I was honoured to be a panel member for the Gonski Institute for Education event, “Gonski 2.0: How can we support and value the profession?” on 18 September 2018 alongside others who share my passion for the teaching profession. I learned a lot from the other panel members and from the audience. To keep the conversation going, I am posting my talking notes here – which include references and/or links to what I shared in case anyone would like to dig deeper into this topic.

You can view the video of the panel event here (I share my story for about 15 minutes – starting around the 7 minute mark):

Background:

Prior to our panel event, we posted a briefing paper that highlighted our focus – a response to Recommendation 10 of the Gonski 2.0 report: Through Growth to Achievement: Report of The Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools. 

---

Recommendation 10

“Accelerate the development of contemporary pedagogy through the use of collaboration, mentoring, observation and feedback, including from colleagues and students, by incorporating these practices into the core role of teachers and creating the conditions to enable teachers to engage in them” (Australian Department of Education and Training, 2018, p.xiii)

The report expands on this recommendation further on in the text

“Teacher collaboration occurs in many forms, however not all types are equally effective. Active collaboration—such as peer observation and feedback, coaching, mentoring, team teaching and joint research projects—allows teachers to learn from each other and typically has a positive impact on students. In contrast, collaboration that concentrates on simply sharing resources, planning activities or administrative issues has little or no positive effect on student achievement”(Australian Department of Education and Training, 2018, p.59)

---

*Note: Excerpts of this talk were based on the first chapter of my PhD dissertation:  Promoting professional growth: A developmental and motivational approach to teachers’ professional learning (2015).

I’m going to use my 15 minutes to share what drives my research and how I think we can better support our teachers and increase the value of the teaching profession along the way.

I really enjoyed being a primary teacher, partly because my young students were so inquisitive. Together we looked for answers to new questions each day. Like my students, I often pose a lot of “why” questions. For example…why did I become a statistic by leaving the teaching profession after three years?[1]

Despite my enthusiasm and passion for teaching, I struggled professionally to “just survive.” By all accounts, I was an effective teacher, so why was I unable to persevere past that beginning teacher phase – often known in the literature – and in practice – as the survival “sink or swim” phase?[2]

To begin with, I wondered about those resources or extra supports that were missing from my work environment and whether they would have helped with the demands I experienced as a beginning teacher. I was told by an administrator ‘Our school currently lacks the resources to offer you extra support as you go through your first year as a teacher. You will be on your own…sorry.’ So I wonder, would an induction program or assigned mentor have helped pull me in from treading water while feeling “lost at sea”?[3] Despite the school’s lack of formal resources, I did find informal support through my fellow teachers and staff who were amazing – and I still remain inspired and keep in touch with many of them.

Although beginning teacher attrition rates are a cause for concern, experienced teachers are also leaving the profession while citing personal and professional dissatisfaction.[4] When examining attrition rates across career stages and seeking ways of retaining quality teachers, educational researchers often focus on working conditions and teachers’ characteristics or personal attributes.[5] Given the multiple and reciprocal influences that contribute to the complexity of teaching, I recognise that working conditions such as limited professional resources may have been one factor that hindered my commitment to a long career in teaching. Yet teacher characteristics are more often cited as factors influencing a teacher’s commitment and engagement in the profession.

For example, some[6] may have questioned whether I possessed the ‘grit’ necessary for sustained engagement as a primary teacher. Or maybe I held an implicit theory about my ability to teach that negatively impacted my self-concept?[7] There is also the possibility that a combination of increased work stress and decreased confidence – or teacher self-efficacy – influenced my commitment.[8]

Although I had the academic skills for teaching, maybe I had entered the profession already weak in key personal or non-academic attributes – like resilience and adaptability?[9] And despite being motivated by altruistic and intrinsic reasons such as a desire to help children learn,[10] maybe I was feeling ill prepared to cope with the social complexities and cultural realities of teaching in my own classroom.[11] Teaching really does put your interpersonal skills to the test through the many social interactions and relationships – with students, parents, other teachers and school staff, administrators, and with external agencies.

