Bringing it back home - 25 June, 2014
NON-JUDGMENTAL COMMUNICATION FOR
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN ICT
Mariam Attia
Outline
 The role of colleagues in teacher development in
ICT
 Cooperative Development as a discourse
framework for teacher development
 Something for you? Resources and Community
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT
“We should frame teachers as agents of change in
need of a supportive context”
(Dexter et al. 1999, p. 237)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT
“Teacher learning and instructional innovation thrive
in environments where there are others who are
experimenting with technology”
(Windschitl and Sahl 2002, p. 168)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT
“The importance of collaboration cannot be overestimated: teachers need each other - for team
teaching and planning, technical problem solving
assistance and learning”
(Granger 2002 et al, p. 486)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT
“When teachers engage with others in ongoing
reflection about their instructional use of technology,
they are more likely to critically evaluate their
practice and redesign instruction to better meet student
needs and curriculum goals”
(Persky 1990, p. 37)
Colleagues and Teacher Development in ICT
“Reflection among teachers is a critical component of any
innovation effort [..]
(Ertmer 1999, p. 54-55)
Cooperative Development
 An approach to language teacher professional development
 Julian Edge - Late 1980s –> 1992, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008
 Traditions of reflective practice and action research
 No single way of becoming a teacher is right for everyone
 An internal growth approach to teacher development
 Not so much how far we get and more of the direction in
which we would like to be moving
 Teacher self-development as a social phenomenon
Cooperative Development
 Learning through the expression of one’s ideas
 A specific kind of discourse (neither a discussion nor a
conversation)
 Working for regular, agreed upon periods with another
teacher
 Deliberately abandon elements of argument
 Creating a space in which one teacher’s ideas can expand in
the search for a discovery
 Roles: Speaker & Understander
Speaker




A non-defensive style of talk
Purpose -> explore a certain issue or area of interest
Leads to discovery
Basis for plan of action
Understander
 Non-Judgmental -> Puts aside their own set of knowledge,
experience, opinions.. etc, with the aim of better
Understading the Speaker
 Facilitates the Speaker’s path of exploration - discovery action, in line with the speakers own professional
development goals.
Understander
 Respect - Accepting what the speaker says neither
agreeing or disagreeing
 Empathy - Tries to see things from the speakers point of
view
 Sincerity - with regard Respect and Empathy
 Understander has a set of agreed moves
Edge 2006)
(examples quoted from
Reflect
@stellar_ball
‘Ok, so if I’ve got this right, what you’re saying is..’
‘Just let me see if I’m with you so far.. ‘
Relate
© Schuilr
‘A few minutes ago, you said X, didn’t you? And now you’re saying Y.
Are these at all connected for you?’
Focus
©AJ Batac
You have spoken about X, Y and Z so far, is that right?’ (Pause or confirmation)
‘Would it be useful at this point to Focus on one of them in more depth?’
Set a goal
©Anjanized
- ‘Do you see a goal for yourself arising from what you have said so far?’
- ‘Am I right in thinking, then, that the goal you see now is ‘X?’
Trial a procedure
© Gary Dean
‘Maybe you can tell me about the steps you will take to achieve your goal’
Example

S: I have noticed that a good amount of class time is wasted in activities
which require students to work on their computers. I give them
instructions but there are always two or three who, after 5-10 min into the
activity, would ask: “Excuse me, so what are we supposed to be doing?”

U: So, if I am understanding you properly, you’ve got a problem in
managing activity time because these students will begin later than
others, and therefore more time is spent on the activity than intended.
Right?

S: Exactly. The problem is worse is in my media classes where multiple
instructions are given such as logging in to websites, going to specific
sections, and listening to certain videos.

U: And you say you give them clear instructions before every activity.

S: Yes. Sometimes I say the same thing over and again. They just don’t
seem to listen.

U: You mean despite repeated instructions, you still have students later
asking you what to do.. and you are sure they have listened to your
repeated instructions.
Example

S: Yes. Hmm.. well, some of them may be busy turning on their
computers, or fixing their headsets. You see, we sit in a U-shape with the
students facing the center of their class, so I am not sure what they do
the moment I give the instructions. They look across their screens when I
address the class. Maybe they are looking at me but not really listening.

U: So, you think they might be thinking about other things at the same
time?

S: That’s a possibility. In a way, I have the ability to control their screens
through the teacher’s console. But I don’t want to do that. I would like
them to learn how to navigate through the news websites independently.
That’s part of the learning process.

U: Ok, so I see two points here: On the other hand, you would like
students to be autonomous, and therefore don’t want to direct them to
activities through your machine. On the other hand, you have a time
management problem for activities tend to take longer than expected
because students don’t seem to get the instructions from the first time. Is
this right?

S: Yes. Exactly.
Example

U: .. and you say they might be thinking of other things at the beginning
of the activity and therefore may not really be listening to you. So, did this
give you any thoughts? I mean did it make you think of other ways to give
instructions?

S: Hmm.. Maybe it’s a question of organization, really. That I need to
establish a system.. Maybe give instructions in stages. Hmm.. Perhaps.. I
should first ask them to turn on their computers, and set their machines
to ‘sleep’ and when everyone is has done that, I can give the instructions
for language activities.

U: So, you think the confusion is caused by the way the instructions are
given. That is when students are busy doing other things.

S: Yes, that’s a possibility. After all, that’s the nature of working with
computers. Once they are on one tends to be totally absorbed. Maybe
that’s the problem then. Students get distracted, don’t really listen to the
instructions, and after a while start wondering what to do.

U: .. and that’s what wastes class time.

S: Yes. I will try to be more organized and give instructions in stages.

U: Good (laughs)
Computer-mediated Cooperative Development
Not all teachers have the opportunity to work with others
face-to face on ICT-related issues (isolation).
© Arthur Kantemirov
Computer-mediated Cooperative Development
Computer-mediated Cooperative Development
Example:
MSN messenger in Cooperative Development
(Boon 2003, 2005, 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTYoo8XphVw
Why Cooperative Development?
 Facilitates teacher self-development in ICT
 Self-directed professional growth –> Responsibility and
Empowerment
 Helps teaches to continue to develop their teaching with
ICT in small scale ways -> Important for building
confidence with technology -> Competence
 Fosters collegial relationships (e.g extends trust & respect)
Why Cooperative Development?
 Many teachers still lack institutional support -> the central
role of colleagues
 Non-judgmental/ non-defensive discourse -> Avenue for
addressing sensitive aspects of teachers’ professional lives
in relation to ICT use
e.g. insecurity, lack of confidence, frustration,
experimentation, and institutional pressure.
 What else?
Something for you?
Resources and Community
www.cooperative-development.com
Thank you
mail@mariamattia.com
References
Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' views of
computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.
Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative Development. Harlow: Longman.
Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A
discourse framework for individuals as colleagues. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Edge, J. (2003). Colleagial self-development. English Teaching
Professional. 27, 58-60.
Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development: Nonjudgemental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching
Research, 10(2), 205-227.
References
Ertmer, P., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary
school partnership designed to support technology integration.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81-96.
Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., &
Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers'
successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 18(4), 480-488.
Persky, S. E. (1990). What contributes to teacher development in
technology? Educational Technology, 30(4), 34-38.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology
in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs,
social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational
Research Journal, 165-205.