Sceptical teacher and silent students: a case study of teacher changes during a teacher professional development programme

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on an intervention programme designed to foster collectivity in classroom dialogue during sixth-grade language arts lessons, incorporating a coaching-based approach grounded in real classroom experiences. Specifically, we examine how this programme affected the beliefs and practices of a sceptical teacher in relation to increasing the participation of all her students in the classroom discourse. Centred on a case study of one teacher, the research uses multiple data sources, including video-recorded lessons and reflective interviews. The analytical approach is interpretative, taking into account the role of the researcher in influencing the observed phenomena. The intervention involved a video-stimulated reflection on a lesson leading to an impasse because the teacher could not work with all of the students due to her deficit beliefs about the students. In our analysis, a distinctive cyclical model encompassing six steps was introduced to delineate the evolution of the teacher’s beliefs. This model emphasises the crucial role a researcher plays in teacher learning, particularly in providing emotional support and aiding in the collaborative construction of teaching methodologies. Video recordings combined with ‘reflexive noticing’ made it possible for the teacher to recognise alternative interpretations of silent student interactions, thus challenging the previous deficit models. Recognising an impasse – an emotionally intense point of confusion – is essential in the process of belief alteration. The research suggests that while reflection is important, it alone is not sufficient; genuine change arises from teachers’ efforts to address and navigate confusion and impasse in their practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Dialogic teaching
• teacher professional development
• case study

1. Introduction

Current educational policies underscore the importance of teachers fostering higher cognitive processes, propelling students towards critical thinking, and facilitating meaningful discussions on pivotal subjects (European Commission 2022). This teaching approach has garnered widespread consensus among educational theorists and practitioners alike. Alexander (2017) encapsulated the idea that rich dialogic exchanges significantly enhance learning outcomes by advocating for the principle of collectivity: ‘teachers and children address learning tasks together, whether as a group or as a class’ (p. 38).

For decades, empirical evidence has spotlighted a persistent issue: unequal student participation in classroom discussions (Howe and Abedin 2013). High-achieving students consistently receive preferential treatment; their low-achieving counterparts, especially boys, often face criticism, limited feedback, and diminished engagement opportunities (Good, Sikes, and Brophy 1973). How can teacher efficacy be bolstered to foster rigorous, cross-curricular teaching inclusive of all students?

Two prevalent strategies have emerged (Avalos and Assael 2006). The first strategy entails accentuating accountability and instituting top-down reforms. However, this often culminates in teacher resistance as it emphasises conforming to targets and evaluations, undermining individual autonomy (Ball 2003). Such resistance was evident in Portugal’s adoption of a new teacher appraisal policy, which strained professional relationships and undermined mutual trust among educators (de Lima and Silva 2018; Flores 2012).

The second approach prioritises teacher professionalism, school autonomy, and fostering a trusting environment. There have been successful interventions aimed at enhancing classroom dialogue quality, as seen in studies by Alexander (2018), Böheim et al. (2021), O’Connor et al. (2015), Schindler et al. (2015), and Sedova et al. (2016), but challenges persist. Ambiguity surrounds teacher acceptance of novel methods (Rainio and Hofmann 2021), and concerns about variable student participation remain (Black 2004).

Both strategies can cause teacher scepticism due to perceived impositions affecting professional relationships and autonomy. The key challenge is to create a teacher professional development (TPD) programme that reduces resistance, promotes reflective learning, and encourages teachers to adopt innovative methods that benefit all students.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Teacher beliefs

The importance of teacher beliefs in adopting new practices has been noted by several authors: beliefs strongly affect one’s own behaviour (Brody 1998; Kagan 1992). The argument has been made that teacher beliefs impact teacher instruction methods, curriculum selection, and work with low-achieving students (Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002). Teacher beliefs are ‘one’s convictions, philosophy, or opinions about teaching and learning’ (Haney et al. 2002, 367). People usually group consistent beliefs together, and these beliefs serve as a filter when acquiring new information, whether the information comes from textbooks, experts, or personal experiences.

During the implementation of dialogic teaching, it has been observed that teachers sometimes hold the belief that some students may lack the necessary skills to respond to open and cognitively demanding questions (Snell and Lefstein 2018). Although teachers recognise the potential benefits of integrating argumentation into science education, they doubt their students’ ability to participate effectively (Sampson and Blanchard 2012).

