Professional Development

Professional development in curriculum integration was viewed by the teachers at each of the schools as an important aspect in showing support for integration. This is a view echoed by Dowden (2012), who asserts that to overcome the challenges associated with curriculum integration “professional development is essential, in order

for student-centered integration, pedagogy, and practices to be implemented successfully” (p. 20). Fraser (1999) agrees with Dowden, stating that “teachers' professional development in CI therefore, is crucial” (p.1). It was not only professional development within schools that was felt to assist successful integration, but also preparation at teacher training institutions. Aligned with this perspective was a collective view across all four schools that new teachers needed just as much, if not more, professional development in integration than longer-standing teachers, due to an inferior understanding of what curriculum integration entailed.

Three of the four schools talked about having received externally facilitated curriculum integration professional development. At Niu the teachers agreed that professional development had been extensive and that they were constantly consulted on their own learning needs. Ted, a young teacher at Niu, stated that, “I think we’re making it up as we go because I think we’ve come to the stage where a few people have gone to external professional development sessions and come back going, ‘we already do this’”. The Deputy Principal at Rua signalled that the senior management was eager to send staff on curriculum integration professional development: “If there was something that I thought was appropriate to go to, I would send them and they’d come back and share their learning”. Warren at Pakirehua felt that he had experienced extensive professional development surrounding curriculum integration, having been on external courses as well as facilitating curriculum integration professional development to the whole staff himself.

At all four schools, teachers described how a lot of their professional development was delivered by their own staff. Lily from Awa explained that their professional development was carried out during the integration department’s regular meeting time by the head of department. Rua’s Deputy Principal described their integration professional development as “a distributed model ... I appointed a leader of each group and I worked with the leaders, and we would chat about how they could help their teachers.” Russell at Pakirehua shared how the best professional development he had encountered was simply working with Warren: “Spending the first term with Warren has probably taught me more [about integration] than anything else has.”

Niu College appeared to have received the most professional development around integration. They described how a connection to the philosophy of the 2007

Curriculum, underpinned by the process of teaching as inquiry, meant a constant reappraisal of ideas on the go:

On the job training or learning ... students come up with things and then you chat about it with other staff and that results in some solutions, and so we’re learning as we go ... the students I feel teach us quite a bit ... I may not know the ins and outs of what they want to do, so let’s look into it and read up on it. (Katy, a teacher at Niu)

The Deputy Principal also described how the physical spaces at Niu assisted continual, informal professional development:

[Having] open [teaching] spaces with four teachers in the same room... teachers can actually see other people’s practice and learn from that practice ... They can modify their programmes so that theirs become more complimentary with the other teachers ... they’re in the same workroom together so ... they’re having professional discussions about what they’re doing...we’re experimenting. If something works ... we’ll follow that line, if not ... we find other ways of improving.

The debate surrounding who needed the most professional development appeared to be divided according to whether integration was a whole school or a specialist programme. At Awa and Pakirehua, where the programmes were not mainstream, the teachers and Principals were in agreement that it was the ‘established’ teachers that required extensive professional development, which is supported by Dowden’s (2012) comment, above. The Principal at Awa shared his opinion that “it is a real challenge for some staff where they’ve been teaching for 25, 30 years ... the issue is where teachers don’t understand the process, their fear about shifts in methodology.” The Principal at Pakirehua agreed that spreading the integration practice was a challenge with people that don’t want to change the way they’ve always done things. Niu’s Teaching and Learning guide acknowledged that “many staff with previous experience in the secondary sector may require some professional learning” (p. 9), however, this did not align with the overarching view at Niu (and Rua) that it was less experienced teachers that needed more professional development. Vanessa at Rua summed up this position: “It demands quite a lot of professional knowledge from a teacher about how to integrate so if you’ve got new staff to a school ... training needs to be embedded somehow ... to keep going.” Ted, a second year teacher at Niu also noted the absence of education surrounding curriculum integration at teacher training institutions, describing how “they taught us it was a new way of doing things and that it

was very interesting, ‘but let’s move on’ and that was it!” Vanessa at Rua agreed with Ted, stating that at “secondary, we’re not trained for it, aye?” This raises the question as to whether teacher training establishments, or the Ministry of Education, should be delivering some, or more, professional learning surrounding curriculum integration in line with the 2007 Curriculum’s ethos, which is a question pursued further in Chapter Six.

5.4 Chapter conclusion

In summary, these findings have highlighted the varying pathways toward curriculum integration at four secondary schools, and how curriculum integration cannot be understood in isolation from contextual factors operating both within the school setting (leadership, other teachers, professional development), and outside, in the school community (parental support and pressures). The findings have shown how important support towards curriculum integration, from various groups, is vital if the integration programmes are to flourish and grow. It would appear that at Awa, Pakirehua, and Rua, the curriculum integration journey has not been smooth or steady, due in part to the perceived unconventionality of the programmes, lack of teacher consultation, and a fear of the unknown. At Niu the fact that the programme has been in place from the start, was initiated and driven by senior leadership, and made clear as an expectation to all prospective staff, has paved the way for a less bumpy ride.

There are several interesting questions raised in Chapter Four and Five’s analysis, including, which factors have helped to facilitate or hinder the progress of curriculum integration, why have the teachers chosen to implement and develop curriculum integration, and, are teachers able to practice the type of integration that they described in the classroom? These questions are discussed in Chapter Six.

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION