This dissertation is a qualitative case study focused on how the learning done in one context—that of a sustained professional learning experience (PLE)—was taken up in another context—teachers’ own classrooms. In this study I addressed two questions: 1) How did secondary history teachers take up the work of historical inquiry after the support from a sustained PLE was gone? 2) What key influences supported or complicated teachers’ ability to enact historical inquiry as an instructional approach in their classrooms once the PLE was over? The three teachers involved in this study, Stacey, Mariah, and Ryan, were voluntary participants in a university-led, 103-hour PLE. The PLE included supports for learning how to teach through historical inquiry—a rich, disciplinary approach that fosters students’ critical thinking and communication skills (Levstik & Barton, 2014; Wineburg, 2001). The teachers participated in summer institutes, one-day workshops and were also members of professional learning communities. They engaged in numerous hands-on activities that brought teaching and learning together by focusing on historical inquiry using the C3 Framework. The purpose of this study was to investigate what happened in practice once the PLE was over and the embedded supports were gone. The findings—descriptions and analysis of each teacher’s individual representations of practices as well as an analysis of commonalities and differences across the experiences—provided evidence of just how differently each teacher took up the work of the PLE. In addition, the findings highlighted key influences that supported or complicated each particular teacher within a particular context, and with a particular understanding of historical inquiry to enact historical inquiry as presented in the PLE. Overall, Stacey took up the vision of the PLE and attested to having her “best year ever.” Mariah, for several reasons, showed hesitation in taking up the work, and after completing a four-day inquiry project stated, “whew, got one done for the year.” Ryan, comfortable with his existing practice claimed, “historical inquiry? Love it and do it every day,” and did not take up the work of historical inquiry as envisioned by the PLE. Practical implications are given regarding teacher motivations for attending the PLE, teachers’ comfort in questioning and critiquing their practice, and suggestions for working towards sustainable and transformational growth-in-practice. This study adds to a growing body of research on understanding why some teachers are better able to apply the principles and practices of PLE in their instructions than others—and on working towards a clearer and more empowering vision of professional learning. It asks how we can guide and empower all teachers, who in turn must guide and support all learners.
Read
