M enu

Community, Identity, Motivation

JALT2006

KITAKYUSHU

37

Contents

Communities of supportive professionals:
Creating a teacher learning community
through professional development
Kazuyoshi Sato
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Michael Cholewinski
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Steve Cornwell
Osaka Jogakuin College
Juanita Heigham
Sugiyama Jogakuen University
Shannon Kiyokawa
Sugiyama Jogakuen University
Nobuyuki Takaki
Kumamoto University
Reference Data:
Sato, K., Cholewinski, M., Cornwell, S., Heigham, J., Kiyokawa, S., & Takaki, N. (2007). Communities of supportive professionals: Creating ateacher learning community through professional development. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Writers

Help & FAQs

Copyright

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
Although the current literature in general teacher education emphasizes
the importance of creating a collaborative learning community, there has
been little documentation as to how such a community is actually created.
Within the area of foreign language teacher education in particular, there has
been little published on the subject other than “Communities of Supportive
Professionals” (Murphey & Sato, 2005). In this book, Murphey and Sato havedocumented that participation in such collaborative communities generates
many opportunities for professional development, which in turn increases
student learning. Six authors from the book organized a forum for thoseinterested in how to form and develop teacher learning communities (TLCs)
within and outside of school. In essence, these authors, who belong to different
kinds of communities, tell stories of their struggles and achievements working
together with other teachers. Furthermore, they highlight several strategies tocultivate more collaborative communities.
教師教育に関する最近の先行研究において、教師が協力的に学び合うコミュニ
ティを形成する大切さが強調されているが、そのようなコミュニティが実際どのように形成されたのかは、ほとんど研究されていない。特に、外国語の教師教育の研究分野においては、Murphey & Sato (2005)の“Communities of Supportive
Professionals”が唯一の先行研究になっている。Murphey & Sato (2005)によれば、教師は協力的に学び合うコミュニティに参加することによって専門性を向上させ、その結果、生徒の学習成果が上がることが明らかになった。今回、この研究書か
ら６名の著者が参加し、学校内外においてこのようなコミュニティを形成したいと願っている教師を対象にフォーラムを開催した。以下、様々な協力的なコミュニティがどのように形成されたのか、どのようなストラタジーが有効だったのか、
またどのような困難や成果があったのか、具体的に述べる。

A

lthough the current literature in general teacher
education emphasizes the importance of creating acollaborative learning community, there has been
little documentation as to how such a community is actuallycreated. Within the area of foreign language teacher educationin particular, there has been little published on the subject otherthan “Communities of Supportive Professionals” (Murphey &Sato, 2005). In this book, Murphey and Sato have documented
that participation in such collaborative communities generates
many opportunities for professional development, which inturn increases student learning.

38

Studies on teacher learning emphasize the importance ofbuilding a collaborative learning community. Research on
effective schools and teaching cultures has identified two
general types of schools: learning-enriched and learningimpoverished (Kleinsasser, 1993; Little, 1982; McLaughlin,
1993; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sato
& Kleinsasser, 2004). For example, Rosenholtz examined
1,213 teachers in 78 elementary schools in the United Statesand found only 13 to be learning-enriched. In these 13
schools, teachers consistently collaborated with one another,
set goals with principals, and challenged students’ diverse
learning needs. In contrast, in the learning-impoverishedschools, teachers were uncertain about their practices, wereisolated from colleagues, and reinforced routine practices(see also, Lortie, 1975).
McLaughlin and Talbert’s (2001) longitudinal study
in 16 U.S. high schools identified two types of teacher
communities: weak and strong. In strong teacher
communities, they found that teachers collaborated toreinvent practice, whereas in traditional communities
teachers enforced traditions. They go on to say that:what distinguishes teacher-learning communities
from other school settings is their collective stanceon learning in the context of shared work andresponsibilities. In such communities, teachers
together address the challenges of their student
body and explore ways of improving practice toadvance learning. This collective inquiry generates
knowledge of practice, while a teacher’s individual
learning in strong traditional communities draws
upon knowledge for practice, derived from

