ED 223-6-10

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS'AGENCY-,REPORT NOPUB DATEi'NOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

/

DOCUMENT RESUME

SP 021 497

In-Service Education and Training of Teachers. ACondition for Educational/Change.Organisation for Economic/Cooperation andDevelopment, .Paris (France). Ceptre for EducationalResearch and Innovation.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.

ISBN-92-64-12372-58289p.OECD Publications add.Information Center, Suite 1207,1750 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington,,DC 20006

($7.00).Reports Descriptive (141) -- B&oks (010)

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS Compara/ tive Education; Educational Research; Foreign

Countries; Individual Needs; *InserVice TeacherEducation; International Educational Exchange;

4, "pli,cy Formation; Postsecondary Education;*Professional Continuing Education; Program Costs;*Program Development; Program Effectiveness; *ProgramEvaluation; School Role; Teacher Characteristics;Teacher Effectivenessr Teacher Improvement

i

IDENTIFIERS -*Inservite Educ and Training of Teachers (Project)

'-\

ABSTRACT 7 \/

. "Iis)report presents a synthesis of studies on the/ present situation and_ eme\r9ing policies of the Inservice Education

/ and Training of/Teacheris--(4NSET) Project, developed collaboratively/ by tembert of t/he Organisations for EcOnomic Cooperation and

Development (OECD). The project achieved a broad dissemination of ,

natipial, practices and experience, enabling comparative analyses on

....tiom several CD member countries: Australia, Canaua, France, I

/

arOnternatio/n 1 scale. This repOrt.draWs upon documents and papers

, Germany, Sw/92izerland, Japan,/Netherlands, Sweden, United KingdoM,

United Stat_ es, and'Italy. ChaPter one provides an introduction/anddescriptiom of the INSET Project. The importance and scope of /INSETis discussed ip chapter two. Chapter three deals 1.rith teachers'characteristis And INSET needs. The fourth chapter considers therole of the'sch 0 in inservice programs. Chapter five discusses. the

/

training of INS ,T-trainers. The sixth chapter covers the cost,

.finances!, and resources of and for INSET, and evaluation techniquesand polidies for INSET are described in chapter seven. Evidences ofeffective INSET activities are/cited-and discussed in chapter eight.14iin conclusions On the INSET/Project and their implications forpolicy and research are cons,iaexed in the ninth chapter. The tenthchapter offers a frameworivtor tile, development of new policies. Thebibliography in the eleventh chapter cites contributors to the report

by name and title. A chart is presented illustrating the structureand content of the INSET Project. (JD)

/ 1

CD

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)te\.,(\I "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE`THIS

(\i MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

LU Rosseil

'TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).'

U.S..DEPARTIMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES-INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as' - .1 sid froM the Person or organization

riginatinq itMinor changes have boon made to improve

reproduction quality .

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu

ment do not necessarily represeht official N1Eposition or policy

IN-SERVICEEDUCATION

AND TRAININGOF TEACHERS

A condition foreducational change

ra:irkikes /- '-

004 ,;Pii4400'01

'aotttp,_

PPOSta-

4;

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION A00 OEVELOPME.NT

,

The Organkatiop for Economic Co-ooeralion and Development (OECD) was set up 110-der a Convention signed in Paris'On 14th December 1960, which provides that the OECDshall promote policies designed:

to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a risingstandard of living M Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, andthus io contribute to the development of the world economy:to c'ontribute to sound economic expansion in Member as wel.l. as non-mernbercountries in the process of economic devernenr.to comribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatorybasis in accordance with international obligations.

The MeMbers of OECD are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland.France. the Federal Republic of Germany. Greece, iceland, Ireland,. Italy, Japan. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, lew Zealand, Norway. Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,TUrkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation was,created in June 1968 by theCouncil of .the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for an &Ilyalperiod of three years, with the help ofgrants from the Ford Foundation and the Royal DutchShell Group of Companies. In May 1971, the Council decided that the. Centre should con-tinue' its work for a period of five years.as from 1st January 1972. In July 1976 it extendedthis mandate for the following five years 1977-82.

The main objectives of the Centre are as followS;to promote and support the development of research activities in education and un-dertake such research activities Where appropriate;to protnote and support pilot experiments with a view to introducing and testing in-novations ft1 the educational 'system;to promotedhe development of co-operation between Member countries in the field

-....47-'-',--bredUcatiohal research and innovation.The Centre functions within the Organisation for E.conomic Co-operation and

Development in accordance with the decisions of the Council of the Organisation, under theauthority of the Secretary-General. It is supervised by a Governing Board composed of onenational expert fn its field of competence from each of the countries participating in itiprogramme of work.

Publie en franems sous Ie titre

, LA FOR-MATION EN COURS DE SERVICEDES ENSEIGNANTS

Condition du changernent.h rem,:

© OECD, 1982Applieation for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this publication should be made to:

Director of Information. OECD2, rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France.

CONTENTS

Preface 5

I. Introduction: The Evoluti9n of the Project 9

II. The Importance and Scope of INSET 10

III. Teachers' Characteristics and INSET Needs 1,4

IV. The Role of the School 20

V. Training the Trainers 31

VI. Costs, Finances and Resources 38

VII. Evaluation: Techniques and Policies 47

VIII. Effective INSET 53

IX. Main Conclusions and their Implications fo'rPolicy and Research 58

X. A Framework for the Development of New Policies 76

XI. BibliOgraphy . 79

Chart: Structure and Content of the "Inset Project".1975-80

0

Alsp available

INNOVATION IN IN-SERVICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING OFTEACHERS. PRACTICE AND THEORY (August 1978)(96 78 04 I) ISBN 92-64-H809-8 64 pages s ' /1.70 USS3.50 F14.00

Prices charged at the OECD Publications ()like.'

THE OECD CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS and supilements will be sent free of chargeon request addressed either tb OECD Publications Office,

2, rue Andri-Pasca4 75 775-PARISXEDEN 16, or to The OECD ;Sales Agent in your country.

FACE

This publication mer:ks the successful termination ofsix-year investigatory project conducted by the Centre.

for Educational Research and Innovatiob with financial aid'from the United States' National Institute of Education.

The project began in response to the widely felt needfor_sound programming of in-service education and t*:.einingto equip 'eacheus with neW techniques, methods and atti-tudes corrcLonding with their changing roles and tasks.It concluded with the finding, backed by a wealth ofspecialiSt studies in many Member countries, that. in the"near future national education systems will have to givepriority to in7service training of education personnel fora numbEr of reasons, of which these four are the most com-pelling:

- schools must be capable at all times of re-sponding in various wayeto the varied needsof their pupils and of societyl

- the functions, atitudes and que.lificationsof school personnel will therefore, continue t6

play a fundaMental role in the national life;- in view of the decreasing recruitment, there is

still a ieed to 'maintain the internal dynamismof the -teaching profession;

- the increasing complexity of the problems thatconfront each individual school and which it

- must endeavour to solve under conditions ofoptimum freedom of action implies that, morethan hitherto, training activitieF, shouldcentre on the school and take an ',.ncreasinglycollaborative form, implying that relatei ,

sr:lid support structures need to be set up-bythe responsible authorities.

The six year*: of work consisted of two.phases. Thefirst achieved a broad dissemination of national practicesand experience to enable comparative analyses on an ihter-national scale. This entailed the preparation of a_serieSof national monographs covering ten countries end- -their

consideration'at an international seminar. in Philadelphiain 1976 at which innovative practices of INSET were/re.-

viewed inian attempt to_plece-them withan a conceptUal

framework. A synthesis of the reults of the survey ofcountry experience and of this seMinar were published asan interim report (Innovation in 'In-service Education and-

/ --Training of Teachers: Practice and Theory).

This first phase of informative gathering, analysis'an1 international assessment enabled the identification ofsix subject areas where, in paticu1ar, the results of theil7veshigihion could be general y applied or adapted toa tual national conditions. these were: The Contributioncf Adult Learning Theories an Practices to INSET; TheRole of the School; Evaluation; New INSET Materials;The Role of Training Teachers; The Cost and EfficientUtilisation of INSET Resources,: It is thesethat haveprovided the substance of phase two of the INSET programme,CERI's full range of experimental methods, multinationalco-operation, co-development activities and specialistenquiry being deployed in their pursuit. Aprogress has beenreviewed periodically in seminars and Workshops in variouSof the.Member countries concerned. The, structure andrange ,)f the programme are illustrated in the accompanyingchart.

, The culmination of this phase, and hence of the proj7ect, was an intergovernmental conference held in Taris bn29th September-lst October 1980 with an attendance of over80 - national delegates, observers from bodies\profession-ally concerned and subject specialists. This 1..roughttogether, the results of all the coMponent actiVities forreview and assessment. The Conference also agreed on anumber of precepts that together constitute a frameworkwithin which policies for in-service education and train-ing of teachers and straLegies.for educational)change canbe realistically debated or, indeed, conceived. These(see Section X) should be of considerable interest to'national planning authorities for social matters and edu-cation.

The that follows has_ been prepared by ,

Dr. R. Bolam of the Univers-iEy-Of,Bristol, United-Kingdom,as a synthesis of_all-the studles and activity reportscontributed-ff-the final phase of the project. Its pur-pose-i-S to bring within a single conspectus.the esults---of experiments, lessons learned or unprofitable approachesgleaned froffLa, very wideeld. Those responsible forpolicy or for practice at national or local levels maythus extracE from the experience of colleagues abroadideas and practices that, suitably adapted, canjlelp toimprove INSET in their own countries.

6

J.R. Gass,DirectOr,

Centre for EducationalResearch and Innovation

'7

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE ONSET PROJECT*, 1975-1960

Phase I : ConoeptualisatIon apd formulation of gulde linesfor 10 National Monographs, April 1975

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEPhiladelphia, 1976

Interim Synthesis Re(Bol

Phase 2A : Follow-up Casa Stud) ix Themes

Adult Learningand Development

1c3 Nationalase studies

SynthesisReport

(COrrIgan1960)

School F-edused inst :Teachers' Centres '

9 Nationalcase studies

SynthesisReport(Noway1980)

78)Phase 1

Costs 119dResources Evaluation Materials

TrainingTrainers

6 NationalCase studies

jSynthesis

Report`ii<splan

1980)

I Phase 2B : Development intd Exchange Programmes I

on Stratediels for Schwi-Focused Sopport-r

rInter-Country ConferencesStockholm, October, 1976Palm Beach, November, 1977

5 Nationalcase 'Audio's

SynthesisReport(Fox1980)

SynthesisReport

(Dobrich1960)

SynthesisRepori

(MulfordI 1980)

__Bournemouth, March, 1978 ----J1

-L --1CG-development./ Linkages between i 'reacher

I research units : School-FocusedI

participation !inset : Evaluation : I

I Training the Trainers I I intSeminarserim ReportL------ 1_ J

INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE, 1980Final Report(Bofam, 1982)

r--Synthesis Report I

(Henderson, 1981) IL--

I. INTRODUCTION

This final report is designed to synthesise the out.comes of a lengthy and complex project, to consider'thesein ,Lhe context of some related research findings and of,wider developments in education and, finally, to highlightcert:ain policy implications. in selecting ideas and find-ints for this synthesis the writer.has naturally drawnmost largely on the distinguished professional documen-tation from many countries with which Lhe project has been

supplied. These studies and.reports (more than thirty innumber) are, in a sense, "occastional papers" and it isnot the intention to publish them formally. The auothortrusts, however, that in what follows he has done41.ffim

justice - within, of course, the limits set on oneNiosetask is that of synthesis. All the contributors atecredited by name and title.in the Bibliography.

The project itself has been introduced and ouklined.in the foregoing Preface and Its scope ,may be Lakqn inwirsil a glance at the accompanying chart. As will/be seen,Phase 1 was concluded with the publication of arl/Interim

Report (11).. Phase 2, with which we are principallyconcerned here,, was a two-branched undertaking, culmi-nating in an Intergovernmental Conference in 1980. Thefirst branch cOnsisted of studies of six priority areas:

i) the contribution of adult.learning theoriesand practices toINSET (national case-studies);

ii) the role of the school in INSET (nationalcase-studies);

iii) the evaluation of INSET (national case-udies);iv) new INSET materials;v) role and training of teacher trainers;

vi) INSEr financing and resource's (national case-studies).

For the second bra'nch. of PhaSe 2 (which was mainly'funded by the participating countries) a series of co-development activities, in the form of nationally sponsoredconferences, seminars and site-visits for practitionersand researchers were organised. These will continue on agroup and bilateral basis as long as the participants con-

sider them worthwhile.

"Figures between brackets refer to the Bibliography,at the end o` thii volume.

II. THE IMPORTANCE AND SCOPE OF INSET

The Interim.Report (11) concluded that there werethree main reasons for the recent growth ih commitment of-national governments to INSET. First, it was inherentlyimportant that teachers, of all people, should continuewith their personal and professional education; second,the rapid, extensive and fundamental naturPday change - technological, economic, cultural, social-7--political - made it imperative for the education systemin general and LeaChers in particular to review and modifyteaching methods'and curricula; third, for widely preva-lent demographic reasons, the demand for new teachers wasdropping sharply and the INSET needk,pf a stable teachingforce thereby became especially important.

The same report (P. 46) showed also that there wasbroad agr.eement in Member countries that INSET could andshould make an important-contribution to the resOlutionof prohlems-associated with several contemporary, major-LaSk areas in education:

a) the curricular problems associated.wilTh.theextension of compulsory schooling3 especiallythe needs of the 13-16 age group;

b) the needs of special school populations, such'

as immigrant groups, multi-ethnic communitiesand disadvantaged rjra] communities;

c) the needs associated with particular subjects,notably science and mathematics, and studentgrouys, notably those with special edu-cational needs (i.e. variants on the main-streaming problem);

d) the new demands on teachers caused by theradirllly changing nature of achOol-communityrelaL._onships, e.g.

- relations between educatiot and workinglife;

- renewed community,emand5rfor accountabilityrelated to educational standards and assess-ment;

e) the curricularh 'and organisational consequencesof declining enrolments;

,

0

10

f) the'strategic need to provide adequate TNSET- for those with jnternal school manageme.responsibilitios.

Fhere was, and continues,to be, less agreement aboutthe -precise nature of rNSET. In the present report it isunderstpod as those education and training ac,tivitiesengaged in by primary and secondary school teachers and,principals, following tneir initial professional certifi-

-,Ncati aon, 'nd intended. mainly or exclusively tb improve theirprofessional knowledge, skills and attitudes in order thatthey can educate children more effectively. This defi-n1tion will not meet with complete agreement either withinor between Member countries, but it does reflect the mainpurposes for which the term haS aCtually been used in mostof the project documentation.

The point can perhaps be made more clearly by analys-ing a range .)f.INSEC purposes in the context of continuing1icijn ahd the,demands of system and individual needs.

rne generic term "continuing education" (or recurrent,adult, lifelong education or l'education permanente) isgenerally thought to embrace two broad cemponents -pers-jnal eduation and vocational training. We may ac-cordingly distinguish between five main purposes of con-tinuing education f.or teacher,s

1. Improving the job performance skills of thewhole school staff or of groups of'staff (e.g.a school-focused INSET programme).

2. Improving the job performance skills of anindividual -teacher .(e.g an induction programmefor a beginning teacher.

1. Extending the experience of' an individualteacher for career development or promotionpurposes (e.g. a leadership training course/.

4. Developing the professional knowledge andunderstanding of an individual teacher (e.g. aMaster's degree in educational studies).

5.- Extending the personal or general education)f an individual (e.g. a Master's degreecourse not in education or a subject relatedLo teaching).

A widely recognised problem in all prganisations isthat f roc)nciling the potential conflict between meetingthe reguirements and goals of "the organisational systemand of satisfying the needs for self-fulfilment of Lheindividual member of an organisation, Adapting a diagramfrom (;e1e1,-.1and ,:,uha (72), we can relate this problem toth,? ii purp'iss .)f continuing education for teachers.

In this ,diagram Purpose 1 is seen as most likely tos7atisty th reluirements of the system for meeting itsg)a13 lnd least likely to meet the needs of individualsfor 7:e1f-ful1ilment, while the reverse is the case with,

Diagram 1 SYSTEM AND INDIVIDUAL NEED FACTORSAND THE PURPOSES OF CONTINUING EDUCATION

SResqtuerrem e n t 5

9411

lndvldual

o Needs

Purpose I :

Staf,f /GroupPert °mance

Purpose 2 :IndividuallobPert ormance

Purpose 3 :CareerDevelopment

Purpose4: Purpose5:Professional PersonalKnowledge Education.

fr

Purpose 5, Et is, of course, recognised that any oneINSET course may have several purposes but the diagram(t)es'illustrate Henderson's point made in "The Concept of,Scllool-FOcused En-service Education and Training" (81).that a useful. distinction can be made between the mainand incidental purposes and outcomes of.an INSET activity.

These issues were discussed fn the submission bythe teachers' representatives to the IntergoverrimentalCcmference (119):

0"Whereas INSET is primarily based on utilitarian'concerns, in particular the adaptation and ex-tension of teaching techniques, a teacher's per-manent edu-ation is designed more.to en.couragehis desire fbr personal achievement and to fulfilhis personal aspirations. IL meets the need foreach individual person constantly to be renewingthe basic elements of his personal culture, in achanging world where values are changing all theLimr.?.. In fact; the concept of permanent edu-cation cannot.be opposed to that'of im-servicetraining; on the contrary, permanent.education.is one of the essential elements of such'training,the one that concerns the teacher's profesionallife. One could'even say that permanent edu-cation, seen in this light, should bring.intocloser relationship strictly cultural values andprofessional values, mork and leisure; aspectsof a person's life that the world of today has '

contributed to fragment and evqn to bring intoopposition."

12

12

A similar position was adopted in the "JamesReport" (61)7 while alternative definitions and some oftheir implications are considered in at least two projectreports, Marklund and Eklund'S on Swedeno(7) and Fox'sSynthesis Report on Evaluation (3(2).

The indications from the reports and case studiesproduced during the project arP.that personal education(Purpose 5) is generally seen as an incidental aim andoutcome of INSET by both teachers and employers; that /

teachers and, particularly, employers andAprincipals arkeen on Purposes 1 and 2; that certain teacher.; are ke,on INSET for'career development (Purpose 3); net undversities and professional associations ,support theprovision of professional know]edge for underatanding

° (Purpose A) and personal education (Purpose 5); and thatteachers May attend INSET for professional knowledge,(Purpose 4) partly in the hope that it will help themachieve promotion (Purpose 3).

Several general concluding points are worth making.First,that in practice, INSET is concerned with ;

Purposes 1 and 2 in all Member countries, with PUrposes 3and 4 in many Member coUntries and with Purpose 5 in.a fewMember counil-ies. Second, tnat bhe preference of employing authorities for Purposes 1 and 2 is most eyident whenthey are required to release teachers to attend INSETcourses. Third, that INSET needs are complex, and,likelyto be given different priority by the- various,interestedparties.; hence the need for appropriate machinery Lo-negotiate and agree upon t.hem.

0

13

13

o-

LII: TEACHERS' CHARACTERISTICS AND INSET NEEDS

,At an early stage in the project it was-,recognisedthat a fresh look at the characteristics and needs ofteachers as adult learners was needed if their role inINSET was to be better understood, and one of the Phase 2'activities dealt specifically with this theme.

The French contribution here,.by Gilles Ferry (14),relates teacher needs directly to the wider question ofadult and continuing education. 'Since adultheod can bedefined in terms of age and development.which followschildhood and adolescence, Ferry concludes that a psycho-logically-oriented theory of adult education is needed.However, since aiulthood can also be defined as a Status'which is dependent upon socio-economic factors, then asociologically-oriented theOry is also needed.

Ferry goes on Eo argue that, necessary as thesepsychological and sociological theories are, the most,important feature of affective adult education is theopportunity for the "trainees" to participate in decisionsabout (the design, implementation and evaluation of theprogramme. He also notes that the educational needs of aprofessional demand more than the learning of techniquesand:methods: continuing education for a profession (oe,one might add, a semi-profession) embraces its wholeinstitutional continuum) with ita own system of standards,network of relations, and cultdre.

The theme of.the teacher as a working adult is alsotaken up in a British contribution. Chambers (12)stresses the importance of the ways in yhich a-teachervieYs and values himself or herself in in-:.school andprivate situations. Central as work is to most teachers'lives, et least four other focal interests occupy anindividual's thought and time: the self, family, leisureand communit,y: In order to illustrate their impact upc,INSET, Chambers outlines two case studies of hypotheticalteacner. The Secohd study.is of a female 24-year-oldhistory honours graduate from a sheltered religious homebackground. She has been plunged,into a "down-town" -----secondary comprehensive school to teach histery-and somereligious education, mainly to third, fourt-l-rand fifthyear mixed classes of "hardies". Her-p-Ost-graduate/

14

certificate of education training has,"sprayed" herlightly with theoretical cohcepts from,Piaget, Bruner andVigotsk/y but that theoretical background, alliied tb hertWelve weeks' teaching Practice in an open7,a6cess sixth-form secondary college,of self-selected pupils, has notbeen greatly relevant .(or developmental) in enabling herto acquire the necessary "coping skill's" for the,work-shenow has td face daily. .

