermeulen, Klaeijsen,&Martens,2011).Theyall try to findways to raise teacherparticipation inCPD. Inotherwords,government,schoolboards,schoolleadersandmanyresearcherssharetheopinionthatmoreteachersshouldparticipateinCPDorinvestmoretimeinCPD. That shared opinion was the starting point of this Phd. A school boardpresented their struggle with teachers participating in CPD to the Ruud theMoorCentre(aninstitutewithintheOpenUniversitywhichfocusedonteacherprofessionalization). They wanted to tackle the complex problem of CPDparticipationbycombiningtheirexperiencewithscientificinsights.Solvingonequestionledtothenextone;astructuralrelationbetweentheschoolsandtheresearcher arose. Since the beginning of the cooperation the different aimswereclear;aPhDthesisincorporatingscientificinsightswithpracticaltoolsandguidelines. In that way the school got practical support rooted at scientificinsights and the researcher investigated a real problem in close collaborationwithaschoolboard,coaches,teamcoordinators(TCs)andteachers.TherearealotofspeculationsastowhyteachersarereluctanttoparticipateinCPD. Possible explanations are a lack of the necessary commitment fromschools(Opfer&Pedder,2011),thecontentofCPDwhichisoftentoogeneral(Daly, Pachler, & Pelletier, 2009; Diepstraten & Evers, 2012) or the lack ofwillingnesstoparticipateinCPDactivities(VanEekelenetal.,2006).Despitealltheresearchthathasbeendone,stillnoclearpicturehasemergedofhowtotriggerCPDeffectively.Kwakman (1999) highlighted that paying attention to personal characteristics(e.g., demographics, interests, willingness to explore and need for variety) is

8

importantwithregardtoprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers.Likewise,VanEekelen and colleagues (2006) found that reluctance to learn is partlydeterminedby individual factors, suchas self-efficacy,demographicvariables,conscientiousness and reflection.On the other hand, Van der Heijden (1998)focusedonorganizationalfactors(seealsoEvers,2012)thataffectparticipationinCPD,suchascareerhistory,inter-andintra-organizationalnetworks.Although multiple reasons for the lack of teacher participation in CPD havebeenpresented,amodelthatexplainswhyteachersdonotparticipateinCPDwasnotyetavailable,norguidelinesforactivatingsuchparticipation.Thegoalof this PhD was to shed more light on how teachers can be triggered toparticipateinCPD.In order to study the complex process of triggering teachers towards CPDparticipationtheI-Changemodelwasused(DeVries,Kremers,Smeets,Brug,&Eijmail,2008).TheI-Changemodelisaphasemodelforbehavioralchangeandincludes an awareness phase, a motivation phase, and an action phase. Itfocusesonthestagesthatprecedebehavioralchangeandgivesinsightinwhichfactors are relevant in each phase and gives directions for how to influencethesefactorstourgebehavioralchange.Thoughthismodelwasappliedinthedomainofhealthpreventionandhealtheducation, italsoseemsapplicabletothedomainofteachers’CPDparticipation.CPDparticipationcanthusbeseenas a phasemodelwhere awareness of the need to participate in CPD comesfirst,motivationtoparticipatesecond,andfinallyactionfollows.In linewithKwakman (1999) andVanEekelenand colleagues (2006) the firststudy of this PhD focused on the influence of individual factors on CPDparticipation. Theassumptionwas that teachers go through the threephasessequentiallyandthatadifferentsetofindividualfactorsdeterminesthekindofguidanceateacherneedstogothroughthesephases.Somecangothroughthephases autonomously, others need some guidance of another person. Theusefulness of the I-Change model was studied to verify its relevance in aneducational setting (opposed to the health care fieldwhere it has proven itsvalue). The main research question in the first study was “Are teacherstriggered to participate in CPD following a sequential, gap-based model andwhatistherelationwithpersonalandpsychologicalfactors?”Although the I-Changemodel seemed logical (a teacher becomes aware of aperformancegap, ismotivated todosomethingabout itandeventually takesaction to overcome that gap), it did not have a goodmatchwith practice. Apossibleexplanationwas that thegap-approachdidnot trigger awareness. In

9

general,theliteratureofferedtwoperspectiveswithregardtopromotingCPD.The first, most dominant perspective consisted of a deficiency approach. Inshort, this perspective started from a gap analysis or a perceived lack ofcompetency. The second perspective startedwith a strength-based approachincluding appreciative inquiry (AI) and talent development. An appreciativeapproachmightinspireteachersmore,becauseitwassimplymoremotivatingand fun to improve skills you are interested in and already possess (Visser,2010).Since the I-Changemodel from a deficiency perspective did not have a goodmatchwith practice and therefore did not offer insight inwhat could triggerteacher CPD, the deficiency approach was abandoned. In a new study the I-Change model was applied without the pre-set deficiency approach. Sincefeedback is important to learn (Hattie, 2009;Hattie& Timperley, 2007) or tobecome aware of a gap (Saldler, 1989; Nicol & McFarlane-Dick, 2006), thisstudystartedwithaconversationbetweentheteacherandhisorherTC.Thegiven feedback shouldmeet criteria to be effective for encouraging learning;for instance, the need of a trustworthy source (Ilgen, Fisher,& Taylor, 1979)andajoinedframeofreference(Dixon,2000).Theresearchquestionansweredinthisstudywas“Whatisefficaciousintriggeringteachers’CPDparticipationinterms that it creates awareness about the need for CPD participation (theawareness phase) and the motivation to start with CPD (the motivationphase)?”.The third study incorporated these findings in order to answer the researchquestion “How can the findings of the previous studies be used to create apowerful intervention with the purpose of facilitating CPD?”. Since strengthsand people’s passions are likely to correspond more with an appreciativeapproach than with a deficiency approach the game was developed from apositive and fun perspective. The focus of the game is to strengthen thetriggers (strong aspects and passions) in combination with raising awarenessabout the teacher’s preference of triggers to learn. More specific, how canteachers get a better insight in their strengths and passions so that theyconsciouslymovetheseaspectstoperfection,aswellastheawarenessoftheirpreferred triggers to participate in CPD. For instance, some teachers feelactivated by new developments in their field of expertise while others gettriggeredmoreduringinteractionwithcolleagues.

10

1.2 Outlineofthisdoctoraldissertation

TheoverallresearchquestionofthisPhDwas“WhattriggersCPDparticipationof teachers?”. To answer this main question three separate studies wereconductedafterthetheoreticalfoundationhadbeenset.

Chapter2:TowardsaModelGuidingContinuingProfessionalDevelopment.

This chapter discussed the theoretical foundation for the studies to come; I-Changemodel.TriggeringCPDturnedouttobeacomplexprocessduetothedelicate balance between optimal contextual characteristics and individualfactors. The I-Change model incorporated distal and proximal factorsinfluencing theactualbehavior, in specific theparticipation inCPD.AccordingtotheI-Changemodel,peoplegothroughthethreephasesbeforeperformingacertainbehavior(theawarenessphase,themotivationphase,andtheactionphase). In theawarenessphase the targetpopulation (i.e. teachers)becomesawareofthecurrentbehavior,thatis,thebehavioritself,itsperformanceandconsequences. Awareness means that knowledge about the behavior movesfrom an unconscious state to a conscious state. Themotivation phase is thephase wherein the target population (i.e. teachers) reaches a state in whichmotivationisformedtoengageinthedesiredbehavior.Thefinalphaseistheaction phase. As the name suggests, in this phase the target group (i.e.teachers) performs the desired behavior. The I-Change model is helpful inunderstanding how teachers can be activated to participate in CPD and todevelop powerful interventions that trigger CPD participation. The first studyincorporatespersonaldifferencesbetweenteachersforexampletheCoreSelfEvaluations (CSE)asapredicting factor for teachersgoingthroughthephasesoftheI-Changemodel.TheCSEcompriseself-efficacy,self-esteem,neuroticismand locus of control. An explorative study on a population of teachers wasconductedinordertotesttheapplicabilityoftheCSEineducation.

Chapter3:StimulatingTeachers’ContinuousProfessionalDevelopment.

This chapter aimed at validating the developed I-Change model and gettinginsightintherelevantindividualfactorsineachphase.InStudy1thefollowingresearchquestionwasanswered:“AreteacherstriggeredtoparticipateinCPD

11

followingasequential,gap-basedmodelandwhatistherelationwithpersonalandpsychologicalfactors?”Subquestionsare:1. How many teachers in the current study who became aware of aperformancegap,weremotivatedtodosomethingabout itandsubsequentlytakeaction?2. WereawarenessandmotivationtoparticipateinCPDandactioninfluencedbypersonalandpsychologicalfactors?Theunderlyingassumptioninthestudyisthatnotallteachersparticipateinallthephases.Indeed,teachersoftenstalledinoneofthethreephases.PersonalfactorsareoneoftheinfluencingfactorswithintheI-Changemodelexplaininghowteachersgothroughthethreephases.AnexampleofsuchafactorisCSEwhichwassignificantinfinishingtwoofthethreephases.

Chapter4:AssessmentandfeedbackinordertoenhanceCPD.Based on some unexpected results of Study 1 described in Chapter 2, inChapter3Study2 isdescribedwhichaimedtofindananswertotheresearchquestion“Whatisefficaciousintriggeringteachers’CPDparticipationintermsthatitcreatesawarenessabouttheneedforCPDparticipation(theawarenessphase) and the motivation to start with CPD (the motivation phase)?” ThischapterinvestigatedtheusefulnessofadeficiencyapproachascomparedwithanappreciativeapproachfortriggeringCPD.To gain insight into teachers’ conditions for professional development, aretrospectiveinstrument(thestory-line)wasused.Thefirststudy(describedinChapter2)resultedinmorequestionthananswersregardingwhyteachersdoordonottakepart inCPD.Thereforeaqualitativedatagatheringwasusedinthissecondstudy.TheaimwasdefinehowmanyteachershadCPDgoals,howthesegoalsoriginatedandwhatthoseteachersdidtofulfillthesegoals.

Chapter5:Clickx:DesignBasedResearch.The findings of the previous chapters offered insights for a new type ofintervention thatmight stimulateCPDwithin schools. In Study3 described inChapter4,thegoalwastodevelopapowerfulintervention(game)forfindingapotential answer to the research question: “How can the findings of thepreviousstudiesbeusedtocreateapowerfulinterventionwiththepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”ThischapterdescribesthedevelopmentofagameaimingatstrengtheningthetriggersforCPDandraisingawarenessaboutthepreferences

12

ofhowteacherswouldliketolearn.Thegoalofthegamewastoofferinsightinto their strengths, passions and triggers to take part in CPD. Following aDesignBasedResearch (DBR)approach, avarietyof stakeholdersparticipatedinthedevelopment,designandtestingoftheprototypeofthegameinareallifesetting.Differentgamesweredevelopedandplayedinordertodeterminetheirsuitability(aswaspresetbythecriteria).Chapter6:GeneralDiscussion.In the final chapter theoverall researchquestionwasansweredanda criticaldiscussionabout the findingswaspresented. Issuessuchas reliability,validityand usefulness were addressed with respect to the different studies. Thechapterendedwiththeimplicationsofthisdoctoralthesisforpractice.

13

CHAPTER2

Teachers’ParticipationinContinuingProfessionalDevelopment.

TheI-ChangeModel

Abstract

It is often suggested that not all teachers participate in continuous professionaldevelopment(CPD)whileCPDis importantfor improvingthequalityofteachers.Asaconsequence, thequestionariseswhycertain teachersdonotparticipate inCPDandhowtheseteachers’engagementinCPDparticipationcanbetriggered.Manycountrieshaveuseddifferentincentivestoenhanceteachers’CPD,howevertheresultsofthoseincentives arenot very effective. Researchershavebeen searching for effectiveCPDconditions,buttheseconditionsonlypartlyexplainwhyteachersdoordonotengageinCPD.Theintegratedmodelforexplainingmotivationalandbehavioralchange(orinshort, the I-Change model) is proposed to answer these questions. This model is aphasemodel for behavioural change. The I-Changemodel defines three phases: theawareness phase, the motivation phase (i.e. intention), and the action phase (i.e.behavior) phase.Within a phase model, teacher have to move through each of thephases. If teachers stall in the first two phases these teachers do not show CPDparticipation; only when teachers reach the action phase they are engaging in CPDparticipation. Using the I-Change model we provide insights in the underlyingdeterminants of CPD participation which may give a better understanding of thecomplex process of teachers’ engagement in CPD. With more knowledge of thesedeterminants underlying CPD participation it becomes possible to describe moreappropriateguidance(i.e.interventions)toenhanceteachers’CPD.Thischapterisbasedon:Reynders, L., Vermeulen, M., Kessels, J., & Kreijns, K. (submitted). Teachers’ParticipationinContinuingProfessionalDevelopment.TheI-ChangeModel

14

2.1 Introduction

InterestinContinuousProfessionalDevelopment(CPD)ofteachersisbecominganinternationaltrend(Day,Flore,&Viana,2007;OECD,2008),becausewhenteachersengageinCPD,itisbelievedthatthequalityoftheteachersincreaseswhich,inturn,hasimpactonthequalityofeducation(Hattie,2012).Many teachers participate in CPD (Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP),2009;Deneireet al., 2009;OECD,2008), but contradicting results in researchindicated that some groups of teachers do not take part in professionaldevelopment activities (Nabhani & Bahous, 2010; Van Eekelen et al., 2006;Goodnough,2010).De Weert, Corthouts, Martens, and Bouwen (2002) suggested that teachershave to take responsibility in order to become aware of what they wish tolearn.Inotherwords,togaininsightintheirlearningobjectivesandtakechargeof their own learning paths. Teachers themselves should be proactive andshape their professional development but some are better equipped andmotivatedtodosowhereasothersneedabitofhelporencouragement(Fox,Wilson, & Deaney, 2010). Therefore, more insight is needed as to how totrigger CPDwithin schools in order to improve teachers’ participation in CPDactivities.Numerous studies about behavioral change, stressed the importance ofpersonalfactors,morespecifically,theinfluenceofpersonalfactorsinrelationto incentives (i. e., interventions) (Broekhuizen, van Poppel, Koppes, Brug, &van Mechelen, 2010; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Kroesbergen, 2009; Kwakman,1999; Schülz, Sniehotta, Mallach, Wiedeman, & Schwarzer, 2009; STIVORO,2011;VanOsch,2009).Additionally,otheraspects influenceCPDparticipationof teacherssuchas theclimatewithinschools (Akcan&Tatar,2010),andtherelationship with managers (Browne, 2010). These contextual factors couldinfluenceCPD.However, inthisstudy,weemphasizepersonalfactorsinordertoshed lightonthereasonswhynotall teachersparticipate inCPDactivities.Knowingthesereasons,guidance(i.e.interventions)canbedevelopedinordertosupportteachersintheirCPDjourney.ResearchonCPDparticipationofteachersisshortoftheintegrationofpersonalfactors influencing interventions toenhanceCPDparticipation. SinceCPD is acomplexprocessandpeoplearecomplexcreatures,amodelisneededtofirst

15

understandteacherCPD.Amodelusedwithinthehealthcaresector -focusingonpersonalfactorsandinfluencingchangeandintervention-isexploredwithinthischapterinordertoexplorestheapplicabilityforeducationalpurposes.This chapter starts with a further explanation as to why a suitable model isneededforbehavioralchangeineducation,morespecificallyCPDparticipation.Next,usefulnessandapplicationoftheI-Changemodelasapromisingmodelisdescribed,becausethismodelisdevelopedoutsidetheeducationalfield,.Twopossibleways of using the I-Changemodel (etiological and phasemodel) areexplained. An orientation on the usefulness for both manners is thenaddressed, and subsequently, possible interventions within the domain ofeducationtotriggerteachers’CPDparticipation.

2.2 TheoreticalFramework

AlthoughnumerousresearchhasbeenconductedonthetopicofteacherCPD,stillnoexplanationhasbeenfoundforthecontradictingresults.Forexample,Deneire et al. (2009) found, based on the TALIS results (OECD, 2008) thatteachersthemselvesdeclaretheydoengageinCPD.However,Vermeulenetal.(2011) found that school leaders complained about the number of teacherswhoparticipate inCPDand this study indeed revealed that a vastnumberofteachers said that they have not been participating in CPD for years. Thesecontradictionscouldbetheresultsofdifferences inmeasuringCPD,butcouldalsobecausedbydifferencesinperceptionsoftheconceptofCPD,motivation,andbehavior.Motivationisoneoftheconceptsdifferentresearchersuseatadifferent way, have different definitions for, etc. Moreover, the concepts ofmotivationandintentionseemintertwinedbecauseofthemultipledefinitionsused throughout science. For example, De Vries et al. (2008) incorporatedmotivation as the second phase into theirmodel.Motivation is the result ofdistal andproximalmeasures, forexample self-efficacyand is theantecedentfor action. This description is merely the same for the theory of plannedbehavior(TPB)(Ajzen,1991)whichusestheconceptofintention.ThisdoctoralthesesiscenteredaroundtheI-Changemodel,andthereforeusestheconceptofmotivation.Whenrefereeingtospecificothertheories(i.e.TPB)theconceptintention is mentioned. Besides the fact that more consensus amongresearchersisneededaboutconcepts,amodelisrequiredtoexplaindifferent

16

research outcomes and at the same time give direction or possibleinterventionstoinfluenceCPDparticipation.Traditional models of behavioral change mainly focused on motivation orintention (e.g., TPB, Ajzen 1991, or Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura, 1986).These models considered motivation or intention as a proximal measure forbehavior. Although motivation is a very important factor, the transitionbetween motivation and behavior is not that direct. Multi-phase models ofbehavioral change were developed, taking into account different influencingfactors in different phases. The integratedmodel for explainingmotivationalandbehavioralchange(orinshort,theI-Changemodel(DeVriesetal.,2008))integrated a number of thosemotivational- andmulti-phasemodels, namelytheTPB(Ajzen,1991),socialcognitivetheory(Bandura,1986),transtheoreticalmodel(Prochaska&Velicer,1997),andthehealthbeliefmodel(Janz&Becker,1984).The I-Change model (De Vries et al., 2008) is a phase model for behavioralchange and includes an awareness phase, amotivation phase, and an actionphase.Thoughthismodelwasappliedinthedomainofhealthpreventionandhealtheducation,withsomeadaptationsitmightbeapplicabletothedomainof teachers’ CPD participation. This model does incorporate multiple factorsinfluencing each phase therefore doing justice to the complexity of CPD andteachers. The I-Changemodel seems a simplemodel just stating the obvious(becoming aware, being motivated and take action). However, it is not thatclear-cutbecauseofthemanyinfluencingfactors.TheI-Changemodelisusedintwoways(DeVriesetal.,2008);thefirstwayisdetermining the actual appearance of desired behavior by focusing on theproximal and distal factors. This resembles an etiological model, giving anexplanationforabsenceoroccurrenceofbehavior.Thesecondwayfocusesonthe phases that precede behavioral change. A phase model gives insight inwhichfactors influencedeachphaseandgivesdirectionsforhowto influencebehavioralchange.Eachwayofuseisdescribedinthenexttwosections.

TheI-ChangemodelasanetiologicalmodelEtiologicalmodelsfocusonthecausalitybetweenevents(DeVriesetal.,2008),inthiscasebetweenmotivationandbehavior.FortheI-ChangemodeljustasinTPB(Ajzen,1991),thecentralvariableisthemotivationorintentiontoperforma particular type of behavior: the desired behavior, in our case teachers’participationinCPDactivities.Thecausalitybetweenintentionandbehavioris

17

assumed.However,asDeVriesetal. (2008) stated, the relationshipbetweenintentionandactualbehavior isnotperfect.Facilitating factorssuchasactionplans and actual skills increased the likelihood that intentions could translateintoactivitywhereasbarrierscoulddecrease the likelihoodof the translation.WhendescribingtheI-Changemodelasanetiologicalmodelthefocusisontheintention and behavioral phase and on the influencing factors of these twophases.Intentionitself isdeterminedbytheproximalfactorsattitude,social influenceand self-efficacy. Attitude, is the individual’s overall sympathy or antipathytowards the consequences or outcomes of performing the behavior. Socialinfluenceisacombinationofsubjectivenorm(asintheTPB),socialmodelling,andsocialsupport (Broekhuizenetal.,2010).SubjectivenormwasdefinedbyFishbein and Ajzen (1975) and refers to what extent individuals believe thatmost people important to them like them to perform that specific behavior.Social modelling and social support refer to the amount of people in anindividual’ssurroundingperformingthatspecificbehavior,andhowsupportiveanindividual’ssurroundingisinperformingthatspecificbehavior(Broekhuizenetal.,2010).Self-efficacyconsistsofthe‘beliefsinone’scapabilitiestoorganizeand execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’(Bandura,1997,p.3).Figure 1 shows the proximal factors influencing the actual behavior; self-efficacy, action plans, skills, and barriers. Self-efficacy influencing the actionphase is adifferentkindof self-efficacy that influences themotivationphase.More specifically, within the motivation phase, self-efficacy is related to theintention of behavior, whereas in the action phase, motivation refers to themaintenance of behavior (Schülz et al., 2009). Action planning encompassesspecific goal setting to raise the chanceofactualexecution (Latham&Locke,1991).Skillsrefertotheactualskillsanindividualneedstoperformthespecificbehavior. Finally, barriers refer to an individual’s anticipation on possiblebarriers.The proximal factors for intention (e.g., attitude, social influence, and self-efficacy) and for behavior (e.g., self-efficacy, action plans, skills, and barriers)are in their turn influenced through information factors and predisposingfactors (see Figure 1). Information factors are further divided into personal-,message-,channel-,andsourcefactors.Bymeansofthesefactors,intentionisestablished. Personal factors that influence behavior are, for example,demographics (Kwakman, 1999), interests, positive attitude to explore and

18

needforvariety (Kennedy&Clinton,2009).Messagefactorsaretheoutcomeof persuasive communication (Gollwitzer, 1999). Channel factors are forexample television, whereas a celebrity is an example of a source factor.Together with these information factors, the predisposing factors (indirectly)influenceintention.These predisposing factors are subdivided in behavioral-, psychological- andsocialenvironmentfactors.Thebehavioralfactorsincludebehaviorsrelatedtoaspecificbehavior,forexamplealcoholconsumptioninrelationtosmoking.Anexample related to education could be reading academic journals on teachereducationandparticipatinginworkshops.Psychologicalfactorsareforexamplecoping strategies, depression, and social skills. Becauseenvironmental factorstarget social factors from the environment, they resemble social support andsocialmodelling.Figure1:The I-Changebehaviorphasemodel (DeVrieset.al.,2008): theawarenessphase, themotivationphaseandtheactionphase.

Phase1:awareness

Phase2:motivation

Phase3:action

PROXIMALFACTORS STAGESDISTALFACTORS

INFORMATIONFACTORSPersonalfactorsMessagefactorsChannelfactorsSourcefactors

CuesforactionKnowledgeRiskperception

AttitudeSocialinfluenceSelf-efficacy

Self-efficacyActionplansSkillsBarriers

Awareness

Motivation(intention)

Action(behavior)PREDISPOSINGFACTORSBehavioralfactorsPsychologicalfactorsSocialenvironmentfactors

PHASES

19

TheI-ChangemodelasphasemodelBesides to the I-Changemodel as an etiologicalmodel that describes humanbehavior and therefore useful to interpret research outcomes and explainbehavior, the I-Changemodel canbeused todevelop interventions to triggerthe behavioral change. The I-Change model distinguishes three phases: theawarenessphase,themotivationphase,andtheactionphase(DeVriesetal.,2008). In the awareness phase the target population (i.e. teachers) becomesawareofthecurrentbehavior,thatis,thebehavioritself,itsperformanceandconsequences. Awareness means that knowledge about the behavior movesfrom an unconscious state to a conscious state. A number of factors areinvolvedintheawarenessprocess,namely,cuesandhints(cuestoaction),thefeedback given (knowledge), and the information sources about what thedesiredbehaviorshouldentail(riskperception)(seeFigure1).Themotivationphaseisthephasewhereinthetargetpopulation(i.e.teachers)reaches a state in which it forms the motivation to engage in the desiredbehavior. Motivation is influenced by attitude, social influences, and self-efficacy.Thesefactorswerealreadydiscussed.The final phase is the action phase. As this name suggests, this is the phasewhere the target group (i.e. teachers) performs the desired behavior. Theactionphaseisregulatedthroughself-efficacy,actionplans,skills,andbarriersasdiscussedpreviously.

2.3 UsefulnessandapplicationoftheI-Changemodel

CurrentresearchinsightswithrespecttoprofessionaldevelopmentofteacherssupporttheapplicabilityoftheI-Changemodel.RegardingtheI-Changemodelasanetiologicalmodel,whichexplains intentionandbehavior, it is importantthat the determinants of behavior reflect the determinants of teachers’ CPDparticipationandviceversa.RegardingtheI-Changemodelusedasabehaviorphase model, it is important that the phases correspond to the phasesidentifiedinachievingteachers’CPDparticipation.

UsefulnessoftheI-ChangemodelasanetiologicalmodelThecurrent literaturewasanalyzedtouncoverdeterminantsofteachers’CPDparticipationaswell as the facilitatorsandbarriers thatmayhelporobstructthe transition of behavioral intention into actual behavior. It was assessed

20

whether these determinants, facilitators and barriers, fit the I-Changemodeland vice versa. In order to do so, the focuswas set on the information- andpredisposing factors influencing intention and behavior. Hereafter, we willdescribe the distal factors; information factors and predisposing factors (seeFigure1).InformationfactorsTheinformationfactorsthatinfluencetheintentiontoshowaspecificbehaviorand the actual behavior itself are divided into personal-,message-, channel-,andsource factors. In the literature relatedtoeducationthese factorscanbedetectedaswell,asisfurtherexplainedinthesectionsbelow.PersonalfactorsSome scholars identify as personal factors demographics, interests, and theneed for variety (Kwakman, 1999). The range of personal factors,whichmayinfluence intention, is endless, thereforeonly someof theexamples found ineducation-relatedliteraturearediscussed.Ilgenetal. (1979,p.355)studiedself-esteemandstated“thosewithhighself-esteem,whencomparedto those low inself-esteem,relied lessontheirownself-perception.”Thus,self-esteemmayinfluencetheinformationofateacherduringtheformationofintention.Forexample,itispossiblethatteacherswithhighself-esteemgivemorevaluetothesocialinfluencecomparedtolowself-esteemteachers.VanEekelenetal.(2006)foundthatthewillingness(i.e.motivation)tolearnisdetermined by personal factors; self-efficacy, demographic variables,conscientiousness,andreflection.Self-efficacyisrelatedtoreflection,whichinturncanbeassociatedwithCPDparticipation (Wheatly,2002).Similarly,RossandBruce(2007) foundthatteacherself-efficacy influencedthewayteachersperceivetheirperformance.Likewise,self-efficacy ispositivelycorrelatedwiththeability tocorrectlyassesspersonalperformance (Schunk&Ertmer,2000).Both Ross and Bruce (2007) and Schunk and Ertmer (2000) assigned animportantroleto(teacher)self-efficacyintermsofhowaccuratelyteacherscanassess their own behavior. In terms of the I-Change model, self-efficacyinfluencestheinformationusedtoformanintentionforbehavior.Inaddition,self-efficacy may define how individuals formulate personal goals (Schunk &Ertmer, 2000; Van de Wiel, Szegedi, & Weggeman, 2004) and thereforeinfluencetheformulationofactionplans.Theseactionplansareanimportant

21

step between intention and behavior (Van Osch, 2009). The transition fromintentiontobehavior isalsoaffectedbyself-efficacy,andmorespecificallybythe ideas people have about maintaining their goals. The locus of controlindividualshave(personalfactor)influenceshowactiveandmotivatedtheyareinpursuingtheirgoals(VanAmersfoort,2009).Locusofcontrolwasdefinedasthedegreetowhich individualsbelievetheyhavecontrolovertheirownlives(Rotter,1966).MessagefactorsThesefactorsrefertotheactualinformationindividualsgatherinordertoformanintentionandinfluencebehavior.CPDpolicyandqualificationstandardsmayincreaseintention.Sachs(2010)arguedthatstandardsforteacherperformancecan be used to improve performance and the status of teachers (quality ofteachingseenbyothers)ortriggerCPDparticipation(Ingvarson,1998).WhenaschoolhasformulatedaCPDpolicy,teachersseemedtobemoremotivatedtoparticipate in learning activities (Geijsels, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009).However,many schools lack such specific CPD policy (Opfer& Pedder, 2011;SCP, 2009) and therefore do not offer enoughmessage information to theirteachers.ChannelfactorsItispossibletodistributeinformationthroughoutawiderangeofchannels.IntheNetherlandsregardingCPDparticipation,most informationispresentedinwrittenformorfacetoface.SourcefactorsThe credibility of the information source is important in forming an intention(Ilgenetal.,1979).Forinstance,knowledgeintheformoffeedbackgivenbyarespected colleague is more likely to influence intention and behavior thanfeedback from an emotional pupil. The school-managers’ competencesignificantly influenced teacher’s CPD (SBL, 2006). Therefore, incompetentmanagers influence teacher attitude towards CPD participation negatively.Besidesan individual’sability to influence intentionandbehaviorof teachers,organizational factors are important, such as a safe school climate (Ackan &Tatar,2010;Chen,2011;Geijselsetal.,2009).

22

PredisposingfactorsPredisposingfactorsinfluencetheproximalfactors,whichdetermineintentionandbehavior (DeVriesetal.,2008).WithinschoolswherenotmanyteachersengageinCPD,teachersrarelyseeothercolleaguesparticipateinCPD.Inotherwords, the social environment of teachers is not ideal to increase CPD.MostCPDthatcanbeobservedisstilllimitedtoparticipationincoursesandtraining,butthesetypesofCPDarenotevaluatedashighlyeffectivebyteachers(Dalyetal.,2009).Coursesandtrainingfocuseitheronschool-wideCPDoronsubjectspecificCPD.School-wideCPDcoursesandtraininghavefixedcontentandareoften too general (i.e. ‘one size fits all’)making them less useful for applyingthem in the daily practice of teaching (Van Veen, Zwart,Meirink,& Verloop,2010). Nevertheless, these courses and training are quite popular as theyaddresslargegroupsofteachersoreventheentirestaffandarerelativelyeasyto organize. A shift to more customized CPD is ongoing. For instance,professional development activities are more customized to the school. ThepitfallisthattheindividualneedisstillnotthestartingpointofCPD.Anotherexample is the encouragement of teachers to get a master’s degree. TheindividualneedseemstobethestartingpointofCPDbutstillateacherhastochoosefromthemastersoffered(andaccredited).Subject-specific CPD courses and training seems to be more appealing forteachers (Dalyetal.,2009)andaremoreeffectivewhencoursesand trainingare adjusted to the learning needs of individual participants (Tracey, Arroll,Barham, & Richmons, 1997) and when learning processes stimulate activelearning(VanVeenetal.,2010).Therefore,subject-specificCPDseemstoshapeamore inviting social environment for CPD participation compared to broadandschool-wideCPD.Another factor identifiedasasocialenvironmental factor is thepresenceofaprofessional learning community where collaborative learning takes place(Cordingley,Bell,Thomason,&Firth,2005).Aprofessionallearningcommunityoffers a specific context where teachers work and learn. The functioning ofprofessional learning communities within schools depends on numerouscontextual factors (Castelijns, Vermeulen, & Kools, 2013). Participating in aprofessionallearningcommunitycouldtriggerteacherstoengageinCPD.

23

UsefulnessoftheI-ChangemodelasaphasemodelWiersma, Van der Mooren, and Vermeulen (2002) demonstrated that threeconditionsmustbemet inorderto improveteachers’performance.CPDisanimportant process to improve that performance. First, theymust gain insightintotheirownpotentials,constraintsandinterests.Second,theteachershavetodefinegoals.Third,theteachersmusttakeaction.Inshort,CPDcanbeseenas a phasemodelwhere awareness of the need to participate in CPD comesfirst,motivationtoparticipatesecond,andfinallyactionfollows.ThesephasesareexactlythesamephasesasidentifiedbytheI-Changemodel.AwarenessphaseAs stated before, the I-Change model is developed within the field ofhealthcare.Therefore,phases couldactdifferentlywithinour fieldof interest(education). For instance, within healthcare behavioral change has a physicalaspect and therefore the consequence of a lack of action is larger withinhealthcareopposedtheeducation.Withinhealthcare,manymodelsreferredtoawarenessrelatedtoagapthatneedstobeeliminated.WithregardtoteacherCPD, a performance gap approach is often implicitly present (for exampleGallant & Mayer, 2012; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Pedder et al., 2010). Otherexamplesofdeficiencymodelsaretheonionmodel(Korthagen,2004)andthephase model for core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), both assumedthatchangingbehaviorshouldstartfromatensionordiscrepancybetweenthecurrentandidealsituations.Saunders(2012)explainedthatmanyprofessionaldevelopment programs assume a gap and therefore only support short-termlearningandpractice-changetoclosethatgap.Thiscouldbeanindicationofaculture where teachers see their profession as checklists of performancestandardsandcompetencies(Hargreaves,2000).The reflective practitioner model (Schön, 1983) stated that change can onlyoccurwhen individuals are aware that the current practice is insufficient andwhen they want to improve performance. These models incorporatedawareness of a gap as an important phase preceding the actual change ofbehavior. After awareness is reached, new possibilities for improved practicecouldemerge(Posthom,2008).However,VanEekelenetal.(2006)foundthatawareness alonewas an insufficient condition for participation in CPD. SomegroupsofteacherswereawareofaperformancegapbutwereignorantabouthowtoparticipateinCPDactivities.Inotherwords,thatgroupofteacherswasawareoftheneedtotakepartinCPDbutcouldnotactonit.

