Validación de estructura

The most common strategy of disseminating information in most in-service training programmes especially for introducing major curriculum innovations or reform into an educational system is the cascade model. This strategy is widely used due to its advantage of providing training for a maximum number of teachers in a cost effective manner (Bax, 2002; Dichaba & Mokhele, 2012; McDevitt, 1998; Suzuki, 2011). Hayes (2000) adds that the cascade model is both cost effective and minimizes the problems of teacher absences during school time and uses trainers who are drawn from successive

tiers, as the training is conducted at several levels. This is one of the reasons why the cascade model is well known in the process of disseminating curriculum reform to teachers, especially in under-resourced situations and where “the number of teachers needing training is large and/or funding to provide training is limited” (Wedell, 2005, p. 637).

Basically, the cascade model involves training which is conducted at several levels (Hayes, 2000) following a ‘top-down’ and ‘centre-periphery’ approach (McDevitt, 1998). Through the cascade model approach, the knowledge and skills thought necessary to initiate specified changes in classroom understandings and behaviours are transferred to a comparatively small number of specialists or trainers at the top (Wedell, 2005). These specialists or trainers are then expected to train a cohort of selected teachers at the lower group and these teachers are then expected to pass on the essence of their training to their colleagues in schools (Ono & Ferreira, 2010; Suzuki, 2011). However, the cascade has potential disadvantages, like dilution and distortion, or simply the loss of the messages transferred during the training. This may lead to less understanding, due to miscommunication and different interpretations of the messages, the further one goes down the cascade (Dichaba & Mokhele, 2012; Hayes, 2000; Suzuki, 2011). Hayes (2000) suggests for cascade training to be successful there are five criteria that need attending to:

1. The method of conducting the training must be experiential and reflective rather than transmissive;

2. The training must be open to reinterpretation; rigid adherence to prescribed ways of working should not be expected;

3. Expertise must be diffused through the system as widely as possible, not concentrated at the top;

4. A cross-section of stakeholders must be involved in the preparation of training materials;

5. Decentralisation of responsibilities within the cascade structure is desirable.

(p. 138)

A purely transmissive mode of training at all levels is one of the prime causes of failure of the cascade model, because one-way communication and theory alone are insufficient

and ineffective (Hayes, 1995). Training needs to involve two-way communication between trainers and trainees, to encourage active participation and commitment from all the participants involved at all levels. Palmer (1993) explains, “the transmission approach, which is a one-way model [does] not allow the participants to personally invest in the idea and therefore [they] may have little commitment to using it” (p. 168).

In the study on the implementation of a Greek English language teaching innovation, Karavas-Doukas (1993, 1995) agrees that training which mainly dealt with theoretical issues, rather than classroom reality and practice, was one factor that impinged on the successful implementation of the innovation in Greek secondary classrooms. Similarly, Nagappan (2001, p. 20) reported that ‘sit and get’8type of training was not effective in preparing and providing support for secondary school teachers in Malaysia to teach higher-order thinking skills as part of their content instruction. Hence, for a cascade model to be effective, it needs to change its nature from merely providing predetermined content, skills and knowledge to taking account of more specific user needs (Morrison, Gott & Ashman, 1989).

For training to be effective, theoretical knowledge needs to be compensated and integrated with practical skills (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995), to develop a sense of ownership of the materials learned and hence ensure deep understanding. Integration of theoretical knowledge and practical experience is important because “participants need to see (in the case of materials) or even experience (in the case of activities) the practical manifestation of many ideas before they [can] fully understand, and so accept them” (Lamb, 1995, p. 74). Fullan cited in Baine (1993) argues that one of the characteristics of effective in-service provision is that explanations of new practices should be combined with demonstrations, emphasising what to do, how to do it and why it should be done. In his review for “Save the Children” of literature on professional teacher development and support, Hardman (2011) argues,

Effective professional development develops theories of curriculum, effective teaching and assessment alongside their application in the classroom. Such integration allows teachers to use their theoretical understandings as a basis for making on-going, principled decisions about practice. Focusing only on skills will not develop the deep

8_{An expression used to refer to the training or professional development where the trainers talk and the} participants listen without being involved in active activities or experienced collaborative time with the

understanding needed if teachers are to change their beliefs and practices and meet the complex demands of everyday teaching. Conversely, merely teaching theoretical constructs to teachers without helping to translate them into classroom practice will also prove ineffective.

