Response Questions: Describe an excellent professional development (pd) experience and describe a poor pd experience. Compare and contrast the two (draw clear comparisons, explain key differences and similarities) and extract characteristics of good trainings.
In my opinion and from experience a good professional development experience has a clear goal that is communicated from the beginning and is relevant to everyone involved. Ideally this training would be grade/content level specific and allow for opportunities to practice what is being discussed. I personally like the idea of short, small group trainings as opposed to several days or hundreds of people crammed into one room listening to someone on a microphone at the front of the room.
Of the many trainings I have attended, two in particular stand out as being very good. One was offered through UCR called the Copernicus Project. While it was lengthy (5 days, 8 to 4 each day- I did the first year only, later they switched it to two weeks..) it was content specific and we had plenty of opportunities to practice what we were doing both at the trainings and in our classrooms. We were offered support throughout the school year (and continuing on..I have kept in contact with the providers for the past 4 years, they are ALWAYS available) and even made visits to our classrooms to ensure all of our questions were answered and support was available. As part of the ongoing training we had to complete a few lesson plans using the technology they GAVE us (laptops, digital cameras, etc) and we subsequently met for follow up trainings a few additional times. We were fed, offered transportation, and even paid for attending. These types of incentives made it very enticing to science teachers around Southern California. Even though the grant that provided this trainings has since run out, the individuals responsible for making it happen are still available to us and still check in on us periodically. Another well designed training I attended was just last week on "Thinking Maps" at my school site. The presenter was upbeat, informative, and made a concerted effort to include ways to integrate all content areas and populations into her training. She gave examples for math, history, English language learners, and even special education. We had time in small groups to create our own "thinking maps" and were given a binder (organized by subject area) of ideas and strategies on how to incorporate these maps into our daily lessons for better comprehension. We were told these trainings will continue throughout the upcoming years and I hope they do!
Negative or poor training experiences are unfortunately more common than the positive ones and we all have experienced them. One in particular I can recall was at a local hotel that had 3 very nice pools and lounge chairs...Unfortunately that is all I can remember about that particular training. In fact several teachers (and a few administrators) ended up pool side sunning themselves by the first break at 9:30 am (not me of course- we bought magazines to occupy the time from the gift shop..). In instances like this one, there was no "mission or goal", expectations were not clearly identified nor was there any sense of "how is this going to help us?" communicated at any point. From what I recall there was nothing about the training that was grade or content level specific and there was no time to "practice" what we were apparently being taught. The speaker was monotone and appeared more fascinated with the fact that someone gave him a microphone than working the audience and attempting the make the best of the bad situation.
Another example regarding technology - I have been in trainings where they literally start by instructing us on where to find the power button on the computer. When a training starts out like that the majority of people tend to shut down (except those who truly need help finding the power button...) this leads to negativity and an unwillingness to participate. I am not sure how one would be able to effectively "place" participants based on their ability or comfort/ability levels with technology but that is one solution that I feel would be beneficial for technology related trainings.
In conclusion, trainings should be content/grade level specific and relevant to the current assignments of the teachers. They should provide an opportunity for practice and should include some type of follow through by the trainers themselves and or the administration who organized the training to begin with. Ideally they would be short and continuous so that as questions or needs arise they can be dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. The goal should be clearly stated and followed through on; and some type of evaluation should be included.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You may feel like you didn't get much done but this is a great blog. With the differences within a district regarding computer skills they definitely need to advertise trainings with clear enough discriptions for teachers to be able to decide if they need the training or not. I mean the on button has stumbed me a couple of times when its a machine style I'm not familiar with but I usually find it. In some of the reading I did for a paper in another class, the writer was explaining the difference they and teachers have observed between how boys use the technology in the classroom compared to girls. Boys begin using the computers with very little instruction and just start clicking buttons. Girls, however, wait to be told how they are to do whatever the assignment is and see the computer more as a means to the end product or project than a place to explore and see what they can do on their own. Which really isn't that different than observation of the past when observing behavior in the classroom. Boys will raise their hands whether they know the answer or not. Whereas girls usually only raise their hands when they are fairly sure they know the right answer.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've really enjoyed reading your blogs and appreciated your comments during this class.