For the most part of the first morning of teacher training I spent the day struggling to figure out the best way to apply myself and help. Jackie , Sam and I shared some of our feelings at lunch that as much as we wanted to jump in and help, we were extremely limited due to language barriers. The funny thing is that these language barriers did not so much separate us from the teachers, it separated us from the lesson. As the leaders of each group instructed the large groups there was no point when any of us knew what the teachers were supposed to do or hear. Several times teachers stopped me and asked me what the group leader just said and even though I may have heard it, the best response I could give was to shrug my shoulders helplessly or call someone else over. This inability to follow along with the lesson being taught forced me in to a casual observer role for most of the morning.
As I walked around and observed peoples interaction with the computer, facial expressions and body language, one thing that struck me was that people were all at different varieties of skill level. I think I took it for granted that most everyone would have limited to no exposure to computers and would all be about the same skill level (predictably poor). I was surprised to find a wide range of variation: a large number soundly computer literate people, asking questions about the hardware/ software and trying to plug in their flash drive; a good majority that seemed to be at least exposed to computers in some respect, able to recognize common attributes, functions and care and condition requirements; and still a third group (surprisingly small) that looked at the XO’s as if they came from outer space.
This got me to think: The best way to apply myself is to work individually/ in small groups for extended periods of time with people who were on either end of the spectrum. So that’s what I did. Each day of the teacher training I worked extensively with people who were either far ahead and bored, or far behind and had given up hope. From both of these groups I was very happy with the results and the teachers I worked with seemed very please for the personal attention as well.
Again, this got me to think: Are we structuring the groups best for optimal results? I assumed that a blanket approach to training would work most effective as most everyone would be at the same skill level. What has become apparent is that these groups of teachers are a lot more complex than I expected and it is my feeling that designing a catch all approach to training may severely hold many teachers back who could be potential stars (with this group we risk losing their attention and motivation), while simultaneously leaving behind a large group of teachers who are at risk of never using the XO unless they receive the attention they need.
While I like the idea of grouping people based on geography (this has some obvious benefits), other ideas of grouping have been based on a teacher’s subject or grade level. Why not group by skill level? I think that in grouping by skill level many efficiencies can be achieved that would benefit all. Three different programs can be developed that would all have the same baseline objectives with the only main differences being speed of learning the content, depth of learning content, breadth of activities the teacher is exposed to, level of individual attention versus free exploration etc. At different points during the training I was teaching turtle art to groups of math teachers who were bored after taking a few pictures, mastering memorize and exploring the other activities that seemed intuitive to them. The teachers picked up turtle art amazingly fast and were eager to create geometric figues and explore. Also at different points during the training I spent time instructing small groups of teachers who so gave up participating because they couldn’t figure out how to operate a touch pad. The learning that took place in each group was worlds apart and required a dramatically different approach to teaching. In addition, the things each group needs to know/ know how to do, and speed of pace to keep them engaged are also dramatically different. From a perspective of efficient allocation of resources, if we split up the groups according to skill level we can maximize our manpower. With the most advanced group, the instruction would require less instructors, be based more on free exploration with guiding direction and can have a stronger focus on developing lessons and teaching style: we can operate with lower “teacher to student” ratio (i.e. 1:25). With the least advanced group the teachers would need more individual attention, direct instruction, as well as general information about safety, care, how to plug in, the meaning of the different color lights (most of the stuff that is intuitive to someone familiar with computers) etc.: this would require a higher “teacher to student” ratio (i.e. 4:25). The middle group teacher to student ratio would be somewhere in between.
The obvious question is how to arrange these people into groups: off the top of my head I think it would work well to have each teacher fill out a self-assessment describing their history/ familiarity with the computers in general as well as the XO. Each group would have a baseline, where all teachers in that group would have to have “X” level of familiarity/skills. The bottom group of course would accept all others. There could be three main groups or programs prepared (everyone receives the same help/reference booklet) which I don’t think would take a lot of extra work and would pay big dividends in the end.
Also, as opposed to other issues that we face, I believe this is something within our control as well as within the realm of possibility. I think that approaching teacher training in this fashion will serve to accomplish three main goals:
1) efficient allocation human resources
2) customization of programs for people at dramatically different levels of skill including special attention to those who need it
3) the ability to be flexible and more fully develop teachers by providing support, motivation, and interaction that encompasses everyone (rather than aiming for the middle of the group).
Those are my observations and thought. That being said, I think the overall week of teacher training went very well. The teachers were a lot more receptive to the program than I expected and most seemed genuinely excited to be there. Also, I think they all learned a lot. My only regret is not having more time to show them more activities. A lot of the teachers got off to a slow start but by the last day they were begging to learn new things. Wish I could be there for round two!
No comments:
Post a Comment