(p. 7)

Thus, apart from learning the theories, the trainees should be involved in the training as much as possible by engaging them in hands-on activities or by engaging their experiences at some level, such as by demonstrating what the teachers need to do when they go back to their schools: in short by considering the environment and context in which the training ideas and activities will be applied. Merriam, Cafarella and Baumgartner (2007) refer to this type of knowledge that is learned through experience as experiential learning. Training that does not complement the cultural mores, policy environments and the conditions of the school in which the ideas and knowledge will be applied may be a deterrent to the success of the reform (Hardman, 2012).

Involving the trainees in the training by taking into consideration the classroom environment the teachers are operating in, provides the opportunities for them to reflect and think about the relevance of what they have learned and think how best their newfound knowledge, skills and competences canbe best adopted and adapted to their own scenario. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) propose that training or professional development should provide time, opportunities and support for teachers to explore the new knowledge or skills, reflect on their current practice and assess how it might be implemented in different teaching environment and “the values it is intended to serve” (Hayes, 2000, p. 79). Unfortunately, many in-service programmes have been so intensive (or brief) that trainees or participants do not have the opportunity to actually explore the implications of the innovation on their previous established classroom practices and behaviours and thus adapt it to their specific teaching contexts (Palmer, 1993).

It is believed that training that gives opportunities for hands-on work and is related to the situational context is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2011) and consequently to result in a willingness to experiment. Successful training programmes involve teachers in learning activities that are similar to those they will use with their students, and which encourage the development of teachers’ learning communities (OECD, 2011). Doing this facilitates “ownership of ideas”, something which Palmer (1993) believes is enhanced when

teachers are allowed to:

a) Experience the innovation;

b) Reflect upon the possible impact of the innovation on one's own teaching;

c) Adapt the innovation to one's own particular circumstances and teaching style;

d) Evaluate the innovation in the light of actual experience.

(p. 170)

Clearly from the explanation above, a successful training programme should be reflective. Wedell (2005) suggests that when “the trainees listen to and reflect on others’ views, [this] gives them the opportunities to plan and manage the new techniques and activities, and chances to think about and obtain feedback on such practice from peers and trainers” (p. 639). Furthermore, a reflective session is also useful as it enables the trainers to monitor the progress of the training, as it takes place in stages, by identifying areas that need improvement or special attention, or by reviewing feedback for further refinement (Dichaba & Mokhele, 2012; Mathekga, 2004; McDevitt, 1998). Barrett (2011) recommends that a possible way to assess the impact of the most critical factors on the success of cascade training is through monitoring and evaluation exercises. She suggests that the monitoring and evaluation process be done on four distinct levels. Level 1 is teachers’ reactions after training; level 2 is the learning that the teachers have gained; level 3 is the changes that result from the training and level 4 relates to the results of the performance. The argument is that these four levels increase the level of ownership of the change because they are comprehensive and provide teachers and trainers with essential professional development opportunities to improve their ability to self-assess, reflect and rethink their classroom practices.

Successful training also should be open to reinterpretation where teachers are able to select appropriate knowledge learned and resources gained from the training and adapt and adopt those that are relevant to the needs and the context in which they are working. All teachers will go through the process of determining and deciding what is appropriate for their classroom and “make informed choices about how best to teach in their own classes considering the context they work in” (Hayes, 2000, p. 143). Hence, knowledge and skills gained from the training should be sensitive to emerging features of context

and be flexible and responsive to the local needs, and thus allowing for modifications (Shezi, 2008). Rigid adherence to prescribed ways of working limit creativity and will not support the application of the training ideas and activities if they do not fit the contextual realities of environments in which the teachers are operating, thereby compromising the success of the programme.