There is a recurring pattern here that is not adequately described in the literature. Teachers hold the same beliefs as state-of-the-art theory; for example, they believe in the value of engaging students in learning and in high-level cognitive processes. At the same time, teachers hold deficit beliefs about their students. They believe their students lack the necessary skills for argumentation or answering higher-order questions.

This discrepancy is not a gap between theory and practice (Korthagen 1993); rather, it can be considered as a kind of ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Festinger 1957). The consequences are evident in the teacher’s actions in the classroom. A teacher with a deficit model will lower the curriculum’s demands and will not engage students in instructional communication (Sampson and Blanchard 2012). On the other hand, a teacher with high teacher efficacy will provide learners with sufficient scaffolding to enable them to do more than they would without such help (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976).

This raises the question of how to support teachers in effectively engaging students with lower academic performance and in shifting their beliefs about these students from a deficit-based perspective.

2.2. From professional development to professional learning

One-time TPD programmes have been proven to be ineffective (Little 1987). This paradigm of teacher change can also be labelled as deficit-based because it assumes that teachers lack the knowledge and skills required by modern educational theory. The deficit model was built on a rationalist paradigm that assumed that teachers could be taught new methods, and that they would then change their beliefs and classroom practices (Guskey 1986). This linear causal model has never been effective in practice (Fullan 1982).

Korthagen and Kessels (1999) presented a compelling critique of the prescriptive-rationalist approach to the change process, advocating instead for a cyclical change model in which teacher reflection assumes a crucial role. This paradigm shift in teacher development underscored the indispensability of critical reflection, as posited by Dewey (1916). Critical reflection involves a deliberate examination and interrogation of conventional teaching and educational practices, often resulting in the emergence of conflicts rooted in divergent beliefs (Achinstein 2002).

This process of critical and cyclical reflection is susceptible to the emergence of conflicts, contradictions, uncertainties, and impasses that can disrupt the teacher’s cognitive equilibrium, as described by Piaget (1964), or can encroach upon their zone of proximal development, as articulated by Vygotsky (1978). It is imperative to recognise that the presence of cognitive conflict is necessary for conceptual shifts in teacher practices, as expounded by Guzzetti et al. (1993).

The new paradigm of TPD is no longer perceived in isolation as a one-time activity aimed solely at equipping teachers for better performance, but rather as an evolving process in which educators engage in both formal and informal learning experiences, rooted in individual and communal contexts. It encompasses a diverse range of activities, from formal workshops to casual peer interactions, all aimed at enhancing teaching proficiency within real-world classroom settings (Desimone 2009).

The interconnected professional growth model (Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002) captures this shift by offering a non-linear framework that sees teacher development as individual and context-specific, influenced by professional experimentation, interpretations, and environments. It emphasises the ‘pedagogy of teachers’ (p. 965), valuing teacher-driven theories for professional growth. Yet the model lacks clarity on how belief changes impact teaching practices and vice versa (Boylan et al. 2018).

2.3. Silent students

A key characteristic highlighted in the literature on teacher learning is coherence, which refers to how well teacher learning aligns with their existing knowledge and beliefs (Desimone 2009; Firestone et al. 2005; Putnam and Borko 2000). This calls for a closer look at what we know about teacher beliefs regarding the low participation levels of silent students.

Silent students rarely participate in class discussions; when they do, their inputs are minimal and less thoughtful. Black (2004) termed this ‘unproductive’ participation, unlike the ‘productive’ participation that fosters learning. Kovalainen and Kumpulainen (2007) believed that such participation was socially shaped, influenced by interactions with peers and teachers. Teachers might exclude silent students or ask them simpler questions. Evidence from TPD programmes has shown teachers often start to ask deeper questions and give more detailed feedback, but still struggle with silent students (Schindler, Gröschner, and Seidel 2015). Sedova and Navratilova (2020) found that scaffolding and sensitive engagement can boost participation from these quiet students. The main reason all students should participate in dialogue is that individual involvement in classroom discussions is crucial. As students engage in whole-class discussions, their achievement improves (Larrain et al. 2019).

Keiler (2018) observed that literature often conflates teachers’ resistance to change with scepticism. Scepticism critically evaluates claims and can protect against poor interventions; resistance is different. The gradual integration of new practices is vital, as rushed adaptations can falter. In one case study, Cohen (1990) discussed a math teacher’s partial shift to constructivism, resulting in a mixed method. A teacher’s belief in change is essential. A study by Keiler (2018) showcased a math teacher who remained unchanged because of her disbelief in students’ capacities to learn.

Implementing collective dialogic teaching has mixed perceptions. It can boost classroom interactions, but it can also be frustrating, causing some teachers to leave TPD programmes (D’Mello and Graesser 2012). The intensive demands of such approaches deter many teachers (Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke 2018). To address these demands and avoid failure in our TPD programmes, we provide teachers with assistance from a researcher through a 1:1 coaching approach specifically designed to help teachers implement change.

3. Methods research questions addressed

This study derives from an initiative that fostered collective classroom dialogue during sixth-grade language arts sessions. In contrast to the limited impact of brief workshops (Kennedy 2016; Wei et al. 2009), our programme employed a coaching strategy. This coaching framework, recognised for boosting professional growth (Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan 2018), incorporates direct feedback and reflective practices based on authentic classroom experiences, often spanning an academic year (Lofthouse et al. 2010).

Mirroring the renowned My Teaching Partner (MTP) programme approach and biweekly structure (Gregory et al. 2014), our method diverges in execution. While we also delve into classroom discourse analysis (Mikami et al. 2011; Pianta et al. 2008), our team record videos, use the full content in reflective interviews, and have teachers attend group workshops. Additionally, using the EduCoM app (Svaricek and Chmelik 2018), we provide data detailing each student’s participation during lessons.

During the 2021/2022 school year, six classes (123 students) and their teachers participated in an intervention. The intervention involved five group workshops for teachers, collaborative lesson planning between teachers and researchers, and video-stimulated reflections on the lessons in teacher-researcher pairs (see Appendix 1). From 11/2021 to 2/2022, we conducted five workshops for teachers: 1) Theories and concepts of dialogic teaching and collectivity; 2) Teacher talk moves in dialogic teaching; 3) Focusing dialogic talk moves on individual students; 4) Student collaborative talk in groups; and 5) Sharing experiences with collective dialogic teaching.

The main part of the work in implementation rested on the teachers. Teachers had the task of creating a lesson plan that met the curricular requirements for the given subject and executing it in line with their beliefs about ideal teaching. Reflective discussions between the researcher and the teacher then included a review discussion of the video recording, in which we primarily addressed whether the teaching was in accordance with the epistemology of dialogic teaching (Alexander 2017). Part of the discussions also revolved around the plan for the next lesson.

We made eight video recordings documenting the changes in student participation patterns. We also did entrance and exit interviews with the teachers. This paper asks the following research questions: 1) How was the process of change in the teacher’s belief and teaching enabled in the TPD programme? and 2) What role did impasse play in the teacher’s learning process?

3.1. Focal teacher

We limit our study here to the case of one female teacher, Kate, who had been teaching Czech language and literature for five years. During the research, 23 students − 11 girls and 12 boys – attended Kate’s sixth-grade class. Kate volunteered for the TPD programme; she expressed scepticism at the beginning about the possibility of implementing the principle of collectivity, although not about dialogic teaching specifically. Kate is an ideal candidate for a critical case study (Patton 2014) because the effectiveness of the programmes is noticeably improved when teachers fully and voluntarily agree with the TPD settings (Zembylas 2005).

3.2. Data analysis

We examined multiple data sources within an authentic context to understand intricate educational phenomena (Greene 2007; Yin 2003). The dataset comprised video recordings of lessons, reflective interviews centred on these recordings between the researcher and Kate, quantitative metrics on student participation, classroom observations, and instructional materials. The primary sources for this qualitative analysis were the reflective interviews about the teaching video recordings. Combining different data sources enabled a deeper understanding of Kate’s professional journey, allowing a profound exploration of causal elements, contextual prerequisites, and changes in her teaching beliefs. ATLAS.ti software proved to be an ideal technical tool for this purpose, accommodating both open and categorical coding, as well as the creation of networks clustering episodes about silent students (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Methodologically, we employed tools of linguistic ethnography (Rampton 2007). The language of Kate’s discussions in the transcripts was repeatedly analysed line-by-line to comprehend the linguistic choices in specific contexts and to discern underlying beliefs and norms.