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
research and theory outside the teaching setting.
(p. 63, italics original)
Knowledge of practice is understanding daily practice, andthis helps teachers comprehend and improve what theydo. Knowledge for practice is generally imported fromthe outside and often lacks situational ecology. Moreover,
McLaughlin and Talbert found that teacher collaboration led
to better student outcomes.
Although some TLCs are found within schools, manyothers exist outside as well. Lieberman and McLaughlin(1992) suggested that networks built outside of schools
attract more teachers than conventional in-service groups,
which typically aim at knowledge transmission. Networks
focus on specific activities, establish a climate of trust andsupport, offer intellectual and emotional stimulation, andprovide leadership opportunities. Nevertheless, the powerof networks has been underestimated (Lieberman & Miller,
1994), and “little is known about how such networks areformed, what they focus on, and how they are sustained”(Lieberman & Grolnick, 1999, p.292).
Six authors from the book mentioned above organized
a forum for those interested in learning how to form anddevelop TLCs within and outside of school. These authors,
who belong to different kinds of communities, tell storiesof their struggles and achievements in setting up theirrespective collaborative communities. Those stories include:
1) The surprise of collaboration in curriculum
innovation (Heigham & Kiyokawa)
2)

Building a collaborative school culture throughcurriculum development (Cholewinski)

39

3)

Keeping a grassroots teacher development group
growing (Takaki)

4)

Co-Constructing a community of qualitative
researchers (Cornwell)Furthermore, the authors highlight several strategies tocultivate more collaborative communities.
The audience was invited to participate in a discussion sothat they could better understand why creating collaborative
communities can be one of the greatest motivating
factors for professional development. We hope this forum
encouraged other teachers to form and participate in similar
teacher-learning communities.

The surprise of collaboration in curriculum
innovation
Description
The Sugiyama Jogakuen University Communicative
English Program (CEP) is a program designed to provide
developmental English opportunities for students within
the School of Cross-Cultural Studies, and specifically, theDepartment of Foreign Studies. The program serves about
300 students, mostly English majors, with a small percentage
who have elected to join the CEP as non-English majors. The
CEP is a 3-year program, which is integrated both verticallywithin each year and horizontally from year to year, and it
employs 17 teachers: a director, three full-time teachers, and13 part-time teachers. These teachers have worked together
to build and maintain the curriculum, and through our work
together, a thriving professional community has developed.

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
This supportive community has allowed us to create a
program that truly meets the needs of our students andconsequently, fosters their learning.

Steps
Involving all the teachers in discussion
During the 2000-2001 academic year, the Sugiyama
Jogakuen University Department of Foreign Studies decided
to establish a 3-year developmental English program toreplace the 1-year Freshman English Program. Once thisdecision was made, the director invited all participatingteachers to join in the creation of the new program. All theteachers accepted the invitation, most with enthusiasm.

Developing a course
The first steps taken by the teachers were to consider theneeds and interests of the students and then decide whatcourses the program should offer to meet them. To the extent
possible, after the courses were decided, specific courses
were assigned to specific days of the week so that teachers
teaching on the same day would teach the same classes; thiswas done to allow teachers to collaborate more easily. From
here, groups of teachers began building the curricula.

Integrating the curricula
Some of the teachers in the program taught on more than one
day, so from the early stages they were able to carry ideas
from one course to another to help integrate the curricula.
This information sharing was so successful that more40

teachers were invited to teach on additional days to further
promote integration. Once the individual course curriculum
was set, the director encouraged the teachers to share theirplans with teachers teaching other courses so that further
connections could be made. Consequently, we have tightly
coordinated curricula to which everyone has contributed.
This, along with the ongoing maintenance of the program,has allowed us to develop a strong sense of community.

