Category Archives: PL course

Change of Plans

Posted on by
Reply

On Wednesday, I got up under the impression that my first session in Z would go smoothly. I know the directions, I know how long it takes to drive there, I know the staff at the Pisga centre (apart from the new manager), I have done the same session three times in the past fortnight… I was sure everything would roll according to plan.

Maybe I should have suspected that the day wasn’t running to plan when I left school far later than I should have (“Just one more meeting”, “Just write this one paragraph for me…”, “Just remind someone…”). I arrived in Z on time but didn’t have the time to sit and have a quiet cup of coffee as I prefer to do before a session. It marks the division between school and course, the drive itself just isn’t enough.  Then the computer just wouldn’t open my windows 7 files. “Oh yes, that is the only room in the centre that we haven’t done the changeover yet…”  Luckily the technician was there but he only helped me with some of my materials.  

I thought I was ready to go when the participants began to arrive. Suddenly I realized that I recognized the teachers, they were in my group last year.  After hellos, I explained: “No, my course this year is for beginners, it’s the same as last year”.

“We want a continuation course”.

“So did I, but the centre staff decided there was more of a demand for first year so that is what they asked me to prepare”.

“We’ve come anyway, we want to learn more”.

“That’s great but… OK… let’s wait and we’ll see who arrives”.

“Even if it means doing the same things, we’re here”.

Thoughts were racing through my head. I knew we could deal with the same topics and others and that they could enrich their understandings but I certainly couldn’t show the same powerpoint presentation, do the same exercises or use the same examples. We waited until 4pm came and went and other teachers arrived. The group was small, too small, 11 in total – 6 “old” and 5 “new”.

I made a flash decision to run the session and to find a way to manage a course with such a diverse group.  I said “If I can do it in the classroom at school, I can do it here”.  How could I disappoint those six teachers, so eager to learn, so determined to continue the process we began last year? That said, I had to decide what to do in the three hour session before me. If I had been closer to home, I would have said “OK, go home, we’ll meet in two weeks time. In the meantime I will prepare new materials”. But I was an hour and a half drive from home and knew that nobody would pay for my transport if I didn’t run a session.

I have never before been in that position – a group sitting before me waiting to begin, a lesson plan ready, photocopies, books, powerpoint etc  waiting to share and then having to pull something else from up my sleeve.

After 3-4 minutes of thinking and composing myself, I began with my introductory letter. It worked for all – “new” and “old”, and gave me an extra 15 minutes to get ready while they were busy reading my letter and writing a response.

What did I do? I did a revision of the writing process on the board (I couldn’t get that powerpoint to open). From the questions asked by my continuing students, I could see it wasn’t a waste of time. Then I dwelt on the publication stage of the writing process and connected it to the characteristics of competent writers, another area we discussed last year. Finally I opened my pupils’ blog on my school web site and introduced them slowly to the wonderful world of student and teacher blogging. Last year I didn’t do this session with this group because so many of the teachers had extremely limited computer access. Under the circumstances, I decided the newness of the materials would suit the needs of both groups. The session went well.

At one stage, one of the teachers asked for an opportunity to introduce themselves to the group. This is the second time this has happened to me – I don’t know why I forget to do this when it is so important for me to get as much group interaction in as possible.  I promised we would do it before the end of the session.

I ended the section on blogging with an invitation that if anybody is interested in setting up a blog, I will be happy to help “I’ll even come to your home to assist you!” I promised. One teacher openly said she is going to give it a try. This is an enormous step for a very religious teacher working in an ultra – religious school.

To finish the session we did a round of introductions. I asked everyone to say their name, where and what they teach and areas of interest in the teaching of writing. It was fascinating. Three of the “new” teachers had come as a result of recommendations from colleagues at school. The other two are a mother and daughter teaching and studying together.

The continuing participants all talked about what they had done during the course last year and following it. They talked proudly of classroom success and empowerment. They talked enthusiastically about long term writing projects they had done with their students. One teacher described: “As a special education teacher, this was the first time my students have ever achieved a finished writing product they can be proud of.  They can thank you for that, Nikki”. “Oh no” I replied, “…they can definitely thank you for that!”.

