Education and urban society pd and ai 2012l

Education and Urban Society
http://eus.sagepub.com/
Reframing Professional Development for South African Schools : An
Appreciative Inquiry Approach
G. M. Steyn
Education and Urban Society 2012 44: 318 originally published online 20
December 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0013124510392569
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://eus.sagepub.com/content/44/3/318
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Education and Urban Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://eus.sagepub.com/content/44/3/318.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 17, 2012
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 20, 2010
What is This?
Downloaded from eus.sagepub.com at UNISA Univ of South Africa on April 18, 2012

Education and Urban Society
44(3) 318–
341
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013124510392569
http://eus.sagepub.com
392569EUS44310.1177/00131245103
92569SteynEducation and Urban Society
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Reframing Professional
Development for South
African Schools: An
Appreciative Inquiry
Approach
G. M. Steyn1
Abstract
Often research on the professional development (PD) of staff is framed
within a problem-based context that focuses on the PD-related problems
experienced by staff. This study pursued a different approach by using the
appreciative inquiry (AI) theoretical perspective to study the positive ex-periences
of staff in respect of PD and their desire to improve the practice
of PD even further. A qualitative study was carried out among four schools
with maximum variance. The findings reveal the main aim of continuing PD,
the changing attitudes engendered by PD, the prominent role of the principal
and the requirements for effective PD programs including the selection of
facilitators, appropriate venues and the timing and duration of workshops,
as well as feedback on workshops. The study provides evidence that an AI
approach may be used as a basis for identifying guidelines on improving PD
practice. The article concludes with implications of the findings for principals
of schools.
Keywords
change, educational policy, educational reform, leadership
1University of South Africa, Pretoria
Corresponding Author:
G. M. Steyn, Department of Further Teacher Education, University of South Africa, P O Box
392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa
Email: steyngm1@unisa.ac.za

Steyn 319
Introduction
All organizations and professionals need to learn to cope with the demands,
challenges, and changes that are rapidly taking place in their environments
(Retna, 2007, p. 127; Vemić, 2007, p. 209). Being a young democracy with
a rapidly changing socioeconomic environment, South Africa is no exception
(Munonde, 2007, p. 12). Bloch (2008, p. 19) believes that, unfortunately,
South African schools do not meet the requirements for a developing country
and therefore “routinely outperform in all standardized tests for literacy and
maths.” Paton (2006, p. 1) is of the opinion that “poor quality teaching is the
key reason why the education system is failing so many schools.” As a con-sequence,
South African schools are recognized as being “in crisis” (Bloch,
2008, p. 19; Paton, 2006, p. 1) and in “a state of disaster” (Bloch, 2008,
p. 19). This therefore implies that “the quality of teaching and learning is
under challenge” (Doring, 2002, p. 1).
Literature shows that quality teaching depends on the professional devel-opment
(PD) of staff and that they play a key role in implementing educa-tional
policies (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Desimone, Smith, &
Ueno, 2006; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006; Vemić, 2007). Staff are also required
to develop professionally to deal with the challenges created by those poli-cies.
Munonde (2007, p. 13) believes that education officials in South Africa
have provided teaching staff with inappropriate development programs and
have not succeeded in helping teachers to implement new curriculum devel-opments.
Therefore, “teacher professional development as a continuing pro-cess
is increasingly regarded as critical in creating more effective schools and
in raising the standards of students’ achievements” (Moswela, 2006, p. 629).
The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development
in South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 16; 2007, p. 16) maintains
that continuing professional training and development (CPTD) requires con-ceptual
and subject content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge for
effective teaching and learning to take place (Brandt, 2003; Desimone et al,
2006; Mundry, 2005). In particular, the Policy Framework has been planned
to prepare teaching staff to address the challenges and demands that South
Africans face (Republic of South Africa, 2007, p. 1). CPDP ultimately
endeavors to support learners in “learning well and equipping themselves for
further learning and for satisfying lives as productive citizens, for the benefit
of their families, their communities and our nation” (Republic of South
Africa, 2007, p. 25). It is the responsibility of the South African Council for
Educators (SACE), the statutory body for South African teachers, to imple-ment
and manage the CPTD (Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 17).

320 Education and Urban Society 44(3)
Registered teachers are required to accumulate PD points by choosing
approved PD activities that address their professional development needs
(Republic of South Africa, 2006, p. 17; 2007, p. 20).
This study responds to the appeals that are being made to refocus on the
professional development of teachers. It looks at how a diverse sample of
teaching staff experienced PD in a positive light and the strategies they sug-gested
for improving themselves. This study therefore focuses on the follow-ing
two questions based on the appreciative inquiry approach:
Research Question 1: What are the positive experiences of teaching
staff in respect of their PD?
Research Question 2: What strategies may be introduced to improve
their PD?”
Theoretical Framework
In this article, the researcher uses different theories as a lens for understand-ing
principals’ and teachers’ positive experience of PD and the strategies that
they recommend to support their PD. These include the appreciative inquiry
technique, the interpretativist framework, and professional development
literature.
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
In Cooperrider and Srivasta’s seminal work (1987), they developed the AI
technique that focuses on what works well in situations and organizations.
This approach represents a fresh way of looking at the world (Lewis & Van
Tiem, 2004). Instead of focusing on problems, AI attempts to build on that
which works well in organizations and situations (Billings & Kowalski,
2008; Bushe, 2007, p. 37) and therefore approaches issues in the world in “a
significantly different way” (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006, p. 1). Similarly,
Calabrese, Hummel, and Martin (2007, p. 278) regard AI as “a research per-spective,
research method and world view” that is based on the premise that
humans construct meaning socially. To this end, AI researchers try to con-struct
a “new lens for seeing old issues” (Bushe & Kassam, 2005, p. 164).
The principles and processes that AI theorists advocate lead to positive trans-formation
(Bushe 2007; Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Preskill & Catsambas,
2006) because AI builds on people’s basic strengths and involves an inquiry
that begins with appreciation of that which is positive. AI is applicable, pro-vocative,
and collaborative (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). This approach

