District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States
not only to their own professional development in leadership roles, but also to the
emergence of Cluster Resource Centres as fora for teacher development based on
a model of peer learning, and reflection-in-action. As Box 6.1 illustrated, however,
Cluster staff have received a series of individual, content orientated training
programmes – a further illustration of the need to consider alternative modes of
professional development for teacher educators as well as teachers themselves.
An alternative model
In a context of decentralisation, bringing with it demands of knowing and
responding to local contexts, the centralised and ‘expert’-designed, input led
approach to teacher development struggles with relevance. The research project
identified low levels of professional agency and responsibility as hurdles to teacher
and teacher educator development that are perpetuated by the dominant training
model. Seeking a more relevant way forward, the project initiated activities within
the ‘teacher as researcher’ approach to professional development, through
collaborative action research with teachers and their educators. This approach sees
teachers and their educators not as ‘technicians’ implementing the ideas of others,
but as practitioners who, through reflection on practice, can improve that practice
to a significant extent without recourse to external expertise.
This approach to professional development encouraged practitioners to engage
with their practices and to develop responsibility for their outcomes, rather than
deflecting such responsibility towards management, communities or children, as is
commonly the case. Development of technical skills was part of this process, but
it was demand led, as practitioners identified for themselves, or with the process
supporters’ help, the skills they needed, and also the help they needed with
learning to reflect. The project illustrated that teachers and teacher educators can
begin to become critical and reflexive practitioners if the opportunity is made
available, and this leads to increased motivation and more enabling attitudes.
This process needs both mentoring and support to provide a ‘scaffolding’ for
practitioners. In this case, such scaffolding was provided by the project team, and
what is entailed in such scaffolding for the process helpers is detailed in chapter 7.
This approach to practitioner development is challenging, for reasons we have set
out in this report, but offers promise. It is particularly relevant to try and find ways
of working through this approach with Cluster Resource Centre staff, Master
Trainers and Resource Persons, since the Resource Centre concept rests on the idea
of peer approaches to development through joint discussion and reflection.
Exploration of partnerships between government, non-government organisations
and universities may identify further possibilities for the application of this
approach to practitioner development.
DFID 207