Thoughts on session 2

Posted on by
Reply

I have just finished my second session in A. As expected, the numbers grew, some teachers brought their friends. The number today was 21 and we will be 22. As the teachers can’t miss more than one session and still have the course recognized, this will be the final number.

I felt quite a bit of bubbly expectation in the room before we began and two teachers commented how much they had gained from the first session. One teacher told the principal that she wants an opportunity to pass on what she is learning to her peers.

Another teacher proudly exclaimed: “I brought my friend!” Her neighbor added: “Yes, she got me out of bed to come here and join the course today!”.

Today I had the teachers do two short writing exercises. Firstly I demonstrated the “looping” strategy and they wrote about problems encountered when teaching writing. The second exercise asked them to write a piece about themselves as writers. Several teachers shared their pieces, many are still very shy.

Maybe I should have done that in small groups? Worth considering.

 The response to the writing was terrific – quiet, calm, private time followed by sharing in a friendly atmosphere. It is clear that some of the teachers don’t feel comfortable in the group yet and I found myself remembering the wonderful sharing last year at H. Many of the teachers worked there together and there was much laughing and empathy in the room. I should devote time to thinking about the in school / out of school implications for these courses.

I am far happier with the theory / practice balance this year (and last year). The course in KS was either too theoretical or I didn’t make the connections clear enough.

I arrive at the Pisga centre dead tired, coming straight from school,  but somehow I always find the energy to lecture and run the seminar.

Today when I told them about the virtual campus there was only one teacher under pressure. She explained that she had no problem with the task assigned but wasn’t computer competent. After hearing my explanations personally she calmed down. I asked her if someone at home can help her and whether or not typing is a problem. She’ll be fine. She told her friends that her worries are calmed.

Maybe it is paying off that in every course recognized by the Ministry of Education there is a virtual element? Maybe the teachers are getting used to it? Maybe I’m clearer too?

I am genuinely looking forward to reading their teaching stories, to meeting them in their own professional environments.  I am of course wary of the workload involved in reading and responding again to large numbers of teachers.

Many of the teachers participating this year have come because they heard recommendations from other leaders of professional learning or from colleagues who studied with me last year. Could this have something to do with the high level of cooperation, right from the beginning. This year I don’t feel like I have to convince them that they are in the right place  or that I’m not going to waste their time. Must look into this too.

 

Nice to be remembered…

Posted on by
Reply

I just had a phone call from one of the teachers who participated in my course at A, last year.  She called to say that she had signed up again for this year and was disappointed to hear that it wasn’t a continuation, that I was doing the same program again.

I thanked her for her interest and promised that if I am allowed to run a stage 2 course, I will contact her by email.

I must remember to contact her when I begin my round of interviews too…

First Session: New Start with a New Idea

Posted on by
Reply

letter

My feet were sore, my throat was dry but I finished the first session for the year with a great sense of achievement. Everything went as planned apart from the power failure in the middle (and even that happened a few minutes before the break).

I began by handing out my letter inspired by Kitchen (2005) – see previous post… This enabled me to begin more or less on time because I didn’t say anything apart from: “Welcome. As this is a course on writing, we’ll start with the written word…”. Those who were running late came in quietly and were handed a copy of the letter.

There was silence in the room – first the quietness of intent reading and then the calm of a room of writers. Everyone wrote – total cooperation.

I had a few minutes of uneasiness when I saw that quite a few participants had finished and were interested in moving on. I was worried that they would get frustrated while waiting. On the other hand, many others were totally absorbed in the writing process. In the end, when I stopped the teachers, I took the opportunity to point out the personal differences between us in writing, even when the task is the same for everyone. I reminded them that we need to take these differences into account in the classroom.

I approached this writing task confidently, far more so than in the past. This may have something to do with the letter as a trigger for the writing, an authentic task. Having a real audience and a clear purpose could have resulted in a more serious approach to this task. Could this level of cooperation be connected to my own confident approach? Maybe I should look differently at what happened in the past?