Overall, it is these inter-related examples of factors related to a teacher’s personal and job resources that drive my research. I am passionate about identifying ways in which the teaching profession can help teachers to not only persevere in a demanding work environment, but flourish while feeling supported and valued.[12] The ideal highlighted by Recommendation 10 is a call to action for the system to be one that promotes optimal conditions and developmental opportunities – a system that supports and develops quality teachers who engage in quality teaching that in turn, consistently influences – and is influenced by – students’ learning.

So, the discussion we are having this evening is critical because in order to promote what is best for students’ learning, we need to support the teachers who are in constant contact with students.[13] Therefore, I believe we need to respond to Recommendation 10 through two ambitious areas:

1. Initial Teacher Education: Supporting the development of preservice and beginning teachers’ collaborative capabilities and characteristics, and

2. Statewide Networks: Encouraging state-wide collaborative networks that in turn influence teachers’ self- and collective efficacy (that’s those motivational beliefs associated with a teacher’s confidence in their own and in the collective’s capability to influence student learning).

Area 1: Initial Teacher Education

Like many in this room, I argue that to better support and value the profession, we need to start in initial teacher education – right at the beginning. Each developing teacher is influenced by ongoing inter-relationships between personal factors and professional learning experiences – and initial teacher education is that key first phase in a trajectory of lifelong learning.[14] My experience as a beginning teacher and associated feelings of emotional labour[15] after three years was rich with themes of teacher burnout, stress, and anxiety – all important areas of research aimed at improving teacher well-being. But a deficit model is not the only way to enhance teacher well-being.[16] We need to also combat the potential for teacher isolation and isolated practices with an emphasis on effective collaboration. To do that, researchers[17] – like myself – suggest using motivational theory and research to study and contribute to evidence-informed teachers’ professional learning.

While there is an increased awareness about the benefits of collaboration on teachers’ learning and practice, factors related to isolation still exist when 1) professional learning opportunities are disconnected from a school’s culture and 2) there is little coordination between preservice and practicing teachers’ learning beyond the professional experience or practicum mentorship model.[18]

Since teachers’ motivational beliefs like collective efficacy can influence student outcomes, it is critical that our teacher education programs help develop and link collective and collaborative skills and characteristics right from day one. It is not enough to focus on the how and when of collaborative professional learning as ‘not all types are equally effective’ –  a point re-iterated in the Gonski 2.0 report. There also needs to be intentional and explicit opportunities for our preservice and new practicing teachers to understand who they are within the profession and what they can offer and gain through collaboration. Therefore, we need to be promoting and developing a collaborative culture early in initial teacher education programs – beginning with an understanding and development of the key personal or ‘soft skills’ required for effective teacher collaboration – and effective teaching overall. By identifying, developing, and assessing personal attributes deemed necessary for all teachers (such as empathy and adaptability),[19] we can better prepare preservice teachers for a range of collaborative learning opportunities that extend beyond the professional experience/practicum mentorship model – and lead to the improvement of student learning. This is the driving force behind my program of research.

Area 2. Statewide Networks

By investing in a range of cross-career stage collaborative professional learning, I believe we can help promote the retention of high-quality teachers needed for a range of contexts and student needs in NSW. Speaking of contexts…I thought I would share a bit of what I learned in Canada while doing research with the Alberta Teachers’ Association.[20]

As we know, the teaching profession offers and often mandates opportunities for teachers to learn how to teach their students more effectively. So teachers’ professional learning—commonly known as teachers’ professional development—includes formal and informal professional activities that centre on enhancing teacher effectiveness. The phrase professional development is often used when referencing activities that are arranged for teachers, while professional learning places the focus and responsibility for learning on teachers and their evolving needs. While doing research in Alberta, professional development was commonly discussed as a wide range of programs or activities that teachers undertake to further understand the nature of teaching and learning, to enhance professional practice, and to contribute to the profession.[21] In my research, I also came to appreciate the process-oriented definition of professional learning posed by other educational researchers.[22] For example, Avalos in 2011 (p.10):

Teachers’ professional learning is a complex process, which requires cognitive and emotional involvement of teachers, individually and collectively, the capacity and willingness to examine where each one stands in terms of convictions and beliefs and the perusal and enactment of appropriate alternatives for improvement or change… [within] particular educational policy environments or school cultures.