Conclusion
Prior to collaborating on this program, many of the teachers,
most of which are part-timers, had primarily worked inisolated environments. They had typically worked incontexts where they had had sole responsibility for theircourse, which was not connected to any other course, orwhere they had been given explicit directives from anorganizing body of which they were not a part. Thus, theopportunity to participate in a program in which everyone
is encouraged to collaborate has been rewarding. Being partof a community in which exchanging ideas is promoted
and valued has proven to be an excellent opportunity for
professional growth.
We are now in the 5th year of the program, and although
we have had struggles, things are going well. Ourcommunity is surprisingly strong and dynamic. However,working in a coordinated program requires teachers tocontribute more than they might otherwise, and that level ofparticipation is not for everyone. Since the program began,
we have lost several teachers to contexts better suited tothem. Additionally, when teachers are truly working together,
the voice of the majority must prevail, and thus compromises

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
have to be made. People who are not good at making themmay, at the end of the day, find themselves superfluous.
Within the Sugiyama Jogakuen University CEP, theclassroom and staff room are vibrant; and as evidenced
by teachers’ continued contributions, it is fair to say thatnearly everyone involved feels the work is worthwhile.
This is because we have built a community in which it issafe to experiment with new ideas, learn from mistakes, andchallenge ourselves and our students. From the beginning,
we built the program goals together, and as time passes wecontinue to refine those goals as well as the means by which
we are striving to achieve them. The road is not always
smooth, but the bumps along the way help us improve theprogram for the students and for ourselves.

Building a collaborative school culture throughcurriculum development
Description
Our curriculum reform started in 2000, and over the past
5 years we have worked on curriculum development. We
went through ups and downs like a roller coaster, but weare certain that we are better off now than when we began.
We have learned that involving teachers in continuous
curriculum development leads to a more collaborative school
culture in which teachers talk about teaching on a daily
basis, share materials and ideas, and discuss teaching issues.
Our English Team was responsible for a 2-year
coordinated program, which included 520 freshman andsophomore students. The program’s main goal as statedin the syllabus was “to enable students to confidently

41

participate in successful communication (both productively
and receptively) with other speakers of English in a wide
variety of real-life situations.” The six weekly coordinatedclasses were taught by 8 full-time and 21 part-time teachers.
In truth, however, the coordinated aspect of our curriculum
existed largely on paper and received only feigned support
from a number of teachers. For example, not only was an
outdated version of the textbook being used for three ofsix classes, but the teachers of these classes were simply
assigned to cover different units—with no corresponding
follow-up at any level. Additionally, we essentially had noassessment criteria beyond the university guidelines of what
the numeric equivalent of a letter grade was. What’s more,because of the difficulty of getting unanimous English Teamapproval, the two freshman and sophomore coordinators(English Team volunteers) were essentially powerless tochange or enforce any aspects of the curriculum. Put simply,
we were in an isolated school culture in which teachers
communicated little with other teachers but believed they
had freedom in their own classrooms.

Steps
Begin with the student in mind
Our formal proposal for a comprehensive student evaluation
produced several heated English Team meetings. Opponents
were generally against students evaluating instructors, butthere were also concerns about how the results would be
used. Some teachers worried that the results might affecttheir jobs or that negative feedback might spread outside of
our team. We eventually decided that the individual classdata would be aggregated so that only the overall results

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning communityof the six different courses would be visible. We realizedthat compromise was essential if we expected to make any
progress, and it therefore became a mainstay of all ourdevelopment efforts. We conducted initial student evaluation
at the end of the first semester in 2000. Students completed
a Japanese version of an online feedback form in one of
their computer classes, and after the summer break (in late
September) the results were discussed in a regular English
Team meeting.

Change materials and clarify goals
After lengthy English Team negotiations, we eventually
decided to choose new textbooks for all the courses, with aview to introducing more current and challenging topics. We
also agreed on the need to clarify the goals of each course in
the program and revise the program syllabus.

Conduct follow-up feedback
In July 2002, we administered a second student evaluation,
hoping to confirm our positive program changes. In a
September meeting, we provided the results of this second
evaluation. The entire team was very pleased with thesubstantial increase in student satisfaction. Particularly
satisfying was that many freshmen were very happy with thecontent and activities in the newly coordinated classes.

