Tag Archives: professional learning course

Thought Provoking Email

Posted on by
Reply

Last night I received this email from L after I sent out the assignment rubrics and marks yesterday morning.

 

הי ניקי, לראשונה מזה  14 שנות עבודתי בהוראה, קיבלתי התייחסות כזו אישית ממדריכה בהשתלמות.

 תודה ושנה מצויינת

ל

Translation: Hi Nikki, This is the first time, in my 14 years teaching, that I have received a personal response such as this from a leader in a professional development course.

Thank you and have an excellent year,

L.

Answer same day:

ל, ריגשת אותי!

שבת שלום,

ניקי

Translation:

L,

You moved me!

Good Sabbath,

Nikki

 

Most of the teachers wrote back and returned my blessings for a good new year and a few remarked that they hoped I would run additional courses in the future. Some commented again on the positive learning experience they had received.

I was struck by L’s response but realized quickly that instead of smiling to myself and enjoying the compliment, the remark troubled me and opened up a flow of questions:

2

What did I do that was seen as being so personal?

Is this really (so) unusual?

What causes a teacher to feel seen and heard in a learning framework?

What does the Education Department have to say on these issues? Are there guidelines? Is this an issue?

Why is personal response so absent in many professional learning frameworks?

and maybe more importantly: Is this the dialogue that is so missing in the eyes of a few of the teachers I have interviewed for my PhD. It is indeed becoming more and more apparent that this is a key concept!

2

I have complained in the past that the decision to shorten courses to 30 hours makes it far more difficult to form significant relations with the lecturer and within the group. I have written often that it bothers me that I don’t know all the names of the teachers in these groups and I don’t always know how to match the narratives I read on the online campus with the faces I see in class.

What is the connection between personal attention and response to significant learning? We talk about it all the time in reference to pupil learning and it is somehow disregarded when considering teacher education.

Where do I place emphasis on personal and professional relationships in these courses?

I begin my courses with the letter I write to participants. The letter, inspired by the work of Dr Julian Kitchen, tells about myself and the way I see the course. In my experience, it immediately forms a sense of intimacy between myself and the teachers individually. The letters I receive in return have a personal tone to them and many teachers remark that they were excited to read my letter and to have a chance to present themselves in their own words.

Another feature of the course is the opportunity to write a narrative about the teaching of writing. Teachers are invited (required) to compose a text which describes a successful project, lesson or interaction, to present a dilemma or a problem or to describe another aspect of their work in detail. Teachers are given the stage on the online forum and then receive significant feedback from peers – compliments, thoughtful questions, ideas, advice, empathy etc. In addition, I respond, in length, personally to each and every teacher narrative. A face to face session invites the teachers to further engage in peer conferencing and evaluation surrounding the narratives before revision and reposting on the online forum.

The final assignment of the course is mainly reflection on what happened in the teachers’ classrooms and what significance the learning experience had for them personally and professionally. Maybe this opportunity to look inward and to communicate those thoughts with others contributes to the feelings of sharing and personal connection.

I return the assignment with a rubric explaining the grade and a personal comment. Usually I write which part of the assignment I found most interesting. After reading L’s email, I ask myself  how other lecturers communicate with teachers about their assignments. Are the assignments returned? Are marks sent by email? What kinds of comments are written?

It seems I have little knowledge about what really goes on in other courses. I need to follow this lead as it will throw a lot of light on the stories I am hearing in my interviews with teachers.

 

 

Writing more… or less

Posted on by
2

I have just spent an hour or two responding to teaching narratives posted on our “virtual campus”.  I just had a thought that I wanted to jot down…

It seems that teachers who choose to type their narratives in a word document and attach them to the forum write longer accounts than those who type directly into the text box on the forum. I wonder if this is really so,  I should look into this. I have a feeling that those who attach a file are more computer confident than the others, it will be interesting to investigate how this reflects in their writing.

Back to my responses – hope to write more in the morning!

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.

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/

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.