Through our discussion this evening, I will be interested in how we talk about professional learning. For example, do we highlight frequency and format such as formal/informal, receptive/constructive, teacher-initiated/mandated? Or as do we focus on the people involved – the individual or the collective – and the type of activity taking place such as online coursework, mentorship, professional learning communities, models for curricular and instructional changes (such as workshops on formal initiatives), and traditional workshop models (recognised as conferences or conventions)?[23] All can be used to help better support our teachers, but as set by Recommendation 10, a focus on collaborative professional learning is essential – and backed by research.

Although educational researchers[24] have found that professional learning activities of different types and formats can have an impact on teaching performance and confidence through professional responsibilities and instructional domains, less is known about the impact on teacher motivation. Given that teachers’ motivational beliefs may act as a barrier or positively influence successful professional learning, more research is needed – and that is why I am here as a researcher.

While a range of teacher belief systems can influence motivation, [25] I have focused on efficacy beliefs in my research because they are considered critical and are action-oriented.

Thanks to a fellow Canadian, Albert Bandura – a theoretical hero of mine who is widely described as the greatest living psychologist – we are aware of the important role of efficacy beliefs in all facets of life, but particularly in education.

Teachers’ self-efficacy—the belief a teacher has about their capabilities to influence student learning—is one of the key motivational beliefs influencing teachers’ professional behaviours.[26] Teacher self-efficacy also influences a teacher’s persistence, enthusiasm, job satisfaction, and has been found to influence student achievement.[27] Research[28] has found that teachers with high self-efficacy approached professional learning experiences more positively and confidently, and therefore we need to consider efficacy beliefs to be both a product of and a constructor of teachers’ professional learning experiences. Likewise, a teacher’s collective efficacy—beliefs that their school staff as a group is collectively able to influence student outcomes, even in challenging conditions—is also considered an important area of research[29] given the established relationship to student achievement and academic climate (even after controlling for prior student achievement and demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic status).[30] Overall, teachers’ efficacy beliefs and professional learning present researchers with a complex relationship to investigate – one that includes connections to other factors[31] such as work engagement and effective teaching.[32]

Not surprising, research has found that those with the highest self-efficacy are mid-career teachers.[33] Therefore, key leaders in the area of teachers’ professional learning and educational change – Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan – call for an urgent investment into the professional learning of the mid-career teacher, that oft-forgotten yet dream teacher of the middle.[34] It is proposed that their confidence (high self-efficacy) has the power to increase the collective efficacy and consequently the professional capital of a staff that has early and late-career teachers.

This can be done by moving beyond initiatives and focusing more on networks and processes. For example, there are research-based recommendations we can take from the professional learning successes of the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) – a shining star in the sky of global large-scale school improvement according to Pasi Sahlberg.[35] AISI was collectively designed by all Alberta’s major educational authorities and resulted in over 1800 teacher-led action research professional learning projects that were collaborative, embedded, localised, and supported by the government with time allocations and money.[36] The 3-year cycle-driven projects of AISI were funded for 14 years and aimed to improve student learning at a local level.[37]

According to Hargreaves and colleagues, that change architecture was defined by 4 features:

1. vertical – top-down and bottom-up
2. lateral – project-to-project, school-to-school
3. radial –  outside-in and inside-out research expertise and practitioner inquiry
4. temporal – connecting medium-term and longer-term perspectives.

Successes of AISI included increased student achievement, teachers’ improved understanding of pedagogy, a move towards collective peer learning through the development of curricular resources, an overall improvement of teachers’ morale and skills, and increased teacher professionalism.

Therefore, I believe that the six recommendations set out by the AISI research team[38] can help formulate our action-oriented response to Recommendation 10:

1. plan for preservation
2. identify the purpose and focus on innovation and renewal as well as improvement,
3. measure impact as a system
4. engage the local culture and community by widening the scope of local project partners
5. invest in long-term structures and prioritise flexible funding, and
6. make teacher leadership development a priority.

