Reflections on training

This analysis is based on the reflection of the process of learning and teaching in the training Development of Digital Infrastructure of an Educational Institution by Hitsa, as opposed to the content. The main reason to this is the language barrier, as I don’t speak Estonian. But as we know, language is but one way of communicating and I was surprised in this work shadowing assignment to see how much I could distill from what I saw, even without the language. It strongly solidified my belief in the power of the process of teaching - the methodological competencies of adult educators - and how it plays at least as big a role as the cognitive processes - professional methodologies. If one can notice the learning process without knowing the language, its presence is arguably big. The theme for this placement is the ‘professionalisation of adult educator’ and therefore the analytical framework is highly informed by this.

This report will firstly provide a brief background on the training and secondly go into the learnings through observation. I come at this analysis from two perspectives; process of teaching and social change. Therefore the observations will be analysed firstly, through a) the characteristics of andragogy (Knowles, ) and b) the method of Jane Vella (Vella, 2008). This will cover the process of learning. Secondly I will look at the potential of social change in relation to the training.

The definitions of social change are many, and with the power of filling words with meaning that we have every time we use language, I would like to clarify what definition I rely on. Mayo and English (2012) conceptualise the relationship between adult education and social change as the creation of a space where we critically examine ideas, challenge hegemonic assumptions and are driven by “a world which is ‘not yet’ but which ‘should and can be’” (p.1-2). Echoing this, Freire defines education for social change as achieving equity and eradicating oppression of the marginalised (Freire, 1993). The combination of this; critically examining ideas, challenging the hegemony and achieving equity is at the heart of my definition.

The Background

Development of Digital Infrastructure of an Educational Institution is number two in a three-part training (http://digijuht.hitsa.ee/) run by Hitsa. Managing the learning process in a digital age is number one, and Developing Digital Competencies is the third. The first two trainings are connected, but the third is independent. Hitsa has set two strategic objectives, and the second one is:

“The smart use of ICT in teaching, learning and organization of teaching enhances the quality of education”

These trainings in other words highly tap into the purpose of Hitsa, and are clearly both relevant and strategic.

My Method

This piece of work is based on observations. As an observer, I was named and my purpose was clear from the beginning to the learners; that I was to observe the educators and not them. The former due to the fact that two out of three trainers have completed the qualification for Adult Educators in Estonia and the fact that the theme for this placement is the professionalisation of adult educator, and the latter due to the fact that Jane Vella’s framework has been a high presence of IMAESC and I was curious to test it out on adult educators and their practice out of the theoretical world. I also arrived at these two frameworks through having the tenets of a total of five (Popular Education, Intersectional Pedagogy, Jane Vella, Competencies and Andragogy) frameworks during the observations and gathering notes under the relevant headings throughout. Furthermore, it has been found that a work shadowing is more beneficial when the shadower can frame the shadowing using concepts (Simkins, 2009) and this further strengthens the case for using these frameworks in the analysis.

The Observations

The observations will start with an identification of a general flow and then move into specific behaviours observed through the two frameworks. Due to time limitations this is a deductive analysis. For those who are interested in the analysis process, the data in its raw form can be found in this PDF of the mind map.

Observation One: Flow

To start, a flow - the order of activities throughout the training - was identified for each session through the observation. They contain observations of the learning journey as well as suggestions. These are visible below. As can be seen in Figure 1, 2 and 3 in the slideshow, the learning journey followed a clear trajectory, visible in the green circles. The orange circles in the flow diagram represents the suggestions. All of these will be elaborated on in the section below.

Figure 1

2

1

3

Andragogic Educators?

To provide a visual overview of the extent to which the educators fulfilled aspects of andragogic principles, I have create this diagram. It presents Tuesday AM, PM and Wednesday in relation to the nine characteristics of andragogy presented here:

• Learners are “participants”

• Independent learning style

• Objectives are flexible

• Assumed that the learners have experience to contribute

• Active training methods are used, workshops, group tasks, discussion

• Learners influence timing and pace

• Participant involvement is vital

• Learning is real-life problem-centered

I have here create a 1-3 scale, judging each criteria for each of the sessions. This is further developed below.

The eight principles

One - Learners are “participants”

Throughout this training it was very clear that the learners were considered to be particpants, and all facilitators made a great effort to include everyone in the activties. There were a range of exercises which enabled participation on several layers. This was very consistant throughout the training.

Two - Independent learning style

Whilst there were different types of activities, catering for learners with different styles, there was quite a heavy reliance on whole group discussion or small group work on tasks. I would like to stress that I saw everything to have a purpose, however perhaps more types of activities could have been incorporated. See section 5.2.1.5 below.

Three - Objectives are flexible

It was difficult to observe this fully due to the language barrier, but it seemed like there was room for the participants to work greatly with their institution as the focal point, meaning they had autonomy in stating what objectives were important and not for them. I indicated medium on this point, and the reason for that is simply that the overall objective is already set by the overall programme.

Four - Assumed that the learners have experience to contribute

I perceived the whole training to be entirely based on the learners and their experience. There was a great effort to through mentimeter, Padlet and discussions, relate the content presented to the experience both individually and institutionally.