Chamberscontinues that the postulate would lead oneto .suppose that this teacher's "vocational-self" constr ctcould be: "I am a total and.abysmal failure" and thathis arose from a perceived -rejection of everything she-had to offer by the pupils, reinforced by the all-tooapparent attitudes of her' lehg-suffering colleagues whpatience was,wearing.thin attheir failure to assist hein gaining class-control, and compounded still further byher spending the greater part of her:private, out-of-school time alone in a two-room self-contained flat.However, she has recently become engaged and, as a reault,her range of communication skills has extended beyond apreoccupation with her 'own failures. She is now, there-fore, better able to incorporate other pecple's needs,ideas and values - including those.of the pupils' - intoher owh "system" and her teaching ability is improvingslightly as a consequence.: Because she.is now leas inneed of rewarding feedback she is becoming less flexibleand more authoritarian. From needing "salvation", '

Chambers suggests that she could now be motivated.to attendan INSET course by the need for "reorientation" or, even,"self-evaluation" if she is, by now, not oo much at risk.

/ \

Writing from an American viewpoint, Corrigan,Haberman,and Howey (13/) argue that INSET has neither been /regarded as adult education nor used theories of adultlearning because learning theories have been developed iureration to animals and children and because; in any case,INSET has some'important, distinctive features. Theyderive seven theoretical orientations from the literatureoh adult educatiOn.' First, psychometric research on.adults has found mainly negative correlations between age\a tests of intelligence, achievement, meellory andcreativity. On the other'hand, a second theoreticalorientation streases the positive potential of the ageingsprocess because older people have accumulated more know-ledge and experience; however, there are few researchdatA to support this approach. MaStery learning theorygenerates proppsitions about motivation; feedback,readiness, etc'. which, though sometimes contradictory,not of equal importance and not equally research-based,appear EO have direc't relevance to adult learning.Personal development thepry contends that adult.develop-ment is a continuation of early (i.e. child) internaldevelopment and involves a Series of stages or phases inwhich different life tasks and therefore needs arise.Organisation theory indicates that the situational

15

pressures upon\ihdividuala have to be taken into account,and changed, if,meaningful learning is to occur. Finally,group learning theory stresses the significant influenceof peer groups on individual learhing.

.The implications of each theoretical orientation arethen'explored by applying them to INSET. For example,the writers sugges t. thatsome form of compensatory edu-cati-pn would be an appropriate way of responding to olderstudents who were thought to require extra help because ofthe ageing-negative 'process; an approach based on a grOuplearning orientation might use work groups and teams as .

the basic learning group. The value of this study probablylies mainly' in the fact that it provides the first "map" of -

d nithei-to unexplored aspect of INSET which should proveespecially useful for research purposes.

What of the malue of t..e American, British and Frenchstudies of adult learming for INSET programme designersand trainers? They undoubtedly act as sensitisers to theimp-)rtance ')f the various characteristics of teachers asadult learnerS ami to new ways of approaching,the adultlearning process. However, as an exaMple,'a careful read-ing ::)f th NS contribution suggests that although theseven theoretical orientations are sometimes mutuallysupportive they are not necessarily'compatible and mayeven be mutually contradictory. Furthermere, in most real.,life INSET programme settings the students are of differ-ent ages, sexes and from different personal and schoolcircumstances and so the trainer's problems are compounded.

However, although the case studies do not offer manyexamples of good, feasible practice based directly upop'theories of adult learning, these that are described areof considerable relevance and value to practitioners, Forinstance, Ferry (14) describes the changes that have oc-curred over,a twelve-year period in France in the designof a long course for specialist educator's. Over thi.stime, he says, the f:ormula has practically.been'reversed:occupational training,defined and controlled by theinstitution, has given way to persona] training which thetrainee designs and implements with the resourCes put athis disposal. The. idea,of. Lraining eduFators in accord-an7e with the demands of the institution has changed toone of creating conditions in which the educators have an,Tportunity to train themselves..

Writing from the United.Kingdom, Ellidtt (67) setsout to answer the question "How do teachers learn'?"arguing:

"... that_intelligent practice_- for example,khnwing now to perform educatinal activitieSlike teaching, curriculuM deveD9pment, andevaluation - cannot direc'tly 6pAing from aknowledge of theoretical Princip'les about

16

practice, 'since these principles themse:yesderive froM the analysis Of praCtice. /They areabstractions from the practical knowle geembodied ia concrete performances:\ T is argu-Ment has three important implicatiOns. First,practical knoWledge cannot be reduce to theconsciouS applitation of principles,.and thismeans the latter\annot explainhow People learnto acquire, and dOelop their practicar-,skills.,Secondly,/genuine Oeoretical stat ments aboutpractice .dampot be\understood a p iori. Onedoes not first undrstand a theor ticalprinciple about education and th n apply It inan analysis of practice. The un erstInding-emerges from_the an lysis. Thi dly, theoriesabout concrete prac-ices, rath than their.geaeralisable featu-es, cannot be formal theorieslocated within an a ademic di cipline. Unlike .the latter they ar bound to particular sub-stantive context.ul

,Elifott then goes on t des,-4-ibe in detail'his attempts to.apply thse ideas to a advanced course in curriculumstudies or experienc d teachers.

Surv ys of teaclers' INSET needs are more familiar'and have\b.en carr d out in many countries at all systemlevels - hFtiona , state, local authority and School.These provi-,e nformation about self-reported needs inrelation, f.)r. iastance; to the teaching of particular sub-jects and t the management of schoola. Other surveys'and research projects have focused'on teachers' needs'atdifferent c reerstages. ;

mple a series of research and developmentstudtes have been carried out ilnto the induction andtraining réeds of beginning teachers in England andWales'(5' . These have led to the broad conclusion thatthe ov,er'whelMing toncern'of most probationers is with thepr rcalities of their own teaching situation and thatractical relevance is the principal yardstick by which

they, will judge an induttiOn programme.

The project also led to the formulation of arationale which can best be understood within the chron-ology of the school year. The probationers' needs aresaid to begin at'the time of appoin&nent. Following this,orientation to the routines and procedures of the schooland LEA can take place during a pre-service visit or duringthe First days and weeks of the autumn term. The adap-tation period is one in which the probationer is coming'to erms mith and reconciling the,.frequently conflicting,demands of the school, the pupils., his own inclinationsahd the advice given to.him in initial training: inshort, he is formulating his own teaching style in apartic6lar context. Towards the end of the autUmp term,

most LEAs ask the head to camplete a progress assessmentform so that probatiOners at risk can be identified. Fromabout Christmas onwards, the majority of probationers havesettled in and are ready for more sustained training ac-tivities to meet their professional development needs.The final.assessment form is usually completed towards theend of'the summer term and can be used to stimulate anoverview both of the past year's experience and of careerand in-service education and training opportunities duringthe second year and beyond. The six stages were not seenas sequential or developmental; ratho...- they were offeredas a tentative mapping device for those responsible forhelping beginning teachers.

The work of Fuller in the United States (71) providesan alternative perspective on developmental needs inrelation to the.job. Tfie most recent formulation offersa model based upon measures of teachers' stages of concern:

I. Early phase .0 Concerns about self (non-.teaching cioncerns)

II. Middle Phase 1 Concerns 1tbout professionalexpectatipns and acceptance

2 Concerns about one's ownadequacy: subject matter cclass control

3 Concerns about relationshiplwith pupils

Q

III. Late phase 4 Concerns about pupils' learn-ing yhat is taught

5 Concerns about pupils' learn-ing what they need

6 Concerns about one's own(teacher's) contributions topupil change.

(dapted from Fuller by Feiman-Nemser and Floden)(69).

Policy makers, teacher educators and teachers' as-'sociEltions have often concentrated on the career needs ofteac1iers. For example, an attempt was made by a nationalcommittee for INSET in England and Wales to devise anINSET heeds framework based upon the likely career pat-'terns of teachers. The concept of a career profile in-cluded thc following key stages:

- the induction year;- a consolidation period of four to six yearsduring which teachers would attend short,specific courses;

- a reorientation period, after six to eightyears experience, Yhich could involve asec.)ndment for a one term course and a changein career development;

18

\

- a period of fuElther studies, in advancedseminars, to develop specialist expertise;

- at about mid-career, after about twelve to'fifteen years,/ some teachers would benefitfrom advanced:studies prog'rammes of one yearOr more in length, possibly to equip themfor leadership roles;

- after mid-career, a minority would needpreparation !for top management roles.whilethe majority would need regular opportunitiesfor refreshthent:

As with the examples cited earlier in this section,it is important tp queStion the status and usefulness ofthese studies,. T eir main value"is probably as tools fordeepening our un erstanding but, like all typologies andmodels they oversithplify in'order to achieve this. Thus,although the induction year stages provide 8n analytictool which.has proved useful during a research and develop-ment phase, no individual probationer's experience is,likely to fit neatly into these stages. Similarly, nipindividual teacher is likely to move in'a straightforwardlinear fashion through Fuller's stages of concern which,in any case, do not.deal with the teacher's concerns aboutherself or her career. It'should also be said that, notunexpectedly, the "career profile" has ,flat with corisider-able opposition`because it is thought to be too pre-soriptive; it has not, therefore, been widely used as abasis for identifying requirements. Finally, none ofthese models appears to'have influenced.the ways in whichteachers go about identifying their INSET needs. .

f'"'

19)

"IV, THE ROLE OF THE SC'HOOL

The school is increasingly being seen in many Member,countries as a major initiator of and ocus for INSET. Ajustificationfor school-focused TOSET was given byPerry (105) reporting the S,tockholM Conference: "The casehas been cogently made that to enspre true implementation'of change ... we must work with teachers in the place andin the situation where change is to take place. The caseia made with equal cogency that 'the school-building is the,context in which all needs at ail levels of the systemultimately come together." He also offered'a definition."School-focused training is all the strategies employed bytrainers and teachers in partnership, to direct trainingprogrammes in such a way as ta Meet ,the identified needsof the school, and to raise t14e standards of teaching andlearning in the classroom:"

A major task has, of course, been to clarify the.definition and rationale of school-focused INSET. Howeyin his Synthesis Report (25) has demonstrated that thecontributions and practical examples in the case studiesand conference papers provide a good starting point forthis.

In the United Kingdom.,.a nationally distributedpamphlet (64) suggested several INSET methods of a lessconventionll kind:

1. A home economics teacher spends a day inanother school to/find out about a new chlid-,care course, !!

2. Two deputy headajdn a very different-primaryschool exchange.)obs for one week to broadentheir exPeriencei.,

3. ,klarge comprehensive,school timetable frees'staff for one Week each year tp work onmaterials preparation with theresourcecentre co-ordinator.

4. Two colleaguea in the same-school system-atioaily.obaerme each other teaching over aterm and disCOss their obserVrations aftereach session./

5. A group of coMprehensive scl7ooi staffdeveloping a new integratedrstudies curriculum

invites a teachers' centre wa/rden to co-,ordinate a term-long school-based courseinvolving outside speakers.

6. A college of education offers a week-longcourse for primary schools tOr four weeksin succession, Each of four members of staffattend in turn thus having/a siMilar experi-ence. College staff foIlo -up by visitingthe schools.

7. Two LEA advisers offer a chool-based courseOf eight weekly sessions pn primary maths.They. spend from 3,0 to 3 45 working withteachers in their classr oms and from 4.0 to5.30 in follow-up works op/discussion sessions.

\B. A university award-bear ng ,course for a group; ol staff from the same frchool includes, a

sObstantial school-bas 0 component.Aischool,Aruns a confer nce on "GoingqomprcheliSive"which begins on Friday morning,ln, school time, and ends on Saturday afternoon.PUtside speaker's include a chief adviser, aicomPrehensive head and .a university lecturer.iAs a\result, several!working parties run

oj

throughout the follTing year."

W,de-ranging examples Of school-focused INSET aredescri-ied in the:Australian/ report (16) and are summarisedby Ho ey (19) :

Short meetings, residential Conferences forthe entire staff, whole-day activities for the.staff held at the sthool Or other venue, visitsfrom cAsultants, interchange with or visits toother schools,Hinteraction with parents, shortconferences (1-3 da/ys), in-depth curriculumstUdy of materiajs, developmental workshops(2-5 weeks release)

7whole-term release, activities

which examine prOblems,of an organisation orcurricular nature/that face the staff of a partiC:-ular school, longterm classroom-based actionresearch with coriSultancy report, teachers' centreor education centre activities, an extended(developmental) series, of meetings, and finaIlresidential in-service education programMes.

Secondary schools in several countries have desig-nated a senior member of staff as the equivalent of aprofessional tutor.: In' the United Kingdom, for instance,several local education authorities have.encouragedsecondary schools to'develop their own in-service policiesand programmes and to appoint a professional tutor withresponsibilities for initial induCtion and in-servicetraining (vide Baker, 1979), although in most schoolsthese are split between two or more experienced staff.Thus, in one secondary school, a deputy, head co-Ordiriatesthe professional,development programme and concentrates on

21 21

01,

that aspect aimed at experienced,teachers. He j_s assistedby a'less senior colleague who looks after probationaryteachers and student teachers. The school's professional'development committee is thaired by the deputy head, withthe tutor acting as secretary, and the membership is madeup of teacher representatives, the LEA's general adviserfor the school, and the.liaison tutor from a college ofeducation. Examples of similar developments include theintroduction of school-based teacher educators in Houstdn,Um,ited States (108) and the proposals for a specific"personnel function and in-service plans within Dutchsecondary s,chools

. At its best,-,school-focused INSET is one aspect of aschool's staff development policy and thus an integralpart of its overall school development policy. TheBritish governmental pamphlet already referred to (64)recommended shoola in England and Wales to devise an INSETprogramme focused on the needs of individual teachers,functional groups (e.g. departmental teams) and the wholeschool staff. This approach underpins the "site" researchproject which has been evaluated 'oy Baker (46) and has in-volved 50 schools.

Fullan (17) describes examples of two scnool-basedINSET activities in Canada:

"... in which the staff play a major role indefinEng.sOcific school needs, programdevelopment requirements and progress,in relationto given goals. The district provides time,money, and other forms of support ,including theuse of external consultants. The programs,however, are directed at single, albeit major,problems.. We do not get a tense of whether .

ongoing in-service development at the individual,small group and school level.is 'a way of life'regarding all in-service needs of teachers. Itis alSo not clear whether the school 'as anorganisation is a'focus for change (i.e. thedevelopment of the role of the principal,communication., and decision-making skills ofstaff, etc.). Nonetheless, here is much more .

emphasis placed on the school qua School as thefocal point for development of in-serviceprograms geared'toward the particular needs ofthe staff of individual schools."

In Denmark, a school-based INSET programme wasMounted in a primary school by researchers fro the RoyalDanillh School of Educational Studies. Olsen (104) reportsthate,the three-year action,-research study aimed "to meet.the needs of teachers with regard to content in arealistic setting where you work with cOleagueS on a teamand can draw upon expertise and information.from outside'geared to your needs and, wishes".

22

22

ilson concluded that it took far more 'time than antici-.pated to devolop fruitful working relationships and forthe crucial task of needs definition; that the researchershad to be.prepared to adopt an active consultancy role; and,finally, that it was important for the researchers to work

collaboratively with teachers in'their claS.srooms.

.In.Sweden, acrding to Larsson (95) , ,-he move towards

sch)-d-focused INSET is the natural consequence of a widertrend towards decentralisation of decision-making aboutscbool matters. For example, schools involved in the

."Local School Development; Planning and Evaluation" projçctwere liven complete discretion for planning their five

INSE1 days. One school did so using a working party in-volving representatives & teachers, hon-teaching person-nel, ,students and parents. .The preliminary evaluationresults indicate that, although the imp-get of these INSETactivities upon the internal work of the school has been

limited,' they have.

".- criLrihu ted to a more intense debate ahddscussion in educational matters, to a greateropenness i'h the relatiOns between groups andindividuals, to better knowledge of the condi--Lions under which their 0\11 school works, to adeeper engagement in probl ms.concerning theirown sitwation, and to an in-reased consciousnessof their own responsibility or the sdlution oftileSe problems".

Other examples of school-foc se, INSET displayfeatures of a more centralised or mahcigerial kind. The

M.-mtgomery County .staff development prvgramme, for

example,,is a district level scheme which is ba3ecYl upon

specific performance expeetat.ions for each teacher and

the Linc-)ln .district uses a variant on management b,i ob-

jectives for its staff appraisal and developmentscheme (19). In Canada, according to Fullan (17), osL

school districtos "... seem to be primarily coacerneabout the implementation of provincial curriculurvgtpide-lines within which they interpret and set prioritie$ for

their own district. There is a tension between accomplish-

ing district wide-priorities and individual teacher orschool priorities which sometimes do POL align with the

di!-.ftrict emphasis."

T'ho district described by Fullan in one caseistudyhas tried to pursue district priorities while tre Lingtheas the main target.for change -and enco raging

e,a(fi schowork out detailed curriculum proceQures

and 1 scale f'Ai.PASEF needs and priorities. A simidarappr)actL underliesme recent proposals in.. the J

Nether1lnds (116) and;n a much larger and more gener-outly funded scale, is evident in California (50).

23

")-- 23

A particular study was made of the actual and poten-tial contribution of teachers' centres to school-focusedINSET. As Howey rightly observes in his SynthesisReport (25) there is considerable diversity not only be-tween countries and cultures but within countries in termsof those structures and operations which are referred toas teacher.centres. He does on to argue that -

"While.many teacher centres aee'school-focussedin nature, others are not. It is difficult.togeneralise, but the differences between someteachers' centres and other forms of in-servicewhich are specifically school-focussed would.include the following:

1. The primary focus in most teacher centersquite obviously is on teachers; while manyschool-focussedih-service endeavors tend toattend to the needs of all educational andeducationally-related personnel in a schoolbuilding.

2. Che focus in many teachers' centers tends to, be more on individual teacher needs and

interests, while,in many school-focussedendeavors there is at least some attentionto problems which are best attended to bythe entire faculty or clOse working groupsWithin that faculty.

3. Many teacher centers have a district or.regional focus; they attend tc the needs of1 number of schools. Other forms of school-'focussed in-service concentrate /their energiesmore directly on individual sch ols.

,4. There an effort in many tezic ee centersto dev lop better linkages and o-oedinationbetwecn and among the plethora. f agents andagen ies which ace to some e ten inVolved inthe continuingoeducation of eao ers. Inother forms of school-focussed in service avariety Qf persops external to th school arecalled upon, but the primary goal to attendto the needs of the individual scho and'notserve as a co-ordinating agency.

Fhus, it seems reasonable teconclude thatwhatever,their -)ther undoubted strengths, there is, as yet, noevidence that teachers' centres ar any more likely 0-another providing agencies to offer s hool-focused'INSET.

. Moreover, given the diversity of te chers' centres re-ferred to above, it maY well be more\productiva to concen-trate on identifying effective roles\and strategies forschoolfocused INSET by analysing exaeples of good prac-tice, whereyer these occur, and then disseminating de--scriptions as widely as-possible so that providing agenciesof all types can adopt aid adapt thes Methods whereappropriate.

For example, external advisers or consultants can.manifestly play am important part in school-focused INSET.InT/arson (16) describes,the work of a small team inVictoria, Australia, who visit schools to help teachers todevelbp and improve mathematics programmes. In New Zealand,each education district has a team of'advisers and.FolreSt (I8) ,describes the priorities of one rural schoolsadriser as being:

1. Visiting newly-appointed princirals.2. Visiting teachers in response to requests

for assistance.3. Visiting newly-appointed assistants.4. Visiting teachers to build on ideas

initiatedfon a previous visit or 'at an in-service course.

In the Netherlands (21), one regional centre worksdirectly with schools which request help on subjectteaching. Phis involves classroom visits and school teammeetings. The Detroit Center.for. Professional Growth andDevelopment has a field consultancy service which helpsprimary teachers (23). In England, advisory teachers arecommon and some have particular responsibilties forbeginning teachers (100). Detailed national studies ofadvisory teachers and consultants, particularly in con-trast to those advisers with inspectorial ,functions wou,ldthus be of value, as previously suggested by Bolam,Smith and Canter (56).

Following these accounts of practical examples,perhaps the-simplest way to summarise and clarify thenature of school-focused INSET is to compare and contrastit with the two commonest alternatives - the long courseand the short course. To simplify this comparison theexaMples are drawn from one country - the United Kingdom -and summarised in Table 1. Long courses there includethe in-service B.Ed., and Advanced Diploma'in Educationand the M.E-d. Characteristically, such courses would:

- last up to three,years;- be located off the school site at a university

or college of higher education;- be staffed by university or college lecturerswho would also initiate and design them;

- be attended by individual teachers fromdifferent schools;

7 be aimed at meeting the professional and, tosome extent, the personal educational needsof individual teachers;

- take place away from the teachers' classroomslnd schools and thus in an,off-the-job orcourse-embedded context;

- concentrate ,pn conveying knowledge abouttheory, research and subject disciplinesi

- us: teaching methods like lectures, tutorialsand discussion groups;

5\ 25

Table 1

SCHOOL-FOCUSED INSET COMPARED.WITH LONG AND SHORT COURSES'

Characte ristics ,

Long Course Short Course School-Focused

e.g. (In-service);;B.Ed., AZvancedDiploma, and M.Ed.

e.g: 1C weekly sesionsat a teechers: centreon subject teaching

e.g. Day conferenceand follow-up groupmeetings '

, Aims

I Location

Participants

,

Context

.Length

Staffing

71-natiator/Sepigner

;Content

Typical methods

Accreditation/Awards

Follow-up

Evaluation

Indik.Ldual professional/personal deyelopment

Centre (i.e. off-site)

individual eYteachers L.-cmdifferent schoOls

Off-the-job/courseembedded '

Up to 3 years

Centre/external P

Centre.