When I read Kitchen’s article on Relational Teaching, I immediately felt attracted to the ideas presented. Reading his letter to his students convinced me that I have to do something similar. The idea kept nagging at me until I sat down and wrote to my participants. Today I feel like writing to thank him!

When I sat down to drink a cappuccino and reflect on the session, I was extremely excited to read the letters, excited to meet each of the teacher participants personally. I have 17 letters! One teacher arrived very late and didn’t write. I will give her my letter next time. As I read the letters, I was stunned by the success of the exercise. I recognized a real attempt by the teachers to share. Many stated how much they appreciated or liked the letter. One teacher wrote: “I have never, in all my years teaching, attended a session which began like this one. I appreciate your interest in getting to know us”. Responses were far more thorough than any questionnaire and far more personal, direct and open.

One teacher folded the scraggly edges of her letter and remarked: “Sorry, I don’t like to hand in anything that looks like this”. I reassured her that it was like a draft and asked her to remember her feelings for later when we discuss the writing process and our pupils.

A number of teachers mentioned that they appreciated the fact that I spoke to them as an equal and not from above. Others remarked that they were happy that I was a practicing teacher myself and aware of how difficult it is to go straight to a learning session after a long day at school. This seems to be an interesting theme which should be explored further.

I had two teachers I know from the past, one a leader of professional learning I worked closely with years ago and the other, one of the teachers I respected most at one of the schools I worked in as a leader of professional learning. I was ecstatic to see them both. At the end of the session, both remarked that the session time had flown and that they had gained a lot from the seminar.

The number of participants is fantastic – 18 is ideal. Last year most of my groups were 30+ teachers. I am hoping for active participation and a real chance to get to know these people.

The next session is in two weeks time…

 Reference:

Kitchen, J. (2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 194-207.

 

Image: http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock/search/?page=3&size=medium&square=True&vcd=True&vertical=True&color=checked&grey=checked&illustration=true&order=relevance&filter=True&panoramic=True&RF=checked&query=letter&RM=checked&horizontal=True

Relational Teacher Education: A new and inspiring concept for me

Posted on by
1

I recently read an interesting article by Dr Julian Kitchen, Associate Professor in teacher education at the Brock University in Canada.  As I read I found many links between Kitchen’s work with preservice teachers and the work I am trying to do with practicing teachers.

 Kitchen quotes Dewey: “…education is development from within” (Dewey, 1938, p. 17). This resounds with thoughts about learning versus development. Development is seen as something that comes from the outside, that someone “does it” to the teachers whereas learning is something internal, it is the union of stimuli from outside with the personal knowledge, experience, intelligence and beliefs of the teacher. This learning is of course something gradual which develops slowly, at an individual pace. This is far from the “boom” of “being developed” at a seminar or short course.

 

According to Kitchen “Relational teacher education is a reciprocal approach to enabling teacher growth that is respectful of the personal practical knowledge of preservice teachers and builds from the realization that we know in relationship to others. Relational teacher education is sensitive to the role that each participant plays as teacher and learner in the relationship, the milieus in which each lives and works; it stresses the need to present one’s authentic self in relationships which are open, nonjudgmental and trusting” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 196).

 

When I read this article, many of the things he wrote seemed to suit my view of my teaching and gave them a name. I had never heard of “Relational Teacher Education” before and hadn’t even thought about giving a name to my style of teaching. After completing my MEd thesis, I did make a conscious decision to respect the knowledge and experience the teachers bring with them and I even talk about this explicitly throughout the course. Many of the comments I receive from teachers at the end of my courses relate to these points.

 I also strongly believe in the social aspects of learning. In the past my courses have been built on sharing classroom experiences and I will definitely build on that this year. I will dare to give more time for sharing.

I am interested to explore the way that each individual (including myself) is both a teacher and a learner in the course.

 

Kitchen identifies seven important characteristics of relational teacher education:

“1. Understanding one’s own personal practical knowledge

2. Improving one’s practice in teacher education

3. Understanding the landscape of teacher education

4. Respecting and empathizing with preservice teachers

5. Conveying respect and empathy

6. Helping preservice teachers face problems

7. Receptivity to growing in relationship”

(Kitchen,2005, p. 196).

