PLN for the Masses
I can still remember my first “professional development” session as a classroom teacher. I was excited because the topic was technology…and then, it started. First, we went through the phone system manual line by line (dial 77 if you want to listen to voicemail, dial 3 to delete voicemail, etc.). Next, we accessed or e-mail on our VAX mainframe terminals. Finally, we ended with a bang…we learned how to use the copy machine. I’m still amazed that one of my veteran colleagues actually asked if the paper had to be inserted “back-to-back” in order to make a double sided copy. Ten years later, I have participated in and led hundreds of professional development experiences. Some good, some bad. However, in almost every case, professional development was being done to me OR I was doing it to them.
In 2001, Garret and his colleagues identified multiple components of effective professional development. The two most important components are duration (60-80 hours) and collaboration. Additionally, it was vitally important that the experience aligned with participants’ goals. The Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 provide evidence that, in practice, professional development seldom matches these components. Rarely, is it a dynamic, collaborative experience conducted over an extended period of time.
Not too long ago I was introduced to the concept of personal learning networks. It didn’t take me more than a day or two to realize the power of PLNs as a way for educators to take control over their own professional development. Learning from (or more appropriately, with) my PLN is dynamic, collaborative, focused on my goals, and sustained. Of course, if you are reading this, you get it. I’m relatively tech savvy (aren’t we all). Compared to you I’m probably a novice, but compared to most of my colleagues, I am an “expert.” So, what can we do to bring PLN to the masses?
(NOTE: I’m not writing this in a vacuum. This post and those it references address this question and many others….a MUST READ!)
I think we need to take a developmental approach to PLNs. At its core, constructivist learning can be broken into three phases – engagement, building knowledge, and applying knowledge. In the engagement phase, educators need to become comfortable with the landscape. They need to learn how to ‘organize’ the web. They should learn how to use an aggregator and social bookmarking. They need to identify a few blogs and begin reading and commenting. As they gain comfort, they should join a community (ie: classroom2.0) and eventually start following people on Twitter.
In the building knowledge phase, educators are ready to start ‘messing about’ and contributing. They should define a purpose for their participation in their PLN and set some goals. A manageable goal may be to try one “new” thing each month. As they mess about with new ideas, they should start a blog to make their experiences public. Periodically, they should assess their PLN and add (and remove) new resources.
The applying knowledge phase needs to take Scott Schwister’s question head on. “How do we show the learning that happens through personal learning networks?” Educators need to become active inquirers as they try out new ideas. In the building knowledge phase, educators were ‘messing about’ and making decision on reflection and gut instinct. They were playing with new ideas. This is a great way to explore, but it doesn’t necessarily provide evidence that the new ideas are improving teaching and learning. In the applying knowledge phase, I would suggest that become more rigorous in how they try new things. Ted McCain’s 4D problem solving model can provide a structure here (Define, Design, Do, Debrief). Define questions that you want to answer, design a way to collect data, do it!, and then debrief…did it work.
Wow…this post got really long. I would really appreciate feedback. Will you give me the nickname ‘Captain Obvious’ or is this the beginning of a solid framework? I’ll post soon on this topic with some ideas for an infrastructure needed to help navigate this developmental approach.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Eric, I think you’re right on the money here. This is something that I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about lately as I look at how to help people use new technology for ongoing professional development. I think that those of us who are online right now are in a qualitatively different place than those who are coming up behind us and I’m not sure that the ways that we learned this stuff will apply. I like your constructivist breakdown–it’s where my head’s been going and it helps me clarify some of what I’m trying to accomplish. Good post!
January 27th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Eric, thanks for composing such a thoughtful post. I think you’re asking important questions here, and taking solid steps toward a framework on which to build a PLN approach. No need to sport that Captain Obvious cape. . . I don’t think any of this is obvious, and everyone’s trying to chart a course through it just as you are.
I like your mention of the 4D model for its simplicity and directness, and the constructivist approach you bring to thinking about professional development. When working with teachers, it’s essential to take an approach that is consonant with what we know to be true about teaching and learning. In other words, static sit & get lecture-style workshops don’t fly very well, but it’s incredible how pervasive that approach still is. Anyway, I think we’re all still, as you say, messing around, toying with PLN professional development models, trying ideas on for size. And the need will soon arise for evidence supporting the efficacy of one PD framework vs. another. I think we’ll see some attempts soon to formalize and pilot PLN-focused PD initiatives. What I’d really like to see is a PLN-powered approach to developing said PD model. Work together through our networks rather than in old-school individual projects.
I’m looking forward to reading more about your framework ideas.