|
In this issue:
LEADERSHIP UPDATES
•
MESSAGE FROM THE CO-CHAIRS
ARTICLES
•
LIBRARIES AS A THIRD LANGUAGE? INFORMATION LITERACY FOR ELLS
•
PREPARING STUDENTS IN CHINA FOR STUDY ABROAD
•
STRATEGIES FOR ACADEMIC SUCCESS AT THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
•
DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, AND REVIEWING AN ONGOING ORIENTATION COURSE AT A UNIVERSITY-BASED IEP
•
BROKERING MEANINGFUL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY
•
HIGHER EDUCATION INTEREST SECTION
•
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
•
CALL FOR BOOK REVIEW SUBMISSIONS
•
CALL FOR COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY SUBMISSIONS
|
|
BROKERING MEANINGFUL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Erin N. O'Reilly, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, Chicago, USA
In the process of reevaluating job descriptions for faculty at a
university-housed intensive English program, one of the performance
standards that came under committee scrutiny was professional
development (PD). The existing standard read something along the lines
of "participates in one PD activity per academic year." On the surface,
the standard appears straightforward, and any criticism may seem odd. By
digging a little deeper, however, the complexities of the issue become
clearer.
Within our program, teachers regularly interact and learn about
their colleagues' work. During the annual appraisal process, a few
teachers became concerned when they discovered that their colleagues
were documenting long lists of professional activities while they
themselves took the quantity of one at face value. While originally
intended to ease evaluation, having a numerical value in the standard
led to a series of unanticipated issues with the
interpretation.
The following questions were then posed to management:
- What is the true PD expectation?
- Are all PD activities weighted equally in an evaluation?
- If one person completes one activity and someone else does 15, will that first person be rated lower?
- All of these are valid questions, the answers to which relied
on the program developing a shared understanding of the role of PD at
the individual and administrative levels.
In response, the program completed an in-service PD inquiry
workshop. The workshop asked that our faculty read and discuss selected
excerpts from the current literature on language teacher PD, as well as
assess a variety of PD options. Two central takeaways emerged from the
dialogue: (1) the onus of identifying and pursuing meaningful PD rests
with the individual, but (2) the program administration is responsible
for requiring and supporting PD. Below are eight key workshop themes
further divided into teacher and program responsibilities, with the
discussion linked to current PD literature.
The Teacher
- Self-awareness. The first step to
engaging in meaningful PD is self-awareness of the gap that exists in
one's practice, akin to a needs analysis which takes a deliberate and
planned look at the current state and the desired end-state (Bailey,
Curtis, & Nunan, 2001). Being aware of one's gap can be
challenging for practitioners and requires constant self-reflection and
self-observation. A cornerstone to this self-awareness is that the gap
cannot be filled as it is not a finite space; rather, it must constantly
be nourished throughout the teacher's career (Curtis, 2008).
- Initiative and Evaluation.From a place of
self-awareness, the teacher is now in a position to take the initiative
needed to evaluate the PD options available (Mercado, 2012). PD
opportunities can present themselves in a myriad of forms, including:
self-guided activities (e.g., reading professional literature on a
particular topic), training offered by the program or the larger
university campus, or even through interaction with the wider profession
through conferences and online communities. The range of PD
opportunities is vast. Of course, not all of the opportunities are
appropriate or necessary for the teacher; rather, this is a highly
individual process. At this point, the teacher is responsible for
evaluating the options in relation to his or her needs.
- Planning. Many annual
reviews ask teachers to create PD goals for the year and then document
their accomplishments. Taking this one step further to viewing PD as a
career-long process, this PD plan should include short- and long-range
goals, identifying current work, but also envisioning the future and the
steps needed to work toward that vision. Anderson (2016) described this
process as planting seeds; some seeds germinate and yield a crop
quickly, while others take years to nurture before harvest. With this in
mind, the teacher is responsible for making a personalized PD plan,
well thought out, with steps to accomplish both short- and long-range PD
goals.
- Follow-through. The plan, once made, must
have follow-through. One important consideration related to
follow-through is that administrators cannot force teachers to develop
professionally; the individual must be intrinsically motivated to pursue
meaningful PD (Bailey et al., 2001; Mercado, 2012). This reality
underscores the importance of the three previous steps and the
obligation on the part of the teacher to work through each of these
steps when planning and undertaking PD.
