Abstract

This paper is a continuation of the previous published paper “National Libyan Public Education Reform: Entire Transformative Strategies, 2020–2026 – November 2017,” which proposed a framework for reforming Libyan public education with consideration of the difficulties that educators and learners facing due to the confusing conditions. It divided the reform plan into three phases in six years of gradual reform (for example, 2020-2026) to overcome their faced constraints, which come from the existing economic effects, discouraged forms of education, changeable curriculums, bureaucratic schools and university organizations, the conservative community, two generations of teachers, and uncertain education strategies. Another factor is the way learners learn (learning styles), besides current political upheavals all over Libya (civil war), which affected the entire stability of education in Libya and led to there being two ministries of education (east and west Libya). Therefore, six years of gradual reform stages were planned so that a new generation of students will start with pre-kindergarten in academic year 2026, or six years after the start of the strategy. This idea is the result of several published studies on the Libyan education context, which led to insights on implementing complete reform approaches for the entire Libyan education system. Accordingly, I will explain in depth each of the three phases in separate papers, starting with this paper, which aims to contextualize Phase 1 of the first two years (2020-2022) of the entire suggested proposal (2020-2026 or equal years).

1. Phase 1 Main Goal

The aim of this phase is to build a strong base for the reform procedures, and it seeks to involve the key Libyan education officials to contribute to two years of professional development practices. These two-year intensive reform preparations require developing educators’ knowledge of education and getting them ready for change. These practices will be implemented through managed national training, intensive CPD models, teachers’ education development, and reform movements, as well as quality assurance workshops, short-term scholarships (in and outside Libya), use of technology, and studies on Libyan education’s circumstances. These preparations will guide such key administrators to put into practice the main aims of the suggested reform plan (2020–2026 or equal years).

2. Targeted Libyan Officials Recommended to Participate at This Phase

Typically, the officials to be invited to take part in the proposed professional activities are

1. Government and parliament education policy makers (education planners).

2. Ministry of Planning officials in charge of preparing education budgets.

3. Minister office managers, Deputy Minister managers, and the Ministry consultants.

4. County administrators and directors.

5. Education developers, curriculum creators, and teacher trainers.

6. Ministry research and training center executives.

7. Ministry of Education legal administrators.

8. Ministry of Education general exams executives.

9. Deans and faculties of universities.

10. Senior inspectors and their TAs.

11. Key people (decision-makers) from the Ministry, government, and parliament who are in charge of education management in Libya.

However, it is very important to indicate that in Libya, the organizational structure of the whole Ministry of Education has gone through several uncertain changes; these changes mostly confused and administrators about their responsibilities. Elabbar ¹ explained that “Current political upheavals (civil war) that influenced the entire stability of the education in Libya and led to two ministries of education (East and West Libya). In other words, the entire Libyan education is affected by politics, culture, and administration factors for over 46 years” (p. 1044). These confusions of administration and unfilled organization systems led to major complications in terms of defining desirable officials to start with.

Examples proceed in the following sections.

In 2012, the Libyan Government (before the existing division of the Libyan Governments) acknowledged a new organization system for the Libyan Ministry of Education under decree Number 134-2012 as the following organization structure (Figure 1).

In 2014, another dramatic change occurred in the whole country through civil war; as mentioned, it produced two governments (East and West Libya). Each government acknowledged its own ministry of education. For example:

A. The government in East Libya (Elbeda City) acknowledged a Ministry of Education responsible for both general education and higher education and approved a new organization system that it is still working on now (2018).

B. The government in West Libya (Tripoli City) acknowledged one ministry responsible for general education and another ministry responsible for higher education; each of them (the two ministries in Tripoli) have approved new organization systems.

In 2016, the government in Tripoli (Government of National Accord) acknowledged a new administration, which led to combining the two Ministries of Education (in Tripoli) into one Ministry and approved a completely new organization system for the Ministry.

Therefore, it well be very hard to specify a desirable candidate for such a fundamental phase unless creating an approach of selecting the right people from the proposed administrations. Those applicants must meet requirements in terms of their practical experience at the Libyan Ministries of Education all over the country (East and West). This process will guide the beginning of implementation of the recommended continuing professional development (CPD), and its models are suitable to help such officials developing their careers to be able to accept the proposed plan of reform.

3. What is Continuing Professional Development (CPD)?

Elabbar ² showed that CPD could be seen as a systematic way of educating and developing teachers’ knowledge, perspectives, beliefs, and skills during their lifelong profession as teachers or educators (p. 74). The Institute of Professional Development ³ described CPD as combinations of approaches, ideas, concepts, and techniques that help teachers to manage their own learning and development (p. 20). Rodrigues ⁴ showed that “CPD is any process or activity that provides added value to the capability of the professional through the increase in knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the appropriate execution of professional and technical duties, often termed competence” (p. 11). Lange ⁵ also presented that it is a “process of continual intellectual, experiential and attitudinal growth of teachers, which is essential for maintaining and enhancing the quality of teachers and learning experiences” (p. 250).

Bell et al. ⁶ detailed that educators can review, renew, and extend their commitment as agents of change to the moral purposes of education, and through this, they acquire and develop critically the knowledge, beliefs, skills, and emotional intelligence important to excellent professional thinking, planning, and practice with children, young people, and colleagues through each phase of their teaching lives (p. 4). Rodrigues ⁷ explained that educators’ CPD shifts to meet accountability and credibility demands, as it is planned to enhance educators’ self-confidence and overall competence (pp. 388-389). Kanu ⁸ similarly suggested that CPD serves longer-term goals and seeks to facilitate the development of teachers’ understanding of teaching as well as of themselves as educators (p. 499).

The process of teachers’ CPD may be anything that helps educators to progress their skills and teaching beliefs to enhance their teaching performance. Rodrigues et al. ⁷ showed that “teacher development is more involved with in-service teacher education. It relies more on teachers’ personal experiences and background knowledge as the basis of the input content, and typical teacher development activities through their teaching career,” as it includes “teacher study groups, practitioner research, or self-development activities” (p. 390). Also, Guskey ⁹ offered four models of professional development as vehicles for changing teaching practice, leading to improvements in student achievement and outcomes and changes in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes (p. 382).

Several studies have discussed and debated the role of CPD in the field of education. McWilliams ¹⁰ pointed out that the term “continuing professional development” is widely used across a range of occupational fields. “There is however, a lack of clarity and agreement about how it is defined, and some acceptance that the concept is neither innocent nor neutral” (p. 289). Also, Blackmore and Blackwell ¹¹ clarified that the CPD of academics can be seen to take place within a complex “array of competing challenges and perspectives.” The nature of the academic role and the responsibilities attributed to it are changing, along with the relationships to other roles both “within and outside” the institution (p. 22). Deem et al. ¹² stated that within the context of higher education, professional development for academics occurs within a complex situation of changing national policy “directives” increasing demands on both institutions and academics themselves (p. 116).

The Higher Education Academy ¹³ detailed that CPD is “systematic, on-going, self-directed learning. It is an approach or process which should be a normal part of how you plan and manage your whole working life.” Clegg ¹⁴ argued that “The problem of CPD ... of professionals in higher education is that it operates around a series of unresolved tensions” and went on to explain “fault lines in conceptualising.” Clegg ¹⁴ also explained that there are two “dualisms” in respect to what is considered appropriate for the content and focus of CPD in higher education, which reflects characteristic influences on academic identity. These dualisms form the “research-teaching nexus and the tension between loyalties to the subject discipline and the organization” (p. 37-38). Clegg ¹⁴ also showed that, to understand the influences on CPD at individual and institutional levels, it is essential to take account of these debates as well as the significantly diverse approaches that different academic disciplines take to CPD (p. 42).