24

MotivationphaseWithin I-Changeas aphasemodel, themotivationphase is reachedafter theindividualhasbecomeaware.Asstatedpreviously,notallteachersmovedfrombeingawaretotakingaction(VanEekelenetal.,2006).Themotivationphaseeased the transition from awareness to action. The core of this phase wasstudied extensively through the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Various proximal factorswere addressed (Fishbein& Ajzen, 2010) such as attitudes, subjective normsand behavioral control that influenced the motivation to participate in aprofessionaldevelopmentactivity.Intentiontoperformacertainbehaviorwasa proximal measure of whether that behavior would actually be performed(Fishbein&Ajzen,2010).ActionphaseAlthoughintentionwasaproximalmeasureforaction,numerousauthorshavesuggestedthatmanyfactorsaffectedactualbehavior(e.g.,Kroesbergen,2009;Broekhuizenetal.,2010;Schülzetal.,2009;VanOsch,2009).Goalformulation-orintermsoftheI-Changemodel-actionplanswereanimportanttransitionalfactor between motivation and action. Hoban (2002) stated that one of theconditionsrequiredforlearningisthepresenceofagoal.WhileparticipatinginCPDisthelastphaseofthemodel,informationfactorsandpredisposingfactors(togetherthedistalfactors)influencedtheproximalfactorsleadingtoaction.In summary, the I-Changemodel as a phasemodel seems applicable for theeducational fieldbecausevarious similarities canbedrawn.The remainderofthis chapterwill present the I-Changemodel as a phasemodelwhich differsfrom or is an addition to an etiological model because the objective of thischapter is not to describe or predict CPD participation but to developinterventionswiththeaimtoaugmentCPDparticipation.

2.4 Designingguidance(i.e.interventions)

Nowthatisdescribedwhatkindofdeterminantsandfacilitatorscanplayaroleinbehavioralchange,theattentioncanbeshiftedtoguidanceorinterventionsforteacherstoaugmenttheirCPDparticipation.Separatetarget interventionscanbedesigned,implemented,andevaluated.Thatis,forthosedeterminantsthatcanbeinfluencedandatthesametimearestronglyrelatedtothevarious

25

phases of CPD participation. The interventions should focus on thesedeterminants and strengthen their influence. Thereby moving through thephasesuntilteachersparticipateinCPD.

PersuasivecommunicationPersuasive communication is here defined as information for teachers aboutthe advantages of CPD participation aiming at convincing teachers toparticipateinCPD.Persuasivecommunication(Gollwitzer,1999)canbeusedasa part of an overall intervention to encourage teachers’ CPD participation.PersuasivecommunicationisoneoftheinformationfactorswithintheI-Changemodelplayingadecisiveroleinperformingbehavior.Theseinformationfactorsincludetheexactcontentofthemessage,howthemessageispresented,andbywhomorwhat. For school leaders, the aim is to convince teachers of theadvantages of CPD as it benefits both the teacher and the school. Schoolleaders should paymore attention to teachers’ CPD participation so that theteachersdon’tfeelconstrainedbutmotivated.Anotheroutcomemightbethatschool leaders talk about the CPD policy (i.e. a message factor as notedpreviously)withintheirschoolbecausethishasproventobeeffective(Geijselsetal.,2009). Indoingso, in the ideal situation, the leaders send themessageacross that CPD is important (message factor) and more teachers willparticipate in CPD (social environment factor). In short, various factorsinfluence each other, the proximal measures, and eventually intention andbehavior.OrganizingcommunicationaboutCPDinschoolsOrganizing CPD in schoolsmay comprise a number of actions that has to beaccomplished. Importantdeterminants identifiedwere thepresenceof aCPDpolicyandthepresenceofqualitystandards.CPDpolicyandqualitystandardsarenecessaryelements inorganizingCPDparticipationandactas informationfactors (e.g., channel and source factors) for teachers to assess their CPDparticipation in relation to their teaching performances. However, do allteachersknowabouttheexistenceofapossibleCPDpolicywithintheirschool?This information needs to be known before it can be exploited for assessingone’scurrent teaching.Moreover, it canbequestionedwhether teacherscanassesstheirownpracticeobjectivelyevenwhen informationsourcesaspolicyand quality standards are at their disposal (Ross & Bruce, 2007; Schunk &Ertmer,2000).Therefore,themessageinformationshouldnotberestrictedto

26

availabilitybutinformationaboutteacher’sperformanceshouldbeprovidedaswell for instance feedback about personal performance. Janssen (2013)suggested a specific professional development cycle for schools to integrateprofessionaldevelopmentplans,which incorporateactionplansforschoolstooffermore structure to their teachers.Within that professional developmentcyclepolicy-informationaswellasperformance-informationgetsincorporated.Therefore,thecyclecouldenhanceCPDparticipationforteachers.

CoacheswithinschoolsJanssen(2013)foundthatcoachesareavaluableadditionwithintheCPDcycleof schools in that they support teachers; give feedback and other necessaryinformation. A coach should particularly emphasize feedback because thecombination of feedback and reflection is crucial for teachers to establishinnovations (Hattie&Timperley, 2007). Teachersmaybecomeawareof theirneedtoimprovetheirteachingbycomparingtheperformancetheythinktheyactually have accomplished with the desired performance (Regehr & Eva,2006).However,theymaynotassesstheirownperformancecorrectly(Schunk&Ertmer,2000). Therefore, a coachcouldprovide the teacherwith feedback(message factor). Teachers experienced difficulties in formulating an actionplan (Janssen,Kreijns,Bastiaans,Stijnen,&Vermeulen,2012).Formulatinganaction plan was another important factor in the transition of themotivationphase to the action phase and for maintaining CPD participation. Therefore,interventionstoenhanceCPDcouldincorporateacoachwhoprovidesteacherswithfeedback,helpthemtoformulategoalsandactionplans,andtosupportthemtoparticipateinCPD.Otherwise,teacherscouldstallinoneofthephases(Wiersmaetal.,2002).Janssenetal.(2012)concludedthatteachersguidedbyacoachweremorecapableinformulatinglearninggoals.Theirresultsshowedthatpersonalfactorsaffectedtheextenttowhichanindividualcouldformulateagoalontheirownwithoutcoaching.Because coaches have an important role, their recruitment should be doneprudently. Coaches need to possess basic knowledge about personal factorsthatcanbeinfluencedand/orpersonalfactors.Additionally,theyshouldknowhowaparticularteacherperforms;ideally,thecoachisarepresentativeoftheschool and thus of the school norms and goals. Teachers aremorewilling totakepartinCPDactivitiesthatmatchtheirneeds(Traceyetal.,1997).Insomecases, teachers did not exactly know what their needs were and the coachhelpedthemtoelicittheseneeds(Janssen,2013).

27

2.5 Discussion

Centraltopicofthischapteristoexplaintheprocessesthatinfluenceteacherswhen engaging in CPD and to offer interventions how to trigger CPDparticipation based on a model. The I-Change model (De Vries et al., 2008),developedwithinthefieldofhealthcarewas, intheory,applicableforteacherdevelopment.Thepracticalapplicabilityofthismodelhastobeinvestigatedinfutureresearch.The two phases preceding action (e.g., awareness and motivation), wererelated with a number of different educational studies. However, someconsequencesofseparatephasesandespeciallytheactionphasearedissimilarbetweenhealthcareandeducation.Forexample,anoverweighed individual isawareoftheimportanceofexercising,hasthemotivationofgoingtothegym,but does not actually go to the gym. That same individual can get ill as aconsequence. Not acting on an intention has less direct (and less severe)consequencesforateacher.Forexample,ateacherisawareoftheusefulnessofasmartboard,hastheintentionofusingthesmartboardbutdoesnotputthatintentionintoaction.Theresultmightbethatstudentsarelessinterestedinthelessonsanddonotabsorbasmuchinformationastheycould,thelessonis less effective. This example shows that not following an CPD intention forteachersmay have consequences for students but onlymodest ones for theteacher himself. In otherwords, the consequences of a lack of actionwithineducationareseldomdirectlybroughtbacktoindividualteachers.Thedistancebetween motivation and behavior could be greater in education than inhealthcare.The I-Changemodelgives insights in thereasonswhyteachersdonot participate in CPD and gives direction to interventions that can enhanceteacherCPD.A few possible interventions were described incorporating the differentelementsoftheI-Changemodel.Buttillnow,theknowledgeaboutthespecificinfluence of distal factors on the proximal factors leading to establishingawareness,motivationoractionisstillinapreliminarystagewithregardtothesubjectof teachersCPD.Theeffectof self-esteemonthemotivation (Ilgenetal.,1979;VanEekelenetal.,2006)andactionphase(Schunk&Ertmer,2000;VandeWieletal.,2004)andthatoflocusofcontrolontheactionphase(VanAmersfoort,2009)wasdiscussed.Broaderexplorationisneededontherelationofpersonalfactors(oneoftheinformationfactorsoftheI-Changemodel)withproximalfactorsandfinallyinwhatphaseinterventionsareuseful.

28

Future research within education should investigate whether the I-Changemodel as a phase model and the deduced interventions are relevant forteachers and their CPD. Furthermore, future research needs to set directionsfor what action should follow and if adjustments of the model for theeducationalfieldisneeded.

29

CHAPTER3

StimulatingTeachers’ContinuousProfessionalDevelopmentinthe

Netherlands

Abstract

Planned Continuous Professional Development (CPD) in the past and currentinternational initiatives are frequently based on an implicit deficiency assumption orgap-basedmodel.Thisstudyansweredtheresearchquestion“Areteacherstriggeredtoparticipate in CPD following a sequential, gap-basedmodel and what is the relationwith personal and psychological factors?” Specifically, the influence of personal andpsychologicalfactorsonthreephasesofteacherCPDaccordingtotheI-Changemodel(awarenessoftheneedforCPD,motivationtotakepartinCPDandtakingaction)wasstudied.Theanalysisof119questionnairesshowedthatnotallteachersparticipatedinallthreephases.Surprisingly,fewteachershadaperformancegapandevenasmallernumber had themotivation to improve. The results showed that teachers with highscoresonCoreSelfEvaluations(CSE)werelesslikelytobecomeawareoforformulateaCPDgoalthanteacherswithlowerCSEscores.Thischapterisbasedon:Reynders, L., Vermeulen, M., Kessels, J., & Kreijns, K. (2015). Stimulating Teachers’ContinuousProfessionalDevelopmentintheNetherlands.MaltaReviewofEducationalResearch,9(1),115-136.

30

3.1 Introduction

Continuous Professional Development (CPD) of teachers ismore prominentlypresent in international literature on education (Day et al., 2007). Differentcountriesusedifferentstrategiesorpolicies tosupportCPD(Jones&O’Brien,2011;Forsberg&Wermke,2012).However,theseeffortsdonotalwayspayoffandteachersarenotalwayswillingtoparticipateinCPDactivities(VanEekelenetal.,2006;Chapter3)TheliteratureonCPDismultifaceted.SomeauthorsadvocateforCPDthatfitstheneedsofparticipants(Avalos,2011;Kennedy&Clinton,2009)orpersonalcharacteristics of teachers (Kwakman, 2003). Other authors emphasize theimportance of contextual factors (Van der Heijden, 1998). Some authorscombinethesefactors.Forinstance,DymokeandHarrison(2007)considertheimportanceofbothpersonalandprofessionalneeds,whileWalkerandCheong(1996) discuss the importance of a balance between individual andorganizational needs.Guskey (2002) state that themajority of CPDprogramsfail because of two important factors, teachers’ motives and the process ofteacherchange.WhileauthorsemphasizedifferentfactorsinfluencingCPD,theneedfor triggeringCPD inorder toenhanceengagement inCPD isaconstantfactor.Over the years, different models were developed for triggering CPD. Forinstance,modelsthatfocusedonteacherchangeandpointedatCPDprogramsastheinitialtriggerforCPDparticipation(Gusky,1986).Inaddition,motivationwasacknowledgedasanimportantfactorforparticipationinCPDactivitiesasitaffects teachers’beliefsandattitudes.WhileGuskey’smodel focusedonhowtheprocessofCPDparticipationstarted,itdidnotgiveanydetaileddescriptionofhowtostimulateteacherstoparticipateinplannedCPD.Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, and Stiles (1998) presented a continuous andcirculardesignofCPD, startingwithgoal formulation, leadingup to reflectionontheCPDactivityundertaken.IncontrasttoGuskey’smodel,thelattermodeldidnotexplicitlyincorporateteachers’motivation.Othermoregeneralmodelsofbehavioralchangefocusedmainlyonmotivationandintentionstoengageincertainbehavior(e.g.,TheoryofPlannedBehavior,TPB, Ajzen, 1991; and Social Cognitive Theory, SCT, Bandura, 1986). Thesemodelsconsideredintentionsasaproximalmeasureforactualbehavior.In the lastdecade,multi-phasemodelsofbehavioral changeweredeveloped,taking into account different influencing factors in different phases of the

31

process. The Integrated Model for explaining motivational and behavioralchange, in short, the I-Change model (De Vries et al., 2008), integrates anumberofmotivational-andmulti-phasemodels,morespecifictheTPB(Ajzen,1991),SCT (Bandura,1986), the trans-theoreticalmodel (Prochaska&Velicer,1997),andthehealthbeliefmodel(Janz&Becker,1984).The I-Change model (De Vries et al., 2008) is a phase model for behavioralchange.Itincludesthreephases:anawarenessphase,amotivationphase,andanactionphase.Themodelprovidesinsightintofactorsrelevanttoeachphase.Italsogivesdirectionsonhowto influencethese factors inordertoreinforcebehavioral change. While this model is applied predominantly in healthpreventionandhealtheducation,itisrelevantandapplicabletothedomainofteachers’ CPD participation. CPD participation can thus be seen as a phasemodel where awareness of the need to participate in CPD comes first,motivationtoparticipatesecond,andfinallyactionfollows.While the I-Changemodel could be applied tomultiple kinds of CPD, in thisstudyitwasappliedexclusivelyonteachers’deliberatelearningprocesses.Forthreereasonsthefocuswasonteachers’deliberatelearningprocesses.First,itwas important for the school-practice that teachers learn to articulate betterwhattheyhavelearnedinperformance-anddevelopmentinterviews.Kennedy(2011)showedthatteachersdonotmentiontheselearningeventswhenaskedwhat CPD activities they have undertaken. Second, to focus on deliberatelearning processes was to be in line withmany national and school policies,which tried to stimulate teacher engagement in specific CPD activities. Thesepolicies focused on closing a gap in teacher performances compared to thestandards set by policymakers or school-management. Third, some teachersshould participate in CPD to keep upwith standards. The proposed I-Changemodel could provide guidance on triggering teachers to take part in CPDactivities.As indicated earlier, the I-Change model was developed within the field ofhealthcare where many models referred to awareness related to unhealthybehaviorthatneedstobechanged.Withregardtoteachers’CPD,theneedtochange was a performance gap. Saunders (2012) explained that manyprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsassumeagapandthereforeonlysupportshort-termlearningandpractice-changetoclosethisgap.Suchagapapproachwas often implicitly present (Gallant &Mayer, 2012; Opfer & Pedder, 2011;Pedder et al., 2010). Examples of such deficiency/gap models are the onionmodel(Korthagen,2004)andthephasemodelforcorereflection(Korthagen&

32

Vasalos,2005).Bothassumethatchangingbehaviorshouldstartfromatensionor discrepancy between the current and ideal situations. The reflectivepractitioner model (Schön, 1983) states that change can only occur whenindividuals become aware that the current practice is insufficient and whentheywantto improveperformance.Thesemodels incorporateawarenessofagap as an important phase preceding the actual change of behavior. Afterawareness is reached, new possibilities for improved practice can emerge(Posthom, 2008). While awareness constitutes a form of professionalawakening Van Eekelen et al. (2006) concluded that awareness alone is aninsufficientconditionforparticipationinCPD.Wiersma et al. (2002) asserted that not all teachers go through the threeconditions – insight into their own potentials, both constraints and interests,definegoals,andtakeaction¬automatically.Thisisinlinewiththeassumptionwithin the I-Changemodelwherenot all teachers automaticallypass throughthethreephases-awareness,motivationandaction.TriggeringCPDturnedouttobeacomplexprocessduetothedelicatebalancebetweenoptimalcontextualcharacteristicsandindividualfactors.TheI-Changemodel incorporates multiple factors (distal and proximal) that influence theactual behavior, in this case participating in CPD. Figure 1 (in Chapter 2)containsthethreephaseswithintheI-Changemodel(theawarenessphase,themotivationphase,andtheactionphase)andtheirinfluencingfactors(DeVriesetal.,2008).Intheawarenessphasethetargetpopulation(i.e.teachers)becomesawareofthe current behavior, that is, the behavior itself, its performance andconsequences. Awareness means that knowledge about the behavior movesfromanunconscioustoaconsciousstate.Anumberoffactorsareinvolvedintheawarenessprocess,namely, cuesandhints (cues toaction), the feedbackgiven (knowledge), and the information sources about what the desiredbehaviorshouldentail(riskperception)(seeFigure1,Chapter2).Themotivationphaseisthephaseinwhichthetargetpopulation(i.e.teachers)reaches a state in which it forms the motivation to engage in the desiredbehavior. Motivation is determined by the proximal factors attitude, socialinfluence and self-efficacy. Attitude is the individual’s overall sympathy orantipathytowardstheconsequencesoroutcomesofperformingthebehavior.Social influence is a combination of subjective norm, social modelling, andsocial support (Broekhuizen et al., 2010). Subjective norm was defined byFishbein and Ajzen (1975) and referred to the extent to which individuals

33

believe thatmostpeople important to themmight like them toperform thatspecificbehavior.Socialmodellingandsocialsupportrefertohowmanypeoplein an individual’s surrounding perform that specific behavior and howsupportive an individual’s surrounding is in performing that specific behavior(Broekhuizen et al., 2010). Self-efficacy consists of the ‘beliefs in one’scapabilitiestoorganizeandexecutethecoursesofactionrequiredtoproducegivenattainments’(Bandura,1997,p.3).The final phase is the action phase. As the name suggests, in this phase thetargetgroup (i.e. teachers)perform thedesiredbehavior.Theactionphase isregulatedthroughself-efficacy,actionplansandskills.Self-efficacy influencingthe action phase is different from the self-efficacy influencing themotivationphase.Morespecifically,withinthemotivationphase,self-efficacyisrelatedtotheintentionofbehavior,whereasintheactionphaseself-efficacyreferstothemaintenance of behavior (Schülz et al., 2009). Action planning encompassesspecific goal setting to raise the chanceofactualexecution (Latham&Locke,1991).Skillsrefertotheactualskillsanindividualneedstoperformthespecificbehavior. Finally, barriers refer to an individual’s anticipation of possiblebarriers.In short, each phase of the I-Change model is influenced through a specificproximalfactor(seeFigure1,Chapter2).However,theseproximalfactors(andtherebyimplicitlytheoutcomeofeachphase)areinfluencedbydistalfactors.Distal factors are facilitators and barriers that might help or obstruct thetransition between phases. Within the I-Change model the distal factors aresubdividedintoinformationfactorsandpredisposingfactors.The information factors consist of personal-, message-, channel-, and sourcefactors. Some scholars identified personal factors as demographics, interests,and the need for variety (i.e. Kwakman, 1999).Message factors refer to theactual information individuals gather. Sachs (2010) argued that standards forteacherperformancecanbeusedtoimproveperformanceaswellasthestatusof teachers (quality of teaching seen by others) or trigger CPD participation(Ingvarson,1998).Standardsservetheroleofamessageon“howtoperform”.When a school had formulated a CPD policy, teachers seemed to be moremotivated toparticipate in learning activities (Geijsels et al., 2009).However,manyschools lacksuchspecificCPDpolicy (Opfer&Pedder,2011;SCP,2009)and therefore do not offer enoughmessage information to their teachers. Awiderangeofchannelstogetinformationacrosscouldbeusedandarealsoofinfluence. In the Netherlands, in the context of CPD participation, most

34

information ispresented inwritingorface-to-face. Inadditiontothechannel,sourcefactorswereanimportantdistalfactorinfluencingproximalfactorsandtherebyinfluencingthephasesoftheI-Changemodel(seeFigure1,Chapter2).The credibility of the information source is important (Ilgen et al., 1979). Forinstance,knowledgeintheformoffeedbackgivenbyarespectedcolleagueismore likely to influence intention and behavior than feedback from anemotional pupil. The school managers’ competence is shown to significantlyinfluenceteachers’CPD(SBL,2006).The predisposing factors incorporated in the I-Change model are behavior-,psychological-,andsocialenvironmentfactors.WithinschoolswherenotmanyteachersareengagedinCPD,teachersrarelyseeothercolleaguesparticipateinCPD. In otherwords, in such cases the social environment of teachers is notideal to increase CPD. Most CPD that could be observed is still limited toparticipation in courses and training, but these types of CPD have not beenevaluatedashighlyeffectivebyteachers(Dalyetal.,2009).Usingthemetaphorof the iceberg, psychological factors are the underwater characteristics andinclude,forexample,self-esteem,self-efficacyandlocusofcontrol.The I-Change model can be helpful in gaining more insight into distal andproximalfactorsfromaneducationalperspective.Thiscanshedmorelightonwhy some teachers do notmove fromphase to phase and do not engage inCPD and can lead to interventions that help teachers to overcome hurdleswithin a particular phase. This chapter discusses the results of the study inwhichtheusefulnessoftheI-Changemodelisverifiedineducationalpractice.The main research question is: Are teachers triggered to participate in CPDfollowingasequential,gap-basedmodel,andwhatistherelationwithpersonalandpsychologicalfactors?Subquestionsinclude:1. How many teachers in the current study who became aware of aperformancegap,weremotivatedtodosomethingabout itandsubsequentlytakeaction?2. WereawarenessandmotivationtoparticipateinCPDandactioninfluencedbypersonalandpsychologicalfactors?Inorder tomake the resultsof this studyuseful forpracticeand science, thestudywascarriedoutinaspecificsituation(agroupofthreeschoolsunderoneschoolboard).Byfocusingonteacherswithinoneschoolboard,thecontextualelementssuchasHumanResourceManagementpolicywereconsideredstable.In the Netherlands, a school board is one group of managers for differentschools at different locations. This stability made it possible to study the

35

influence of the selected focus variables (e.g., personal and psychologicalfactors)onCPD.

3.2 Psychologicalfactors

Forthisstudy,aspecificsetofpsychologicalfactorswasselectedproventoberelevantwithinthefieldofeducation.

CoreSelfEvaluationsExtensive research corroborated the existence and value of Core SelfEvaluations(CSE)asaconstructthatencompassedfourpsychologicalvariables:neuroticism; self-esteem; self-efficacy and locus of control (Judge, Locke, &Durham, 1997). The evidence of a common construct for neuroticism, self-esteem, self-efficacyand locusof control led to thedevelopmentof theCoreSelf Evaluations Scale (CSES) (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003).Neuroticismwasdefinedasthetendencytobeanxious,contrite,andinsecure(Costa&McCrae,1988).Judge,Locke,Durham,andKluger(1998)definedself-esteemastheoverallvaluepeopleattributetothemselves.Bandura(1997),ashas been described, defined self-efficacy as “belief in one’s capabilities toorganize and execute the courses of action required to produce givenattainments”(p.3).Thefourthcoreconstruct,locusofcontrol,wasdefinedasthedegreetowhichapersonbelievesheorshehascontroloverhisorherownlife(Rotter,1966).ThefourcorevariablesofCSEwererelatedtothefouroutoffivefactorsoftheBigFive(agreeableness,openness,conscientiousnessandextraversion).Judge,Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002) found a strong to moderate relationshipbetween CSE and both conscientiousness and extraversion aswell as aweakrelationshipornorelationshipbetweenCSEandagreeablenessandopenness.In addition, there was a strong relationship between CSE and neuroticism(within the Big Five), but CSE proved to be a broader construct thanneuroticismalone.The construct of CSE has been studied over the years, thus providing moreevidence for its existence and value. Judge et al. (1997) tested this coreconstructprimarilyinthefieldsofwork-andorganizationalpsychology,butCSEhas not yet been linked to CPD. However, the link between the separateconstructsandCPDwasmadebydifferentauthorsaspresentedhereafter.

36

The relationship between self-efficacy and awareness was supported by theresearch of Schunk and Ertmer (2000) and Ross and Bruce (2007). Theseauthors found that self-efficacy determined how accurately people perceivetheir ownperformance.VanDinther,Dochy, and Segers (2011) andRoss andBruce (2007) found that self-efficacy influences thewaypeople set goals andthe effort people make to obtain their goals (proximal factors within the I-Changemodel).Locus of control could also be linked to the phases of the I-Change model,because it influenced peoples’ response to feedback (part of the informationfactors) (Ilgenetal.,1979). Inaddition, locusofcontrol influencedhowactiveandmotivatedateacherwasinestablishinggoals(VanAmersfoort,2009)thatis,howgenuinelyateacherintendedtotakepartinCPD.In order to include the CSE as a psychological factor in future studies, thereliability had to be examined. Although the CSES was an establishedquestionnaire in the Netherlands and beyond, there was no guarantee thatteachers would act according to its expectations. To examine the practicalrelevanceofthechosenvariablesinadditiontotheirtheoreticalrelevance,anexisting database was consulted. This pre-study intended to answer thequestion,“IstheCSESareliablemeasureforteachers?”Thedatabaseconsistedof79teachersfromdifferentsecondaryschoolsintheNetherlands. The distribution of men and women was respectively 22.8 and77.2percentandthemeanagewas34.8years(SD=12.5).TheDutchCoreSelfEvaluationsScale(DCSES)(dePater,Schinkel,&Nijstad,2007)consistedof12itemsscoredona5-pointscalerangingfromtotallydisagree(1)tototallyagree(5). The 12 items of the DCSES had a mean score of 36.13 with a standarddeviationof5.32andaCronbach’salphaof.79.Onthebasisofthisreliability,itwasconcludedthat theDCSESwasacceptableasapsychological testandcanbeusedinfuturestudies.Thepersonalfactorsmeasuredinthisstudywereage,experienceandwhethertheteacherwasemployedinpre-universityeducation.

AgeMany studies incorporated age as a control variable. Age influencesmultipleaspects of CPD (Hustler, McNamara, Jarvis, Londra, & Campbell, 2003). Forinstance,ageinfluencedteachers’perceptionsofthekindsofactivitiesthatfallunderCPD,andolder teachershadmorenegativeattitudes towardCPD thantheiryoungercolleagues.Inaddition,therewasarelationshipbetweenageand

37

motivation to learn and between age and learning process (Colquitt, Jeffrey,LePine,&Noe,2000).ExperienceExperience was defined as the number of years a teacher has been in theteaching profession. Experience influenced the learning needs of teachers(Nabhani&Bahous,2010).Although age and experience were closely related variables, they were bothincluded in the study. People who entered the teaching profession after acareer in another fieldmight develop a differentway of going through the I-Changemodel.

Teachinginpre-universityeducationIn theNetherlands, secondary schools offer different education systems. Pre-vocationalsecondaryeducationincludesvocationallyfocusedtraining(ages12to 16). Senior general secondary education includesmore theoretical studies(ages 12 to 17) and pre-university education has the most scientific content(ages 12 to 18). The student and teacher populations of these educationsystemsdifferaccordingly.

3.3 Method

ParticipantsTheunderlyingassumptionoftheI-Changemodelwasthatsometeachersdidnotbecomeawareoftheneedtodevelopasprofessionals.Therefore,workingin pairs of one teacher and his/her team coordinator (TC) was importantbecause the TC could give information (feedback) to the teacher in order toraise awareness. Theonlinequestionnaire (available through the first author)waspresentedto408pairsconsistingofateacherandaTC,representingthetotal populationof three different schools under the jurisdiction of the sameschoolboard. From the invitedpairs, 119 completed theentirequestionnaire(29.2%).Thedistributionofthesamplewas56.4%menand44.6%women.Themeanworkexperienceineducationwas16.2years(SD=13.3).Themeanagewas 44.2 years (SD = 18.8). This sample was representative of the Dutchteacherpopulationinsecondaryeducation(InspectionofEducation,2010).

38

ProcedureAnonlinequestionnaireseemedthemostsuitableresearchmethodbecauseitcouldbemadepartof theprocessof teacher assessmentwithin the schools,and it was least time consuming for both teachers and researcher. Whenteachershaveto investa lotof timeandenergy inresearchparticipation,thereturnratewoulddropdrastically.AllTCsandteachersreceivedapre-noticeemailaboutthequestionnairebeforetheir Spring break, signed by the director of the school board. After thevacation,eachparticipantreceivedaninvitationbymailtocompletetheonlinequestionnaire. Approximately one month after the invitation, the TC andteacherswhohadnotcompletedthequestionnairereceivedareminder.First,theTCcompletedthequestionnaireassessingtheteacher’sperformance.Next, the teacher responded to an extended questionnaire. The teacher alsoassessed his/her ownperformance followedby immediate information aboutthe TCs feedback. Hereafter, the TC answered questions about his or herresponse to that feedback. The combined results (answers of the TC andanswersoftheteacher)weretheunitofanalysisforthisstudy.InstrumentsForcollectingdataonteacher’sperformance,asuitabletopichadtobechosen.In a pilot study a focus group of five teachers discussed a variety of possibletopics forassessing teachers.Thecriteria to judge thesuitabilityof the topicsusedbythefiveteacherswere:1)recognizabityforteachers;2)useofsimilardefinitions among different teachers; 3) possibility of differentiation ofcompetence between teachers; and 4) opportunity for teachers to scorethemselves as having a need to improve. Participants measured each topicagainst the criteria and checked if they had a shared connotation for thosetopics. To summarize, the focusgroupnamed three topics (giving instruction,use of student-activating teaching methods and differentiation in theclassroom)suitableforassessing. Intheend,thepanelofteachersfoundthatthetopic“abilitytousestudent-activatingteachingmethods”wasmostsuitedtoincorporateintheanalysisofthisstudy.Additionally,astudybyFreedman,Echt,Cooper,Miner,andParker(2012)showedthatteacherssearchforactiveteaching methods to promote deeper levels of information processing.Student-activating teaching methods were examples of student-centeredapproaches to learning which emphasize the responsibility and activity ofstudents regarding learning ultimately leading up to deep learning and

39

understanding(Baeten,Kyndt,Struyven,&Dochy,2010).Thefirstdraftofthequestionnairewasreviewedbythesamegroupoffiveteachers.Afterthispilotphase, the topic of student-activating teachingmethodswas incorporated toscoreteacherperformanceandafewtextualadjustmentsweremadetomakeitbettersuitedtotheeducationalsetting.TCsreceivedthequestionnaireaboutteacherperformance.Thisquestionnaireconsisted of two parts; part one referred to the contact between TC andteacherregardingquantityandquality,whileparttwoincorporatedthescoringofteacherperformancebytheTC.Theteacherquestionnaireconsistedofthesametwoparts,andtwonewpartswereadded.ThefirstnewpartshowedthescoringtheTCgavetotheteacherandaskedforaresponse(forexample“Towhat extent do you agreewith the feedbackof theTC?” scoring from totallydisagree to totally agree). The second new part of the teacher questionnairecontainedpersonalfactorsandtheCSE.TheCoreSelf-evaluationsScale(Judgeetal.,2002)wastranslatedandvalidatedintotheDutchCoreSelf-evaluationsScale (de Pater et al., 2007). The Dutch Core Self-evaluations Scale (α = .81)consistedof12 items (3 itemsper sub-scale)witha five-point response scaleranging fromtotallydisagree(1) tototallyagree(5).Oneof the indicators forlocusofcontrolwas‘Idecidewhathappens’.AnalysisTo answer the first subquestion ‘Howmany teachers in this research projectbecomeawareofaperformancegap,aremotivatedtodosomethingabout itandtakeaction?’insightintotheflowofparticipantsthroughthephasesoftheI-Changemodelwasneeded(Figure2).The first step of the flowchart was to assign whether teachers had aperformancegapandthusthepossibilityofbecomingawareofagap.Inotherwords, not every teacher needs to improve his/her performance in usingstudent-activating teaching methods. This precondition was determinedthroughthecomparisonoftheteacherperformancescores(onascaleofoneto ten) given by the TC and the teacher. In other words, the individualquestionnairesoftheTCandteacherwerecombined,resultinginonedataset.Whenthetwoscoresdifferedbyatleasttwopoints,roomforimprovementor,inotherwords,agapwaspresent.

40

Teachershadtwopossiblewaysofbeingassignedtotheawarenessphase:1) TheTCgaveahigherscorethantheteacherandtheteacherdisagreed.Forexample, if the TC gave the teacher a seven and the teacher gave a score offive.2) TheTCgavealowerscorethantheteacherandtheteacheragreeswiththescoreoftheTC.The motivation phase included teachers who intended to take action.Motivationwasmeasuredwith thequestion: ‘Towhatextentdoyouwant todo something to optimize the use of student-activating teaching methods?’(Five-point scale: 1 = I will certainly take no action; 5 = I will certainly takeaction).Teachersparticipated in theactionphase if theyhad formulateda goal.Goalformulationwas used since the actual behavior could not yet be performed.

pairs within the schools(n=409)

pairs that finished thequestionnaire(n=119)

did not respond to thecall for participation orthereminder(n=290)

havenogap(n=94)haveamarginforimprovement(n=25)

finishedphase1(n=10)

notfinishedphase1(n=15)

finishedphase2(n=7)

notfinishedphase2(n=18)

finished phase 3(n=6)

notfinishedphase3(n=19)

Figure2:Flowofparticipantsthroughoutthestudy

41

Moreover,goal formulationwasclosely linkedtotheformulationofanactionplan, one of the proximal factors of action. Goal formulation was measuredwiththequestion:‘Doyouhavespecificdevelopmentgoalstooptimizetheuseof student-activating teachingmethods?’ (four-point scale: 1 = not at all; 4 =multiple).Intheanalysis,thesuccessiveorderoftheI-Changewasaccountedfor;analysisfor motivation phase (phase 2) only included teachers who completed theawareness phase (phase 1), and analysis for action (phase 3) only includedteacherswhocompletedthepreviousphases.Control analyseswereperformed to check for the influencesof personal andpsychological factors. In other words, a checkwas performed to ensure thatthesefactorsdidnotdifferbeforeteachersenteredaphase.The CSE and personal factors (age, experience) were tested with anindependentT-test.Thevariablesweresetastestingvariablesandinclusioninthe analysis of the research questions was set as the grouping variable. Thepossible significance of being employed in pre-university education wasevaluatedusingχ².The only significant variablewas teacher’s experience. The group of teacherswhobecameawareofagaphadlessexperience(M=11.52,SD=8.83)(t(41)=-3.16;F=39.71;p=.003)thanteacherswhodidnotbecomeawareofagap(M=17.86,SD=12.59).Asaconsequence,experiencewasnotincorporatedintheanalysisofthesecondresearchquestion.Toanswerthesecondsubquestion‘Inwhatwaysareawareness,motivationtoparticipateinCPDandactioninfluencedbypersonalandpsychologicalfactors?’the Mann-Whitney U test was performed using the CSE and age as testingvariables and teacher’s inclusion (ornot) in aphaseas thegrouping variable.The possible significance of being employed in pre-university education wasagaintestedusingχ²(resultsarediscussedbelow).