Apart from that, for training to be successful, expertise should be spread out throughout the cascade system as widely as possible and not only concentrate on the top level. Participation of expertise at all levels, i.e. from the topmost level to the lowest level, is to ensure that the potential of everyone involved in the cascade is maximized and hence all participants develop better a understanding of the reform concerned (Mathekga, 2004). Thus, everyone in the cascade will be an active agent, due to his or her active participation (Hayes, 2000). Diffusion of expertise in the cascade can be achieved either by using the personnel who have undergone training at national level to go directly to districts to train the personnel at that level, or by inviting state/regional training personnel to attend training at national level. Having the experts spread at all levels of the cascade, however, will involve a degree of extra cost. But diffusion of experts will provide much-needed support for lower level trainers and ensure that the aim of the training is achieved. Such support will successively be likely to encourage positive attitudes towards implementation and thus, the additional cost concerned would possibly mean that the cascade project normally offers a greater benefit on the monetary outlay (Wedell, 2005).

Besides that, the preparation of training materials should involve a cross-section of stakeholders at various levels, so that related activities throughout the cascade are coordinated. Cooperation or joint development in the preparation of training materials between the top-level personnel, trainers and teachers in the subsequent levels encourages active participation of all those involved in the programme and promotes a sense of ownership in teachers and trainers of the training in which they are involved and eventually of the curriculum development process. Bantwini (2010, Barrett (2011) and Hayes (2000) all stress that development of a sense of ownership, through involvement in the conceptual and development stages of the reforms, is one of the basic principles of successful training as teachers’ involvement will facilitate better understanding of the fundamentals of the new curriculum and its necessity, as well as the expected end results. Without involvement of the teachers, sustainability is

improbable; El-Okda (2005) points out that a “lack of teacher involvement results in feelings of a lack of ownership, which can detrimentally affect teachers’ commitment to the success of the newly introduced innovative features” (p 36).

To involve trainers and participants in the development of the training materials, Palmer (1993) proposes an approach through the problem-solving approach. He explains that through this approach, the participants can contribute by “relaying personal teaching problems, recounting personal experience and accessing previously acquired knowledge, while the trainers could contribute by suggesting possible solutions to the problems based on their experience and knowledge” (ibid, p. 168). Such approach ensures a high degree of investment from the participants, which is important because “the greater the investment in a new idea, the greater the commitment to try it out, because by eliciting an active contribution to the proposed innovation during training, teachers have an even stronger impetus to use it in their teaching” (ibid, p. 171). McDevitt (1998) suggests,

Involvement of various stakeholders could be performed by incorporating a small amount of production work at each level of the cascade. Thus, whenever a technique is demonstrated, the participants should be required to implement it using a real part of the syllabus. This material could be refined and standardized then added to the package for the next level, where a new area of the syllabus is worked on. This snowball effect means that the end user, the teacher, at least has a small kit of resources, which can be used immediately as well as the skills to develop his/her own materials.

(pp. 426–427)

The involvement of a cross-section of stakeholders in the production of training materials will also help to resolve doubts of the relevance of the materials through consultation with the various targeted trainers (Mwirotsi et al., cited in Hayes, 2000).

Finally, a successful training programme should decentralize the responsibilities within the cascade structure. Decentralization means transferring power to the state/regional governments and granting autonomy to district authorities and within them to individual schools to disseminate the information. Thus, responsibilities will be shared out respectively at national, local and school levels. The collaboration between the top authority and the lower authority will increase the feeling of ownership of the programme and develop better understanding. Hayes (2000) says one of the major

reasons for unsuccessful cascade training is the “concentration of expertise only at the top most levels of the cascade” (p. 138).

