TEACHING TEACHERS TO TEACH
Eva Jarošová, Hana Lorencová, Ljubica Bakić-Tomić
PhDr. Ing. Eva Jarošová,PhD., Department of Managerial Psychology and Sociology,
University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, evajar@vse.cz
Ing.Hana Lorencová, Department of Managerial Psychology and Sociology, University of
Economics, Prague, Czech Republi,c lorench@vse.cz
Ljubica Bakić-Tomić,PhD, Assistant Professor, Teachers Facylty, University of Zagreb,
Croatia.
Lj.bakic-tomic@ufzg.hr
ABSTRACT
The paper describes the content and impact of an experimental course for young teachers at
the University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic. Young teachers who try to implement
active learning strategies into their courses need relevant pedagogical training and institutional
support. One form of support for teachers is to provide training opportunities to master new
teaching methods and pedagogical skills at the start of their professional career. Therefore, the
main aim of the course, described in this paper, is to encourage and support young faculty
members to adopt such teaching strategies and tools which can help to develop critical
thinking and communication skills of the students.
Key words: University teachers, communication skills, pedagogical skills, training.
INTRODUCTION
In the Czech Republic pressure is being put on all universities to adopt more innovative
teaching approaches and adopt modern and varied teaching methods that require the active
participation of students in class. From the broader perspective this pressure could be
considered a consequence of the Bologna Process, which is led by the effort to transform
European higher education to higher attractiveness, competitiveness and capability with other
forms of post-secondary education.
These appeals have already taken the form of concrete steps, such as the transformation of the
credit system to the ECTS system at the University of Economics, Prague. This
transformation means, among other things, higher emphasis on developing students’
communication skills. This proposed transformation presents a real challenge for
implementing active learning methods in teacher-centered, cognitive-based courses which
have prevailed in the curriculum so far.
1
But this wish – if not to be only a proclaimed aim - should be transformed into concrete
practical steps of providing young teachers with powerful tools for their pedagogical work.
Thus the question is which forms of institutional support for young teachers could hopefully
accomplish this aim and - at the same time - could be perceived by young teachers as useful
and effective help.
THE CONTENT OF THE COURSE FOR YOUNG TECHERS
Teachers, like students, need support and esteem from their peers. Universities that wish to
be at the forefront of change must involve their faculties in workshops and discussions to
encourage each other’s attempts and learn from each other’s failures as well as successes
(Jarošová et al., 2005).
At the University of Economics, Prague, the experimental course for young teachers has been
developing. The aim of the course has been to support young teachers and to help them to
create a network of peers.
This course for young teachers was implemented at University of Economics, Prague, in
2002. Since the first run of the course its content has developed step-by-step according to the
feedback of its participants. Therefore, each run of the course could be called “experimental”
because its content has been slightly redesigned each year to the demands of its participants.
At the outset, the instructors of the course had to overcome some distrust of participants
towards such a course, but gradually these attitudes have changed. Due to the future
participants’ interest, the capacity of the course has doubled this year and there are two course
groups this year. In 2007 the course content (approximately 35 hours of instruction) covered
the following topics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction and “mapping” of participants’ expectations and training needs
Learning styles
Participative teaching methods
Tools for developing students’ critical thinking skills
Informal Feedback: how to “detect” and “collect” feedback from students
Demands and stress on teachers: mental hygiene principles
Demands and stress on students
Developing student presentation and teamwork skills
“Micro-teaching:” video-recording and peer critique
During the course the participants had the opportunity to practice new skills by
“microteaching,” training with video recordings and structured feedback by peers and the
course instructors.
The written form of the feedback was completed by oral feedback from the course instructors.
All forms of feedback served also as learning examples of developing
communication/presentation skills of the students. Young teachers learned how to provide
their students with feedback on their presentations in a structured and constructive way.
Providing feedback forms and skills were broadly debated. Most participants had examples
2
from their former student experience of discouraging forms of instructor feedback on
students’ presentations which were highly demotivating.
The biggest emphasis was put on stimulating young teachers to use participative, active
learning methods, which could serve as an opportunity for developing student communication
skills, team work skills, and critical thinking.
Some participants doubted whether the participative methods could be used in a traditional
(large group) class setting. Therefore, it was useful to introduce “small participative tools”
that are easily adapted to any classroom format. In addition to interactive debates, led by the
instructor, these included other tools for stimulating participation and cooperation in class,
i.e.:
 snowball discussions, i.e. discussions firstly in small groups and then in several larger
groups of the students
 “for-and-against” debates, which stimulates critical thinking on controversial topics, when
one part of the students forms arguments from one point of view and the other part from
the opposite point of view
 buzz groups, i.e. Short sessions (5-10 minutes) with small groups (2-4), which could liven
up instructor led sessions and encourage creative thinking by discussing ideas students have
about a particular topic or lesson
 “think-pair-share” technique, which enables students to form their opinion individually and
then to share their views firstly in pairs and then with the whole class
Participants repeatedly expressed their doubts about their own competence in leading open
and thorough discussion with students. Therefore, they appreciated practice working with
student questions, especially how to formulate student questions in relation to the cognitive
process which is supposed to be addressed. Practicing how to react to questions was also
important for them, so that students are encouraged to think more thoroughly.