Knowledge of theory,research and subject

.

discipline

Lectures, tutorials anddiscussion ,groups

. .

Yes

Rarely

Rarely

Idividual vocationaldevelopment

Mainly centre.

Mainly,individual teachersfrom.different schools

.Off-the-jo courseembedded

Up to,,U weeks-,...

Mainly Centre/exierRal :

.4.4..,A...,- IN

Cen,tre (usually) %

General, practi.cal,:-4-'=-==fob'gPecific,-, .,

knowledge and Ski1ct*..c.-:.

.,

N ,

Workshops,..,films andAsiMulatien4'VN

Sometimes.

,

Sometimes

Sometimes

Group/School (i.e. s-ystem)development 1r

Mainly school (i.e. onsite) ,

Individuals and groupsmainly from one sthool

Job related and soMetimeson-the-job/job-embedded

Usually short term

7Utro?:11: and external '

Schapl/GroLip/Teacher,i'.."2

problem- ,

solving, practicalknowledge and skills

School visits, classroom.observations and jobrotation

Very rarely.

'Usually.

Sometimes .

\:.

\ \

- normally result in an academic award or ac-c editAion Which would often be an aid to aaldry increase or promotion;

..7,- rarely involve any follow-up Contacts at-th-e----

iend of the course; and

-

.

rarely be evaluated by the providing agency forimpact upon teaching perfprmance or school

,change.

Examples of short courses in the United Kingdom in-clude evening or weekend conferences and courses of, say,10 weekly two-hour sessions on topics like primaryscience, school management and in-school evaluation.Characteridtically, such courses.would:

-.lasE for-no more than one term of ten weeks;- be located.mainly, but not exclusively, off

the school site at a teachers centre, collegeof higher education or University;

- be staffed mainly by staff from this external .

centre who would normally in,itiate and design_the course;

- be attended mainly by individual teachers,from,different schools but sometimes by pairs orgroups trom'the same shOol;

- be aimed at meeting the vocational developmentneeds of individual teachers in the hope thatthis would improve their work in school;

- take place away from the teachers' classroomsand schnols and Ihus in an off-the-job"andc5urse-tembedded context;

- concentrae on practical knowledge and skillsbut at a fairly high level of generality;

- use tdaching methods like workshops, simu-lations and films as well as lectures anddiscussion groups;

- sometimes lead to an accre4tation;which maybe recognised f.or promotion (but not salary)pprposes;

- sometimes involve follow-up visits by thecourse staff Eo 'the teachers in their.,schools;

- someti'Mes be informally evaluated by theproviding agency for impact upon teachingperformance or school change.

,

Examples of school-focused INSET activities includestaff conferences, and follow-up activities, staffeveIopment.sprogrammes and COnsultancy visits.Characteristically, such activkties would:

- vary considerably in .length but rarely extendbeyond one year;

- be mainly school-based but sometimes talc?..place off-site at another school or a teachers'centre, etc.; ,

27

27

- be staffed by teachers from the school and byexternal advisers and invited contributors orconsul ants;

in the light of school and group policies;- be attended by individuals, groups or the whole

staff from the school and sometimes by out-siders;

- be aimed at the group and whole staff (i.e.system) development needs of the school;

- sometimes but not usually, take place in theclassroom or some other on-the-job or job-embedded context;

- concentrate on practical knowledge and skillsof a:job-specific and problem-solving Jcind;

- use experience-based "teaching" methods likejob'rotation, classroom observation by peers,visi"ts to other schools and organition,development, as well as lectures, discussions,fi,lms, etc.;only7rarely lead to any kind of award,accreditation, salary increase or promotion;

- normally involve follow-up work as anintegral p t of the activity; and .

- sometimec ejnformally evaluated by schoolsLaffFr impact upon teaching performance andschr

comparative, pperational characteri.sation ofschool fp-Used, INSET should be read alongside the earlierone.quotede om Perry (105) and the definition inHowey.s. gynth;,sis Re ort (25):

"In summary,. ol-focused in-service can bedefined as th e continuing education activities'Which-lbcus upon-the interest, needs-and prObIeMSdirectly rglated to orie1.e role and responsibilitiesin a specieTc .school site. These forms of in-service focus not only on individual teacher con-cerns and needs, but on matters which demand theco-ordinated efforts of several if not all,persons in,a-specific school setting. Whenappropriate, both members of the larger schoolcommunity and the student population should haveinput into decisions about necessary changes in.the school and their implications for. INSET.These forms of in-servite commonly call forchanges in the organisational structure andprogrammatic nature of a school. They have impli-cations for.basic role as well as speciftc'behavioural changes. These forms of in-serviceshould'take plate in the form of an articulatedfraMework which considers dimensions of the.Organisational/sociologicalThature of the schooland the curriculum and instructional patterns

!

28 28

f C:

within whi h teachers work. The basic psycho--logical gr/owth as well as the professionaldevelopment of the teacher should also beconsidered."

From the evidence of these definitions and thenational case studies it seems reasonable to conclude that"school-focused" is a term which describes a loose orien-tation to INSET, rather than a conceptually rigorousstrategy for it: Nevertheless, it has helped to establiShthe existence of the internatialal agreement about theurgent need for INSET to be more relevant to teachers' jobsand to the pressing needs of schools as organisations.Furthermore, it has'helped to clarify the widelyLheld viewthat the traditional INSET strategy, whereby individual.teachers attend courses provided by outside agencies, isvaluable but too limited and that it should be deliberatelyextended to encburage teachers and school staffs to plantheir own INSET programmes in the light of their self-identified needs.

Beyond this basic but generally agreed standpointdifferent emphaseS and several unresolved issues areapparent. The conclusions reached in'Howey's SynthesisReport that school-focused INSET.occurs infrequently and

is unlikely to expand rapidly are important ana Prompt the

questfon: "Why should this be, given that the method isapparently/so popular with teachers?" ConceptUal, econ-omic, financial, logistical, profeSsional and organ.is-ational reasons are likely to be relevant to varyingdegrees in'particular coOntries. Howey argues Lon-incinglythat informed and funded support is essential, particularly

at local ad-1pol levels. Moreover, if it is consideredimportant'that higher edlication institutions should modifytheir approach to encompass school-focused INSET,_thentheir-Mternal\sorganiaation and incentive structures willhj4 to be char4ed,so that college lecturers see it-asworthwhile to eng-age in school-focused work as well as In

more traditional cOurses.

Not unexpectedly, the apparently,straightforwardquestion, "How cost-effeCti&e_ds school-focused INSET?"is soon revealed as a complex and multidimensional one.AL ,east four main variables have to be specified in.assessing the cost4effectiveness of any INSET activity:ai s, length, staffing and teacher release and replacement

re uirements. As we shall see, the limited evidence atpr sent available (which generally does not control forthese four variables) indicates that specified forms ofINSET which would come within Howey's definition, are

more Cost-effective for certain purposes.

A third set of issues relates to the notion of on-

the-job or job-embedded INSET. First, it should pe saidthat a genera ly acceptable distinction can be drawnb tween on-t e-job and on-site INSET. An activity may

29

29

take place on the school premises (i.e. on-site);without. being onthe-job. Thus, a management course for heads ofdeparlment held in the staff room after School would beon-site (or school-based) but not in an on-the7job context.. v-i-ag-a-ftd

advising a aew teacher as she taught her class would beonthe-job (or jab-embedded) training: Next, although itis the case that much of what happens throughout the normal,day, for instance staff meetings and team.teaching, couldbe said to lead to professional,developMent, it is surelymore helpful to adopt a definition of INSET, such asHenderson's (81), based upon intentionality: "... activi-ties which are designed, exclusively or primarily, toimprove and extend the professional capabilities ofteachers". Thus astaff, meeting would only count as job-embedded or on-the-job INSEt if that Was'its prime purpose.

However, although, these conceptual difficulties canbe relatively easily overcome, the practical difficultiesof extending job-embedded INSET are often more intractable.For example, the teacher tutors in the United Kingdom in-duction Schemes were reluctant to enter the classrooms ,oftheir probationers in case this diminished the latter'sprofessi)nal status in the eyes of the pupils (55). In .

any case, the tutors frequently could not find the time toengage in classroom-based INSET and this, too', is a majorobstacle to job-embedded work as the Synthesis Reporbindicates (25).

A fourth issue arises from the fact tnat, by its verynature, school-focused INSET is likely to give priority tothe needs of the school as a system over those of the '

individual teacher. ,Moreover, this is likely to beparticularly true.ab a time of economic crisis: localaUthorities and schbol principals are likely to allocatescarce resources, epecially that of release time, toINSET activities which can be justified to their pay-masters as having direct relevanceto school needs. Inconsequence, activities related primarily to the careerneeds of individual teachers are likely to suffer.

3030

V. TRAINING THE TRAINERS

As Mulford points out in his Synthesis Report (32),it is widely,acknowledged that those who provide INSETcould benefit from some form crf training. For example, aparticular study was made of the training needs of teachertutor's with responsibilitiea for providing schoolTbasedINSET for beginning teacherg during pilot schemes inEngland and Males. Whereas, at the outset of the-project,

-,,there were uncertainties about both the need for_and con-tent of tutor training, by the'end the Case for trainingteacher tutors was made most forcibly: 71.per cent of allrespondents agreed that tutors needed some form of train- .

ing. Tutors themselves were most convinced of this,especially, those froM secondary schools (94 per, cent).However, only 53 per cent of tutors considered:the train-ing they had received had been adequate: 87 per cent said,.thatthe LEA should also produce written guidelines fortutors and 69 per-cent thought that on-going and notsimply preparatory training was necessary (55).:

Perhaps. the first task Within any country is to reachsome agreeMent bout who the INSET trainers are. Threedistinctions are worth making at the outset: between .those who are based inside and.those who are based oUtsidesChools; between those for whom.INSET is their primary orexclusive job and those for Whom it is'a secondary orincidental partt of their jots-;---and----b-etwe-an-t-ho-s-e--who--are.seen by teachers as employer representatives-(e.g.inspectors) and those who are hot.

Within schools,, it is rare for someOne to have INSETas their principal job but in large secondary schools-tirore_is an increasing tendency for a sehior staff member(e.g. 6-deputy principal) to have staff development,as amajor job comp6ht,_ This is true in the United Kingdom(45) and has been'ströng-ly_recommended in theNetherlands (46). In Texas, the role of school-basedteacher educatJrs haS&-'been the subject of research andaccording'to Howey (85) the following roles have beenidentified: "resourqe specialists, design and develop:-ment specialists, supervisorS of prospective teachers,team leaders, teacher-training design and development andother specialised supervisory positions.T!

.31

This list serves to illustrate the point that Withinschools t number of people have varying degrees'of re-sponsibiity for staff development and INSET. 'Principalaand department heads-fall: into this category but so, too,do newer types of role like the Japanese school-based,researchcoar_diaa_to_r___C5)_ and the English primar'y.teacherS-who act as internal advisory or resource personnel totheir colleagues for a specialist subject area likesc\ience.

.Mulford (32) reaches the following conclusion:

With outside expertise coming under 'increasingcriticism and the swing to school focused/basedINSET becoMing more prOnounced, the role. ofinsiders to the school (headmaster:and teachers)in thestraining of :NSET trainers has becomeimportant. However, the role of the, headmasterin this ',training poses.a dilemma,- on\the onehand there is mounting research evidece indi-cating the'keY role played by the heatnaster ineffective change, on the other hand, there isevidence that. headmasters (and district.,consult-,ants and sUpervisorS) are not rated high4ybyteachers as INSET instructors.. The resolutionof this dilemma appears to lie in, the suggestionthat although the headmaster is vital forfacilitating INSET, ,the actual training shouldbe.carried out by. teadhers.Unfortunately, the evidence and suggestionsthat teachers be given ,the-pre7-eminent voice inIflSEF should not be const,ued di-at-they alsodesire to be, or are currently competent_as,INSEP trainers. Only a small proportion of'teachers would like to teach in-service courses'---.

,and when they do they tend both to instruct, ratherthan stimulate or-encourage,and have problems oflegitimacy and.expertise in the eye8 of their'peers - particularly those who are closest.Research impliesthat people in- sChools need tolearn and re-learn ways of working together, andof sharing power and decision-making."

Encouragingly, new ways that can work effectivelywith peers have been reported. Batten (47) says ',hat anelement that emerges strongly fromconsideration of thevaqety of in-service activities encompassed by this'rep rt is 'the iMportance of peer-group influence. Thewo d of the in ormed teacher, or pareat,nist-ratoris likely to b heeded and acted upon by the.peer 'groupmo e readily tilhan rnfOrmation received from any othersc urce. He adds Liiat the opportunity to observe othert achers in adtion, through school visits.or teachere change, has been foundloy teachers to be a useful in-ervice activib, and could be included by' more development,omMittees in their policy-making and planning. Otherxamples include the use of peer group panels (97): .

3232

"- They act as e sounding board for one -a-n-CiThe-r'cself-analysis of needs, and for. ideas andplans .for-improvement.

,-.. They assist each other in analysing teachingand curriCulum, often by systematic observingin each other's classrooms - using lowinference measures;

- They give one another low inference feedbackon behaviour observed or work analysed, and

- They verify 'for the record', if a record ofcompetence develcpment is needed, the member'sattaining of an bbjective in his/her improve-ment plan."

The term "low inference"is used to describe observationjudgements and fedback based upon a pre-agreed set of '

relatively objeCtive categories. "High inference"judgements are seen as coUnter-productive.

Outside schools, an equally varied number of !Arson-.nel\ ect as _INSET trainers. Often they are employed bythe local or national authority. For example, in a studyof fOurteen,English local, authorities by Bolam, Smith and,Canter (56), particular attention was given t6 thetraining needs of local authority advisers and inspeCtors,most of wKom spend a great deal of their time.providingINSET. Less than 15 per cent of those questioned hadreceived any specific training yet almost 70 per centrecommended that advisera Should receive specific train-ing. Partly to overcome the difficulties caused by theinspectorial aspects of such roles., many national, stateand local systems have inteoduced,some form of advisoryteacher whOse Mein job is INSET,'egpecially for primaryschools. For example, 'in the United States, Rauh (107)describes the work of insffructional associates andHowey (85) summarises work on the-edvisory teachers' role;Groenhagen (21) outlines the,ways in which members of theguidence-service provided-by the_Dutch local and_regionaleducation centres visit and help teachers ia schools;McMahon CIOG1 descrloes the induction role of advisoryt'eachers in England;. -i,pvarson (16) describes the workof a (maths Avisory ,? tgam in Australia; and Forrest (18)provides a very useful cast-study of an adviser to ruralprimary schools in New Zealand.

Three general observations are Worth making aboutthe adviory teacher role: first, it appears to be aneffective way of providing a formal framework withinwhich experienced specialist teachers can help colleagues;second, it seems to work best in primary schools;. third,teacherS appear to respond well to. the role, from whichone may conclude that the-role is a potent one which isworthy of more.widespread adoption.

Another major group of INSET trainers are in theinstitutions of higher education - colleges, polytechnics

33

and'universities. Mulford:(32) concludes.that the p aceof outsiders to the system, particularly those fromhigher edUcation, seems limited in the eyes og teach rs.They complain, he says, that personnel from hA.gher du-cation institutions are poorly prepared to h ip, la'kcredibility, lack mutual understanding and a_e too /remote

thec re t i1ax.14_3ALh_en_schcci1-ba,c'ed act iv i t iesare Tr".e-re-l'red--:-

. There is undoubtedly considerable forin this conclusion but it does require .$Q e-qual4ication.First, there is reason to. believe that teachers' opinionsof college staff are frequently basecion stereot pes andmoreover,'that, when teachers and college staff actuallwork together on INSET activit,ies, these stereo ypes cbe ec..Ided and that much more favourable opinion resu(46 and 100). Second, there is ample e idence that,particularly as a result of.the drop in initia tea hertraining numbers, college staffs are r viewing their roles'and adopting a much more.outward-looki g and chool-oriented stance (46,, 47, 65). Third, :in seve-al countriesuniversities and colleges play little part i9 INSET and itis at least_arguable that this is an under-u ilisation ofvaluable professional resoUrces.

A second important consideration for M mber countriesis to asOcwhat INSET trainers actually do, and mightreasonablY be expected to do. Relatively ew systematicor comprehensive surveys have tieen reporte though thereare several exceptions. For example, in he UnitedStates, Katz .(92) studied the role and fu ctions ofadvisers; in the United Kingdom,,Bolam, Smith andCanter (56) reported on a study of local advisers andinspectoes with particular reference to NSET and inno-vatlon while the .functionS and training needs of profes-sional tutors have also been studied by Bolam, Baker andMcMahon (55); in the Netherlands the oles of internalsupport officials or change agents hav been surveyed (116).The research on school-based teacher e ucators (SBTE) inthe. United States is one of the most nteresting of thesestudies because the. extremely /thoroug review and analysisled to a list of competencies with d'rect implications fortraining needs (84):

urhe resulting set of 20 compecations assumed that an SBTE wperform, as a teacher, the sppetencies as well as flacilitaformance by others. SBTEs:

ency specifi-Uld be able to

cified com-e their per-

1. assist teachers to develo interpersonalskills and effective com unication withstudents, colleagues and school constitu-encies; /.

2. 'assist teachers to gath r and u-tilize-relevant data about o , classroom, and.

, community env,ironMents

34

'assist teachers tO undeestand and workeffectively with different'socio-economic/ethnic/cultural grou0s;

4. assist teachers to trail-slate knoWledge ofcurrent educational reSearch and developmentinto instructional practices;

5. aSsist teachers to develop a personalteaching style consistent with their ownphilosophy;

6. asaist teachers to develop their Understandingof basic conCepts and theories ofthe subjectsthey teach;

7 assist teachers to uhderstand and use tech-niques uenJesigned to.diagnOsestudent ' academic .and socianeeds;

8- assist teachers to design, develop, andmaint in environments that facilitate learning;

9. assist teachers to develop instructional goalsand jectives;assi.t teachers to develop and/or adaptinstructional programs and materials;

11. as'sist teachers tO' select and utilizevarious strategies and models of teaching,for example, concept development,.inductiveprocedures, non,-directive teaching;

12. assist teachers to design and implementpersonalised learning plans;

13. assist teachers to develop effective leader-ship.skills;

14. assist teachers to understand and useeffective techniques of classroom management;'

15. assist teachers to evaluate instructionaleffedtiveness by collecting, analyzing andinterpreting data on teacher and studentbehavior;

16. assist teachers to develop, implementd-assess continuing individual prof 'Onalgrowth plans;

17. plan and- conduct inaivldbal conferences withteachers;

18. recogn e-rhe existence of personal problemsaffect a teacher's instructional

effectiveness and initiate appropriate referralprocess;

19. demonstrate effective pla!nning, organisation,and management skills;

20. facilitate research studies on teaching andlearning.

A third major consideration for Member countries iSto review the range of available INSET methods and to /

assess their relevance and effectiv'eness. Not unexpected-ly.the reports'and case studies include accounts of aextremely varied range of techniques including clinic

, supervision, organisation development, micro-teachinc),

1

3-5

/

35

classroom analysis, simulations, competency-based metnodsand distance-teaching. Thus, quite apart from the sub-:stantive subject-matter.(e.g. mathematics teaching) whichthe trainer may be trying to communicate, there are numer-ous methods and techniques with,which, iJeally, they wouldbe familiar. An early plea was made for 8n analytic and .

critical typology of'INSET mechods (11),but the diffi-culties of producing one are considerable. A preliminaryattempt .distinguishes between multi-media productions,restricted media presentations, media emphasising writtenpresentation, single small-scale aids and small-scaletraining systems and media (.31).

However, even a typology at this level of generalityis difficult' to apply to the numerous approches describedin the case studies. Three of the eighteen'cases summar-ised by Mulford (32) illustrate this point: first, theschool-based project in Denmark in which uniVersitylecturers worked in a consultancy style with a group ofteachers from a school who themselves decided the pro-gramme of study (104); second, the IT/INSET project in.the United Kingdom in which teams consisting of two ex-perienced teachers, one college lec r and five initialtraining student teachers Wan -ogether in a school topromote seir-evaluabi,on and professional development forall three groupa (Henderson!et al, 79)-; and third; theSwedish School Leader Education Project in which thetraining was based 'on interaction between leaders and Onactivities which included some periods of self-obser-vAtion (66).

Two further indications of the difficulties ofdevising a satisfactory typology are worthy-of attention.First is the tendency for any discussion of INSET methodsand materials to be dominated by considerations relatedto distance-learning and hardware-based techniques likemicro-teaching. Important as these are, their utility islimited. The vast majority of IN3ET activities are.farmore likely to.be characterised by 5ace-to-face inter-actions between trainer and,teacher and hence it is helpwith the methodOlogy or pedagogy of heseinetfacionswhich will be of most value to the INSET train r. Second,we may note the continuing debate about the corcept ofconsultancy. For instance.in considering the mpli-cations of consultancy for INSET several experiencedpractitioners and researchers i the United K ngdom haveexpressed doUbts aboUtthe relevance and help ulness of,typologies based sm a "pure" nondirective mo el ofconsultancy (78). Eraut (6r) writes a follors:

"I am adopting a-very broaa-de-firiltion Ofconsultant and 8bandonfrig the impl'cit assump-

,tion in my earlier writings that consultant isnecessarily non-directive.! This cvoids Oroblemsof exclusion by definition and le ves me free toexamine a wide range of possible 4onsuftancy roles.