Five - Active training methods are used, workshops, group tasks, discussion

The training was very participatory and active. One reflection I had was that there was much focus on whole group discussion, especially the further on in the training the group got. One suggestions of mine is therefore to focus more on small group discussions as well - this will give individuals more space to think through things themselves and may help if some people are shy to talk in front of a group. Another reflection is that the entire training was structured in a way so that the learners sat down the entire time. Some activities were the participants have to move around the room could be interesting; e.g. four corners.

Six - Learners influence timing and pace

This was another aspect where it was difficult to observe as most of this would be conversation-based, but it seemed that at least towards the end the participants negotiated the coffee breaks and lunch times a bit more and it seemed very well received by the facilitator.

Seven - Participant involvement is vital

The two days relied heavily on participation, both in the planned structure and the seemingly spontaneous ways of both educators and learners.

Eight - Learning is real-life problem-centered

The way that the sessions were based on the participants real work environments and always using them as examples meant that the learning was very strongly real-life problem-centered. The padlets combined with the self-assessment illustrates this fact strongly.

Vella’s Pupils?

Some of Vella’s principles overlap with Andragogic Principles, and these will therefore not be addressed further in this section, but instead referred to with ‘See above’.

Vella's Principles

I have for this section selected nine out of Vella’s (2008) principles:

• Needs Assessment

• Safety

• Praxis

• Learners as decision-makers

• 5.3.1.5. Sequencing

• Immediacy

• Learning with feelings

• Accountability

• Teamwork

One - Needs Assessment

According to Vella (2008), a needs assessment should be done prior to the learning situation starts. This training made me observe and reflect on something interesting. The learners had been asked to reflect on their situation prior to the learning situation, but they had not been asked to identify their needs in terms of what to learn. This came towards the end of the training - the participants on Tuesday afternoon filled in a document highlighting where in their infrastructure they have highest needs and on Wednesday this conversation was continued. In the context of this training, it made strong sense. The process implemented supported in creating a needs assessment building on conversations and content from the Tuesday part of the training. And it brings me to the question; can we identify our own needs if we don’t know about the context? I believe we can, but we can’t of course identify things we don’t know exists. So I feel the educators in this case got a good balance between having pre-course contact with the learners, but providing space for the needs to be re-formulated during the training.

It was really interesting to see how different tools were used to find out information about the learners, needs or beliefs around the topic. One of these was mentimeter, that Piret used to get a visual representation of the reason to why the participants were there and what they thought about different aspects.

Two - Safety

It was difficult to observe if something was said to create this, but I could see that there seemed to be base level of familiarity in the room. Something noticeable was that as mentioned above, it was difficult to get the whole group talking freely. There were some power dynamics to consider in the room: a city council member was there as well as the educators for example. Apart from that there are always power dynamics present in rooms connected to social categories such as gender, ethnicity, age, professional position etc. It could be that spending more time on a process initially, building group cohesion and a foundation for respect, group participation is made easier later on.

Three - Praxis

As part of the training, there was not structured praxis, but from my conversations with the educators I got the impression that there was various individual processes for reflecting on the experience. An interesting point is how the facilitators communicated afterwards to discuss what happened, why and what can be done differently next time?

Four - Learners as decision-makers

See above.

Five - Sequencing

This training fits into a wider framework of three trainings, so in terms of content the participants have already been participating in a sequencing of content. In the training, it was clear that sequencing had been taken into account. The learners were introduced to metimeter and then to padlet. There was then more and more focus on their institutional work, from general connection to digital skills and opportunities.

Five - Immediacy

See real-life experience above.

Six - Learning with feelings

From my observation there was little learning with feelings. I am curious as to whether the educators believe there is a place for that in this context. Is it relevant to bring this in and if so what purpose would it fill? I imagine that there could be resistance of some to technological changes, or feelings that arise when one enters a new arena. It could therefore be an interesting aspect to explore.

Seven - Accountability

The participants had the agenda prior to starting so knew what was to be done.

Eight - Teamwork

See above.

The Discussion and Conclusion

From the observations and analysis through the lens of andragogy and Jane Vella’s principles, I would say that it is clear the educators have strong skills in the methodological and professional competencies of adult educators. I got the impression that the trainers who were certified adult educators implemented more methodology than the trainer who was not, and a role of a visiting expert was more assumed by that person. I believe that through observing the actions of the educators, it was clear that the experiences of the learners was valued, there was a relatively equal participation in the room and there was room for decision-making from the learners. As illustrated in the diagram below, there was conversations both between the facilitator and the learners, and the learners themselves.

The presence of these qualities in their encourage critically thinking individuals who will make decisions not just based on what they are told, a very positive aspect, and in other words has strong implications for social change.

It would be interesting to analyse more of the content, and what purpose the digital skills the teachers are trained in are given. As came out of discussing in the informal interview, digital skills is merely a tool. As with a lot of methods, they are determined by the ideology the educator or organisation facilitating them stands on (Biesta, 2014). Therefore it would be interesting to know whether the training works at all with digging into ‘Why’ digital skills matters and what the learners can do with it in order to create social justice. Estonia has, just as other countries, social issues that need addressing and schools are a primary site for this to take place.

In sum, I would claim that, from my observation and analysis, Hitsa and its learners highly benefits from having well trained adult educators. Well planned methods, allows for content to be received better. Furthermore, I would argue that there is scope for these trainings to become agents of change, through implementing perspectives to do with how the digital tools can be used for a social change purpose.

#Shadowing