Challenges in Professional Development (PD) for teachers

The articles of George & Sanders (2017) and Avidov-Ungar & Hanin-Itzak (2017) illuminate the lack of suitable, tailored and individualised (PD) opportunities for teachers. As teachers are the main drivers of innovation and change in the schooling arena, more consideration must be given to supporting and training them in effective uses of information and communication technology (ICT) (George & Sanders, 2017). Additionally, teachers need to see the value of adding ICT, and the transformative effects of ICT in extending the learning experience of their students, not just substitute for non-ICT tasks (George & Sanders, 2017; Mihai & Nieuwenhuis, 2015). This is a key factor as many teachers lack the skills and knowledge to “design activities that make more effective use of technology to improve learning” (George & Sanders, 2017, p. 2888).

Teachers need “training in the most effective approaches to take advantage of the technology” (Mihai & Nieuwenhuis, 2015, p. 2), so that they can develop the capabilities to create tasks which resemble “high-level interactivity” (George & Sanders, 2017, p. 2874). Such tasks would not only minimize the cognitive load of teachers, but also engage students in learning that is meaningful and transformational (George & Sanders, 2017). However, current PD models are often ineffective, and produce no real education change (Bain & Weston, 2011, George & Sanders, 2017).

Furthermore, as teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and expertise will determine what and how they teach in their classrooms, if educational reform is to be realised, we must include all stakeholders, including teachers, in the changes put into place, specifically the planning of PD (Bain & Weston,2011; George & Sanders, 2017; Avidov-Ungar & Hanin-Itzak, 2017).

In my role, I have had multiple opportunities to develop PD for my colleagues, and one element that I find invaluable is that of feedback from the attendees. I collect feedback in various ways, surveys, exit slips and anecdotal evidence from informal conversations post the PD. Bain & Weston suggest using a model, which incorporates evaluation and reflection, both at a personal and collective level is necessary for successful sharing of schema (2011).

I have found evaluation and reflection to be effective in seeking out what teachers at my school need, and what they find useful to their needs. George & Sanders contend that “targeted tailored support for teachers” is key to ensure that they develop according to their needs (George & Sanders, 2017, p. 2890). Additionally, as we strive for teachers to become “agents who motivate their students to becomes active, independent and involved life-long learners” (Avidov-Ungar & Hanin-Itzak, 2017, 4), we must provide teachers with the design skills needed to create meaningful learning opportunities with ICT (George & Sanders, 2017). Clearly, allowing teachers to provide input into PD planning is bridging the gap between classroom needs, and the aspirations of the educational system overall, to ensure that teachers see the value of spending time attending PD and can use the skills and knowledge to extend their practice.

References

Bain, A., & Weston, M. E. (2011). The learning edge: What technology can do to educate all children. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mihai, M. & Nieuwenhuis, J. (2015). Management challenges in an information communication technology (ICT) network in rural schools. South African Journal of Education, 1(4), 1-10. doi:10.15700/saje.v35n4a1203

George, A., & Sanders, M. (2017). Evaluating the potential of teacher-designed technology-based tasks for meaningful learning: Identifying needs for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2871-2895.

Avidov-Ungar, O. & Hanin-Itzak, L. (2017). Sense of Empowerment Among School ICT Coordinators: Personal, Subject-Area and Leadership Empowerment. 1-17.