as a result of their almost inevitable failure to accommodate a new approach within the existing
parameters of syllabus, examinations, materials, official expectations and class size. Yet this is what
teachers all over the world are expected to do after leaving in-service courses. At least on the PKG
Project we have a chance to make the confusion positive by using feedback on real teaching to
increase understanding and to encourage gradual independence of thought and application.
2. The Dangers of Short In-Service Courses
The result of attending a short, in-service course for many participants is that they:-
a) resist the new ideas because they feel they have been unfairly attacked for using oldfashioned
methods and materials; OR
b) fear and reject the new ideas because they see them as a threat to the self-esteem and
security they have built up over many years; OR
c) dissociate themselves from the new ideas for fear of being seen as radical and subversive by
the authorities in their system; OR
d) are persuaded to try the new ideas and then feel guilty when they abandon them after their
initial failures to apply them successfully in the classroom; OR
e) are so convinced of the value of their new wisdom that they rush back to their schools with
revolutionary zeal and unthinkingly impose methods and materials from their in-service course
on their bewildered students before having to revert to their “old” approach when the received
supply of materials and ideas runs out; OR
f) become total converts to the new approach and fail to see the inappropriacy of some of its
aspects to the realities of their teaching situation.
3. Causes of the Damage
a) The tutors are academics who have considerable theoretical knowledge of their field but have
little or no experience of teaching in situations similar to those faced by the participants.
b) The tutors are outsiders who have no experience or knowledge of the specific local situation.
c) The tutors alienate the participants by assuming superiority.
d) The tutors do not acknowledge or make use of the experience of the teachers.
e) The tutors reply on charismatic performance to entertain, stimulate and persuade without
involving the participants in thinking for themselves.
f) The tutors are so evangelical that they gain some over-zealous converts whilst alienating the
rest of the participants.
g) The objectives are content-orientated (e.g. “To give the participants information about TPR”)
rather than behavioral (e.g. “To help the participants to work out ways of using the principles of
TPR when teaching Class SMP 1 in Indonesia”).
h) The course provides only, theoretical information without helping the participants to apply
it.
i) The course provides theoretical information plus a few examples of materials which become
inflexible models in the minds of the participants.
j) The course provides lots of recipes for the participants to follow but does not help them to
develop ideas and materials of their own.
k) The course gives the impression that there is only one right way to do things and does not
provide options to choose from and develop.
l) The course only gives and the participants only receive.
m) There is no focus or cohesion to the course and it moves from topic to topic without
connection.
n) There are too many tutors providing separate specialist bits.
o) Too much new information is presented in the course.
p) Too much new information is presented in each session without any attempt to reinforce,
recycle or relate information.
q) The course is far too ambitious and attempts to effect a radical change in teacher behaviour in
a few short weeks.
r) The authorities wish to give the appearance of keeping up to date but make sure no radical
change results by not providing adequate time, incentive or resources.
s) The course contradicts the principles of humanism, interaction, self
access, relaxation and independence which it is recommending to the participants.
t) There is no follow up to the course. the teachers receive no further support or encouragement.
the teachers are not helped to actually apply the ideas they have been given.
4. Conclusions
Running any short in-service course is a risk. There is a very good chance that many of the
participants will lose more than they will gain. In order to minimize the risk of loss of morale,
confidence and competence it is important to ensure that:
a) the objectives are specific, limited and behavioral;
b) the course is designed to achieve continuity and coherence;
c) the content of the course is limited and has a specific focus;
d) the tutors have up-to-date knowledge of developments in the field AND experience of
teaching in similar situations to those of the participants AND experience or awareness of
the specific local situations of the participants;
e) the experience and expertise of the participants is acknowledged and made use of;
f) the course applies the principles of inter-active and humanistic learning theories;
g) the course is EXPERIENTIAL and not just informative;
In order to ensure that the course actually benefits many of the participants it is also
important to ensure that:
h) the course is followed up by a monitoring and guidance service to the participants.
This can be achieved by:-
i) running on-service courses which involve individual classroom observation and
constructive feedback plus group discussion and planning;
ii) setting up a correspondence support service which enables teachers to receive feedback
on lesson plans, materials, problems, ideas and recordings and/or descriptions of
lessons;
iii) holding regular regional self-help meetings of the in-service participants to which the inservice
tutors are sometimes invited;
iv) setting up correspondence and telephone self-help groups among the participants;
v) setting up small regional teams to monitor each other’s lessons and materials;
vi) inviting the same participants back for a follow up course the following year.
Whatever happens, the in-service course must be seen as the BEGINNING of a process of teacher
development and not the end