3.4 Emergingthemes

FewteachersbecameawareofaperformancegapFigure2showstheflowofparticipantsthroughthephases.Withregardtotheuse of student-activating teaching methods, of the 25 teachers withperformancegaps,ten(40%)becameawareofthegap.Fromthisgroupseven(28%)hadthemotivationtoovercomethegapandsix(24%)formulatedagoal

42

inordertotakeaction.LessthanaquarteroftheteachersbecameawareofaperformancegaporhadtheintentiontotakepartinCPD.TheI-Changemodelholdstheassumptionthatnotallteacherscompleteallthephases,andindeed,someteachersgotstuckinaphase.Basedonthefeedbackofthepilotstudy,itwasasurprisethatsofewteachershadagapwithregardto using student-activating teachingmethods and an even lower number (6)wasreadyforaction.Possibleexplanationswillbegivenlateroninthischapter.From our study, it was impossible to predict how many of the 24% of theteacherswhointendtotakeactionwillactuallytakepartinCPD.Core self-evaluations and age partially influenced the transition fromawarenessthroughmotivationtoparticipateinCPDtoactionCSEwassignificantlyrelatedtocompletionofawarenessandaction(phases1and3oftheI-Changemodel)(resp.U=33.0,p=.019andU=29.0,p=.039).Teacherswhofinishedphases1and3hadalowermeanscoreontheCSEthanteacherswhodidnotfinishthesephases.Thismight indicatethatCSEwasanimportant variable to consider in planning the CPD process. In other words,teachers who had more self-efficacy, higher self-esteem, emotional balance,and an internal locus of control were less likely to become aware and takeaction.NotethatthemeanscoreinthelowergrouponCSEwasstillabovethetheoreticalmean (theoreticalmean= 36 andmean of the low-scoring group=43.7).Therelativelyhighscoreofthelow-scoringgroup(mean=43.7comparedto the theoretical mean= 36) indicated that both the low-scoring group andhigh-scoring group teachers ranked high on CSE. The former conclusion thatstatedthatlow-scoringteachersweremorelikelytofinishphase1and2canbespecified in teacherswithanaboveaveragescoreonCSEweremore likely tofinishtheawarenessandactionphasethanthosewhohadanextremelyhighscoreonCSE.AlthoughCSEhada significant influenceon twoof the threephasesof the I-Changemodel,theresultscontradictedourexpectations,namelythatteacherswithhighCSEscoresweremorelikelytocompletethephasesthanthosewithlowCSEscores.Inthecaseofself-esteem,apossibleexplanationcouldbethatthe high scores might reflect overconfidence, which can result in less self-reflectionandreceptivenesstotheinputofothers(distalfactoroftheI-Changemodel;seeFigure1).An explanation for the contribution of the other two components of CSE(emotional stability and locus of control)was less obvious. Peoplewhowere

43

emotionallystableshouldbeabletomovetowardCPDmoreeasilythanpeoplewhowerenot as stablebecause ahigh scoreonemotional stability indicateslessanxietyandinsecurity.Theresultsofthisstudy,however,contradictedthiscommonsensenotion.Alongthesamelineofreasoning,teacherswithamoreinternallocusofcontrolwere likely toattribute failure to theirownbehaviorand, accordingly, shouldbecome awaremore easily of a development possibility than peoplewith anexternal locus of control. The results of this study, again, contradicted thiscommon sense notion. Perhaps an explanation could lie in the fact that thisstudydidnottakethecontentofteachers’CPDgoalsintoaccount.Inshort,teacherswithanaboveaveragescoreonCSEweremorelikelytofinishPhases 1 and3 than thosewhohad anextremelyhigh scoreonCSE.Here, aplausible explanation for two scales of theCSE emerged; high scores on self-esteem and self-confidencemay reflect overconfidence, which results in lessself-reflectionandlowerreceptivenesstotheinputofothers.

AgewassignificantforcomingintotheawarenessphaseTeacherswho finished the firstphasewereolder (M=47.4, sd=10.01) thanteacherswhodidnotfinishthefirstphase(M=35.6,SD=11.64).SchunkandErtmer (2000) found that older students use more self-regulating strategiesthan younger students. This distribution could persist later in life, thussupportingourfindings.Beingemployedinpre-universityeducationwasnotsignificantlyrelatedtothetransition between phases (Table 1). This may mean that the type ofeducationalsysteminwhichateacherworkshadlittleinfluenceonhowheorshedevelopedtheintentiontoparticipateinCPD.

As expected, CSE and age influenced the transition between phases. ButneitherCSEnorage influencedall thephases.Asaresult, thehypothesisthat

Table1:Influenceofemploymentinpre-universityeducationoncompletionofeachofthethreephases

phase1 phase2 phase3

Individualfactor n Chi² df p n Chi² df p n Chi² df pBeing employed in pre-universityeducation

25 .33 1 .653 25 .11 1 1.000 25 .38 1 .606

*p<.05

44

personalandpsychologicalfactorsinfluencethetransitionbetweenphaseswaspartiallyconfirmed.CSE was only significantly related to completion of awareness and action(phases1 and3of the I-Changemodel).Apotential explanation for thenon-significant relationship between CSE and motivation (or intention) could befoundintheTheoryofReasonedAction(TRA)(Fishbein&Ajzen,1975)andtheTheory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In short, the TRA stated thatintention was influenced by a person’s subjective norm and attitude towardbehavior.TheTheoryofPlannedBehaviorextendedthisviewbyincorporatingthe influence of perceived behavioral control (very similar to self-efficacy).One’sattitudetowardbehaviorwastheproductofhisorherbeliefabouttheoutcome and the value that he or she placed on that expected outcome. Aperson’s subjective normwas a combination of the beliefs of others and theextenttowhichapersonwantedtoconform.Unlike Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), whomeasured intentionmore extensively,thisstudymeasuredmotivationverystraightforwardlybyaskingonequestion(‘Towhatextentdoyouwanttodosomethingtooptimizetheuseofstudent-activatingteachingmethods?’).

3.5 Concludingobservations

The group of teachers who detected a performance gap applying student-activating teaching methods was relatively small (Figure 2): 25 out of 119teachers(21%).Basedonpreviousstudies(Freedmanetal.,2012;Baetenetal.,2010) and thepilot studyperformedearlier, itwasassumed that thiswasanunderestimationofthesizeofthegroupwithagap.ThephasesoftheI-Changemodelwerepresentedasconsecutivephases,eachphaseshowedtheteacherswhohadsuccessfully finishedthepreviousphase.However, this study revealed that some participants did not finish theawarenessphasebutdidfinishthemotivationphaseaswellasparticipantsthatdidnotfinishthemotivationphasebutdidfinishtheactionphase.Thoughthisstudydidnottaketheseteachers intoaccount, itwas interestingtospeculateonhowtheywereabletoskipphases.Onepossibleexplanationforteacherscomingintheactionphasewithoutbeingaware ormotivatedwas that these teachers had been forced to formulate agoal.Probably, thisgroupresembled theold fashionedwayofcollectiveCPD,

45

where the CPD subject was set in a fixed program. In other words, teacherswereforcedtoselectoneofthepre-setsubjects(goals).This studysupports theassumption that fewteachersparticipated inplannedCPD activities (Kennedy, 2011). The expectation that feedback (informationfactor)aboutaperformancegapwouldincreasemotivationandparticipationinCPDwasnotconfirmed.Additional qualitative research has been performed to obtain further insightintothereasonswhysofewteachersshowedtheintentiontotakepartinCPDactivities.Preliminaryresults(seeChapter4)showedthatteachersandTCs(22pairswho also participated in the quantitative study) had a shared definitionabout thetopics,andthecontentof theirassessmentclosely resembledeachother.However,whenteacherswereinterviewedindividually,theymentionedCPDgoals thatwerenotdiscussed in theirassessmentconversation. It seemsthatteachersweremoreeasilymotivatedtotakepartinCPDandtoformulategoals based on their interests and fields of expertise. Desimone, Smith, andUeno (2006) found that teachers with strong content knowledge weremorelikelytoengage inCPDcomparedtoteacherswith lowcontentknowledge. Inotherwords,teacherswithoutaknowledgeorperformancegapshowedmoreintentiontoparticipate(andtookaction)inCPD.Apositivepsychologyviewcanenrichtheresultsobtainedbypsychologistsandthe corresponding insight theyoffer (Seligman&Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), andweaker areas may improve as a ‘side effect’ (Tjepkema & Verheijen, 2005).‘Strengthbaseddevelopment’ isbecomingmoreandmorecommoninawidevarietyofinstitutionsandcompanies,butlittleisknownaboutitseffects(VanWoerkom, Stienstra, Tjepkema, & Spruyt, 2011). Patrick, Elliot, Hulme, andMcPhee(2010)statedthat foranautonomousprofessional toemerge,ashiftmustbemadefromaperformancemanagementapproachtoadevelopmentalapproach. The strength based development approach positively impactswellbeing and extra role behavior (Van Woerkom et al., 2011). Greaterwellbeingleadstomoreinnovativebehaviorandbettertaskperformanceandleadstopositiveresultsformanyinstitutionsandcompanies.However, intheeducational field notmuch research comparing differentmodels for CPD hasbeendone(Kennedy,2005).

46

3.6 LimitationsandFutureDirections

AlthoughtheauthorsonlystudiedtheDutchcontext,theyusedmeasurementinstrumentsoriginating inothercountries(i.e.theCSE).Therefore, itcouldbeexpected that the results serve international purpose as well. Nevertheless,futureresearchisneededtoverifytheresultsinaninternationalcontext.The authors opted to study the usability of their model within one schoolboard.Thischoicehad twoadvantages.The firstonewasaclose relationshipbetweenschools(threewithinonedistrict)andresearcher.Theresearcherwasfamiliarwith the school board and numerous key personswithin the schools(principal,coaches,TCs,teachers,etc.).Thesecondadvantagewasthestabilityof the contextual factors. But the approach also had some drawbacks. ThisspecificschoolboardgaveprioritytoCPDoftheirteachers,whichmightnotbethecasewithotherschools.Hence,theresultsfoundinthisstudymightnotbeapplicabletoschoolboardswithadifferentfocus.CSEandotherpersonalfactorshadasignificanteffectonthephasesteachersgothrough.However, the incorporationofenvironmentalvariablescouldgiveanotherdimensiontotriggeringCPDofteachers.Future research could shed light on why out of 25 teachers who had aperformancegap,only six intended to takepart inCPDactivities.Whatmadethemdecidenottotakeactiontoovercometheirgap?Abetterunderstandingof the contribution from the separate componentsofCSE isneeded inordertomakespecificguidelineshowtotriggerCPD.Futureresearchshouldincorporatetestsforself-esteem,self-efficacy,locusofcontrol,andemotionalstability.

3.7 Implications

ForfartoolongteachersandschoolshavebeenengagedinCPDthatwasnotplanned to meet the needs of the individual teacher, the school and thestudents.ToreacheffectiveCPDwithinschools,certaincriteriashouldbemet.First, the results of this study indicate that although some teachers followlogicalsteps(awareness,motivationandaction),otherswerejustmotivatedorformulatedagoal.Thus,whentheaimofaschoolistotriggerCPD,theyshouldnottrytoforceteacherstotakeeverystepoftheprocessataconsciouslevel.CPD has to be planned but not every step in the process leading up to CPDparticipation has to be written down in advance. Qualitative research (see

47

Chapter4) showed that sometimes teachersbecomeawareofaneedafteraCPD activity was undertaken. Secondly, our model which was based on adeficiencyapproach-asweremanyplannedCPDinitiativeswithinschools-didnot lead to large numbers of teacherswho became aware of a performancegap. Therefore schools, HR-services or researchers should be careful infollowingthefrequentlyused(sometimesimplicit)gapassumptionsinceCPDisa complex process, influenced by multiple factors and not always followingchronological steps. In short, the previous two criteria indicate that planningCPDshouldbedonewithcare.IfplannedCPDistoorigid,teachersparticipatinginmorespontaneousCPDactivitieswillnotbetriggeredtomakeexplicitwhatthey have learned. Therefore, school leaders should not try to enforceprocedures regardingCPDbut should frequentlyask teacherswhat theyhavelearned, what they do different than before etc. Another implication forpracticedealswith theeffectivenessofCPDpolicies.Manyschools search forways to trigger CPD. This study gives them some guidelines. Personal andpsychological factorsseemto influencethecourseofCPD.Whenschoolstakethesefactorsintoaccount,theycancreatemoreeffectivepolicies.Forinstance,olderteachersbecomemoreeasilyawareofaCPDgoalthanyoungerones. Itmight be good to implement a mentor system that pairs older and youngerteachersinordertoteachtheyoungeroneshowtheycanbecomeawareofaneed.Noticethatherethetermneedisusedandnotperformancegap.Itcouldhinder the relationship when the focus is on poor performance rather thanbuilding on strengths. This leads to a last important finding regarding theeffectiveness of CPD. Schools should not only be flexible in the way CPD isplannedbutshouldalsoofferteachersthechancetoexcelintheirstrengths.In summary, this chapter shows that only a limited number of teachersintended to participate in CPD explicitly following three consecutive phases,being influenced by personal and psychological factors on teachers’participation inCPD. It raisessomedoubtsabout thegap-approach;however,thisapproachmaybeusefulincertainsituations,suchasunderachievementorpreparingfornewtasks/situations.Whenteachersneedtodevelopnewbasicskills,agapanalysis isessential. It is interestingtoexplorewhetherapositiveapproach might motivate more teachers to improve their performance andexcelintheirstrengths.

48

CHAPTER4Howtomotivateteacherstotakepartin

CPD:thedeficiencyversustheappreciativeapproach

Abstract

Thisstudycomparedtheefficacyoftwoapproachesleadingtocontinuousprofessionaldevelopment (CPD). The first one is the deficiency approach that emphasizes theperformancegapandCPDactivitiesconcentratedoneliminatingthisgap.Thesecondisthe appreciative approach implying that engagement in CPD is aimed towardsimprovementofskillsteachersareinterestedinwiththeresultthattheirperformancehas improved. The research question focuses on what is efficacious to enhanceteachers’ CPD participation. Twenty-two face-to-face assessments between teachersand their team coordinators (TCs) were observed and analyzed. A retrospectiveinstrumentwasusedtogaininsightinteachers’engagementinCPDparticipation.Theresults indicated that engagement in CPD activities rose in situations that offeropportunities for CPD activities. But thiswas only truewhen teachers showed somedegreeofwillingnessforengaginginCPDactivities,thatis,theyhadtobeintrinsicallymotivatedorintegratetheexternallyregulatedCPDactivitiesintotheirmindset.Theseindications have more in common with the appreciative approach than with thedeficiencyapproach.ThisimplicatesaperspectivechangeregardingCPDparticipation:rather than focusingon teachers’performancegaps the focus should lieon teachers’strengthsandpassions.Thischapterisbasedon:Reynders,L.,Vermeulen,M.,&Kessels,J.(2012,June).GeenbehoefteaanCPD…ligtditaanzelfbeoordelingvande leraar?PaperpresentedattheOnderwijsResearchDagen,Wageningen,Netherlands.Reynders, L., Vermeulen,M., & Kessels, J. (submitted). How tomotivate teachers totakepartinCPD:thedeficiencyversustheappreciativeapproach.

49

4.1 Introduction

ContinuousProfessionalDevelopment(CPD)isaimedtoimprovethequalityofthe teachers pivotal for the quality of education (Hattie, 2012). So CPDparticipation (or teacherdevelopment; seeKelchtermans,2004) is consideredanimportantpartofbeingateacher(OECD,2008)worldwideand,istherefore,a recurrent topic in the international policy of recent years (Forsberg &Wermke, 2012; Billet, 2001). Whereas various studies showed that teachersparticipate inCPD (SocialandCulturalPlanningOffice (SCP),2009;Deneireetal.,2009;OECD,2008),otherstudies indicatedquite theopposite (Nabhani&Bahous,2010;VanEekelenetal.,2006;Vermeulenetal.,2011).Variouseffortshavebeenmadetomotivateteachers’CPD(Hanley,Maringe,&Ratcliffe,2008;Ross & Bruce, 2007), but still little is known about why teachers actuallyparticipateinCPDactivities.Teachers’ participation in CPD can be seen from the perspective of behaviorchange (Avalos, 2011). From this perspective, beliefs regarding teachers’behavior with regard to CPD play an important role in the research as theymightprovide insight inwhynotall teachersparticipate inCPDand thusgivedirections how tomotivate them to do so. However, literature and researchaboutCPDrarelyexplicatethesetofbeliefsunderlayingtheresearch(Wilson&Berne,1999).Thisomissioncouldbeoneofthereasonsforthecontradictoryfindingsonteachers’participationinCPD.Beliefsalsoleadtodifferentwaystoqueryteachers.Ifthebeliefisthatteachersonlylearnwhenthereisanecessitytoeliminateaperformancegap,thenitmightbecomenecessarytopointthemexplicitly to the gap. But, if the belief is that teachers learn when they areinterested in a topic, then a strategy is to point them to their strengths andpassions. Corresponding with these two beliefs are the deficiency and theappreciativeapproachrespectively;thefirstfocusesontheeliminationofaperformancegapandthesecondonthedevelopmentofstrengthsandinterestsofaperson.InmanyCPDstudies and models a deficiency approach is implicitly present (for exampleGallant&Mayer,2012;Opfer&Pedder,2011;Pedderetal.,2010).Theperspectiveofbehavioralchangealsorequiresamodelthatcanexplainorpredictbehaviortakingbothtwoapproachesasinput.OnesuchmodelistheI-Change model of De Vries et al. (2008) that has three consecutive phases:awareness,motivation,andaction.Thismodel isusedthroughoutthecurrentresearch.

50

The above has led to the following research question:What is efficacious intriggeringteachers’CPDparticipationintermsthatitcreatesawarenessaboutthe need for CPD participation (the awareness phase) and themotivation tostartwithCPD(themotivationphase)?Thischapterstartswithatheoreticalframeworkinwhichbothapproachesfortriggering engagement in CPD activity is described followed by introducing amodel for explaining behavioral change: the I-Changemodel. It continues bydescribingtheresultsofaqualitativestudythatcomparestheoutcomeofthetwoapproaches.Thechapterendswithaconclusionanddiscussionsection.

4.2 Theoreticalframework

TwoapproachesfortriggeringengagementinCPDactivityManyprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsassume(moreoften implicitly thanexplicitly) a gap in skills and/or knowledge between teachers’ actual anddesired performance (Wilson & Berne, 1999). The deficiency approachemphasizedthisgapandfocusesoneliminatingthisgap.Sometimesthegapiscausedbynewpoliciesornewtechnologiesthatrequirenewperformance(seeforexampleAvalos,2011); sometimes it is causedby insufficientprofessionaldevelopment over the years (De Vries, Van de Grift, & Jansen, 2013) thatrequiresupdatingperformance.Handfield-Jonesetal.(2002)describedtheon-the-ground voyage model of competence. According to this model, theperformancedeclines over timebecause theprofession advances introducingnewinsightandmethods.Themodelfurtherassumesthattheprofessional(i.e.the teacher) remains inactive until the performance falls below a minimallyacceptable personal norm or a professional norm. However, not allprofessionals become aware of this particular moment, some of them needfeedback in order to take action to improve their performance, that is,participateinCPD(Ross&Bruce,2007;Handfield-Jonesetal.,2002).Incontrasttothedeficiencyapproachisanappreciativeapproach.Ratherthanfocusingontheperformancegap,itviewsperformancefromtheperspectiveof1) what is strong, good and appreciated (Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros,2008)2)strength-baseddevelopment(VanWoerkometal.,2011),or3)talentmanagement(Lewis&Heckman,2006).AnappreciativeapproachincorporatesthebeliefthatparticipantsaremoremotivatedtotakepartinCPDbecauseitismorerewardingtoacquiretheskillsyouareinterestedinorthatyouimprove

51

already possessed skills (Visser, 2010). Indeed, Billet (2001) expressed thatteachers only engage in effort-requiring activities when they are stronglymotivated or interested to do so.Moreover, Tjepkema and Verheijen (2005)explainedthatwithapositiveapproach,evenweakerbutimportantareasmayimproveasasideeffect.Theyprovidedtheexampleinwhichanemployeehadtoimprovehiscommunicationandsocialskillsbutonlydidthiswhenhewishedtolearntocollaboratewithothersinordertohandlelargerandmorecomplextasks.Though, development based on the positive and strong sides of someone’sperformance becomes more common in a wide variety of institutions andcompanies,littleisknownaboutitseffects.OneexceptionisVanWoerkometal. (2011)who showed that this kindof approachpositively affectswellbeingand extra-role behavior in the work situation (the employee executes tasksbeyondtheexpectedtasks).Accordingtothem, increasedwellbeingresults inmore innovative behavior and better task performance. Research on self-efficacy as apositive influencerof behavior changeorCPDparticipation, alsocontributes to thisapproach.Whenaperson isalreadygoodat somethingorhasexperiencewiththebehavior,self-efficacyusuallyishigher,thenwhenself-efficacy isassociatedwithaperformancegap (Ross&Bruce,2007;Cantrell&Callaway,2008).Several authors froma broader field than the educational field discussed thedifferencebetweenthemorenegativelyorienteddeficiencyapproach(negativebecauseitfocusesonomissions)andthemorepositivelyorientedappreciativeapproach(positivebecauseitfocusesonwhereyouarealreadygoodat,seeforexample, Buckingham and Coffman 1999, Lavender 2009). Buckingham andCoffman(1999)performedastudyin400businesseswith80,000managersandmore than one million employees. They concluded that managers in theirresearch made a distinction between talent and skills. Furthermore, goodmanagersdidnottrytoputinwhatwasleftoutbutfocusontheuniquetalentsof that person. Lavender (2009) remarked that both approaches areappropriate in different situations. For instance, the deficiency approach isassociated with competence management where people learn from theirmistakes. Consequently, their performance will improve. Competencemanagementisjustifiedforpeoplejustenteringtheprofessionorafterashiftin tasksand responsibilitiesandanappreciativeapproach ismorestimulatingformoreexperiencedpeople(Lavender,2009).

52

Both deficiency and appreciative approaches draw on models of behaviorchange.Currentinsightinbehavioralchangetheoriespointoutthatbehavioralchange is a dynamic process with different phases and that each phase hasdifferent determinants (De Vries et al., 2008). One such behavioral changetheory that emphasizes itsdynamicnature is the I-Changemodelwhich is anintegratedmodel forexplainingmotivationalandbehavioral change (DeVriesetal.,2008).Thismodelisdescribedinthenextsection.

TheI-changemodelTheI-Changemodelintegratesanumberoftheoriesandmodelsthatallfocusonchangingbehavior(e.g.,thetheoryofplannedbehavior,Ajzen,1991;socialcognitive theory,Bandura,1986; transtheoreticalmodel,Prochaska&Velicer,1997;thehealthbeliefmodel,Janz&Becker,1984;andgoalsettingstheories).Although the I-Change model was developed for the domain of healthprevention and health education, applying it in the domain of teacherprofessionalizationcouldgivevaluablenewinsightinwhyCPDoftenseemssohard to accomplish (Van Eekelen et al., 2006). In the I-Change model threephases of behavioral change have been defined: awareness, motivation, andaction.Themodelandaccompanyingphasescouldbeappliedfromadeficiencyandanappreciativeperspective.Intheawarenessphaseateachermaybecomeawareofabehavioralproblemifpresent; inthecurrentstudythebehavioralproblemisthatnotallteachersparticipate in CPD although a performance gap exists. Awareness about theperformancegapmaybetheresultofaccurateknowledgeandperceptionsofone’sownlevelofperformanceregardingthebehavior(Handfield-Jonesetal.,2002).Severalauthors(Regehr&Eva,2006;Relan,Wilkerson,Doyle,&Guiton,2006;Onstenk,Kallenberg,&Koster,2007)havefocusedonthefeedbackandguidance that some teachers need to be able to evaluate their performancerealistically. Indeed, in a number of cases, teachers tended to overestimatetheir levelof teachingbecause theyhavenot the faintest ideaof their actualperformanceduetothelackofaccurateknowledgehowperformancesshouldbe (Ross&Bruce, 2007). Information is important to get accurate knowledgeabouttheperformanceinrelationtotheneedsoftheorganization.Therefore,feedbackonperformance isessential togetawareness for theneedofaCPDactivity(Sadler,1989,Nicol&McFarlane-Dick,2006).The motivation phase was the phase wherein the target population (i.e.teachers) reached a state in which the motivation to engage in the desired

53

behavior is formed (in this case motivated to participate in CPD activities).Motivation was determined by attitude, social influence and self-efficacy.Attitude was the individual’s overall sympathy or antipathy towards theconsequencesoroutcomesofperformingthebehavior.Social influencewasacombination of subjective norm (as in the TPB), social modelling, and socialsupport (Broekhuizen et al., 2010). Subjective normwas defined by Fishbeinand Ajzen (1975) and referred to the extent individuals believe that mostpeople who are important to themmight like them to perform that specificbehavior.Socialmodellingandsocialsupportreferredtohowmanypeople inanindividual’ssurroundingperformthatspecificbehaviorandhowsupportivean individual’s surrounding was in performing that specific behavior(Broekhuizen et al., 2010). Self-efficacy consisted of the ‘beliefs in one’scapabilitiestoorganizeandexecutethecoursesofactionrequiredtoproducegivenattainments’(Bandura,1997,p.3).Thedeficiencyapproachmayhavethedisadvantage that overcoming the gapmay not include activities the teacherfindsinterestingandprobablyisnotgoodinit,thus,self-efficacyisnotobvious,the motivation may emerge from coercive forces, that is, the motivation isextrinsic.Theappreciativeapproachhastheadvantagethat it isbasedontheteachers’ passions, strengths and interests, therefore connecting with theintrinsicallymotivation(interestandpleasure(Deci&Ryan,2000))andtheself-efficacy.Thefinalphasewastheactionphase.Asthenamesuggests, inthisphasethetarget group (i.e. teachers) performed the desired behavior (in this caseparticipating in CPD activities). The action phase was regulated through self-efficacy,actionplans,andskills.Self-efficacyinfluencingtheactionphasewasadifferent kind of self-efficacy that influences the motivation phase. Morespecifically, within the motivation phase, self-efficacy was related to theintentionofbehavior,whereasintheactionphase,motivationreferredtothemaintenance of behavior (Schülz et al., 2009). Action planning encompassedspecific goal setting to raise the chanceofactualexecution (Latham&Locke,1991). Skills referred to the actual skills an individual needs to perform thespecific behavior. Finally, barriersmay cause that not all CPD activities werecompleted. Forexample, theopportunitydoesnotarise to carryout theCPDactivity.

54

FeedbackTo become aware of a performance gap, feedback is necessary. More ingeneral, feedback is important for all learning (Hattie, 2009; Hattie &Timperley, 2007). Therefore, in this research the ability for the teamcoordinator (TC) to provide feedback to teachers was a prerequisite.Furthermore, various conditions for feedback should be met in order to beeffective (Thurlings, Vermeulen, Bastiaens, & Stijnen, 2013). Meeting theseconditionswasthefirstresearchconcernbeforeproceedingonwhatteachersperceived as triggers to formulate CPD goals and activities. After feedback isgiven from the TC to the teacher, the first condition, especially important inassessmentsituations, isthatthefeedbackreceivershouldtrustthereviewofthe assessor (Beausaert, Segers,&Gijselaers, 2011). Trusting the reviewmaydependonanumberoffactors.AkcanandTatar(2010),forexample,discussedanempathic climateasessential for good feedback. In addition,PokornyandPickford (2010) expressed that for students, a good relationship with thefeedbackprovider is important. Finally,DeWeertetal. (2002)pointed to theperceivedsafety inthecommunicationasan importantfactorforfeedbacktobeeffective. Second, the feedback source shouldbecredible.This is thecaseforthefeedbackreceiverwhenthefeedbackgiverisfamiliarwithboththetaskand the performance on that task (Ilgen et al., 1979). Third, mutualunderstanding should exist between feedback giver and receiver (Campbell,2005;Dixon,2000).Inotherwords,sharingavisionorhavingamutualframeofreference is vital. All these three conditions should bemet in order to haveeffectivefeedbackthatcanleadtoawarenessofaCPDneed.

4.3 Method

ParticipantsBeforeaddressingtheparticipants, itwasdecidedthattheTCofeachteacherwas the most suitable person to deliver the feedback about the teacher’sperformances to satisfy condition 2 of the feedback, which concerns thecredibilityof the feedbackgiver. The first reason is thatTCswere themselvesteachersand,therefore,familiarwiththeteacher’stasks.Thesecondreasonisthat the TCs were hierarchically positioned above the teacher and heldresponsibleforconductingtheannualprofessionaldevelopmentinterviewand,thus,hadinsightintheteacher’sperformances.

55

After this decision, an invitation for a one-hour assessment and feedbacksessionfollowedbya30-minuteinterviewwassentto65pairs(TCandteacher)fromwhich22pairsagreedtoparticipate.SomeTCsparticipatedinmorethanone interview because they were the TC for more teachers, resulting in 22teachersandtenTCs.Oftheparticipatingteachers,ten(45.5%)weremaleandtwelve (54.5%) female.Themeanagewas43.43years (SD=12.0).Themeanworkexperiencewas14.9years(SD=11.7).Thepairsworkedinthreedifferentsecondaryschools,allofthesameschoolboardintheNetherlands.

ProcedureFirsthour:AssessmentandfeedbacksessionThefirsthourwasaface-to-faceassessmentwithfeedbackontheperformanceoftheteachergivenbytheTC.Theresearcher’srolewastofacilitate/guidetheassessmentandfeedbackprocessbecause,intheparticipatingschools,theTCsonly recently started as superiors of the teachers in the Human ResourceManagement cycle and were still uncertain if they would do it right. Forexample, when the TC did not feel comfortable giving an assessment of theteachers’performance,theresearchertriedtoexplorewiththeTCwhatkindofinformation was available in order to assess the teachers’ performance. TheresearcheralsocheckedwhethertheTCwasabletogivemeaningfulfeedbackduringtheassessmentandiftheteacheracknowledgedthefeedback.The feedback was aimed to provide teachers with feedback on theirperformance gap (if present) in order to give rise to the formulation of CPDgoals.Toachievethisaimsixstepswerecarriedoutoneaftertheother.Inthefirststep,TCandteacheragreedonthetopicsthatwouldbethesubjectofthefeedback.ThisisinaccordancewithDeWeertetal.(2002)wherethefacilitatorfollowedthechoiceofthetopics, insteadofprescribingthem.Topicsreferredto teacher performance in different domains, for example, the quality ofinstruction,promotingstudentactivities,ordifferentiationintheclassroom.Inthesecondstep,TCandteacherwrotedown(inprivate)thestrongandweakpointsoftheperformanceonthechosentopics.Thefeedbackwasnotsharedyet.ThethirdstepwasthatTCandteacherratedtheteacherperformanceona10-point Likert scale accompanied with the verbal description (1= notdeveloped,2=scarcelydeveloped,3=partiallydeveloped,4=mostlydeveloped,5= developed but needs refinement, 6= sufficiently developed, 7=more thandeveloped,8=welldeveloped,9=excellent,10=unsurpassed).TCandteacherdid not share the performance rating yet. The fourth step incorporated

56

comparingnotesonthestrongandweakpoints,whichwerediscussedtocheckwhether teacherandTChadsimilar framesof reference regarding the topics.To check their mutual understanding regarding the rating of teacherperformances,afifthstepwasperformed.InthisfifthstepteacherandTCwereaskedtoguess (writedown)whatgradetheotheronehadgivenandwhy. Inother words step four and five were used to check if condition 3 (mutualunderstanding about topic and rating) had been met. They then compared(step six) each rating. Thus the teacher may become aware how severe theperformancegapis(ifapplicable).Teacherswhowereawareofaperformancegap may go from the awareness to the motivation phase of the I-Changemodel.Immediatelyaftertheassessmentandfeedback,theTCwaskindlyrequestedtoleavetheroominordertolettheteacherspeakfreely.Theteacherwasaskedhowtheclimateduringtheassessmentwasperceived.Thusacheckwasmadeconcerningcondition1;whetherthereisanemphatic,safeenvironment,andagoodrelationshipwiththefeedbackgiver.ThirtyminutesInterviewAftergivingthefeedbackbytheTCandthecheckonthefeedbackconditions,thestory-line instrument (used for retrospectivedatagathering)wasused forevaluatingCPDexperiences (Vander Sanden, Teurlings,Hoogenberg-Engbers,vanderNeut, 2004; Beijaard, vanDriel,&Verloop, 1999). The advantagesofthe story-line instrument are: a) teachers evaluate their CPD experiencesthemselves, b) their evaluations can be quantified in order to compare theresponsesofdifferentteachers,andc)story-linesarerelativelyquickandeasytomake; furthermore, they are generally perceived by the respondents as avaluableandalternativemodeofself-expression. Insum,withthis instrumentmore insight could be reached regarding the triggers for participation in CPDandwhetherthesetriggerswererelatedtothedeficiencyortotheappreciativeapproach.Following the suggestions of Nabhani and Bahous (2010), Van Eekelen et al.(2006), and Vermeulen et al. (2011), the first question for the teacher waswhetherCPDgoalshadbeenformulated(ratherthanaskingfirstwhethertheteacherwasawareofapotentialperformancegap).IfteachershadformulatedCPDgoals,theywereaskedtoelaborateonhowthisgoalcametomind.Theywere also asked if they had made plans for actions or whether they werealready doing some CPD activities to achieve their goals. When affirmative,

57

these teacherswere asked to give detailswhat their actionswere andwhentheytookplace.Thenextstepwastoscoretheteacher’sperformanceoneachoftheCPDgoals(andactions)fromstarttopresentonthestory-lineona10-pointLikertscale.Atthispoint, theteacherconstructedadevelopmentgraphforeachof thementionedCPDgoals.Changes inperformancebecamevisiblefor teacher and researcher. The last step in the story-line instrumentwas toimaginewhethertheCPDgoalhadbeenfully,partlyornotachievedatall.AnalysisTheassessmentandfeedbackaswellas the interviewweredigitally recordedandtranscribed.Afterwards,theywerecodedandanalyzedwithNVIVOversion9.Theanalysisfortheassessmentandfeedbackwasperformedinthreestepsandintwostepsfortheinterview.Forboththefirsttwostepswereidentical.In the first step blocks of the transcripts were assigned to the developedcategories(climateperceivedbytheteacherduringpairinterview,definitionofthe grade by teacher and TC, definition of the topic by teacher and TC,assessmentskillsoftheTC,numberofCPDgoals,actionsandprogresstowardCPDgoal,kindoftrigger).Asecondresearchercheckedfortheaccuracyoftheinterview coding. The two researchers discussed the chunks until fullagreement on the interpretation had been reached. The second stepwas todevelop awithin-case overview in the formof a conceptually orderedmatrix(Miles & Huberman, 1994). To create a clear overviewwithin the cells, datareductionwasappliedbymeansof summarizing the rawtexts (Kessels,1993;Kessels & Plomp, 1996). The summarieswere discussed until full agreement.Thethirdstepintheanalysiswastoassignascoreorlabeltoaselectionofthecategories. The scoring was performed according to a scoring manual. Themeaningofallpossiblescoresandtheprocedureforeachcategorytoassignascoreweredescribedinascoringmanual.Forallcategoriesthatwerescored,aCohen’sKappa(inter-raterreliability)wascalculated.AKappaof1pointmeanstotalagreement,butaccordingtoLandisandKoch(1977)aKappabetween.61and.80meanssubstantialagreement.IftheKappawasinsufficient,thescoreswerediscussedandthescoringmanualwasadjusted.EventuallytheKappa’softhisstudyweresufficientlyhigh(Table2).Thescoringmanualandtherawdataareavailablefromthefirstauthor.

