The Invisible Hand of Learning: Part 1
The Professional Development (PD) program at my school is broken and we need your help to fix it.
For the last seven years we have used what I call a “push” model and it has proven ineffective because it is the embodiment of 20th century learning. 20th Century learning is all about “pushing” information at a group of passive recipients. The recipients are expected to follow detailed instructions, take notes, absorb information and regurgitate it in the form of a new product.
This is the model we have used for our PD and it stinks. It stinks because the culmination of the effort– the new product– was rarely produced and infused into classroom learning. For seven years the Director of Technology has been responsible for researching new tools and approaches, creating handouts, video tutorials and lectures to be delivered to the faculty to help them meet their yearly PD requirement.
Teachers at our school are required to receive 20 hours of training in technology and all 20 hours have been “pushed.” We are nine years into the 21st century and it is time to rethink this 20th Century model of learning. It is time to stop “pushing” and let the faculty “pull.” Self-directed learning is what I call a “pull” model and this year we will try to pull our learning instead of pushing it.
I am very interested in trying to ignite the passion for self-directed learning in my K-8 students yet, until now, I have not tried this approach with our faculty. The problem with the push model is that it is not as customizable. It violates the the laws of supply and demand that make free markets work so well. Economist Adam Smith described the invisible hand as the mechanism through which needs were filled in a free market society. To paraphrase Smith, when a demand arises in the marketplace, a supply quickly follows as if guided by an invisible hand.
Free market economics is successful because it is a “pull” model and PD should be no different. The “push” model is an artifact of not only the 20th century, but of the failed economies of centrally planned communist states. Centrally planned economies failed for the same reason our PD has failed: you can’t make people want something just because you supply it. Demand for something comes first, then the invisible hand guides the supply to meet it.
Businesses do market research all the time to figure out what people want so that they can customize their product to suit the specific tastes of the consumers. These are the ideas I hope to bring into our PD program this year. Instead of the “sage on the stage” paradigm of the push model, I will be working with teachers to customize their own PD. Teachers will tailor their learning to suit their own demands and I will surrender control to the invisible hand.
The pull model is all about collaborating, creating and sharing in the spirit of 21st century learning, but it does not work without a community. As the trainer I am responsible for the supply of information to our faculty but I am also hoping to enlist you, the community, to help supply me with guidance and solutions to problems that arise throughout the year.
This post is part one of what will be a five part series detailing the ups and downs of this experiment. In order to ensure that the focus of the training is directed at improving instruction in the classroom, I am proposing a few criteria. I would like to know your opinion about the following guidelines:
1. Training to learn how to build and cultivate a Professional Learning Network (PLN) is encouraged.
2. Training to learn how to use technology to transform outdated classroom activities into more modern approaches is encouraged.
3. Training to learn how to use technology to publicize classroom projects and accomplishments to parents and the greater school community is encouraged.
Is this list too broad or too constricting? Your comments and questions will be very valuable to all of us, so please let us know your take.
(George Haines can be reached on Twitter @oline73)
Similar Posts:
- None Found
8 Comments
Melissa
Monday, 24th August 2009 at 2:32 pm
I may be missing something but I am not sure how 1-3 are criteria. Criteria to me means that you have some guidelines in which to judge the training. Is that you are striving for? If so, then criteria might be:
1. Professional development (I don’t use the word training) is about building and cultivating a PLN.
- Therefore anything that is offered to the faculty has PLN embedded into it.
2. Professional development is about teachers maximizing all resources (technological or other) to ensure student learning.
- As I read on Twitter this a.m., our learners need to be active and not spectators of teaching.
3. Professional development is about ways to maximize resources to communicate with parents and the greater school community.
- It just seems if we talk about resources, then we are not necessarily pushing but rather guiding and leading and modeling best practicies and building capacity in others. We are not making assumptions that they are not doing something well; we are offering other ways of doing things.
Training sounds like pushing. Why not have lead teachers share their practices? Why not have a system where teachers try some new tools and come share?
Just my thoughts for today.
Anna Hu
Monday, 24th August 2009 at 9:35 pm
This was the best thing I have read for a while. I have been pondering the same PD problems and this was an enlightening article. I will be going with the PULL method from now on
Thanks
Steve Katz
Monday, 24th August 2009 at 10:20 pm
I like the way you put PD into the “push/pull” dichotomy. “Push” never works. It only creates resentment to those who are “pushed” and don’t want to be. You can force someone to a session, but you can’t make them change if they don’t want to.