Some thoughts on these issues:

1. I must be committed to examining my own knowledge and experience. One of my advantages is that I really teach children and can try out the things I am talking about. I must remember to find more time to reflect on my own teaching both at school and in the course.

2. I am interested and committed to improving my teacher education. It took me years to feel comfortable with the title “teacher educator” but that indeed is what I am. I think I am improving over the years and this year, through my intensive written reflections, I should improve even more. What I should do is find a significant friend to read those reflections and discuss them.

 

3. I am trying to understand the landscape of teacher education – and my thesis is part of it. I don’t like dealing with politics but I have discovered that teacher education is a highly political issue. Maybe all teaching is? I have been leaving the policy documents to the end in my literature review and I think I should dive into them.

 

Kitchen writes: “I began to discover that we as teachers often have been told that our stories are inauthentic and that experts have the answers. I became aware that we have been forced to obey “objective” studies, even though they often run contrary to our classroom experiences. I awakened to the realization that we must discover our own voices because, as Roland Barth (1990) observes, “When teachers stop growing, so do their students” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 199).

 

My aim is to add to the growing body of teacher stories, stories which may at some stage be publishable. Teachers must know that they can learn from writing and rewriting their teacher stories and reading and responding to those of their peers.

 

Kitchen (2005) explains that “Relational teacher development and education recognizes the roles each participant plays as teacher and learner in the relationship and is sensitive to the milieus in which each lives and works (p. 200). I have often stated in my reflections that I am acting as teacher and learner in my sessions. I learn from each teacher I lead. Through my thinking about their work I reflect on my own and alter my own classroom practice and workshops.

This article contains a letter Kitchen wrote to his preservice students before meeting them in one of his courses. He writes: “This letter both invited preservice teachers to reflect on their tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) and expressed my personal professional commitment to developing meaningful and respectful personal professional relationships with each of them. By sharing my experiences, I illustrated my engagement in reflective practice. By listening authentically to their stories, I modeled respect for teachers as curriculum makers. By providing them with reflective tools, I assisted my preservice teachers as they explored their personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988)” (Kitchen, 2005, p.200).

 

I would love to be able to write this kind of letter to my participants and for them to write a reply to me as their first task. This letter exchange could open up the communication between us and leave me with a far clearer sense of the teachers sitting in front of me than the dry questionnaires I have today. I wonder though if they take me as sincere before they get to know me? Israelis are so cynical. It certainly would take a lot of the talking out of the first stages of the course. I think I should give it a go – using Kitchen’s letter as a guide.

 

Kitchen writes “By responding personally and rigorously to their reflections on past and present experiences, I attempted to assist them in reconstructing their cognitive structures and their approaches to teaching. By engaging them in cooperative learning and team-building activities, I helped to foster a sense of community among those in the class” (p. 200-201).

 

What do I try to achieve in my own responses to teachers? I make connections between practice and theory, give names to the things the teachers are talking about, and aim to elicit extra or deeper understandings.

 

Cooperative learning is also a relevant issue – I am continually searching for ways to deepen this collaborative experience in just 30 hours.

Kitchen explains that relational teacher education is based on respect. This respect is many things – starting on time (maybe with something that they won’t want to miss?), not wasting teachers’ time , making the most of their time. This need for respect is obvious in many ways but not always easy. When a teacher arrives without a pen and notebook, when she sits knitting throughout the whole session, when I have to fight to get a word in…

 

“My constructive criticism of student work is not an uncritical stance. Typically, in responding to personal portfolios, I mirror back my understanding: I note patterns that extend across their metaphor and look for five critical incidents and five personal narratives, I respond to their interpretations, and I share related stories from my experience. Each of these interactions serves as an opportunity for dialogue and professional growth for both preservice teachers and the instructor. Although this is a time-consuming process, the students respect the results. When they nominated me  for Professor of the Year in 2001, they spoke of my “rigorous expectations,” “constructive criticism,” and “in-depth personal analysis of both content and  structure.” At the same time, I deepen my understanding of teaching and learning by hearing what my students have to say” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 202).