None of Kate’s statements were seen in isolation. Leveraging sophisticated software tools, we crafted intricate developmental trajectories tied to conceptual maps of evolving teacher beliefs and sought patterns across cases (Miles and Huberman 1994). We then examined the data visually using video recordings and juxtaposed the findings from the verbal analysis with insights from the visual analysis.

From an epistemological standpoint, the researcher operated within an interpretative paradigm (Myers 2009). This entails the epistemological challenge of viewing the data through Kate’s lens. The researcher did not regard himself as an objective observer but critically analysed the potential role he might have played in shaping the phenomena being studied (Putnam and Borko 2000).

3.3. Research ethics

Given the sensitivity of our research, we prioritised rigorous ethical preparation. Before commencing, we informed participants and their parents about the study’s ethical standards: data confidentiality, pseudo-anonymisation processes, and the option to opt out. We obtained written informed consent forms from parents and oral consent from their children. Moreover, we secured permission for video and audio recordings that were later anonymised using pseudonyms for analysis. To synchronise data across different study phases, we assigned anonymous codes to students, known only to their teachers. This ensured the confidentiality of individual student data, with only the anonymised aggregate class results accessible. Both parents and students had the option to decline to participate. If they chose this route, we excluded the selected class from the research and approached an alternative one. Notably, participation came with no financial incentives for parents or students. No ethical board approval was required for this project.

4. Findings

The research results present the transformative journey of a teacher’s beliefs and behaviours following their participation in a TPD programme across the six consecutive steps of a new model representing teacher change (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Model of teacher change.

4.1. From dialogic teaching workshops to practical implementation (implementation phase)

In the first interview, the teacher expressed some scepticism about being able to engage all of the students: It is not realistic for me to get all the kids engaged, to get all of them to speak.

She identified two groups of students, undisciplined students and silent students, as the main reason she was unable to get all the students involved in the discussions. The teacher mentioned Liam, who often shouted that he wanted to be called on and verbally expressed his disappointment when the teacher did not call on him. The teacher described the silent student Dylan in the following way:

Excerpt 1: Entrance interview between the teacher and the researcher

1 Teacher: But he [Dylan] simply, he really just sits and is completely passive. When I call on him, he usually does not know anything. So I am afraid that also his knowledge will be rather poor. And he never takes the initiative to raise his hand. So I don’t see any clear tendency of his to get involved.

The teacher added one more characteristic to the previous attributes of silent students. She described the student using both the concept of engagement (completely passive, never raises his hand, no tendency to get involved) and the concept of knowledge (does not know anything, knowledge will be rather poor). Kate’s deficit-based perspective towards silent students can be seen in her words.

4.2. A closer look at the ‘silent’ student eve (reflection and confrontation phase)

The first lesson conducted dealt with fables. The students were reading an excerpt from a story titled ‘The Tale of the Doomed Prince’ in their textbooks. In a reflective interview, the teacher expressed her satisfaction with the way the lesson had unfolded and answered the question of whether she managed to engage silent students with Quite well, noting an exception in the student Eve, who in Kate’s opinion again did not know anything. The transcript of a section of the lesson (Excerpt 2) and the teacher’s response in the reflective interview (Excerpt 3) are presented here.

In the story the students were reading, seven fate-telling goddesses came to the palace after the prince was born and foretold that ‘Either a crocodile, a snake, or a dog will be your death’. The teacher stopped reading the excerpt halfway and prompted the students: Try to guess how the story about the prince will develop.

Excerpt 2: First intervention lesson

1 Teacher:

(Eve repeatedly raises her hand and repeatedly lowers it; in each case, other students are called on) Eve, any other idea?

2 Eve:

He will simply die.

3 Teacher:

Eve thinks that the prince is going to die. OK. And how, specifically?

4 Eve:

But not because of the animals [that are supposed to kill him according to the prophecy].

5 Teacher:

In some other way. Any idea in what way?

6 Students:

From old age (some students shout out)

7 Teacher:

You say from old age in the meanwhile.

8 Eve:

Ehm. (5 s) Not from old age.

9 Teacher:

Not from old age? How then?

10 Eve:

(shaking her left hand nervously up and down, 5 s) I don’t know.

11 Teacher:

I don’t know (laughing) OK, let’s continue.