Encourage administrative and teacher collaboration
Without prior warning, the university announced that it
would replace the current business school with a new one

42

beginning in the 2004 school year. In light of the top-downpolitical decision to restructure, we revived the coordinatorissue by proposing that two full-time teachers be assigned ascoordinators for each of the four courses of the new program.
This time around, the English Team head (as administrative
spokesperson) actively supported the proposal, thoughseveral teachers were once again clearly against it. Most
likely because of the administrative pressure and direct
support by the English Team head, the team teachers decided
to coordinate the four courses of the new program (Oral
Communication Strategies, Discussion and Debate, Writing
and Presentation, and Reading for Understanding) with twoteachers per course.

Involve part-time teachers in discussions
Each course coordinator called for meetings to involve parttime teachers before the orientation meetings. Many parttimers who wanted to know more about the new program
participated in these meetings. Coordinators were happy thatthese teachers were interested in the program and actively
engaged in the discussion. Some of the ideas from part-timeteachers were incorporated into the final course syllabi.

Conclusion
Our experience with collaborative curriculum development
indicates that building a supportive professional community
entails ongoing communication; discussion about teachingissues; evaluation of the program; and coherent curriculum
development by participants who likely have very different
ideas, backgrounds, and levels of commitment to theJALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning communitytask. We used to think that we were in the middle of ourcurriculum development, but now we are more comfortableknowing that this journey has no real end. Looking backon these past 5 years, one theme emerged above others:
When we worked together we made real progress. We
hope this kind of curriculum development will give us
more opportunities to expand our supportive professional
community.

Keeping a grassroots teacher development group
growing
Description
Inspired by my interactions with novice in-service EFL
teachers, I started a grassroots teacher development groupin 1993 in Kumamoto, Japan called PIGATE, whimsicallydenoting a group of learner-teachers (piglets) working
together at the gate leading to the world of professional
teachers of EFL. Since its foundation, PIGATE has held
5-hour long monthly sessions on every second Saturday as
well as all-day summer special sessions in which classroom
practitioners, graduate/undergraduate students, teacher
educators, and ALTs work together collaboratively for theirdevelopment.
PIGATE, supported by the belief that teacher learning
should be ongoing, day-to-day based, voluntary, experiential,reflective, developmental, and self-educating, has four main
aims:1) to raise the awareness of EFL practitioners
2)

to make their implicit theories explicit3)

to develop and improve their practical skills in
TEFL

4)

to brush up their communicative competence in
EFL

43

For these aims, PIGATE has made the most of grassroots
activism by being free from government controls andrestrictions. Members seek locally relevant, down-to-earth
achievements rather than top-down, superficial, and oneshot solutions. PIGATE has been managed by self-governed
volunteerism financed only by membership fees. As of
September 2006, we have about 110 members in and outside
Kumamoto, Japan.

Steps
Provide continuity: Tenacity and leadership are the key
It may not be difficult at all to start a grassroots program,but it requires tenacity and strong leadership to keep one
going for an extended time. In fact, about 15 self-help EFL
teacher learning groups existed in Kumamoto Prefecture
between 1984-1999, and none of them lasted long. It seems
they became isolated and ended up “licking each other’s
wounds.”Two is far better than one: Start with what you alreadyhave
One does not have to have a large membership, andPIGATE, in fact, only gradually spread to other teachers
by word of mouth. One of PIGATE’s policies is that wenever force anyone to join or leave, though we keep people

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
informed about us. One is reminded of the Chinese proverb,“When you want to achieve something big, always start withwhat you already have.”

Let every member pay yearly dues: money talks…in away
As one Japanese proverb goes, you never get something fornothing. As a matter of fact, people of will are usually happy
to pay dues. We have six different types of membership dues
according to members’ positions. In fact, without dues it
would not be easy to get people united and help a grassrootsgroup survive.