 Kitchen isn’t boasting here, he is explaining what works in his courses and according to the feedback from my courses, this is similar to some of the remarks I have received. I too learn from reading and responding to my teacher-students.

 After getting excited about these inspiring concepts, I return to earth and ask myself: Is any of this possible in a 30 hour course?

 

Reference:

Kitchen, J. (2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 194-207.

I don’t have a bag of magic tricks!

Posted on by
Reply

huge_22_110378

After months of silence here, a recent experience has brought me back to the blog. Most of my writing and freewriting has been done privately, off line in the past few months but this is an experience I felt I should / could / might share if anyone is still around and reading.

I was attending a meeting of leaders of professional development in my field (another thing I haven’t done for months for various reasons) and as I was collecting my bags and getting ready to go home, I was stopped by a new member of the group, someone I have never met before. She had recognized me during the introduction phase of the meeting and approached me.

“Oh, you are Nikki Aharonian… can I ask you a question?”

“Yes, sure…”

“My name is ____ and this year I am working with teachers in the ____ area. This week I was approached by a teacher from ___ school who took part in your course last year… This teacher said that although she had enjoyed the course and got a lot out of it, she has a serious problem, her second grade pupils still don’t know how to write!”.

At this stage I took a deep breath. I didn’t answer, I just waited for the rest.

“How could that be the case? She studied with you all year didn’t she? Can you give me the tips I need to tell her what to do? What should I tell her?…”

Trying to keep calm, I explained what I explain in my courses, that there are no magic tricks in teaching children to write. That writing is a process and that learning to become a proficient writer begins at age 2 approximately and continues well into adulthood. I told her that if the teacher sits quietly with her notes from the course and with the powerpoint presentations I prepared, she will (hopefully?) remember the message she heard during the course. I pointed out that the teacher attended 30 hours of sessions and not a whole year and that the learning achieved depends a lot on what the teacher did in her classroom between the meetings. I firmly said that the three factors which really make a difference to the writing done by children are 1. time given (How much time a day / week are these pupils actually writing? I explained quickly that copying from the blackboard and doing close exercises isn’t writing)  2. clear and appropriate direct instruction and 3. teacher support and significant feedback.

The response was another request for “tips”.

“Teaching writing just doesn’t work like that”  I replied and turned to organize my bag.

I left this discussion feeling depressed. I was sorry that the teacher reacted hysterically to the children’s writing instead of taking a deep breath and getting down to work. I was frustrated that a leader of professional development (learning) should be looking for recipes in such a complex field. I was frustrated again by the length of the course, what should I expect after 30 hours?

I have a feeling this story will ring bells when I begin interviewing course participants for my thesis. I must prepare myself to hear how quickly many teachers “move on” from learning experiences if they are not brought into the classroom and put into practice.

This week I begin my courses for the 2010 – 2011 school year. Again I will meet extremely heterogeneous groups of teachers eager (more or less…) to learn how to improve their students’ writing.

What will I do differently this year?

Assignments in…

Posted on by
Reply

paper

My computer is now full of assignments sent in by the teachers who participated in the course at Z.

Formally, I have to read the assignments, fill in the rubric I created and gave along with the task, and assign a final grade to each teacher. I also will need to write a few sentences to each participant before I send the work back by email. In addition, I need to choose three assignments, one at a very high level, one of medium quality and one at a low level and submit them to the Department of Education.

I am curious to read these reflective texts and to compare and contrast them with the feedback these teachers wrote on the last day of the course.

Last year, after I read the assignments, I went back and chose sections that I wanted to use in my paper at the AATE/ALEA conference in Hobart. These quotes were an important part of my presentation. On the other hand, I didn’t know how to use those reflective texts in my research.

As I don’t yet have ethics authorization (that’s another story…) these materials will have to remain in the background, as the backdrop for my own narratives about these courses. I see these texts as a means of looking at the professional learning achieved by the teachers from different angles.

