SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Outline The role of colleagues in teacher development in ICT Your experiences of working (or not working) with colleagues Cooperative Development as a discourse framework for teacher development
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICTA moment of reflection: “We should frame teachers as agents of change in need of a supportive context” (Dexter et al. 1999, p. 237) (In your opinion, what constitutes a „supportive context‟?)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT “Teacher learning and instructional innovation thrive in environments where there are others who are experimenting with technology” (Windschitl and Sahl 2002, p. 168) (How would you define „others‟ here?)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT “The importance of collaboration cannot be over- estimated: teachers need each other - for team teaching and planning, technical problem solving assistance and learning” (Granger 2002 et al, p. 486) (what else do „teachers need each other‟ for?)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT “When teachers engage with others in ongoing reflection about their instructional use of technology, they are more likely to critically evaluate their practice and redesign instruction to better meet student needs and curriculum goals” (Persky 1990, p. 37) (What are other implications?)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT “Reflection among teachers is a critical component of any innovation effort [..] (Ertmer 1999, p. 54-55) (Is ‘reflection’ considered ‘critical’ in your context? Why/ Why not?)
Cooperative Development An approach to language teacher professional development Julian Edge - Late 1980s –> 1992, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008 Traditions of reflective practice and action research No single way of becoming a teacher is right for everyone An internal growth approach to teacher development Not so much how far we get and more of the direction in which we would like to be moving Teacher self-development is a social phenomenon
Cooperative Development Learning through the expression of one‟s ideas A specific kind of discourse (neither a discussion nor a conversation) Working for regular, agreed upon periods with another teacher Deliberately abandon elements of argument Creating a space in which one teacher‟s ideas can expand in the search for a discovery Roles: Speaker & Understander
Speaker A non-defensive style of talk Purpose -> explore a certain issue or area of interest Leads to discovery Basis for plan of action
Understander Non-Judgmental -> Puts aside their own set of knowledge, experience, opinions.. etc, with the aim of better Understading the Speaker Facilitates the Speaker‟s path of exploration - discovery - action, in line with the speakers own professional development goals.
Understander Respect - Accepting what the speaker says neither agreeing or disagreeing Empathy - Tries to see things from the speakers point of view Sincerity - with regard Respect and Empathy Understander has a set of agreed moves (examples quoted from Edge 2006)
Reflect @stellar_ball„Ok, so if I‟ve got this right, what you‟re saying is..‟„Just let me see if I‟m with you so far.. „
Example S: I have noticed that a good amount of class time is wasted in activities which require students to work on their computers. I give them instructions but there are always two or three who, after 5-10 min into the activity, would ask: “Excuse me, so what are we supposed to be doing?” U: So, if I am understanding you properly, you‟ve got a problem in managing activity time because these students will begin later than others, and therefore more time is spent on the activity than intended. Right? S: Exactly. The problem is worse is in my media classes where multiple instructions are given such as logging in to websites, going to specific sections, and listening to certain videos. U: And you say you give them clear instructions before every activity. S: Yes. Sometimes I say the same thing over and again. They just don‟t seem to listen. U: You mean despite repeated instructions, you still have students later asking you what to do.. and you are sure they have listened to your repeated instructions.
Example S: Yes. Hmm.. well, some of them may be busy turning on their computers, or fixing their headsets. You see, we sit in a U-shape with the students facing the center of their class, so I am not sure what they do the moment I give the instructions. They look across their screens when I address the class. Maybe they are looking at me but not really listening. U: So, you think they might be thinking about other things at the same time? S: That‟s a possibility. In a way, I have the ability to control their screens through the teacher‟s console. But I don‟t want to do that. I would like them to learn how to navigate through the news websites independently. That‟s part of the learning process. U: Ok, so I see two points here: On the other hand, you would like students to be autonomous, and therefore don‟t want to direct them to activities through your machine. On the other hand, you have a time management problem for activities tend to take longer than expected because students don‟t seem to get the instructions from the first time. Is this right? S: Yes. Exactly.
Example U: .. and you say they might be thinking of other things at the beginning of the activity and therefore may not really be listening to you. So, did this give you any thoughts? I mean did it make you think of other ways to give instructions? S: Hmm.. Maybe it‟s a question of organization, really. That I need to establish a system.. Maybe give instructions in stages. Hmm.. Perhaps.. I should first ask them to turn on their computers, and set their machines to „sleep‟ and when everyone is has done that, I can give the instructions for language activities. U: So, you think the confusion is caused by the way the instructions are given. That is when students are busy doing other things. S: Yes, that‟s a possibility. After all, that‟s the nature of working with computers. Once they are on one tends to be totally absorbed. Maybe that‟s the problem then. Students get distracted, don‟t really listen to the instructions, and after a while start wondering what to do. U: .. and that‟s what wastes class time. S: Yes. I will try to be more organized and give instructions in stages. U: Good (laughs)
Why Cooperative Development? Facilitates teacher self-development in ICT Self-directed professional growth –> Responsibility and Empowerment Helps teaches to continue to develop their teaching with ICT in small scale ways -> Important for building confidence with technology -> Competence Fosters collegial relationships (e.g extends trust & respect)
Why Cooperative Development? Many teachers still lack institutional support -> the central role of colleagues Non-judgmental/ non-defensive discourse -> Avenue for addressing sensitive aspects of teachers‟ professional lives in relation to ICT use e.g. insecurity, lack of confidence, frustration, experimentation, and institutional pressure. What else?
ReferencesDexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative Development. Harlow: Longman.Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for individuals as colleagues. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Edge, J. (2003). Colleagial self-development. English Teaching Professional. 27, 58-60.Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development: Non- judgemental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 205-227.
ReferencesErtmer, P., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary school partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81-96.Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 480-488.Persky, S. E. (1990). What contributes to teacher development in technology? Educational Technology, 30(4), 34-38.Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers‟ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 165-205.