Glossary
Chapter 6 Valuable Insights Revealed: A presentation and analysis of the key findings of the study
6.3 Training Received by Teachers on the New Forms of Assessment .1 A Presentation of the Training Sessions
6.3.2 A Discussion on Training workshops as a Possible Avenue for Exploring Off-Site Learning
The above discussion offered a possible input framework for teacher learning. This framework, far from being narrow and one-track in approach, showed itself to be more multifaceted in nature and served to emphasize the complexity of teacher learning. Drawing on the principles that inform the current thinking on teacher learning, the discussion below serves to explore possibilities offered by the training the participants had received.
The potential for training workshops as a form of off-site learning, and a possible forum for promoting learning among teachers, was illuminated. In this respect, Boyle et al.(2003) point out that one should not underestimate the value of training workshops, as even the weakest courses can give one something to think about and develop. Furthermore, the nature of the training sessions that the participants attended constituted elements of various theories of learning. The content of the initial training workshops were informed by policy guidelines and highly structured initially through the presentation of associated concepts and definitions, where the sessions were more a case of sitting and listening on the part of participants.
However, follow-up sessions also drew on constructivist notions of social activity
(Richardson, 1998). This was evident when the participants were presented with activities to work within a collaborative context, allowing for co-operative learning to ensue as educators
139
engaged in dialogue and discussion with one another in the process of creating meaning.
This set the scene for peer support, as the participants interacted with one another in a group context to advance their learning. Seen within the context of constructivist notions of social activity, co-operative learning involves interaction among learners about learning tasks and is based on the belief that this interaction in itself will lead learners to construct knowledge (Damon, 1984; Murray, 1982; Wadsworth, 1984). As the learners learn from one another through discussions, differences in thinking emerge, providing the platform for flawed reasoning to be brought to the fore and explored so that new ideas, understandings and insights can be developed (Slavin, 1995).
While the merits of off-site training and learning involve providing teachers with access to new ideas in an attempt to stimulate new instructional practices, it is widely acknowledged that the resultant changes are unlikely to occur, especially in the absence of support and assistance in the classroom (Elmore, 1997). In the case of the training workshops that the participants attended, the presence of a learning facilitator afforded support to the learning experience.
In addition, the resource materials issued to participants could also be viewed as playing a supportive role in fostering learning among teachers Opportunities for on-the-spot or immediate support were presented in the form of subject advisors being available for telephonic contact, thereby providing additional support for learning. In this sense the departmental training workshops could be seen as setting the scene for teachers to embark upon further learning. Moreover, by advancing learning in this way, departmental training initiatives could be viewed as „initiators of further learning‟, rather than actual learning. This is an important consideration in the teacher learning process.
While from an outsider perspective looking in, one could perhaps see the value of the
workshops conducted, as the above discussion alluded to, yet the ability of the participants to consider the possible benefits of off-site learning initiatives appeared to have been blurred by their criticisms of the departmental workshops. This is highlighted in Neel‟s sentiments below:
“The problem with current workshops, run by the department, is that facilitators just want to run through them. There are no practical activities to keep teachers gripped.
Also, these workshops are often run by people who never taught a day in their life. They
140
are not aware of the practical realities of the classroom. They are merely concerned with following policy.”
Neel‟s criticisms of the DoE workshops were fuelled by his own preconceived notions of what learning entails. His sentiments allude to practical learning as a form of learning (activity-based learning) to the exclusion of other possibilities, including other forms of learning and initiators of learning. This highlights his bias toward such an approach.
However, empirical evidence to support the claim that learning by doing enhances learning is limited (Mayer, 2004). In fact, there is a significant amount of evidence to show that
discovery-based practice is not as effective as guided discovery (Mayer, 2004).
Clearly, traditional notions of teacher learning through activities as being the only “real learning” influenced Neel‟s thinking. The implication is that learning must be made explicit for teachers to believe that it has any value to offer. In view of this line of thinking, the possibility exists that teachers may be unaware or even unwilling to recognise the value of internal learning outside the confines of practical activities. Inevitability the dominance of these traditional notions of learning could perhaps serve to filter out the possibility of other forms of learning as having anything meaningful to offer to the growth and development of educators. This is a dangerous stance to adopt, as one‟s preferred learning style does not imply that what one finds preferable is the best or the only way to learn (Horri, 2007).
While the tendency of educators is to respond favourably to learning styles that they prefer, it is possible for learning preferences to change based on context and time (Svinicki, 1998;
Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrio, 1998; Flemming & Mills, 1992). In short, acquiring deep learning implies the use of multiple learning styles (Zull, 2002; Halpern & Hakel, 2003).
The potential for learning to transpire through face-value learning episodes, while being obscured by teacher's critiques of these learning episodes, was also reflected in Kajil‟s sentiments:
“We were called to workshops, where the different forms of assessment were explained. They gave us documents at these workshops to read and understand for ourselves, but all in all, it‟s our own thing. We have to find out for ourselves what is suitable for our own situation. We have to be selective and sift out things for ourselves and take it from there. Although we go and we
141
listen, the workshops are not so beneficial because most of the things we do know.”
Given the multi-faceted nature of the way in which the learning process unfolds, perhaps a multi-channel learning approach as advocated by Siemens (2005) might be a more favourable stance to adopt with regard to teacher learning. Off-site initiatives would essentially
constitute only one avenue for promoting teacher learning.
Basically, this would entail people learning from outside influences and using the
opportunities presented in a constructive way. By viewing off-site initiatives in this way the possibility that teachers would begin to see the value of these learning opportunities in paving the way for the development of existing knowledge structures and for additional learning to transpire, would be increased. In this respect, Elmore (1997) suggests that while off-site training does provide teachers with access to new ideas and inspires teachers to attempt new instructional practices, it does not necessarily result in radical changes with regard to teacher practices, especially if not supported by direct assistance in the classroom and the school.
Such support was encountered and experienced, as training at school level at Sterling Primary, the details of which are detailed below.