Apart from the five criteria above, the literature on professional development also suggests that the type and duration of training play a significant role in the effectiveness of most training or professional development programmes (Boyle et al., 2004). It has commonly been found that professional development activities for teachers are too short and offer limited follow-up support (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007). Professional development that is sustained over a period of time and has a substantial number of contact hours “is likely to be of higher quality” (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001, p. 933), has a greater impact on teaching practice, and is more consistent with systemic reform efforts than professional development of a more limited duration (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Little, 1993). Boyle, While and Boyle (2004), Garet et al. (2001) and Karagiorgi, Kalogirou, Theodosiou, Theophanous and Kendeou (2008) maintain that professional development activities which are of longer length and extend over a period of time allows for exhaustive discussion of content, teacher conceptions and misconceptions and pedagogical strategies, and allow teachers to test new practices in the classroom and reflect upon their teaching.

Kırgkőz (2008a, 2008b) stresses that for training to be effective, it must be “continuous and developmental, rather than one-off in nature” (p. 1874). Similarly, the Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development, in its most recent review of teacher education covering 65 countries from around the world, suggests that professional development programmes that upgrade knowledge and skills in pedagogy over a sustained period of time is more effective than through disjointed one-off courses (OECD, 2011). In this way, teachers are equipped with the necessary support and are updated with the knowledge about emerging practices, ensuring adequate implementation of the curriculum reforms especially during the initial years of implementation.

Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) and Leithwood, Jantzi and Mascall (2002) share a similar view that professional development of a large-scale national education reform must be sustained, on-going and intensive, so that consistent guidance can be provided. Baine (1993) reiterates that one-off workshops or training without follow-up and courses unconnected to the job have little or no impact at all but on-site workshops

that provide on-going, interactive, cumulative learning may develop new skills, behaviours and conceptions in practice. Continuous support and follow-up after the initial training is also crucial. Guskey (1986) emphasizes that,

Teachers need on-going guidance and direction during this period of trial and experimentation for teachers to fit the new practices to their unique classroom conditions to ensure necessary adaptations are made and simultaneously maintain program fidelity. Support is also necessary so that teachers can tolerate the anxiety of occasional failures that persist in their implementation efforts.

(p. 10)

Corcoran (1995) argues “sufficient time, follow-up support and continuity is necessary in order for teachers to master complex ideas and new strategies and content and to incorporate them into their practice” (p. 22). Hayes (2000) points out that continuous professional development through supportive workshops, classroom observations and counselling after the initial course contribute to the success of the training element of the project. The support and follow-up ensures that the process of learning and adapting the new knowledge and skills in the classrooms continues. Hence, effective professional development needs to be continuous, to include training, monitoring and evaluation, to provide support structures, and to provide adequate time and follow-up support to ensure teachers develop the appropriate understanding of reform, as well as quickly receive necessary help whenever challenges arise (Bantwini, 2010; OECD, 2011).

On-going communication in the form of continuous support and follow-up is extremely necessary as a way of providing information, reinforcement, feedback and motivation. Baine (1993) lists seven suggestions to enhance communication:

1. Provide frequent, informal consultation with small groups of teachers; these visits are designed to address the unique, individual needs of teachers and fill the gap between training.

2. Develop networks; connect teachers who have particular types of experience, skills and attitudes, which will be supportive; facilitate small group problem solving.

3. Provide the participants with opportunities to develop the skills necessary to work collaboratively.

4. Take steps to minimise inaccurate sharing of information about the innovation; welcome questions and be available to provide

information, support and feedback.

5. Acknowledge that lack of awareness is expected and that no question about the innovation is foolish.

6. Provide on-going monitoring and evaluation to assess concerns, and problems with implementation, and to identify and correct problems in the early stages.

7. Work as a collaborator with staff; be team-oriented; schedule