Improving Andragogy
My experiences with technology
professional development (PD) as an adult have not been great. Most have been what
I would describe as a machine-gun approach where a workshop leader demonstrates
as many technology resources as possible during the one-day workshop (usually
in the summer) with the hopes that one might hit the target. Usually, I’ve left
these workshops with my head spinning and not a very clear idea of how I could
use any of those resources in my classroom, and by the time August rolls
around, I can’t remember how any of them work. The other approach has been a
one-hour overview presentation done at the in-service meetings at the beginning
of the year. Often teachers are so overwhelmed at this time with all of the
information and classroom preparations that it is hard to process everything
and master any new technology.
To improve adult learning in regard to
technology integration professional development for teachers, I believe
professional development methods need to be reconsidered and the needs of adult
learners considered. Adult learners are
different than child and adolescent learners. Knowles developed six assumptions
about adult learners. These assumptions, as described in the video Adult
Learning Theory | Knowles' 6 Assumptions of Adult Learners (Fox, 2020) are
summarized below:
·
The need to know – Adults need to
understand why they need to know your content and how it will benefit them.
·
Self-concept – Adults usually learn
better when they can be self-directed and autonomous.
·
Learner experience – The life experience
of adults influences their desire to learn and guides their learning objectives.
·
Readiness to learn – Adults want to use
what they are learning in their life.
·
Orientation to learning – Adults want to
use what they are learning to solve problems or complete tasks.
·
Motivation to learn – Adults are
internally motivated and they want relevant instruction and activities.
High-quality PD will lead to teachers
learning new skills, which will improve their instruction, and ultimately
increase student achievement. High-quality PD should have a longer duration
than what I’ve described above as typical. There should be follow-up and
support after the training. During the training, learners will actively engage
in activities that are relevant to their teaching assignment. They should have
access to the technology and be able to do some hands-on practicing prior to
implementing it in the classroom. Teachers should collaborate during and after
the professional development sessions, and they should be able to see
how their prior beliefs and knowledge and the training fit together. PD that
helps teachers make the connection between the technology and the curriculum
while providing a good pedagogical approach will help them to successfully
integrate technology (Martin et al., 2010).
According to Miller et al. (2017), “Teachers
lack skill sets and expertise regarding how to use technology and lack
pedagogical knowledge in regard to integrating it appropriately.” I would say,
in many cases, this is still true, and the only way to fix it is to have some
targeted and strategic professional development. Instead of doing one long PD
session, they should be broken into several smaller sessions, so that teachers
have time to use what they’ve learned and develop lesson plans for use in the
classroom right away (Martin et al., 2010). I would love to see a professional
development program in my school where a technology tool is introduced and its
use is modeled. Following that, the teachers would have a chance to work with
their subject area groups to collaborate and figure out how to use it in their
classes before the next PD session. Between meetings, there could also be follow-up
in the form of additional help from the instructional specialist, being
observed by and/or observing other teachers as they utilize the new technology,
receiving feedback from an instructional specialist, and reviewing student work
(Martin et al., 2010). At the next session, teachers would present what they
had done and how it worked. After the presentations, there would be some time
for discussion, reflection and potential extension ideas. Because teachers are
busy and have lots on their plate, long meetings would not be good. I would
recommend two brief meetings a month, one to introduce the tool and the other
for the recap. If this pattern was followed for most months of the school year,
teachers would be able to learn and incorporate several new tools each year,
and they’d have time to practice using them and do some reflection. Martin et
al. (2010) found “the combination of coaching with professional development to
be an especially effective means of changing teacher practices.” I believe an
approach like this could transform the way teachers teach and help ensure our
students are ready for the 21st century.
References:
Martin,
W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., and McMillan Culp, K.
(2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher
and student outcomes. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 43(1), 55-76.
Miller,
J., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2017, March). Effect of a makerspace
training series on elementary and middle school educator confidence levels
toward integrating technology. In Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
(pp. 1015-1020). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE)
Fox, A. (2020, July 22). Adult
Learning Theory | Knowles' 6 Assumptions of Adult Learners. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArAggTULLU.
Comments
Post a Comment