Professional Development

Before I begin my discussion of this weeks readings, I must disclose that I hold a somewhat jaded association with professional development based on my years as a classroom teacher.  Professional development was time intensive, and regularly did not address topics I cared about.  Though always an over-achiever as a student, during professional development I felt like an apathetic student sitting in the back of the classroom leaning my chair against the wall.  It was not always this way.  When I first started teaching, I sat at the front of the room, pen and notebook open and eager to be filled.  Let this serve as a precautionary tale.

This week, one of our readings was Semandeni's artile about teacher-driven professional development (2010).  In this model, teachers were able to select and help lead professional development topics to target their own personal areas for growth.  This is an excellent idea in practice; with the rising emphasis on differentiation in the classroom, it only makes sense that professionals should be offered the same specialized opportunities for growth.  But there are a few caveats that should be minded:

1. Professional development should be a tool for growing, not assessment.
At my school, we were empowered to pick strands to work on (I hope you sense the scarcasm...), but with the administration it sometimes felt that we were filing our own warrants.  With at-will contracts and frequently patronistic leaders, if I admitted weakness, I felt that it could be used agaist me, and I saw more than one teacher chased out mid-year for what frankly seemed like administrative bullying.

This is why I loved the atmosphere described in Kristin's article about professional development in new technologies.  Because Kristin was not an administrator, she was able to create a relaxed environment that allowed for play in addition to growth.  She understood what teachers needed to excell, and provided it to them in a way that was non-threatening.

It should be kept in mind, however that not all teacher-led instruction was without pressure.  At one point, my team teacher and I were identified as meeting the standards of the administration in terms of assessment and lesson planning.  We were then asked to lead professional development in a thinly veiled attempt to pressure other teachers to work the way we were.  Not only did teachers still feel the "big brother" behind our professional development, it created discomfort in our professional community.  The difference is clear; my colleague and I were not allowed to lead professional development that we were passionate about, but rather on what the administration wanted to see others doing. 

2. Choice should be balanced with observation and guided growth.
Selecting and independent plan also felt less personal.  We had full time "master teachers" who observed us and led professional development.  As a new teacher, I wanted someone with more experience to observe my teaching and tell me the things that I didn't notice I was messing up on.  I was a teacher who would pick at myself and make constant adjustments improvements and needed feedback ouside of monthly professional development meeting.

3. In giving options, allow for depth, as well as breadth. 
My training program optioned 'menu items,' at our monthly professional development days, but we were rarely offered materials "at level" because they worked to develop bredth, not depth.  I often found myself going to sessions I was interested in, but being disappointed because it didn't add anything to my knowledge base, but just patted me on the back for what I was already doing.  Development cannot be fulfilled in a single session.  Items should not only be differentiatied, but also scaffolded to meet teachers where they are.

Whew.  I didn't mean to be so negative in my final post for SI 643.  Let me leave you with one story of professional development gone-right.  At a friend's school, teachers were allowed to guide their own professional development without administration.  At the beginning of the year, they selected cohorts based on similar goals.  They met monthly and had their own bookclubs for professional development materials where they shared readings, ideas, and best practices.  Not only did my friend feel she had improved, she also felt like she was part of a learning community and had a lot of on-site support on campus when she had questions.

Chatter

This week we planned and began to engage in webinars.  So far, I have attended one Webinar (archived) and participated in our webinar on Creative Commons & Fair Use.  (To check out the archived webinar, go here).  Both were definite learning experiences for me!  As someone who has participated in a lot of professional development sessions in the past, it was great to see an alternative for online development.  I like the idea that I can opt-in to the sessions I find most interesting, and it's a great forum for individuals to share their expertise. 

Today I listened to Sherry, Chris, and Janeane's session on providing services for patrons recently released from prison, and I learned so much.  This is definitely an area that I have no experience in, and I walked away feeling a lot more confident about my ability to serve the community. 

One feature I am not so sure about is chat.  On the one hand, the chat box is a great way to check for understanding, to take questions, and to engage audience members.  On the other hand, it can be a major distraction.  In our in-person one shot workshops we had very different norms for sharing the floor, but on chat, participants can talk the whole time.  Having a chat monitor assigned in our team was really helpful in minimizing the distraction, but it still got off topic at times.  Even as a participant I was sometimes distracted by other people's chatter and couldn't focus on the presentation.

What do you guys think about the chat feature?  Love it?  Hate it?  A necessary evil?

Twitter

I really want to like Twitter.  I tend to be annoyed by people who complain about technology for the sake of having that funny I'm-young-and-crotchety-like-Janeane-Garofalo-get-it? thing.  But I feel crotchety when I look at Twitter.  Maybe I'm doing it wrong?  It's just a little overwhelming to me.  There is a lot of "inspeak" with hashtags, RTs, and personal dialogs made public. 

To me, Twitter does seem like a good forum to share interesting news articles or to promote personal projects, and I'm all for following interesting people to share ideas with me!  This week is the first time I have actively used a #hashtag to follow a group conversation, and I definitely got more out of being part of a group in sharing ideas.  It was great to see classmates sharing articles over the course of last week.  For the first time I felt like an "insider!"  I guess what I really need to work on is honing in on the right people to follow and the right things to share.

The Twitter-er(?) I was most impressed with this week was Archives Info.  Her tweets were really interesting and relevant to the field; she shared articles about digital humanities and new interesting heritage sites.  I plan on continuing to follow her feed.  The Tweeter (?) I was least impressed with was the Librarian in Black.  This was disappointing because I really liked the content on her blog; it was engaging and I learned a lot.  I learned from her Twitter account all sorts of useless information about her personal life.  Definitely not someone I plan to follow after this week.

I think my feelings towards the Librarian in Black connected to the discussion we had in class last week.  I think librarians can be clique-y.  Reading the LIBs posts made me feel like I just didn't get it.  Archives Info, on the other hand, made me feel like I was being brought into the discussion.  I think this has something to do with why we as library students feel uncomfortable asking questions.  It pushes us out of the clique and into the group of users.  This is important to keep in mind in terms of how we treat non-info professionals.  Respect and humility, my friends, respect and humility.