The student Eve repeatedly raised her hand and lowered it when another student was called on. When she was called on, she acted nervous, shook her head, and eventually shook her whole hand to indicate that she could not determine the answer. Eve responded altogether four times to the teacher’s questions: she replied that the prince would die (line 2); in response to the teacher’s uptake, she made her reply more specific by saying that the animals from the prophecy would not cause his death (line 4); after the teacher’s second uptake, two students shouted out the answer instead of Eve and the teacher put forward the third uptake (line 9); and after five seconds of nervous hand-shaking, Eve replied for the fourth time with I don’t know (line 11). Teacher Kate described this situation as follows:

Excerpt 3: Reflective interview between the teacher and the researcher after the first intervention lesson

1 Teacher:

There was this girl Eve, who, out of whom I tried to dig the answer, that was probably already in the beginning. And she, I intentionally did not give up, that I kept asking and she, it was clear that she really did not know and she was there kind of numb and in the end after 30 seconds of silence we eventually wound it up with her ‘I doon’t knoow’ (slowly) and in the end nothing really fell out of her (laughing), well, probably I don’t know then, she seemed unable to say anything then.

Kate says that she was trying to dig out, intentionally did not give up, and kept asking. The teacher further described this case as an example of a silent student who did not know, nothing fell out of her, and seemed unable to say anything.

However, the excerpt from the lesson did not illustrate the poor knowledge of a silent student that was a source of the teacher’s scepticism in regard to the principle of collectivity. Eve’s answer cannot be viewed as a lack of knowledge because the teacher’s question Try to guess how the story about the prince will develop did not concern knowledge but creativity. The students’ task was to create any answer because the question was open, and it is not possible to say that one answer was right or wrong as the story could have any kind of ending.

The researcher observed Eve frequently raising her hand and appearing nervous. In a subsequent interview, the teacher acknowledged her limited knowledge of Eve, due to her many absences. The researcher then proposed presenting detailed data on student response durations in the next interview, using the EduCoM application.

4.3. Reactions to video-based reflections (counter move phase)

In the reflective phase, in which the teacher reviewed video recordings, three distinct reactions were observed that we collectively categorise as counter moves. These reactions encompassed: externalisation of oversights, ignoring, and denial. Such counter moves arose as defensive responses of the teacher when faced with discrepancies highlighted by the video recording. These reactions were not solely reflective in nature; they also signified a protective strategy employed when the teacher encountered criticism based on video data.

The externalisation of oversights is evident in prior excerpts. In Excerpt 2, the teacher described repeatedly prompting Eve to give an answer but not getting any answer from her even after 30 s of silence. This oversight was attributed to the student. In another scenario, the teacher recalled a challenging task, noting phrases such as they were really not shooting answers at me and they just waited for me to say it. This portrayal places the onus on the students’ inability to handle the task, without considering whether the teacher’s assessment of task difficulty was appropriate.

Ignoring manifested when the teacher realised, upon reviewing the video with the researcher, that events unfolded differently than previously described. A frequent response was, I’m glad, I hadn’t noticed this.

Lastly, denial came into play when the researcher proposed a specific teaching method. The teacher’s retort, I also do that and I’ve been using this for a long time, signifies this defensive posture. This reaction is cognitively rooted, melding the logic of inductive reasoning with emotional components. The underlying presumption is that even if a counterexample exists, it does not necessarily refute the original statement. Such counterexamples could emerge from measurement discrepancies or oversights by students.

4.4. Fostering trust and effectiveness (lesson planning phase)

Lesson planning, particularly for engaging silent students, was discussed during the reflective interviews. Due to uncertain timing for the next lesson’s recording, the teacher shared her plans without a specific curriculum alignment. The researcher suggested that the teacher could email him if she needed planning assistance. When she emailed a detailed plan to the researcher, he advised streamlining the activities for a 45-minute lesson. Implementing his suggestions, the lesson flowed seamlessly, and students enjoyed the structured activities. The teacher acknowledged the value of these new methods. Though not an original TPD component, they eagerly continued this detailed collaborative planning. The teacher began providing comprehensive plans, including teaching methods, and later integrated the researcher’s feedback in their discussions.

4.5. Impasse in instruction: a teacher’s dilemma (impasse phase)

From the perspective of learning, the counter move appears to be a problematic strategy because it does not involve reflection on the situation and learning and therefore the researcher returns to confrontation in the next step, which brings about an impasse.