What I need to do now, I think, is to revisit each assignment, after I have graded it etc, and highlight different themes which arise. I imagine it will be easier if I keep some kind of table with the name of the teacher and page number relating to a particular theme – comparison with other PD frameworks, experience writing narrative, change in classroom practice etc. Then I will be able to revisit relevant texts and also see which themes are more prominent. I am sure that the next batch of papers, from the group at A, will be very different, even though they received the same task.

In addition, I should be trying to identify participants who may be willing to be interviewed in the future.

By the end of April, I will have around 100 of these assignments. It is a shame that I can’t relate to them as data in the normal sense but these teachers did not sign an ethics agreement at the beginning of the course. I am limited to using them in my own reflection and study.

An extra task will be recording comments and my own reflections on improving the course. Just as I made several changes this year, I am sure I will receive ideas for new modifications from reading these papers. If I leave this reflection to next September it will be a far more difficult process and will be less effective.

I am going to save trees and ink and work on screen with this. I’m not sure I will manage but it is certainly worth a try.

 

RF image: http://www.images.com/

More about the conference…

Posted on by
Reply

idea

Dr Noga Hermon discussed the use of cognitive mapping to represent “ideational knowledge” visually. Although her paper discussed mathematics education, I was reminded of the use of mapping and I have been playing around with ideas how to include it in my work with teachers. A map of “ideational knowledge” is similar to a semantic map but uses 13-16 concepts which were carefully chosen ahead of time. A sentence must join two concepts, not a single word. In Dr Hermon’s research, the map is created in the framework of a closed interview. The map portrays far more knowledge on each concept than pure definitions.

Dr Leah Shagrir of Levinsky discussed the importance and contribution of self study in teacher education. She discussed the use of autoethnographic research methods.

I enjoyed the comparison made between the portrait painted in oil paints by the artist and the self portrait portrayed by the qualitative researcher. The artist produces a peice which can be significant for others. An artist will produce different self portraits at different times  – he or she sees himself differently at different crossroads. The portrait is an interpretation, the figure is created differently each time.

The researcher should be aware of the reader and what he or she can learn from the text. There should be space for the reader to bring his or her own experience to the reading. The researcher should remember that it is not only his or her text, it is the story of all those involved.

An interesting point stressed was that teacher education should be seen as a profession and that the teacher educator must therefore be an expert. He or she must possess excellent teaching skills as there must be an additional level, one of modelling teaching and reflection. This is of course in contrast with lecturers in other fields.

In the same session on self study in teacher education, the paper which captured my attention most was presented by Dr Rina Brenner, of The Kibbutzim College of Education. This paper was about encouraging personal growth through written response.

Dr Brenner pointed out that today many people think of “response” as a quick reply in a chat or blog. Brenner discussed the written responses she shares with her students as a teacher educator and researcher. Her study examines her own teaching practice, in particular the written responses to student writing in online reading logs. 

Questions Brenner asks herself are similar to the questions I pose when examining my own role in the online campus when teachers post their teacher narratives: In which role am I writing these remarks? As a lecturer? a teacher? a researcher?

An article by Robinson & MacMillan, 2006 was cited here. I found: The ethnography of empowerment : the transformative power of classroom interaction/ Heljä Antola Robinsonin the Monash Library and another article on the web about Professional Development.

Brenner instructs her 3rd year students to choose a childrens’ book, read it and respond periodically in an online reading log. This task is similar to the reading logs I used to run with my primary students. Each student writes 6-8 chapters in the reading log. Each chapter is responded to by Dr Brenner and often there is a chain discussion as a result.

Brenner makes a distinction  betweeen  feedback and response. Feedback is seen as an organisational tool which reflects a pedagogic dialogue according to specific professional  conventions. This feedback is aimed at strengthening or improving specific teaching practices. A response is different, it echoes and answers a particular text and its ideas. The response has no predetermined goals, it is a journey, a search. The response is viewed as an teaching practice which stimulates learning. This is a text which is directed at a specific reader.

An intimate circle of participants is formed.  Brenner describes several circles: the inner circle, the interpersonal circle (dialogue), the group circle and the public circle (publishing the research).

