Teacher learning in a context of educational change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning

Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of Teacher Education 62(1), 76-92.

I read this article ambivalently. On the one hand, I was drawn to the approach outlined here, in which one of the investigators (Korthagen), a long-time, internationally respected teacher educator from the Netherlands, engaged in an intensive form of mentoring (called “supervision” here) in which he helped a case study teacher explore some of the emotional stumbling blocks that were impeding her own learning and change. I liked the acknowledgement of emotions and motivation in learning; it is never just a cognitive thing. I liked the open, positive approach that stressed strengths and looking at what has gone well in the classroom instead of always focusing on what is wrong and what did not go well. I liked the idea that the awareness of these emotional and motivational components of learning starts with the teacher, but that she can also model and facilitate the development of those components with her students. Most of all, I liked Fred Korthagen and his way of interacting with the case study teacher. He was able to develop a trusting relationship, which enabled “Nicole” to examine her feelings about her students’ behavior and work through them. The snippets of Fred’s conversations with Nicole are priceless; I wish I could do so well in my work with teacher candidates, and he provides a model that I can aspire to. I believe it was that mentoring relationship, facilitated by a gifted listener and communicator, that helped Nicole achieve satisfying changes in her practice even after many years in the classroom. Looking through a small window on that relationship and process was edifying in and of itself, and made the article worth a read.

On the other hand, the approach described here felt a little too much like psychotherapy for my comfort. My trepidation increased after I became curious about the roots of the model used here, which was called “multi-level learning” (or “MLL”). My google odyssey using that term did not get me anywhere; all I read about was multi-age classrooms. The results for “MLL” were even more varied and obscure. I looked deeper into the article and discovered the authors’ reference to something called “neurolinguistic programming.” If you read Hoekstra and Korthagen’s article and your interest is piqued, I highly recommend you take the same google odyssey and get a good understanding of the underpinnings of what the authors are proposing. Although neurolinguistic programming could help many people, it does seem to be a serious approach used by psychotherapists, and should be treated as such. I am not sure how safe it is to be plumbing people’s psyches as was done with Nicole, and all with only three training sessions, as the authors suggest is possible for teacher educators. The authors say the approach does not get into personal histories, but what about the risks if a teacher educator inadvertently unearthed some psychological trauma, say for someone who was abused by a parent and has issues that might be beyond a typical teacher educator’s ability to handle? What about someone with deeply buried depression, who might commit suicide if care was not taken while peeling back the layers of the “onion”? I know from experience that you never know all the depths of teacher candidates’ (or anyone’s) lives. Maybe this approach should be left to mental health professionals.