My definition, therefore, is that a consultant isany.externai agent froM within the educat,ionalsystem who involves himself in discussing theeducational problems of a class, department orschool with a view to improving the guality ofteaching and learning. I mean to exclude laypeople from this definition unless,they areeffectively co-professional - some journalistsand authors might belong in this category."

In this definition the potential "consultancy" con-tributions of a whole range of professionals (e.g. inspec-tors) can be re-examined - 'an important resource factor -but the pure concept of consultancy has to be modifiedwith direct implications for, amongst other methods,clinical supervision and organisation development.

A fourth major consideration is for Member countriesto ask what kind of training should be established forENSETtrainers. In his review of eighteen case 'studies,Mulford (32) points out that training occurs in a widevariety of settings: for example, in Portugal a centrehas been established to define the training needs and hasrun experimental seminars on group dynamics and pedagogi-cal evaluation, while in France integrated centres fortraining adult trainers have been Set up. He concludesthat most of the material here tended to emphasise thegeneral factors that training should take into cônSider-ation rather than specific methodologies. :nese generalfactors were synthesised into eight points: the need tobe aware of schools as organisations, the nature Ofteachers and teaching, the school's context, the Lrainerinput dilemma and andragogy (adult learning theory)\andemphasis on partiCipatorY approaches, experiential \learning and educational administrator training.

Given the wide variety of settings, rol , functionsand methods which have been outlined in this section, themost important single consideration is that trainingcourses ror INSET trainers (just als for te chers) should-be as context-specific as possibl . It_fo Lows that, ifmaterials and training packages re to be/produced eithernationally or internationally, it is essantial that theyshould be capable of °adaptation Eo local/and individualcircumstances and that ways of facilitat'ng such adap-taLion should be built in from the outs t.

37

Oneaspects ofabout costs.'The study oarea in whichdpes fo,7 a mleast'a fewfinds that reon this subje

\PY°."'COSTS, FINA,CES AND RESOURCES

the most important yet intractably problematic r

NSET is that of obtaining reliable information<aplan (38) says in his Synthesis Report:ts of INSET activities is perhaps theults are farthest from expectations. Onetude of hard facts and figures and for at

i disputable generalis tions. Instead, oneively few things çn be gaid objectivelyfor the reasons m ntioned in the intro-

Ascorelt

-duction:_ lac /and dispersion of data and non-comparabilityof programs. kcided.to this is the fact that INSET is'often an ongoilpg activity-of-tea t5ers and administratorscarried on cop urrently with oth riactivities, so that itscosts 'ace of'ie not clearly separ ted out."

This is t ue.p5\both centrali d and decentralisedsystems. Acco din Co Henricson q3 even in a central-ised syStem 1.ik the Swedish one, 'it is, for many reasonsnot.possible to ach an exact overal carpulation of thecost of INSET. .some cases where the total ,costs canbe determined it is not possible to al ocate the expendi-ture to specific types of costs.

In England and Wales; a 1978 govencountered similar problems: "... I

not been able to keep their records ienabled them to answer all the questicreplies to some of the queStios weresome questions raised diffi ulties ofmeasurement of dost and co tlii\no't be

funIform basis as between a thVity andifficulties were apparent part cularinvolvement irT ind ction aqd i 'servimembers of local a thority\adVisory sinstances thefr co ts had t'4? e imput

.1

this was the\first/ uch survey in_xemplifies a' 'stip t trend in Memberwhich'ar see ing t clarify the majorINSET. owever; e general impressione studie is th t nly limited progresscompari on with e categories used

educatio reveals Thus, a stUdy'at

ent surVey (63)authorities had

whichcisely and

ates. Further,it'ion and

fered on athority. Thesen regard to theraining ofices where in some

The fact thatEngland and Wales

. countries, many of,00st components ofgained from the cahas_been made, as .for costing higher

7

the University of Sussex (106) distinguishes betweencapital and recurrent 'costs and between social and intern-al opportunity costs but 'such distinct:1:6ns do not figure .explicitly in the British document just quoted, nor inmost of, the case studies.

c-An Australian study is a notable exception, butalthough'Cameron- (34) gives the capital costs for certainaspects of IN,BET (e.g. for education centres), he dealsmaiply with recurrent costs. Moreover, all the studieshwie, difficulty in differentiating between the proportionsof recurrent costs which should be allocated to INSET andto, say_L__2urriculum'development or sthool inspection.A solution a-d( 'n the British document was to imputethe LNSET probrk)rtion of' a laries but the precisecriteria used and their validity are unc ea

The reasons for these costing problems arise mainl?yfrom the latk of a Clear INSET structure, from the sheerrange.of institutions and agenties which provide INSET,from the diversity of their programmes and activities,each with their-own often unclear goals and purposes,-and from the different patterns-of teacher participation. °In most,Nember countries, the INSET system, unlike theinitial training system, is in a state of fluxand develoia-went and the responsibilities for financing it:are unclear.Hence firm definitions and distinctions are simply notpossible at this stage.

It-should, however, be possible to make some, funda-mental conceptual disLinctions that have practical value.One Such distinction is that between costs questions(e.g. How much does courseX cost?) and finante questions(e.g. Who pays these, costs?). A second distinction isthat between accounting and planning costs. As Westobysays in his Management in EducatiOn Course.at the OpenUniversity (117):

'Putting it very broadly therefore 'accounting'costs are the outcome of retrospectiVe orhistorical allocations of resources which havealready been used (or at least irreversiblyallocated) to.particular goals and activities,whereas 'planning' costing is concernedprincipally with those resources which are therf!Al subject of choice since they have not yetbeen (finally) committed (and could thereforein principle be avoided or transferred to someother purpose). Frequently o; course somecosts derived for 'accounting' purposes areused esLimaLes-of costs for 'planning'purpf,ses."

A third distinction is that between the costs of provisionor supply (e.g. How much does it cost to provide course X ?)and of take-up or demand (e.g. How much does it cost toatten(1 and participate in course X ?).

39

These distincti, generate four basic qüestionsd

- What didthe provision and take-up of "Y" cost?- -Who paid for the provision and take-up of "Y"?- What should the perOvision and t.=1!:cup of "Y" cost?- Who should pay fer the'provision and take-up of "Y"?

In these examples, "Y" coU1d be an INSET. actfvity, course, 9

programme or agency/institution. In principle, -it ought,'to be possible to identify the ma)or cost components to'answer the accounting costs questions fdr INSET within andbetween Member countries, although the relevant data Willnot always be available. The answers to the financing andplanning qubstions will probably be much more culture-bound but here, too, the broad categories should be identi-fiable.

Cameron (34) for Australia, distinguishes petweenfour major types of recurrelg\cats for short courses andworkshops: assembly costs, inclUding those of accom-m,)dation and travel; replacement cdsEs, to cover Lhesalaries of substitutes for particiPating'teachers;

'administra'tion costs, which cover the salaries of generaladministrative apd clerical staff and of general office c

sdpplies and postage; and or4anisation.costs, which cover-lecturers fees, materials and'equipment Tor specific(7')urse3. Re estimateS the average' distribution of these..:-.)sts as:

Assembly 20 - 25 per centReplacement 60 - 65 per-centAdministration' 10 - 12 per cent)rganisation 8 - 1,2 per cent-

In this exampla,the costs of provision and take.-.,p amountto 19-24 per cent and 80-90 per cent respecLively.

BradleY (33) outlines the costs of a fiveday, resi-dential course im the United Kingdom and, collapsing hisc:ategories into ones similar to Cameron's, the fol,I.owingapproximate percehtages emerge: .

Assembly 20Replacement 73Administration,rganisation 7

a

"kr, far as one can tell, administrative costs.do not appearexplicitly in the British list. It is also uncler whether':ameron's "Assembly" category includes the travel costs ofthe lecturers (i.e. the providers). These were inCludedin "Jrganisation" category for Lhe United Kingdom in orderto preserve the distinction between provision and Lake-up;on this basis, one can say that the provision costs were1 per cent while take-up costs.were 93 per cent.

The detailed atcuracy of these examples is less im-portant at this stage thanothe broader issues whi-ch theyraise. For, if meaningful comparisons of adcounting costs

---fur.-IN SET are-to' 15e -mad-e-w-i.th in--and between-co ul rtriesy-aleast-three conditions must be met. rirst, the categoriesrroste mus t becleTined -and ay L eed. Second, . the rela--

,tive merits of different types of unit cost should be ex-plored and appropriate ones agreeth some of the studies .

use casts per teacher, some use costs per full-time teacher,the American report (35) suggests costs per training hour,and another possibility is costs per teacher hour. Third,the costs must be presented in percentages as Well ascurrency figures. Only when these and similar conditionsaremet. will it be possible to make informed judgementsabout the relative costs of each component, and of theCosts of different types of INSET. At present, and cer-tainly in the Australian and British examples. quotedbove, teachers' replacement salaries appear to be theCostliest item by faf;. bdt as long as capital costs areexcluded from.the calculations the full s-ignificance ofthis high recui-rent coSt must remain obscure. Similarly,

'only when these items have been clarified will it bepossitIe to assess the feasibility and desirability. of

the Concept of-opportunity costs into thecalculations.

. '

aplan in his Synthesis Report (38) offers the fol-lowing generalisations about patterns of financing INSETin individual countries:

'Three of the-fiveCountries studied handle edu-0cation in general and INSET in particular in a.basically decentralised fashion. In thesecountries, central government financing' is aimedmore at new and innovative programs; in somecases, this financing is'Arowing in importance.These funds have often been helpful in startingor.maintaining teachertcenters. Central govern-ments also support INSET indirectly through moregeneral grants to local educational or governmentauthorities and through financial support tocolleges and universities. Yet it is localauthorities which are the main'financers of INSET. ,TheY pay most replacement costs and provide mostadminitrative and some specialist.personnel forlocal co"rses. .Colleges-and uhiversities arethe'third,biggest source of funds iR theseCountries Teachers as individuals also contrib-'sute large.amounts of time to INSET, althou hthis is hard ta tötal up. Other. financersINSET include teachers' unions and subject '\

ar4ociatians,' other government units, privatebusinesses and foundations.".

The financial and planning questions - Who -pays andwho ought to pay? - raise wider issues which have to e

41

'considered from vari,us viewpoints. For, as Pickford (106).demonstrates, the de.:isions that precede and follow costingexercises are cruci,illy influenced by the viewpoint adOp-ted- Lt is-therepOre, of consideeable Practical import-ance to review INStT costs from various"perspectives,

-although this isiby-no means easy as is evident froM thereports, several of which predominantly reflect a nationalperspective.

In considering\ acher time as a major cost item, forexample, it is obvious 'y vital to look at it from.theteachers'', as well as from the employers', standpoint.Teacher time is a major.INSET resource and teachers! per-

. a0ectives on this and other costs should help our'under-standing .of their motivation towards INSET and of whethe'r,)1tFC'Jt particular incentives are likely to,be,effecLive.1/At one extreme, the fact that a teacher has to pay her.own fees and travel expenses to attend a course in her own:time could act as a powerful disincentive; at Lhe.otherextreme, the Fact. that a teacher'S employer would.pay allc.,AIrse fees and travel expenses for a course held inscklool Lime could act aS a powerful incentive. In several.countries it is undoubtedly the case that more teachersattend, ENSE,P:in their own time than.in their.employer'stime, F(Jrfexample,. in. the. United Kingdom more*than half'the teacherS undertaking training had been doing ao a'spart of their overall professional responsibility andwithout absence' From normal classroom activities (63).In Cienmark it was difficult to assess the total extent of'this'activity, but.it.Was "surprisingly large" (36).

Yet, since teacher time appears to be the biggesLsinqle .recurrent cost of INSET, it is surely important to-establish more precisely how much time Leachers contrib-ute themselves. This is necessary-nationally and also atshool level. 'According to Baker (45) in the.UnitedKingdom:

"The most significant cost 'for schools is theteacher time required for involvement in INSET..Time away from normal,_teaching duties is regarded°as potentially disrupt:AA:re to'the school sysLemitself and as,a potential Joss for the, classesnormally takenJoy the teacher. Substitution hasto be arranged, pos.sibly on days when severalstaff are absent for other reasons, and ifinternal cover is required it may be seen as Gan'irritant' by, colleagues who have,to lose theirnon-teahing periods. Such factors, coupledwith doubts among a proportion of the teachingforce about the value of INSET; soon act aschecks upon increasing the level of INSET activ-ities as has been evident in one or two-projectschools. Yet school. records to show the 'extentand distribution Of absence among staff, thereasons f,or it and the olasses affected by it,

4242

are not' commonly kept in detail or, if kept',are often not in a form allowing easy retrievalof the data to answer.these questions.

Baker analysed the daily substitution lists in an Englishsecondary school over a one-year period and found that.only 1 per cent of' timetabled periods were lost for INSETreasons compared with 2.7 per cent for staff illness.FUrthermore, 79.per cent of the INSET undertaken did notrequire replacement,teachers. These figures highlightseveral issues, not least the need for schools to work outmethods of costing their INSET activities.

Whether or not teachers are released for INSET also_has important implication-s for the use of providingagency resources. Traditionally, the undergraduate andgraduate education courses provided by colleges and uni-Versities depend upon an identifiable group of studentsattending for a required period, mainly full-time, duringthe day. Part-time courses.often pose major financing,problems. Again, taking the United Kingdom as anexample:

"Part of the problem arises because in allocatingIts.funds.the University Grants Committee doesnot at present take full.accbunt,of work that..univeesities'do with parE-time students.Increaaing the number of students on part-timecourses does.not necessarily mean that additionalgrant is received. Indeed, given that total num-bers of home-based students are fixed, anY substi-tution of full-timers by part-timers threaten's aloss of income.Even more seriously, the fees that universitiescharge for 'public service'. part-time coursesare such that the total 'uhit of resource'(grant plus fees) for part-time students is onlya fraction of that for full-timers. A teacherdoing a full-time post-graduate MA-course ,,at auniversity next year will pay a fee of £1,105.Each university fixes its own part-time fees, butin some places a part7timer could take the samecourse over two years for as little as k150 ayear. In some public sector colleges which have_advanted qualificatiOns validated by universitiesthe tuition fee for the same course is only £5each year."(114)

The possibilities for colleges to operate moreflexibly, say in a school-focused mOde, are also con-'strained by financial and costing procedures; as anAmerican writer argues°(65):

"The work measurement unit used foe fundingcollege programs is typically the'student credithour or full-time equivalent student (FTE). The

43

FTE usually ia based upon claSsroom contatt hoursfor On-campus instruction. ,This practice assumesthat formal instruction in a college classroom ina course TOrmat ls the way tor students to learn.and for professors to teach: tourses offered off:.campus through offices.of.field service or exten-sion tommonly are taught as an overload, providingthe faculty member with extra income. AlthOugh '

some states have adopted 'continuing educationunits'. (CEUs) as a basis for calcUlating off-campus load or productivity, these, too, concep-tualize the professor's work as the teaching offormal college-type courses.."

At local authority or employer level it is especiallynecessary to distinguish between the various types ofINSET for which teachers are actually released. Threetypes were distinguished earlier: -long courses leading toan academic award, short courses of a practical nature andschool-focUsed activities. It was also argued that, in aperiod of economic recession., employing aOthorities-wouldcut back on teacher release for'longer'coUrses first butthat, within that category, they would give preference topractically oriented courses, which they thought wouldbring direct and immediate g-ains to schools.

: At national and local levels the issue of teacherrelease is bound tb be a crucial one. Teachers' associ-ations regard it as the litmus test for judging howserious governments actually are about their commitmentto INSET. The Swedish teachers' unions, for exampleclaim that all INSET activities should take.place inschoOl time (37)-. In the United Kingdom, the "JaMesRepbrt" recommended a national figure of 3 per cent re-lease for longer courses, excluding release for shortercourses, but teacher associations now regard this prin-ciple as having been Seriously eroded by the apparent re-interpretation of the 3 per cent figure to include releasefor shorter courses.

At a time of severe financial cutbacks it is in-evitable that release for INSET should be curtailed but,alongside this economic fact of life, the central import-ance of release as a, professional issue remains potent.As the quotation from the Swedish reportimplies, funda-mental questions about the nature of a teacher's condi-tions of service are raised by the release issue.Associated with it is the question of who should pay, inerms of course fees as well as time, for the two prin-

Cipal types of INSET: that which is intended mainly forindividual professional development and that which is in-tended Mainly for school or system development.

4

In the United Kingdom Taylor (114) argues that therelevant costs need to be apportioned on a rational basis,which balandes individual and social benefits, motivates

44

institutions to provide cou ses of the kind needed tobring about improvements in teaching, and encourages indi-viduals to take advantage of this,provision.

However, the difficulties of achieving such an appor-tionment are likely to be considerable, as the Abericanreport (35) demonstrates: "In one locality a universitycourse may be.considered a legitimate INSET.eXpense, paidfor by a school district, while in another Lhere may beldgislation barring use of INSET funds for collegecourses."

It is within this context of SOME uncertainty aboutINSET costs, and sometimes heated iscu:zsions about whoshould pay, that various poSsibilities for making more ef-fective use of INSET resources are.being explored. Threeexamples i IT e this point. First, at school level a

of deveiopmentSare notable. Several countries nowfinance a speci.fied2number of INSET days for whole sLaffs.In Sweden five such days have been set aside as study dayssince 1962. 'In\Denmark every school and its staff hasfour whole days'peryear, where they can plan their ownarrangement of INSET and there is.money to pay externalexperts for their contribution8.

In Australia, he. Schools Commission'S INSET Programme.. provides fundS, disbursed,through Regional INSET Committees,'which are aVailable to school staffs wishing to run theirown INSET programmes (16). the Netherlands, the DuLchCatholic Schools Council has'yroposed a differentiatedsystem of financing for external support to schools whichwould include an element for IN,SET over which the.schoolwould have control (116). DeviCes like these for stimu-L.,lating INSET at school level ought to be the subject ofseparate study.

Second, although a nuMber of methods have been tried_to stimulate and facilitate the effective use of providingagency resources, these have not been Without problems.In the United KingdoM, two-ninths of staff time incolleges of education was designated for INSET purposespartly with the aim of involving them in school-focusedwork but:, for the reasons elaborated in an American con-text by Drummond (65), most colleges have used theirstaffing allocation for conventional courses. \The waysin which the roles of poential providing agencles aredefined, both by their oembers and by outsiders,\can be

. important. For example, in the Netherlands, the 1,nspector-ate, the universities and the initial training institu-tions have not played a central role in INSET but theirpotential contribution is currently under review (93):\

Third, a variety of approaches is being.adopted Lo \improve arrangements for consultation, collaboration and '

participation in INSET planning, implementation and evalu-",ation. School-focused INSET is.central to many of these

45

45

apdroaches, especially.where the emphasis i upon teacher-,,,,J

defined needs and prograMmes. Similarly, the teaChers!:-'centre movement, especially- in the United States,reflects

conLera to-give Leachar the pro'grammes. The project's Interim ReportAll) identifiedfiyd main.governance task areas:

a) Release and financing of teachers to undertakeINSET.

b) Content and methods Of INSET programmes andactivities.

c) Validation of-INSET awards.d) ACcreditation and certification related to

INSET awardS.e) Co-ordination ,of INSET provision.

Although the information available about recent develop-men_t_s____i_aparse, the impression.from the reports ip that'progress has been made on b) to e-T-TpuE that decis1571 about_

release and finance largely remein the prerogative ofemploying authorities. One development is apparent,however,.especially in the United States and Australiawhere there is evidence of increasing involvement ofparent and community groups both in decisions about INSETand in the activities themselves (89),(34).

Finally, in this context, the Synthesis Report (38)highlights an important paradox. Ta it,pOssIi71,e (writes;Kapien:) for the central goVev1Ment to initiate, to fund,....

to encourage INSET, without creating'great resentment byappearing to control and to reduce local powers at a time

when many are asking for more local powers? Should weview any Change as necessarily bringing resistance? If

INSET becomes involved in an I win-you lose politicalpower struggle between central and local government, thisresistance is inevitable, and collaboration very diffi-cult. Yet there are perhaps other ways of approachingthe question. This international study has revealed theparadoxiCal: necessity for central government funding andencouragement of INSET with as little central governmentcontrol as possible. Those' engaged in dialogue 'between,central and local governments on INSET planning mightwant to take this point of View into account. A furtherstep in the dialogue (he concludes) might be to ask: Is

it possible to create national INSET structures whichexplicitly recognise this paradox?

VII. EVALUATION: TECHNIQUES AND POLICIES

With the growth in commitment to INSET haa come aseries of questions about evaluation which usually stemfrom pne or both of two concerns. First, there is la con-cern tnat INSET should bffer value for,mo'ney,.which we maycall the concern for programme accountability. Setond,

e is a conee-rn to i-mip-rovia-the quality-of INSET,, whichwe may call the concern for programme.improvement. Bothconcerns, have direct implications for the purposes, natureand methodology of evalUation.