58

Table2:Inter-raterreliability:Kappaforclimate,definitiontopicanddefinitiongradeCategory Kappa

Climateduringpairinterview .67

Definitionofthetopic .73

Definitionofthegrade .71

4.4 ResultsResultsregardingmeetingtheconditionsforeffectivefeedbackThefindingswithrespecttothethreeconditionsforeffectivefeedbackcanbedescribedafterthefeedback isactuallygiven.WedidnotexpectareluctanceofTCstogivefeedback.However,thefindingsrevealedthatfor10casesofthe22assessmentandfeedbacksessionstheTCswereatfirstreluctanttoratetheteacher’s performance because of reasons for uncertainty. One of theircommentswas:“WhatifIhavenocompleteimpression[oftheteacher]?Icanhardly give a rating in this case!” (Bernard, line 45). TCs wanted to have acomplete impression before rating the teachers, specifically an impressionbasedon classroomvisits. In otherwords,many TCs thought that they couldnotgivearating iftheyhadnotmade(enough)classroomvisits.OneTCsaid:“When I walk through the corridors, I get an impression. Just coincidentallybecause I walk along, look into the classroom, and see things. I have animpressionbasedontheseimages;wheneverybodyisstandingaroundatable,Ihaveanother impression thenwheneverybody is looking in their textbooks.Forthatreason, Iconcludethat Iperformtoofewclassroomvisits inordertogive a good assessment.” (Bernard, line 148-153). But for eight of the tenreluctant TCs, the problem of uncertainty about the assessment of teacher’sperformancecouldberesolvedbyinterveningandaskingtheTCswhethertheyhadaccesstoalternativeinformationresourcesotherthanclassroomvisits.TCsmentioned as alternative information sources comments of colleagues,students, and parents, and superficial observationswhen the TCswalk alongthe classrooms. Ultimately, for 20 cases of the 22 assessment- and feedbacksessionstheTCshadratedtheteacherperformance.AftermostTCsgavefeedbackthethreeconditionsforgivingeffectivefeedbackcan be discussed. Regarding condition 1 (whether there is an emphatic, safeenvironment,andagoodrelationshipwiththefeedbackgiver),thedataonthe

59

climate during the assessment and feedback session showed little variance,only high ratingswere given.One of the teachers put it like this: “I talk veryeasilywithhim[theTC],heisveryopen…it is justpleasant.”(Laura, line716).Hence,theconditionofasafeclimatewasmet.Regarding condition 2 (whether the feedback giver is credible); credibility isdefinedashavingknowledgeaboutthetaskandtheperformanceoftheotheronthattask.AllteachersindicatedtoagreewiththeirTC.Regarding condition 3 (whether there is mutual understanding betweenfeedback giver and receiver regarding the topics and the rating), as for thetopics, in 5 cases out of the 22 assessment- and feedback sessions, amutualdefinition of the topics was not reached. In seven other cases, the TCmentioned an aspect not mentioned by the teacher. In these cases, the TCfocused on the teacher performance whereas the teacher focused on hisinteractions with the students. In all of these seven cases, the teacherimmediately recognized the description after additional explanation. Thisobservationledtotheconclusionthatthemeaningofthetopicsbecamemoreshared after exchanging additional information. One teacher said: “I wouldnever have thought of that myself but now he formulates it this way, I do”(David, line 106). The remaining ten cases shared their definition of thediscussedtopics.To summarize the findings, in 17 cases the topics definition were sharedwhereas in only 5 cases it came to an agreementon somepart of the topicswhichwas sufficient togive feedbackandacknowledgementof the feedback.Therefore,thesharedframeofreferencewassufficientlymettogiveeffectivefeedback. As for the rating, itwas observed that the ratingswere frequentlygivenwithoutconsideringtheaccompanyingverbaldescriptionsofthe10-pointLikert scale. For example, one TC remarked: “You are a teacher, so you haveschool grades in yourmind. You only give a student a four if that student isvery, very bad. You do not give a colleague a four!” (Trudy, line 351). As aconsequence,notafivebutthescoresixwouldindicatethatteachersneededtoimprovetheirperformances.Mostscoresrangedfromsixtoeight.ResultsfromtheinterviewsTheinterviewsweretargetedtogetanswerson1)ifteachersformulatedCPDgoals andwhat thesewere; 2) if they hadmadeplans, or alternatively,werealreadycarryingoutCPDactivitiesandwhatpreciselythesewereandwhy;and3) whether they progressed while following these goals or doing these CPD

60

activities. Regarding the first question, all teachers mentioned they hadformulated goals. However, the number of CPD goals differed betweenteachers from one to seven. Accordingly, the kind of goals differed betweenteachersfromgettinganextrateachersdegreetolearninghowtouseasmartboard. There was no relation to teacher characteristics. For example, thenumberofgoalsmentionedcouldnotberelatedtoage.Regardingquestion2, theCPDactivitiesteachersmentioned inthestory-linesresembled four of the six categories of CPD activities distinguished by Evers(2012): a) keepingup-to-date: reading,b) keepingup-to-date:participation intraining related towork, c) experimenting, d) reflecting, e) collaboratingwithcolleaguestoimprovelessons,andf)collaboratingwithcolleaguestoimproveschool development. Courses (long- and short-term), which were frequentlysuggested, canbe categorized as keepingup-to-date. Experimentingwas alsomentioned frequently. Reflection did not came up at all. Collaborating withcolleagues to improve lessonswas acknowledged a few times. Interaction toimproveschooldevelopmentwasnotmentioned.The reasons why the teachers did these CPD activities resembled theclassificationsformotivationdiscussedbyRyanandDeci(2000).RyanandDeci(2000) and Deci and Ryan (2000) presented the motivation continuum fromexternalregulation,introjectedregulation,identifiedregulationandintegratedregulation, to intrinsicmotivation.Thesetypesofmotivationrangefromleastmotivated and least autonomous decided to most motivated and mostautonomousdecided.Allfivetypesofmotivationemergedinthestory-lines.Anexample of external regulation is “We had to choose one of the threepresented courses.” (Andrea, line 498-499). ”A ministerial bill made meuncertified.Togetcertified,Ihavetofollowalong-termprofessionaltraining…Iwill do thiswith discipline, dedication, and enthusiasm, but it is notmy ownchoice.”(Mark,line355-359)isanexampleofIntrojectedregulation.Identifiedregulation is seen in the following illustration “The school board askedwhichteachers were interested in a course about adaptive education. Since I havesometroubleintheclassroom,Isawtheadvantages.”(Miranda,line548-549)Sean (line295) stated“I started thatcoursebecause Ialwayswanted todoalong-termcoursebutalsoduetothefactIwouldnothavetoexplaintootherswhyIamuncertified.”(Sean, line295)whichisarepresentationof integratedregulation.AnexampleofIntrinsicmotivationwas“AtonemomentIthought,GermanisnottheonlythingIlike,I’minterestedinwritingprojects.”(Karl,line413-414).

61

Alltypesofmotivationwerepresentinourstudy,however,simplycountingthefrequency did not do justice to the data because teachers mentionedcombinations. An example of a combination of intrinsic motivation andintrojectedregulationis:Identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsicmotivationwere themostcommonreasonsinthisstudy(seeTable3).Nevertheless,manyteachersremarkedthatintrinsicmotivationalonedoesnotleadtoaction.Whenintrinsicmotivationwascoincidentwithopportunitiesforaction,thechanceofactuallydoingtheaction(i.e.doingaCPDactivity)wasmuchhigher.Forexample, ifacourseor trainingwasoffered rightat the same time the intrinsicmotivationexisted.The progression teachers made towards the various CPD goals differed.Shorter-termgoalshadagreaterchanceofbeingreachedthanlong-termgoals.However, teachers indicated that they improved their performance despitethattheyrarelyfullysucceededinachievingtheirgoals.Inshort,theyremarkedthatCPDisactuallyalifelongjourney.Table3:TypeoftriggersInterviewnumber

Externalregulation

Introjectedregulation

Identifiedregulation

Integratedregulation

Intrinsicmotivation

1 x x2 x 3 x x x4 x x5 x 6 x x x7 x x 8 x x x9 x x10 x x11 x x x12 x 13 x x14 x x15 x x x16 x x17 x x x 18 x x 19 x 20 x x21 x x x x22 x x x

62

ResultsregardingindicationsforthedeficiencyapproachversusappreciativeapproachAs discussed earlier, the one-hour assessment and feedback session wasdesigned to become aware of performance gaps through feedback. Althoughthe conditions for feedbackandawarenessofagapwere sufficientlymet formostoftheteachers,theinterviewusingthestory-lineinstrumentshowedonlytwostory-lineswithsomesortofgapanalysis(i.e.theanalysisofthedifferencebetween actual and desired behavior) as being the motivation for CPD. Anexampleforanindicationforthedeficiencyapproachwasthefollowing:“Ifeltuncomfortableaboutmyperformance,asif itwasnotgoodenough.Togetherwithasupervisor, Isearchedforthecause.”(William,line183-184).However,there were many more indications that support the appreciative approach:manyteachersdevelopedskills,whichtheywerealreadygoodatortookupaCPDactivityinwhichtheywereinterested:“Ihavetheopinionthatyouhavetosticktowhatyouaregoodat.Themessageforeducationistodowhatyoudobest.Donotfantasizeabillionthingsaroundthat,thiswouldbeattheexpenseofthethingyouaregoodat.”(Edward,line97-99).

4.5 Discussionandconclusion

The current study searched for an answer to the research question ‘What isefficacious in triggering teachers’ CPD participation in terms that it createsawarenessabouttheneedforCPDparticipation(theawarenessphase)andthemotivationtostartwithCPD(themotivationphase)?’Regarding the firstpartoftheresearchquestion(theawarenessphase)thecurrentstudyrevealedthatfeedback is indeed a source to trigger awareness of a performance gap. Alearning community could be an appropriate way of stimulating feedbackamong colleagues (Ciuffetelli-Parker, Gallagher, & Griffin, 2011) and thusteacher CPD. Co-teaching is another way of confronting teachers with eachother’sapproaches(Bashan&Holsblat,2012).Inco-teachingmultipleteachersstandinfrontofonegroupofstudents,makingitmorenaturaltoprovideeachother with feedback and learning opportunities. Perry and Lewis (2009)described another possibility that has the potential of improving individualperformanceaswellastheentireeducationalsystem,namelylessonstudies.Alesson study is a cycle of the formulation of long-term improvement goalsregarding instruction, collaboratively design a lesson, conduct that lesson induos,reflectonthatlessontogether,improve,andstartoveragain.

63

Regarding the secondpart of the researchquestion (themotivationphase) itwasinvestigatedifandwhatCPDgoalsandactivitiesteachersformulatedandwhether these goals and activities supported a deficiency approach or theappreciative approach. To recall, the deficiency approach takes the gapbetween the actual and the desired performance of a professional as adeficiency that has to be overcome. The appreciative approach, in contrast,takes the performance gap as an information source to focus on thedevelopment of strengths or interests. Accordingly, it was expected thatdifferent CPD goals and activities would be formulated dependent on theapproachfavoredbytheteachers.All teachersnamedat leastoneCPDgoaland/oractivity inthepastyearthatfulfilled their need for development. This was remarkable because it wasexpectedfromtheliterature(cf.,Nabhani&Bahous,2010;VanEekelenetal.,2006,Vermeulenetal.,2011)thatnotallteacherswouldparticipateinCPD.AnexplanationfromtheliteraturefindingscouldbethatteachersrecognizedtheirCPD participation only when the CPD goals and activities were of their ownchoices(usuallypertainingtopersonalgrowthandpersonalinterests)butwhenthesechoicesweremadebyothers(usuallypertainingtoschooldevelopmentandoftenoutsidepersonal interests) then the recognitiondiminishedas theywerenottheirown.Thus,theresearchmentionedintheliteratureinvestigatedonlyCPDgoalsandCPDactivitiesforschooldevelopment,thenteacherswouldlikelytoreportnottoparticipateinCPD.CPDgoalsandactivitiesthatarelinkedtopersonalgrowthseemmoreappealing for teachers (Dalyetal.,2009).Yet,theirdisadvantageisthattheyoftenexcludeschooldevelopment.Indeed,CPDprogramsaremoreeffectivewhenadjustedtothelearningneedsofindividualparticipants(Traceyetal.,1997).TheteachersinthisstudyhadCPDgoalsthatforthemajoritycouldbecategorizedasforpersonalgrowthandappealingtopersonal interests. This would indicate that the appreciative approach isfavored.Tofindmoresupportfortheappreciativeapproach,itisnecessarytopointoutthat the deficiency approachmay initiate all types ofmotivational regulation(i.e. from extrinsic to intrinsic regulation) to overcome the performance gapwhereas the appreciative approach is dominantly oriented towards the self-determined regulation. Our findings revealed that identified regulation andintegrated regulation together with intrinsicmotivationwere themost oftenmentioned reasons to do a CPD activity, which are motivation types of self-determined regulation. Furthermore, only two teachersmentioned that they

64

hadtodoaCPDactivity,whichtheywouldotherwisenothavedone.Thesetwooccasions supported the theoretical assumption that concentrating on adeficiencyseldomstimulatesprofessionaldevelopment. Indeed,StudulskiandVan der Vegt (2007) asserted that teacher change should not start from theshortcomings of people but from their strengths. Succinctly, the findingssuggesttheappreciativeapproachtobethemostefficaciousapproach.Schoolmanagers,therefore,shouldadopttheappreciativeapproachandsupporttheself-determined teachers. Moreover, as intrinsically motivated CPD activitiesshouldcomealongwithopportunitiestodotheseactivities,schoolmanagers,shouldtakecarethattheseopportunitiesareprovided.In thepastmanymodelsdidnotexplicatewhether theyusedadeficiencyorappreciative approach. Accordingly, various studies showed that teachersparticipate inCPD (SocialandCulturalPlanningOffice (SCP),2009;Deneireetal.,2009;OECD,2008),otherstudies indicatedquite theopposite (Nabhani&Bahous, 2010; Van Eekelen et al., 2006; Vermeulen et al., 2011). As statedpreviously,agapapproachwasoften implicitlypresent inmodelsandstudies(for example Gallant & Mayer, 2012; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Pedder et al.,2010).This studysearched forananswerwhatapproachwasmoreappealingfor teachers starting from a model (I-Change model) applicable for bothapproaches. The results showed that an appreciative approach is moreappealingforteachersinordertoparticipateinCPDactivities.Differentmodelsfocusing on different aspects and using other perspectives underlying CPDmight explain the opposite findings (Kennedy, 2014) between studies withregardtoCPDparticipationofteachers.ThisstudyoffersindicationsforschoolshowtotriggerteacherCPDandmakingCPDmoreappealingforteachers,thatis,rathertheappreciativeapproachthanthedeficiencyapproachshouldbeadopted.Teachersweremoremotivatedtoparticipate in CPD through support and appreciative interaction than byfocusing on deficiencies.What could be helpful is amentoring and coachingculture between TC and teacher in enhancing appreciative assessment ofteachers’performanceonamoreregularbasis.

65

CHAPTER5

ThedesignofaCPDgameThischapterisbasedon:Reynders,L.,Vermeulen,M.,Kessels,J.,&Kreijns,K.(2013,November).ThedesignofaCPDgame.WorkshopgivenattheEAPRILconference,Biel,Switzerland.Reynders,L.,Vermeulen,M.,&Kessels(submitted).ThedesignofaCPDgame.

66

5.1 Introduction

Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is an important part of being ateacher,but teachershavedifficultyautonomously shapingCPD (VanEekelenet al., 2006;Goodnough, 2010). Various efforts have beenmade tomotivateteachers’CPD(Hanleyetal.,2008;Ross&Bruce,2007),butstilllittleisknownaboutwhyteachersactuallyparticipateinCPDactivities.DifferentmodelsweredevelopedfortriggeringCPD.For instancemodelsthatfocusedon teacherchangeandpointed toCPDprogramsas the initial triggerforCPDparticipation(Gusky,1986).Inaddition,motivationwasacknowledgedasanimportantfactortoparticipateinCPDactivitiesasitaffectstheteachers’beliefsandattitudes.WhileGuskey’smodelfocusedonhowtheprocessofCPDparticipationstarted itdidnothaveanydetaileddescriptionofhowtotriggerteacherstoparticipateinplannedCPD.Loucks-Horsleyetal.(1998)presentedacontinuousandcirculardesignofCPD,startingwithgoalformulationandleadinguptoreflectionontheCPDactivityundertaken. In contrast toGuskey’smodel, the lattermodeldidnotexplicitlyincorporateteachers’motivation.Inthelastdecenniummulti-phasemodelsofbehavioral change were developed, taking into account different influencingfactorsindifferentphasesoftheprocess.TheIntegratedModelforexplainingmotivationalandbehavioralchange(or inshort,theI-Changemodel;DeVrieset al., 2008) integrated a number of those motivational- and multi-phasemodels, more specifically the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), SCT (Bandura, 1986), thetranstheoreticalmodel(Prochaska&Velicer,1997),andthehealthbeliefmodel(Janz&Becker,1984).The I-Change model (De Vries et al., 2008) is a phase model for behavioralchangeincludinganawarenessphase,amotivationphase,andanactionphase.It focuses on the phases that precede behavioral change and gave insight inwhich factors were relevant in each phase and gives directions for how toinfluence these factors to enforce behavioral change. The previous chaptersdescribedanapplicationofthe I-Changemodeland itsresultswithinthefieldof education. As the application of just theory is insufficient (Anderson &Shattuck, 2012; Kelly, 2003; Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, &Nieveen,2006) to incorporate theresearch findingswithin theschool-system,this chapterwill focuson the researchquestion“Howcan the findingsof thepreviousstudiesbeusedtocreateapowerfulinterventionwiththepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”

67

Within this chapter the first orientation is on the kind of intervention thatmotivates people to take action. Hereafter, the development of such anintervention will be described. To do so, DBR will be applied. Marden,Herrington, andHerrington,McKenney,Reeves, andOliver (2007) referred toDBR as a methodology that has a pragmatic goal of solving an educationalproblem with an innovative intervention. Other authors stressed that DBRoffersthechanceofsolvingapracticalproblemandcontributingtotheory(DeVilliers, 2005; Reeves, 2000; Penuel, Fishman, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2011).Therefore,DBRseemstobeavalidmethodofdevelopingour interventiontotriggerCPD.

5.2 Designingapowerfulintervention

Aninterventionshouldbebasedonexistingknowledge-andpossiblyaddingtothatknowledge-(Barab&Squire,2004)andmeetdesigncharacteristics,whichare effective in establishing the desired purpose (Roschelle, Tatar, & Kaput,2008). These ingredients todesignan interventionaredescribedhereafter aswell as the kind of intervention most suitable with regard to our researchquestion.Existing knowledge items: I-Change phases (awareness, motivation,action),triggers,strengthsandpassionsOur intervention was based on the results of previous studies. In short, theprevious studies offered support for thedifferent phaseswithin the I-Changemodel. Teachers were triggered through feedback to take part in CPD(awareness phase), were motivated to do something about it (motivationphase)andundertookaction (actionphase).More so, the last study revealedthat an appreciative approach is more efficacious in triggering CPDparticipation. Therefore, the intervention should combine the appreciativeapproachwith the I-Changemodel in order to answer the research question“How can the findings of the previous studies be used to create a powerfulinterventionwiththepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”Sinceanappreciativeapproachwasincorporatedinthedevelopedinterventionthisquestioncanbeoperationalizedas“Howdoteachersgetabetterinsightintheir own and each other’s triggers for CPD, passions and strengths?” If ateacherhastotakechargeofhisownCPDorateamhastoembodytheteam

68

development,itisusefultoknowyourowntriggers,strengthsandpassionsandthoseofother teammembers.At the individual level,wheneachteacherhasanunderstandingofthepreferredtriggerstoCPD,thatspecific triggercanbesearched for or be provided. For example, when a teacher knows thatclassroom visits of colleagues motivate him or her to experiment with newapproachesinteaching,theteacherismoreinclinedtoinvestthoseclassroomvisits. Other teachers might better be triggered through informal interactionwithpeers.Atthesametimefortheteamlevel,whenateamcoordinator(TC)knowsthestrengthsandpassionsofindividuals,piecesoftheteamplancanbedivided accordingly. In addition, the TC can offer the right trigger for CPD toeach teacher. If the TC knows that one of the teammembers prefers directfeedback as a trigger for CPD, the TC has to make sure that feedback isprovided.Thepurposeoftheinterventionwasfacilitatingteachers’participationinCPD.Thedesigncharacteristicsforestablishingthatpurposearediscussedhereafter.Designcharacteristic:relevant,active,funVanVeenetal.(2010)searchedforgeneralcharacteristicsofinterventionsforeffectiveprofessionaldevelopmentof teachers.Theseauthors found that thecontent of the professional development activity had greater impact on theeffectthanwheretheinterventiontookplace:onoroffthejob.Furthermore,the content had to be relevant for daily practice (McKenney, 2001). Anothereffective feature Van Veen et al. (2010) found was the use of active andexploratorywaysoflearning,forinstanceself-assessment,aswellastheuseofcollaborative learning and interaction. Our previous studies showed thatteachers benefited from positive triggers (appreciative approach) whenengaged inCPD. Likewise,Visser (2010) stated that it ismore fun to improveskills you already possess. In summary, the first design specification is that apowerfulinterventionshouldberelevant,activeandfun.

Designcharacteristic:usefulThedesignedinterventionshouldfulfilinternalandexternalconsistencycriteria(Van den Akker et al., 2006; Plomp & Nieveen, 2007). Internal consistencyfocuses on the logical connection between elements. External consistencyreferred to the shared expectations of different stakeholders and theusefulnessforthetargetgroup(Kessels&Plomp,1999).

69

Theusefulnessforthedevelopedinterventionisincloserelationtothefindingsof previous studies. An appreciative approach was most efficacious infacilitationCPDparticipationforteachers.Thisapproachfocusedonstrengthsof teachers opposed to the performance gap approach focusing onshortcomings.Theappreciativeapproachmightmotivateteachersmoretotalkabout theirwishes for CPD. Conklin (2009) stated anAI gaveparticipants thepossibilitytovoicetheirthoughts,ideas,hopes,andaspirations.Since thepurposeof thischapter is todevelopapowerful interventionbasedonAI, the four foundationsofAI (Whitney&Trosten-Bloom,2010) shouldbefollowed.Thefirstfoundationwasthatallpeoplehaveunique(gifts,skillsandcontributions.Theinterventionsupportedthisthroughitsfocusonthetriggers,strengths and passions of teachers. The second foundation was thatorganizationsarehumansocialsystemswiththeirownlanguageandrelationalcapacity.Theresultsofapreviousstudythatfocusedonamutuallanguageofteachersandrepresentativeoftheschoolandclimateoftheorganizationwereincorporated.The third foundationofAIwas that images for the futureareasocial creation and serve to guide future actions. The social creationof ideaswas integrated in the intervention through a demandof collaborative action.Thefourthandfinal foundationwasthatthroughcommunicationpeopleshiftfromafocusonproblemstopossibilitiesforthefuture.Therefore,oneofthekey goals of the interventionwas to stimulate interaction betweenpeople inorder to enhance CPD participation. When a teacher becomes aware of thetriggers thatworkedbest inorder tostartCPD, that teachercan intentionallysearchforthesetriggers.Designcharacteristic:CollaborativeCordingley et al. (2005) found that CPD is more effective when done incollaboration with others. Our previous research showed that inmany casesCPD was triggered through feedback from others. The purpose of theintervention is to enhance interaction betweenplayers in away that has themost chance of triggering CPD. The interaction provided a better insight in aperson’s triggers, passions and strengths and those of others. An additionalbenefit of interaction is that teachers were confronted with new things(passions and strengths of others) and these served as a trigger aswell. Theknowledgeaboutotherteachers’triggers,strengthsandpassionscanfacilitatea transfer to them or make connection between players. In other wordsteachers who were triggered through the development of new things could

70

formalearningcommunity.Inshort,aconnection(orclick)betweenteachersisfacilitatedthroughknowledgeabouteachother.

Kindofintervention:gameMultipleauthors(forexampleReeves,2000;Kelly,2003)calledforalternativewaystosharetheoutcomesofresearchtopracticesincescientificpublicationdidnot find theirway to thepublic and scientistdidnot find timeordidnothavetheskillstowritepractitioner-orientedpublications.AgameseemedtobeanappropriateformforaninterventiontofacilitateteachersCPDsinceitmetmultipleof thedesigncriteria (active, fun, interactive). Inorder toensure theapplicability of a game to the school setting, a DBR approach is chosen todevelopthegame.TheessenceofDBRwasthatresearchersandpractitionersdeveloped the design together tomake sure that the theoretical foundationandpracticalknowledgewerecombinedandincorporated.BijkerkandvanderHeiden(2006)describedallkindsofactivatingstrategiestotriggerlearningfromsocalledicebreakerstocompetitivegames.Mostsuitedfor our purpose were games since they activate, trigger, diversify, generateinterest, improve concentration, augment engagement and motivate.Therefore, the intervention developed in this study was a game, whichincorporatedtheexistingknowledgeitemsanddesigncharacteristicsdescribedabove. In order to develop this game,multiple design phaseswere followed.Van den Akker et al. (2006) and Andriessen (2007a) stated that each designprocessshouldhavethreesteps:preparing,experimentingandconcluding.The preparation step encompassed a search for existing games and scoringthem against the existing knowledge items and design characteristics. Thissearchwasperformedtocheckifanyexistinggamecouldfulfilthepurposeofgivingteachersinsightintotheirownandotherteachers’triggers,passionsandstrengths. A search on the Internet combined with games reported bypractitioners (twoteachers, twoTCs, twocoaches,a teachereducatorandsixexperts) resulted in a list of 15 different games corresponding with thatpurpose. The study of the various games did not lead towards a specific andsuitablegame.However,theanalysisguidedtomanyuseful ingredientswhendevelopinganewgame,forinstanceablackboxideaforassigninganametoageneraldescriptionorcheckingyourassignmentswithothers,givingachipforgoodanswers,describingthingswithoutnamingthemandexplainingthebasicsofthegameinamanual.

71

In theexperimenting step, a game, that served as a potential intervention tofacilitate CPD,was developed based on the existing knowledge items, designcharacteristicsandbuildingblocksfromtheexistinggames.Assaidearlier,thisfacilitation was reached by enhancing teachers’ awareness about their mostlikely triggers towards CPD and the content of that CPD (passions andstrengths).Playing a game facilitates the communication of participants about theirtriggers,passionsandstrengths.Themainexternalcharacteristicsofthegamethathadtobedevelopedwereagameboardandcards.Theresearcherdidnotchoosetodevelopadigitalgamesinceawarenessoftheotherpersonseemedto be important in getting to know each other. Awareness of the other isdifferent for face-to-faceanddigital interaction (Kreijns,Kirchner,& Jochems,2003).Furthermore,notall teachershada laptopor tabletandsomeschoolsdidnothavesufficientdevicestoprovideforall.Therefore,adigitalgamecouldbeatechnicalhurdle.The cards of the game incorporated the existing knowledge items criteria(triggers,passionsandstrengths).Inordertoreachtheoptimalgamemultipleprototypesofthegame(experimentingphase)shouldbedeveloped(deVilliers,2005). In DBR the end product is the result of an iterative design process ofdesign, implement, analyze and redesign (DiSessa & Cobb, 2004; Durlach &Lesgold,2012;Herrington&Reeves,2011;Trna&Trnova,2011).Consequently,eachnewprototypeistheresultoftheevaluationandanalysisofthepreviousone.The concluding step was reached when researcher and practitioners (schoolinternalcoach,TC,educationalspecialist,externalcoach,andteachereducator)were satisfied with the last prototype. This means when the analysis of theevaluations showed that the outcomes were close enough to the ‘intendedoutcomes’(Plomp&Nieveen,2007).

5.3 Designcycles

The game was developed based on multiple design cycles. In each cycle aprototype was evaluated, choices and changes were made resulting in animprovedgame.Theevaluationofvariousprototypesgave inputtorearrangeor adjust the previous design. This formative evaluation has various layers inDBR;moreinformalintheearlystagesofaproject(forexampleexpertreviews)toformalevaluationaimedattestingthedesign(Tessmer,1993).

72

InDBR the researcher is not solely a representative of scientific researchbutalso a designer and advisor (Barab& Squire, 2004; VanWeert& Andriessen,2005). Therefore, a DBR-researcher has to possess a specific set of skills.Andriessen(2007b)discussedthreecompetencesoftheresearcherinordertoperformDBR: being able to reflect, analyze and intervene. The researcher inthisstudyinstructedtheplayershowtoplaythegameandparticipatedinthegame.Eachdesign cycle focusedon a different set of existing knowledge items anddesign characteristics (Goldman, Lee, Greenleaf, & Shanahan, 2013). Table 4givesanoverviewofwhatwasevaluatedinwhichdesigncycle.Inthefirstandlast round (Prototype 1 and Final version) all criteria were evaluated. It isimportanttoknowfromthestart ifallcharacteristicshadthepossibilitytobepresent and at the end if every characteristic was really present. Usefulnesswas evaluated in all the versions since this can change with (small) changesmade in each step.Althoughall input for the cards came fromprevious (andthus from teachers) the second prototype focused on the relevance of eachcardandtherepresentationofthe I-Changephases.Thiscombinedfocuswasapplied to insureall changesweremade in linewith theprevious resultsandthephasesoftheunderlyingmodel.Sincethegamewasnotreallyplayedinthesecondround,itwasimportanttocheckforthefunaspectinPrototype3.Table4:Evaluationofcriteria(combinationofknowledgeitemsanddesigncharacteristics)in

differentprototypes

Criteria Prototype1 Prototype2 Prototype3 FinalVersionTriggers X XStrengths X XPassions X XActive X XCollaborative X XI-Change X X XRelevant X X XFun X X XUseful X X X XDifferentpeopleevaluatedthedifferentdesignsindifferentmannersalwaysinclosecollaborationbetweenresearcherandpractitioners(Dede,2005;Edelson,2005;Herringtonetal.,2007;Majgaard,Misfeldt,&Nielsen,2011;VanAken,2005). The practitioners evaluating the prototypes were a school internalcoach, TC, educational specialist, external coach, and teacher educator.Prototype1wasevaluatedinaquantitativeandqualitativeway.Themaingoal

73

of this evaluation was to choose a suitable game (in accordance with thecriteria). Participants were asked to score the games they played on someaspects. Not all criteriawere scored because thatwould not be suitable. Forinstance regarding the phases of the I-Change model, a phase could not bereachedsince thegame is stillunderconstruction.Thereforeweasked in thegroup discussionwhether the gameholds the possibility of incorporating thephases of the I-Change model and how. Another example is the criterioncollaborative.Theresearcherobservedhowparticipantsplayedthegameandconcluded whether or not this criterion was reached. The group discussionalongwith theobservationsmadeby the researcherdelivered thequalitativedata. The combination of both type of data provided input for the decisionwhattochangebetweentheprototypes.Forexample,participantsscoredthegamesonusefulnessbutthedecisionwhichgametodevelopfurtherwasmadeonthecombinationofthescoringusefulnessanddiscussingtherelevance.Theevaluation of Prototype 2was solely qualitative and focused on reducing theamount of cards (always keeping in mind their relevance and link to the I-Changemodel)andevaluatingthemanual.Thegoalof thissecondevaluationwastomakethecontentofthegameandthemanualconsistent.Prototype3could be played autonomous (participants could read the manual andinterferenceoftheresearcherwasnotnecessary).Thefocuswasonthelayoutofthegame.