Steyn 321
Discovery
(Inquire)
Appreciating what
is; the best of what
Dream (Imagine)
Imagining what
could be;
envisioning results
Design (Innovate)
Coconstructing;
what should be
Destiny
(Implement)
Identifying
obstacles; sustaining
Figure 1. The AI D model
Source: Preskill and Catsambas (2006, p. 15).
has also been successfully applied to education (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006,
p. 7). The AI model consists of a D cycle as depicted in Figure 1.
1. Discovery (inquire). During this phase the focus is on an apprecia-tion
of what exists, “the best of what has been and what is” (Dunlap,
2008, p. 26; Lehner & Hight, 2006, p. 143). The idea is to “build
on the positive core” (Schutt, 2007, p. 27). People describe their
personal experience of a phenomenon (Bushe & Kassam, 2005;
Elleven, 2007; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004), in this case the PD of
teaching staff. The researcher then attempts to uncover and rein-force
the positive in a phenomenon/situation (Bushe & Kassam,
2005).
2. Dream (imagine). During the second phase the emphasis is on imag-ining
what could be; this involves the creation of a new vision for
the future (Dunlap, 2008; Elleven, 2007; Lehner & Hight, 2006).
By establishing new ground, new possibilities can emerge (Bushe
& Kassam, 2005; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004).
3. Design (innovate). The third phase focuses on what should be by
coconstructing how it could be and what is possible (Bushe & Kas-sam,
2005; Dunlap, 2008; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004; Schutt, 2007).
4. Destiny (implement). The last phase involves creating what will be
(Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004). The idea in
this phase is to identify obstacles that need to be dealt with (Schutt,
2007).

Interpretive Paradigm
Knowledge can be constructed through “people’s intentions, values and rea-sons,
meaning and self-understanding” (Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005,
p. 20). The research in the study was based on an interpretive paradigm with
its focus on experience and interpretation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Henning
& Van Rensburg, 2005). In particular, this study was based on the under-standing
of participants’ experience and perceptions of PD in their teaching
environment with a view to identifying strategies to improve PD opportuni-ties.
In this investigation both the interpretive paradigm and, in particular, a
constructive-interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) were used to
identify the PD experience of staff and create guidelines for improving PD.
The focus group interviews generated rich and deep descriptions of their
experiences and raised strategies for improving their PD (Denzin & Lincoln,
2008; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005). The data collected revealed particu-lar
themes and categories.
Professional Development
On one hand, teachers learn their work informally through what they experi-ence
in the workplace (Maaranen, Kynäslahti, Krokfors, 2008). “The fact
that teachers learn throughout their professional life is beyond argument”
(Doring, 2002, p. 2). Formal learning, on the other hand, occurs through
“professional development courses, workshops or other activities with
planned aims, objectives and pedagogical content” (Maaranen et al., 2008,
p. 134). In this regard, Doring (2002, p. 2) succinctly states, “During the last
decade significant literature on PD has emerged that has shed light on effec-tive
PD programs to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills for the sake of
improved learner performance.”
Workshops, seminars, and conferences are viewed as more traditional
approaches to PD (Boyle et al., 2005; Lee, 2005). Boyle et al.’s study (2005)
indicates that longer term PD is now the preferred model. Moreover, PD is
most effective when it includes follow-up through supportive feedback, peer
mentoring, and staff interaction (Bernauer, 2002; Moore, 2000). Where PD is
designed for teachers at the same school, they may discuss professional
issues, observe colleagues, share practice, and also integrate what they learnt
(Boyle et al., 2005; Lee, 2005). These programs of a more collaborative
nature also appear to be more effective than previous PD programs (Gray,
2005; Lee, 2005) and have resulted in improved communication, respect, and
trust in a collegial school atmosphere (Bezzina, 2002). Hirsch’s study on
effective PD has revealed important characteristics of PD learning (Hirsch,
2005) including individual beliefs that play an important role in the

Steyn 323
improvement process. The most effective PD programs succeed when they
change teachers at the level of their beliefs.
Previous studies by Steyn and Van Niekerk (2005), Steyn (2008), and
Steyn (2009) indicate that factors, including the following, play a role in the
effective implementation of PD:
•• The role of principals and teachers: Principals who engage in con-tinuing
PD set an example for their staff and assist in contribut-ing
to the schools’ success by promoting a climate of renewal and
improvement (Drago-Severson, 2007; Moswela, 2006; Rodriguez-
Campos, Rincones-Gomez & Shen, 2005). This however implies
that they first need to be trained themselves to acquire new knowl-edge
and skills to lead teacher development activities (Moswela,
2006). They need to monitor and evaluate the teaching processes;
this means that they need to know the training needs of teachers to
take appropriate action (Moswela, 2006). Teachers should also be
committed to their own development (Moswela, 2006). An impor-tant
challenge is to select appropriate PD that aligns with the views,
beliefs, and experiences of teachers (Hirsch, 2005; Nielsen, 2008;
Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006).
•• Recognition of teachers’ needs: Fratt (2007) regards a needs assess-ment
as an important first step. This is confirmed by studies by
Lee (2005) and Desimone et al. (2006), which indicate that teach-ers’
needs and expectations should be determined by teachers and
principals and that teachers should also be “partners of the whole
process—planning their own learning experience, implementing
practices, providing feedback, and evaluating the programme” (Lee,
2005, p. 46).
•• Requirements of PD programs: A number of aspects can play a role
for programs to be effective.
– The choice of facilitators: Research supports the need for spe-cialist
facilitators whose expertise should be based on practical
experience (Mewborn & Huberty, 2004; Munonde, 2007; Vincent
& Ross, 2001). Moswela’s study (2006, p. 628) among teachers
in Botswana reveals that teachers prefer colleagues in the same
school to outsiders or consultants since they are “familiar with
the actual problems that the teachers experience.”
– PD focus and content: It is important that teachers value the
content of programs and realize that it is possible to integrate
what they have learnt into their classroom practice (Harwood &
Clarke, 2006; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005). The main focus