Lo (2005) showed that “Professional Development should go beyond personal and individual reflections, for example, it can include exploration of new approaches and theories in language teaching” (p. 140). The UK’s Department for Education and Science (DFES) ¹⁵ suggested that CPD strategies should suit the needs of policy makers and funding and university managers and increase teachers’ pedagogic and knowledge skills. Also, CPD strategies should increase and progress teachers’ individual performance and develop their teaching beliefs and abilities. It therefore involves much more than just training courses. Loucks-Horsley et al. ¹⁶ presented strategies for CPD as the kind of learning experience designed to promote specific professional development objectives. Each strategy was based on a set of assumptions and beliefs about teachers’ learning (p. 17). However, while many things can be learned about teaching through self-observation and critical reflection, many cannot. These include subject matter knowledge, pedagogical expertise, and understanding of curricula (pp. 126-127).

CPD management and organizations should consider several concepts. Bell and Gilbert ⁶ determined three: the personal concept, the occupational concept, and the social concept. The personal concept covers educators’ values, attitudes, beliefs, and motivations that need to be considered. The occupational concept encourages a connection between theory and practice in addition to the essential focus on academic stimulation and professional relevance. The social concept encourages the relationship between individuals and groups (pp. 159-160). Kennedy ¹⁷ suggested that “CPD can be structured and organised in a number of different ways, and for a number of different reasons” (p. 236). She offered three main types of CPD models: transmissional, transitional, and transformational. Every type has its own models for applying CPD. Most of these types and models are linked to the fundamental view of CPD applications, illustrated in figure below and discussed in the following section.

Kennedy ¹⁷ indicated that the transmission type of CPD, in “fulfilling the function of preparing teachers to implement reforms, aligns itself with the training, award-bearing, deficit and cascade model” (p. 248).

Training is commonly understood as a model of CPD; for instance, Korthagen et al. ¹⁸ expected that educator training programs have the “implication that teachers are to be given specific instruction in practical techniques” (p. 1032). Kennedy ¹⁷ stated that

This model supports a high degree of central control, often veiled as quality assurance, where the focus is firmly on coherence and standardization. It is powerful in maintaining a narrow view of teaching and education whereby the standardization of training opportunities overshadows the need for teachers to be proactive in identifying and meeting their own development needs. (p. 240)

Rodrigues et al. ⁷ reported that the content of training programs is usually provided by training experts and is provided as a standard training plan that focuses on teachers’ weaknesses and aims to make progress on improving these weaknesses during a specific course for the determined time (p. 390). However, Korthagen et al. ¹⁸ described training programs as having the “implication that teachers are to be given specific instruction in practical techniques” (p. 1032). Hoban ¹⁹ found that this training model fails to have any important impact on the manner in which this new knowledge is used in practice. Perhaps even more significantly, however, in terms of the relative power of organizers, the training model provides an effective way for dominant organizers to control and limit the agenda and places educators in a passive role as recipients of specific knowledge (pp. 33-34).

The award-bearing model is generally understood as involving long-term development programs, but it can also be used as a model of CPD. It could include the presentation of master’s or PhD degrees or other forms of award. Kennedy ¹⁷ stated that

An award-bearing model of CPD is one that relies on, or emphasizes, the completion of award-bearing programs of study – usually, but not exclusively, validated by universities. This external validation can be viewed as a mark of quality assurance, but equally can be viewed as the exercise of control by the validating and/or funding bodies. (p. 241)

Commonly, the deficit model focuses on exploring and upgrading teachers’ poor performance and attempts to fill the gap for individual teachers who demonstrate low capabilities in their teaching through courses. According to Burbank et al. ²⁰, the deficit model is a means of supporting teachers who show deficiency in their teaching performance. It is often linked to performance management and monitoring of standards in schools (p. 500). Kennedy ¹⁷ reported that “the deficit model uses CPD to attempt to remedy perceived weaknesses in individual teachers” (p. 239).

