Elaboración del pan de Arroz Tipo Molde

As already indicated, the short course model of professional development was, and to some extent still is, common to many INSET programmes. It has a long history of use in nearly all countries and many of the problems are common to whatever context the course is delivered in. In English language teaching, as previously indicated, there is a

long tradition of using short courses as a way of developing teachers, and the factors that facilitate a successful course have been identified by many writers (Tomlinson, 1988; Lamb, 1995; Waters, 2006). Interestingly the popularity of short INSET courses today in English language teaching may be partly historic. The English language teaching profession in many countries has been more influenced by the U.K. and the U.S.A. than say other subjects such as mathematics, science, humanities etc. so that for many years countries looked to the U.K. and the U.S.A. as a source of input for teacher development. So ‘experts’ from these countries would often be used, sometimes through government organisations such as the British Council as ‘deliverers’ of ‘workshops’ concerned with the latest approaches to language teaching. So much of the literature within ELT has tended to focus on such short courses, their effectiveness, their modes of delivery, their impact etc. and more recently on the need for such courses to be seen as ‘developmental’.

In my own context of Korea, it is debatable whether most of the short courses attended by teachers are truly part of a CPD process or not; although usually the deliverers of such courses doubtless try to use a methodology that reflects some of the principles of CPD. As Bell and Day (1991) suggest, courses often “emphasise the expertise of those outside schools and deny the legitimacy of the teacher-as-expert. This can perpetuate the demand for courses in spite of there often being a mismatch between the needs of teachers and/or their schools and the content of the courses (1991:8). However, such courses are likely to remain a fairly dominant feature of most teacher education practices, even if they are part of a wider programme so an awareness of the problematic features may help in the design of more effective courses. These features are briefly summarised by Tomlinson (1988:2) as follows:

 First, one-shot workshops are commonly used but tend to be ineffective in promoting long-term change.

 The participants often have had little to do with the policy and objectives that the course is designed to realise. The in-service programmes do not address the needs of the teachers as identified by them.

 The course attempts too much in too short a time. It may impose a work load on already overstretched classroom teachers.

 Follow-up support for using ideas and practices experienced on INSET courses occurs in only a few cases.

 Short courses may involve teachers from different schools attending at the same time and thus cannot always take into account the negative and positive features of the schools to which they return.

 Participants become total converts to the new approach and fail to see the inappropriateness of some of its aspects to the realities of their teaching situation.

 The course tutors may be outsiders, or not classroom teachers, who have no experience or knowledge of the specific local situation.

Some of these weaknesses are also mentioned by Tomlinson (1988:2) who is reporting on a short INSET course as follows:

 The course provides only theoretical information without helping the participants to apply it.

 The course provides lots of recipes for the participants to follow but does not help them to develop ideas and materials of their own.

 There is no focus or cohesion to the course and it moves from topic to topic without connection.

 Too much new information is presented in each session without any attempt to reinforce, recycle or relate information.

 The course is far too ambitious and attempts to effect a radical change in teacher behaviour in a few short weeks.

 There is no follow up to the course. The teachers receive no further support or encouragement. The teachers are not helped to actually apply the ideas they have been given.

I will also discuss the subject of follow-up courses in more detail since, in Chapter 7, this emerged as one of the perceived difficulties in sustaining new ideas obtained from the INSET for the longer term (see section 8.2.1. for a fuller explanation). The importance of follow-up support has been stressed over time by many researchers (e.g. Rudduck, 1981; Ibrahim, 1991; Lamb, 1995; Tomlinson, 1988; Waters, 2006; Waters and Vilches, 2000; Guskey, 2000). Moreover, the role of follow-up courses is considered essential to provide teachers not only with upgraded new information but also with guidance to support their subsequent attempts to put ideas into practice (Rudduck, 1981). Guskey (2000:23) states that “training sessions must be extended, appropriately spaced, or supplemented with additional follow-up activities (my emphasis) to provide the ongoing feedback and continuation necessary for the successful implementation of new ideas”. Furthermore, Kunje (2002) also emphasises the significance of further follow-up support, mentioning that “to date this is still embryonic and it is not clear how the programme will become sustainable without external support” (Kunje, 2002:310).

Waters and Vilches (2000:127) state that teachers in general find it difficult to cross back to their real practice and to transfer the benefit that they adopted during the INSET course. They use Miles’ (1964:454, cited in ibid) diagram, the metaphoric ‘cultural island’, in order to show how the atmosphere of the INSET course is different to that found in real teaching practice, and how follow-up support is urgently required. Thus, Rudduck (1981) suggests that “a bridge (follow-up support) has to be constructed linking the INSET and real practice” (cited in Waters and Vilches, 2000:127).

Other criticisms of short courses have focused not so much on their results as on the actual process itself. As Rudduck (1981) points out short courses can fall victim to “casualness of purpose” where there is a clash between the aims of the course and the participants’ real reasons for attending. It may be that all the participants have very different reasons for attending and no one course can satisfactorily address them all. It may be that some participants have rather more trivial reasons for attending a short course than those of us would like to admit; the writer well remembers attending a short one-day INSET course motivated almost entirely by the thought of a day not teaching and a good lunch into the bargain.

3.6.2 The short course: benefits

However, some writers do see advantages to short courses. Bradley, Conner, and Southworth (1991:238) see certain uses for short one-off courses. If there are, for example, new simple initiatives that large numbers of teachers need to be informed about quickly or if there are specific skills that need developing, (e.g. the use of CALL in language teaching) then short courses can be appropriate. However, they warn that teachers can become dependent in the sense of ‘waiting to be told what to do’.

Rudduck (1981), in her review of short in-service courses, similarly points to several strengths of the short course as follows:

 The range of ideas and techniques available to teachers can be considerably expanded.

 Professional isolation can be avoided – sharing professional experiences is widely regarded as important in encouraging teachers to be more reflective and understanding of their teaching behaviours.

 Short courses can be offered on a cafeteria-style basis with teachers free to choose from a range of options. In this way teachers can develop their own particular interests and make their own professional decisions.

Any course which maintains a teacher’s enthusiasm and encourages a feeling of ‘shared professional’ experience is a valuable starting point for making changes in teaching practices. It may be true that the short course is ineffective at procuring long-term change but short courses can be good at inspiring teachers, acting as a small catalyst for further changes.

Although short courses have acquired a bad name because they seem to be ineffective in producing long-term change, this is arguably an unrealistic expectation of what they can achieve. Criticisms of short courses oversimplify the complexity of teacher practices within an institution. A short course may be a valuable part of any change implementation process but it may not be sufficient – it needs to be part of a package of INSET provisions rather than an isolated process. More importantly, there must be some kind of link between the INSET provider and the participants’ institution such that some kind of follow-up support is given. Tomlinson (1988:1), writing about the choices available to planners of English language teacher education programmes

stresses this point when he says “many of the participants of such courses have emerged with some new knowledge and some new ideas – but have then returned without support to their schools to develop feelings of inadequacy, confusion, insecurity and guilt”.