Organize a steering committee: Invite active participant
involvement
The Steering Committee members who work behind andin front of the curtain have various jobs, and they havemost significantly contributed to PIGATE’s survival andsuccess. They are representatives (three from in-service
teachers and four from pre-service teachers), general affairs
managers, publicity managers, treasurers, and auditors. In
addition to a session chief volunteer from the committee
members who chair each session, we have video technicians,
photographers, journal keepers, and refreshment managers.
Other participants usually contribute to the community byhelping with tasks such as cleaning up the site and making
copies.

44

Collaboratively negotiate the focus topics: Get a syllabus
ready for all to share
It is a lot of work and indispensable at the same time toask every member to let us know what they want to learn
in PIGATE through the mailing list and questionnaires
before we draft a new PIGATE syllabus to be approved at
the general meeting. Every 2 years a new syllabus emerges
through collaborative effort.

Structure routines of collaborative reflection: Nothing
gained without reflection
We hold a Steering Committee meeting right after eachmonthly session for an immediate reflection on the month’s
session and to prepare for the next session. The next month’s
chief is then responsible for reminding the members of the
discussion topic and calling for proposals while providing
preparation hints and tasks on the mailing list to which about
80% of us are connected. We can freely discuss each session
on the list.

Verbalize activities and practice: Publish newsletters andjournals regularly
PIGATE’s most important achievement is that theparticipants have learned to verbalize their worries,
concerns, and problems in public. This is done throughmonthly activities, newsletters, and journals that explore
their experiences and learning as teachers and as people.
Four members take turns editing each newsletter. Eachmonth’s editor-in-chief of a 40-page PIGATE Newsletter

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
informs the members of the deadlines for columns, featurearticles, essays, reports, and other pages; and recruits
volunteers to gather news and information. The importanceof a newsletter in a community like PIGATE should never be
underestimated. On a voluntary basis, PIGATE members arealso expected to contribute to the annual PIGATE Journal.

Lastly, one of the latest findings in PIGATE is that mere
TEFL theory-practice interactions will not enhance
participants’ professional development unless everyday
routines are discussed. Thus, PIGATE is planning toincorporate a focus on life histories of teachers in future
activities.

Get TEFL specialists and students involved: Make themost of local universities

Co-Constructing a community of qualitative
researchers
Description

We learned that many members would not come to PIGATE
if specialists’ feedback was not available. Thus, university
teacher educators’ involvement has been very helpful insuccessfully managing PIGATE, not just in terms of thecontent, but also in reserving venues and getting AV aids andmaterials ready for each session.

Conclusion
What we have learned through PIGATE is that teachers learn
far better in a collaborative community than in isolation,and they do not necessarily learn through prescribed
workshops. We have also learned that teachers must not wait
for the government, the board of education, or other formal
institutions to undertake in-service teacher education reform.
Teachers themselves can develop grassroots organizations
like PIGATE, hopefully getting university EFL specialists,
students, and other people involved in various teacher
learning activities.
No teacher should be an island. It is PIGATE’s aim tointegrate pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, andteacher educators into a network of grassroots organizations.

45

As we sat in the Japanese garden outside theguesthouse on the Doshisha University campus in
Kyoto in May 2001, we realized what an idyllicsetting it was to discuss qualitative researchwith friends and colleagues. It was a safe place
to share our work. We were a self-selected groupthat had studied and presented together, and someof us had even written together. This moment
was a peak in our professional and academic
community building…As we sat in the shade onthat pleasant May afternoon, we felt proud of what
we had created in just a few years. (Cornwell &McLaughlin, 2005, p. 127)
This paper describes how from 1999 to 2003 the support
group mentioned above, consisting of both experienced
and new researchers, developed and began a period ofsharing, supporting, and collaborating while learning about
qualitative research and each other. Beginning with graduate
students in a qualitative research class at Temple University
Japan (TUJ), the group expanded to include graduate

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
students from outside TUJ and even skilled researchers (forexample, Yasuko Kanno, one of this year's plenary speakers,
shared her experiences with us at a workshop/retreat in
Nagoya). We all shared an interest in interpretive and criticalqualitative research “which explicitly took into account andinvestigated the socio-cultural contexts in which second
language learners and users operate in Japan” (p. 128). In
addition, many of us were also inspired by and interested
in applying the Communities of Practice (CoP) framework(Wenger, 1998) to our research.