So overall, the results and review of AISI[39] encourages us to:

• move away from being driven by projects and initiatives and into a more embedded and continuous change process
• invest more in flexible planning and development and less on predictable and time-bound funding cycles
• encourage a statewide network of improvement and innovation instead of a collection of disconnected or loosely connected projects
• embrace a change process that balances and integrates bottom-up and top-down dynamics while also providing the structure for lateral peer-driven processes
• develop a strategy to not only spread and embed existing knowledge but also one that creates new knowledge set on enhancing improvement, implementation, and increased innovation

And I believe some of that is already happening here! So I’m looking forward to hearing from our fellow panel members so I can learn more about the Centre for Professional Learning and to hear about the great things happening at Daceyville Public School. I look forward to being challenged through our discussion on where we should go from here.

---

[1]A recent post by Education Today cites “nearly 40% of teachers in Australia quit the profession within their initial five years.”

Also, see Kutsyuruba, B., Godden, L., & Tregunna, L. (2014). Curbing early-career teacher attrition: A pan-Canadian document analysis of teacher induction and mentorship programs. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 161, 1-42. Retrieved from https://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/

[2]Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor Francis.

Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91, 31-57.

Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 116-126. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008

[3]Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207-216. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001

Ingersoll, R. M. & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201-233. doi: 10.3102/0034654311403323.

[4]Salinitri, G., Howitt, C., & Donohoo, J. (2007). The New Teacher Induction Program: A case study on the its effect on new teachers and their mentors. Paper presented at ISATT Conference. Retrieved from http://www.isatt.org/

A recent post by Education Today cites “nearly 40% of teachers in Australia quit the profession within their initial five years.”

[5]Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2013, June). Teaching in the early years of practice: A five-year longitudinal study. Edmonton, Alta: ATA. Retrieved from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/

[6] Robertson-Kraft, C. & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). True grit: Trait-level perseverance and passion for long-term goals predicts effectiveness and retention among novice teachers. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1-27. Received from http://www.tcrecord.org

[7]Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 134-176. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001

Also see:

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2014). Exploring differences in practicing teachers’ valuing of pedagogical knowledge based on teaching ability. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 435-448. doi: 10.1177/0022487114541813

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2010). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale.  The Journal of Experimental Education, 2010, 78, 118–134. doi:10.1080/00220970903224461

[8]Klassen, R. M., & Durksen, T. L. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the final teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158-169. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003

[9]Durksen, T. L., & Klassen, R. M. (2018). The development of a situational judgement test of personal attributes for quality teaching in rural and remote Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 255-276. doi: 10.1007/s13384-017-0248-5

Klassen, R. M., Durksen, T. L. Györi, J., Hashmi, W. A., Kim, L. E., Longden, K., Metsäpeltö, R-L., Poikkeus, A-M. (2018). National context and teacher characteristics: Exploring the critical non-cognitive attributes of novice teachers in four countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.001

Klassen, R. M., Durksen, T. L., Kim, L., Patterson, F., Rowett, E., Warwick, J., Warwick, P., & Wolpert, M-A. (2017). Developing a proof-of-concept selection test for entry into primary teacher education programs. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 4(2), 96-114. doi:10.21449/ijate.275772

Klassen, R. M., Durksen, T. L., Patterson, F., & Rowett, E. (2017). Filtering functions of assessment for selection into initial teacher education programs. In J. Clandinin and J. Husu (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Volume 1 (pp. 893-909). Sage Publications Ltd.

Klassen, R. M., Durksen, T. L., Rowett, E., & Patterson, F. (2014). Applicant reactions to a Situational Judgment Test used for selection into Initial Teacher Training. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 104-125. Retrieved from http://www.hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/ijep

For a great discussion of teacher adaptability, see:

Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An important capacity for effective teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27–39. http://doi.org/10.7459/ept/38.1.03

[10]Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 167-202.

[11]Day & Gu (2010)

[12]Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context (pp. 45-64). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481- 9667-8_3

[13]Shirley, D. [GLkanalen]. (2015, April 21). The role of teachers in developing students’ talents [Video file]. Invited lecture, GL’s 125 års jubilæumskonference om elevernes læring og lærernes undervisning (Secondary School Teachers 125^th Anniversary Conference: Student Learning and Teachers’ Teaching), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/hlDvf4RhtcE

[14]Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 53-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.011

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112, 2988-3023.

[15] Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 120-134.