should be on the acquisition both of subject and pedagogical
knowledge and skills for the sake of improving their teaching
practice (Hodkinson, Colley, & Malcolm, 2003; Lee, 2005).
– Appropriate venues for PD programs: The location and setting
of PD programs are “key parts of authentic practice” (Hodkin-son
et al., 2003, p. 316). A one-size-fits-all approach to choosing
venues may not be suitable because the type of PD program will
determine the most appropriate venue (Brandt, 2003; Desimone
et al., 2006).
– Timing and duration of PD: Planning for sustained PD is impor-tant
if it is to be effective (Fratt, 2007). A major challenge for
PD is to identify a suitable time for it (Hodkinson & Hodkinson,
2005). The study by Gray (2005) found that PD providers are
often not receptive to the time preferences of teachers. Research-ers
differ on the suggested length of PD programs, with some
suggesting that short courses may be effective (Hodkinson &
Hodkinson, 2005), whereas others regard them as “a band-aid
that won’t solve the problem” (Kusielewicz in Fratt, 2007, p.
58). Other researchers believe that lengthier programs are more
likely to lead to teacher change (Continuing Professional Devel-opment
of Teachers, 2006; Lee, 2005). A study by Hodkinson
et al. (2003) offers an entirely new perspective on PD programs.
They believe that short and long programs “played a significantly
minor role in the learning of most teachers” (Hodkinson et al.,
2003, p. 4). Instead, a requirement for success is that the content
of PD programs should be integrated into teachers’ own teaching
(Hodkinson et al., 2003).
– Feedback and monitoring: Feedback and monitoring are crucial
after the implementation of PD to have a clear understanding of
what emerged (Fratt, 2007; Munonde, 2007). These will also pro-vide
insights into the strengths and weaknesses of PD programs
so that adjustments may be made.
Research Method
The study was based on the interpretivist theoretical framework and filtered
though the perspectives of AI and continuous professional development. A
qualitative study facilitated the process whereby participants described their
lived experiences of PD as well as guidelines for improving continuous PD.
The study used a phenomenological approach to understand and construct

Steyn 325
participants’ personal meaning from their “lived experiences” (Creswell,
2007, p. 52). A convenient purposive sample of four schools with maximum
variance was used in the study. They were a primary school (School A, a
Quintile 4 school), another primary school (School B, a Quintile 5 school), a
combined school (School C, a Quintile 1 school), and a high school (School
D, a Quintile 5 school; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Quintile 4 and 5
schools are viewed as “rich” schools, whereas Quintile 1 and 2 schools are
regarded as the poorest of schools (Rademeyer, 2007, p. 5)—see Table 1.
Information-rich participants were selected by principals in the four schools
(Patton, 2002). Data were collected through individual and focus-group
interviews to facilitate the collection and to increase the richness and quality
of the data (Daymon & Holloway, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The four
focus groups consisted of teachers, heads of departments (HOD), and deputy
heads in each school. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr each. For the sake
of clarity, a follow-up focus-group interview was held at School A. Personal
interviews were conducted with three principals (Schools A, B, and D). The
principal in School C preferred the deputy head and an HOD to be present
during her interview. All interviews were held at the individual schools in the
study.
Before each interview, the researcher briefed participants about the focus
of the study. Participants granted their permission for the researcher to take
down field notes and tape-record the interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Fourteen questions were posed during the interviews. For the purpose of this
article, in particular with the focus on the AI perspective, the following ques-tions
are covered: What is your view of professional development for staff in
schools? Which development programs have you attended in the last 3 years
of your career? Which of them were worthwhile? Other questions related to
the role of the principal and teachers in PD and to certain logistic and struc-tural
requirements necessary for PD programs to be effective. A natural flow
of conversation then followed after each question. Since some of the partici-pants
preferred to answer the questions in Afrikaans, their responses were
translated into English. All the interviews were then transcribed.
For this article, the transcripts and field notes were read, reread, seg-mented,
and inductively coded (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2007)
considering the AI approach to the data analysis. Significant comments were
then grouped into categories and units of meaning were grouped into these
major categories.
Trustworthiness, using Lincoln and Guba’s model (1985), was ensured by
tape-recording and transcribing interviews verbatim to ensure an accurate
reflection of the participants’ views and by cross-verifying data provided by

Table 1. Types of Schools
Type of school Location of the school
Socioeconomic status
of the school
School A: A parallel-medium
primary school
with 627 learners
(previously a Model C
school)
Urban, within a
middle-class
community
52% of learners from
previously disadvantaged
groups
A Quintile 4 school where
many learners are
exempted from paying
school fees
School B: An Afrikaans-medium
primary school
with approximately 1
400 learners (previously
a Model C school)
Urban, within a more
affluent community
that includes wealthy
and middle class
families
only 8% of learners are
school fees
School C: A combined
school (Grade R to 12)
with 1635 learners
Located in a peri-urban
informal settlement
The majority of parents are
unemployed
all learners are exempted
from paying school fees
School D: An English-medium
high school
with 670 learners
(previously a Model C
school)
A rural school that
includes middle class
to affluent families
A Quintile 5 school
Only 8% of families are
school fees
Source: Steyn (2009, p. 122).
participants from different post levels. The field notes made after each inter-view
were also checked to verify the interview data.
Findings
The theoretical framework revealed a number of categories and subcatego-ries
in the data analysis. They were the main aim of continuing PD, changing
attitudes as a result of PD, the prominent role of the principal, and require-ments
for effective PD programs (“identifying top achievers as facilitators,”
“choosing appropriate training facilities,” “planning the time and duration,”
and “getting answers through follow-up on workshops”).