Generally, the cascade model involves individual teachers attending and contributing to training courses. They then circulate information to the other school staff. This may involve teachers offering to contribute to teacher development programs to deliver the information learned to his or her colleagues. Day ²¹ reported on a case study in which the “cascade model was employed by a group of teachers as a means of sharing their own (successful) learning with colleagues. The group reported on what they had learned, but no detailed consideration was given to the very principles of participation, collaboration and ownership which had characterised their own learning” (p. 126).

Kennedy ¹⁷ defined the transitional type as having the “capacity to support underlying agendas.” It was provided with three models: the standards-based model, the coaching/mentoring model, and the community of practice model (p. 242).

This model focuses on the performance and competence of teachers through determining the standards each teacher should meet. Kennedy ¹⁷, discussing the implementation of the standards-based model in Scotland, stated, “‘[s]tandards’ as opposed to ‘competences’ are now de rigueur in Scotland, with their most strong proponents extolling the relative virtues of standards” (p. 233). Kirk et al. ²² reported that standards provide a common language, making it easier for teachers to engage in dialogue about their professional practice. However, Draper et al. ²³ noted that “tensions are natural in the standards-based approach,” warning that “the Standard itself may be seen as a useful scaffold for professional development or as a source of pressure for uniformity” (p. 221).

Day ²¹ highlighted that the coaching/mentoring model covers a variety of CPD practices that are based on a range of philosophical premises, such as shared ideas. However, the defining characteristic of this model is the importance of the one-on-one relationship, generally between two teachers, which is designed to support CPD. As both coaching and mentoring share many similarities, it makes sense to outline the common things coaches and mentors do, whether the services are presented as a paid professional or an unpaid philanthropic task. Coaching and mentoring share several features in their structures, but there are differences between them (p. 98). Korthagen et al. ¹⁸ stated that the main principles of mentoring, in a traditional sense, enable an individual to follow the ways of an older and wiser colleague who can pass on knowledge and experience and open doors to otherwise out-of-reach opportunities. Coaching, however, is not typically performed on the basis that the coach has direct experience of his or her client’s formal professional role unless the coaching is specific and skills-focused (p. 1031). Rhodes and Beneicke ²⁴ pointed out how mentoring and coaching can be combined in “peer coaching.” This is the process by which two or more teachers work together to reflect upon current practices, develop new skills, share ideas, conduct action research, teach one another, or problem-solve within the workplace (p. 300).

The community of practice model and the coaching/mentoring model share the same features of organization, except the community of practice model indicates a group of teachers or colleagues working together, rather than just one-on-one practice and reflection. Wenger ²⁵ reported that as everyone is a member of various communities of practice, learning within these communities involves three significant processes:

1. Developing forms of mutual engagement.

2. Understanding and harmonizing activity.

3. Developing repertoires, styles, and discourses (p. 95).

Wenger ²⁵ also mentioned that it involves something more than a club of friends or a network of connections between people. Instead, “it has an identity defined by a shared area of interest” (p. 19). Latiwish ²⁶ pointed out that the relationship between the two existing generations theoretically represents community of practice activities, though in reality, this is not the case because of the top-down attitude in administration and its impacts on the relationships among the teachers themselves (p. 56). Richards and Farrell ²⁷ suggested that communities of practice can be beneficial in many aspects: They can provide input from experts, provide teachers with the opportunity for hands-on experience with the topic, raise motivation, offer practical classroom applications, develop collegiality, support innovations, and be flexible in organization. They realized that communities of practice and workshops are ideal formats for introducing an educational innovation and preparing teachers for change (pp. 139-140).

The transformational type of CPD was described by Kennedy ¹⁷ as “supporting teachers in contributing to and shaping education policy and practice would align itself more naturally with action research and transformative models” (p. 248). Kennedy ¹⁷ also reported that the transformational type is different from the previous two types of CPD, as it consists of a combination of processes and conditions of both transmissional and transitional types. She stated that the fundamental aspect of the transformational model of CPD is its combination of practices and conditions that support a transformational agenda. In this sense, it could be argued that the transformational model is not an obviously definable model in itself but instead recognizes the range of different conditions required for transformational practice (p. 247). The presentation of the transformative category in CPD is, according to Kennedy’s structure, divided into two significant models: action research and the transformative model.