I was surprised to realize how close Dr Brenner’s work with these students is to my work with in service teachers. The way I respond to teacher narratives on the virtual campus, in a closed online environment is very similar. As I always try to do, Brenner looks for “what there IS” in a text and not what is missing or problematic. There is a constant search for what touched me in a student’s writing which will help me touch someone else. Brenner opens her response with a personal greeting, a description of how she read the text, in what context, a reflection of the topics covered in the chapter,  and discussion on one of the issues raised. The text ends personally. The response often involves personal memories, aspects Brenner especially likes and points to opportunities which arise from the text.

There are three aspects covered here: cognitive, emotional and dialogic. The response reflects, represents , reinforces and empowers everything the text brings with it. This written dialogue is a process of building interpersonal relationships.

I spoke to Dr Brenner after the session and will continue my discussion with her by email – I feel that we are doing similar work and that I have a lot to learn from her. In general, I came away from the conference with a feeling of community, that there are indeed researchers in Israel doing the kind of research I am, people who can understand my work and even be partners in professional dialogue.

RF pic:  http://www.images.com/

Bits and Pieces

Posted on by
Reply

I haven’t been around here (or my studies) for ages…

Work is extremely intensive and having three Professional Learning courses still going is keeping me more than busy. When I am exhausted after a full day at school and have to take the long drive to one of the Teacher PD centres, I try to tell myself that I am collecting experiences for my PhD.

I can say that the courses are going really well, and the comments and feedback I receive from the participants are excellent. When I finished the sessions in Z, most of the teachers told the staff of the centre that they are interested in an additional course next year. As I enjoyed the group I am happy about that and by then I should (must) have my ethics clearance so that the course will be included in my research – interviews, questionnaires and all).

I decided not to attend the sessions with Amanda Berry as I am taking two days off in two weeks time to attend the Israeli Qualitative Research Conference at Ben Gurion Uni in the south. The conference looks interesting and I am especially looking forward to hearing Prof Carolyn Ellis and Prof Arthur Bochner.

I’m sure the conference will give me a boost of energy and as I have both the Purim and the Passover holidays coming up, that is what I need. I am planning to lock myself away somewhere in the holidays (school maybe?) so that I can think, plan, read and write.

In addition, I am happy to announce that my proposal for Israel’s first International Conference on Academic Writing has been accepted! My paper “Teacher writing for Professional Learning” will appear on the program. The conference is in the Israeli summer, at the end of July.

Another new experience for me will be my first meeting with the group of 3 doctoral students that invited me to join their informal sessions. This group is based around academic writing and meets once every two months, each time in a different home. At each meeting, one member presents written texts for discussion and feedback. After my first meeting on Tuesday I will try to blog the experience. 

Finally, I am looking forward to a series of workshops being run by Monash for HDR students from all campuses. I have signed up as an online participant and once a month, on Fridays, I will have some live input and academic content and communications. Here it will be 2am Thursday night but… who cares?

One Down – Three to Go!

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday we finished the 30 hour course at Z . Although I haven’t finished reading the participants’ responses yet, I know that many of the teachers and their principals have asked to organize a new course, an additional 30 hours. It is good to know that most of the participants completed the program and were left with  a desire to continue, to learn more. Many commented that they were in the midst of an exciting process with their pupils and feel the need to hear more. There was total agreement that the course should be 60 hours long and not 30.

The atmosphere was positive although it certainly was a bit noisier than usual. I related some of the noise to the pressure teachers are under at the moment – all have parent teacher evenings at this time and reports are due to be handed in in the next few weeks.

Yesterday’s session was about children with difficulties learning to write but only a brief introduction – last year, in the 60 hr course, I devoted at least two sessions to this important topic.

When I described the assignment there was agreement that the task is fair and nobody started panicking as they did last year. They were assured by the assessment rubric I presented together with the task and one of the participants commented that I really do practice what I preach.

This interesting group was extremely appreciative and convinced me with their comments and thanks that this learning experience (as short as it may be), really made a difference to the way they teach writing, see themselves as teachers of literacy and most important, changed the way they look at their pupils. Even if only some of this is retained, it was well worth my time and effort.