Prototype1TheevaluationofPrototype1wasdonebytwoseparategroupsofparticipants(two time four including the researcher). Each group played all the games inordertomakeitpossibletoscoreeachgame.Thefirstprototypewasacollectionoffiveseparategames.Thecontentofthetriggers, strengths and passionswere based on the interviews from previousstudies.Thesestudiesresultedin67trigger-cards(forexampleawiderangeofCPD workshops that is offered), 19 passion-cards (for example pupils orongoing development) and 30 strength-cards (for example teamwork ortidiness).Type1:StackofCardsThe goal of this game is get to know your own and each other’s triggers,passions and strong points by trying to name a description given by another

74

teacher about him or herself. The game is played by at least three teachers(preferablynotnewtoeachother).Thegameconsistedoffivestacksofcards:1. The who-stack of cards referred to which team had to perform theassignment.2. The assignment-stack referred to the third stack that had to beincorporated in thegame; cards included triggers (stack3), passions (stack4)andstrengths(stack5).3. The trigger-stack incorporated descriptions of triggers to take part inCPD.4. The passion-stack contained descriptions of passions a teachermighthave.5. The strength-stack consisted of descriptions of strengths a teachermighthave.One teacher took a card from the trigger-, passion- or strength-stack theassignmentcardreferredto.Thatteacher,withoutnamingtheword(s)onthecard, discussed whether the description on the card was an appropriatedescriptionforhim/her.Theteammate(s)triedtonamethedescription.Type2:HappyFamiliesThe goal of this game is get to know your own and each other’s triggers,passions and strong points by trying to point out the person who fits thedescription of the three cards. The game is played by at least three teachers(preferablynotnewtoeachother).Thegameconsistedofthreepilesofcards:1. The trigger-pile incorporated descriptions of triggers to take part inCPD.2. The passion-pile contained descriptions of passions a teacher mighthave.3. Thestrength-pileconsistedofdescriptionsofstrengthsateachermighthave.In this game each gamer individually chose one trigger, passion and strengthfrom the accompanying pile. Hereafter, gamers put their three cards in anenvelope. The envelopes were hustled and the first one was opened. Allteachers wrote down the name of the gamer they thought the descriptionsportrayed.Eachteacherexplainedhisorherchoice.

75

Type3:DiscoverYourselfandtheOtherThe goal of this game is get to know your own and each other’s triggers,passions and strong points by trying to point out the person who fits thedescription of the card. The game is played by at least three teachers(preferablynotnewtoeachother).The game elements consisted of the same three piles as did type 2 (HappyFamilies). In this game each gamer individually chose three cards from eachpile.Hereafter,allcardswereputtogetherinanewpileandhustled.Thefirstcard was turned and all teachers wrote down the name of the player theythought the descriptions portrayed. Each teacher (starting with the eldest)explainedhisorherschoice.Type4:DiscoverYourselfwithaCoachThe goal of this game is get to know your own triggers, passions and strongpoints by discussing the items chosen with a coach. A teacher with a coachplayedthisgame,whichconsistedofthesamethreepilesas,didtype2(HappyFamilies)andtype3(DiscoverYourselfandtheOther).Theteacherchosethreecards from each pile. The three cards chosen from one pile were positionedfrom most to less important. The coach was offered some guidelines fordiscussing thecardsandhelping the teachermakea connectionbetween thestrengths,passionsandtriggers.Type5:DevelopmentJourneyThe goal of this game is get to know your own and each other’s triggers,passions and strong points by trying to win as many chips as possible afterperformingdifferentassignmentsanddiscussion triggers,passionsand strongpoints.Thegameisplayedbyatleastfourteachersintwoteams.Thisgameisalsosuitableforteacherwhoarenewtoeachother.Thegameelementsconsistedofagameboardand(theknown)threestacksofcards (Figure 3). In the gamea team threwadice,moved their pawnon thegameboardandexecuteddifferentassignments.Theassignmentswere:depict,describe or draw a trigger, passion or strength. One of the team membersperformedtheassignmentandtheother(s) triedtonamethetrigger,passionor strength. Some special assignments were put on the board for instancedreaming.Whenateamendeduponthatbooth,amemberdescribedadream,explainedthatdreamandnamedwhatwasneededtoaccomplishthatdream.Forexample,ateacherdescribedthedreamtomotivatestudents.Thatteacher

76

describedstudentswhoarehardtomotivatetodotheirhomework.Whatthatteacherthoughtnecessaryweremoreappealinghomeworkassignments,soapartnership with a younger teacher could be beneficial in order to makehomeworkmorehipandfresh.Thesespecialassignmentswereinlinewiththe4-DmodelofAI(Bushe&Kassam,2005;Conklin,2009;Cooperrider&Whitney,2006). According to the 4-Dmodel AI is implemented through the 4-D cycle;Discover,Dream,DesignandDestiny(Ricketts&Willis,2001).DiscoverywithinAI was to realize what strengths, assets, competencies, capabilities, values,traditions, wisdoms and potentials are (Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, & Griffin,2003). Cooperrider (1996) stated that the dream is what might be/what iscalledforandthedesigndescribeswhatshouldbeideal.Destinyhadtodowithsustainingwhatwillbe(Ludema,Cooperrider,&Barrett,2006).

Figure3:GameelementsofDevelopmentJourney.The evaluation of the different games (see Table 5) showed that the focusgrouppreferred theHappyFamilies closely followedbyDiscoverYourselfand

77

theOtherandDevelopmentJourney.AgroupdiscussionrevealedthatStackofCards was confusing. However participants agreed the other games wereequally fun, relevant and suitable (possible linkwith I-Change), DevelopmentJourneywaschosenbyfiveoutofsixparticipantsasthegametobeelaboratedinasecondprototypebecausethisgamehadthemostrelevanceandlinkwiththe I-Change model (because of the special assignments). One of theparticipants wrote an open comment on the scoring card “DevelopmentJourneyismoredynamic.Thequestionsarefunandtriggeraparticipanttogointodepth”.SinceDiscoverYourselfwithaCoach,HappyFamiliesandDiscoverYourselfandthe Other showed their relevance and did not ask much extra design effort(incorporating envelopes), these were incorporated in Prototype 2 as well.Observationof the researcher confirmed thatDevelopment Journey triggeredthemostcollaboration (teamstried towin fromeachother),eachparticipantwas active in the games (Stack of Cards seemed the least active) andparticipantshadfun(theylaughedalot).Table5:EvaluationofPrototype1basedonafive-pointscale(1=notatallto5=entirely)

Nameofthegame

Criteria(means)

n

TriggersStrengthsPassions Active Fun Useful Overallmean

StackofCards 6 3,5 3,33 3,67 2,83 3,33HappyFamilies 6 4,17 4,17 4 4,17 4,13DiscoverYourselfandtheOther 6 4,33 3,83 3,83 4 4,00DiscoverYourselfwithaCoach 3 4 3,67 3,33 3,33 3,58DevelopmentJourney 6 4 3,83 4 4 3,96

Prototype2Keeping inmindallsuggestionsfromthepreviousevaluationsessiontogetherwiththecriteria,thegameswereelaboratedandamanualwasdesigned.Themain improvementfromPrototype1toPrototype2wasthestrengtheningofthe third phase of the I-Changemodel (action) through the inclusion of goalformulation within the manual. Goal formulation is one of the factorsinfluencing the action phase. Since action is outside the scope of this study,goalformulationasaproximalmeasureforactionwasused.Asdescribedearlier,theevaluationofPrototype2focusedonthecontentandtherefore the game was not played. Two groups of three participants each

78

participated in thisevaluation.Onlyageneralevaluation tookplace since thecontentisequalforalldevelopedgames.The second design cycle resulted in suggestions for improving the manual(linguistic suggestions and change of sequence) and a selection of relevantcards. At the end of the redesign process the game consisted of 28 trigger-cards,15passion-cardsand19strength-cards.Inadiscussionwithparticipantstheconclusionwasdrawnthateachcardshouldnotonlyconsistofawordbutalsoapictureinordertobemoreappealingtoteacherswithdifferentlearningstyles (Furnham, Jackson,&Miller, 1999). These changes aremake the gamemorerelevantandusefulandareinaccordancewiththeI-Changemodelwhichfor example takes into account different channels of information. Hence, thethirdPrototype3couldbedevelopedaccordingly.Prototype3Thefocusofthethirddesigncyclewasontheusefulnessofthegeneraldesignand on the fun aspect. Participants (two groups of three participants eachwithoutincorporatingtheresearcher)evaluatedthesedesigncharacteristicsforthegameboard,cards,attributesandname.The focus group confirmed that the entire layout of the game boardstrengthened the fun aspect of the game. However, the colors could beimproved. All participants were inspired through the cards showing acombination of text and pictures (Figure 4) in order to be useful to teacherswith different learning styles (Furnham et al., 1999). Simple suggestions forimprovingthecardsweremade(forexamplecenteredtext).

79

Figure4:Cardswithlabelsandimages.Aftersomesmallchanges(layoutofcardsandcolorsofthegameboard),thedefinitiveversionandthegameboxClickxcouldbedeveloped(Figure5).

80

Figure5:GameboardofDevelopmentJourneywithinthegameboxClickx.

FinalversionThefinalversionofthegameboxincludedagameboard,trigger-,passion-andstrength-cards,threepawns,chips,adice,apencil,anotebook,fourenvelopesand a manual. With these elements four different games can be played;Development Journey, Discover Yourself with a Coach, Happy Families andDiscover Yourself and the Other. All participants were asked to fill out anevaluationformafterplayingoneofthegames.Theevaluationwasinayes-noformat. Respondents (N=18) offered concrete suggestions for improvementwhentheygaveano-answer.HappyFamiliesFour teachers played Happy Families. All shared the opinion that the designcharacteristics for relevance, activity, fun and usefulness were met. Thecharacteristicofcollaborationcouldbeaugmentedthroughanincreaseofthenumberofplayers.Whenaugmentingthenumber,toomanyteacherswillhavetositbackwhiletheothersmaketheircardchoicesandthegamewillbecomeslowandboring.

81

Allteachersindicatedtheyhadabetterinsightintheirstrengths,passionsandtriggers for CPD and those of other players of the game. However, none ofthemdevelopeda specificCPDgoalduring thegame.As saidearlier, the linkwiththeactionphaseoftheI-Changemodelwasdeliberatelyaddressedinthemanual by incorporating goal formulation (proximal measure for action).Participants were asked to follow themanual in the testing phase. Howeverparticipants solely focused on the game instructions. In other words,participantsdidnot read thegoalof the gamenor theguidelineswhat todoafterthegameorthescientificsubstantiation.Anadditionalsuggestionfromoneoftheplayerswastochangethesequenceof the game. In this prototype each player wrote down a name when anenvelope was opened. Hereafter the group discussed the names everyonewrote down, then a new envelope was opened etc. However, when fourmembers played the game and two envelopes were opened, the chances ofguessing the right remaining namewas rather high. Itwould bemore fun toopen all envelopes, write down the names for envelopes 1 to 4 and thendiscussall.DiscoverYourselfwithaCoachThree pairs (one teachers and her coach and two student teachers and theirteacher educator) played Discover Yourself with a Coach; they all held theopinion that the design characteristics for relevance, collaboration and funwere met. One student teacher did not think of the game as useful. Thisstudenthoweverdidnotprovidefurtherexplanation.Three(student)teachersconfirmedthecharacteristicofthegametofacilitateactivationbytheplayers,butthecoaches/teachereducatorsdidnot.Thisoutcomereflectedthedesignofthegame;thecoachsupportedthepersonbeingcoached.Four out of six evaluations confirmed the link between the game and thephasesoftheI-Changemodel.Allparticipants indicatedtohavebetter insightin the triggers, passions and strengths of the (student) teachers. Hence, allparticipantswent through theawarenessphase. The linkwith themotivationphasewasonly implicitlymeasuredacross theactionphase.Goal formulationwasusedastheproximalmeasurefortheactionphase;two(student)teachersandtwocoaches/teachereducatorstookthatstep.An extra suggestion from one of the teacher educators was to extend themanual.Morespecifically,thatteachereducatorindicateditwouldbeusefulto

82

elaboratetheguidingquestionsonestablishingalinkbetweenthetypeofcardsinthemanual,especiallyforlessexperiencedcoachesorteachereducators.DevelopmentJourneySixteachersplayedDevelopmentJourney,andallheldtheopinionthatplayingthe game was active and fun. Five teachers agreed that the designcharacteristics for relevance, collaboration and usefulness weremet. Furtherexplanationshoweverwerenotprovidedduetothefactthattheresultswereanalyzedafterthemeetingandthequestionnairewasanonymous.Afterthisevaluation,apossiblelinkbetweenthegameandtheI-Changemodelwasstilltobeproven.Allteachersindicatedtheyhadabetterinsightinothers(and sometimes themselves)butnoneof themdevelopeda specificCPDgoalduring thegame (measure for theactionphase).As saidearlier, the linkwiththe action phase of the I-Change model was incorporated in the manualparticipantshadtofollow.However,theydidnotfollowthatmanualfromstarttofinish.GeneralConcluding,therespondentsofthethreegamessaidthegamewasuseful forincreasing self-knowledgeand it facilitated themto take some time to reflectontheirownperformancerelatedtothegoalstheyhadinmind.Hereby,theyindicated that the game was a useful alternative to start conversations andreflectionsaboutwhattriggerseachteachertolearn,whattheyarepassionateabout and do well. The game offered a fun way to talk about importantsubjectsandatthesametimefocusedonteacher’spositiveaspects (passionsand strengths). Thereby the appreciative nature of the game differed frommany Human Resource Management (HRM)-conversation in schools, whichoften focus on what teachers still have to develop (deficiency approach).Multiple participants gave their feedback in front of the camera. Thesetestimonies were bundled into a short clip about Clickx (seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeklCLOt-AA).As Conklin (2009) discussed, AI creates opportunities and gives voice tothoughts, ideas, hopes, and aspirations. Clickx lowered the threshold forconversations aboutwhat teachers think,where their strengths lay andwhattheyarepassionateabout.

83

Tosummarize,alldevelopedgamescompliedwith thepre-setdesigncriteria.However,thelinkwithmultiplephasesoftheI-Changemodelwasonlyprovenfor the coaching game. The focus groups offered suggestions to develop thegames further; for instance invite more players for Happy Families, open allenvelopes at once, and provide more guidelines for coaches to address theconnectionbetweentriggers,strengthsandpassions.

5.4 Discussion

Severalauthors(Nabhani&Bahous,2010;VanEekelenetal.,2006;Vermeulenet al., 2011) concluded that teachers’ participation in CPD was limited. Inaddition,adeficiency-basedstudy(seeChapter3)didnotshowmuchintentionof teachers to participate in CPD. However, another study (see Chapter 4)showedthatallteachershadCPDgoalsandoftentheintentiontotakepartinCPD.Nevertheless, these teacherswere seldom triggered through a deficit intheirperformance.Teachers indicated that theywerewilling to improve theirperformance on aspects they were interested in and in areas they alreadyperformed well. Joseph (2004) also found that the curiosity of participantsdeterminedtheirmotivation.AI helps teams to buildmore positive images about themselves (O’Connor&Yballe,2007).AnAImethodisanappropriatewaytofacilitatetriggerstoCPD.TherealtriggerforteacherstoparticipateinCPDisofteninaninternaldrivetogrow which can be the result of interaction with others (Chapter 4). Whenteachers interact with others, they get new ideas on how to enhance theirprofessional proficiency. According to Bushe and Kassam (2005) AI is aneffective method to generate new ideas on how to achieve professionaldevelopmentamongteachers.Theresearchquestionedanswered inthischapter is“Howcanthefindingsofthe previous studies be used to create a powerful intervention with thepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”Designingapowerfulinterventiontakestimeandneeds different prototypes before a final version that works sufficientlyaccording to researcher and practitioners is reached. Each version has to gothroughdifferentdesigncyclestherebycarefullyevaluatingthedesigncriteriainordertomakeitbettersuitedforthegoaloftheintervention.Theevaluationgoals in this study differ for each prototype, focusing on different criteria(Goldmanetal.,2013;Plomp&Nieveen,2007).

84

ThegameseemstofacilitatethefirstphaseoftheI-Changemodel:awareness.Teachers indicate to have a better knowledge of their own and each other’striggers for CPD, passions and strengths. Only (student) teacherswho played‘DiscoverYourselfwithaCoach’didformulatedaCPDgoal(proximalmeasurefor the action phase). A possible explanationwhy teachers playing the othergames did not reach a CPD goal is that, although the manual incorporatesguidelineshowto take thenext steps inorder toparticipate inCPD, teachersdidnotreadthemanual.Notreadingthemanual(orsolelythepracticalgameinstructions)isacommonfactwhenplayinggames(Howmanytimesdoesoneread amanual cover to cover before playing a fun game thewhole family iswaiting toenjoy?).Therefore, formulationofagoal shouldbe integrated intothegame.Forexampleattheendofthegame,thegroupwithmostchipsonlywinswhen all teammembers together formulate asmany CPD goals as theyhaveearnedchips.AnotherexplanationcanbefoundintheassumptionsoftheI-Changemodel.Themodelpredictsthatnotallteachersgothroughthethreephases(awareness,motivationandaction)automatically.Someteachersmighthave theneedof anotherperson to reach thenextphase. ThatotherpersonwaspresentinallgamesofClickxbutonlyinDiscoverYourselfwithaCoachtheother person is not a peer.Whether the coaching background of that otherpersonor thehierarchicalpositionmakesthedifference,shouldbestudied infuture research. In general, teachers played the game enthusiastically, talkedaboutandsupportedeachotherinteractivelyinnamingtheirtriggers,passionsand strengths. This kind of open communication was a large step ahead inconscious CPD according to a coach from the schoolwho observed this finalevaluationandwasaco-creatorofClickx.Teacherswho played the final version of the game indicate to have a betterknowledge of their own and others triggers to learn, their passions andstrengths.Whenteachersgetusedtotalktoeachotherabouttheirpreferredtriggers to CPD, passions and strengths, they reach a connection (click). Thisclick facilitates openness in the educational field, which is new for manyschools.Teacherswillhavethechancetoworktogetherandutilizeeachother’spassionsandstrengthsandofferandseek themost fittedtriggers forCPD. Inotherwords,theculturetowardCPDchangeswithintheschoolfromathreattoan opportunity. An important requirement in really changing the culture ischanging the HRM-policy in a similar appreciative direction. Cooperrider andWhitney (2006) stated that an AI searches for the best in people, their

85

organizations, and the world around them. Thereby making them moreeffectiveandconstructive.The I-Changemodelhas thepotentialof guidingpolicymakers to change theHRM-cycle within schools. However, the I-Change model is applicable for adeficiency-aswellasforanappreciativeapproach.Policymakersshouldkeepinmindnot touseaone-sidedfocusonperformancegapsandshortcomings,butsearchforwhatmakesaspecificteacherspecialandhowtoletthatteachershineevenmore.

5.5 Limitationsandfutureresearch

TheevaluationofClickxincorporatedthreeoutoffourgameversions.Nofinalconclusions could be drawn about the applicability of the version DiscoverYourselfand theOther to facilitateCPD.However, since thisgameresembledHappyFamiliesalot,nodeviatingresultswereexpected.Theparticipants in the evaluationwere studentor starting teachers. In otherwords, the group of experienced teachers did not participate in the finalevaluation.PlompandNieveen(2007)statedthatsometimesa final fieldtrialoftheinterventionwiththefull(orasampleofthe)targetgroupisimpossible.Consequently, the actual practicality and the actual effectiveness of theinterventioncouldnotbedemonstrated.Conclusionsfocusedontheexpectedpracticality and effectiveness. Wang and Hannafin (2005) pointed to thelimitationsofthesinglecasetest.Theyindicatedthatthelocalproblemhadtobe addressed but the generalizability had to be ensured. In other words theproductofDBRhad tobeevaluated in a varietyof circumstances inorder tofulfil the research requirement of generalization (Barab & Squire, 2004). Agroup of teachers coming into the profession or just started within theprofession participated in our research. Future research should investigatewhetherClickxisalsousefulformoreexperiencedteachers.ClickxfacilitatedthefirstphaseoftheI-Changemodel(awareness),andoneofthemost important influencingfactorsoftheactionphase(goal formulation).Themanual incorporatedguidelines to facilitate the formulationofCPDgoalsbut participants did not give any attention to those. Future research shouldstudyhowgoalformulationcanbemademoreexplicitinthegameitselfsinceitseemedthatteachersdidnotreadtheentiremanual.Someteachersmighthavetheneedofanotherpersontoreachthenextphaseafterawareness.Futureresearchcouldfocusonwhethertheotherpersonthat

86

helps a teacher to go to the next phase should be someonewith a coachingbackgroundorahierarchicalsuperior.The evaluation of the final version of the game offered some valuablesuggestions.Future researchcouldadjust theexistinggamesaccording to thesuggestionsandevaluatethem.

5.6 Conclusion

BecomingawareofCPDwishes isnotthateasyforteachers inschools.Whenteachersstarttocommunicateandespeciallycommunicateabouttheiruniquequalities the chance for CPD participation raises (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom,2010).Theprevious researchshowed thatClickxoffersaway to facilitate theinteraction between teachers based upon their strengths and passions.Furthermore,ClickxincorporatesquestionsaboutthetriggerstowardsCPDforindividual teachers. After playing Clickx teachers are aware of their own andeach other’s strengths, passions and triggers. In other words, teachers wentthroughthefirstphaseoftheI-Changemodel;awareness.GoalformulationhastobestrengthenedwithinClickxinordertogothroughtheactionphaseofthemodel. Although the manual incorporated these aspects, only few teachersformulated a goal. The next version of Clickx can integrate goal formulationmore explicitly. Another possibility is to expand the manual for TC’sincorporatingguidelineshowtohelpteachersformulategoalsafterawarenesshas been reached. These guidelines proved their use for the coachesparticipating in the evaluation. Therefore, researchers, practitioners andorganizationsshouldworktogetherinordertomakeonegamethatfacilitatesteacherstodiscover,dream,designanddelivertheirownCPD.

87

CHAPTER6

Generaldiscussion

88

6.1 Introduction

ThisdoctoralthesisbeganwiththepresentationoftheI-Changemodelaimingto better understand how to enhance teacher Continuous ProfessionalDevelopment(CPD)(seeChapter2).Atfirst,theI-Changemodelwasappliedinadeficiencymanner(seeChapter3),followingthelongtraditionofadeficiencyapproachwhen it comes to planning for teachers’ professional development.Lateron,basedon the results,wediscovered thatadeficiencyapproachwasvery often not an adequate model to explain teachers’ willingness for CPDbecause itwasfoundthatanappreciativeapproachbetterfittedtheaim(seeChapter 4) in search for an answer of the overall research question “WhattriggersCPDparticipationof teachers?”.During this study, thismainquestionwasanswered through threesub researchquestions.Theanswers to the firstsub question “Are teachers triggered to participate in CPD following asequential, gap-based model and what is the relation with personal andpsychological factors?” are discussed in section 6.2. From our results weconcluded that a deficiency approach did not seem to act as the expectedtrigger for CPD for the greater part of the teachers. Therefore, in the secondstudy teacherswereaskedaboutCPDgoals theyalreadyhadand if theyhadgoals, how these were established. Section 6.3 presents the results of thesecond sub researchquestion “What is efficacious in triggering teachers’CPDparticipation in terms of creating awareness about the need for CPDparticipation(theawarenessphase)andthemotivationtostartwithCPD(themotivationphase)?”.ThelastsubresearchquestionfocusesontriggersforCPDcan be prompted in practice, and is formulated as follows “How can thefindingsofthepreviousstudiesbeusedtocreateapowerfulinterventionwiththepurposeof facilitatingCPD?”. Section6.4discusses the resultsof this lastsubresearchquestion.Theoverallresearchquestionisdiscussedinsection6.5followedbystrengthsandlimitations(section6.6)ofourresearchprojectandrecommendations for future research (section 6.7). Finally, in section 6.8 theimplicationsofthefindingsarepresented.

89

6.2 AreteacherstriggeredtoparticipateinCPDfollowingasequential,gap-basedmodelandwhatistherelationwithpersonalandpsychologicalfactors?

Thefirststudy(describedinChapter3)assumedthatnotallteacherscompleteallthephasesoftheI-Changemodel.Indeed,teachersoftenstalledinaphase.Surprisingly, few teachers had a performance gap based on the feedback oftheir team coordinator (TC) and an even smaller number had intentions ofimproving their weaker competences. Only 40 % became aware of aperformance gap, 27% had themotivation to undertake action to overcomethe gap and 24 % formulated a CPD goal (the CPD goal was our proximalmeasureofaction).Fromourstudy,wecouldnotpredicthowmanyteacherswith a formulated CPD goal would actually take part in CPD. Hustler et al.(2003)ledustoassumethatintheendonlyhalfofthoseteacherswithaCPDgoal would take part in CPD. This finding could explain why increasing thenumberofteachersengagedinCPDissodifficult.TriggeringCPDparticipationisacomplexproblemwithmultipleinfluencingvariables.Oneofthesevariablescomprisesindividualfactorsofteachers.The results of this first study partly confirmed our expectations that theindividual factors influence the transition between the various phases in themodel. Some variables were significant for a phase but no single individualfactor was significant in each phase. For example, the Core Self Evaluations(CSE)-aconstructthatencompassesfourpsychologicalvariables;neuroticism,self-esteem,self-efficacyandlocusofcontrol(Judgeetal.,1997)–wasstudied.The analysis showed that the CSE was significantly related to completion ofawareness andaction (phases1 and3of the I-Changemodel). Teacherswhofinishedphases1and3hadalowermeanscoreontheCSEthanteacherswhodidnotfinishthesephases.However,themeanscoreinthelowergrouponCSEwas still above the theoretical mean (mathematical mean of the scale),indicating that all teachers scored relatively highly on CSE. For this study itmeant that teacherswithanaboveaveragescoreonCSEweremore likely tofinishPhases1and3thanthosewhohadanextremelyhighscoreonCSE.Here,aplausibleexplanationfortwoscalesoftheCSEemerged;highscoresonself-esteem and self-confidencemay reflect overconfidence, which results in lessself-reflection and lower receptiveness to the input of others. A possibleexplanation for the contribution of the other two components of CSE(emotional stability and locus of control)was less obvious. Peoplewhowere

90

emotionally stable (highscoreonemotional stability) shouldbeable tomovetoward CPDmore easily than peoplewhowere not as stable because a highscoreonemotionalstabilityindicateslessanxietyandinsecurity.Theresultsofthis study,however, contradicted this commonsensenotion.Along the samelineofreasoning,teacherswithamoreinternal locusofcontrolwerelikelytoattributefailuretothemselvesandaccordingly,becameawaremoreeasilythanpeople with an external locus of control. The results of this study, again,contradictedthislogicwayofreasoning.Perhaps,anexplanationmightbethatthisstudydidnottakethespecificnatureofteachers’CPDgoalsintoaccount.TeacherswithanexternallocusofcontrolmayhavesetCPDgoalsthatdidnotrefertotheirownactions,butdependedonactionsofothers.Forexample,ateacherisawarethatstudentsareveryrestlessduringhislessons(awareness)and has themotivation to change that. However, that teacher points to theuncomfortable furnitureas the causeof this restlessnessandanother kindofseatsandtableswouldbeveryhelpful.But investmentsarenotthisteacher’sdecision.A potential explanation for the non-significant relationship between CSE andphase 2 completions could be found in the Theory of ReasonedAction (TRA;Fishbein&Ajzen,1975)andtheTheoryofPlannedBehavior(TPB;Ajzen,1991).FishbeinandAjzen(1975)measuredintentionmoreextensivelythanthisstudydid, because here the focus was on the first phase of the I-Change model,awareness. Inthisstudymotivationwasmeasuredverystraightforwardlywithonequestion (‘Towhat extent do youwant to do something tooptimize theuse of student-activating teaching methods?’). In order not to startleparticipantswith a tooelaborated and time-consumingquestionnaire, almostallquestionswerelinkedtotheawarenessphaseandindividualfactors.Age was significant for Phase 1: teachers who became aware of a CPD goalwereolderthanteacherswhodidnotbecomeaware.OurresultswereinlinewiththefindingsofSchunkandErtmer(2000)foundthatolderteachershavebetter self-regulating strategies (leading to awareness). They also found thatolderstudentsusemoreself-regulatingstrategiesthanyoungerstudents.In short; older teachers with lower scores on CSE (being relatively lessemotionallystable,havelowerself-esteem,alowersenseofself-efficacy,andamore external locus of control) were the most likely to become aware of aperformancegap.Butitshouldbenoted,thatthemeanscoresontheCSEscalewerehigh(farabovethetheoreticalmeanofthescale).ThelowerscoreonCSEwasalsorelatedtoteacherswhoformulateaCPDgoal.

91

Toprovideananswertothefirstsub-question,weconcludethattheresultsofthe first study replicated the contradicting results found by different authors(asdescribedinChapter1).Fewteachersexperiencedaperformancegapandan even smaller numberwasmotivated to overcome the perceived gap. Theresults showedthat the I-Changemodeldidnotentirelyactaswasexpected.Onegroupofteacherswentthroughthemodelasexpected.However,asmallgroup of teachers did not run through the three phases sequentially. Someparticipants who did not finish the awareness phase finished themotivationphase, as well as participants who did not finish the motivation phase butcompleted the action phase. Nevertheless, the I-Change model seemspromising in giving explanations regarding the complex problem of CPDparticipation. Because thismodel isamodelofbehavioral change, ithas thepossibility of developing guidelines and tools to trigger CPD participation ofteachers.The I-Changemodel isacomplexmodelwithdifferentphases,eachinfluenced by different factors. When studying just a few individual factors(e.g.,ageandCSE)wediscoveredtheirrelevanceregardingtheinfluenceonthephasesoftheI-Changemodel(i.e.awarenessphase).Morespecific,theresultsshowedthatteacherswithhighscoresonCSEwerelesslikelytobecomeawareof or formulate a goal than teacherswith lowerCSE scores.Nevertheless, nosinglefactorinfluencedallthreephases.Themostunexpectedresultwasthatveryfewteachersseemedtoperceiveaperformancegap, inotherwordsteacherswhofinishedtheawarenessphase.ThissurprisingresultandtheurgeformoreinsightsinthecomplexproblemofCPDwerethetriggersforthenextstudy.

6.3 Whatisefficaciousintriggeringteachers’CPDparticipationintermsofcreatingawarenessabouttheneedforCPDparticipation(theawarenessphase)andthemotivationtostartwithCPD(themotivationphase)?

The first part of the second study was designed to fulfil some importantconditionsinordertoanswertheresearchquestion”Whatisefficaciouswhenenhancingteachers’CPDparticipation”.Hattie(2009)andHattieandTimperley(2007)foundthatfeedbackisimportantforalllearning.RegehrandEva(2006),Relanetal.(2006)andOnstenketal.(2007)addedthatfeedbackisespeciallycrucialforagapapproach.SinceregularfeedbackisnotverycommoninDutch

92

educational settings, an assessment and feedback session was deliberatelystagedforthepurposeofourstudy.Thiswaspartoftheresearchinterviews.FromotherresearchitwasknownthatthreeconditionsforfeedbackleadingtoawarenessofaCPDgoalshouldbefulfilled.Thesethreeconditionsweremet;feedbackreceivermusttrustthereviewoftheassessor(Beausaertetal.,2011),the feedback source must be credible (Ilgen et al., 1979), and a mutualunderstanding must exist between feedback giver and receiver (Campbell,2005;Dixon,2000).Regardingcondition1(operationalizedasanemphatic,safeenvironment, and a good relationship with the feedback giver), only highratingsweregiven.Regardingcondition2all teachers indicated toagreewiththeirTC.Regardingcondition3almostallpairshadamutualdefinitionof thetopics. After feedback had been given and discussed (as was staged for thisresearch in the assessment and feedback session), the TC left the interviewsetting.The secondpartof studywas about teacher’sCPDgoalswithin the last year.First, teachers named their CPD goals. Second, the teachers informed theresearcherontriggerstheyexperiencedbeforeparticipatinginCPDactivities.Astory linemethodwasused.All teachersnamedat leastoneCPDgoaland/oractivity,whichcontradictsthefindingsofmanyauthorswhostatedthatsomegroupsofteachersdonottakepartinCPDatall(Nabhani&Bahous,2010;VanEekelenetal.,2006;Vermeulenetal.,2011).Onepossibleexplanationwasthattheseteachersmayhavehadagoalbutdidnotundertakeanyfurtheraction.ToactivelyenhancetheparticipationinCPDactivities,ananswerisneededtothequestion”Whattypesoftriggersprecedethesegoalsandactions?”.IntheirSelf Determination Theory (SDT), Deci and Ryan (2000) and Ryan and Deci(2000)proposeda continuumof typesofmotivationgoing froma-motivationthrough externally motivated behaviors to intrinsic motivation. In our study,intrinsicmotivationappearedtobethemostcommontrigger,butourfindingsalso suggested that solely intrinsic motivation seldom led to participation inCPD activities. In contrast, intrinsic motivation needs to be accompanied byexternal motivation factors or opportunities to participate in CPD activities.Only two out of 22 teachers mentioned a trigger coming from a perceiveddeficiency. This finding supports the assumption that a more appreciativeapproach is a better trigger for CPD.Anexplanation for the lackof examplesfrom the performance gap perspective could be that teachers did not like totalk about such examples because they pointed at a deficiency in theircompetence.