The idea of the course was not just to “lecture” on the active participative pedagogical tools
but to provide participants with their own experience with all the presented methods.
Therefore, the instructors of the course strived to interoperate all the presented methods to the
course program, including those with which the participants had almost no previous exposure
(see below) – such as brainstorming, simulation, using cognitive maps or role playing.
For 2007 the course for young teachers has been completed with other supplemental forms of
institutional support: a whole day workshop on using case studies as a learning tool and by
creating a web site for participants for sharing their experience with using participative
methods in their classes, so that enthusiastic young teachers could have the opportunity for
networking and knowledge sharing.
YOUNG TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCE WITH ACTIVE PEDAGOGICAL METHODS
To address the question of the participants’ experience with pedagogical methods which
stimulate participation and communication skills of the students, we asked participants in the
last two course runs to fill in pre-course and post- course questionnaires.
3
Young teachers (N=34) reflected on their own experience with participative teaching methods
in steps (pre-course and post-course questions). Pre-course questions mirrored experience
with these methods during their own university studies, their knowledge of these methods,
and frequency of using these methods.
The methods which were known to most respondents (young teachers) from their university
studies were using of visual aids (33), team work (31), case studies (30) and providing
supplemental written materials (29). “Very frequently” respondents as students were in
contact only with supplemental written materials, visual aids, teamwork, various kinds of
questions and examples in relation to the interests of the audience.
In contrast, no previous exposure was reported most frequently to cognitive maps (28),
simulations (17), brainstorming (15) and snowball discussions (13). Even those who had
experience with these methods as students reported the frequency of using them as “low” or
“very low”.
According to these findings the respondents (young teachers) have experienced as students
more traditional teaching methods or easy interactive methods.
Post-course questions covered open questions about participants’ own experience with
participative teaching methods and their intentions to incorporate these methods into their
courses (and also their barriers with using interactive methods).
Respondents expressed most frequently the intention to try:
 various kinds of discussions (interactive discussions with teacher, snowball discussion,
discussion “for and against”)
 case studies
 brainstorming
 simulation
 role playing
As a limiting factor for using them, they perceived the prevailing “lecture” format at the
university. Probably, therefore, the strongest intention to use was reported in relation to the
various types of discussions. Several respondents also expressed some hesitation regarding
how they would find a way to adjust the participative methods to their particular subject or
course.
On the other hand the respondents expressed great enthusiasm to use the methods with which
they had no or low experience as students (such as role playing, case studies etc.). However,
some of the respondents complained that they had no "models" in using these methods
in teaching, and they were afraid of the student reaction, whether students would accept these
methods and how would they react.
Respondents evaluated the topics covered in the course content (see above) as very inspiring
and motivating, and they frequently expressed their recommendations to their “older
colleagues” to utilize the methods.
4
CONCLUSION
According to the findings described above, young teachers often lack experience with active,
participative methods as students. This could be a limiting factor for their own effort to use
modern pedagogical strategies in their pedagogical work. Therefore, they need various forms
of institutional support (such as workshops, discussions, courses). Although they could have
enthusiasm, energy and aspirations at the beginning of their academic career, they need help
which could provide them with methodological guidelines, pedagogical skills and a peer
network in their academic milieu.
REFERENCES
Bacon, D.,R.,Stewart, K.A., Silver W.S (1999); Lessons from the best and worst student team
experiences: How a teacher can make a difference; Journal of Management Education. Vol.
23. No. 5 (pp. 467-488)
D’Andrea,V.,Gosling,D.(2005); Improving teaching and learning. A Whole Institution
Approach; Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Illeris, K.(2004); The Three Dimensions of Learning; Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar.
Jarošová, E., Lukeš, M., Winn, J. (2005); Launching experimental learning and case method
based approaches in Czech business classes; International Journal of Case Method Research
& Application; Vol. 17, No.4, (pp. 515–521).
Johnson, R. T.,Johnson, D.W.(1994); An Overview of Cooperative Learning; In:J. Thousand,
A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds).(1994); Creativity and Collaborative Learning, Brookes Press,
Baltimore.
Laurilland,D.(2002); Rethinking University Teaching (A Conversational Framework for the
Efffective use of Learning Techmologies), RoutledgeFalmer, London.
5