1) teachers so often have such little input in deciding what they're going
to be trained on, they're often disinterested in the subject matter.
2) because training & development is mandatory but outside the classroom
hours (usually), teachers are often resentful they have to go through it.
3) because so many teachers work in isolation, they're distrustful of
working in teams. Additionally, they don't respect what others offer in
the way of training because they are so used to relying only on themselves
for information and answers. Rachel, you brought this up in your
discussion. Most teachers can teach a whole week without talking to another
teacher if they don't want to.
4) I think it's hard to get teachers excited about training and
development because they are not treated as professionals in the larger
scope of things. Look at the education we demand of them, but look at the
salaries most teachers get. In most places in this country, teachers are
considered more vocational than professional. Professionals continually
upgrade their skills through workshops, retreats, etc. Professionals also
continually work with each other in teams to plan and make things happen.
Teachers are often just told what they have to do. I understand the
resentment.
Teachers and administrators need to work together better so they share in
the decision-making process. Also, they need to be treated (and paid) like
professionals, so they'll see the advantage of all the additional training
they are asked to partake in.
Just some thoughts. Sherry Marx
At 01:36 PM 1/18/98 -0500, Rachel Heckert wrote:
>Kathi and list,
>
>Your experiences as a classroom consultant are very interesting, even if
>somewhat discouraging, but there's hope! Teaching adults how to use
>computers is something with which I have a great deal of experience, and
>in most places I've worked I've always been the "expert." I do have an
>AA in computer programming on mainframes (before PC's were common), but
>none of the tutoring I've done has been in programming - it's almost all
>in helping non-experienced people do everyday things on a PC. The
>difference seems to be that since I have some idea of what's going on
>inside the box I was less afraid to just sit and punch buttons, and thus
>eventually teach myself..
>
>Most novices are genuinely afraid that if they hit the wrong button
>they'll blow the (expensive) machine up. Learning in this situation
>takes time and the willingness to go on despite mistakes, in a modality
>which is almost entirely procedural, with a trusted guide who will avert
>possible disasters. Declarative knowledge, of the type with which most
>teachers are currently trained to work, doesn't help. (I can fix
>problems and then when I'm asked, "Why did you do that?" I usually can't
>give an answer any more exact than, "Well, it _seemed_ like the logical
>next step.")
>
>The teachers you have been working with may have suffered from several
>problems.
>
>a) Teachers are taught that they _must_ be in control and _right_ at all
>times. This isn't just a matter of some ego ideal - it translates into
>terms of job security and continuing to be able to pay the rent. They
>don't want to see their students watching them make mistakes or look
>stupid in front of someone who may report back to their boss. Possibly
>you could arrange for individual tutorials at a time when the students
>aren't around.
>
>b) The individual teacher is intimidated by the machine and by the
>presence of the "expert." It all looks so mysterious - and in most
>cases the "expert" sits there punching buttons while giving a running
>commentary in incomprehensible jargon.
>("Nerd"-type people have tried to do this to me on numerous occasions
>when I needed some specialized instruction, and I just tell them to get
>up and let me do it myself. But then I already have the necessary
>self-confidence. )
>
>(BTW, I prefer the terms "senior" and "junior" rather than "expert" and
>"novice." It feels more "right" to me because it's more personal, and
>what is an apprenticeship if not personal?)
>
>The first thing I do is sit the person down in front of the computer and
>sit or stand behind their shoulder. Then I _tell_ them which button to
>push (sometimes literally guiding their hand the first few times if it's
>necessary), watch them observe the effect, make a comment and go on to
>the next step. The important thing is that the student is always _doing_
>the action him/herself, not _watching you_ do it. Joking and reassurance
>are essential, e.g. "It always does exactly what you tell it - that's the
>problem!" The key word is "demystify." Which means, of course, letting
>go of the omniscient "expert" role as we usually like to play it. After
>whatever time seems appropriate, I start asking _them_ which button they
>think should be pushed, or item menu clicked, etc. Sooner or later
>(usually sooner) it becomes a game for them, and they don't want you to
>be too directive!
>
>The idea is to empower the junior member of the dyad, not confer some
>sort of mystical ordination and gnostic knowledge. Most
>non-computer-literate people really would like to learn, if only to break
>the feeling of being at something else's mercy. The trick is to make it
>look achievable so they're willing to take the risk, and not have to fear
>losing face in the process.
>
>Try an approach like this and see if you can't get a more active response
>from the teachers you work with. If you do, please let me know how it
>works for you.
>
>Rachel Heckert
>