. Quite understandably, the principal and :fundamentalCeacern'of those who have to provide the reset:roes forINSET is whether it brings value for money. In theUnited .Kingdom, for instance, local aUthorty advisersneed.to be al:4e,to convince local'obliticians thatWorthapending money'on INSET rather_thanson reducing thesize of \classes or on some other sociaI.service likehousing, Ideally, they would like "hard" informationabout the effects of a particular INSET programme on

- Leacher performance and, even better; on pupil or studentperformance. In practice it has not proved easy to pro-vide this type of product or outcomes information. Mosteval',ations have asked teachers to make7a follow-up'judgement, either immediately at the end of'a course orperhaps a month afterwards, about the impact of phecourse. When these self-report's have been checked in-dependently, however, their reliability is. sk)own to bequestionable. For example, Henderson (80) found littleevidence to support the self-reported chang6, in teachers'behaviour following a distance-teaching course on reading-improvement.

It is technically possible to obtain convincing"product" data about effectiveness.if some form of com-petency measurement approach is adopted. Writing from anAmerican perspective, Borich (26) outlines three evalu-_-ation models based upon a definition of competency whichis tied to a validated and' confirmed "relationship be-tween a teaching behaviour and a pupil outcome"._ pef-ii---ence in Europe indicates that it.is rarely le touse such sophisticated instrumenta_aa&-valuation designsbecause they are expensive,_ --eat- the course beingevaluated is usu cLinabl e to,a behavioural approach,

47

47

and because programme improVement tita is bdth easier toobtain by cther methods and is more 1.1ghly valued.

The issues-are poseU -very-el:ear-1-y S-wdish

study (28). For example, it refers to a shift towardswhat could be called a participatory INSET evaluationmodel. IThiS.change s qualitative in nature and can beseen as a reflection of a general trend discernible in agreat many fields. Characteristic features of the modelare, among other things:

- the broadening of the field of evaluation sothat product evaluation is just one of thecomponents;

- INSET and INSET evaluation as an integratedpiirt of the total school developmentpr)gramme;

- evaluation programmes as decentralised, group-focused and field-centred'aCtivities;

- ENSET evaluation as an information service to'the participants about the characteristics ofthe school's whole development' programme andthus a basis for participatory planning anddecision-making..

EklUnd goes on to argue, with respect to data coLlec-.

° ion methods,'.that.

"If you know - and have been able to.cOntrol'-relevant background and situation Variables(frames, processes,,etc.) the products of atraining period provide an excellent basis forevaluation you need no more. You have a kindof one-dimensional eValuation situation (sum- )

mative and product-centred). On the other han'0,if you are uncertain which variables are therelevant ones (which variables you have beenable to hold constant), the mere study of resultsbecomes' somewhat polntless. In this case you alsoneed information that makes it possible to esti-

. _mate the congruence between aims and the didactic--- al model and between the,didactical model and

the actual behaviour. You get a multi-dimensionalevaluation situation (formative and process-centred)."

Essentially then, the argument turns upon the im-portance attached, on the one hand, to obtaining formativeprocess evaluati-n information about the ways in which aprogramme was implemented'to inform decisions about pro-gramme improvement and, on the-other, eo obtaining Sum- -mative,. product information about the effectiveness andoutcomes of a programme to inform decisions about whetheror not to continue with it.

Prace.;s data\and "soft" productdata (e.g. follow-upevaluation) are tAchnically easy to obtain, wre relativelycheap and satisfy ,iome "professionals" but few "poli-ticianSM-ifharff6 .r5ddi.7:t-data aee- teeiliaZMIly camturr---------to obtain, are more expensive and are more likely to satis-fy the "politicians" but hreaten the "professionnals". .

borich (26) is therefore right to stress that "the.'best'evaluation methodology is dictated by context and dependentupon resources at hand, time and commitment of those Con-ducting the study, requirements and policies shaping theevaluation, and, of course, the objectives of the trainingi,rititution.". It is, incidentally, worth noting that

, neither these issues nor the technical problems of evalu-atiag msEr are particularly unusual: they have alreadybeen confronted in the evaluation ol curriculum develop-ment and social action programmes - vide Stake (111) andJenkins (87) .- and have given rise to similar debates andrAval solutions. Nevertheless, as Fox's Synthesis Reportsays, it is doubtful whether this experience is beingoOluately Hrawn upon (30).

, F-)x g-es on to say that there are three main reasonsi

gliven,Ear the support of INSET: stimulating professionaldevelopment, improving school practice and implementing4ocial policy - and three main settings in which INSETocdurs 7 in single schools, multiple schools and ad hoccproups. filreover, he says.that a meaningful discussion9 evaluation must take accoun,t.og theSe contextual

/ .E.features:

"... there are two significant parts. Co thecontext af our in-service education and trainingprograms: 1. that created by the three reasonswe.use to support in-service education and .

training and 2. the setti'ngs in which thesepr)grams are performed. To articdlate oranalyze our experience, to judge our effective-ness, to compare, contrast or accumulate what wehave learned,from our experience in 'in-serviceor)uCation and t.raining will take a preciseidentification of what our intentions are andwhat the setting is. If we'discuss only thesetting, for example, important features of ourown experience are left uncritically analyzed."

of the:many problems which evaluators encounter,Fox highlights three: the bureaucratic context ofevaluation, the choice of evaluation methodology and theambiguity of "ParticiPation". One important issue arisingfram the bureaucratic context is the ."political" nature

of INSEI% Of this he says that the political process ina bureaucracy is focused on how to deal with profesSionalsWho represent conflicting but powerful interests. In

evaluating.in-service education and-training, a varietyof conflicting professional interests may be affected andmany hureaucratic levels may be Involved. Thus, from a

49

:.0`

4 9

'6

bureaucratic viewpoint, the evaluation of in-service edu-cation apd training.- is a highly political activity.

, Fax stresses thatevaluator:

range of-options is open=The

"... there are many ways in which an in-serviceeducation and training program can be inVestigated.There are a variety of case study traditions.There are quantitative methods that can illuminate'the process ano impact of inservice education andtraining programs. There are quantitative methodsof inquiry that can be in.;:egrated with casestudie'S to form singular, comprehensive investi-gations of in-service education and Eraining.Process/product evaluation and other traditionalevaluation methods borrowed from curriculumevaluations (such as formative and summative) areinsensitive to the challenget of evaluating in-service educatli.on and training. Thus, the essencef this reality that a methodology nePds to be

chosen it that a) there are many appropriatemethods available and b) the best of traditionalapproaches to evaluating curriculum reform maynot be applicable."

Fox considers:that discussions,about the need toinvolve:teachers.and others in evaluation decisions are

, best carried. out-in relation to specific tatks. Some '

issues, he observes, are general.; such as the need toaddress the participating educators as adults and careerprofessionals when evaluating the effectiveness of thein-service education and-training on their own perforMance.problems in dealing with traditional, organitationallysupported, uneven power relationships also is sharedacross many contexts. Other issues are very context-bound such as the differing interpretations of who arethe participating educatort orwho are the beneficiariesof the in-service education and training. Likewise, thediscrepancies in evaluation experience between the chosenparticipants in the evaluation may be more or less sig-nificant depending upon the purpose of the in-serviceeducation and training programme.

Finally, drawing on his own experience of an un-successful attempt to give advice On evaluation, Foxfocuses his ?ecammendations on ways of promotingfruitful dialogue between INSET policymakers, programme

' designers and evaluators, rather than on particularmethodologies. He 'sUggests that each,group should ex-plicitly teek to examine the contextual factors relatedto'the evaluation task in hand, should question somespecified assumptions about evaluation and should con-sider certain issues as a basis for a discussion aboutthe viability and usefulness of a particular evaluationdesign. Although the,national case studies contained

5

50

accounts of particular evaluation methodologi s, theirbrevity prevented them from beinr sufficiently context-'rooted. Subsequent, detailed discussions bet een the '

eyaluation teams from Swedish and British projecs _occurred,.as part of the co-development phase of the pxjogramme andfully supported Fox's contention that such d scussions aremore meaningful and useful when rooted in pa ticular con-textual'settings.

Fox's argument that pridrity should bemoting and.facilitating such dialogues betwmakers, programme designers and evaluatorsone. In this context, it is worth L-eferriinterim reports which identified several tation target or focus (policy, progr'ammes,various levels national, local, instiutvidual. biscussion here has concentrated

given to pro--en INSET policyis a convincingg back to thepes of evalu-actiyities) atanal and indi-n the evalu-

ation of programmes 'and activitieS at institutionalbut the issues and recommendations have equal releve-1-zOthe other tai-gets and levelS. Thus,,evaluation5.--or re-views [)1% INSET policy at, say, local author' level ought

be the subject of a dialogue of bhe)cit1d described byFox.

ENSET evaluation can be, and is being, carried outby a whole range of practitioners - teachers, professiOnaltutora .(or their equivalents), lecturers, INSET co-7rdinators, advisers, inspectors, professional associ-ations. and INSET committees at school, college* localauthority and national. levels.. Giyen the likely growth of .

IN 'ET in the mtdium and long term and the need to evalu-ate INSEF now and in.the future, it is abundantly clearthat it would take an army of outside researchers to dothe job; it is equally clear that this would be a totally-impractical solution.

'Although finance and logistics dictate that self-monitoring and self-evaluation of INSET are likely to pre-dominate, we should also recognise thab these are, in anyc6se, desii-able activities for a profession. If effectiveself-evaluation is to be carried out' then three main stepsmust be taken. First, the appropriateness of the formalself-evaluation agents and procedures (e.g. the appoint-ment of professional tutors, local education authority co-ordinators and the setting up of units and committees)should be reviewed at each system level - school, pro-viding agency, local and national. Second, relativelysimple and easy-to-use self-evaluation,procedures shouldbe developed: these will-need to build upon existingpractice. in schools, colleges and'local authorities and

be further refined by drawing upon the methods of profes-

sional researchers. See Steadman (112) for a helpfulreview. Third, key people like professional tutors andINSET co-ordinators in Colleges and LEAs should be giventhe opportunity to attend short practical evaluatiotraining courses.

51

Many of'the'problems and issues outlitied here willonly be srious ones for the profess.ienal/re'Searcherworking on contract to evaluate INSpolicies. . Funding bOdies need E.o belems, too, and need recognise theicentract and the sub_equent implemendesign. Researchers need to considecations of adopting nd advocatingof evalvation: spec.clusive adoption ofthese, simpl.istical.

programmes ,andware of these prob-:implication for theation of the researchcarefully the impli-

ne particular stylefically they s ould beware of an ex-process evaluatilons and equatingy, with illuminOtive evaluation.

Recent e4eriente b)th in- the Uniteld States and in thednited Kingdo sug ests strongly th'aLt a pluralisticevaluation str tej, in which a varp_ety of disciplines i'and techniques\T oth qualitatiVe and quantitative .-. are'emMoyed, may w l be feasible,and more productive - bothpr/actically and theoretically. . I

/Twe mai reiNquisites are necessary if pluralistic

:trategies are tolbe adopted.. First, researchers must be1 n

Anipe,ed bhro gh their training and experience to de ide

\'''

vhat app Jac is ppropriate for a particular task.5,c:old, nati nal f nding bodies and research agencimnst be pre ared,b(th to use larger, multi-discipl'naryr S arch te ms for appropriate tasks and tc look Vo theea ..er and raining needs of researchers. In add/Id:ion,

,

, prcfession l researehers should acknoWledge an opligationto contrib te to the'development of the evaluatyon guide-'liles for/ I ders suggested above

/

lsEr provi. /

.,.,

. . ..

.

.

.

'252

VIII. EFFECTIVE INSET

. ,

Most of the research and evaluation work on IINSET hasbee .in the United States and it'is salute. 'S/ to noteHowey's (85 k that there has been 1.ittl rigorousreview of it. Simitin a recent pape on the sametopic, Yarger and Galluzzo--(120) argue at the languageand terms used to describe programme and activities (e.g."workshops" and "consultancy") a so imprecise that"research on inservice educ on has no standards forcomparison" and that the ore "we know far less than wethink we know" about fective INSET. Another newpaper (75), by T . Greenfield, a Canadian, gives a sombrewarning aboub,t e lack of impact,made by research, theoryand, by extehsion, trafning, upon the behaviour of education administrators. He might.equally well have beentalking about the impact of INSET in general in mostMember countries.

Some progress has, however, been made. B.atten. (47)has reported on ah extensive evaluation of.the AustralianSchool Commission's DeveloPthent PrograM. °She concluded'that no one model has emerged to demonctrate the best wayto achieve,effective professional development. She alsostressed the importance of teacher involvement in courseplanning. and followup work and said that "Nesingleaspect of the Program has been received with such universal acclaim as the breends towards schoolcentredprofessional development."

_Evidence about effective IgSET is also arising inrelated'fieIds__A notable and influential example is theseries of studies into the procebs of change at bheschool revel carried out by_the Rand Corporation.McLaughlin and Marsh (99) summarise theic implicationsfor staff development as follows:

"In summary the 11-0 study suggests thateffective sta fdeveLopment activities shouldincorporat ive geneeal assumptiona aboU-t.,profess anal learning

eachers possess imp, rtant clinical expertise.Professibnal learninj is am adaptive andheuristic process..

- Professional leaning is a long-term, non-linear. process.

- Prof,essionai learning must be tied to school-site program,building efforts.

- Professional learning is critically influencedby organisational factors in the school siteand in the district. 0

. These assumptions support a view of staffdevelopment emphasizing learning for professionalsas part of program building in an organisational

\ context." . .

.. .

Given that importance is being attached to school-.

focised INSET, it is surprising that more use has not beenMa& of organisation development as a strategy for;dm-pro ing the 5chool as a problem-solving system - seeSchm ck (110) and Mulford (32). One explanation is that'it -r quires a high degree of sPecif\ic technical experienceand ompetente on the part of the trainers. Nevertheless,in a comprehensive and critical review of organisationdevelopment practices in the United States and Canada;Fullai et al ('70) state that "it appears to be a good wayto in_rease_instructional innovation, increase,partici::pati.o by all levels of personnel and'to improve variousaspec ,- of task and socio-emotional functioning, if it isdone Li htt"

Following a review of research relevant to school-focuse INSET,'Fullan (17) concluded:

inally,.virtually, all studies of needs haveilkdiabe d that lack.f. time and energy` forp rticipating in professional development is af ndamental barrier to success.It would be pointless to cite numerous others.udies which have resulted in similar'findings.A more interesting question is what does all ofthi_i tell us about effective in-service. If weare ot careful, the answer will'be 'deceptivel:y '

ljitt e'. We know that most-current in-servicewdrk is ineffective because it is frequentlybe-'se, oh single-shot workshops involving largeor in any case undifferentiated groups ofteachers,.provides limited time for teachers to--learn, has:little evaluation or practicalf011ow,Lup support and is not linked to particularc'assroom or school problems. Correspondingly,w also know that the majority of teachers desirem re in-service activities, if they can partici--

a) pate in identifying the objectives, andjn14anning and chogsing in-service activities; ifthe'Prograrl, focus is practical and classroom/sChodI specific; if fellow teachers and localcOnsUltants 4re used a's xesource People; if theconditions (e,g. time) re cOnducive to learning;

54.

and if there is some.direct follow-up and-supportfor failitating the application of what is.learned."

a frequently quoted review of evaluation findingsin this field, Lawrence (96) considered 97 studies andcame to some provisional Conclusions about effective INSET.He concluded- that school-based INSET was more effective ininfluencing complex behavioUr,changes and teacher atti-tudes; that the collaborative involvement of teachers incourse planning led to greater Success; that it waseasier to achieve -success in improving 'teacher.rather thanpUpil performance, in changing teacher behaviour ratherthan.attitudes and, finally, in improving teachers' knowl-ectge rather than behairiour.

Nevertheles§, theLawrence istudy has been.criticisedby Nicholson et al (103.as being "rather primitiveScientifically" _and has 'been subjected to,detailed criti-cal analysis by -Cruikshank et al (60) who concluded that,.becousrA of its reporting and methodological shottcOMings,:the .stucky's conclusions ''Must be considered as hunches orreasonab\e hypotheses". Tne'y .go on to suggest,a way.forward .EV research on INSET Which assumes that it is-only a speOal case of teaching research. The complexi-ties and diffitulties of researching teacher effectivenessare well I;noWn sh.they are rightly cautious in the claimthey .make for their suggested approach.

4 \

Essential*, they ;advocate that INSET researchshv)uld be more.c6ntext specific and certainly this is inline with other cdntempOrary thinking. One of the mainvirtues of the 14awre'hce study isothat it highlighted theneed to ask "effective for what?" and that some methodSwill be effective for-achieving some aims in some cir-umstances.but not in others. Similarly, Feiman-NemserandFloden (69) argue that doiffereat models*%of teacherdevelpment are based upon assumptions about what kind of-INSET is effective; for example those associated withteachers' centres believe that INSET is more effective ifU. offers warmth, concreteness, time and the oPportunityto think.

i particularly relevant- and interesting study,Ind :-h-)wers (01) distinguish between two purposes.

,)f INL;Ei': the "fine tUning" of existing skills and thelearningf new skills. Each brings different problems,but they argue, "fine tuning" is generally easier toachieve. Thry also distinguish between four levels ofimpict of training and five components of training. Thisenal)les thf!r1 to formulate the gflestion: "In the body of ,

reseach (Al training, how much ....toes each kind of training,..7..omp:)nent appear to contribute to each.leVel of.impact?"

,he four levels of impact are awareness; theadquisition °of concepts and organised knowledge, the .

55

CD

0

learning of printiples and skils and, finally; theirapplication to problem-solving frin the classroom., Joyceand Showers argde that it is only when the fourth level

.

is:reached that it is reasonable to look for impact onpupil learning. Their five'coMponents of training are:

1.-presentation otheory or deacription. of skillor strategy.

.

2. Modelling or demonstration of..skills or modelsof teaching..

3. Practice in simulated and classroom settings.4. Structured and open-ended .feedback (provision

of information about performance).5. Coaching for application (hands-on, in-

classroom assistance with the transfer ofskills and strategies to the classroom).

Joyce and Showers summarise their findings asfDllows:

"For maximum effectiveness of most in-serviceactivities, it appears wisest to i.nclude severaland pe,Thaps all of the training components we.have listed (see, for example; Orme, 1966).Where the fine tuning Of style is the.focus,modelling, practice under simulated conditions,and practice in the classroom, combined withfeedback, will probably result inoconsiderablechanges. Where the mastery of a rew approach isthe desired outcome, presentations and discussionsof theory and coaching to application areprobably, necessary as well. If the theory of anew approach is well presented; the approach isdemonstrated, practice is provided undersimulated conditions with careful and consistentfeedback, and that practice is followed by "appli-cation in bhe classrwm with coaching and furtherfeedback, it is likeli'that'the vast majority oftf!.1.actiers will be abie.to. expand their repertoireto the point where they can utilize a widevariety of approachqs to.teaching and curriculum.

If any of these components are left out, theimpact of' training will be weakened in'the sensethatfewer numbers of people will progresa tothe transfer level (which is the only 1E.vel thathas significant meaning for school improvement).The most effective training activities, then,will be those that combine theory, modelling,practPte, feedback and coachine to application.fhe knowledge base seems firm enough that wecan predictthat if those components are infact combined in in-service programs, we canexpect.the outcomes to be considerable at alllevels."

The implications of these findings, which they offeras reasonahl hyp-)thoses, for the three main types:,of INSETdescribed earlier, 41--e considerable. The universities andcolleges that.provide long-courses of the award-bearingtype might well argue that they are concerned with edU=cation.and the teaching of knowledge rather than skills.

Those agencies offering shorter coprses of a job-related kind and those who advocate school-focused or on-the-job training may well have tause to reflect that theirpresent offerings are neither long enough, comprehensiveenough.norcoherent enough to achieve the purposes theyset themselves. Joyce and Showers conclusions are indeeda sharp and salutary reminder that INSET which aims toimprove the complex business of teaching and learning canonly be effective if it is relativelY lengthy, labour in-tensive and, therefore, expensive.

IX. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND

THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH

-In the foregoing synthesis .of studies, enquiries andexperimentation carried out over the last five years wehave attempted to fulfil the primary purpose.of the INSETproject by putting policy makers and those who influencetnem, at all, functional levels, in a position ti extract

% from the experiences.of colleagues abroad those ideas andpracticeg that, suitably adapted, could hely them to im-prove INSET in their own countries. It now remains to ,

consider what general conclusions may additionally bedrawn from this body of informational material and fromthe deliberations.at the final IntergovernmentalConference. Here we shall have a-special eye on impli-_cations for national education policies and programmesfor research.

A. TEACHERS: NEEDS, PARTICIPATION AND INCENTIVES

The follow-up activity on teachers as adult learners'("Adult Learning and Development")Jiag confirmed thatthis is an extremely important aspect of the needs ofteachers for INSET. However, it revealed that partici-pating coUntries had few subsantia1 research findings tooffer that could be easily adapted or used in improvingin-service programmes in this respect. There is clearlyroom, therefore, for considerably more research anddevelopment work in the countries interested in thisfield.: In the course of this, much might be learned froma more directly comparative study of adult education andtraining in other pebfessions (for ,example, in medicine,engineering and, social work) since preliminary indicationsare that several of the tasks and problems are, similarand that some of thesolutions may be generalisable toteacher education.