The model I have used over the years is “pull.” I work with those who are interested. In a shorter time than you would imagine, those who had no interest in what I had to offer became curious when they saw a colleague’s success. Not long after that, they “pull.”
Some people will never pull, but pushing won’t get them to change.
K. Little
Monday, 24th August 2009 at 11:31 pm
One skill that takes users into tech immersion and back out with true value is the skill of filtering. I have honed my filtering processes by having used Twitter for over six months. For example, I make decisions like what resources are aligned w my research, who is credible, and Considering my time for several months using Twitter, I think some surprising benefits have resulted… Filtering is a critical research skill. Through multiple sources, we learn how to retrieve info when we are ready to apply it later. I also believe my reading for information skill has increased in speed and analyzing in the process of using tech vs text. Would be great discussion. Also “pull ” will take us closer to relative, aligned prof dev because it ignites in each of us a sense of instinctual internal light vs always depending on the beacon of those more removed from the students it is our duty to know.
Jim Buckingham
Tuesday, 25th August 2009 at 1:28 pm
I am in 100% agreement with your post. “Pushed” PD promotes passive receptivity. (Though I can think of situations where “pushed” PD has worked – another email perhaps).
I’d like to put in a plug for the use of “professional development plans” alongside the use of “eportfolios” by any “professional” (not just “educators”) to promote really strong, grounded professional development. My own personal experience of the strategy (realized through an online course in professional development practice) has convinced me of its validity. It
promotes reflective practice, promotes learning and development that is based on one’s own needs, is a constant work in progress, and can be used to realize “confident” and “realistic” career advancement.
By inviting review and feedback from peers or even experts, it can also make the process of professional development “more transparent”. It can also promote the “community of learners” concept that you speak of. Educators with a common interest or identified need, can connect to realize “professional development” objectives via the net. This might be via the creation of joint bibliographies, blogs or wikis. It could go on to promote action research and the sharing of findings to a broader community.
The major caveats? It’s a tall order to buy into the concept when one has never done it before. It demands a fair bit of work. There is a great deal of literature on the concept and its become a major strategy for PD in the UK and Europe (especially in the UK).
The concept of an eportfolio has really taken off in Europe where it is now being promoted as a means to getting around issues of accountability and standardization with University degrees (i.e. engineers from UK versus engineers from Poland – how are they different and the same in qualifications? check their eportfolio).
Chat me up on this if you’d like more information. I can share a detailed biblio with you too.
Cheers
George H.
Thursday, 27th August 2009 at 5:53 pm
Melissa,
Thanks so much for the comments. Good point about using the word “training” – language can shape attitudes.
The PD that I am responsible for delivering is all technology. Teachers don’t have a formal requirement for other types of PD, but it is encouraged by our administration.
The criteria I mentioned are to judge whether or not what a teacher is asking to learn fits into an educational framework. For example- if a teacher wanted to learn about how to sell things on EBay, it would not count toward their PD requirement. If they were somehow using EBay in a lesson about economics or something it might, but the criteria is there to keep the focus strictly on educational usage.
As to the comment about lead teachers- we are a small school, so it basically boils down to me to help the teachers formally fulfill their 20 hour requirement. Other tech savvy teachers tutor less adept teachers on the side from time to time, but that tutoring doesn’t count toward their official requirement.
I like the idea of having peer sharing when teachers find some resource they like. I think we may be able to fold that into the program toward the end of the year.
Thanks again for thinking about these issues with us and offering advice. I hope you can revisit our process as I post more about this experiment through the year.
Adult Learners, PD and 1-to-1 | ISTE Connects - Educational Technology
Monday, 31st August 2009 at 4:36 pm
[...] professional development is designed for an adult learner – it works. It’s important to keep in mind that adults [...]
How to Teach an Old Dog New Tech: The Invisible Hand of Learning Part II | ISTE Connects - Educational Technology
Tuesday, 9th March 2010 at 1:25 pm
[...] to learn new things? This question has been on my mind for months. In my first post for ISTE (The Invisible hand of Learning: Part I) I wrote about how we changed our Professional Development (PD) concept from a top-down to a [...]
Leave a Comment