Steyn 327
The Main Aim of Continuing PD
There was agreement among participants of all schools (A, B, C, and D) that
continuing PD is of the “utmost importance,” that “there is a lot of value in
workshops,” that “we [professionals] need training on a continual basis”; and
that “it is something that is necessary for teachers to develop; teachers have
to be lifelong learners.” The principal of School B succinctly suggested that
the main aim of PD should be to “ignite something” in the staff. The princi-pal
of School D elaborated on the necessity for development and growth:
Although some teachers qualified years ago, they can never say that
they have had enough training. They must keep on doing their own
research and reading about education, and talking about it, and attend-ing
workshops because it is essential to keep abreast. It is important for
everyone from beginner teachers to school principals.
A deputy principal of School C explained her school management team’s
positive experience of PD: “We are all students from Mathew Goniwe [an
education management training institution]” and this is “totally different.”
She added, “On a daily basis you are given tasks which you are required to
implement in the school. It is more like a hands-on training.” The other
schools (A, B, and D) are more privileged schools and have not been included
in the Mathew Goniwe management training project mentioned by School C.
As such schools A, B, and D have to rely on compulsory, official programs or
take the initiative to identify their own professional development programs to
meet the needs of their schools.
Participants in all schools also mentioned that continuous changes in the
curriculum require them to keep up-to-date because “without this we will
stagnate.” One teacher explained, “We get used to our own ways and now we
learn different approaches . . . I want to know more than before.” Participants
at the privileged schools (A, B, and D) also referred to some examples of
valuable workshops that they attended, including a workshop on assessment
presented by the National Union of Educators (NUE) “where teachers learnt
about rubrics,” a course on bullying “which was excellent” and a workshop
for middle managers. In the latter instance, the HOD said that they had
become “aware of the educational challenges we come across, and problems
we are faced with.” By implication these responses show that participants
favor training that is practical, “hands-on,” and has content that will help
them to improve their practice.

The principal of School B explained that the school was affiliated with
Kids Development Academy (KDA) that presents courses to schools enrolled
in their program. According to him, it was very expensive but offered “unbe-lievable
courses the idea being to . . . do everything ‘new and differently.’”
The findings reveal participants’ appreciation of PD programs (discovery)
according to AI (Dunlap, 2008; Lehner & Hight, 2006; Schutt, 2007) as well
as sustaining (destiny) PD for the sake of continuing PD of staff. These find-ings
also reveal how participants understand their lived experiences of PD
(interpretive paradigm; Henning & Van Rensburg, 2005; Patton, 2002). The
preferred content of PD programs is also in line with the literature on PD
(Hodkinson et al., 2003, p. 316; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005; Lee, 2005).
Participants’ positive attitude to the PD programs that they attended was
clear.
Changing Attitudes as a Result of PD
Many participants at the four schools described the importance of being
positive about workshop attendance. Without a positive attitude “they would
not benefit from it [a workshop].” Workshops should also change the atti-tudes
of staff. The principal of School D said, “You must go with enthusiasm
and come back with enthusiasm. I don’t want a teacher to go with a negative
attitude and come back with a negative attitude. But if a person goes with a
negative attitude and comes back with a positive attitude, that is great.”
Another principal (School B) mentioned in particular that, after a workshop,
a delegate should be able to say, “Yes, I am in education.” He sees John
Maxwell’s book, The difference maker, as being about attitude. “I have an
obsession about attitude in life. If the teacher can be positive and can become
excited about what he or she is doing, he or she will have the right impact.”
Yet another principal explained his stance as follows: “Such programs should
lead to a paradigm shift in people. They are working with children and they
need to stay positive.”
The excitement about professional development at workshops was sup-ported
by all schools. One teacher (School A) for example said that at the end
of a day her head was throbbing, but that she had learnt so much. “Even the
children were excited about what I had done.” The enthusiasm of teachers is
“contagious.” This view was endorsed by a principal (School B) who believed
that teachers were in the position to “convey their enthusiasm to children.”
However, the reality is that some workshops do not meet the expectations
of staff and that this influences their attitudes regarding workshop attendance.
One HOD of School A criticized some teachers for tending to be negative

Steyn 329
about workshops run by the Department of Education “without any good
reason.” A teacher in the same school, however, defended teachers’ negative
attitude by saying there was a lot of repetition in workshops: “It is often just
different soundtracks, but the same content.”
A few participants expressed positive views on the fact that teachers accu-mulated
points for attendance as required by the National Policy Framework.
One HOD of School D said that he understood the reason for this requirement
because it would oblige staff to attend approved PD programs. Another HOD
(School A) believed that younger teachers at her school were often unwilling
to attend programs. If they were compelled to accumulate points, they could
be motivated to do so. The principal of School B, however, said that the main
aim of the Department of Education should not be to get teachers to accumu-late
points but to equip them with knowledge and skills. “Their main purpose
should rather be to change their [staff’s] attitudes.”
According to the above, participants revealed the appropriate attitudes that
exist (discovery), those that could exist (dreaming; Elleven, 2007; Schutt,
2007), as well as those that should exist (designing; Bushe & Kassam, 2005;
Lewis & Van Tiem, 2004) for PD to be positive in terms of the AI paradigm.
The responses of participants also indicated their understanding of the effect
of PD programs on the attitudes of staff (interpretive paradigm; Henning &
Van Rensburg, 2005; Patton, 2002). However, Hirsch (2005), Nielsen (2008),
and Van Veen and Sleegers (2006) believe that an important challenge is to
select appropriate programs that align with staff’s views, beliefs, and experi-ences
so that staff have the desired attitudes before and after the presentation
of such programs. It was clearly implied that the principals’ attitudes toward
PD pointed to the important role that they can play in encouraging the PD of
their staff.
The Prominent Role of the Principal
All participants in the four schools agreed that principals play a vital role in
the PD of their staff and in identifying their development needs. The princi-pals
in particular had very strong views regarding the PD of their staff.
According to the principal of School D,
“A principal can never distantiate [sic] himself from development. The
management team should get the staff together on an ongoing basis to
train the staff . . . It should be done according to a plan, a development
plan, a professional development plan . . . A principal who is worth his
salt plans at the end of the year for the new year.”