Although career profiles and other general needsanalysis instruments have their uSes, country studiesreveal that more conte5ft-specific approaches should bedeveloped. There is general agreement, for example, that

58

5 8

beginning teachers -and, at the other end of the experience,scale, principals, both have their particular in-serviceneeds. What is lacking are simple and short methdds ofanalysing the different aspects of.their jobs for in.-service purposes. ErobaLionersT classroom management andpedagogical skills Can be diatinguished from their knowl-edge oT their particular Specialist subject: each willgene?ate context-specific need.. Similar.ly, the prin-cipal's statf leadership and ofTice management functionsgenerate different INSET needs'.

At tpis pOint an important paradox is worth empha-sizing. 'Throughout the many conferences, seminars andreports there.was a recurring plea for INSET .to be rootedin pracbice, to be relevant, to be context7specific andfor theory to be based upon an analysis of practice. One-.apparently lo6ical response to teachers who say this is tosuggest that the needs analysis andtraining support should,both take place inside their classrooms, but this is

-usually rejected as being too-threatening and even un-professional. Yet if. the principal and ultimate goal oflAsISET is to improve pupils! l_urning and if_ ,..1Cyce andShowers' conclusions,(as alreadY summarised) are valid,then) it is surely inescapable,that professipnally accept-able ways of providing classroom-based INSET haVe got tobe devised.

The task of needs identification inevitably raisesthe guestions:' how should it be done and Who should doit? These were not directly addressed in the project butthe evidence from research in several countries indicatesthat the process of making a satisfactory diagnosis is a'lengthy and time-consUming one - see Baker (46) and Hiteand McIntyre (83). There is also general agreeMentamongst practitioners that INSET needs can be more effec-tively and validly identified if the teachers involvedparticipate collaboratively in the process. Indeed,there'is widespread agreement that more effective INSETcan be achieved if the participating teachers can contrib-,ute collaboratively to decisions about.gener.al INSETpoliCies and programmes at all stages - planning, imple,mentation, evatuation and follow-Up. Thus-procedures areheeded at several levejs.:

1. an individual teacher, in consultation with asch,-)ol-based professional tutor, a departmentt-ead, and the principal, and within a schoolpolicy framewOrk;

2. the department or functional group, in consul-tation with a professional tutor, the-principal and the sdheel's professional

'development committee;'3. the school, in consultation with local exter-

nal advisers and the local consultative groupon INSET, on which teachers and providers arerepresented;

5959

'ar groups of- stools, dn canzultation_with local adVisers'and consultative groups;

5. the local authority, in consultation with itsown consultative groups;

6. at national leNiel, the government in consul-.tation with its national consultative group;

7. the providing agency, in consultation withconsultative group;

8. the programme and course organisers, inconsultation with the participants.

\ A key policy issue is whether non-professionals are rep-resented at any of these lemels and stages. What of nom-teaching staff, parents and other coMmUnity representativesfor example? And what of pupils?

One of the most controversial aspects of INSET needsconcern's the feasibiliEy and desirability of offering ex-trinsic incentives for INSET. Inevitably LI-re quebLioh ofincentives was bound up with the guestionef certification-for INSET courses. Three broad 'types of course seem to'take place in'Member countries. Type a)_courses are .thosewhich are neither certifiCated nor ded directly to

\\ promoti-Al or increased salary. 'Type b).courses are thosethat are certificated-but still not directly linked topromotion or sal-ary'dncreases. Type c) courses are thosethat areboth- certificated and linked directly to pro-motloriand/or salary increases. It was clear that many

-16-articipants at the Intergovernmental GonferenCe regardedan undue emphasis on TypeN) as counter-productive andundesirable since it could\l\ead to the seeking of certifi-cates for the-wrdng reasons.\

There can be no general agreement as to whether .INSETshould be regarded as a compulsory duty, whether it shouldbe a eight for all teachers, whethier it should be offeredin school time or not and whether ibshould be financedwholly or exclusively by the individual teacher or theemploying authority. Important and relevant as.thesequestion's are to the-incentives issue, they have to,beasked and answered'in the Context of specific conditionswithin any one countrY.

B. SCHOOL NEEDS AND PROGRAMMES

The general feasibility and popularity of school-focused approacheS to in-service have been well demon-strated in the cgurse of the project. .The strategy hasreceived virtually unanimous approbation because of the \\way in which it attacks problems of relevance and Signifi-cance fon teachers., schools and community alike and \\

because it can apparently act as a potent energisingstrategy for innovation and imprOvement without makingexcessive demands upOn resources.

60

6 0

That_being_said, s_evaral_words'of caution are neces-sary. "School-focused" is still a relatively untriedstrategy:- rather few examples werereported in the casestudies. The available evidence also indicates that effec-tive school,focused INSET requires authorities to deuplvemore autonomy to schools: several ptofessiohal associationrepresentatives at the Conference. pointed out that school-focused INSET could strengthen and reinforce systems whichwere already highly centralised.and.'would therefore be un-acceptable to many teachers. They also argued that school,jocused INSET should be in ao way seen as excluding otherforms of INSET. Although this.does not seem to have beepintended by its advocates, the point was neverthelesS welltaken*: it is vitally important that existing methods andapproaches (for example, the advanced degree courses atuniversitien) should be maintained and developed. .

rhe Conference paid particular attentica. to- the .

que., i77n: What is meant by Lhe sLhool?-=-Notmally ILassumyd that a school staff consists of the prjfessionalteachers and administrators. It follews that school-focused INSET would adopt a straightforward linear procesa:self-evaluation by individuals and groups and the assump-tion Lhat this would in turn lead to the improvement of .

curriculum and inatruction. However, there are, of course,many obstacles to the improvement Of schools and of pupillearning.. Many, if not most, of these.obstacles are quite .outSide the control of professional teachers. Obstacleslike inadequate buildings, poor facilities, poor pupilattitudes and a sceptical community all impinge upon the'educational process, yet their improvement and the.moneythat is very often needed to carry out such improvements,are all beyond the direct influence of teachers.. Ifschool-focused INSET simply involves teachers it is bound .

t2 iga)re this important reality. It follows that forcertain purposes it is necessary to extend the definitionof a school staff to include non-professional workers ihthe school - gleaners., secretarial staff, etc., and ofcourse parents and commuaity representatives. Experiencein certain Member countries, for example Sweden, demon-strates that this can he a powerful means of bringing .about gneater mutual understanding between the-variousgroups and also of strengthening the likclihood thatschool and instructional improvement can be brought about_try)re effectively.

Whatever the composition of.the "target group",: therewas general agreement that effective school-focused IN5ETrequires a sound, well-integrated external support struc-ture whi,la itself depends upon the development of'new andflexible partnership between INSET agencies like inspec-tors and higher education institutions. Within schools,careful planning and organisatioaal arrangements appeArtO be crucial to the success of the.approach.

61

61

(.:.; TRAINERS AND THEIR TRAINING NEEDS,

Advisers and inspectors play varying INSET roles inMember countrieS. For example, in the United Kingdom .they",,,are extremely active, whereas in the Netherlands theirrole in-tNSET appears to be minimal,. It is 'surely import7Lant, for all countries to consj_der whether or not it is ase,nsible use of such personnel resourCes for in-spectors to'concentraeb on their inspectorial role in preference tothe advisory or INSET role, or whether some mixture of thetwo can co-exist'happily. Alternatives should also beiictively considered and reviewed. In particular, it seems(A.dar that advisory teachers on short7term release fromschools can act as effective INSET agents but, as- theAuralian evidence demonstrates, the-way in which theyw-)rk and the targets whicb they, set for themselves can be

crucial.'imprtance in determining their effectiveness.:fzecause---eftheir potehtia-1--however,it_would_aeem

:71rry .-Alt systematic study of advisory teachers.

Within schools, the evidence about school-basedteacher educator roles is somewhat ambiguOus. Forexample, Although the professional tutor role has beenwidely pIblicised in'the United Kingdom,-,iE is far fromclear that it is actually being implemented in many

or that it has been well received by teachers.his is especlally true in primary schools: but even insecondary schools, the role as originally envisaged doesn t appear to be a feasible one. However, what does seemt-) be practical.is to define the tasks of staff develop-ment within specific schools and then to identify peoplein th-)se schools' to Carry them out. Thus; in Britishs'ecndary.schools, deputy heads appear to be well suitedfor this jpip whereas, in primary schools, the head,perhaps working in association with an external advisoryteacher, appears to be the most appropriate person.SolutiOns to this problem will necessarily be country and'context specific:and the internal factors that influencethem should he the focus of more detailed Seudy locally.Luring the Copference, stress was given to the value ofusing peers, that is other teachers, as trainers atschpol level.

in clarifying the kind of training that various INSETtr,liners should receive-, the following procedure seemed towork best. The First step is to identify clearly thepeople who carry out training roles and, then to analysethose roles and consider the'contextual factors thatffect them. The next step s to define-the main tasks ,

of the INSET trainers, to identify.their main clients andto consider what knowledge, skill3 and attitudes thetrainers need to carry out these tasks for .those clientsin the particular seeting in which they work. Finally,the implications of these answers ferany training-the-traihers programmes should be decided.- At present, the

62,

62

training of trainers continues to be an unclear, under-financed and under-studied area in all'Member.countries

D. TRAINING METHODS, MATERIALS AND CONTENT

Further work on the training of trainers should beclosely linke4.with a study of training materials. It isimportant here to learn the lessons of previous experience,particularlyrin t " ed States. The Synthesis Reporton,training the trainers stre thods and ma-terials shou1,0 clearly inditate the context and the pur-poses for whieqa_Ahey were designed and should indicate,ways in which they may be modified for differing contextsand purposes. The validity of this approach is-confirmedby recent work which argues the need to ensure thatriculum materials have the possibility for local adapta-,,ti'm built in to Eheir design and presentation. This Icharacteristic of "adaptability" iS one that is equally/relevant t,7, tr. 1.ning-the-trainers materials both withimand between countries. In other words, in considerio'gthe implications and 'possible value cp materials be,yondthe boundaries of any one area or country, the way in

which they might be adapted should be made explicit fromthe outset.

N\The potentially vast and diffuse topic of the con-

tent of INSET was oot directly or separately addressedduring the project. Rather, a study was made of theprincipal factors that influence its selection. Theseinclude the general purposes of INSET, teachers' character-istics and needs, incentives and participation mechanismsand the imMediate needs of the school and wider system,for example hrought about'by declining enrolments.

The importance of constructing programmes which takeaccount of the needs of teachers as adult workers.wasstressed throughOut the Conference. En this context itis lAirth 1Poking at the way in Apich ectivities and pro-grammes that are designeci,for iadividual professional andcareer development actual14.work. A great deal of. moneyand time is spent, for instaNnce, on. award-bear±ng----c-ourse-l't universitieS and other instItutiOhs of higher education-IL is irely important to ask hoW and in what ways they

are effe,:tive. Moreover, if careerdevelopment is animportant aim of INSET, the position it4 women in theprofession is worthy of serious study: evidence fromseveral (-)untries indicates that they are-seribusly under-represented at higher levels in the profesSi.on and itwould he w-Irth looking for ways, if any,-in wh4ch INSET

'help to rectifv.this situation.,

Three further general issues are worth raising.NThec;r1f7ept of a continuum of professional education.- for\

63

example, the so-called triple-I model of initial, induc-tin and - attracted considerable support.clearly, tht-> concept has profound consequences for thecOntent of the three stages but quite whet these are iS

.

far from clear. The concept of content based upon ananalysis of action rather than on apparently abstractthc-,ry, upon knowledge for action

. rather than knowledgef )r understanding, also-attracted support, but the ways in .

which such a philosophy could successfully be put intoeffect_ are al-so obscure. Tbe third issue is related toboth -yE thest> and it concerns the nature of professionalknwlege. Ieachers aspire to professional status in c,

m:st Nember countries and, if it .is accepted that one,;f. a profession i% that it bases its practice upon a

'11:zt.in7t'iv and coherent. b,ndy of knowledge-and theory,t;h::n it )11.mw:,; that teachers should be able to delineatesuch A i,Iy ,ikn)wlec1e: the evidence from the projectis that this is ri--)t possible, at least at present. TheLmpli-:atins. of all three of these issues surely deserveAr'1-1,r

E. EXI'EWIAL SUPPORT STRUT:TURES

;he first task for the participants in the Conferencewh were discussing this topic was to clarify some of thetIrms inv7dved.. A notable example was that of the term"tea7herp' centre'. A quick check revealed that, in many-:.intrjes, teachers' centres do not exist in any recog-niable f= and that even where they do exist, they differ

flpiderably. Nireover, different trends are,clear: inItaly they are emerging: in the United Kingdom many havebn clsed; . in t'he United States the numbers are ex-panding and in Australia they are more l'kely to involvethe cT)mmunity. The School-Focused study had confirmedthat teachers centres differ.considerably both between

within countries. They can act as the base and focal.,int f.)r. seThl-focused strategies but it does notnte:::7,arily follow that this will be the case. Teachers'

like other external agencies, have to be analYsedand costed in order to assess their actual and potentialeffectiveness in this and other INSET approaches.

if vari.-Dus component parts of the external support. str1.7ture are to bq used to the greatest effect, then itwould seem sensible to try to reach agreement, at leastwithin each Member Country, about certain guiding prin,

The Dutch experience provided useful guidelines..They decided that the first question to ask was "Whatkind c)f. 'school do we need?" Only then were they preparedto ask the question, "What kind of supPort structure dowe need to achieve such, schools?" A development of thisapproach could involve asking the question "How muchc:)ntact does an indiyidual teacher need.with external

64

64"

'support agencies?" .Let us suppose tha.,: any one teachershould have at least one hour's contact per term with avisiting external adviser (whether it be a local inspec-tor/adviser or an expert from a pedagogic centre). Three/

. hours per year would then be the minimum and-it would ./

follow that, having made due allowanCe for the differencbetween urban and rural se-ttings, we could calculate thnumber of such advisers that were needed :in any particuarea. Such an'approach is surely worth exploring inMember countries. /

1 .

/rhe extent to which institutions of higher educil:ionact as AJSE C providing agencieS varies between coUntries. A

However,,if they are to be effectively used, th fr A-clear fro evidence from Australia, the United.itygdonand the United,States that their internal stru'tLWe andthe way in which staff incentives are structur d/in re-

, lation.to t?e more traditional courses would 1-ake to bereviewed. _Af-such institutions are to engage 61 part-timein-service, Ithen---the-...sin -which part-time udents arevalued and financed within-the institution i of crucialimportance. if staff are to engage in schocil-focINSET, then the Way in which conaultanc. vities arevalued must, also be reviewed.. The. it which suchinstitutims are required to,specialise-in -onventionallonger, award-bearing courses will undoubt dly affect theanswers to these questions. At present, fcr example,there are few incentives for college staff in the United

. States and the United Kingdom to, adopt new 'and imaginative,

approaches; they gain-more career rewards by sustainingand extending traditional courses.

J

EVALUATIJN, COSTS, FINA _E AND

RES0,4iCE UTILIZATZON

/

At the Criference, a very simple and convincinganswer'was liven to the.question "Why should we cost andovaluaL,, in-service?": expenditure had to be justified

th focAlly and nationally, and priorities had to beset t) decide whether: more or less should bespent on onefprm of in-serVice compareld with another and on in-5ervi7e is :ompared with, let ps say, the social services;ct; ata.I evaluation data coUid help in establishing thesepriorities. It was, therefore, salutary to hear thec-onciu-,ion reached by the national representatives:thatit will rarely be possible to obtain evaluation datawhichttells us about the effect of INSET on pupil learn-ing. rt :;eem3, therefore, that (as in other aspects

p.,licy/ decisions about prioritieS have to betaken, and will continue to have to be taken, in thelight .)f: information that is incomplete.

-AccDrding the evidence_of--the reports, a greatdeal knwledge now exiats-about evaluation and about

65

. the appropriateness ofiparticular methods in particularcontexts. 'The problem identified in the Synthesis Repbrtwas that this knowledge is not being used properly by ,

planners, policy makers, INSET organisers and evaluators.The solution offered was that these intereted partiesshould hold detailed .and systematic, discussions about thepossibilities and limitations of a f3articular evaluationdesign before, during and after its implementation. Inaddition, it continues to be important that researchersshould be adequately trained in a wide range of techniquesand that teachers and others.involved should collaboratein the evaluation From the outset.

The work on costing in-service has'proved instructiveand in many respects the overall conclusions must besimilar to those reached about adult learning: althoughmuch useful work has been completed, many of the conceptsare unclear and there is an urgent need for further in-tensive and systematic study. Costs are of such Funda-mental importance that it is doubly surprising to dis-ower Lhe haziness which exists in all Member countries'aL)ut the whale issue. At the'Conference two mainreasons were suggested: the lack of agreed nomenclatureand definitions, for INSET activities leads to unreliablecost analysis and the many and varied providing 4enciesoften adopt czifferent costing and,financing arrangemenls.Thus, an apparently simple request for INSET costs to be --""

calculated as a percentage of the total education budgetcannot be met in mos't Member countries. This deficiencyis a double-edged Sword for neither can a precise answerbe giveni to the question, "What are the costs of notproviding INSET support for a new policy or an inno-vation?"

Underlying many complex financial cluestions are the:basic ones of who does and should pay for INSET in termsof both money and time. Several of the reports had re-vealed that a great deal, and very often most, of the in-service in Member countries took place in the teachers'own time although it should be said' that, by'its verynature, this kind of information is difficult to obtainin reliable Form. From the teacher's point of view itseems essential that adequate release time should begiVen as an entitlement for INSET. On the other hand,commUnity and business interests stress that there is noreason for teachers to obtain further qualifications andadvancement at public expense. During the Intergovern-mental Conference some participants expresseg,the viewthat INSEF made necessary by changes in nati6nal or localpolicy should be paid for by the State, whereas INSETaimed at the individual teach.er's career development orpers'onal education should not but thLs was by no meansa unanimous view.

Many financial questions can only be answered in thespecific context of each country's circumstances. The

66

0

question of whether. NSET should take place in employers'time, for exilmple, is bound up with'the booader questioncof teachers' cntracts and cOnditions of service.Similarly, where IrJET is 'yiewed as a national rather, thana local responsibi ity, the costs may be pooled and paidfot collectively.

HoWever, mucMember Countriesmoney from theicited the fcllo,liaison organi-representativeducation austrengthen tsupport for"networks"on similaragenciesinstitutipsubstant.to mounINSET bidhours;-by estordintrain

h can .be learned from the mechanisms thathave devised Le achieve maximum value foravailable INSET resources. Participants

ing examples: establiShing voluntaryations'; at local and national level8", with

s from' teachers, parents, higher education,orities, business, industey, etc. toe "horizontal" co-ordination of externalschools; establishing "leagues" of school andjf individual teachers or principals workinginn ions;. reviewing the roles of certain

insp -c-t--Q.r.,_ate and the teacner trainingn,5/Eo :establish whbther they can make a more

al contribution to INSET; encouraging schoolsteir,lown INSET programmes-by giving them an.et and allowing them to,!'bank" staff replacement

,trenOlening the vertical)ag-ordination of INSET1161ishing local and national ora,nisations,to co-te initial, induction and in-servit educaltion and

G. GENERAL POLICY CONSIbERATIONS

The central-focus ,cif the project has necessarily beenupon the technical and operational aspects of INSET, butthose involved have been constantly reminded of:theessentially,political context within which INSET has tooperate by two factors: the steady deterioration in the_economic cli'Mate and the growing impact of a decliningbirth rate. They prqvide the background against whichall discussions about INSET and the improvement of .schools

. must take place: but, profoundly constraining as theyundoubtedly are, they should not prevent'serious consider-ation being given to what can still be achieved. What-ever the immediate circumstances, INSET policy will con- o,tinue to be important at all system levels as a means ofmaintaining and improving achooling within Membercountries.

Both the Adult Learning and School-Focused enquirieshave poirqed to a common difficulty - that Of*achievingsustained and continui;ng change. The evidence fromstudies of innovations for individuals, groups and organ-isations like schools and local authorities is that theyall require extremely careful planning, appropriateresources and a well-thought-througn implementation

67

6 7

strategy over a lengthy period of time. Research citedin Section VIII, forHexample, concludes that changes in

. teachers' behavie)ur den only be ancomplished if all fivestages of a lengthy and costly process are carried out,and that effective school change can only take place if anumber of conditions difficult.to achieve, exist.,So, desirable as speedy and inexpensive changes undoubtedlyare from a political.and etonomic viewpoint, they are notlikely to be easily attained, and strategies for change'which assume otherwise are not likely to prove cost ef-fective in the long run. The implications of these find-ings are clearly worthy- of further study, nOt least totest out their validity in differing national contexts.

