PTT 3/4 April 1995 index
(February - June 1994) Having assessed the nature and extent of pre-existing INSET provision in the region and using replies from questionnaires sent to teachers, an initial phase of workshops was organised. This pattern of workshops could be summarised briefly as follows: monthly, in the late afternoons after school (typically 2.30 to 4.00pm.), using 4 centres in the region and consisting mainly of "Practical Methodology". Our assessment/analysis of the First Phase was, very briefly: highly irregular attendance and therefore very little continuity, some meetings called off through lack of participants, no real direction/aim.
(September 1994 - June 1995) In setting up the second phase, I felt that the workshops should be part of a larger, more integrated INSET programme at different levels:
* regional, through a newsletter (or similar)
* local/group, through workshops that are reasonably
accessible
* individual, through support for individual teachers
in their schools
With this in mind, the programme was given a name ("INCET") and teachers were given an incentive to attend regularly through a British Council-recognised certificate which would be awarded only after 80% attendance. A number of other changes to the first phase were made in the following areas:
Part of the poor attendance previously may have been due to lack of awareness and problems of communication. The course was advertised in June, before the summer holidays, through:
* newsletter (in English)
* a letter to head teachers (in Hungarian) asking them
to "send" teachers
* word of mouth, at meetings
From monthly to every 2 weeks. Previous monthly meetings had not been able to create a real feeling of group identity, something which I feel is vital both in keeping teachers attending regularly and in opening the possibilities for further INSET after the course has finished. On the other hand, I felt that weekly meetings could impose too much of a strain, both on them and myself!
I felt it was too much to ask teachers to give up their free time to attend. On the other hand, schools are (understandably?) reluctant to release teachers for large amounts of lesson time. A compromise was therefore reached by holding meetings from 1.00-3.30pm. This meant that most teachers would probably have to arrange timetables to miss 2 lessons. The length of the meetings was extended from one and a half to two and a half hours.
Because of time available, the number of centres had to be cut to 3. However different towns were given the opportunity to be one of those centres. The ones chosen were where most teachers expressed an interest.
Most of us would agree that a final aim of INSET is some kind of change in the way teachers actually teach i.e. classroom practice. We might also agree that probably the most effective way of doing this is to help make teachers more reflective by questioning/evaluating what they are doing more and by providing them with the knowledge/skills to enable them to make productive changes. The underlying assumption is that changes in practice will more easily (only?) occur hand in hand with other changes e.g. beliefs/values/deeper knowledge of the principles behind classroom practice etc. We might also agree that this does not happen over night!
Throughout INCET teachers were asked to look at, question and evaluate the kinds of tasks they set their children. By getting teachers to agree that tasks should be both enjoyable and communicative it was hoped that common ground would be established (both between participants themselves and between participants and trainer) for discussion/reflection of their own classroom experiences and also provide an easily measurable basis on which to apply methodology principles. The crucial thing was that the group (trainer/teachers/group) should have common areas of agreement.
If we accept a reflective model (Wallace, 1991) as the principal way forward for teacher development, we need to try and provide opportunities for breaking into the 'reflective cycle' at as many points as possible. Each workshop was therefore planned, whatever the topic, around the following components:
1) work on the principles ("theory"?) that lie behind good practice. This was for 2 reasons:
* some participants would not have come across many
of these previously
* from lessons observed, others seemed to be
familiar with many methodological principles but
seemed unable to relate them to their classroom
situation. The workshops had to try to bridge
that gap with:
2) an opportunity for teachers to discuss their own ideas/experiences about teaching a particular area
3) a demonstration of practical activities (including skills work) that PPS could then try out with their own classes. Incorporated into this would be opportunities to reflect on why and how the activities demonstrated might be effective.
4) a classroom task/activity to do with one of their classes and the chance in the following session to evaluate what had happened when they tried it out.
*) No specific language awareness component was envisaged. Should there have been ?
Within the above framework, there was also a longitudinal development. Initially the aim was to establish trainer/group trust and provide attractive lesson activities that teachers could go away and use. However, as the year progressed, PPS were asked to contribute more in terms of content e.g. by bringing their own lesson activities to demonstrate (in groups), selecting topics etc.
The list below gives some idea of the "topics" covered by INCET.
Core Topics (chosen by trainer):
* Communicative Classroom Tasks
* Developing Speaking Skills
* Deveoping Listening Skills
* Developing reading skills
* Testing
* Pronunciation activities
Other topics (voted for by the group):
* Grammar (ideas for lower levels)
* Using Pop Songs in the Classroom
* Warmers and Games (swapshop)
* Organising Conmpetitions at School
* Using Pictures
Other topics (offered, but not selected):
* Developing Writing Skills
* Grammar (ideas for higher levels)
* Correction Techniques/oral and written
* Using video
* Using drama
* Using literature
* Action songs/story telling (primary)
It is too early yet to give a full assessment of how effective INCET has been. However, firstly, concerning the problem of attendance, average attendances varied from group to group (5 to 15) and were no larger than in Phase 1. However, participants attended on a much more regular basis with 36 teachers attending at least 80% of the meetings. This had an observable effect on relationships within the groups and made working within them more enjoyable and productive.
Secondly, although it is difficult to assess how effective the course has been in changing classroom practice, 2 pieces of "evidence" might be mentioned. In a mid-course feedback questionnaire, 85% of participants said they had tried out at least one of the lesson activities that had been demonstrated. As mentioned before, the workshops were to be run concurrently with individual visits to schools where I was able to observe lessons taught by participants. On a purely subjective level, I was encouraged by the extent to which ideas and materials that had been discussed in the meetings were being put into practice and the extent to which some teachers were able to analyse these lessons afterwards.
Thirdly, the mid-course feedback seemed to suggest that in many areas the course seemed to be meeting expectations and that participants were satisfied by the way the workshops were being organised. On the basis of comments received, an even greater commitment was made to provide opportunities for participants to discuss/share their own opinions and experiences.
a) Targeting
Obviously, beyond the very general sense of avoiding groups that are already well-provided for, specific groups of teachers have not been targeted. It is fair to say that most participants are enthusiastic, committed teachers who are, in some respects, the least likely to need INSET courses such as these. Should we not be targeting their less-motivated colleagues? And if so, how can we get them to attend?
b) Motivation/recognition
Poor attendance must in some cases be put down to a lack of motivation. Although there has been talk in Hungary of an In-service Diploma, it is unlikely to be implemented for a few years. What can we do to persuade local and national authorities to invest in INSET to make it more attractive to teachers?
c) Sustainability
On an individual level, a series of workshops like INCET can be seen as sustainable in that teachers who have attended might be made more aware of the importance of reflection and the benefits that more formal INSET occasions (e.g. conferences) might bring. However, as a programme it is completely non-sustainable in that if the trainer were to leave, there would be no programme. If it is accepted that a programme such as this should play an important part, then we need to find ways of developing local expertise to run it
. We might consider:
* Training a counterpart to help with the work.
* Training a group of trainers who would do the job.
I feel that the INCET programme of workshops in Eastern Hungary has been of some value to the teachers who have attended. The way it has been organised has been acceptable to the participants and has tried to take into account the problems that teachers face if they are to attend this form of In-Service training. Although it may also help to provide a small platform on which a longer term, more sustainable programme might be developed, there are many considerations to be taken into account if it is to be truly effective at a number of levels.
| Come back to |
|
homepage. |