93

The assessment and feedback session in the first part of the second studycreated an open atmosphere, allowing a free discussion of teacher’sperformance.Moreover,teacherandTCdiscussedpotentialperformancegapsin this part of the study. This gap-discussion took place just a few minutesbeforelistingtheCPDgoals,givinggaptriggerstheadvantageofbeingfreshintheperson’smemory. Inour retrospective studyusing the story-linemethod,gap triggers were remarkably absent in the list of triggers mentioned byteachers.This indicatedthatevenwhenteachersdiscussedpoorperformancewith their TC, they did not take this as a starting point for their CPD.Manytriggers formulated by teachers in our research came from an intrinsicmotivationputinpracticeafteranexternalpossibilitycamealong:forexamplea course offered by the school. Therefore, our findings advocate for moreopportunitiesforCPDalongwithexertingabitofexternalpressureandsupporttoparticipateinCPD.In short, the qualitative data confirmed the quantitative findings (Study 1 inChapter3);whenCPD is related toapreset theme, few teachershaveaCPDgoal and motivation to participate in CPD. However, the open questions ofStudy2 indicated thatall teachershadCPDgoals.Theactivities that teachersundertook to fulfil their goals fitted into four categories (reading; courses;experimenting; collaborating). The triggers preceding these CPD goals andactivitieswereoftenintrinsic,ortheywereexternallyregulatedbutintegratedintotheteachers’mindset.However,apurely intrinsicgoalwasunlikelytobeput in action. All but two triggers mentioned by teachers resembled thecornerstonesofanappreciativeapproachratherthanadeficiencyapproach.Achangeinperspectivefromdeficiencytoappreciativeisfollowedbyachangeinanswers (deficiency/few teachers have a CPD goal, appreciative/all teachershave a CPD goal). Hence, the advice to practice is to implement appreciativeconversation. At the same time, the deficiency approach is still a usefulapproach when it comes to, for example, the minimum standards (i.e.minimum standards for beginning teachers), the implementation of newtechnologies,oranewrolewithintheschool.To provide an answer to the second sub-question, we conclude that mostteachers became aware of a possibility to get better and therefore had themotivation to take part in CPD activities when the theme is not preset. Wefound that the most efficacious trigger for teacher CPD is an intrinsicmotivation accompaniedwith an external offering of CPD possibilities. These

94

findingsuncoveredapreferenceofteacherslinkedtoanappreciativeapproachopposedtoadeficiencyapproach.

6.4 “HowcanthefindingsofthepreviousstudiesbeusedtocreateapowerfulinterventionwiththepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”

When reflectingon the resultsof theprevious studies and trying to translatethe findings into meaningful guidelines for day-to-day practice, the researchquestion “How can the findings of the previous studies be used to create apowerful interventionwiththepurposeoffacilitatingCPD?”wasanswered.Inaccordancewith thepositive triggers teachers need for engaging in CPD, thisinterventionshouldbeencouragingandfun.AsVisser(2010)stated,itismorefuntoimproveskillsyoualreadypossess.The outcomes of the previous chapter indicated that a)most teachers reallywant to takepart in CPD (Chapter 4) andb) teachers aremainly triggered totake part in CPD based on positive interaction, as long as that interaction iscombined with their intrinsic motivation (Chapter4). In other words, a realtriggerforteacherstoparticipateinCPDisoftenbasedonaninternaldrivetogrow(Chapter4).CPDismoreeffectivewhendoneincollaborationwithothers(Cordingleyetal.,2005),thereforeagameseemedtobeanappropriateformfor an intervention to facilitate CPD participation. A game integrates positivesocial interactions, playfulness, intrinsic motivation, and can be fun.Furthermore, a game facilitates exchange of the individual goals and enablesmore shared knowledge. In this way a game can be used in schools to startlearningtogetherfromeachother’sstrengths.The game should incorporate knowledge items (knowledge items are theproven concepts from the previous studies) and meet certain designcharacteristicsinordertobeeffective.Theknowledgeitemsinourstudyweretriggers,passions,strongpoints,andphasesoftheI-Changemodel.Thedesigncharacteristics incorporated in the game were relevant, active, collaborative,usefulandfun (Chapter5).Designingagamethatmeets thesecriteria isonlyuseful when none of the existing games does. Therefore, an exploration ofexistinggameswasconducted.Thissearchdidnotleadtowardsanalternativethatmetourcriteria.However,manyusefulingredientstodevelopanewgamewerefound,likeablackboxideatoassignsomeonetoageneraldescriptionorto check your assignments with others, earning a chip, describing things

95

without naming them and explaining the basis of the game in the tutorial.Hereafter, the development of a new game could start. To do so DBR wasapplied.Based on the existing knowledge items and design characteristics, theresearcher developed several alternative games and discussed them with apanel.Afterthreeprototypes,thatwereeachroundevaluatedandredesigned,the final version, namedClickx,was ready for evaluationby the target group(teachers).Thefinalgameconsistedoffouralternatives,eachsuitablefordifferentgroupsand goals. For example the most extensive version Development Journey isappropriateforteacherswhodonotknoweachotherinparticularandaimsatoffering the participants more insight in the strengths, passions and CPDtriggersofthegamers. Inthisboardgameteamsoftwoplayersthrowadice,movetheirpawnsontheboardandexecutedifferentassignments.Theotherthreegameversionsarecardgames.HappyFamiliesandDiscoverYourselfandthe Other are for teacherswho know each other a little bit better and offeropportunities for learningmoreabout their individual strengths,passionsandtriggerstoCPD.Thesetwoversionsaskeachgamerindividuallytochooseoneor more (dependent of the version) strong points, passions and triggers.Hereafter,gamersareaskedtoassigneachcard(orforHappyFamiliesstackofcards) to an individual. The last game versionDiscover Yourselfwith a Coachwas developed for individual coaching sessions. The aim was to offer theteacherabetterunderstandingofhisorherstrongpoints,passionsandtriggersforCPD.Thecoachisofferedsomeguidelinesinordertohelptheteachermakea connection between the strong points, passions and triggers. Three of thefour pilot versions were tested by 18 teachers in total and they found thedesign fruitful for getting insight in one’s own and each other’s strengths,passionsandtriggersforCPDparticipation.ThefourthgamewasnotevaluatedbecauseoftheoverlapbetweenHappyFamiliesandDiscoverYourself.Fromourresultsitseemsthatthedevelopedgamesmainlyfacilitatedthefirstphaseof the I-Changemodel:awareness.Teachers indicated tohaveabetterknowledgeoftheirownandeachother’striggersforCPD,passionsandstrongpoints.Althoughmany teachers indicated tobemotivated toplayClickx, thiskindofmotivation isnotthesameas inthemotivationphaseoftheI-Changemodel. Motivation operationalized in this study with regard to the I-Changemodel is motivation to take part in CPD. We can only assume that throughmore awareness, teachers are more motivated to participate in CPD. Only

96

(student) teachers who played the version Discover Yourself with a CoachformulatedaspecificCPDgoal(proximalmeasurefortheactionphase).Ingeneral,teachersplayedthegameenthusiasticallyandsupportedeachotherwhentalkingabouttheirtriggers,passionsandstrongpoints.Thiskindofopencommunication is a great leap forward in conscious CPD.When teachers getusedtotalktoeachotherabouttheirpreferredtriggerstoCPD,passionsandstrong points, they reach a connection (click) with one another. This clickfacilitatesopenness in thediscussionsaboutprofessionaldevelopment,whichis new for many schools. An important requirement for really changing theculture is altering the Human Resource Management-policy to a similarlyappreciative direction. Cooperrider and Whitney (2006) stated that an AIapproach searches for the best in people, their organizations, and theworldaround them. Thereby making such approaches more effective andconstructive.To provide an answer to the third sub-question, we conclude that Clickxencourages on open communication structure. Still, the formulation of aspecific CPD goal was hard. With this study we showed that not everythingwithin a school has to follow a formal path; playing a (specific) game has itsadvantages. Moreover, when introducing multiple ways to trigger CPD,teacherswithdifferentlearningstyleswillbetriggered.

6.5 Overallresearchquestion:WhattriggersCPDparticipationforteachers?

Theresultsofthestudiesdescribedabove(Chapters3to5)haveindicatedthatteachersare intrinsicallymotivatedtoparticipate inCPDbut inmultiplecasesan external offer triggers that motivation. In addition, we found that the I-Changemodelcouldworkasaphasemodelwheninitiatedbyanappreciativeapproachmore than through a deficiency approach. The I-Changemodel is acomplex model with different phases, each influenced by different factors.When studying just some individual factors (e.g., ageandCSE)wediscoveredtheirrelevanceregardingtheinfluenceonthephasesoftheI-Changemodel(i.eawareness phase). These findings support the I-Change model in that distalfactors (in this case personal factors) influence (across proximal factors) howpeoplegothroughthethreephases.

97

Nevertheless,theI-Changemodeldidnotentirelyactasexpected.ForasmallgroupofteachersfollowingthephasesledtotheformulationofaCPDgoalbutanothergroupdidnotfollowtheproposed(obligated)sequenceofthephases.Still,theI-Changemodel,acomplexmodelinitself,seemedpromisingingivingexplanationsregardingthecomplexproblemofCPDparticipation. Becauseofthefocusourresearchhadtoapply,ourcooperationwiththreeschoolscouldnottakeallofthefactorsoftheI-Changemodelintoaccountbutrevealedthatthestudiedfactorsarerelevantforpractice.Forexample,motivation(Phase2oftheI-Changemodel)ofteachersisoneofthemostimportantfactorshavingtobefulfilledbeforeCPDparticipationispossible(Chapter4).Theimportanceof source and channel factors (twoof themultipledistal factorswithin the I-Changemodel)canbeseeninthesecondstudy(Chapter3and4)inthattheTChadtobecredibleandmultiplechannelsofinformationcanserveofpurpose.Asdescribedpreviously,oneofthemainshiftsthattookplaceinthisdoctoralthesiswastheshiftfromadeficiencytoanappreciativeapproach,resultinginother outcomes of the sameproblem. The I-Changemodel is amodel (as domanymodels)whichtheunderlyingapproachimplicit.WeconcludedthatusingtheI-Changemodelfromanappreciativeperspectiveispreferred(Chapter4)inordertotriggerCPD.Consequently,weproposerenamingeachofthestagesofI-Changemodel.First,inAI the4-Dcycle is important:discover,dream,designanddeliver (Conklin,2009). Van derHaar andHosking (2004) described the discover-step aswhatgives life and energy to people’s work. The passion cards within Clickxrepresented the discover-step. A dream is something that could beaccomplished(VanderHaar&Hosking,2004).Thecombinationofdiscoveringand dreaming is similar to the first phase of the I-Changemodel. Therefore,opposedtonamingthisfirstphaseawarenessofaperformancegap,thetermawarenessofadreamordiscoveringadreamissuggested.Secondly,thethirdstepinthe4-Dcycledesign isdescribedaswhatshouldbe(Bushe& Kassam, 2005). In otherwords, it expresses a desire for change. Incaseof the I-Changemodelphase2 (motivation)was renamed indesigningaCPDplan. Thirdly and finally, the last step of the 4-D cycle of AI is deliver orwhatwouldbe(Conklin,2009).FortheI-ChangemodelthisreferredtowhatateacherdoesaftertheCPDplanhasbeendeveloped,thusengagementinCPDactivities. Therefore, phase 3 was renamed participating in CPD activities.Figure 6 shows the renamed phases of the I-Change model. By these new

98

names the model emphasizes its appreciative nature and will have moreaccordancewiththefindingsofourstudies.Figure6:TheAppreciativeI-ChangemodelforteacherCPD

6.6 Strengthsandlimitations

In line with the outcomes of the previous studies, and in specifically thebreakthrough that occurred when adopting an appreciative approach, theemphasis of this section should be on strengths. However, scientificjustification requires incorporatinga critical self-reflectionandadiscussionofthelimitationsofthevariousstudiesinthisresearchproject.Thediscussionofthestrengthsandweaknesseswillfocusonreliability,validityandusability.ReliabilityReliability differs for quantitative and qualitative research (Morse, Barrett,Mayan,Olson,&Spiers,2002).Forourquantitativestudy(Study1inChapter3)it is importanttousereliablemeasures.TheDutchCoreSelfEvaluationsScale(DCSES) was used which is a reliable test but was not previously used forteachers. The relevance for teachers was studied before Study 1 startedthroughconsultingadatabaseof79teachersfromdifferentsecondaryschools

Discoveringadream

DesigningaCPDplan

ParticipatinginaCPDactivity

Phase1:discover

Phase2:design

Phase3:participate

PROXIMALFACTORS STAGESDISTALFACTORS

INFORMATIONFACTORSPersonalfactorsMessagefactorsChannelfactorsSourcefactors

CuesforactionKnowledgeRiskperception

AttitudeSocialinfluenceSelf-efficacy

Self-efficacyActionplansSkillsBarriers

PREDISPOSINGFACTORSBehavioralfactorsPsychologicalfactorsSocialenvironmentfactors

PHASES

99

in the Netherlands (see Chapter 2). The sufficiently high alpha (Cronbach’salphaof .79) ensured the usability of theDCSES. Furthermore, Study 1madeuseoftopicstoquestiontheTCsandteachers.Thesetopicswerediscussedbyafocusgroupconsistingoffiveteachers.Reliabilityofthequalitativedatagatheringwasgivenattentionthroughtheuseofaprovenmethodwithintheeducationalfield;thestorylinemethod(VanderSandenetal.,2004;Beijaardetal.,1999).Tomakesure theresearchercouldget the most out of this method, she practiced with two colleagues and sixcolleagues practiced in pairs and the researcher took notes to improve theprocess.Theanalysisofthequalitativedatawasdonebymultipleresearchers,making it possible to compute Cohen’s Kappa (inter-rater reliability). Thismeasurement was sufficient (the Kappa for climate, definition topic anddefinition grade respectively was 0,67, 0,73 and 0,71) and thus the analysisreliable.The last study (Study 3, Chapter 5), developing a game was based on theproceduresofDBR.DBRincorporatesreliabilityineverydesigncyclebymakingthe targetpopulationpart of thedesign andevaluation team.We completedfour design cycles. The number of cycles in DBR is not preset; rather a finalversionisreachedwhennosubstantialpointsof improvementemergeaswasthecaseinStudy3(Chapter5)afterfourcycles.Finally, we studied the complex problem of reluctance and willingness ofteachers towards participation in CPD with quantitative and qualitativeresearchmethods. Thismultimethodapproachand theensuing triangulationhaveapositiveinfluenceonthereliabilityoftheresults(Dede,2005;deVilliers,2005).Validity As with reliability, validity focuses on different aspects for quantitative andqualitativeresearch(Winter,2000).Inourresearchwequestionedthevalidityof the measurement used in the first study after the surprising results (fewteachershavingagap).Thetopicwasdiscussedbyfiveexperts,thiscouldnotbe the reason for the surprising results. Therefore we interviewed the samepopulationinStudy2asinstudy1whichconfirmedthevalidityofthetopicandaccompanying question but also confronted us with an alternativeinterpretationofthegradesgiven.InStudy1,TCsandteachersgradesteacherperformanceona10-pointLikertscaleaccompaniedwithaverbaldescription.However,theinterviewsshowedteachersandTCsgradingperformanceasa6

100

donotfollowtheaccompanyingdescription“sufficientlydeveloped”butthinkof a 6 as “to be improved”. This invalidity did not cause a problem since theabsolutegradewasnotusedbutthedifferencebetweenthescoringofTCandteacherservedasaclassificationcriterion.Validityalsoreferstotheextenttowhichfindingsfromresearchcanbeusefullygeneralized. Therefore validity is crucial for quantitative and qualitativeresearch and differs between our studies. The first study (quantitative) isgeneralizable since the measurements are reliable and the population issufficiently big. The second and third study (Chapter 4 and 5) incorporated asmaller population (i.e. 22 pairs for Study 2). Therefore, the results are anindicationof how theprocessof CPDworks andwhat the game canoffer. Inorder to generalize these results, one should be careful. In addition, onlyteachersandTC’swhoparticipatedvoluntarywereincluded,andthereforetheresults are valid for voluntary CPD. This is not seen as a limitation sinceparticipationofthegameClickxinpracticewillalsobevoluntary.Inshort,thequalitative results are generalizable, for thequalitative results generalizabilitywasnotthegoal(thegoalwastogetinsightintheunderlyingprocesses).The organizational factors were stable because our studies were conductedwithin the schools of one board. For that reason these factors could not beresponsible for any variance sinceall TC’s and teammembershave the sameschoolboard.Atthesametime,itisuncertainwhetherourconclusionscanbeapplied to other school organizations. Other boards may perceive theirteachers as reluctant to participate in CPD and meanwhile not pay muchattention to the topic while the organization under study paid abundantattention to teacher CPD. In other words, the study was performed withinschoolsthatwerereadyforchange(Penueletal.,2011).Thisadditionallyraisesthe question of generalizability to an international context. Our researchpopulation consisted of only Dutch schools and in some aspects theNetherlandsseemstohaveeducationalpoliciesdifferentfromothercountries.Only future research cananswer thesequestions.However, the topic studiedhere was CPD and almost all countries are interested in this matter (OECD,2008).

UsabilityVerschuren (2009) stated that for practice-based scientific research a thirdcriterionisimportant:usability.Hegavethreeindicatorsforusability.Thefirstoneisclarityoftheresult.Putdifferently,theresultsoftheresearchshouldbe

101

accessible for practitioners. The second indicator refers to acceptability. Inotherwords,practitionershavetothinkoftheresultsastrueandrelevant.Thethird criterion is learning possibilities, which means that the results offerpossibilitiestoimprovepractice.Theclarity(firstcriterion)oftheresultsreceivedmuchattentionbydevelopingthegameClickxwhichhasthepurposeofmakingresearchfindingsaccessiblefor all teachers. Clickx can be playedmultiple times but thiswas not studiedhere.Secondtimeplayersdonothaveagameadvantage,becauseinsightandCPDgoalschangeovertime.Thesecond(ormulti)timeplayerscanexplainthegame to new gamers, which is an advantage for all. The selection of strongpoints,passionsandtriggerscouldbeeasier forthemsincethesegamershadsomepractice.However,eachtimeateacherplaysthegame,thecardsthatarein the stack change since theotherplayersarenot the sameandaccordinglyhavemadedifferentcardchoices.Inthisview,teacherswhointendedtoplaythe game in another groupdidnot think itwouldbecomeboring sinceotherplayers come into the game and choose different aspects. Some teachersspontaneously said they wanted to play the game again in one year to seewhether they emphasize the same aspects. However, we did not study apossibleshiftinstrongpoints,passionsandtriggersforCPDduetolimitedtimeofourproject.The acceptability (second criterion) of our studies is ensured since all studieswere performed in natural settings making it possible to draw real lifeconclusions. Moreover, the studies were developed in consultation with theschoolboardtoensurethattheoutcomesmightbeusefulfortheparticipatingschools. TCs just started their new and more hierarchical positions betweenteachers and management and could use some practice and guidance inassessingandgivingfeedbackthat leadtoCPDofteachers.Whenassessmentin the commonwayofadeficiencyapproachdidnot seem towork, teacherswereprovidedwith the story line tool thathelped toget insight in theirownlearninghistory andpreferences. TCs indicated that this research tool canbeused by them as an input for a professional learning conversation withteachers.The learning possibility (third criterion) is embedded since the goal of thisresearchprojectwastofindtriggersforteacherCPDwhichinitselfisalearningpossibility. The results state that an appreciative approach should be appliedforthemajorityofteachersandthatcommunicationaboutstrengths,passionsandtriggersforCPDhastobeencouragedamongco-workers.Thefinalproduct

102

ofthestudies,theClickxgamebox,offersTCs,coachesandteachersamethodtoencouragesuchappreciativecommunication.

6.7 Futureresearch

The I-Change model seems a valuable model for explaining and supportingteacherCPD. Inorder toembrace thismodelasoneof the leadingmodels inexplainingteacherCPDanddevelopingguidelinesortools,abiggerpopulation(moreschools)havetobeincorporatedinresearchandallfactorswithintheI-Changemodelshouldbesubjectofresearchwithinthefieldofeducation.Forexample,thefirststudyputstheemphasisonindividualfactorsrelatingtoCPD(oneofthepossibledistalfactorsoftheI-Changemodel).Futureresearchcanexploretheinfluenceofawiderrangeofindividualones.Forinstance,abetterunderstandingoftheseparatecomponentsofCSEandtheirinfluenceisneededin order to make specific guidelines how to trigger CPD based on individualcharacteristics. Future research should incorporate separate tests for self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability, to increase thefeasibilityofmorespecific recommendations forcounselling teachersonCPD.Kwakman (1999) discussed environmental and individual factors affectingteacher CPD. Therefore, future research about the I-Change model shouldintegrate both environmental and individual factors affecting teacher CPD.Burke, Christensen and Fessler (1984) described different stadia in thedevelopment of teachers and pointed to the importance of environmentalfactors, for instance the organization. Within an organization the rules,managementtype,cultureamongcolleagues,atmosphereofcommitmentandactivitiesandopportunitiesareofimportance.In addition, alternative routes within the I-Change model should beinvestigatedsincewefound(Study1inChapter3)thatnotallteachersfollowthepresetroutethroughthethreephases.PossiblystudyingthesealternativeroutesadtotheunderstandingofthecomplexprocessofCPD.We conducted the current study in theNetherlands. This raises the questionwhether the findings on how to trigger CPD also applies to schools in a non-Dutch context and different cultures. An international application of thefindings of our studies seems grounded through the use of internationallyvalidated tests (CSE) and literature. In addition, the international relevanceshouldbeexploredfurthertoverifytheresultsinaninternationalcontext.

103

The I-Change model was tested through a questionnaire resulting in a smallgroupofteachershavingtheintentiontotakepartinCPD.Thereasonfornotparticipating in CPDwas not part of the focus of the research and thereforecouldnotbedetermined.FutureresearchcouldinvestigatewhysometeacherswhomentionedaCPDgoaldidnothavetheintentiontotakepartinCPD.Suchresearch should focus on a more extensive measurement of intention andwhether actual CPDparticipationwouldoccur.Our studymeasured intentionthrough a single question whereas Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) used a moreextensive measurement. In addition future research should be longitudinal,making it possible to check in a real life setting whether the intentions areactuallyputintoactionandwhathindersthem.

6.8 Implications

Becoming engaged in CPD activities is a complex process, influenced bymultiple factors, not always following consistent and chronological steps. Theresults of this study indicate that although some teachers follow logicalconsecutive steps (awareness, goal formulation and intention), others justformulate a goal or have the intention to take part in CPD. For practice thismeansthatwhentheaimofaschoolistoenlargeteacher’sengagementinCPDactivities,theyshouldnotforceteacherstotakeeverystepoftheprocessataconsciouslevel.Assaid,someteacherssuddenlyhaveanintentiontotakepartinCPD. If these teacherswouldbeobliged to searchwhatmade themawareandwhat theactualCPDgoal is, they could thinkof these stepsas irrelevantandlosetheinitialintentiontotakepartinCPD.Inaddition,noteverythingwithintheHRM-cycleshouldbeformalized,informalactivitiesmay also contribute to CPD. For instance, paying Clickx led tomoreinsight in triggers regarding CPD, passions and strong points. Moreover, thegamecontributedtoanopencommunicationculturetotalkaboutCPD.TheI-Changemodelhasthepotentialtosupportpolicymakersintheirjobbutsince the model is applicable for a deficiency as well as for an appreciativeapproach,thechosenapproachshouldbeexplicated.Basedonthefindingsofthisstudywerecommendfavoringanappreciativeapproachoveradeficiencyapproach which might support policy makers to focus on talents instead ofshortcomings.However, thedeficiencyapproach shouldnotbeabandoned inspecificsituations(i.e.ateachersgettinganewrolewithintheschool).

104

Individual factors and demographic variables influence the course of CPD.When schools take these individual differences into account, they can createmore effective policies by offering a variety of CPD approaches, ways ofengagement and organizing initiatives. For instance experienced teachersbecomeawaremoreeasilyofaCPDgoal(whenprovidedwithfeedback)thantheir younger colleagues. Itmight be helpful designing amentor system thatpairselderandyoungerteacherswheretheycanexchangeexperiencesonhowtheycanbecomeawareoflearningneed.Noticethatthetermneedisusedandnotperformancegap. Itcouldhindertherelationshipwiththeteacherswhenthe focus isonpoorperformance rather thanbuildingon thepassion for theprofessionandtheirstrengthsincurrentperformance.The overall conclusion and answer to the general research question (WhattriggersCPDparticipation for teachers?) is that teachers inourstudypreferapositiveandappreciativeapproachasatriggerforCPDratherthanadeficiencyapproach that focuses on a gap. Only two out of 22 teachers showed theintention to participate in CPD based on a gap approach while all otherteachers indicated to participate in CPD based on triggers that are acombination of intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation. For mostteachersinthisstudy,intrinsicmotivationalonewasnotenoughtotriggerCPD.Therefore,itisimportanttobeawareoftheinfluenceofexternaltriggerssuchas a presented course, classroom visits, and experimenting with newinstructional strategies. Inotherwords, intrinsically triggeredneedsareoftenconverted into actionswhen a specific opportunity for participating in a CPDactivityisoffered.Forschoolleaders,thisresultindicatesthattheyshouldofferdifferent typesofCPDactivitieswith the intentionofhaving their intrinsicallymotivated staff to actually participate in CPD. Schools could facilitate moreteachers to participate in CPD by creating an environment that providesteacherswithinteraction,constructivefeedbackanddialoguesonprofessionaldevelopment. However, as was learned during this research, TCs often feeluncomfortablewith theirmentoring roleand indicate that theyneed supportwhen offering feedback. In otherwords, TCswant to get better andwant tofeelmorecomfortableintheirmorehierarchicalrole.Teachers’engagementinCPDcannotbeincreasedthroughonesinglepolicyorremedy.CPD is a complex socialprocesswith interplayofmultiple factorsonthe individual and environmental level. Nevertheless, when focusing onpassions and strong points of individuals, combined with CPD opportunities,

105

CPDistriggeredmoreeasilyandtheimpactontheeducationalpracticewillbemorenoticeable.The scope of this doctoral thesis was to develop a practical tool (powerfulintervention) for schools to trigger CPD. Clickx offers a way to facilitate theinteraction between teachers based upon their strengths and passions.Furthermore,ClickxincorporatesquestionsaboutthetriggerstowardsCPDforindividual teachers. After playing Clickx teachers are aware of their own andeachother’sstrengths,passionsandtriggers.

106

ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991).The theoryofplannedbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorand

HumanDecisionProcesses,50,179–211.Ajzen, I.,& Fishbein,M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. InD.

Albarracín,B. T. Johnson,&M.P. Zanna (Eds.),Thehandbookofattitudes(pp.173-221).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Akcan,S.,&Tatar,S.(2010).Aninvestigationofthenatureoffeedbackgiventopre-service

English teachers during their practice teaching experience. TeacherDevelopment,

14(2),139−158.Anderson, T, & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A Decade of

Progress inEducationResearch?EducationalResearcher,41(1),16-25.doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813

Andriessen,D.(2007a).OnderzoeksmethodologieinhetHBO,eenpersoonlijkevisie. [Research methodology in Higher Education, a personal vision]OnderzoekvanOnderwijs,[ResearchofEducation]36(4),97-99.

Andriessen, D. (2007b, August). Combining design-based research and actionresearchtotestmanagementsolutions.Chapterpresentedatthe7thWorldCongress Action Learning, Action Research and process Management,Groningen,Netherlands.

Avalos,B. (2011). Teacherprofessionaldevelopment in TeachingandTeacherEducationovertenyears.TeachingandTeacherEducation,27(1),10-20.

Baeten,M.,Kyndt,E.,Struyven,K.,&Dochy,F.(2010).Usingstudent-centeredlearning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factorsencouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational ResearchReview,5,243-260.

Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects ofperceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41(12), 1389-1391. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.12.1389

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.Freeman.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in theGround.TheJournaloftheLearningSciences,13(1),1–14.

107

Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R. (2012). Co-teaching through modelling processes:Professionaldevelopmentof studentsand instructors ina teacher trainingprogram.Mentoring&Tutoring:PartnershipinLearning,20(2),207-226.

Beausaert,S.A.J.,Segers,M.S.R.,&Gijselaers,W.H.(2011).Usingapersonaldevelopment plan for different purposes: Its influence on undertakinglearningactivitiesandjobperformance.VocationsandLearning,4,231-252.

Beijaard D., van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of story-linemethodology

in research on teachers' practical knowledge. Studies in EducationalEvaluation,

25(1),47-62.Bijkerk, L., & van der Heide, W. (2006). Het gaat steeds beter! Activerende

werkvormen voor de opleidingspraktijk [It gets better! Activating workmethodsforpractice].Houten:BohnStafleuvanLoghum.

Billet, S. (2001). Learning throughout working life: Interdependency at work.StudiesinContinuingEducation,23(1),19-35

Browne, E. G. (2010). Review of 'Guiding professional learning communities:Inspiration, challenge, surprise, and meaning'. Mentoring & Tutoring:PartnershipinLearning,18(3),321-325.

Broekhuizen,K.,vanPoppel,M.N.M.,Koppes,L.L.J.,Brug,J.,&vanMechelen,W. (2010). A tailored lifestyle intervention to reduce the cardiovasculardiseaseriskofindividualswithFamilialHypercholesterolemia(FH):designofthe PRO-FIT randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 10(69), 1-10.doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-69

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What theworld’sgreatestmanagersdodifferently.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Burke, P. J., Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. C. (1984). Teacher career stages:Implications for staff development (Phi Delta Kappa Fastback No. 214).Bloomington,IN:PhiDeltaKappa.

Bushe,G.R.,&Kassam,A.F.(2005).WhenisAItransformational?Ameta-caseanalysis.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,41(2),161-181.

Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of contentliteracy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and TeacherEducation,24,1739-1750.

Campbell, E. (2005). Challenges in fostering ethical knowledge asprofessionalism within schools as teaching communities. Journal ofEducationalChange,6,207-226.

108

Castelijns,J.,Vermeulen,M.,&Kools,Q.(2013).Collectivelearninginprimaryschools and teacher education institutes. Journal of Educational Change.14(3),373-402.

Chen, C. (2011). Factors Affecting High School Teachers' Knowledge-SharingBehaviors.SocialBehaviorAndPersonality,39(7),993-1008

Cheng, M. M., & Yeung, Y. (2010). Identifying professional developmentenvironment for mentor teacher at a Learning Centre. TeacherDevelopment,14(3),351-363.

Ciuffetelli-Parker,D.,Gallagher,T.L.,&Griffin,S.M.(2011).Multiplelayersofleadership in professional learning communities: An essay review.Mentoring&Tutoring:PartnershipinLearning,19(4),503-522.

Colquitt, J., Jeffrey, A., LePine, A., & Noe, R.A. (2000). Toward an integrativetheoryof trainingmotivation:Ameta-analyticpathanalysisof 20 yearsofresearch.JournalofAppliedPsychology,85(5),678-707.

Conklin, T. A. (2009). Creating classrooms of preference: An exercise in AI.Journal of Management Education, 33(6), 772-792.doi:10.1177/1052562909333888

Cooperrider, D. L. (1996). The "child" as agent of inquiry. OD Practitioner,28(1,2),5-11.

Cooperrider, D. L., &Whitney, D. (2006).A positive revolution in change: AI.Taos,NM:TaosInstitute.

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008).Appreciative inquiryhandbook:

Forleadersofchange(2nded.).Brunswick,Ohio:CrownCustompublishing,Inc.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact ofcollaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroomteachingandlearning.Review:HowdocollaborativeandsustainedCPDandsustainedbutnot collaborativeCPDaffect teachingand learning?London:EPPI-Centre,SocialScienceResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae R.R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-yearlongitudinalstudyofself-reportsandspouseratingsontheNEOpersonalityinventory.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,54(5),853-863.

109

Day,C.,AssunçãoFlores,M.,&Viana, I. (2007).Effectsofnationalpoliciesonteachers’ sense of professionalism: findings from an empirical study inPortugalandinEngland.EuropeanJournalofTeacherEducation,30(3),249-265.

Daly,C.,Pachler,N.,&Pelletier,C.(2009).ContinuingprofessionaldevelopmentinICTforteachers.London:WLECentre.

Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(2000).The"what"and"why"ofgoalpursuits:Humanneeds and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227-268.

Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult.EducationalTechnology45(1),5-8.

Deneire, A., Van Petegem, P., & Gijbels, D. (2009). Our Teachers Today:Teaching in the First Grade of Secondary Education. First Results of TALIS.Antwerp,Belgium:UniversityofAntwerp.

de Pater, I.E. Schinkel, S., & Nijstad, B.A. (2007). Validatie van deNederlandstalige core self-evaluations vragenlijst. Gedrag & Organisatie,20(1),82-99.

Desimone, L.M., Smith, T.M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who needsustained, content-focused professional development getting it? Anadministrator’sdilemma.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,42(2),179-215.

De Villiers,M. R. (2005). Interpretive researchmodels for informatics: Actionresearch, grounded theory, and the family of design- and developmentresearch.Alternation,12(2),10-52.

De Vries, H., Kremers, S. P. J., Smeets, T., Brug, & Eijmael, K. (2008). Theeffectiveness of tailored feedback and action plans in an interventionaddressing multiple health behaviors. American Journal of HealthPromotion,22(6),417-425.

DeVries, S.,VandeGrift,W. J.C.M.,& Jansen,E.P.W.A. (2013).Teachers'beliefs and continuing professional development. Journal of EducationalAdministration,51(2),213-231.

De Weert, S., Corthouts, F., Martens, H., & Bouwen, R. (2002). Developingprofessional learning environments: model and application. Studies inContinuingEducation,24(1),25-38.doi:10.1080/01580370220130422

110

Diepstraten, I., & Evers, A. (rde.) (2012). Leraren Leren. Een overzichtstudienaar de professionale ontwikkeling van leraren [Teachers Learn. Areviewstudyof theprofessionaldevelopmentof teachers].Heerlen: LOOK,OpenUniversity.

DiSessa,A.A.,&Cobb,P.(2004).Ontologicalinnovationandtheroleoftheoryindesignexperiments.TheJournaloftheLearningSciences,13(1),77-103.

Dixon,N.,2000.CommonKnowledge:HowCompaniesThrivebySharingWhatTheyKnow.Boston:HarvardUniversityPress.