The critical impact of these differing nat'ional con-Eexts should not be under-estimaled. During the course'of the project, the following factors were identified ashaving an important bearing upon the way INSET wasprovided:and perceived in each country: the degree ofcentralisel curriculum control and how much discretion-isallowed-to teachers for cuericulum development;' l'Aihether-or nAt teachers are government employees-or civil servantsand lAat this implies for their conditions of service;

4the normal length of the LeachZhgday, week and year;.whether the career structure was high or flat and specifically whether or nOt middle management or leadershippositions (e.g. heads of subject departments) exist; 'theamount of discretion granted to principals,over salaries.and 'promotion within a school (e.g. heads' use of a points.system) ; the amount of teache,- participation whichalready takesplace.in, fdr example, the governance ofteacher education.

tr the context of this particular project and of thepresent report, participating countries might find ituseful to conaider the extent to which they now regardINSET as embracing the five Purposes distinguiShed.inDiagram 1 in Section II. The following more specificpolicy questions can also be generated from a consider-ation of these Purposes:

- Who is,seen as the main beneficiary of anyparticular INSET programme or activity - theteacher (Purposes 3, 4 and 5) or the school(Purposes 1 and 2)? 0

- Who actually does and should provide any.particular type of INSET? For example, isINSET aimed mainly at prLfessional knowledgefor understanding (Purpose 4) best located ininstitutio'ns of higher education?

7 Whose time actually is, and should be, spenton any'particular type'of INSET?- Forexample, should INSET aimed mainly at',systemdevelopment (Purposes 1 and 2) take placeexclusively or primarily in.employer or

P school time, and should INSET aimed mainly

68

68

°

at individual developmene (Purposes 3; 4and- 5) take place primarily or excl6Sivelyin-the teacher's own time?

- Who actually does and should pay the attend-ance fees and expenses for different typesofINSET? For example, should the employer coverall fees and expenses for INSET aimed mainlyoat system development (Purposes l'and 2) andshould the teacher cover all fees and expensesaimed mainly &t.individual development(Purposes 3, 4 and 5)?

m Do and shouldsteachers engage in recurrent.eeducation oP a non-vocational kind(Purpose 5)? If so, in whose time and atwhose ekPense?

- In answering these questions, whose viewpoint' is being adopted and would aochange in thisviewpoint lead to signifiCantly differentanswers? If so, what-are the implications of

-these differences?

it must be acknowledged that the distinction between_individual and system,needais simplistic one; butdiscussions about INSET are not helped by the existingmultiplicity of definitions and purposes which Cas we'havealready noted) apparently Co-exist both within and between',countries. The notion of the primary or main pLirpose ofany .particular INSET programme or activity-is ofPered ase'clarifying criterion whiCh.could be helpful in dealingwith intractable issues relating to costs and conditionsof service for teachers. For there is little doubt'that,the nature and purpose of INSET is itself central to t!he,debate about the nature of teaching as a profession or'semi-profession, and about the contractual obligations ofteachers and their employing authorities. For instance;there is the basic question about,how much teacher timeand how much school or.employer time (in the form ofeachen release) is and should be given over to INSET.Associated with this are broader questions about whatpercentage of the teaching forCe actually is, and.shouldideally be, engaged in :self-renewal activities, forinstanc on longer courses, at any one time. Is theBritish suggestion of 3 per cent generdlly acceptable?If so, why and on what criteria? Or is it arbitr'ary and.

:culture-bound? . What answers are given to similarqUestions in industry and in other professions?

An underlying issue burns upon the answer to thequestion as to whethee" 'teaching is and ought to be aprofession or Semi-profession. For example, in theAmerican context, Broudy (57) argues that althoughcompetency-based teacher education 'CBTE) methods arequite inappropriate for professionals, they are appro-priate for pare-professionals. Naturally, this is not aview that goes unchallenged but it does offer one way ofanalysing the vexed question of the content of INSET.

0:

A related question concerns Lhe roles of professionalassociations in INZEP.: The position appears to vary con-.sideraly from country to country; for example, in someCountries, professional subject associations seem to bevery active in INSET and so, too, do teacher,unions; inothers, this appears to be less true. This is clearly anaspect of INSET provision which is worth further system-atic study, bearing as it does upon important professionalissues about the content, governance and finance of INSET.In such a study, wider political considerations should be

c

given due attention. In certain Member cOuntries, severalprofessions, notably the medical profession, exercise con-trol over entry standards, training content and certifi-cation, and steps have also been taken, for example inScotland, to establish General Teaching Councils withsimilar powers. This aspect,of INSET has been'noticeablyneglected in the project.

We may reasonably conclude that the ways in whichINSEr can meet the needs of the system, whether at school'local or national- levels, are being very actively con-sidered in participating countries. Teachers, principals,advisers, administrators and researchers are, all agreedthat school-focused INSET is better received and moreeffective than the traditional course-based model. Indeed,in some Member countries (e.g. in Sweden and California)INSEF is being used consciously and deliberatelyas aninstrument of social polcy. ather evidence to supportthis comes from,the Netherlands where INSET is being seenas a majpr part of e proposed strategy for increasing therelative autonomy and Problem-solving capacity of sec-ondary schcols.

.4Ihis sil5ft in emphasis raises several policy issues.

intconsideritg plans, and priorieies, 'organisers need tobe realistic in their publicly stated expectations and-g.)als for INSET, not least because the wider community andits politicians are frequently unrealistic about suchmatLers,. INSET is no panacea." It cannot make much im-pact )11 those fundamental social, cultural, political andeconomic-constraints within Wich schools and teachershave to operate. Goals have to be, formulated withcaution. Moreover, desirable as,it certainly is to meetthe needs S schools and the wider needs of society, the

of individual teachers must be kept very clearlyin 711.11,d. A balance has to be struck which ensures thatthe legitimate aspirations of inividual teachers.career development and-further personal education aremet. Hence, appropriate funding for advanced studiesat university and for sabbetical periods must be main-tained Luld extended.

-rwo further policy issues are highlighted by this

shift in emphasis. Ae Dutch and Swedish experienceraises the first very directly: to What extent doMember countries consider it desirable and feasible to

70

70

relate INSET policy and'programmes to the promotion of aparticular contept of the school? The Second is raisedby the British concept, not in fact implemented, of the"triple-I continuum" (initial, induction and in-service)of teacher education and training. Among others,Belbenoit (3) advocates the adoption of this guidingphilosophical concept, but it is far from clear what itactually means in practice or how it could be achieved.

H. PRI6RITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Perhaps the first ahd most important conclusion to bedrawn from the impressive surveys of practice and research'contributed to the projectoby MembeP countries is that far_fromenough is generally known about effective in-serviceand effective school improvement. Contemporary economicprezsures should not be allowed to obscure this simplefact.

In partitular, it is clear that the burgeoninginterest and activity in INSET iS, tq a worrying extent,built upon an act of faith. Expenditure on research intoINSET 'has,been minimal, so it is hardly sLIrprising thatwe have so 'little systematic and reliable informationabqut costs, resource use, and effectiveneas, both ofparticular approaches and overall inveStment: Undoubtedlythe position has improved, but a great deal :of researchmust be funded and carried out in individual countries ifthis situation iS to be fully rectified.

No doubt each country 1411 formulate its own cat-egories and priorities. The categories used in Phase 2of this project have considerable practical utility,while the models in the Interim Report, Table 2 andAPpendix 3, offer d comprehensive analytic conceptualtool; both could well forffLthe startIng point for anationalidiscussion of research and development priorities..Hall (77) hes produced an excellent ratiAale and agendafor such a programme in an American context, whileYarger and Galluzzo's 1980 matrix (120) provides a valu-able method for identifying the charactenstics of qualityresearch ñ ENSET. In an OECD context; the feasibilityof furthes, Sharing of international experience and re-search d_tsetves close attention as a separate problem.

Accordingly, in view of the participants,in thepresent project, it would seem sensible to build uponthe work 3r1 INSET that has already been done by OECD CERI,developing it to meet the needs of Member countr-iesduring the 1980s. Several.major substantive demands,tasks, constr&ints and problems from which such needswill arise have already been'identified in Section II.To them one could add several more.:

71

i) growing demands for teacher involvement in.schbol decision-making;

ii) th6 problems of sustaining the job satis-faction andprofessionar deveIopMent ofteachers in a period of contractiOn or no-growth and Minimal promotion prospects;

ill) the.problems Of sustaining school improve-ment when'resources are being cut and thegeneral climate is not supportive of in-novation;'

iv) the introduction at the sChdol level ofcomputer facilities as aids to the storing,processing and utilisation of data formanagement purposes and of computingcourses and computer appreciation through-out the curriculum;

v) the introduction, or coniknuance of cur-riculum guidelines. to 'insure'that all pupils

---sxperience some' "comm n core" curricularexperiences';

vi) increasingcoMMUnity/political demands forthe inoduetion, continuance or strengthen-.ing of 'ontracts which specify teachers,conditidhs, of service in detail.

In order to make a relevant contribution to theres-Aution of such problems, two principal thrusts forfuture work are suggested'here, both deriving from the"two-fold puspose of INSETidentified earlier: the careerand professional development of individual teachers andthe development, Of the school,or the wider educationalsystem but with the parameters of.both being extendedamong the following lines.

Continuing Professional Education (Co.P.Ed.)

The earlier focus on the ways in which INSET meetsthe professional and career needs of individual teachersshould be extended to embrace the initial and induction,as well as thc in-service stages, thus rooting teachereducation firmly in a recurrent or continuing educationperspective Although it is important ehat.processisSues of the kind considered in this report continue to.be studied, probably this could best be done aloqgsideaRalyses of immediate "substantive" educational probfemslike,.those listed above. Thus, Co.P,Ed. process issueswould -Nk,studied in relation to topics like the managemertof contraCtion and the transition.from school to work. '

,ithin thi'S-..framewo4, certain key process topicswarrant further sb-dy, notably:

i) work completed--or proected on the inductionphase, e.g. in AU-s.tralia, the United Kingdom,the United States, New Zealand, theNetherlands and Ireland

72

ii) problems related to the articulation of theOatent of the initial, induction and in-service phases of'Co.P.Ed.;

iii) successful methods in Co.P.Ed. especiallythose used for face-to-face, individualisedtraining;

iv) the application of recent research oneffective individual, adult learning andeffective organiaational change;

v) th,e implications of related experience andpractice in the continuing education of otherprofessionals like social workers, doctors,engineers and industrial managers;

vi) evaluation, costing and financing of Co.P.Ed.with account being taken of relevant practice,in other fields of recurrent education.

Management and Administration to strengthen the Problem-SolVing_Capacities-of Schoois

The' earlier focus on the Ways.in which INSET canmeet the development needs of schools and the wider systemshould be extended to embrace the totality of strategiesneeded to strengthen the problem-solving capacities of

schools.. This perspective draws particularly upon theschool-focused studies undertaken in this project butalso upon CERI's previous work on the creativity of theschool (58) and upon subsequent research and experiencein Member countries (54).

All of the substantive education problems liStedabove have two features in common; they raise issues and

'.have consequences for the whole school and they cannot be

dealt with by any one subject department or by an indi-

viddaX,teacher. Alongside these systemic pressures anddemands'there are continuing pressures that impactdirectly upon.subject departments and these, too, require

a response and a-reaction from schools.

rhe essence of the problem-solving perspective isthat schools should be encouraged and enabled to adopt a

pro-active rather than a re-active approacn to themaintenance and improvement of education standards.. The

.--practical.relevance of-these ideas is evident in several

Member countries, including Sweden, Australia, the UnitedKingdom and the United States* A notable recent advocacyof these views occurred in the Netherlands where the"relatively autonomous" secondar school was seen as

havinD the following characteristics:

"... the school is in'a position to make its owneducational policy, which enables it to make a.conscious choice as to the sort of problem it

wants to deal with.. Potentially, the autonomous .

school has a greater problem-solving capacity

73

than the other-two types. By this we understandthe extent to which the school, within a givenframework, is able to create conditions in which:

- it can solve the prattical problems whicharise in the'pursuit of its aims;

- it can take initiatives,.design improvements,test them out and, if necessary, introduce*those which are considered likely to.furtherthe aims.pursued;

- it can adapt the internal organisation of theschool in such a way as to facilitate the above-mentioned process;

- it can evaluate reforms developed by otherbodies, examine their relevance.for its ownsituation, adapt them if necessary, or rejectthem because they are not relevant,to its policy;

- it can give educational answers to socialdevelopments which the school cdnsiders to beimportant." (116)

The diff,ering political and administrative contextswithin Member-countries Will, of course, significantlyinfluence the extent to which these and similar ideascould be put into practice but even more limited versionsof "autonomy" or "creativity" depend upon the existence ofcertain internal and external conditions. The focus ofthis suggested activity would be upon precisely what, kindof internal school procedures and external conditions ofsUpport are needed if schools are to become, effectiveproblem-solvers in the-1980s.

More specifically, the central focus would be uponprincipals and senior staff in schools, or there is wide-spread agreement in Most Member couatries: that the.manage-ment and administrative skills of these senior staff areof cruciai importance. Once again, studies would beconsiderably strengthened by relating them as directly aspossible to substantive problems of the kind describedearlier.

The following are examples of topics which could'usefully be decribed and analysed within this framework.

i) appropriate and effective leadership andmanagement strategies for school heads andsenior staff;

ii) appropriate and effective :in-serviceeducation nd training to equip and support

9 them in this approach;iii)'appropriate and effective school decision-

making 'procedures and internal organ-isational procedures and arrangements fosystematic problem-solving, and themanagement of change;

74

iv) appropriate and effective\ staff appointmentsand procedures for curricylum developmentand implementation at theschool level;

v) appropriate and effective OrocedUres forevaluating and hosting theLlgork of theschool and for presenting n account to thecommunity;

vi) appropriate and effective eKternal support,training and inspection arrangements;

vii) appropriate and effective administrativeand legAl arrangements;

viii) appropriate and effective budgetary andfinancing procedureS.

75

X. A FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW POLICIES

Finally, in the light of a synthesis made by the OECDSecretariat of discussions in the various Intergovernmental_Conference Working Groups and supporting documentation,the following precepts are offered as together providinga reasonable conceptual framework for use when policiesfor in-service education and training of.teachers andstrategies for.educational change are being discussed.

Schools'mutt be capable at all times ofresponding in various ways to the differ-entiated and varied needs of their pupilsand of society.

ii) Whatever the dbaracteristics of the newteaching and learning strategies beingimplemented, the functions, attitudes andqualUications of school personnel villcontinue to play a fundamental role.

iii) pecause of the above, and taking into ac-count the decreasing recruitment of newly-trained eachers and the need to maintain,by all possible means, the internal dynamismof the ,teaching profession, in-serviceeducation and training for the variouscategories of school personnel remains ahigh priority in the coming years.

iv) There is increasing complexity in theproblems that confront each individualschool, and which it must endeavour to.solve under conditions' of optimum freedomof action within its dwn surroundings.This implies that, more than in former,tiMes, training activities should centreon the school and its problems and thatsuch activities should take an increasinglYcollaborative form. It also implies thatrelated suppOrt structures need tb be setup by the responsible authorities, basedwhere appropriate on a clear legal basis,So as to complement and stimulate on acontinuous basis the functions of theschool in this field.

y) rn recent years, the difficulties inoffering attractiVe education and training

76

programmes, in what concerns both objec-tives and methods and content, show thatthe personal and professional experienceof the teachers, their motivations, theirworking environment 7 in short, theircondition as workers - have not sufficientlybeen taken into consideratiori; and thatthose who are most directly concerned havenot adequately participated in the decision-making process. There is general agreementthat, as in other sectors of activityaffected by new socio-economic conditions,the teachers must be able to benefit froma continuing training corresponding to .

their professional needs within the contextof changing educational and social systems.

vi) As a consequence, one important developmentis.the increasing stress upon directingINSET at meeting the needs of the_school,of groups and individuals within the school.The term "school-focused" has bee uSed to .

'describe this approach.. I important,however, to recogni at the philosophyof that stra must be interpreted as

.permeP different types of INSET; theseer of INSET (i.e. the longer

award-bearing courSes, courses for promotion,etc.) should also continue according to thepriorities elaborated between the Variouspartners concerned.

vii) It can be concluded that each member of theschool personnel must be provided with anopportunity for consistent, integrated,personal and professional developmentthroughout his/her career (where initialtraining would only be a starting point),enabling both his/her own training needsand those of the changing educationalsystem to be met as closely as possible.

viii) Any INSET activity must include an evalu-ation device, the modalitie,, of which,according to the complexity of implemen-tation, would have to be discussed among.the Various partners. This evaluationmight help decision-makers and practition-ers chooSe the most appropriate trainInlimechanisms; and, in training_s:ch-emescentred more on the in ual and thegroup, personal an collettive self-evaluation will play an increasing roie,

ix) The issue of Costs and resources fortraining needs, moreovet, must be con-sidered in this context. In a difficulteconomic situation, rising costs involvedin teacher replacement raise the tho,rn/problem of how training costs shouldmet.

2

x) The impact cf the economic, and demographictrends on all the above issues results in agrowing politicisation of the debate con-cerning the teaching prOfeSsion and i 4.rti-c'Olar its training context. I d be,use-ful if all the partners ,conterned could'agreeto discuss these key issues as explicitly aspossible, in terms of both objectives andmeans, and to this end strive for a consistentamelioration of the neces4ary qualitative andquantitative data.

ARO,

XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. THE ( T PROJECT

pub-II-shed repOrts and documents prepared in thetr4mework of the Project.

Phase 1

The following national reports, each containingdetailed bibliographies, were made generally availableas Gratis Documents in 1976 under' the general title:'

Innovation in In-Service Education and Trainin f

1. AOstralia : M. Skilbeck vans and,J Har

2. Canada M. Belanger_Le : C. Belbenoit

Germany/Switzerland : K. Frey, P. Posch, U. Kröll,J. Cavadini, U.P. Lattman,H. Fischer and K. Arregger

5. Japan : H. Azuma

Netherlands : N. Deen and E.S. Boeder-Rijdes

7.weden : S. Marklund and H. Eklund

8. United-,,Kingdom : R. Bolam and J. Porter'.

9. United States : L. Rubin and K. Howey

10. Italy M. Reguzzoni

11. fnnovation in In-Service Education and Training ofTeachers: Practice and Theory (R. Bolam), OECD/CERI, Paris, 1978 (referred to as the "InterimReport").

Phase 2

(Headings conform with the devolution of workas shown on the Structural Chart, p. 7)

Adult learning and development

12. Points of View Reflecting Experience in the UnitedKingdom (James Porter, with contributions by:Clem Adelman, Jack Chambers, L. John ,Chapman,John Elliott), 1979.

l. Ah American Point of View (Dean Corrigan,Martin Haberman, Kenneth Howey), 1979.

14. Isues And Practices, in Adult Education: Some Points)f Reference for Teacher Training (Gilles Ferry),1979.

15. Synthesis Report ( . Corrigan) , 1980.

Scho.)1-focuaed tra.ining and teachers' centres

,.-16. The Australian Experience(L. Ingvarson et 980.

17. Tho Canadian Experience (M. Fullan), 1980.,

18. The, New Zealacid Experience (A. Forrest),', 1980.

19. The United States Experience (K. Howey), 1980.

. Veachers' Centres in Italy (M. Vicentini-Missoni),1)78.

21. Educational Guidance Services in the Netherlands(B. Groenhagen), 1978.

22. Teachers' Centres in the United Kingdom (A. Griggswith the assistance of J. Gregory), 1978.

21. Teachers' Centres in the United States (K. Devaney),i978.

24. qeachers' Centres in ustralia (B. Fallon), 19781

25. Synthesis Report: School-focused In-serviceEducation: Clarification of a new concept And 41straegy (K. Howey)., IA80:

8080

The evaluatiOn of INSET

26. Three School-based Models for Conducting Follow-upof Teacher Education and Training (Gary D. Borich),1978.

27. The Evaluation of INSET for Teachers,in the UnitedKingdom (Colin McCabe), 1978.

28. The Evaluation of INSET-for Teachers in Sweden(Harald Eklund), 1978.

29. The Evaluatibn of INSET for Teachers in°Denmarka (JOrgen Gregersen), 1978.

_..----'

30.. Synthesis Report: Req,ecting upon Evaluation (..1%---Fox),1980. . - \

...---

_.....----

-., -

. The utilisation of new terials-----"'

31,. Synthesis Report (P. DSbriCh et al.), 1980.

....-

The role and tr'aining of teacher trainers

32. Synthe,s:rs Report (B. Mulford), 1980..-2-

The cost and efficient utilisation of resources

33. In England and Wales (H.W. Bradley), 1978.

34. The Australian Experience (Peter Cameron), 1978.

35. Some United States Experiences (John C. Thurber),1979.

.36. A Danish Case Study (Henning Andersen and

Tom Ploug Olsen); 1979.

37..The Swedish Example (S.E. Henricson), 1980.

38. Synthesis Report (P. Kaplan)) 1980.

Co-development.activities

39. Final conclusions of the Stockholm Conference, 1977.

40. General Report and Conclusions of the Palm BeachWorkshop, 1978.

41. General Report and Conclusions of the BournemouthWorkshop, 1278.

81

81

international Seminer,on Teacher_Participation inSchool-Focused INSET, 1979.

43. Synthesis Report: Co-development in iNSET - AnEvaluation (E.S. Hendeeson), 1981.

B. GENERAL REFERENCES

The Continuijig interest in,and cOmmitment to INSET isevident from the burgeoning literature on the subject. I0a stimulating account of European developments,,Taylorspoke of "the cnorus, of subport for improved in-serviceeducat:ion and training.for teacherg that has characterjsededucational discussion in most developed countries inrecent years" (p. 198) while related European trends are-retlected in a review of EEC'work by Belbenoit and in therecent emphasis on the training of administrators (McHugth.,,and Parkes).