Developing a core of collaborators

Steps

Accepting that changes in membership are inevitable

Communities of Practice (CoP) refers to a social theory oflearning that re-conceptualizes learning as an event thatis quintessentially social. It looks at the social practice bywhich newcomers can become full members of a community(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Wenger statesthat there are three dimensions that need to be present
in a community of practice: mutual engagement, a joint
enterprise, and a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998, p. 73).
All of these were present in the support group or CoP thatdeveloped around our work. We have identified several
aspects that enabled and sustained our community.

The group has always been in flux, as some members left
Japan while others' research foci or personal situations
changed, prompting them to leave the group or become
inactive.

Using information technology to enhancecommunication
We set up several electronic mailing lists. One was called the
Q-Book and was used among other things to comment ondrafts and discuss conceptual frameworks.

46

Different core members served in different ways setting up
the email list mentioned earlier, submitting proposals forjoint presentations at conferences, etc.

Finding a balance of ways of participation
We acknowledged that we all are not equally available given
busy schedules. Thus, it was okay for some members toparticipate fully, while others did so more sporadically.

Seizing and creating opportunities for professional
development
Members edited working papers and special issues ofjournals related to our research interests. Also, as alluded
to earlier, members presented together in a wide range ofvenues (JALT meetings, the JALT conference, the American
Association of Applied Linguistics, the International Applied
Linguistics Association).

Allowing the community to evolve and change
As old members departed and new ones joined, the groupchanged and evolved. Communities of Practice do not

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
remain intact forever. Over time they transform andsometimes even become inactive or dissolve.
Developing a support group like the one described inthis paper is not without problems. (For a detailed look atsome of the issues and constraints we faced and how wedealt with them, see Maeda, Churchill, & Cornwell, 2006).
Although language choice was never discussed, and perhaps
because our multilingual members were very proficient inEnglish, our e-lists' language was English, which privileged
L1 speakers of English and made some L2 users ofEnglish hesitant to post. In addition, if someone responded
frequently, it could seem that they were monopolizing thelist. There sometimes seemed to be different opinions as
to whether postings should be finished works or works
in progress. Another source of tension was in the area ofparticipation. Some members felt that if they did not take aleadership role or do certain tasks, the tasks would not bedone and opportunities would fall through the cracks. This
happened at times when preparing proposals or responding
to calls for papers.

Conclusion
We found four elements that were important in thedevelopment of our community and which might help
readers as they develop their own communities. We benefitedfrom:
1. a defined focus such as ours on qualitative
research in education and TESOL
2.

specific purposes or goals within that focus

47

3.

concrete projects on which to collaborate

4.

institutional resources such as access to the faculty
and facilities (Cornwell & McLaughlin, 2005, p.
134)

Participating in this community has been a positive
experience that has left us seeing the possibilities that comefrom collaborating to develop an understanding of a researcharea. The work of participating in and building a community
becomes a joy when everyone is not only furthering theirinterests but also helping others and a whole community(perhaps our discipline as well) along the way (Cornwell &McLaughlin, 2005, p. 135).

Summary
Wenger (1998) contends that “learning is, in its essence, afundamentally social phenomenon” (p. 3). The four stories
above describe how these teachers have been sociallyengaged in creating TLCs in and out of schools. Heigham,a language program director, initiated a curriculum reformin her department, involving both full and part-timeteachers. Some part-time teachers such as Kiyokawa playeda significant role in developing a professional learning
community. Cholewinski described a similar effort to renew
an old curriculum through student evaluation, goal setting,communication, and collaboration, which are all necessary
ingredients for changing school culture. On the other hand,
Takaki and Cornwell told stories about how they createdTLCs outside of school. Takaki detailed the developmentof a volunteer teachers’ group. Starting with his university
graduates who became junior high school teachers, Takaki

