Faculty
development should include discussion-based learning exercises as well as action-based training
exercises.
In
fields where on-going professional development has literal life and death
implications, realistic, live-action training is common. We can learn from them
by applying training principles that improve classroom practice, multiplying
the value of both learning and training sessions. This will lead to better
teaching and thus better learning.
Recently,
an ACCS teacher included this critique of faculty development programs in a
presentation:
Typically,
the program is three-pronged. First, it involves in-service events, where
someone
from within the school delivers a lecture about something having to do with
classical education. A few schools will occasionally bring in someone from
outside their community to lecture on classical education, although this is relatively
rare because it is expensive, and most schools try to run their faculty
development programs on the cheap…they are held directly after school, when
teachers are mentally exhausted and in no mood for deep intellectual activity.
These in-service events are not exactly meetings, though they do mirror the
modern meeting in that they are dry…
…and
finally, faculty development involves reading certain pre-approved books on the
subject of education, writing a review of the book, and then submitting the review
for approval to the administrator who oversees the development program.
Teachers may also be required to attend a classical educators conference once
every few years—like the ACCS conference, for example.
While
perhaps overly critical of hard-working administrators doing their best with
limited resources, much of what is described above is, unfortunately, very
common. Often what is stated as a teacher training program generally consists
of attendance at a conference, and participation in the school’s teacher
certification process. Many schools will also have occasional administrator
observations, usually scheduled well in advance. In general, faculty
development is thought of as events for individuals or a one-time, mostly
passive group-learning experience.
All
of these activities are useful in their place, but they do not constitute a
full faculty development plan designed to help teachers grow as classical
educators. Administrators should create plans that prioritize on-going, engaging
and realistic times for teacher learning. We also need to distinguish between
and include two kinds of exercises: group or individual learning, and hands-on,
active training with opportunities for practice with feedback.
I
have written elsewhere (Classis, February, 2022) about the need for
faculty development to be a regular part of the school’s schedule. This
consistency is important in that it helps to create a faculty culture where
growth in their craft is a priority to administrators and an expectation for
all. Faculty development should be as engaging as possible. If they can’t
involve wine, beer, and days off, as the writer quoted above wishes (and who
doesn’t?), regular faculty development meetings should at least be designed so
teachers are active participants and not passive recipients. Yes, we’re all
tired afterschool, but if the exercises are intellectually interesting and
clearly applicable, as well as having some movement and thoughtful conversation
with other adults (something that is perhaps lacking in some teachers’ days)
built in, then teachers will see the benefits of the time. Administrators
should lead from ‘the back of the room’ in ways that put the teachers in the
place of a discoverer of the learning, they should “excite and direct the
self-activities of the learner.” Small
group scenario discussions, the creation of graphic organizers to teach a
concept, role-playing, and presenting lessons to a live ‘class’ all have
teachers in the center of the learning and the doing.
In
addition, those responsible for faculty development should consider and plan
for two very different aspects: learning and training. Learning exercises are
primarily discussion-based whose purpose is to increase knowledge and
understanding. Sometimes these are passive (lectures, presentations, on-line
video, etc.), but the best kinds of learning exercises build in active
participation from teachers, e.g. scenario discussions, lesson plan analysis,
etc. At their best, learning exercises give teachers an opportunity to consider
ideas together in a classroom situation, to discuss ranges of responses and
applications. All of this learning is critical for developing the situational
awareness necessary for teachers to make adjustments in their classrooms,
anticipate potential issues and opportunities, and to apply their knowledge and
understanding of the many elements of their school’s mission (i.e. pedagogy,
curriculum, philosophy and culture).
An
often-neglected aspect of faculty developing are training exercises. Although
sometimes used generically, ‘training’ is a different kind of exercise with a
different expected outcome from learning. Training is distinguished from
learning in that it focuses on regular, realistic practice of the learning
elements. While learning exercises are discussion-based, training exercises are
action-based. Exercises in training give repetitions in as realistic a
situation as possible. They are designed to put teachers into realistic,
dynamic situations where they must respond to unplanned circumstances. This is,
of course, more like actual teaching. Training exercises, followed by an honest
discussion of what went well and what didn’t, will support teachers and
faculties toward developing habits of excellent teaching. To gain the full
effect realistic training should be a regular part of the faculty development
calendar, not a one-time event.
An
example of an active training exercise is live ‘teaching labs’, where the
teacher delivers an abbreviated lesson to a class of fellow teachers acting as
students. These live exercises are followed by robust analysis and discussion.
Other examples include role-playing conversations (e.g., a parent-teacher
conference), and practicing targeted scenarios (e.g., ‘check for understanding
in a manner that is both involuntary and plenary’ (that is, involving all
students)). All of these are meant to be as realistic and unscripted as
possible, thereby requiring teachers to practice situational awareness and
apply wise and prudent action in a dynamic circumstance.
It
has been said that you’re only as good as your training. I think it’s probably
closer to the truth that we’re never quite as good as our training, but we
certainly won’t be any better. While many schools emphasize continued learning,
and some provide ample resources for learning opportunities, faculty
development plans should explicitly include frequent training opportunities, as
well. Regular, realistic, and engaging faculty development is critical to the
success of a school’s mission. Both learning and training exercises are also important
to help teachers grow in their understanding and application of the principles
and practices of classical, Christian education.
Learning
exercise examples (discussion-based):
·
Seminars
·
Workshops
·
Scenario
discussions (‘tabletop exercises’, critical incident discussions, etc.)
·
Reading
essays, books; writing papers (e.g. teacher certification plans, group reading
and discussion)
·
ACCS
conference
·
On-line
class
·
Consultant
presentation
Training
exercise examples (action-based practice; repetitions in realistic situations):
·
Scenarios
and role-plays (single situation)
·
Teaching
labs: live, real-time presentation in realistic situation; follow-up analysis
·
Walkthrough/observation
feedback with follow-up discussion, implementation and feedback loop
