handle decentralised CPD in the future. Prince and Barrett also highlight the need for the reach of CPD to extend beyond the traditional ‘recipients’ of formal in-service training – the teachers and, to a lesser extent, teacher-trainers – to encompass development for all stakeholders in the system: ‘education officers, senior academic staff involved in project design, principals and senior officials responsible for designing and managing implementation’. This is important not least because these groups can inhibit as well as promote CPD for teachers. Or, to cite the metaphor used by Amol Padwad at the launch of a book of case studies of CPD in India (see also Chapter 11): ‘when you’re on your CPD journey you still need to buy your ticket.’ Prince and Barrett explain that: ‘In an Indian teacher’s case, the school principal, the block or district education officer, the state machinery or even national policy might man the travel desk’. CPD thus needs to be seen as holistic, for the system as well as for individuals. If senior officials understand the nature of change at the individual level and see CPD as intrinsic to the system, perhaps the problem of innovation identified by Havelock and Huberman some 40 years ago, and which unfortunately remains common in so many contexts, may be avoided: It is important to understand that innovations are not adopted by people on the basis of intrinsic value of the innovation, but rather on the basis of the adopters’ perception of the changes they personally will be required to make. Those designing, administering and advising on projects do not generally have to make very many changes themselves. Their task remains the same. It is others who will have to modify their behaviours and very often to modify them rapidly in fairly significant ways, and with little previous or even gradual preparation. These are typically the kind of rapid and massive changes which planners or administrators or advisers would never plan, administer or advise for themselves. (Havelock and Huberman, 1977; cited in Bishop, 1986: 5; original emphasis) Chapter 2, by Jamilya Gulyamova, Saida Irgasheva and Rod Bolitho, discusses experience in Uzbekistan of just such an innovation requiring significant change in established practice. In this case, educational reform after the end of the Soviet era presented an opportunity to radically change the curriculum for the pre-service training and education of teachers of English, which had previously focused on study of linguistics and language systems with methodology taught as a theoretical rather than practical discipline. However, rather than leading to rejection and failure, the curriculum reform project provided the stimulus for CPD for a variety of project participants, teachers and other stakeholders. In part, the project has been successful because change, though significant, was incremental and organic rather than rapid and imposed. In part, success has been due to a recognition that it was important to understand and to deal with vested interests that favoured the maintenance of the status quo – change is threatening to those who have risen in the hierarchy under the established order. But above all, success has been due to the opportunities the project provided ‘for individuals to stretch themselves professionally beyond their comfort zones and into areas they had not previously explored’, within a supportive framework characterised by collaborative teamwork, intensive discussion and the freedom to evaluate new ideas from their own perspectives. The benefits of such an approach, which was endorsed by the Ministry of Higher and Specialised
| 7 Overview
Published on Aug 29, 2014
Published on Aug 29, 2014
The publication, edited by David Hayes offers global perspectives on the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of English language teach...