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
helped them take more leadership roles through newsletters,
action research, email lists, and yearly publications.
Cornwell highlighted a group of graduate students in Japan
who formed a qualitative research group and described how
such a self-initiated group developed into a collaborative
learning community.
We have learned that TLCs can take many forms andthat participating in them can significantly promote teacher
learning. While creating and sustaining TLCs takes time andeffort, they can provide an essential foundation for teacher
learning, a foundation grounded in day-to-day practices. In
order to make a more powerful and coherent base for TLCs,
McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) call for “partnership ofgovernment and professional initiatives” (p. 136).
Teacher learning communities constitute thebest context for professional growth and change.
Reformers of various stripes conclude that effective
professional development has a strong site-based
component, enables teachers to consider theirpractice in light of evidence and research, and isgrounded not only in knowledge of teaching, but
in relation to specific students and specific subject
matter. If these principles become the basis forserious reform in professional development
programs supported by states and districts
throughout the country, they could significantly
enhance both teacher learning and opportunities
for learning communities to grow (p. 135).
Thus promoting community should be an ongoing mission
for educators at every level. We believe creating teacher
learning communities enables and encourages teachers to be48

lifelong learners, and teachers who are also learners are bestequipped to provide a dynamic classroom for their students.
Kazuyoshi Sato holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics fromthe University of Queensland, Australia. He has written
several papers on communicative language teaching andteacher education, and his research interests include teacher
development, language learning strategies, and curriculum
development.
Michael Cholewinski teaches at Nagoya Universityof Foreign Studies. He holds an MA from SIT and iscurrently completing his PhD in Applied Linguistics fromthe University of Birmingham, UK. His research interests
include learner engagement, eLearning, and Media studies.
Steve Cornwell has taught English and/or conductedteacher training in Bangladesh, China, Ecuador, Japan, andthe United States. He currently teaches at Osaka Jogakuin
College and is editor of The JALT Journal and a member ofthe editorial advisory board of The Language Teacher.
Juanita Heigham is the director the Communicative English
Program at Sugiyama Jogakuen University in Nagoya,Japan. Her research interests include curriculum design,
teacher development, and learner independence.
Shannon Kiyokawa has been teaching in theCommunicative English Program at Sugiyama Jogakuen
University since its inception. Her research interests include
bilingualism and learner autonomy.
Nobuyuki Takaki teaches at Kumamoto University,
Faculty of Education. He holds an MA in TESOL fromthe University of London Institute of Education and has

JALT2006 ­— Community, Identity, Motivation

Sato, et al: Communities of supportive professionals: Creating a teacher learning community
published several books and articles on EFL teacher
development, pronunciation teaching, and communicative
approaches.

References
Cornwell, S., & McLaughlin, J. (2005). Co-constructing acommunity of qualitative researchers. In T. Murphey & K.
Sato (Eds.), Communities of supportive professionals (pp.
127-136). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kleinsasser, R.C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures:
Foreign language teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 9, 373-383.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) . Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1999). Networks andreform in American education. In L. Darling-Hammond& G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 292-312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks foreducational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73 (9), 673-677.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Problems andpossibilities of institutionalizing teacher research. In S.
Hollingworth and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research andeducational reform (93rd yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, pp.204-221). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

49

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality andexperimentation: Workplace conditions of school success.
American Educational Research Journal, 19 (3), 325-340.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’
workplace context? In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin(Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, andcontexts (pp.79-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional
communities and the work of high school teaching.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Murphey, T., & Sato, K. (Eds.). (2005). Communities ofSupportive Professionals. TESOL Inc.
PIGATE. (n.d.). <www.educ.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~pigate/>.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The socialorganization of schools. New York: Longman.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R.C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, andinteractions of teachers in a Japanese high school English
department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 797816.
Simon-Maeda, A., Churchill, E., & Cornwell, S. (2006).
Negotiating academic practices, identities, andrelationships in a doctoral program: A case from anoverseas institution in Japan. TESL-EJ 10 (2) Retrieved
July 3, 2007 from <www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/
ej38/a7.pdf>.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University
Press.