He added,
I want to see that the principal or deputy principal goes out for a work-shop
and then comes back and trains his own staff. That is ideal. We
did that before with OBE [Outcomes Based Education]. We had our
own workshops where we came together and we discussed the material
. . . That I like.
Two other participants believed that school principals should attend
courses to establish whether they were worthwhile.
The principal of School C, the underprivileged school, explained how she
empowers all staff to enrol for formal qualifications. Many of the staff in this
school is less qualified compared to the qualified staff at the other three
schools. For example, her SMT [Senior Management Team] members were
enrolled at Matthew Goniwe for training. According to her, school leaders
“should be on a more superior level academically.” They would then be able
to “lead and manage their departments with more confidence” because they
would be “empowered . . . When you have higher learning, you have confi-dence,
your self-esteem grows and you are motivated and this rubs off on the
people.” The principal of School D explained his responsibility regarding PD
when he said that he identified suitable development programs for staff.
However, principals have to be careful when doing this so that all staff mem-bers
have the opportunity to attend such programs. He added,
If you are a principal you have to identify teachers’ needs. But you
alone cannot identify needs; the teachers should also identify their
needs . . . It is of the utmost importance. They should inform the prin-cipal
of their needs. “These are my needs and if my needs are met then
changes may happen in the classrooms.
Explaining the role of leadership regarding PD, the principal of School B
expressed his view as follows: “If you are a four-out-of-ten [4/10] leader, you
can do whatever you want, your organization will also be a 4/10 organiza-tion”.
According to him, the leader cannot be left behind. When he first real-ized
that he had to develop himself before developing staff, “it was so exciting
. . . The secret is for the principal also to develop. If the principal does not
develop, the school will not grow.”
All participants’ views of the important role of principals in respect of PD
point to the D model of AI, that is, discovery, dream, design, and destiny
(Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). Their views also reveal a clear understanding

Steyn 331
of the vital role that principals do play, could play, and should play in PD. The
literature on PD confirms that principals who are involved in PD set an exam-ple
for their staff and thereby contribute to the success of their schools
(Drago-Severson, 2007; Moswela, 2006; Rodriguez-Campos et al., 2005).
However, apart from the important role that principals can play, it is also
necessary to consider other requirements for effective PD programs.
Other Requirements for Effective PD Programs
The findings on the requirements for PD programs revealed the need to
•• identify top achievers as facilitators
•• choose appropriate training facilities
•• plan the time and duration of the program
•• get answers through follow-up on workshops
Identifying Top Achievers as Facilitators
Participants of all schools regarded workshop facilitators as extremely
important. One teacher remarked that “you could sink good programs with
poor presenters.” Based on their experiences, participants prefer facilitators
who are “knowledgeable,” “top performers,” “subject specialists,” and
“experts in their field.” The principal of School B also believed that it is
important to identify people with a “record of success” to present PD pro-grams.
He added, “A person from a nonperforming school can’t tell you what
to do at your school if there is no proven record or evidence of his or her
achievements over many, many years.” This was supported by the principal
of School D who said, “If the person has no background or the person wasn’t
a principal or teacher himself that is very difficult to accept.” The deputy
head of School B even went as far as wanting to see potential workshop
facilitators’ CVs and accreditation. Although there were some exceptions,
the participants at all schools believed that many presenters of official PD
programs lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience. The com-ment
from the HOD of the underprivileged school (School C) supported this
view: “I don’t want Johannes teaching Johannes” and “It won’t help to
choose ‘any Tom, Dick, and Harry’ who doesn’t have ‘passion’ for the topic
or has not had success in it.” His principal, who followed the same line of
thinking, respected facilitators like Professor X (name withheld by researcher)
in the respected university designed program offered by Matthew Goniwe
because “She has been in the squatter camp, she has been there as a teacher

in the black environment and she serves as a model for us. That kind of per-son
has walked, has felt and has experienced.”
Participants’ responses revealed that they understood the importance of
current best practices (as exemplified in the actions of Professor X) and their
preferences as to what facilitators could and should be were in accordance
with AI. Based on their experiences, they had a clear understanding of what
makes an effective facilitator and who they would prefer to present PD pro-grams
in future. These findings are corroborated by Vincent and Ross (2001),
Mewborn and Huberty (2004), and Munonde (2007).
Choosing Appropriate Training Facilities
All participants concurred that the environment in which workshops take
place is important. However, based on their experiences, they had varying
views on feasible venues. The principal of School D preferred using his own
school environment but realized that it could be expensive if facilitators had
to “go from school to school.” School B’s principal felt that venues did not
need to be “exotic” and that it was unnecessary to “go overboard.” He felt
that the focus should not be on recreation or a “holiday atmosphere,” but that
the venue should be conducive to learning. A teacher from School A pre-ferred
the teaching centers previously used for training teachers. In line with
this, a deputy head from School C favored resource centers such as those
found at district level. She also referred to the resource centre at Goniwe,
that is fully equipped . . . There is another place where they [Matthew
Goniwe] created a Model Grade R class and when they do training for
Grade Rs they do it in that kind of environment. So the Grade R
teacher knows what class should look like.
Since School D is underresourced, training at such a well-resourced center
makes sense to encourage staff to also find ways to adapt and change their
classroom environment.
The way in which participants experience PD relates to the 4D model of
AI: discovery, dream, design, and destiny (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006).
Their responses also reveal a clear understanding of the venues they prefer,
which is also supported by the PD literature. As such, the findings support the
notion that the venue for PD is important but that the type of PD program will
determine the most appropriate venue (Brandt, 2003, p. 13; Desimone et al.,
2006, p. 183).