Durlach,P. J.,&Lesgold,A.M.(2012).AdaptiveTechnologiesforTrainingandEducation.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dymoke,S,&Harrison,J.K.(2006).Professionaldevelopmentandthebeginningteacher: issues of teacher autonomy and institutional conformity in theperformancereviewprocess.JournalofEducationforTeaching,32(1),71-92.

Edelson, D., (2005), Engineering Pedagogical Reform: A Case Study ofTechnologySupportedInquiry,NSFInquiryConferenceProceedings.

Evers,A.(2012).Teachers'ProfessionalDevelopmentatWorkandOccupationalOutcomes: AnOrganisational and Task Perspective (Doctoral dissertation).OpenUniversity,Heerlen.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: Anintroductiontotheoryandresearch.Reading,MA:Erlbaum.

Fishbein,M.,&Ajzen,I.(2010).Predictingandchangingbehavior:Thereasonedactionapproach.NewYork:PsychologyPress.

Forsberg,E.,&Wermke,W.(2012).Knowledgesourcesandautonomy:GermanandSwedish teachers' continuingprofessionaldevelopmentofassessmentknowledge.ProfessionalDevelopmentinEducation,38(5),741-758.

Fox, A., Wilson, E., & Deaney, R. (2010). Beginning teachers’workplaceexperiences:Perceptionsofanduseofsupport.VocationsandLearning,4,1-24.DOI10.1007/s12186-010-9046-1

Freedman, A.M., Echt, K. V., Cooper, H. L. F.,Miner, K., R., & Parker, R.M.(2012).Better learningthrough instructionalscience:Ahealth literacycasestudy in "How to teach so learners can learn".Health Promotion Practice,13(5),648-656.

Furnham,A., Jackson,C. J.,&Miller, T. (1999).Personality, learning styleandworkperformance.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,27,1113-1122.

Gallant, A., &Mayer, D. (2012). Teacher performance assessment in teachereducation: An example in Malaysia. Journal of Education for Teaching:Internationalresearchandpedagogy,38(3),295-307.

111

Geijsels, F., Sleegers, P., Stoel, R., & Krüger,M. (2009). The effect of teacherpsychological and school organizational and leadership variables onteachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary SchoolJournal,190(4),406-427.doi:10.1086/593940

Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). ProfessionalDevelopment for Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science. Review ofEducationalResearch,81(3),408-448.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, P. (1992). Becoming qualitative researches: Anintroduction.NewYork,NY:Longman.

Goldman,S.R.,Lee,C.D.,Greenleaf,C.,&Shanahan,C.(2013,Spring).ProjectREADI: Designing Instruction for Evidence-based Argumentation in theDisciplines.ChapterpresentedattheSREECongress,Washington,D.C.,USA.

Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions. Strong effects of simpleplans.AmericanPsychology,54(7),493–503.

Goodnough, K. (2010). Teacher Learning and Collaborative Action Research:Generatinga"Knowledge-of-Practice" in theContextofScienceEducation.JournalofScienceTeacherEducation,21(8),917-935.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.EducationalResearcher,15(5),5-12.doi:10.3102/0013189x015005005

Guskey, T.R. (2002).Professionaldevelopmentand teacher change.TeachersandTeaching:TheoryandPractice,8(3),381-391.

Handfield-Jones, R. S., Mann, K. V., Challis, M. E., Hobma, S. O., Klass, D. J.,McManus,I.C.,...Wilkinson,T.J.(2002).Linkingassessmenttolearning:Anewroute toqualityassurance inmedicalpractice.MedicalEducation,36,949-958.

Hanley, P., Maringe, F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Evaluation of ProfessionalDevelopment:Deployingaprocess-focusedmodel. International JournalOfScienceEducation,30(5),711-725.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analysesRelating to Achievement “Reveals Teaching’s Holy Grail”. London:Routledge.

Hattie,J.(2012).VisibleLearningforTeachers:MaximizingImpactonLearning.Abingdon:Routledge.

Hattie,J.,&Timperley,H.(2007).Thepoweroffeedback.ReviewofEducationalResearch,77(1),81-112.

Hargreaves,A.(2000).FourAgesofProfessionalismandProfessionalLearning.TeachersandTeaching:HistoryandPractice,6(2),151-182.

112

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-basedresearch and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertationproposal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of WorldConference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia andTelecommunications2007(pp.4089-4097).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Herrington, J., & Reeves, T. (2011, December). Using design principles toimprove pedagogical practice and promote student engagement. Chapterpresentedattheascilite,Hobart,Tasmania,Australia.

Hoban,G.(2002).Professionallearningandeducationalchange:Aessayreviewof teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham and Philadelphia:OpenUniversityPress.

Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., & Campbell, A. (2003).Teachers’ perception of continuing professional development. Norwich:DfES.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, R.S. (1979). Consequences of individualfeedbackonbehaviorinorganizations.JournalofAppliedPsychology,64(4),349-371.

Ingvarson, L. C. (1998). Teaching standards: foundations for professionaldevelopment reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D.Hopkins (Eds.). International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 1006-1031).Dordrecht:Kluwer.

InspectionofEducation.(2010).Theconditionofeducation.Educationalreport2008/2009.Utrecht:Inspectievanhetonderwijs.

Janssen, S. (2013). Supporting the Professional Teacher. PDP design, supportfrom the supervisor and organisational conditions (Doctoral dissertation).OpenUniversity,Heerlen.

Janssen, S., Kreijns, K., Bastiaans, T., Stijnen, S., & Vermeulen, M. (2012).Teachers’professionaldevelopment:ananalysisof theuseofProfessionalDevelopment Plans in a Dutch school. Professional Development inEducation,38(3),453-469.

Janz, N. K., & Becker,M. H. (1984). The health beliefmodel: A decade later.HealthEducationQuarterly,11,1–47.

Jones,K.,&O’Brien,J.(2011).Professionaldevelopmentinteachereducation:Europeanperspectives.ProfessionalDevelopment inEducation,37(5),645-650.

113

Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering theinterplaybetweendesign,research,andthereal-worldcontext.EducationalPsychologist,39(4),235-242.DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_5

Judge,T.,Erez,A.,Bono,J.E.,&Thoresen,C.J.(2003).TheCoreSelf-EvaluationsScale:Developmentofameasure.PersonnelPsychology,56(2),303-313.

Judge,T.A.,Erez,A.,Bono,J.E.,&Thoresen,C.J.(2002).Aremeasuresofself-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacyindicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,83(3),693-710.

Judge,T.A.,Locke,E.A.,&Durham,C.C.(1997).Thedispositionalcausesofjobsatisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in OrganisationalBehavior,19,151-188.

Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositionaleffectson joband lifesatisfaction:Theroleofcoreevaluations. JournalofAppliedPsychology,83(1),17-34.

Kelchtermans, G. (2004). CPD for professional renewal: Moving beyondknowledgeforpractice.InC.DayandJ.Sachs(Eds.),InternationalHandbookon the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers (pp. 217-237).Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress.

Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme Issue: The Role of Design in Educational Research.EducationalResearcher,32(1),3-4.doi:10.3102/0013189X032001003

Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of Continuing Professional Development: aframeworkforanalysis.ProfessionalDevelopment inEducation,40(5),688-697.

Kennedy, A. (2011). Collaborative continuing professional development (CPD)for teachers in Scotland: aspirations, opportunities and barriers.EuropeanJournalofTeacherEducation,34(1),25-41.

Kennedy, A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: theneed for theory to impact on policy and practice. Journal of In-serviceEducation,31(2),235-250.

Kennedy, A., & Clinton, C. (2009). Identifying the professional developmentneedsofearly career teachers inScotlandusingnominalgroup technique.TeacherDevelopment,13(1),29-41.

Kessels,J.W.M.(1993).TowardsDesignStandardsforCurriculumConsistencyinCorporateEducation(Dissertation).Enschede,UniversityofTwente.

114

Kessels, J.W.M.,& Plomp, T. (1996). Course design. In T. Plomp&D. P. Ely(Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (2nd Ed.)(pp.143-148).Oxford:PergamonPress/El¬sevierScienceLtd.

Kessels, J.W.M.,&Plomp,T. (1999).Asystematicandrelationalapproachtoobtaining curriculum consistency in corporate education. Journal ofCurriculumStudies,31(6),679-709.

Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards amoreholisticapproachinteachereducation.Teachers&Teaching:TeachingandTeacherEducation,20(1),77-97.

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as ameans to enhance professional growth. Teachers & Teaching: Theory andPractice,11(1),47-71.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002

Kreijns,K.,Kirschner,P.,&Jochems,W.(2003).Identifyingthepitfallsforsocialinteraction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: Areviewoftheresearch.ComputersinHumanBehavior,19,335–353.

Kroesbergen,I.(2009).Effectievepreventievantekenbeten:Teekitor leaveit:Effectief voorkomen van tekenbeten en de ziekte van Lyme via inzicht indeterminanten van preventief gedrag. [Effective prevention of tickbites:Take it or leave it; Effective prevention of tickbites and the Lyme diasesethrough insights in determinants of preventive behavior] Alphen-Chaam,BKI.

Kwakman, C. H. E. (1999). Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan.Studies naar professionaliteit op de werkplek in het voortgezet onderwijs[Learning of teachers during the professional career. Studies aboutprofessionalism on the workplace in secundary education] (Doctoraldissertation).KatholiekeUniversiteitNijmegen,Nijmegen.

Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professionallearningactivities.TeachingandTeacherEducation,19(2),149-170.

Landis,J.R.,&Koch,G.G.(1977).Themeasurementofobserveragreementforcategoricaldata.Biometrics,33,159-174.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, G. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting.OrganisationalBehaviorandHumanDescisionProcesses,50(2),212-247.

Lavender,T. (2009).The(Un)developedEmployee[online].7(4),1-3.Availablefrom:http://www.aeno- items.nl/AenOsept2009/aLavender.html[Accessed16September2010].

Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: a critical review.HumanResourceManagementReview,16,139-154.

115

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivationtheory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy ofManagementReview,29(3),388-403.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designingprofessional development for teachers of science and mathematics.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.

Ludema, J.D., Cooperrider,D. L.,&Barrett, F. J. (2006). AI: The power of theunconditional positive question. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (pp. 189-199).London:Sage.

Ludema,J.D.,Whitney,D.,Mohr,B.J.,&Griffin,T.J.(2003).TheAIsummit:Apractitioner’sguide for leading large-groupchange.SanFrancisco:Berrett-Koehler.

Majgaard,G.,Misfeldt,M.,&Nielsen,J.(2011).Howdesignbasedresearchandactionresearchcontributetothedevelopmentofanewdesignforlearning.DesignforLearning,4(2),8-27.

Marden,M.P.,Herrington,J.,&Herrington,A.(2007).Design-basedresearch:LearningItalianatuniversityinacommunityoflearners.InC.Montgomerie& J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on EducationalMultimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 2966-2972).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

McKenney,S. (2001).Computer-basedsupport forscienceeducationmaterialsdevelopers inAfrica:Exploringpotentials (Doctoraldissertation).UniversityofTwente,Enschede.

Miles,M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Ed.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Morse,J.M.,Barrett,M.,Mayan,M.,Olson,K.,&Spiers,J.(2002).VerificationStrategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,1(2),13-22.

Nabhani, M., & Bahous, R. (2010). Lebanese teachers' views on 'continuingprofessionaldevelopment'.TeacherDevelopment,14(2),207-224.

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulatedlearning:Amodelandsevenprinciplesofgoodfeedbackpractice.StudiesinHigherEducation,31(2),199-218.

O’Connor, D., & Yballe, L. (2007). Team leadership: Critical steps to greatprojects.JournalofManagementEducation,31,292-312.

OECD.(2008).TALIS2008TechnicalReport.Paris:OECD.

116

Onstenk, J.,Kallenberg,T.,&Koster,B. (2007).The inquirybasedteacherandschooldevelopment.MESOMagazine,27(157),4-8.

Opfer,V.D.,&Pedder,D.(2011).Conceptualizingteacherprofessionallearning.ReviewofEducationalResearch,81(3),376-407.

Patrick, F., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., & McPhee, A. (2010). The importance ofcollegiality and reciprocal learning in the professional development ofbeginningteachers.JournalofEducationforTeaching,36(3),277-289.

Pedder, D. V., Opfer, D., McCormick, R., & Storey, A. (2010). Schools andcontinuing professional development in England – State of the nation’research study: policy context, aims anddesign.Curriculum Journal, 21(4),365-394.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizingresearchanddevelopmentatthe intersectionof learning, implementation,and design. Educational researcher, 40(7), 331-337. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826

Perry,R.R.,&Lewis,C.C.(2009).WhatissuccessfuladaptionoflessonstudyintheUS?JournalofEducationalChange,10,365-391.

Plomp, T.,&Nieveen,N. (Eds.) (2007).An Introduction to EducationalDesignResearch.Enschede:SLO.

Pokorny,H.,&Pickford,P.(2010).Complexity,cuesandrelationships:Studentperceptionsoffeedback.ActiveLearninginHigherEducation,11(1),21-30.

Posthom,M.B.(2008).Teachersdevelopingpractice:reflectionaskeyactivity.Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1717-1728.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.024

Prochaska, J.O.,&Velicer,W.F. (1997).Thetranstheoreticalmodelofhealthbehaviorchange.AmericanJournalofHealthPromotion,12(1),38–48.

Reeves, T. C. (2000, April). Enhancing the worth of instructional technologyresearch through“design experiments” and other development researchstrategies. Chapter presented at the International Perspectives onInstructional Technology Research for the 21st Century, New Orleans, LA,USA.

Regehr, G., & Eva, K. (2006). Self-assessment, Self-direction, and the Self-regulatingProfessional.ClinicalOrthopaedicsandrelatedresearch,449,34-38.

Relan, A., Wilkerson, L., Doyle, H. L., & Guiton, G. (2006). The Role ofInstructional Context in Medical Student's Self-assessment. Los Angeles:UniversityofCalifornia,CenterforeducationalDevelopmentandResearch.

117

Ricketts, M., & Willis, J. (2001). Experience AI: A practitioner’s guide tointegratingAIandexperientiallearning.Taos,NM:TaosInstitute.

Roschelle,J.,Tatar,D.,&Kaput,J.(2008).Gettingtoscalewithinnovationsthatrestructuredeeplyhowstudentslearnmathematics.InE.A.Kelly&R.Lesh(Eds.),Handbookofdesignresearchinmathematics,scienceandtechnologyeducation.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: Amechanism forfacilitating professional growth.Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 146-159.

Rotter,J.B.(1966).Generalizedexpectanciesforinternalversusexternalcontrolofreinforcement.PsychologicalMonographs,80(1),1-28.

Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Self-determinationtheoryandthefacilitationof intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. AmericanPsychologist,55(1),68-78.

Sachs, J. (2010). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developingteaching?TeachersandTeaching:TheoryandPractice,9(2),175-186.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructionalsystems.InstructionalScience,18,119-144.

Saunders, R. (2012). Assessment of professional development for teachers inthevocationaleducationandtrainingsector:AnexaminationoftheConcernBasedAdoptionModel.AustralianJournalofEducation,56(2),182-204.

SBL. (2006). Onderzoeksrapport. De onderwijsagenda van de beroepsgroep"Waarwijvoorstaan".[Theeducationalagendafortheprofession“Wherewe stand for”]. Utrecht: Stichting Beroepskwaliteiten Leraren en anderonderwijspersoneel.

Schön,D.A.(1983).Thereflectivepractitioner.USA:BasicBooksInc.Schülz, B., Sniehotta, F. F., Mallach, N., Wiedeman, A. U., & Schwarzer, R.

(2009). Predicting transition from preintentional, intentional and actionalstageofchange.HealthEducationResearch,24(1),64-75.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning;Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. InM. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, &M.Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego,AcademicPress.

SCP.(2009).Gelukkigvoordeklas?Lerarenvoortgezetonderwijsoverhunwerk.[Happyinfrontoftheclassroom?Teacherssecondaryeducationabouttheirwork].DenHaag:SCP.

118

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: Anintroduction.AmericanPsychologist,55(1),5-14.

Studulski, F., & Van der Veght, A. I. (2007). The innovative teacher.MESOMagazine,27(157),11-14.

Tessmer,M. (1993).PlanningandConducting Formative Evaluations. London:KoganPage.

Thurlings,M. C. G., Vermeulen,M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Stijnen, P. J. J. (2013).Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. EducationalResearchReview,9(453),1-15.

Tjepkema,S.,&Verheijen,L.(2005).Eenkrachtigperspectiefvoorpersoonlijkegroei.GidsvoorPersoneelsmanagement,84(5),24-27.

Tracey,J.,Arroll,B.,Barham,P.,&Richmond,D.(1997).Thevalidityofgeneralpractitioners'self-assessment of knowledge: cross sectional study. BMJClinicalEvidence,315,1426-1428.

Trna, J., & Trnova, E. (2011). Implementation of design-based researchmethodology into science teachers’training. International Journal on NewTrendsinEducationandTheirImplications,2(4),19-28.

VanAken,J.E.(2005).Validknowledgefortheprofessionaldesignoflargeandcomplexdesignprocesses.DesignStudies,26(4),379-404.

Van Amersfoort, D. (2009). Professionele ontwikkeling van leerkrachten:Bevorderen van teacher efficacy door interactie en self-assessment[Professional development of teachers: Augmenting teacher efficacythrough interaction and self-assessment] (Unpublished master’s thesis).RadboudUniversiteit,Nijmegen.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006).Introducing educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, K.Gravemeijer,S.McKenney,&N.Nieveen(Eds.),Educationaldesignresearch(pp.1-8).London:Routledge.

Van derHaar, D.,&Hosking, D.M. (2004). Evaluating Appreciative Inquiry: arelationalconstructionistperspective.Humanrelations,57(8),1017-1036.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (1998). The measurement and development ofprofessional expertise throughout the career: A retrospective study amonghigherlevelDutchprofessionals(Doctoraldissertation).UniversiteitTwente,Enschede.

119

Vander Sanden, J.M.M., Teurlings, C. C. J.,Hoogenberg-Engbers, I., vanderNeut, I. (2004). Leren in het voortgezet onderwijs. [Learning in secondaryeducation] In C. Teurlings, &M. Vermeulen (Eds.), Leren in veranderendeschoolorganisaties.[LearninginChangingSchoolOrganisations](pp.19-30).AlphenaandenRijn:Kluwer.

Van de Wiel, M. W. J., Szegedi, K. H. P., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2004).Professional learning:deliberateattemptsatdevelopingexpertise. InH.P.A.Boshuizen,R.BrommeandH.Gruber(Eds.),ProfessionalLearning:GapsandTransitionsontheWayfromNovicetoExpert(pp.181-206).Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

VanDinther,M.,Dochy,F.,&Segers,M.(2011).Factorsaffectingstudents'self-efficacyinhighereducation.EducationalResearchReview,6(2),95-108.

Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploringteachers'willtolearn.TeachingandTeacherEducation,22,408-423.

Van Osch, L. A. D.M. (2009).Beyondmotivation: An exploration of pre- andpostmotivational determinants of cancer-related behaviours (Doctoraldissertation).UniversiteitMaastricht,Maastricht.

Van Veen, K., Zwart, R., Meirink, J., & Verloop, N. (2010). Professioneleontwikkeling van leraren: Een reviewstudie naar effectieve kenmerken vanprofessionaliseringsinterventies van leraren. [Professional development ofteachers: A reviewstudy for effective factors of professionalisationinterventions of teachers] (Grant no. 441-080353). Leiden:ICLON/ExpertisecentrumLerenvanDocenten.

Van Weert, T., Andriessen, D. (2005). Onderzoek door te Verbeteren:Overbruggen van de Kloof tussen Theorie en Praktijk in HBO-onderzoek[ResearchthroughImprovement:OvercomingtheGapbetweenTheoryandPracticeinHigherEducationalResearch].Utrecht:CreativeCommons.

VanWoerkom,M.,Stienstra,M.,Tjepkema,S.,&Spruyt,M.(2011).De‘sterkepunten’-benadering werkt. Onderzoek naar effecten van aandacht voortalent [The strong point approach works. Research about effects ofattentionfortalent].Opleiding&Ontwikkeling,3,28-32.

Vermeulen, M., Klaeijsen, A., &Martens, R. (red). (2011).De lerende leraar.Docentprofessionalisering in de praktijk. [The learning teacher. Teacherprofessionalisationinpractice](ReportNo.13).Heerlen:OpenUniversiteit,RuuddeMoorCentrum.

Verschuren,P. (2009).Praktijkgerichtonderzoek.Ontwerpvanorganisatie-enbeleidsonderzoek.Amsterdam:BoomAcademie.

120

Visser,R.(2010).Dezwaktesvande'sterkenpunten'revolutie.O&O,23(6),16-21.

Walker, A., & Cheong, C.Y. (1996). Professional development in Hong Kongprimary schools: Beliefs, practices and change. Journal of Education forTeaching,22(2),197-212.

Wang, F, & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhancedlearningenvironments.ETR&D,53(4),5–23.

Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts foreducationalreform.TeachingandTeacherEducation,18,5–22.

Whitney,D.D.,&Trosten-Bloom,A.(2010).ThePowerofAI:APracticalGuidetoPositiveChange.SanFransisco,California:Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.

Wiersma, H., van der Mooren, A., & Vermeulen, M. (2002). Ontwikkelingmedewerkers,ontwikkelingschoolorganisatie:Loopbaanontwikkelingsbeleidin de praktijk. [Development of employees, development schoolorganisation:Careerdevelopmentpolicyinpractice].Tilburg:IVA.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition ofprofessional

knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professionaldevelopment.InA.Iran-Nejad&P.D.Pearson(Eds.),Reviewofresearchineducation (pp. 173-209).Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Winter,G.(2000,March).Acomparativediscussionofthenotionof'validity'inqualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3/4).Retrievedfromhttp://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html

Wozniak, H., Pizzica, J., & Mahony, M. J. (2012). Design-based researchprinciples for student orientation to online study: Capturing the lessonslearnt.AustralasianJournalofEducationalTechnology,28(5),896-911.

121

SummaryContinuous Professional Development (CPD) is important for improving thequality of teachers. However it is often suggested that not all teachersparticipate in CPD. Different schools in the southern part of the Netherlandswere looking for improvement with regard to their CPD policy andimplementation of these policies. One school board -representing threedifferentschools-askedtheOpenUniversity forhelpconcerningthesetopics.The goal of this research project was to find triggers for teacher CPD fromliterature, research findings and based on this knowledge, to developinterventions. All studies were shaped in accordance with the school board,teamcoordinators(TCs),coachesandteachersofthethreeschools.ThisthesisaimedfirstatunderstandingwhyteachersdonotparticipateinCPDandseconddeveloping interventions that triggerCPDparticipation.Therefore, theoverallresearch question of this thesis was “What triggers CPD participation forteachers?”After the general introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 gives an overview ofvarious efforts that have been made to motivate teachers’ CPD. However,despite the many efforts, still, little is known about why teachers actuallyparticipateinCPDactivities.ResearchershavebeensearchingforeffectiveCPDconditions,lookingatquestionsaswhatisneededforCPDactivitiestohavethedesiredeffect.Untilnow, theknowledgeabout thespecific influenceofdistalfactors (indirect effect on the dependent variable) on the proximal factors(directeffectonthedependentvariable)leadinguptoCPDparticipationisstillincomplete.Someoftheknownexamplesaretheeffectofself-esteemonthemotivation(i.e.Ilgenetal.,1979)towardsCPDandtheinfluenceofaperson’slocusof control on theactual participation inCPDactivities (VanAmersfoort,2009).Theassumptionof this theseswas thatwithmoreknowledgeof thesedeterminants underlying CPD participation, more answers to our researchquestioncouldbegivenanditcouldbepossibletodescribemoreappropriateguidance (i.e. interventions) and developmore effective interventions withintheparticipatingschoolstoenhanceteachers’CPD.Theintegratedmodelforexplainingmotivationalandbehavioralchange(orinshort, the I-Changemodel;DeVries et al., 2008) is proposed in Chapter 2 togivemoreinsightregardingthesequestionsontheconditionsunderwhichand

122

why teachers engage in CPD. This model is a phase model for behavioralchange; these phases are awareness, motivation and action. Furthermore, itcould give directions on how to develop interventions in order to enforcebehavioralchange.The I-Change model, developed within the field of healthcare, was used,becauseitseemedapplicableforteacherdevelopmentasaformofbehavioralchange (Chapter 2). To test the applicability in educational practice, the twophasesofthemodel(e.g.,awarenessandmotivation)thatprecededtheactionphasewereconductedindifferenteducationalstudies(Chapter3and4).Chapter 3 searched for practical relevance of the I-Changemodel within theeducational field. The accompanying research question was “Are teacherstriggered to participate in CPD following a sequential, gap-based model andwhat is the relationwith personal and psychological factors?”. To be able todetectagapinteachersperformance,bothteacherandteamcoordinatorwereinvited to participated in an online questionnaire. In total, 119 pairs of oneteacher and his/her TC answered a questionnaire. Engaging the TC wasessential because the TC could give information (feedback) to the teacher inordertoprovideinformationtobecomeawareofapossibleperformancegap.First,theTCcompletedthequestionnaireassessingtheteacher’sperformance.Next, the teacher responded to the questionnaire. The individualquestionnaires of TC and teacher were combined, resulting in one data set.Whenthetwoscoresdifferedbyatleasttwopoints,roomforimprovementor,inotherwords,agapwaspresent.Theanalysisof119combinedquestionnairesgaveevidencethatthephasesoftheI-Changemodelarerecognizable,althoughnotallteachersparticipateinallthreephases.However, themost surprising information from the surveywasthatfewteachershadaperformancegapandevenasmallernumberhadthemotivationtoimprove.BasedonthecomparisonofthescoreoftheTCandtheteacher,25teacherscouldbecomeawareofaperformancegap.However,onlyten (40%) became aware of the gap. From this group (teacher who becameaware) seven (28%) had the motivation to overcome the gap and six (24%)formulatedagoal inorder to takeaction.The finding thatonly25outof119teachers had a performance gapwas opposed to the reasons underlying theinternational focus on augmenting the participation of teachers in CPD.Multiple legislationsmentioned teachershad tomeet standardsand todo sotheyhadtobeengagedinCPD.

123

The results showed that the I-Change model did not entirely act as wasexpectedaccordingtotheI-Changemodel(DeVriesetal.,2008).Onegroupofteachers went through the model as expected. However, a small group ofteachersdidnotrunthroughthethreephasessequentially.Someparticipantswhodidnotfinishtheawarenessphasefinishedthemotivationphase,aswellas participants who did not finish the motivation phase but completed theactionphase. The I-Changemodel holds the assumption that not all teacherscompleteall thephases,and indeedourresearchshowedthatsometeachersgot stuck inaphase. Inorder tounderstandwhatdistal andproximal factorspreceded a phase, the influence of the Core Self Evaluations (CSE), age,experience, and teaching in pre-university education were studied. CSE isproposed as a construct that encompassed four psychological variables;neuroticism (or emotional stability), self-esteem, self-efficacy and locus ofcontrol (Judge et al., 1997). CSE is measured with the Core Self EvaluationsScalewithinwhicheachvariablecangeta loworhighscorecomparedtothemean group scoring. The construct of CSE has been studied over the years,althoughprimarilyinthefieldoforganizationalpsychology.InordertoincludetheCSEasafactorinthiseducationalstudy,thereliabilityhadtobechecked.To examine the practical relevance, existing databases were consultedindicatingthattheCSEwasasuitablemeasureforgettinginsightsinteachers’individualfactors.The analysis of the three phases of the I-Change model combined with thedistalandproximalmeasuresshowedthattheCSEwassignificantlyrelatedtocompletionof awareness andaction (phases1 and3of the I-Changemodel).Teacherswhofinishedphases1and3hadalowermeanscoreontheCSEthanteachers who did not finish these phases. Although CSE had a significantinfluence on two of the three phases of the I-Change model, the resultscontradictedourexpectations,morespecificourexpectationwasthatteacherswithhighCSEscoresweremorelikelytocompletethephasesthanthosewithlowCSE scores. Theoppositewas reflected inour results. In the caseof self-esteem, a possible explanation could be that the high scores might reflectoverconfidence,whichcanresultinlessself-reflectionandreceptivenesstotheinputofothers(whichisadistalfactoroftheI-Changemodel).Anexplanationfor the contributionof theother two components of CSE (emotional stabilityandlocusofcontrol)waslessobvious.Theexpectationwasthatteacherswitha high score on both constructs becamemore easily aware and participatedmore in CPD. The results showed that teacherswhowere emotionally stable

124

shouldbeabletomovetowardCPDmoreeasilythanpeoplewhowerenotasstable because a high score on emotional stability indicates less anxiety andinsecurity.Theresultsofthisstudy,however,contradictedthiscommonsensenotion.Alongthesamelineofreasoning,teacherswithamoreinternallocusofcontrolwere likely to attribute failure to themselves and, accordingly, shouldbecome aware of a gap more easily than people with an external locus ofcontrol. The results of this study, again, contradicted this common sensenotion. Perhaps an explanation could be that this study did not take thecontentofteachers’CPDgoalsintoaccount.TeacherswithanexternallocusofcontrolmighthavesetCPDgoalsthatdidnotrefertotheirownimprovementsbuttochangesotherpeoplecouldmake.TheotherdistalfactorsmeasuredinthestudypresentedinChapter3wereageand teaching in pre-university education.Only agewas significant for cominginto the awareness phase: teachers who finished the first phase were olderthanteacherswhodidnotfinishthefirstphase.Based on the results of Chapter 3, additional qualitative research has beenperformed inChapter4 forobtainingmore insight in the reasonswhyso fewteachers showed the intention to take part in CPD activities. The studypresentedinChapter4answeredtheresearchquestion“Whatisefficaciousintriggeringteachers’CPDparticipationintermsthatitcreatesawarenessaboutthe need for CPD participation (the awareness phase) and themotivation tostartwith CPD (themotivation phase)?”. The study compared the efficacy oftwo approaches leading toCPD. The first one is thedeficiency approach thatemphasizes the performance gap and CPD activities concentrated oneliminating this gap. The second is the appreciative approach implying thatengagement in CPD is aimed towards improvement of skills teachers areinterestedinwiththeresultthattheirperformanceisdevelopedfurther.Twenty-two face-to-face assessments between teachers and their TCs wereobservedandanalyzed.Aretrospectiveinstrumentwasusedtogaininsightsinteachers’ engagement in CPD participation. All teachers named at least oneCPDactivityinthepastyearthatfulfilledtheirneedfordevelopment.Thiswasremarkable because as mentioned previous, it was expected that not allteacherswouldparticipateinCPDactivities.Ourfindingsrevealedthatidentifiedregulation(i.e.beingofferedaCPDactivityandparticipatingwithoutpressure)andintegratedregulation(i.e.beingofferedaCPDactivityandparticipatingwithalotofenthusiasm)werethemostoftenmentioned reasons to engage in CPD. Furthermore, only two teachers

125

mentionedthattheyhadtodoaCPDactivitywhichtheywouldotherwisenothavedone,basedonagapintheirperformance.The findings above suggest that the appreciative approach is the mostefficacious approach because teachers indicated triggers towards CPD in linewith that approach. In the pastmanymodels did not explicatewhether theyusedadeficiencyorappreciativeapproach.Thiscouldbeapossibleexplanationfor theopposite findingsbetweenstudieswith regard toCPDparticipationofteachers. When teachers are asked questions about participating in CPDactivitiesafteremphasizingtheimportanceofCPDforthequalityofteachingoraftergivingasetofcompetenciesetc.ateacherisbroughtintothedeficiencymode. Asking about their willingness to participate or actual participation isthereforeansweredfromadeficiencypointofviewleadingto lesswillingnessopposed to an appreciative approach. Even the I-Change model does notexplicate the underlying approach. Basically, this model is applicable in adeficiencyandappreciativewaybutisansweredfromadeficiencypointofviewiftheunderlyingapproachisleftimplicit.Whythedeficiencyapproachismoreprominent in themindset of people (and therefore comes tomindwhen theapproach is left implicit) was not the focus of this research. Yet, we haveexplored possible causes because a more prominent deficiency approachopposedtoanappreciativeapproachaffectsthekeyissuesofourstudies.Onepossible explanation for the dominance of the deficiency approach is thatlegislationfocusesonminimumstandardsandnotexcellence.Andduetothecomparison withminimum standards, the search for deficiencies is a centralpointinsuchapproaches.Anotherreasoncouldbethatinthetraditionoftheuse of the Human Resource Management (HRM)-cycle by school managers,theypredominantlyfocusonshortcomingsorclearingthegapwhenhavinganperformance interview. For researchers a possible cause could be that a gapbetween standards and actual performance is more easily to measure thantalentandexcellence.The overall recommendation in Chapter 4 to schoolmanagers is to adopt anappreciativeapproachandsupport the intrinsicmotivationofself-determinedteachers.Moreover,asintrinsicallymotivatedCPDactivitiesshouldcomealongwith opportunities to do these activities, school managers, should take carethat these opportunities are provided. In order to support schools and theirentirestaff inmakingthetransitionfromprimarilybeingfocusedonteachers’shortcoming into being focused on strengths, an intervention to trigger CPDwas presented in Chapter 5. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is the approach

