Detail The continuing education of teachers: in-service training and workshops   Oleh:  Bullough, Robert V. (Jr.) Jenis: Article from Books - E-Book Dalam koleksi: International handbook of research on teachers and teaching, page 159-169. Fulltext: inter 11.pdf (90.31KB) Isi artikel The diversity and range of the opportunities teachers have for learning make writing meaningfully about inservice teacher education difficult. Teachers learn from many activities, formal and informal. They learn from practice itself when stopping to consider a struggling student’s response to a homework question, conversations in the hallways and lunchrooms with other teachers, observing in a peer’s classroom, results from a supervisor or mentor’s visit, reading, attending conferences, district workshops, university courses, and in all sorts of other often unanticipated ways. Each of these activities may refresh a teacher’s commitment to teaching and expand their understanding of the work of teaching, or they may not. Little wonder some scholars find reason to complain about reliance on an “incoherent and cobbled-together nonsystem [of] inservice [education for teachers]” (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 174). The situation is made more difficult by the complexity of teacher learning. Teachers bring to formal inservice programs differing attitudes and beliefs born of years of life and work experience, positive and negative, that profoundly affect learning outcomes. Motives for participation also differ (Halpin, Croll, & Redman, 1990) and influence how inservice is received, if at all (Bullough & Baughman, 1997). Moreover, demonstrating program results is challenging. Most research on the effects of inservice teacher education rely on teacher self-report of teaching practices “which are known to overestimate actual implementation and thus represent a weak proxy for the actual enactment of reform in classroom instruction” (Knapp, 2003, p. 120). Such reports give little insight into why or how change occurs. It is difficult to isolate variables and to establish causal relationships (Flecknoe, 2000), particularly with student learning. Lastly, most studies are local, reporting on the results of a program developed by authors and often involving very few teachers, usually volunteers, which makes generalizing findings impossible. Opini Anda Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini! Kembali

Copyright © 2006, 2007 Unika Atma Jaya, all rights reserved