[16] See my colleagues work for more on teacher well-being. For example: Collie, R.J., Shapka, J. D., Perry, N. E., & Martin, A. J. (2015). Teacher well-being: Exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 744-756. DOI: 10.1177/0734282915587990.

[17]Barrera, A., Braley, R. T., & Slate, J. R. (2010). Beginning teacher success: An investigation into the feedback from mentors of formal mentoring programs. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18, 61-74. doi:10.1080/13611260903448383.

Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173-208. Retrieved from http://rer.sagepub.com/

[18]Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College.

[19] Durksen & Klassen (2018); Klassen et al. (2018)

[20]Beauchamp, L., Klassen, R. M., Parsons, J., Durksen, T. L., &. Taylor, L. (2014, January). Exploring the development of teacher efficacy through professional learning experiences [Final Research Report]. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Teachers’ Association. Available from http://www.teachers.ab.ca

[21]Alberta Teachers’ Association (2014). AISI Clearing House [Webpage]. Available at http://www.teachers.ab.ca/

[22] For example, see Richter et al (2011)

[23]Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2011). The design and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Educational Research Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F.,  Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experienced teachers’ informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 276-298. doi:10.1108/13665620910954193

Jansen in de Wal, J., Den Brok, P. J., Hooijer, J. G., Martens, R. L., & Van den Beemt, A. (2014). Teachers’ engagement in professional learning: Exploring motivational profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 27-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.001

Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development: A celebration of educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

[24] For example, see:

Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 819–836.

Palmer, D. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an in-service program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 1, 1-24. doi: 10.1002/sce.20434

[25] For example, importance of teaching knowledge, source of teaching ability; see Fives and Buehl (2010)

[26] Teacher self-efficacy is commonly measured on three dimensions: student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management (see Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001 – reference below).

[27]Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

[28]Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 228-245.

[29]Goddard, R. D., & Goddard. Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818.

[30]Klassen, R. M., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., Kates, A., & Hannok, W. (2008). Motivation beliefs of secondary school teachers in Canada and Singapore: A mixed methods study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1919-1934. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.01.005

[31] Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114-129. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leitner, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352

Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T. L. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement: The development of the Engaged Teacher Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1, 33-52. http://journals.sfu.ca/flr/index.php/journal/article/view/44/37

Yerdelen, S., Durksen, T. L., & Klassen, R. M. (2018). An international validation of the Engaged Teacher Scale. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice (Online First, 25 April). doi: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1457024

[32]Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121-141. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

[33]Klassen & Chiu (2011)

[34]Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

See also:

Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

[35]Hargreaves, A., Crocker, R., Davis, B., McEwen, L., Sahlberg, P., Shirley, D., Sumara, D., & Hughes, M. (2009). The learning mosaic: A multiple perspectives review of the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). The Minister of Education, Alberta Education. http://education.alberta.ca/aisi

[36]Osmond-Johnson, P., Zeichner, K., & Campbell, C. (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Alberta. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.

[37]Context: Alberta has been described as one of six high performance international systems (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012; Sahlberg, 2015), with international research attention drawn to the successes of the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). Results from the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) found teachers in Alberta had high levels of job satisfaction and confidence, particularly in their classroom management abilities and instructional skills (OECD, 2014). Moreover, Alberta teachers reported one of the highest rates of participation in professional development and the highest level of support for participation in those activities such as days off (OECD, 2014). It is also important to note that Alberta teachers reported an above-average teaching workload (OECD, 2015). Key AISI projects helped build teacher capacity through professional development, collaborative development of leadership, instructional practice, and school climate. Unfortunately, funding for AISI was removed in 2013. The removal of resources such as AISI, the motivational influence of increased job demands, and the fact that only half of Alberta teachers felt teaching was valued by society also highlight the need for continued research on teacher professional learning and teachers’ motivation (OECD, 2013).

OECD (2015). Embedding professional development in schools for teacher success, Working Paper. Teaching in Focus, 10. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js4rv7s7snt-en

OECD (2014). OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2014-en

OECD (2013). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2013): Conceptual framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS%20Conceptual%20Framework_ FINAL.pdf

[38] Hargreaves et al. (2009)

[39] Hargreaves et al. (2009)