Steyn 333
Planning the Time and Duration
Participants from all schools concurred that workshops should be carefully
planned in advance, even a year ahead when school leaders are planning for
the following year. Based on the experience at Matthew Goniwe, the deputy
head of School D said that staff should be trained during holidays, “Take
people for a whole week and teach them from morning till afternoon.” Her
principal added, “Give people accredited activities” that lead to a qualifica-tion,
“not only certificates of attendance.” For her, this could be an incentive
to attend PD programs. Other participants also expressed their willingness to
sacrifice their holidays to develop themselves professionally “as long as it
[had] value.” One principal (School A) succinctly expressed his view on the
appropriate time for workshops:
Not during school time, that is out of the question . . . School time is
teaching time . . . It may be on weekends, on a Friday afternoon or a
Saturday but never on a Sunday. The teachers need their rest as well.
But it could also be during holidays because we are paid for a whole
year, and ample warning could be given . . . Learners don’t come to
school to sit in a free period or walk around. You rob them of a learning
experience.
Participants also agreed that development should be “ongoing,” on a “con-tinuous
basis,” and on a “regular basis, not haphazard.” This explains why
School B participated in the KDA program. Teachers need to keep abreast of
development and they should make use of every opportunity to develop
themselves. As one HOD put it, “One cannot, dare not stagnate, because chil-dren
may well require more than one was originally trained to do. You will be
left behind if you do not keep up to date. Technology changes too much.”
As is the case with previous categories, it is clear from participants’
responses that all the aspects of the 4D model in AI were addressed: discov-ery,
dream, design, and destiny (Preskill & Catsambas (2006). Again these
responses reveal participants’ clear understanding of the appropriate time for
PD as well as the necessity of continuing PD (Henning & Van Rensburg,
2005; Patton, 2002). In accordance with the PD literature, the findings also
revealed the challenge of identifying suitable times for PD (Hodkinson &
Hodkinson, 2005) and the necessity of ongoing PD (Continuing Professional
Development of Teacher, 2006; Lee, 2005).

Getting Answers Through Follow-Up on Workshops
Many participants shared their positive experiences of, and need for, work-shop
follow-up opportunities. For example, one teacher of School D men-tioned
that they have “brilliant clusters” with “follow-up meetings” where
they discuss coping mechanisms for dealing with new curriculum develop-ments.
The principal of this school added that staff members need to “operate
on the same level or mindset. In some instances where you find an individual
learning alone, there is no collaboration, no-one is in sync, and the school
becomes out of sync.” A successful school is one where everyone “speaks the
same language.”
The deputy head of School C explained her experience of follow-ups on
PD as follows: “We do the training in smaller groups and they [Matthew
Goniwe] do follow-ups and assessments and evaluations at the schools . . . It
should not be a top-down thing where they lecture.” This deputy head also
expressed her gratitude for having opportunities to work with other principals
during and after development sessions. “We share our challenges and even
our difficulties and how one can come up with solutions. We build up one
another.” Her principal supported this view, “There should be monitoring,
there should be implementation, there should be evaluation and assessment.”
The necessity of monitoring was also raised by other participants.
Unfortunately follow-up opportunities and feedback were not common prac-tice
in official PD programs.
A teacher of School D mentioned that private providers were open to
being contacted after workshops, “You can pick up the phone and tell them
what you are struggling with.” In line with this view, another teacher said, “If
I run into a problem, I want to contact that person to get the answer.” The
principal of this school expressed his view on the importance of follow-up as
follows: “I would love them [facilitators] to make contact with the school . . .
Make the person who attends the workshop feel important.” Another princi-pal
suggested that schools of excellence should hold conferences together.
“This could be a wonderful resource for the future.”
Corroborating the AI paradigm, the findings revealed how participants
appreciated feedback (discover) and their suggestions on how feedback and
monitoring could be (dream) and should be (design; Preskill & Catsambas,
2006). These responses also revealed their understanding of how feedback
and monitoring had taken place or should take place after PD. The PD litera-ture
endorses the fact that feedback and monitoring are vital after the imple-mentation
of PD (Fratt, 2007; Munonde, 2007).

Steyn 335
The findings of the research are depicted in Figure 2, which shows how
the categories may be classified under the two main headings or components:
“What is: assessment of current best PD practices” and “What should be:
exploring, coconstructing, and sustaining.”
Implications for School Principals
The findings indicate that it is important for principals to take the following
aspects into account for the professional development of staff:
Staff need to learn more about their teaching practices, which implies that
PD programs should be hands-on and practical. It means that principals need
to have a clear understanding of teaching activities in classrooms and of the
content of such programs to assist teachers in identifying suitable develop-ment
programs.
The attitude of staff toward PD plays a crucial role in their development.
This implies that principals should be exemplars of their own professional
development and also attend PD programs for their own development. The
principal’s enthusiasm regarding PD may motivate staff to be committed to
their own learning and development. Furthermore, principals need to attend
PD programs for teachers to understand new initiatives and to assist teachers
in implementing such initiatives.
The main purpose of PD should be to change the attitude of staff regarding
a particular area of their professional work and not to assist them to accumu-late
PD points to be registered as a professional. This implies that a profes-sional
development program should be designed in such a way that it leads to
positive changes in teachers’ practice.
It is important that principals have a clear understanding of the profes-sional
needs of teachers. This will enable them to identify suitable PD pro-grams
for the teachers’ development. It implies that principals need to be
up-to-date with all PD programs that are offered, both official and private.
Teachers should be sent to participate in programs that are appropriate to
their activities, which implies that principals must be informed of the changes
in classroom practice associated with the different disciplines. What is of
particular interest is that the findings reveal that, to a large extent, teachers
prefer private PD programs, which has the additional implication that princi-pals
need to budget for such development programs. Provision for the cost of
private PD programs needs to be made from the school’s income generated
from learners’ fees and not from the state funds in the budgets.
When planning for teachers to attend PD programs, principals should
know who will facilitate such programs to ensure that facilitators are