4. Transformative Model

Kennedy ¹⁷ reported that transformative CPD is a combination of various elements since it embraces teacher-centered, context-specific aspects. It contains features of communities of practice, which involve cooperation between teachers, academics, and other organizations to increase the awareness required for educational change (p. 254). Mezirow ²⁸ defined transformative learning as “learning that produces a major impact, or paradigm shift, which affects the learner’s subsequent experiences.” Mezirow stated that “the objective of transformative learning is to revise old assumptions and ways of interpreting experience through critical reflection and self-reflection” (p. 339). Cranton ²⁹ described Mezirow’s ²⁸ definitions of transformative learning thus: “transformative is a process by which previously uncritically assimilated assumptions, beliefs, values, and perspectives are questioned and thereby become more open, permeable, and better validated” (pp. 2-3).

In addition, Curran and Murray ³⁰ observed transformational learning in the context of professional development for developing educators and pre-service education students. Their study, by examining 175 teachers and pre-service educators taking educational technology courses, discovered how educators enhancing their skills in technology could also undergo changes in their points of view on teaching practices. The results of this study indicate that a majority of the participants experienced a perspective transformation as a result of their experiences in the transformative classroom (p. 111). These results were extended by King ³¹, who showed that this model “sought to provide educational institutions and their personnel with an understanding of the kinds of professional development activities that could transform educators” (pp. 160-165).

The National CPD Team in Scotland uses a CPD model that supports the transformational type of teachers’ professional development. In their occasional paper series (2007), they found four phases in models of CPD of engaging and facilitating teachers to develop further. These phases are becoming aware, becoming interested, integrating into practice, and innovating and creating. These CPD stages are presented as an activity that helps teachers to upgrade their professional skills gradually and collaboratively. Each of them considers activities for teachers to do and practice.

Greenwood and Levin ³² pointed out that “action research refers to the connection of three elements: research, action and participation” (p. 6).

They also explained that

Action research is a form of research that generates “knowledge claims” for the express purpose of taking action to promote social change and social analysis. But social change we refer to is not just any kind of change. Action research aims to increase the ability of the involved community or organization members to control their own destinies more effectively and keep improving their capacity to do so. (p. 7)

Mills ³³ defined action research as any systematic inquiry performed by teachers, researchers, principals, education counsellors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn (p. 32). Hittleman et al. ³⁴ described action research as teacher research, collaborative investigation, and participatory action research (a systematic inquiry in which professional academic researchers conduct research with, rather than on or for, teachers, administrators, and even sometimes parents and students) (p. 55). McNiff et al. ³⁵ pointed out that the participants of action research are often “practitioners in the field being studied and include stakeholders in the professional community. The practitioners are no longer ‘objects’ to be studied but assume the role of contributors” (p. 33). Guskey ³⁶ stated that

The idea of action research is that educational problems and issues are best identified and investigated where the action is: at the classroom and school level. By integrating research into these settings and engaging those who work at this level in research activities, findings can be applied immediately, and problems solved more quickly. (p. 65)

Brien ³⁷ showed that “action research is known by many other names, including ‘participatory research,’ ‘collaborative inquiry,’ ‘emancipator research,’ ‘action research learning,’ and ‘contextual action research.’” He simplified the definition of action research as “learning by doing,” in which a group of teachers identify a problem, do something to solve it, evaluate how successful their efforts were, and, if they are not satisfied, try again (p. 3-5).

