Improving Andragogy

My experiences with technology professional development (PD) as an adult have not been great. Most have been what I would describe as a machine-gun approach where a workshop leader demonstrates as many technology resources as possible during the one-day workshop (usually in the summer) with the hopes that one might hit the target. Usually, I’ve left these workshops with my head spinning and not a very clear idea of how I could use any of those resources in my classroom, and by the time August rolls around, I can’t remember how any of them work. The other approach has been a one-hour overview presentation done at the in-service meetings at the beginning of the year. Often teachers are so overwhelmed at this time with all of the information and classroom preparations that it is hard to process everything and master any new technology.

To improve adult learning in regard to technology integration professional development for teachers, I believe professional development methods need to be reconsidered and the needs of adult learners considered. Adult learners are different than child and adolescent learners. Knowles developed six assumptions about adult learners. These assumptions, as described in the video Adult Learning Theory | Knowles' 6 Assumptions of Adult Learners (Fox, 2020) are summarized below:

• The need to know – Adults need to understand why they need to know your content and how it will benefit them.

• Self-concept – Adults usually learn better when they can be self-directed and autonomous.

• Learner experience – The life experience of adults influences their desire to learn and guides their learning objectives.

• Readiness to learn – Adults want to use what they are learning in their life.

• Orientation to learning – Adults want to use what they are learning to solve problems or complete tasks.

• Motivation to learn – Adults are internally motivated and they want relevant instruction and activities.

High-quality PD will lead to teachers learning new skills, which will improve their instruction, and ultimately increase student achievement. High-quality PD should have a longer duration than what I’ve described above as typical. There should be follow-up and support after the training. During the training, learners will actively engage in activities that are relevant to their teaching assignment. They should have access to the technology and be able to do some hands-on practicing prior to implementing it in the classroom. Teachers should collaborate during and after the professional development sessions, and they should be able to see how their prior beliefs and knowledge and the training fit together. PD that helps teachers make the connection between the technology and the curriculum while providing a good pedagogical approach will help them to successfully integrate technology (Martin et al., 2010).

According to Miller et al. (2017), “Teachers lack skill sets and expertise regarding how to use technology and lack pedagogical knowledge in regard to integrating it appropriately.” I would say, in many cases, this is still true, and the only way to fix it is to have some targeted and strategic professional development. Instead of doing one long PD session, they should be broken into several smaller sessions, so that teachers have time to use what they’ve learned and develop lesson plans for use in the classroom right away (Martin et al., 2010). I would love to see a professional development program in my school where a technology tool is introduced and its use is modeled. Following that, the teachers would have a chance to work with their subject area groups to collaborate and figure out how to use it in their classes before the next PD session. Between meetings, there could also be follow-up in the form of additional help from the instructional specialist, being observed by and/or observing other teachers as they utilize the new technology, receiving feedback from an instructional specialist, and reviewing student work (Martin et al., 2010). At the next session, teachers would present what they had done and how it worked. After the presentations, there would be some time for discussion, reflection and potential extension ideas. Because teachers are busy and have lots on their plate, long meetings would not be good. I would recommend two brief meetings a month, one to introduce the tool and the other for the recap. If this pattern was followed for most months of the school year, teachers would be able to learn and incorporate several new tools each year, and they’d have time to practice using them and do some reflection. Martin et al. (2010) found “the combination of coaching with professional development to be an especially effective means of changing teacher practices.” I believe an approach like this could transform the way teachers teach and help ensure our students are ready for the 21st century.

References:

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels

Fox, A. (2020, July 22). Adult Learning Theory | Knowles' 6 Assumptions of Adult Learners. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArAggTULLU.

Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., and McMillan Culp, K. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 55-76.

Miller, J., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2017, March). Effect of a makerspace training series on elementary and middle school educator confidence levels toward integrating technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1015-1020). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)