What is: assessment of current best
PD practices
The main aim of continuing PD:
“Hands-on training”, practice-based;
valuable PD includes Matthew
Goniwe training, rubrics, bullying,
KDA programmes.
Changing attitudes as a result of PD:
“Head throbbing”, contagious
excitement
The prominent role of the principal:
Principal enrolled SMT at Matthew
Goniwe; more confidence and
empowered when suitably trained
Requirements for effective PD:
Facilitators: individuals who “have
walked, have felt and have
experienced”. Venues for PD: resource
centres, Matthew Goniwe’s Model
Grade R class. Timing and duration of
PD: school holidays, Saturdays, such
as with Matthew Goniwe and KDA.
Follow-up : brilliant clusters with
follow-up meetings to discuss
curriculum issues; Matthew Goniwe
does follow-up, assessments, and
evaluations; opportunities to work
with other principals; private
providers offer opportunities for
feedback.
What should be: exploring,
coconstructing and sustaining
The main aim of continuing PD:
Should kindle staff’s imagination; keep
“up to date”; do things “innovatively
and differently”.
Changing attitudes as a result of PD:
Essential to change attitudes: “Yes, I
am in education”; staff should be
positive before and after PD; convey
enthusiasm to children.
The prominent role of the principal:
Can’t distance himself from PD;
should plan a year ahead for PD;
secret: develop self; attend workshops
and also train staff himself; identify
teachers’ needs and PD programmes;
growth of school depends on
principal’s growth.
Requirements for effective PD:
Facilitators: identify top performers,
knowledgeable, subject specialists and
experts with passion for topic. Venues
for PD : Choose appropriate training
facilities depending on type of PD.
Timing and duration of PD : Not during
school hours, should be valuable,
should lead to a qualification; be
regular and continuous. Follow-up:
Feedback, monitoring, and assessment
after each PD session, Collaboration
between staff required
Implications for school principals: Hands-on, pr actical; attitude of staff; understanding of
teachers’ needs; choice of facilitators; ongoing, follow-up.
Figure 2. Assessment of best practices and exploring, coconstructing, and
sustaining future PD programs
knowledgeable, subject specialists and experts in their field. Furthermore, the
identified venues should be well resourced to enhance teacher learning.
Resources used to offer the programs should be commensurate with school
resources to avoid frustration if teachers are unable to access similar resources
to improve their teaching.

Steyn 337
Professional development should be ongoing and continuous and should
occur on a regular basis. This also implies that principals should ascertain
that suitable follow-up on development programs is available to enhance
their effective implementation, the effects of which are to be monitored by
the principal to intervene and/or encourage where appropriate.
Conclusion
PD has the potential to affect positively on the work life of staff in schools.
Research on the PD of staff is often framed within a problem-based context
that focuses on the negatives and problems that staff experience in their PD.
AI offers PD a new focus and a different approach when considering change.
This study attempted to pursue the AI theoretical perspective to uncover the
positive experiences of staff in respect of PD and ways in which they felt that
future PD programs could be improved upon. By highlighting and determin-ing
what is currently working well in PD, these positive experiences of the
past can be built into future PD programs with a view to improving them.
This study shows how teaching staff socially constructed meaning and inter-preted
their perceptions of PD. The study also provides evidence that using
the AI approach can be a basis for identifying guidelines for improving PD
practice. Through AI, PD can create a sound school climate that nurtures
both teachers’ and learners’ development and learning (Lehner & Hight,
2006, p. 150).
Implementing the findings of the study could benefit PD providers and
teaching staff and also assist in improving the quality of PD programs. The
study also suggests that PD providers will be able to expand the benefits of
the approach if they integrate AI and its outcomes into the planning of PD
programs. This has immediate implications for the approach to PD programs
(igniting and changing the attitudes of staff toward PD), the principal’s role
in developing staff, and the logistic and structural aspects of planning PD
programs.
There is the risk of emphasizing only a small number of the factors influ-encing
teacher learning, and there is also the risk of “assumed universalism,”
that is, of assuming that a program that worked in one particular setting will
also be appropriate in another setting (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005,
p. 122). This implies that PD “needs to focus on maximizing the learning
potential within the participatory practices of teachers, and recognizing that
different teachers will respond differently to the same circumstances”
(Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005, p. 123).

Successful PD is embedded in daily practice, is needs based, linked to
learner needs, tailored to meet the specific circumstances or contexts of
teachers, and sustained over a period of time (What is Professional Learning,
n.d., p. 1; Lee, 2005).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
References
Bernauer, J. (2002, Winter). Five keys to unlock continuous improvement. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 38(2), 89-92.
Bezzina, C. (2002). Preparing a model of professional development schools in Malta.
Curriculum and Teaching, 17(2), 73-84.
Billings, D. M., & Kowalski, K. (2008, March). Appreciative inquiry. Journal of Con-tinuing
Education in Nursing, 39(3), 104.
Bloch, G. (2008, July 31). SA in the midst of an education crisis. The Star, p. 19.
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change:
What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the
study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27.
Brandt, R. (2003). Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of
Staff Development, 24(1), 10-17.
Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. OD Practi-tioner,
39(4), 30-35.
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?
A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 41, 161-181.
Calabrese, R. L., Hummel, C., & Martin, T. S. (2007). Learning to appreciate at-risk
students: Challenging the beliefs and attitudes of teachers and administrators.
International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 275-291.
Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. The Education Bureau, Gov-ernment
of Hong Kong. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.
aspx?langno=1&nodeid=1309.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivesta, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.
Research in Organisational Change and Development, 1, 129-169. Retrieved
from http://www.appreciative inquiry.org/AI-Life.htm