Out of all the silent students, the teacher was least successful in activating the student Dylan. The teacher called on Dylan in a lesson dealing with the mythical musician Orpheus who set out on a journey to the underworld to search for his love Eurydice. The teacher interrupted the reading of the story by the student Harry and asked Dylan a question about his understanding of the expression ‘was overcome with light-headedness’. The student camera shows that Dylan was talking to his seatmate when the excerpt was being read, without having his textbook open. The teacher used her question to Dylan as a disciplinary technique, to make him stop talking with his classmate. The teacher reformulated the question and waited for 3 s, but Dylan remained silent, and the teacher called on another student.

We have discovered three oversights in this excerpt. First, the teacher used a closed cognitively demanding disciplining question. Second, she did not provide scaffolding for him to arrive at the answer. Third, she asked a silent low-achieving student a cognitively demanding question. Kate was confronted with a video recording of this sequence in the follow-up reflective interview.

Excerpt 4: Reflective interview between the teacher and the researcher after second intervention lesson

1 Teacher:

And then Dylan, nothing came out of him…

2 Researcher:

He did not respond, and you cut him off too quickly. I’ll show you; it is clear. (plays the video recording)

3 Teacher:

OK, that’s possible (laughing).

4 Researcher:

‘She was overcome with light-headedness’. You ask about the meaning and right away rush to Harry who raised his hand.

7 Teacher:

I see.

8 Researcher:

And he says it for him [Dylan].

7 Teacher:

I see. He is really not paying attention, is he? (watching the sequence once more)

8 Researcher:

Well, I just think that he really needs special treatment, this student, you ask him, and he bows his head, try to pass the ball to him, or try to say something like ‘look again in the text’… try to give him a hint, such as ‘let’s stay with the text’.

9 Teacher:

Ehm.

10 Researcher:

Here we can see that this activated him in some way, right, but instead you cut the interaction off, which is a pity.

11 Teacher:

Yes. But what am I … [to do about it]?

The researcher played the video recording and after that the teacher laughingly admitted her oversight (line 3). The teacher noticed when the student did not respond to her request for an answer (line 7). Subsequently, the researcher suggested how the teacher could respond to incorrect or missing replies in a more appropriate way (line 8). The teacher did not respond to these suggestions with a counter move, but by acknowledging the usefulness of the advice. The last line of the excerpt revealed the teacher’s helplessness in activating the student in the situation (line 11). The teacher’s face and posture also revealed deep confusion and frustration.

8.6. Surprise from activated silent student (distraction phase)

In the next lesson, the story of Orpheus continued, and the teacher focused on building reading literacy and used the technique of completing a story, as in the first intervention lesson (Excerpt 3). In the subsequent reflection on the video recording, the researcher deliberately showed the example of the silent student Tyler, who achieved an average time of 3 s per lesson in the pre-lessons, 5 s in the first intervention lesson, 9 s in the second, and 16 s in the reflected third lesson. Tyler was called on three times altogether in the lesson; the first time he replied to the question Why didn’t he succeed? with I don’t know, but the teacher immediately prompted him again with a reformulated question Do you think it’s a dangerous journey?, thereby reducing the cognitive demand of the question from a higher open-ended to a lower close-ended one. Tyler answered Probably yes, and the teacher finally called on other students who raised their hands, to return after five turns to Tyler, who raised his hand to give the answer I would think that [Eurydice and Orpheus] will live together in that dead world. The teacher enthusiastically replied That’s a good guess.

Excerpt 5: Reflective interview between the teacher and the researcher after third intervention lesson

1 Researcher: He says ‘I don’t know’, and you respond to it, which I think is great, isn’t it?

2 Teacher: Ehm.

3 Researcher: Zoe knows it, because she’s read it. (the teacher is laughing) And she is able to give a better [answer] on the spot. But here we can see that you activated him, even though he does not know, you try twice and he after a while, being surprised, and he in a while takes the initiative by raising his hand…

4 Teacher: (laughing) I was really surprised by his answer… I read a bit more simplified version… And it ends with Orpheus dying and them meeting in the other world actually, yeah, he was right. And I was completely surprised that he got this idea himself (laughing). That he got it, yeah, that surprised me, his answer, to be honest. Well done.