Feldman ³⁸ reported that “action research is a participatory process with practitioners assuming the role of the researcher and conducting research about their workplace practice” (p. 234). Baumfield ³⁹ pointed out that

Action research located within more traditional academic contexts tends to orient the process away from explicitness of the intentions of the activity towards concentrating on the process and the audience. (p. 8)

Boreham ⁴⁰ reported that the research process is a developmental process that involves identifying a problematic issue, imagining a possible solution, trying it out, evaluating it, and changing practice in light of the evaluation (p. 55). Levin and Greenwood ⁴¹ stated that “action research is more than the traditional interpretative research in the sense that the researcher is directly involved in the research setting and in the experience itself and has direct impact on the events being studied.” These activities might be useful for the Libyan reform candidates, as they start with clear steps that teachers might be encouraged to apply. Also, they mentioned that the value of action research lies in empirical research evidence, which can help educationalists to better understand and learn from their own practice through the investigation of different perspectives and to rehearse and test responses to them. Thus, action research provides the “ideal approach” to reducing the problems inherent to preconceived conceptualizations of learning needs and strategies and the consequent confusion, friction, and even conflict in learning settings (p. 266).

Different forms of action research have been presented by Ferrance ⁴², as the form taken depends upon the teachers involved. A plan of research can involve a teacher investigating a subject in his or her classroom, a group of teachers working on a common problem, or a team of teachers and others focusing on

Kennedy ¹⁷ pointed out that action research as a model of CPD has been recognized as being successful in providing teachers with opportunities to ask critical and important questions of their practice (p. 250). Clare et al. ⁴³ claimed that the action research approach could improve teachers’ knowledge in several ways:

A- Teachers engage in critical reflection on specific features of their curriculum and pedagogy; they get to know their students well, interact with them, observe them, and gather data.

B- They engage critically with the research literature related to their own research.

C- They collaborate with their peers and modify curriculum and pedagogy in ways that allow their students to meet a wide range of their educational needs (pp. 117-118).

Therefore, the goal of CPD is to offer insights on the significance of professional development among Ministry of Education-nominated officials for this phase (2020-2022). These varieties of models will help in implementing the following aimed-at activities.

5. Expected Actions and Anticipated Period

In order to ensure strong operation of the main goals of the whole project (2020-2026), as well as the aims of this specific phase (2020-2022), which focuses on presenting developments to key figures of the Ministry of Education to enable them to accept the proposed six years of gradual reform, therefore, those officials should go through different levels and models of required professional development; each level may suggest time or evaluation acts to ensure meeting the main goals of the project. The following tables explain proposed CPD models for the targeted ministry of education administrators in the direction of building a strong base for the reform procedure.

6. Anticipated Outcomes of Phase 1 (2020–2022)

The expected outcomes of these two-year guided reform practices are as follows:

1. Motivate policymakers to transform this existing policy to overcome the education difficulties facing the entire Libyan education system.

2. Develop rich ideas on contextualizing appropriate procedures with time tables for the reform process 2020-2022.

3. Prepare officials to apply CPD and quality assurance and reform the entire education policy in Libya.

4. Developed capable teacher-trainers, education researchers, materials developers, and policy reformers to participate strongly in Phase 2 of the idea.

5. Establish ideas for an IT system and database designs for the entire Libyan education system to facilitate the implementation of the reform’s aims, including the pre-reform expected policy.

6. Establish strong connections with international research centers, councils, counties, and universities and gain understanding of the latest reform studies.

7. Develop educators’ perspectives on the significance of classroom interaction, motivation, students’ innovation, creation, decentralization of education, teamwork, communicative learning, and incorporating PCK.

7. Conclusion and Suggested Procedures

Before the end of such a fundamental stage of this phase, we may need to conclude the whole results in a “pre-reform policy guide and regulation” guidebook. This guidebook must involve essential directions based on the project’s main aim and Phase 1 results to enable reformers to adapt before they move to the next suggested stage of the strategy. Part of this guide should contain a clearly written roadmap for the coming phase (2023-2026) in terms of managing counties, universities, contributors, time tables, etc. based on the project’s main goals. Also, it should include written regulations for the reformers all over the country in terms of this phase’s results to simplify their work on the coming phase (2023-2026). Similarly, written regulations and time tables for all developmental activities that will be suggested to the Phase 2 participants should be included.

References