Humanising Language Teaching
Year 1; Issue 1; February 1999

WHAT IS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT?

Paul Davis, Pilgrims and Durham University

The idea of development as embodied in support groups has been prevalent in fields such as social work and therapy for a long time. It is not a new concept. But the recent transfer of the idea from other fields to EFL has caused confusion and, as with any new fashion, those engaged in the profession have not wanted to be the last to adopt the latest fad. With teacher development as the latest EFL jargon, there has been considerable confusion over what the term means and what activities it describes. In many cases, it seems to be used as a new name for old forms of teacher training.

For example, I have recently seen advertised a two-week 'Teacher Training Development Course' with the content and the methods of input by the trainers set out in the advertisement. As another example, at a meeting I attended, a teacher trainer said that her school had 'development' on Wednesday afternoons. Later it transpired that the afternoon comprised training and staff meetings.

For me, teacher development is a bit like the first time I drove a car alone after passing my driving test. It was an experience totally different from driving with an instructor or driving my flat mate's car with him sitting next to me. I was free to savour the experience for its own sake, to make mistakes and to be relaxed about them and learn painlessly from them. Like most people, I do not resent those people that taught me to drive, but it was not really a good experience compared to the way I have developed my driving since. And my driving has improved through conversations with friends and trying out what they said. In this analogy, being taught by an instructor was like the training I received to pass the RSA. I learned to pass a test, but I certainly did not feel relaxed or confident. The lessons with my flat mate are like in-service training or going on courses. Although my flat mate was nice and really unthreatening, it was his paintwork I was going to scratch and after all, he had paid for the car. Talking to other drivers in a free and relaxed way in my own time is development. Although I was still dependent on other people, I took responsibility for what I wanted to learn and how and when I was going to apply it.

If development is about training yourself with colleagues, is it so different from teacher training? Is there a clear distinction?

In the UK based language school in which I work, the teacher training noticeboard has been relabelled teacher development, although what is posted on the board generally has not been changed. Teachers are still offered three or so seminars a term by outside speakers. However, on the timetable something new has appeared… a development period for each teacher. In fact it is not new time, but that odd period that has always been on the timetable when we used to do a bit of preparation and have tea.

Now we have development on the timetable, but is it really development, or is it merely teacher training renamed? It is timetable, so it is in paid time when the teachers meet regularly in small groups. And it is almost a peer group; it would be a peer group if a senior teacher had not been designated as chair by the management. For permanent teachers unworried about contract renewals, the group can function as a peer group; however, for new pr temporary teachers, the designation of a senior teacher as chair makes the group appear to be a training session in the ways of the school. The agenda is usually set by the group. Occasionally, however, the members of the group are asked to put their own needs aside and develop themselves along setlines. If the organisation has invested money in computers, for example, then head office may direct staff to devote some of their development time to computer assisted language learning.

At the same school, however, a group of staff may also meet along with colleagues from other schools once a week in their own time for teacher development.

The situation outlined above may be very different from the one on your workplace, but just this simple description of one model illustrates the confusion of terms and raises some important questions about the dividing line between teacher development and teacher training:

Should, or even can, teacher development be instituted by the management or teacher trainer, or should it be teacher led?

Should it be a peer group? Can a teacher trainer attend a development session as a peer? Can in-house development or training be unthreatening to people whose jobs are not secure (such as new or temporary teachers)?

Should it be in paid time or your own time? If it is in paid time, will the needs of the workplace always intervene? Is it a good idea to give up your own time rather than expect the workplace to provide time for personal development?

Who sets the agenda? Could a school give the time for personal development within the timetable and not interfere with the agenda?