9 Researcher: But really for a few long seconds he was in fact thinking about the answer.

10 Teacher: Ehm.

The excerpt captures a mechanism that worked for the student – repeated activation of the student led to the student raising his hand with a response to the teacher’s original higher cognitively demanding question (line 3). The teacher’s subsequent reaction, it surprised me, which is repeated three times, indicates a possible change in the teacher’s conceptualisation of the student. The new opportunity provided to the student brought about a cognitive surprise in the teacher, who had a lower opinion of the student’s abilities.

The student’s answer challenged the original thesis that the students did not have sufficient competence and knowledge to engage in dialogic teaching. The teacher successfully achieved a change with a silent student. When we look at Kate’s work with Tyler, we see an increase in his engagement in class communication, from 3 s in pre-lessons to 30 s in post-lessons – a tenfold increase.

5. Discussion

This case study shows the transformation of a teacher’s practice and belief as a result of participation in a TPD programme focused on the principle of collectivity in dialogic teaching. To address both research questions, we applied a cyclical model (Figure 1) to describe the change. The model consists of six steps corresponding to subchapters 4.1–4.6. For the first research question, ‘How was the process of change in the teacher’s belief and teaching enabled in the TPD programme?’, points 1 and 2 respond. For the second question, ‘What role did the impasse play in the teacher’s learning process?’, point 3 provides the answer. Our model deviates from existing models (see chapter 2.2) in three primary ways.

First, most research overlooks the researcher’s role in teacher learning (Bergh, Ros, and Beijaard, 2014), whereas our model emphasises their significance in multiple steps, including emotional support and collaborative construction of teaching methodologies (Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002).

Without a supportive, constructive, and trust-filled environment, transformative change remains elusive, and progress often stagnates at step 3: Counter move. The significance of trust-building within the coaching process has been underscored in previous studies (Zwart et al. 2007), and collaborative lesson planning has emerged as an essential mechanism for fostering such trust (Wake, Foster, and Swan 2013). Considering the inherent challenges associated with change, which can be perceived as deeply unsettling (Guskey 2002, 386), creating a secure learning environment for the teacher is indispensable.

The importance of a safe environment is most evident in the phases when teachers are confronted with a different perspective (step 2), and when they find themselves in an intractable situation (step 5). The researcher, utilising reflective interviews, can adeptly identify moments when teachers show confusion or face problems. Their interventions, crucial for preventing escalating frustration, consider individual differences in frustration perception, as highlighted by Lodge et al. (2018). Beyond identification, researchers can proactively address these impasses (step 5), turning them into learning opportunities by highlighting successful interactions with silent students (step 6).

Second, while our approach retains Korthagen’s cyclical element of change (Korthagen and Kessels 1999), it incorporates two core components: theory and data. Theory plays a role during implementation (step 1) and it also serves as an arbiter providing invaluable support in many key decisions, whether in video observation (step 2), lesson planning (step 4), or during the most challenging part, the impasse (step 5).

The two most important data sources for teacher learning were accurate records of who was speaking in the lesson and video recordings of the lesson. Contrary to the common belief that teachers are always aware of student talk time during the classroom discourse, the teacher Kate found the EduCoM application (Svaricek and Chmelik 2018) invaluable. She explicitly mentioned that the contributions of silent students often went unnoticed, saying, In my opinion, it’s one of the things I fail to perceive in the classroom.

A fundamental contribution to the change in practice and the shift in beliefs towards collectivity were the video recordings. A teacher’s beliefs significantly influence change implementation (Brody 1998), and identifying scepticism helps the researcher focus on silent students during reflective video reviews. Repeated presentations of the interactions with silent students that deviated from the teacher’s deficit model suggested that things could be different (see Excerpt 8, line 7). Rainio and Hofmann termed this phenomenon ‘reflexive noticing’ (2021) – when noticing a different interpretation, there is no defence or shutdown on the part of the teacher, but rather ‘sustaining a puzzle, reflecting on it, and connecting it to a need to change, in this way creating “a sense of the possible”’ (p. 741). Reflexive noticing is not a guarantee of change, but rather an opening of the possibility on the part of the teacher that another, alternative version of interpretation could be recognised.