126

underlyingtheinterventionsincethefocusonstrengthswasproventobemoreeffective in triggering teacherCPD,which is an inherent keyelementofAI.Agame seemed an appropriate form for an intervention because CPD is moreeffectivewhendoneincollaborationwithothers(Cordingleyetal.,2005).ThegoalofthegamewastofacilitateCPDparticipation.DesignBasedResearch(DBR)wasthemethodchosentodevelopthegame.Theessence of DBR is that researchers and practitioners developed the designtogethertomakesurethatthetheoreticalfoundationandpracticalknowledgewereincorporated.Thetheoretical foundationswerediscussed inthepreviouschapters. Inshort,teachersbecameawareofprofessionaldevelopmentpossibilities followinganappreciative approach. SinceAI is focusedon strengths andpassions and thefocus of this study was to trigger CPD, the previous findings wereoperationalizedin“ifateacherhastotakechargeofhisownCPDorateamhastoembodytheirteamdevelopment, it isusefultoknowyourownandotherstriggers,strengthsandpassions”.Attheindividuallevel,wheneachteacherhasanunderstandingofthepreferredtriggerstoCPD,thatspecific triggercanbesearched for or provided. At the same time for the team level, when a TCknowsthestrengthsandpassionsofindividuals,piecesoftheteamplancanbedivided accordingly. In addition, the TC can offer the right trigger for CPD toeachteacher.TherealtriggerforteacherstoparticipateinCPDisoftenbasedonaninternaldrivetogrow(Chapter4).The first phase of the I-Change model is awareness, therefore interventionshould start with awareness. Accordingly, the game will focus primarily onawarenessaboutCPDparticipationbut isalso linkedtotheotherphases.Theexpectationwas that teacherscan interact (collaborate)about their strengths(appreciative)with the aid of this game. Themain external characteristics ofthegamethathad tobedevelopedwereagamethat isbasedonaboardorcards.Wedidnotchosetodevelopadigitalgamesinceawarenessoftheotherperson seemed to be important in getting to know each other,which seemsdifficulttoachieveinavirtualenvironment.Afterthreeevaluationrounds(threeprototypes)thefinalversionconsistedofmultiple separate games all focusing on strength, passion and CPD trigger.Therefore,agameboxClickxwasdeveloped.Clickxincorporatedfourdifferentgames. The first two games (Happy Families and Discover Yourself and theOther) areplayedwith cardsonly. These twogames share the rule thateach

127

teacherhastochoosesomecardsdescribingtheirpersonaltriggers,strengthsandpassions.Hereafter,otherplayershavetoguesstowhomthecardbelongs.The thirdgamewithinClickx isnamedDiscoverYourselfwithaCoach.As thenamesuggests,teachersdiscusstriggers,strengthsandpassionsofthemselvesindividuallywith a coach. The fourth game in thebox is themost elaboratedgame,Development Journey.Within thisgame teamsplayagainsteachotherdepicting, describing or drawing a trigger, passion or strength. After thoseassignmentsteachersdiscusswhetherthedescriptionissuitableforthemselvesornot.TheboardgameDevelopment Journeyalso incorporatedsomespecialassignments, for instance dreaming.When a team ended up on that specificbooth, amemberdescribed a dream, explained that dreamandnamedwhatwas needed to accomplish that dream. By incorporating these specialassignments,the4-DcycleofAI is incorporated inthedesignaswell.The4-Dcyclestates thatapersongoes through4stages;discover,dream,designanddeliver(Conklin,2009).Afterplaying the finalversionof thegame,players (n=18) said thatall gamesfacilitatedthefirstphaseoftheI-Changemodel:awareness.Teachersindicatedto have a better knowledge of their own and each other’s triggers for CPD,strengths and passions. In short, playing the game facilitated thecommunication of participants about their triggers, passions and strengths.Only (student) teachers who played ‘Discover Yourself with a Coach’formulated a CPD goal (proximal measure for the action phase). A possibleexplanationwhyteachersplayingtheothergamesdidnotreachaCPDgoal isthatteachersdidnotreadthemanual.Andpreciselythatmanualincorporatesguidelineshow to take thenext steps inorder toparticipate inCPD.AnotherexplanationcanbefoundintheassumptionsoftheI-Changemodel.Themodelpredicts that not all teachers go through the three phases (awareness,motivation and action) automatically. Some teachers might need anotherperson to reach the next phase. That other person is present in all games ofClickxbutonlyinDiscoverYourselfwithaCoachtheotherpersonisnotapeer.Whether the coaching background of that other person or the hierarchicalpositionmakesthedifferenceshouldbestudiedinfutureresearch.Ingeneral,theevaluationshowedthatteachersplaythegameenthusiastically,talkaboutand support each other interactively in naming their triggers, passions andstrengths.Thiskindofopencommunicationisa largestepaheadinconsciousCPD, but didnot lead to a specific CPDgoal as a consequence. Thereforewe

128

recommended toadjust thegamesand incorporate the formulationofaCPDgoalintheplayingofthegame.The findings from previous chapter are discussed in Chapter 6. The resultswhichwererepresentedearlierhaveindicatedthattheI-ChangemodelhasthepotentialofguidingpolicymakerstochangethepremisesunderlyingtheHRM-cyclewithin schools. However, in order to embrace thismodel as one of theleadingmodelsinexplainingteacherCPDanddevelopingguidelinesortools,abigger population (more schools) have to be incorporated in research and allfactorswithintheI-Changemodelshouldbesubjectofresearchwithinthefieldofeducation.As the I-Change model is applicable for a deficiency as well as for anappreciative approach, policymakers should keep inmind not to use a one-sidedfocusonperformancegapsandshortcomings,butsearchforwhatmakesa specific teacher special and how to let that teacher excel even more.However, the deficiency approach is a suitable approach in specific situation(e.g.,beginningteachers,theimplementationofnewtechnologies,anewrolewithintheschool).Inourresearchteachersbecameinspiredtoperformbetter(phase1:awareness)byanintrinsicmotivationalongwithanexternaloffer.Inordertodeveloptheirperformancemore, theyweremotivatedtoparticipateinCPD(phase2)andtookpartinCPDactivities(phase3).Theawarenessphasecould still be seenasagapbut solelyagapbetweenwhata teacheractuallydoesandwhat that teacherwants todo (asopposedtohas todo).However,whenwewouldcontinuetotalkaboutagap,thedeficiencyconnotationwouldpersist.As mentioned previously, in AI the 4-D cycle is important: discover, dream,design and deliver (Conklin, 2009). The combination of discovering anddreaming is similar to the first phase of the I-Change model. Therefore,opposedtonamingthisfirstphaseawarenessofaperformancegap,wewouldprefernaming itawarenessofadreamordiscoveringadream. InthecaseoftheI-Changemodelphase2(motivation)couldeasilyberenamedindesigningaCPDplan(the3phaseofAI).Thelastphaseofthe4-DcycleofAIisdeliverorwhatwouldbe.FortheI-Changemodelthiscouldmeanwhatateacherdoesinthe future after the CPD plan is pursued, thus engagement in CPD activities.Therefore,phase3couldbenamedparticipatinginCPDactivities.Bythesenewnamesthemodel is inaccordancewiththeoverallconclusionthatteachers inour study prefer a positive and appreciative approach as a trigger for CPDratherthanadeficiencyapproachthatfocusesonagap.Inaddition,individual

129

factorsanddemographicvariablesseemedtoinfluencethecourseofCPD.Forschoolleaders,thisresultindicatesthattheyshouldofferdifferenttypesofCPDactivities with the intention of having their intrinsically motivated staff toactuallyparticipateinCPD.Whenansweringtheoverallresearchquestion“WhattriggersCPDparticipationfor teachers?”onecould state that focusingon the strengthsandpassionsofteachers is more triggering opposed to focusing on their shortcomings.Moreover, personal and psychological factors (together named individualfactors)seemtoinfluencethecourseofCPD.Whenschoolstakethesefactorsintoaccount, they can createmoreeffectiveCPDpolicies. For instance,olderteachers become aware more easily of a CPD goal than younger ones. It isrecommended to implement a mentor system that pairs older and youngerteachersinordertoassisttheyoungeronesinhowtheycanbecomeawareofaneed. Schools could facilitatemore teachers toparticipate inCPDbycreatinganenvironmentthatprovidesteacherswithinteraction,constructivefeedbackanddialoguesonprofessionaldevelopment.

130

SamenvattingProfessionaliserenisbelangrijkomdekwaliteitvanlerarenoppijltehoudenente verbeteren. Onderzoek suggereert echter dat niet alle leraren aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten deelnemen. Meerdere scholen in Zuid-Nederland zochten naar manieren om hun professionaliseringsbeleid en deimplementatie ervan te verbeteren. Om die reden vroeg een schoolbestuurmetdriebredescholendeOpenUniversiteitomondersteuning.Hetdoelvanditprojectwasomopbasisvanliteratuurenonderzoektriggerstevindendieleraren aanzetten tot professionalisering om op basis van die inzichteninterventies te ontwikkelen die leraren daadwerkelijk tot ContinuousProfessional Development (CPD) aanzetten. Alle deelstudies zijn in nauwesamenwerkingtussendeonderzoeker,hetschoolbestuur, teamcoördinatoren,coachesenlerarenvandedriescholenvormgegeven.Ditproefschriftheeftalsdoel om a) meer begrip te krijgen van de redenen waarom leraren nietdeelnemen aan professionaliseringsactiviteiten en b) interventies teontwikkelen die deelname aan professionaliseringsactiviteiten triggeren. Debijbehorende onderzoeksvraag luidt: “Wat triggert deelname aanprofessionaliseringbijleraren?”.Na een algemene inleiding op het proefschrift in Hoofdstuk 1 wordt inHoofdstuk 2 aan de hand van diverse bronnen een overzicht gegeven vanverschillendepogingendie zijn ondernomenom leraren temotiverendeel tenemenaanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten.Ondanksdeveleinspanningenvandiverse onderzoekers is er weinig bekend over de redenen waarom lerarenuiteindelijk participeren in professionaliseringsactiviteiten. Onderzoekerszochten vaker naar randvoorwaarden die maken dat professionaliseringeffectief is. Tot hiertoe was de kennis over de beïnvloeding vanprofessionalisering via specifieke distale factoren (indirect effect opprofessionalisering)enproximalefactoren(directeffectopprofessionalisering)beperkt en onvolledig. Enkele reeds bekende voorbeelden zijn het effect vanself-esteemopdemotivatiet.a.v.professionaliseren(i.e. Ilgenetal.,1979)ende invloed van locus of control op deelname aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten (Van Amersfoort, 2009). Wanneer we meerkennis hebben van de factoren die sturend zijn in het deelnemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten, dan is er een antwoord mogelijk op de

131

onderzoeksvraagenkunnenerspecifiekeinterventiesontwikkeldwordenzodatlerarengetriggerdwordenomteprofessionaliseren.Het integrated model for explaining motivational and behavioural change(kortweg, het I-Change model; De Vries et al., 2008) wordt in hoofdstuk 2voorgesteld als verklarend model omdat het meer inzicht geeft in de vraagonder welke condities en met welke redenen leraren deelnemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten dan eerdere modellen die bijvoorbeeld enkelmotivatie in acht namen. Het I-Changemodel is een fasen-model gericht opgedragsverandering;endefaseszijnbewustzijn,motivatieenactie.Hetmodelkanrichtinggevendzijn indepraktijkvoorhetontwerpenvan interventiesdieeen gedragsverandering teweeg brengen. Het I-Change model is ontwikkeldbinnen de geneeskunde en wordt in dit onderzoek gebruikt omdat het, intheorie, goed toepasbaar lijkt voor het professionaliseren van leraren.Professionaliseren is immers een vorm van gedragsverandering. Om detoepasbaarheidopendebruikbaarheid vooreenonderwijssetting tebepalenwerden de twee eerste fasen (bewustzijn en motivatie) onderzocht inHoofdstuk3en4.Hoofdstuk3geeftdezoektochtweerm.b.t.depraktischetoepasbaarheidvanhet I-Change model binnen een onderwijssetting. De bijbehorendeonderzoeksvraag was “Triggert een prestatie-kloof het deelnemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteitenenwatisdeinvloedvanindividuelefactoren?”.In totaal beantwoordden 119 koppels van één leraar en zijn/haarteamcoördinator(TC)devragenvaneenonlinevragenlijst.DeelnamevandeTCwas essentieel omdat de TC informatie (feedback) kon geven aan de leraarzodat deze zich bewust kon worden van een mogelijke kloof in zijn/haarfunctioneren. Eerst vulde de TC de vragenlijst in en scoorde het niveau vanfunctioneren (middels een rapportcijfer) van de leraar. Vervolgensbeantwoorddededesbetreffendeleraardevragenlijst.DevragenlijstenvandeTC en leraar werden aan elkaar gekoppeld zodat er één dataset ontstond.WanneerdescorevandeTCenleraarmetminimaaltweepuntenverschilden,wasersprakevanruimtevoorverbeteringofinanderewoorden:eenprestatie-kloof.De analyse van de 119 gecombineerde vragenlijsten liet zien dat deverschillende fasen van het I-Changemodel herkenbaarwarenmaar dat nietalle leraren de drie fasen doorliepen. Hetmeest verrassendewas echter datmaarweiniglerareneenprestatie-kloofhaddenenzelfseennogkleineraantalde motivatie had om deze kloof aan te pakken door middel van

132

professionaliseringsactiviteiten.GebaseerdopdevergelijkingvandescoresdieTCsenlerarengaven,konden25lerarenzichbewustwordenvaneenprestatie-kloof. Echter slechts tien (40%) van hen werden zich hiervan daadwerkelijkbewust. Van de groep die bewust werd hadden zeven leraren (28%) demotivatie om de prestatie-kloof aan te pakken en zes (24%) van henformuleerden een doel dat omgezet kon worden in actie. De conclusie datslechts25vande119lerareneenprestatie-kloofhaddenstondopgespannenvoetmet de redenen die in internationaal onderzoekworden opgevoerd omaan te geven dat de deelname van leraren in professionalisering moettoenemen. Diverse landen namen in hun wetgeving op dat leraren aanstandaarden moeten voldoen en bijgevolg moeten participeren inprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten.DeresultatengevenaandathetI-Changemodelnietexactgevolgdwordtzoalshet zou moeten volgens De Vries et al. (2008). Een kleine groep lerarendoorliep het model niet in de vooropgestelde sequentie (fasen). Een aantallerarendiedebewustzijnsfasenietafronddewaswelgemotiveerdomdeeltenemen aan CPD activiteiten.Ookwaren er leraren die demotivatie fase nietbereiktenmaarweltotactieovergingen.Het I-Changemodelbevatdevooronderstellingdatnietalle lerarenalle fasenafronden.Dezeveronderstellingkonvanuitdedatabevestigdworden, lerarenbleven vastzitten in bepaalde fasen. De CSE, leeftijd, ervaring en lesgeven inhavo/vwowerdenmetbehulpvaneenvragenlijstgemetenomeengoedbegripte kunnen krijgen van distale en proximale factoren die een bepaalde fasebeïnvloeden. CSEwerd voorgesteld als een overkoepelend construct dat vierpsychologischevariabelenomvat:neurotisisme(ofemotionelestabiliteit),self-esteem, self-efficacy en locus of control (Judge et al., 1997). Het constructwordt gemetendoorhet invullen vandeCore Self Evaluations Scale.Opelkevariabelekanjeeenlageofhogescoretoebedeeldkrijgendoorrespectievelijkonderof bovenhet gemiddelde vande groep te scoren.Het construct CSE isvoornamelijk bestudeerd in de context van organisatie psychologie waar hetoverkoepelendeconstructCSEinderdaadgevondenwerd.Debetrouwbaarheidvan CSE moest gecheckt worden op de doelgroep van leraren alvorens ditconstructals factormee tekunnennemen ineen studiediegericht isophetonderwijs. Om de praktische relevantie te onderzoeken werden bestaandedatabases gebruikt. Dit resulteerde in de conclusie dat CSE een betrouwbaremetingisominzichttekrijgenindepsychologischefactorenvaneenleraar.

133

De analyse van de drie fasen van het I-Changemodel gecombineerdmet dedistaleenproximalefactorenlietziendatCSEsignificantgerelateerdisaanhetdoorlopen van de bewustzijns- en actie-fase (fasen 1 en 3 van het I-Changemodel). Leraren die de fasen 1 en 3 succesvol doorliepen hadden een lagerescoreopCSEdanlerarendievastliepenindezefasen.Hetgegevendatlerarenmet een hoge score op CSE meer kans hadden om de fasen te doorlopenvergeleken met leraren die een lage score op CSE hadden was tegen deverwachtingenopbasisvande literatuur in.Metbetrekkingtotself-esteemiseenmogelijkeverklaringdateenhogescoreopCSEwijstopzelfoverschattingwat kan uitmonden in weinig reflectie of ontvankelijkheid voor input vananderen(ditiseendistalefactorinhetI-Changemodel).Eenverklaringvoordeandere onderdelen van CSE (emotionele stabiliteit en locus of control) ismindervoordehandliggend.Deverwachtingwasdateenhogescoreopbeideconstructen toteenverhoogdbewustzijnenmeerdeelnameaanCPDzoudenleiden. Uit de resultaten bleek echter dat leraren die emotioneel stabiel zijnminderangstenonzekerheidvertonenwattotgevolgzoukunnenhebbendatze eerder zouden deelnemen aan professionalisering. Het tegenovergesteldewerd echter gevonden in dit onderzoek; een lagere score op emotionelestabiliteitenlocusofcontrolzorgtvoormeerbewustzijnendeelnameaanCPD.Op dezelfde manier zou een verwachting ten aanzien van locus of controlkunnenspelen; lerarendiemeer interngericht zijn schrijven faleneerderaanzichzelf toe (dan aan anderen) en zullendus sneller in actie komen.Ookhiersprakende resultaten vanhet onderzoekdeze verwachting tegen.Wellicht iseen verklaring te vinden in het feit dat dit onderzoek geen rekening heeftgehoudenmetde inhoudvandedoelendiegesteldwerden.Lerarenmeteenexterne locus of control hebben misschien doelen gesteld die acties vananderenvragenenmindervanzichzelf.De overige distale factoren die gemeten werden, waren leeftijd en of eendocentlesgeeftinhavo/vwo.Enkelleeftijdwaseensignificantefactorm.b.t.debewustzijn-fase: leraren die de eerste fase afronden waren ouder dan delerarendieblevenzitteninFase1.Gebaseerd op de onverwachte en moeilijk verklaarbare resultaten vanHoofdstuk 3 werd aanvullend kwalitatief onderzoek uitgevoerd. Dit isbeschreveninHoofdstuk4.Hetdoelwasommeerinzichttekrijgeninwaaromzo weinig leraren de intentie hebben om deel te nemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten. Het onderzoek dat beschreven wordt inHoofdstuk 4 beantwoordt de onderzoeksvraag “Welke benadering triggert

134

volgens leraren het deelnemen aan professionalisering het meest?”. DitonderzoekvergeleekdeefficiëntievantweebenaderingenmetbetrekkingtotCPDmet elkaar.De eerste benaderingwas eendeficiëntie benaderingdie deprestatie-kloof beklemtoont en professionalisering ziet als eenmiddel om dittekortwegtewerken.Detweedebenaderingwasdewaarderendebenaderingdieprofessionaliseringzietalshetverbeterenvanvaardighedenwaarinlerarengeïnteresseerdzijn.Tweeëntwintig face-to-face assessments tussen de leraar en bijbehorende TCwerdenopbasis vaneenvoorafopgesteldprotocoluitgevoerd,geobserveerden geanalyseerd. Erwerd gebruikt gemaakt van een retrospectief instrumentom inzicht te verkrijgen in de betrokkenheid van leraren bijprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten. Alle leraren benoemden minimaal één doorhen gevolgde professionaliseringsactiviteit die ontstond uit een behoefte aanverdereontwikkeling (eenprofessionaliseringsdoel).Ditgegevenbevestigtdateen verandering in startpunt (deficiëntie of waarderend) de uitkomstenveranderd.De resultaten van deze studie toonden aan dat de meest voorkomenderedenenomdeeltenemenaanprofessionaliseringsactiviteitenvoortkomenuitgeïdentificeerde regulatie (b.v. een professionaliseringsactiviteit aangebodenkrijgen en vrijwillig hierin participeren) en geïntegreerde regulatie (b.v. eenprofessionaliseringsactiviteit aangeboden krijgen en zeer enthousiast vanuiteigen interesse participeren). Bovenstaande bevindingen suggereren dat eenwaarderendebenaderingeffectieverisomdatlerarenaangavendathetgeenzetriggerde om te professionaliseren meer in de lijn ligt met hun interesse enbehoeften,watpastbijdeuitganspuntenvandewaarderendebenaderingdanbij een deficiëntie benadering (dat uitgaat van een tekort dat moet wordenbijgespijkerd). Toch zal de deficiëntie benadering vanwaarde blijven als hetgaat om bijvoorbeeld startende leraren, nieuwe technologieën diegeïmplementeerdwordenofeennieuweroldieiemandkrijgt.Gebruiktemodellen in onderzoek naar professionalisering van leraren uit hetverleden expliciteerden zelden of ze vanuit een deficiëntie- of waarderendebenadering opgesteld waren. Dit verschil in benadering kan een mogelijkeverklaringzijnvoordetegenstrijdigebevindingentussenstudiesmetbetrekkingtotdeelnameaanprofessionaliseringsactiviteitenvan leraren.Lerarenwordenineendeficiëntie-modusgezetalszebevraagdwordenoverhundeelnameaanprofessionalisering nadat ze te horen hebben gekregen hoe belangrijkprofessionaliseringisvoordekwaliteitvanhunwerk,nahetzienvaneenreeks

135

competentieswaar zeaanmoetenvoldoen,etc.Als zedanbevraagdwordenophunbereidheidofwerkelijkeparticipatie inprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten,wordendezevragenbeantwoordvanuiteendeficiëntiestandpunt.Zoalseerdergesteldexpliciteerdenmodellenuithetverledenvaaknietwelkebenadering ten grondslag lag aan het model. Echter gebruikten veel van diemodellen impliciet een deficiëntie benadering. Ook het I-Change model (DeVries et al., 2008) expliciteert niet vanuit welke benadering het ingestokenwordt.Inprincipeisditmodelzoweltoepasbaarvanuiteendeficiëntiealseenwaarderend standpunt maar wordt het door leraren vanuit een deficiëntiestandpuntbeantwoordalsdewaarderendebenaderingnietexplicietgemaaktwordt.Deredenwaaromdedeficiëntiebenaderingprominenterindemindsetvan mensen aanwezig is (en daarom als eerste in gedachten komt als debenadering impliciet blijft),was echter niet de focus van dit onderzoek. Tochhebbenwemogelijke oorzaken verkent omdat dit gegeven het centrale puntvan deze studies raakt. Een mogelijke verklaring waarom een deficiëntiebenadering prominenter aanwezig is, is dat wetgeving zich richt opminimumeisen en niet op excellentie. Een andere reden kan liggen in detraditie van de Human Resource Management (HRM)-cyclus binnen scholen.Deze cyclus richt zich veelal op tekortkomingen en het wegwerken daarvan.Voorwatbetrefteenverklaringvoorhetgebruikvandeficiëntiebenaderingeninonderzoekkaneenmogelijkeredenzijndathetverschiltussenstandaardenen werkelijke prestatie gemakkelijker te meten is dan uitmuntendheid enpersoonlijke interesse. De algemene aanbeveling in Hoofdstuk 4 voorschoolmanagers is dan ook om zich een waarderende benadering eigen temaken en daarmee de intrinsiek gemotiveerde leraar te ondersteunen.Specifieker, managers zouden professionaliseringsmogelijkheden kunnenaanbiedenopdatintrinsiekgemotiveerdelerarengetriggerdwordenomdeeltenemen. Om managers en andere belanghebbenden binnen scholen teondersteunen om deze omslag te maken heeft Hoofdstuk 5 als doel eenkrachtigeinterventieteontwikkelendiescholenenmedewerkersondersteuntbij het maken van een omslag van het voornamelijk focussen optekortkomingen naar het gericht zijn op sterktes en mogelijkheden.Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is de benadering die ten grondslag ligt aan dezekrachtige interventie omdat zij zich richt op sterktes. Een spel leek de eengepaste vorm om deze interventie in te gieten omdat professionaliseringeffectieveriswanneerhetsamenmetanderegedaanwordt(Cordingleyetal.,

136

2005). Het doel van het spel was om professionaliseringsdeelname tevergemakkelijken.Design Based Research (DBR) is methode die gebruikt werd om het spel teontwikkelen.Viadezemethodewordtde toepasbaarheid vanhet spel in eenschooltegaranderen.DeessentievanDBRisdatonderzoekersenmensenuitdepraktijksamenwerkenomerzekervantezijndattheoretischeenpraktischekennisgeïntegreerdworden.De resultaten uit voorgaande hoofdstukken vormden de theoretische basisvoor de interventie. Zeer kort samengevat komt het neer op dat leraren zichbewust worden van ontwikkelmogelijkheden door een waarderendebenadering. Aangezien de waarderende benadering zich richt op sterktes enpassies vanmensen en het doel van deze studie is om professionalisering tetriggeren, werden de eerdere bevindingen t.b.v. de spelontwikkelinggeoperationaliseerd in “het is nuttig voor een individuele leraar of een teamzijn/hun eigen en elkaars triggers, sterktes en passies te kennenwanneer zehun eigen professionalisering vormgeven”. Voor een individuele leraar geldtdatalsdezeleraarzijneigentriggerstotprofessionaliseringkent,diespecifieketriggeropgezochtkanwordenofgegevenkanworden.TegelijkertijdkaneenTC-alsdesterktesenpassiesbekendzijn–onderdelenvanhetteamplanconformdeze kennis verdelen. Bovendien kan een TC aan elke leraar de juisteprofessionaliseringstriggersbieden.Dewerkelijketriggervoor lerarenomdeelte nemen aan professionaliseringsactiviteiten was vaak gebaseerd op eenintrinsieke drang om te groeien gecombineerd met een aanbod dat gedaanwerd(Hoofdstuk4).Het spel zou zichprimair richtenophetbewustzijnm.b.t. professionalisering,maarwasookgelinktaandeanderefasen(motivatieenactie).Deverwachtingwas dat leraren konden communiceren (samenwerken) over hun sterktes(waarderendebenadering)metbehulpvanditspel.Hethoofdkenmerkvanhetspelwas dat het gebaseerdwasop kaartenof eenbord, omhet gemakkelijkspeelbaartemaken.Deonderzoekerkoosernietvooromeendigitaalspelteontwikkelenomdathetjebewustzijnvandespelertegenoverjebelangrijklijkttezijnomelkaarte lerenkennen.Dit lijktmoeilijkertebewerkstelligenineendigitaleomgeving.Nadrieevaluatierondes(drieprototypes)bestonddedefinitieveversievanhetspeluitverschillendeapartespelendiezichallen richttenopsterktes,passiesen professionaliseringstriggers. Omdie spelen te bundelenwerd de speldoosClickxontwikkeld.Clickxbevatvierverschillendespelen.Deeerstetweespelen

137

(Kwartet enOntdek Jezelf en deAnder)worden enkelmet kaarten gespeeld.Dezetweespelendelenderegeldatelkeleraarkaartendientteselecterendierelevante triggers, sterktes en passies voor die leraar beschrijven. Na dezekeuzemoetenmedespelersgokkenwieeenbepaaldekaartgeselecteerdheeft.Het derde spel heet Ontdek Jezelf met een Coach. Zoals de naam doetvermoedenbediscussieert een leraar triggers, sterktes enpassies van zichzelfmeteencoach.Hetvierdespel indespeldoosClickx ishetmeestuitgebreidespel“Ontwikkelreis”.Bijditbordspel spelen teams tegenelkaardoor triggers,sterktesenpassiesuittebeelden,tebeschrijvenoftetekenen.Nadieopdrachtreflecteertde leraaropdematewaarindebeschrijvingbij hemofhaarpast.Het bordspel “Ontwikkelreis” bevat ook enkele speciale opdrachten, zoals‘dromen’. Als een leraar op dit vakje komt, dient een teamlid een droom tebeschrijven enwat er nodig is om deze droom te verwezenlijken. Door dezespeciale opdrachten in het spel op te nemen is, de 4-D cyclus van AIgeïntegreerd in het design. De 4-D cyclus stelt dat een persoon steeds devolgende stappen doorloopt: discover, dream, design and deliver (Conklin,2009).Nahetspelenvandedefinitieveversievanhetspelgavenspelers (n=18)aandat het spel de eerste fase van het I-Changemodel bevorderde (bewustzijn).Leraren hadden beter kennis gekregen van hun eigen triggers totprofessionalisering, sterktes en passies en ook van de triggers, sterktes enpassiesvanhunmedespelers.Kortom,spelenvanhetspelvergemakkelijktedecommunicatie tussen de spelers over hun triggers, sterktes en passies. Enkelleraren die “Ontdek jezelf met een coach” speelden formuleerdenprofessionaliseringsdoelen (proximale meting voor de actie fase van het I-Changemodel).Eenmogelijkeverklaringwaaromlerarendiedeanderespelenspeelden dit niet deden, is dat leraren de handleiding niet lazen. In dehandleiding staan richtlijnenbeschrevenhoeeen leraardevolgendestapkannemenomuiteindelijkdeeltenemenaanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten.EenandereverklaringistevindenineenvooronderstellingvanhetI-Changemodel.Hetmodelvoorspeltdatnietallelerarenautomatischdoordedriefasengaan(bewustzijn,motivatieenactie).Sommigelerarenhebbenanderennodigomdevolgendefasetebereiken.DieanderisinelkspelvanClickxvertegenwoordigdmaarenkel in“Ontdekjezelfmeteencoach”isdeandergeendirectecollega.Ofhetnudecoachingervaringofdehiërarchischepositievandeanderwasdiehet verschil maakte, dient in vervolgonderzoek onder de loep genomen teworden. De evaluatie gaf over het algemeen aan dat leraren die het spel

138

speelden enthousiast spraken over hun eigen en elkaars triggers, sterktes enpassies.Dezemanier van communiceren is een grote stap voorwaarts bij hetbevorderen van bewuste professionalisering maar ze leidt nog niet tot eenspecifiekprofessionaliseringsdoel.De bevindingen uit voorgaande hoofdstukken worden samengebracht enbediscussieerdinHoofdstuk6.Deeerderbeschrevenresultatentonenaandathet I-Change model potentieel heeft en dat beleidsmakers dit kunnengebruiken om de onderliggende beelden van de HRM-cyclus in scholen teveranderen. Wij hebben slechts enkele factoren onderzocht waarvan eengedeeltelijke significantie werd aangetoond. Het I-Change model is eencomplexmodeldateenverklaringkangevenvooreencomplexprobleemmaarom het te omarmen als een van de leidende modellen moet er nog verderonderzoekgedaanworden.Omdat het I-Change model op zowel een deficiëntie als een waarderendebenadering toepasbaar is, ishetbelangrijkdatbeleidsmakerszichbewustzijnvanhetfeitdatzenietmoetenfocussenoptekortkomingenmaarzoekennaarwateenbepaaldeleraarspeciaalmaaktenhoezedieleraarnogmeerkunnenlaten excelleren. Hiermee zeggen we niet dat in bepaalde situaties (zoals bijstartendeleraren)eendeficiëntiebenaderinggeennutheeft.Lerarenwerdenin ons onderzoek geïnspireerd om beter te presteren (Fase 1: bewustzijn)dankzij een intrinsieke motivatie die vaak gekoppeld was aan een externaanbod. Leraren werden gemotiveerd om deel te nemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten (Fase 2) zodat hun vaardigheden zich verderkondenontwikkelenenzenamenookactiefdeelaandezeactiviteiten(Fase3).Debewustzijn-fasekannogsteedsgezienwordenalshetbewustwordenvaneentekortkomingmaar intermenvanwateenleraardoetenwatdezeleraarzelfwildoen(i.p.v.watdeze leraarmoetdoen).Opbasisvanonzeresultatenradenweaanniettesprekenovereentekortkomingomdatopdiemanierdedeficiëntiebenaderingindehandwerken,maarjuistomtesprekenvansterkteofkracht.ZoalseerderaangegevenisbinnenAIde4-Dcyclusbelangrijk:discover,dream,designanddeliver(Conklin,2009).Decombinatievan“discover”en“dream”isgelijkt te stellen met de eerste fase van het I-Change model. Om die redenstellenwevooromdeeerste faseniet “bewustzijnvaneen tekortkoming” tenoemenmaar“bewustwordenvaneendroomofeendroomontdekken”.Opeenzelfde manier kan Fase 2 van het I-Change model (motivatie) benoemdwordenals “Hetontwikkelenvaneenprofessionaliseringsplan” (derdestap in

139

AI).Delaatstefasevande4-DcyclusvanAIis“deliver”ofandersgezegd“hoezouhetkunnenzijn”.InhetI-ChangemodelkandezeAI-stapgezienwordenalswat een leraar in de toekomst doet nadat het professionaliseringsplan isopgesteld, met andere woorden, het deelnemen inprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten.Conformdezebevindingkandederdefasevanhet I-Change model benoemd worden als “het deelnemen aanprofessionaliseringsactiviteiten”. Met deze nieuwe namen is het model inovereenstemming gebrachtmet de algemene conclusie dat veruit demeesteleraren in ons onderzoek op basis van een positieve en waarderendebenadering willen participeren in professionaliseringsactiviteiten: dit integenstellingtoteenbenaderingdiezichprimairrichtoptekortkomingen.Voorschoolleiders betekent dit dat ze verschillende typen interventies zoudenmoeten aanbieden met de intentie om de intrinsiek gemotiveerde lerarenwerkelijktelatendeelnemenaanprofessionalisering.Clickxkanhierbijhelpen.Wanneer de algemene onderzoeksvraag “Wat triggert deelname aanprofessionalisering bij leraren?” beantwoord wordt, kunnen we concluderendathetrichtenvandeaandachtopsterktesenpassiesvanlerareneenbeteretrigger isdanhetrichtenoptekortkomingen.Bovendienlijkenpersoonlijkeenpsychologischefactoren(samenindividuelefactoren)invloedtehebbenophetverloop vandie professionalisering. Bijvoorbeeld, oudere lerarenworden zichsneller bewust van een ontwikkelbehoefte dan jongere leraren. Het isaanbevelingswaardig om een mentor systeem in te richten dat oudere enjongerelerarenkoppeltzodatdejongereleraarondersteuningkrijgtindewegnaar bewustwording van een professionaliseringsbehoefte. Scholen zoudenmeerlerarenmoetenfaciliterenomdeeltenemenaanprofessionaliseringdooreen omgeving te creëren die leraren uitnodigt te interacteren met elkaar,constructievefeedbacktegevenenindialoogtetredenoverhunprofessioneleontwikkeling.

140

Dankwoord