In a book devoted mainly,to innovations in initialteacher education, Turnery reviewed INSET develoPments inAustralia and predicted (p. 70) a steady growth in INSETover the next 25 years. In New Zealand a national reviewhas recommended that induction and in-service shouldbeimproved (Hill).

The continuing interest in Canada is indicated inWideen et al. (1979). 'Of the'many publications in theUnited States the following are notable: an extremelythorough act comprehensive concepWal analysis byJoyce et al. (1976); a general review of the field byRubin (1978); the newsletters and literature surveys bythe National Council of States on In-ServiceEducation,(1979 and,Johnson (1980) and a review of research anddevelopment priorities in teacher education carried outunder the auspices 'of the National Institwte of Education

, (Hall, 1979).

//

Relevant work in nonOECD and third world countriesis discussed by Laderriere (1975), by Goble and'Porter

4 .(1977), in contributions to Hoyle (1980) and in a reviewof progress in Anglophone Africa by Greenland et al. (1981):

This selective bibliography consists mainly ofBritish and American studies because of the writer's,familiarity with these sources- It is, of, course, recog-nised that cbmparable work.exists in other Membercountries°

44. American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation, 1978, Emerging Professional ROles forTeacher Educators. Washington DC: AACTE.'

'82

.45. Baker K., 1979,'"The staff tutor role: a case study' .

in Bolam, Baker and McMahon (55).

46. Baker K., 1980, The Schools and In-Service TeacherEducation (SITE) Project: A Report on the First '

Year, 1978,-79, Uffiversgity of Bristol School ofEducation.

47. Batten M.y1979, NAtional Evaluation of the DepartmentProgram, Canberra? Schools Commission.

48. Belbenoit G., 1979, 'INSET in the EUropegn ComMunity,Edocation Series 8. BrUssels: Office for' OfficialPublicatins of the EUropean Community,/

49. Bilkings D.E., 1977, "The nature and aCope of staffdevelopment in institutions of higher education"in Elton L. and S.immonds K.(eds); Staff Developmentin Higher Education, London: Society for Researchinto Higher Education.

SO. Birdsall L., Gordon D.M. 'And Bond L.G., 1978.A. Framework fon, BuildingEffective, ComprehensiveSchoor*ImproOement.and;Staff.Development Prolrams:

. A Process Model'i.Sacramento: California StateDepartment of Educatton.

1

51. Bolam R:, 1975, "The management of eduCationalchange: .TowardS a conceptual,framework", in ,

Houghton V.P. McHugh C.A.R. and 1-lorg,In C.(cds.) .Management in Education Reader 1: The Managementof Organisations and Individuals, London: WardLock.

52. Bolam R. 1976, "The :types of environment 'most.likely to favbur the active and effetive pazytici:-pation. of teachers-in educational irrovation" inNew Patterns Of Teacher Education and Tasks -Teachers.as Innovators, Paris, OECD..

53. B-dam R., 19791"Evaluating in-service education andtraining: A national-perspectiv&", British Journalof Teacher Education, 5.1: J-15.

m R. (f;crthcoming), -Strategies for School ,..improvement in the 1980s, Paris., OECD.

55.. Bolam.2., Bak r K. and McMahon A., 1979,."TeacherInduction Pi ot Schemes: Final National Evaluati.onReport", Univ rsity of.Brisuol School'of Education-,

56. Bolam R., Smith G. and Canter H., 1978, LEA Advisersand.the Mechanisms .of Innovation', Windsor, Berks.:

.

_NCER.

8 3

t1'

57. Broudy H., 1979, "Options for teacher education" inNitzke D. (ed.), Alternative Images of the Future:Scenarios for Education and the Preparation ofreaChers, University of North Iowa, College 4ofEducation.

58. Centre for Educational Researcll and Innovation,1978, Creativity of the School: Final Report,Loris, 9ECD.

59. Chambers J., 1979, "In-service LOining and the needs:-).f teachers" in Porter'(12).

Cruikshank D.R2, Lorish C. and Thompson L., 1979,"What we think we know about in-service education",Journal of reacher'Education, 30.1. 27-32.

61. Department of Education and Science, 1972, TeacherEducation and Training, London: HMSO.

5-partment of Education and Science, 1978 (a),rimary Education in England, London: HMSO.

, 63. :enictment.of EdUcation'and Science, 1978 (b),.:1t-a.istics Bulletin 78: Induction and In-ServiceTraining of Teachers (1978, Survey), London: DES.

64. inpartment of Education and Science, 1978 (c),Making INSET WorkyLondon: DES.

65. .Drumm7)nd W.H., 1978, "Emerging roles of the college-based teacher edutator" in American Association, of,Colleges for'Teacher Education (44)-

66. Ekholm M., 1978, "Phe School Leader Education Project- evaluation strategies" in Eklund (28),.

67. Elliott C., 1976, "How,do teaChers learn?" in. Porter (12).

.6. Er.lut M.,- 1978, "Some persPectives on consultancy inin-service education", British Journal ofIn-service:Education, 4. 1/2. 95-99.

19. F iman-Nemser'S..and F;loden-R.E., 1979, What's allthis talk about teacher development? MichiganState.Uni\iersity, College of Education, Institutefor Fesearchon Teaching.

70. Fullan M., Miles M.and Taylor G., 1978, O.D. inSehools: The State of Che Art: Volume 1 (availablefrom ft, Prillian,-Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, Toronto, Canada).

71. Eviler F., 073,. Personalised education for teachers:pere application of the teacher concerns model,'University of,Texas, Austin, Research and Develop-.ment Cente.r-fOr Teacher Education.

84

72. Getzeis I.W. and Guba E.G. 1957, "Social behaviour

, and the administrative Process". School Review, 65,Winter, pp. 423-441..

73. Goble N.M. and'Porter J., 1977, The Changing.Role ofthe Teacher: International Perspectives, Paris:

UNESCO.

74. Greenfield 1975, "Theory about organisation:a new perspective and its implications for schools"in 12-loghes M.G. (ed.) Administering Education:International Challenge, London: Athlone Press.

75. Greenfield T.B., 1979, "Resech in educationaladministration in the United States and Canada:an overview and a critique in EducationalAdministration 8.1. 207-245.

76. Greenland J. et al., 1981, INSET in AnglophoneAfricci, University of Bristol, School of Education.

77. Hall G.E., 1979, A National Agenda for Research andDevelopment in Teacher Education 1979-84. TheUniversity Of Texas at Austin, Research and Develop-

.

ment Center for Teacher Education.

78H Havelock R.G., 1969, Planning for Innovafton through

\ Dissemination and.Utilization of Knowledge,\ .,Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for Research on\ Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute\for Social ResearcO,

79. Henderson E., 1978,(a), "The Evaluation of an OpenUnversity Course" in McCabe (27).

80. Henderson E., 1978(b), The Evaluation of In-Service'Teacher Training, LOndon: Croom Helm.

al. Henderson E.-, 1979, "The Concept of School-focusedrf.1-service Education and'Training",. British Journal

-)f. Teacher EdOcation, 51.1. 1725.

,82. Hill C.G.N:, 1979, Review of Teacher Training,

Wellington, New'Zealand: Department of Education.

83. Hitf'?, H. and McIntyre P., 1978, Planning in-ServiceEducation, Bellingham,- Washington: WesternWashington Univ,..-sity.

84. Huston W.R., 1978, "Emerging roles of the school:-

based teacher educator", AACTE (44).

'85. H-)weY K., 1976, "Cultural perspectives and evolVing

trends in in-service education in tile UnitedStates" in Rubin,and Howey (108).

85

86. Hoyle E.(ed),.1981, World Yearbook of Education 1980:Fhe Pcfessional-Development of Teachers, London:Kogan P4ge.

87. Jenkins W.I., 1978, Policy Analysis, London: MartinRobertson.

98. .J.:Thnsn M., 1980. Professional Development: In-service Education: Priority for the 1980s. .

Syracuse UniversieY School of Education: NationalCpuncil of States on In-servie Education..

.8). Jr.:yce B.R. (ed.), 1978 Involvement: A Study ofShared Governance of Teacher Education, .New.York:Syracuse.University,

-;yce B.R., Howey K.R., Yarger S.J., Hill M.C.,Waterman F.T., Vance B.A., Parker D.W. andBaker M.G., 1976, In-service Teacher EdUCation,Rep.)rt 1: Issues to Face, New York: Syracuseniversity, National Dissemin4ion Center.

)1. J-,1:7fl B.R. am, ,)howers B., 1980, "Improving in-srvice training: the messages of research". inEducuti,)na1 Leadership, February, 379-385.

92. Katz L.G., 1074, ''The advisory approach o in-servicetraining", Journal of 'Teacher Education 25.2.134-159.

Y. 198C. The Dutch Support System in aninternational Perspective in Educational SupportSystems: the Netherlands debaIe, Paris: OECD/CERI.

94. LAdertière P.,. 1975, Trends' and Innovations in TeacherEducation: Educational Documentation and Information

,Bulletin NO.-195, Paris: UNESCO,'InternationalBureau of Education.

°Larsson-T-.., 1978, "The 'Local School DevelopmentClanning and Evaluation' Project4' in Eklund (28).

96. Lawrence G., et al., 1974, Patterns of Effective In-:Service Education, Tallahassee, Florjda: Departmentof Education.

97. Lawrence. G.-and Branch J., 197,p, "Peer support.system as the heart of in-ser.Vce education",Theory into Practice, 17.3. 245-247.

McHugh.p..and Parker D.,.1979, "Ediorial",,EducaLional Administration, 7.1, i-iv.

99. McLaughlin M.W. and Marsh D. 1978, "Staff developMentand school change", Teachers College Record, 80.1.69-94.

86

86

100. McMahon A., 1979, "The external tutor role: threecase sh-Idies" in Bolam., Baker and Mchon (55):

101. National Council of States\on In-service.Education,1979(a), Professional Development: Sources andResources: an Annotated Bibliography on In-Service.EducatiOn, Syracuse,University, School of Education.

1")2. National Council of States on In-service Education,1979(b), In-Service: January Issue, SyracuseUniversity, School of Education.

193. Nicholson A.M., Joyce B.R., Parker D.W. and-Waterman F.E., 1977, The Literature on In-Service.Teacher Education: An Analytic Review, The,National Dissemination Center, Syracuse Unive-sity,123 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, New York,13210.

104. Olsen 1978, "The Lundebjerg Project: a.sLudyof sAhool based INSET" in Gregersen (29).

105. Perry'P., 1977 Final Conclusions of ,the StockholmConference on Strategies for School-focused SupportStructure for Teachers in Change and Innovation,Paris, OECD.

106. Pickford M., 1975, University Expansion and Finance,LondOn: Chatto and WinduE Ltd., for SussexUniversity Press.

107. Rauh P.S., 197g, "Helping teacher: A model for staffdevelopment",'Teachers' College Record, 80.1.172-187. .

102. Rubin L. and Howey K., 1976, Innovation in INSET:United States, Paris, OECD.

109. Rubin L. (ed.), 1,978, The,In-Service Education ofTeachers, London: Allynnd Bacon Inc.

R.A., 1974, "Interventions for. strengtheningthe school's creativity" in Nisbet J (ed.),Creativity of the School, Paris,' OECD.

111. Stake R.,.1976, Evaluating Educatipnal Programmes:Hie Need' and the Response; Paris;.OECD.

.112. Steadman S., 1976, "Techniques of Evaluation" inTawney D. (ed.), Curriculum Evaluation Today:Irends and Implications, London, MacMillan.

111. Taylor W., 1978, Research and Refort'in Teacher .

EducatiOn, Windsor, Berkshire: National Foundation'for Education Research Publishing Company.

87

87

114. Taylor W., 1980, Untitled paper (mimeo), Universityof London, Institute of Education.

115. Turney C., (ed), 1977, Innovation in Teacher EducatiOn,Sydney: Sydney University Press.

116. \°.ran Velzen W. (ed.), 1979, Developing an AutonomousSchool, The Hague: Dutch Catholic School Council.:

117. Westoby A., 1976, Costs in Education: UniversityExamples Unit 8, Open University Course E321,Management in.Education, Bletchley: Open UniversityPress."

118. Wideen M., Hopkins D. and Pye I. (eds.), 1979,In-Service: A Means of Progress in Tough Times,Faculty of Education, Simon Frasr University,Vancouver, British Columbia.

119. World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching'Pr)fession, 1980. Views Submitted to the Conference1.)n INSET and Strategies for Educational Change.Paris, OECD/CERI.

120, Yarler S.J. and Galluzzo 1980. "Grabbing atMirages or Painting Clear Pictures?... Toward3)ivinq the Dilemmas of Research on In-servicereacher Education" (mimeo), Syracuse University.

88

OECD SALES AGENTS, .

otposrtAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS DE L'OCDE

LEBANON - LIBANDOcumcnta Scientifica/Redieo,Edison Building. Bliss Street, P.O. Box 5641. BEIRUTTcl. 354429 - 344425MALAYSIA - MALAISIEand/ct SINGAPORE - SINGAPOURUniversity of Malaya Co-operative Bookshop Ltd.P.O. Box 1127, Jalan Pantai Baru -

KUALA LUMPUR. Tel. 51425, 54058, 54361TIIE NETIIERLANW - PAYS-BASStaatsuitgevcnjVeraendboekhandcl Chr. Plantqnstraat IPostbus 200142500 EA S-GRAVENHAGE. Tel nr. 070.789911Voor bestellingcn: Tel 070.789208NEW ZEALAND - NOUVELLE-ZELANDEPublications Section,Government Priming Office Bookshops,AUCKLAND: Retail Bookshop, 25 Rutland Street.Mail Orders, 85 Beach Road, Private Bag C.P 0.HAMILTON: Retail Ward Slreet,Mail Orders, P.O. Box 857WELLINGTON: Retail: Mulgrave Street (Head Office).Cubacade World Trade CentreMail Orders: Private BagCHRISTCHURCH: Retail:.159 I lereford Street.Mail Orders: Private Bag

Retail! Princes StreetMai Order: P b. Box 1104NOR-WAY - NORVEGEJ.G. TANUM A/S Karl Johansgate 43P.O. EIox 1177 Sentrum OSLO I. Tel (02) 80.12.60PAKISTANMira; Book Agency, 65 Shahrah Oloid-E-Azam, LAHORE 3Tcl. 66839PIHUIPPINESNatMnal 3ook Store. Inc.

ARGENTINA - ARGENTINECarlos Hirsch S R 1 _Florida 165, 4. Piso (Galeria Gucmes)1333 BUENOS AIRES, Tcl. 33:17872391 y 30.7122A USTRA LI A - A USTR A LI EAustralm and New Zealand Book Company Pty, Ltd.,I0 Aquatic Dr.'s, Frenchs Forest, N.S W 2086P 0 Box 47+. BROOKVALE, N S W 2100AUSTRIA - AVE-RICHEOECD Publications and Information Center4 Sintrockstrasse 5100 BONN. Tel (0228) 21 60 45Local Agent/Agent MealGerold ahd Co.. Graben 31, WIEN 1 'Tel. 52 22 35BELGIUM - BELGIQUECCLS LOS19, rue Planun 1070 BRUXELLES Tel 02.512.39 74BRAZIL - BRESILMcsire Jou S A., Rua Guaipa 518,C.'11X3 Postal 24090, 05089 SAO PAULO 10. Tel 261 1920Rua Senador Minus 19 s/205.6, RIO DE JANEIRO (SB.Tel 232 07 32

CANADARenouf Publishing Company Limited,2182-St Catherine Street west,MONTREAL, ()Ile! 1141 IM7 Tel (514)937 3519OTTAWA, Ont. KIP 5A6, 61 Sparks Street

a DENMARK - DANEMARKMunksgaard Export and Subseriptzon Service15. Norre SogadeDK 1170 KOBE.NHAVN K Tel +45.1 12.85 70FINLAND - FINIANDEAkateeminen KtriakauppaKeskuskati. 1, 00100 HELSINKI 10 Tel 65 11 22FRAN('EBureau dcs Publications dc l'OCDE,2 rue-Andre-Pau:al 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 Tel (1) 524.81.67Principal eorrespondant .13602 Al2C-EN-PROVENCE labratrie de l'Unwersiti.Tel 16. 18.08GERMANY - ALLEMAGNE i.OECD Publications and Information Center4 Sunrockstrassc 5300 BONN Tel (0228) 21 60 45GREECE - CHECKI ibraine Kann:mann. 2$ ruc du Stade.ATHENES 132. Tel 322 21 60tIONN-KONGGovernment Information Services,Publications/Salts-Section. Basket-vine Hoosc,21F , leC House StreetICELAND - ISLANDESnacbtorn. Jonsson and Co, h

,--Hafnarstracti 4 and 9, P 0 B 1131. REYKJAVIKTel 11133/14231/11936INDIA - 1NDEOxford Book and Stationery Co

" NEW DELI-11.1, Sandia Hoc.c Tel 45896CALCUTTA 700016, 17 Fark Street. Tel 240832INDONESIA - 1NDONESIEPD1N-LIPI. P0 Box 3065/JKT , JAKARTA% Tel 583467IRELAND - IRLANDETDC Publishers - Library Suppliers12 North Frederick Street, DUBLIN I Tcl. 744835-749677ITALY - ITALIELibreria Commissionaria SansontVia Lamarinora 45, 50121 FIRENZE. Tel 579751/584463Vin Bartiffini 29, 20155 MILANO Tel 365683Sub-depositanUgo TacitVia A Farnese 20. 0019.4" ROMA. Tcl. 310590Editrice c Libreria Herder.Plato Muntectiorio 120, 00186 ROMA. Tel 6794628Costantino Ercolano, Via Gencrare Orsini 46, 30132 NAPOLI. Tel405210

ibreria Hoeph. Via Hoepli 5, 20121 MILANO Tel 865446ibrerta Dott I ucio de Btasio "Aciou"

Via Meravsgh 16, 20121 MILANO Tel $07679Libreria lanichelliPla/.1Galvani I/A, 40124 Bologna Tcl. 237389Libreria Latin, Vta Garibaldi 3, 10122 TORINO Tel 519274La dillusione delle edicioni OCSE 8 undue assicurata dalle mighorilibreric nelle citti pta impartantiJA PAN - JA PONOECD Public:min+) and Information C enter.landw Akasaka Bldg . 2.1.4 Akasaka, -

Minato-kn. TOKYO 107 Tel 586 2016KOREA - COREEPan Korea Book Corporation,P 0 Box Kwangwhamun. SEOUL Tcl. 72.7369

Library Set Aces Division. P 0. Box 1934, MANILATcl. Nos. 49.43.06 to (N, 40.53.45, 49.45.12PORTUGALLivrana Portugal, Rua du Cartno 70.74,1117 LISBOA CODEX. Tel. 360582/3SPAIN - FSPAGNE.Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A.Castelli5 37;Apartado 1223, MADRID-I. Tel, 275.46 55Libreria Bosch, Ronda Universidad 11. BARCELONA 7Tel 317.53.08, 317.53.58SWEDEN -SUEDE .AB CE Fritzes Kungl Hovbolchandei,Box 16 356, S 103 27 STII, REgeringsgatan 12,DS STOCKHOLM. Tcl. 08/23.8900SWITZERLAND - SUISSEOECD Publications and Information Center4 Simrockstrassc 5300 BONN. Tcl. 102231 2,1 60 45Local Agents/Agents MeauxLibrairic Payot, 6 rue Grcnus, 1211 GENEVE 11 Tel 022 31 81 50TAIWAN - FORMOSEGood Faith Worldwide Int'l Co.. Ltd.91h floor, No. 118, Sec. 2Chung Hsiao E. RoadTAIPEI. Tcl, 391.7396/391.7397THAILAND - THAILANDESuksit Siam Co., Ltd., 1715 Rama IV Rd.Sampan, BANGKOK 5. Tel 2511630TURKEY - TURQUIEKtiltur Yayinlari Is-TUrk Ltd SUMaffirk Bulvari No . 77/BKIZILAY/ANKARA. Tel. 17 02 66Dolmabahce Cad. No 29'BESIKTAS/ISTANBUL. Tcl. 60 71 88UNITED KINGDOM - ROYAUME-UNIKM. Stationery Office, P.O.B 569,LONDON SE1 9N1I. Tcl. 01.923)6977, Eat 410 or49 High Holborn, LONDON WCI V 6 I-1B (personal callers)Branches at: EDINBURGII, BIRMINGHAM, BRISTQL.MANCHESTER, BELFAST.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ETATS-UNISOECD Publications and Information Center, Suite 1207,.1750 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20006 - 4582Tel. (202) 724.1857VENEZUELALibreria del Este,Avda. F. Miranda 52, Edificlo Galipan,CARACAS 106. Tcl, 32 23.01/33.26.04/33 24 73YUGOSLAVIA - YOUGOSLAVIEJugoslovenska Knliga. Teranire 27, P 0.13 36, BEOGRADTel 621.992

Les commandes provcnant de pays on l'OCDE n'a pas cncorc designe de dCpusitaire peuvent Etre adressecs a :

OCDE, Bureau dcs Publications. 2, ruc André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16Orders and inquiries from countries where sales agents have not yet been appointed may bc scnt to.

OECD. Publications Office, 2 ruc Andre-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 071,10.1.!