Third, our approach bridges a gap in understanding the teacher learning process (Boylan et al. 2018). Teacher educators frequently hope that teachers will replace misguided beliefs with more constructive ones. Yet, as Brouseau and Freeman (1988) highlighted, the belief change process is multifaceted and not so straightforward. When repeated contradictory information is encountered, change is seldom spurred. We observed that the teacher Kate refuted the information by employing a counter move defence strategy (step 3). She did not use counter moves as a specific activity; counter moves are a constant dimension of social interactions that individuals use to save face when they feel threatened (Vedder-Weiss, Segal, and Lefstein 2019).

An important breakthrough in this point is recognising an impasse. An impasse brings with it the destabilisation of discourse (Rainio and Hofmann 2021), shifting from the equilibrium established over years of dedication and hard work to a state of disequilibrium (Piaget 1964) and negative emotions (Sedova et al. 2017). This is an emotionally intense moment, and defensive strategies and tried-and-true lists of ‘tips and tricks’ cannot be employed to navigate out of it.

How can an impasse lead to a change in beliefs? Before we reach an answer, it is important to recognise that teacher beliefs are a group of consistent beliefs related to their experiences of teaching and learning. If a teacher holds a deficit-based perspective towards their students, it is supported by concrete conceptualisations of specific students. In our research, it is clear that the conceptualisations about Eve, Dylan, and Tyler created a tacit breeding ground for a deficit perspective. Furthermore, we have shown that these conceptualisations of silent students are resistant to change (Rainio and Hofmann 2021).

Changing the conceptualisation of a particular student does not automatically mean that the teacher changes their beliefs about all the silent students. For this to occur, there must be repeated examples that challenge the deficit model, and these must also result from the teacher’s efforts. This can then lead to a shift from a deficit model perspective of that particular group of students. The teacher must firmly believe that getting silent students to talk is largely their own accomplishment. This idea aligns with Gross’s (1993) findings, which illustrated that direct interactions with students can significantly reshape teacher perceptions. Within these interactions, students share their perspectives, enabling teachers to view them in a renewed light. We postulate that genuine teacher learning is closely tied to their real-world teaching experiences and their teaching methodologies. Only then can there be a transformation of the teacher’s conceptual belief that achieving the collectivity of dialogic teaching is not directly dependent on the students, but on the teacher, who can encourage them to talk using a variety of didactic strategies.

The research underscores that while reflection is crucial, it alone is not adequate for altering teacher beliefs during intervention programmes (Hoekstra et al. 2009). We contend that an impasse is also a necessary but insufficient condition. Transforming an impasse into a learning opportunity takes several steps, as delineated in our model. The shift in a teacher’s perspective is not merely precipitated by confusion or impasse. Instead, learning manifests as the cognitive endeavour undertaken by the teacher to address this confusion (D’Mello and Graesser 2012).

6. Limitations of the study and future directions

This empirical TPD study involved collaboration between a teacher and a researcher, within a larger research study of 12 teachers and 8 researchers. The teacher Kate collaborated with her peers; the researcher was the lead researcher who coordinated the team. The case study design, although offering deep insights, has limits on how much it can be generalised, as was observed by Cohen (1990), Schindler et al. (2015), Sedova (2017), and Keiler (2018). Our study’s focal teacher, Kate, was relatively new to the profession, with only five years of teaching experience at the beginning of the TPD programme. Rainio and Hofmann (2021) found that their TPD programme enhanced dialogic teaching and that novices showed marked improvements in dialogic teaching indicators post-programme; it is imperative to note that other comparative research has suggested that length of teaching experience influences teacher engagement and subsequent student outcomes (Hanushek and Rivkin 2012). Our observations lasted an academic year, giving limited insight into sustainability (Desimone 2009), with dynamic student demographics posing challenges for future long-term research.

Future research could explore the outcomes in the year following the conclusion of the TPD programme in order to capture the sustainability of new teacher practices. Furthermore, we believe that the analysis of interviews between the researcher and the teacher, specifically the analysis of teacher discourse, merits a more meticulous examination. Theoretically, several notable concepts exist, such as ‘pedagogically productive talk’ (Lefstein, Vedder-Weiss, and Segal 2020), that have not yet been empirically tested. During the research, we discovered that increasing teacher efficacy plays a role in the process of transforming teacher beliefs and practice, which is as yet undocumented in the literature.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation [GA21-16021S].

Appendix 1

Scheme of teacher professional development programme.