The design of the training programme delivered in the second cycle (see Table 7.2) was informed by the outcomes of the first cycle, literature review, and needs analysis stage. The main content focus of the second cycle was reading.
Table 7.2: Design of the INSET programme in the second cycle
Phase One (Plan)
10:00–11:00 11:00–12:00 13:00–14:00 14:00–15:00
Wednesday,
1 July 2015 Meeting with potential trainees to discuss programme design and delivery Thursday, 2
July 2015
First session of the programme (The art of teaching reading) By: Mohammad Manasreh
Phase Two (Act): Four-week Training Week 1 (October 5-8, 2015)
10:00–11:00 11:00–12:00 13:00–14:00 14:00–15:00
Monday Teachers meet and greet with trainers School visits to introduce the co- trainer to local context
Tuesday Workshop: Reading instruction strategies (By: Co-trainer)
Workshop: Reading instruction strategies (Repeat)
Wednesday Workshop: Reading instruction strategies (By: Co-trainer)
Workshop: Reading instruction strategies (Repeat)
Thursday
Open Q&A with teachers Focus group with teachers
Week 2 (October 11-15, 2015)
10:00–11:00 11:00 – 12:00 13:00 -14:00
Sunday Lesson observation Lesson observation Lesson observation
Monday
Workshop: Engaging students in reading (By: Co- trainer)
Tuesday Demo reading lesson
(By: Co-trainer) Open Q&A
Thursday Demo reading lesson
(By: Co-trainer) Week 3 (October 19-21, 2015)
Week 4 (October 25-29, 2015)
8.00–9:00 10:00-11:00 13.00 -14.00
Sunday Lesson
observation Open Q&A with participants
10:00–11:00 12:00–13:00 13:00 -14:00
Monday
Workshop: Effective games for reading instruction (By: Co- trainer)
Workshop: Effective games for reading instruction (By: Co-trainer)
Tuesday Demo lesson
(By: Co-trainer)
Demo Lesson (By: Co-trainer)
Wednesday
Effective games for reading instruction (Repeat)
Monday Lesson observation
Workshop: Reading instruction issues (By: Co-trainer)
Reading instruction issues (Repeat)
Tuesday Reading demo lesson
(Repeat)
Thursday Demo lesson
(By: Co-trainer)
Phase Three: Training Evaluation 06 Mov.,
2015
A survey was administered to the teachers for an evaluation of the programme.
As shown in Table 7.2, the second cycle started with an initial preparatory period for two days, from 1-2 July, 2015. The purpose of these two meetings was to familiarise myself with the potential trainees and to gather information for the co- trainer. The core part of this cycle, that is training, was conducted for almost a month, from 5-29 October, 2015. There was a gap between the preparatory period and main part because of the summer break and the need to finalise the training design between the two trainers. Most of the sessions were delivered by the co- trainer. I delivered the initial two sessions in the planning stage and two demo lessons.
As discussed in chapter 4, teachers appreciate it when their views are considered and valued in the decisions on their INSET. During the initial planning phase of this study, the teachers’ input was captured and the training workshops were designed in accordance with their views. For example, the teachers’ request for practical
samples of teaching, rather than theoretical lecturing, was accommodated through the delivery of six demo lessons in this cycle; two of the six were delivered by me. These lessons were delivered with real students, and 10 to 15 teachers often attended these lessons and took notes (see Figure7.2).
Trainers’ knowledge of the local context is an important success factor as illustrated in table 3.1. Although I was familiar with the local context in Qatar, the other trainer came from a different context. She was provided with the opportunity to familiarise herself with the local context through an initial meeting with the
teachers. She was also introduced to the textbooks used by the teachers and attended several lesson observations to align her input with the teachers’ expectations.
Finally, the whole cycle was centred on reading. Reading was not initially planned to be the content focus of the cycles at the outset of the study. Initially, I thought ICT would be the most preferable INSET topic by teachers. However, the survey
results in the needs analysis stage showed that reading was the top recommended topic. Consequently, three of the twelve sessions in the first cycle were dedicated to reading, and most of the sessions and demo lessons in the second and third cycles were reading-focused. As
Reading INSET is both valuable and stimulating as perceived by the participants of this study. It plays a significant role in upskilling TESOL teachers to improve the reading skills and understanding of a language among L2 students (Reinders & Loewen, 2013). Thus, reading INSET must focus on classroom instructional strategies (McNamara, 2011), and be delivered in an engaging and transferable mode (see section 6.3). Coaching is among the recommended methods that foster teacher’s retention of reading INSET (Philips et al., 2016). Relevance to practice (Khan, 2012) and reflection in the teaching process (Hong & Lawrence, 2011) can also impact significantly on the effectiveness of reading INSET.
Choosing reading was linked to the participants’ needs and based on their input. This approach promoted a comfortable training environment, which maintained participant engagement and provided them with relevant and transferable learning opportunities. My experience made me realise that when we, as language trainers, provide our participants with an engaging training experience, we set the whole programme to succeed. Keeping a positive attitude in learning, as noted by Offner (1997), is more important than any immediate results.
Finally, among lessons in this study was the importance of providing participants with the opportunity to have a say on the content of their INSET. Incorporating their voice would make them share the ownership and believe that the training is worth their time and investment. I did not expect reading to emerge as a top preferred topic, but I had to adjust my content to meet the expectations of my participants and keep both of us tuned in.