The Program
- Requiring PD. The program is charged with
requiring and encouraging meaningful PD of every individual. Soppelsa
(2012) described professional development plans as a partnership between
the administration and the faculty members, where the teachers engage
in meaningful PD and the administration acknowledges and rewards those
activities. A robust PD program encourages active reflection from its
faculty which can impact and enhance their teaching, the classroom
experience, and ultimately student learning.
- Reasonable workloads. Program
administrators must be cognizant that PD takes time. Reflective inquiry,
engagement with the larger professional community, and contributions to
the program can only happen if teachers have time available outside of
their teaching duties (Soppelsa, 2012). One of the challenges that many
programs face is the requirement to do more with less. This often
translates into increased teaching and service loads with fewer
resources. Added to this situation is the “adjunctification” of the
teaching workforce, where teachers may not receive paid compensation to
pursue PD. Acknowledging these realities openly with the faculty in
relation to the PD standard in their job description helps set
reasonable expectations for PD and allows faculty to prioritize their PD
plans accordingly. For example, if there is limited time available, a
teacher may take on learning a new software program in lieu of an action
research project, but still be assured that he or she is meeting the
evaluation standard.
- Options. For PD to be meaningful,
teachers should be able to approach their PD activities with a sense of
choice. Again, teacher growth is highly personal and dependent on the
reflective practice of the individual. Administrations that promote a
particular PD initiative or methodology run the risk of presenting
information that conflicts with the teacher's internal belief system or
that is not perceived as being in the individual's best interest
(Mercado, 2012). At that point, the program loses buy-in.
By offering a range of PD opportunities, teachers can pursue
those activities that they find most meaningful. This approach makes the
greatest sense when we consider that teachers have individualized PD
plans and a finite amount of time to dedicate to those plans.
Flexibility, then, is necessary on the part of the program as to what it
deems as satisfactorily meeting a PD requirement.
- Promoting reflective practice. Much has
been written on the value of reflective practice in our profession (see
Bailey et al., 2001). Reflective practice is a powerful method which
allows teachers to think about their craft, identify their gap areas,
assess their needs, and gradually modify their teaching. While the
responsibility for engaging in reflective practice lies with the
teacher, programs can foster an environment where reflective practice is
valued.
One way to encourage a community of reflective practice is to
promote opportunities to collaborate and share work (Mercado, 2012).
These opportunities can be informal and formal. For instance, shared
office space co-locates practitioners who, in the course of their daily
activities, then have the chance to talk informally through the many
different issues that come up organically, from lesson planning and
activity design to classroom management strategies with problematic
students. Alternatively, peer mentoring and coteaching require sustained
and effortful interactions that are more directed in nature. In
recognition that teachers face varying workloads, building opportunities
to promote interaction along a spectrum can nurture the organization's
reflective culture.
Closing Thoughts
Engaging in meaningful PD requires that both the teacher and
the administration have a shared understanding of their respective
roles. The teacher brings self-awareness, initiative, planning, and
follow-through. The program maintains the expectation of ongoing PD
within the scope of the teacher's overall workload, while respecting the
individual nature of PD, the range of possibilities, and the reality of
competing demands and/or limited resources.
The in-service workshop process allowed us to develop this
shared understanding. While the job description still requires
completion of one PD activity per year, we collectively recognize that
this one activity should be highly individualized and supportive of
self-reflection. Regardless of the context, brokering a sustainable path
toward ongoing professional development will yield long-term benefits
for programs that value learning for both teachers and students—a worthy
pursuit indeed in our profession.
References
Anderson, N. (2016, April). Leading teacher development.
Workshop presented at the meeting of TESOL International Association,
Baltimore, MD.
Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as
source. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Curtis, A. (2008). Seven principles of professional
development: From A to G. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson,
& N. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language
teaching and learning (pp. 117–127). Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Mercado, L. (2012). Guarantor of quality insurance. In M.
Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language
program administrators (pp. 117–136). Miami, FL: Alta Books.
Soppelsa, E. (2012). Empowerment of faculty. In M. Christison
& F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program
administrators (pp. 139–158). Miami, FL:
Alta Books.
Erin N. O'Reilly is the director of the Intensive
English Institute at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
|