Steyn 339
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London,
UK: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research in public relations and mar-keting
communications. London, UK: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative mate-rials.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who sustained,
content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator’s dilemma.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 179-215.
Doring, A. (2002, February 3-7). Lifelong learning for teachers: Rhetoric or real-ity?
Challenging futures? Changing agendas in teacher education. Armidale,
New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from http://scs.une.edu.au/CF/Papers/pdf/
ADoring.pdf
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn; Principals as professional devel-opment
leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125.
Dunlap, C. A. (2008, February). Effective evaluation through appreciative inquiry.
Performance Improvement, 47(2), 23-29.
Elleven, R. K. (2007, Summer). Appreciative inquiry: A model for organizational
development and performance improvement in student affairs. Education, 127,
451-465.
Fratt, L. (2007, June). Professional development for the new century. District Admin-istrator,
43, 57-60.
Gray, S. L. (2005). An enquiry into continuing professional development for teachers.
University of Cambridge, UK: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.
Harwood, T., & Clarke, J. (2006, February). Grounding continuous professional
development in teaching practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching Inter-national,
43(1), 29-39.
Henning, E., & Van Rensburg, W. (2005). Finding your way in academic writing (2nd
ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Hirsch, S. (2005). Professional development and closing the achievement gap. Theory
into Practice, 44(1), 38-44.
Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (2005, June). Improving schoolteachers’ workplace
learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 109-131.
Hodkinson, P., Colley, H., & Malcolm, J. (2003). The interrelationships between
informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 113-318.
Lee, H.-J. (2005, Spring). Developing a professional development programme model
based on teachers’ needs. The Professional Educator, XXV11, 39-49.

Lehner, R., & Hight, D. L. (2006, Spring). Appreciative inquiry and student affairs: A
positive approach to change. College Student Affairs Journal, 25, 141-151.
Lewis, J., & Van Tiem, D. (2004). Appreciative inquiry: A view of a glass half full.
Performance Improvement, 43(8), 19-15.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: Sage.
Maaranen, K., Kynäslahti, H., & Krokfors, l. (2008). Learning a teacher’s work. Jour-nal
of Workplace Learning, 20(2), 133-145.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education. Evidence-based
inquiry. 6th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mewborn, D. S., & Huberty, P. D. (2004, June). A site-based model for professional
development at the elementary school level. Pythagoras, 2-7.
Moore, K. B. (2000, November/December). Successful and effective professional
development. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 15(3), 14-16.
Moswela, B. (2006, November/December). Teacher professional development for the
new school improvement: Botswana. International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion,
25, 625-632
Mundry, S. (2005, Spring). Changing perspectives in professional development. Sci-ence
Educator, 14(1), 9-15.
Munonde, L. C. (2007). Effective teaching and learning in secondary schools of the
Thohoyandou district through continuous professional development programmes.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Africa.
Nielsen, T. (2008). Implementation of learning styles at the teacher level. Education
+ Training, 50, 155-166.
Paton, C. (2006, September 8). Education in crisis: A lot to learn. Financial Mail, p. 1.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-sand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative
enquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rademeyer, A. (2007, September 5). Pandor wys die armste skoolgroepe [Pandor
shows the poorest school groups], Beeld, p. 27.
Republic of South Africa. (2006). National policy framework for teacher education
and development in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. (2007, May 4). National policy framework for teacher edu-cation
and development in South Africa (Vol 503, No 29868). Pretoria, South
Africa: Government Printer.
Retna, K. S. (2007). The learning organization: A school’s journey towards critical
and creative thinking. Retrieved from http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/
taper/pdf/200712/retna.pdf

Steyn 341
Rodriguez-Campos, L., Rincones-Gomez, R., & Shen, J. (2005). Secondary princi-pals’
educational attainment, experience, and professional development in the
USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 309-319.
Schutt, D. A. (2007). A strength-based approach to career development using appre-ciative
inquiry. Broken Arrow, OK: National Career Development Association.
Steyn, G. M. (2008). Continuing professional development for teachers in South
Africa and social learning systems: Conflicting conceptual frameworks of learn-ing,
Koers, 73(1), 15-31.
Steyn, G. M. (2009). Teacher’s perceptions of the provision of continuing profes-sional
development programmes in South Africa: a qualitative study, Acta Aca-demica,
41(4), 114-138.
Steyn, G. M., & Van Niekerk, L. J. (2005). Professional development of teachers:
Critical success factors. Koers, 70(2), 125-149.
South African Council for Educators. (2007). Professional development: Promoting
the development of educators and enhancing the image of the teaching profession.
Pretoria, South Africa: Centurion.
Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a con-text.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85-111.
Vemić, J. (2007). Employee training and development and the learning organization
(UDC331.363. iFacta Universitatis). Economics and Organization, 4, 209-216.
Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles,
personality types and multiple intelligence online. Learning Organisation, 8(1),
36-43.
What is Professional Learning? (n.d.). Department of Employment, Education and
Training. Retrieved from www.deet.nt.gov.au
Bio
G. M. Steyn is a professor in the Department of Further Teacher Education,
University of South Africa and teaches postgraduate students in the field of human
resource management in education. She has published several articles in scientific
journals, chapters in books, and presented papers at conferences.

Education and urban society pd and ai 2012l

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Education and urban society pd and ai 2012l

Similar to Education and urban society pd and ai 2012l (20)

More from steyngm1

More from steyngm1 (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Education and urban society pd and ai 2012l