Professional development, status, learning and needs

Different views were expressed about the extent that the programme supported UTs’ professional development. Some contentment with the induction programme was connected to the chance it gave UTs to understand the meaning of on-going professional learning. UTs discussion with district office staff and college tutors on professional knowledge and practices in and out of school situation, was reported by one as being a strong spot for UTs to appreciate and understand what continuous professional learning is:

A lot of important issues came up… it was during this session that I learned that ……professional learning is continuous and that it takes place throughout the teaching career of a person….updating my skills is therefore continuous professional learning (UT1f: 2/08/2011).

Another account also suggested that there were opportunities for UTs to inquire into the profession, especially areas that affected personal emolument, promotion and progression. This was helpful in encouraging UTs to stay on the programme, and setting them in a good frame of mind:

When I was told that I will be put on a superintendent II grade, the current grade of my headteacher……that very moment I said to myself that I would do whatever it takes to successfully complete (UT5m: 23/08/2011).

In another instance, it was reported that UTs in small groups were supported to observe and report on a model video lesson on learner-centred approach to teaching and learning. This collaborative work was reported to be a good source of professional learning:

In small groups we watched a video lesson which looked at learner- centredness…we noted down both good and weak points. After that we discussed all the noted points together and came out with group reports...apart from learning through group work, I also found out different ways of presenting lessons using the learner-centered approach (UT3f: 12/08/2011).

However, a more critical account indicated that the structure of the induction programme offered UTs limited exposure, interaction and socialisation. Some UTs felt that to be able to socialise properly in a wider community, the individual UT should learn to cope with UTs from different social, cultural or district backgrounds, and this was not possible since the induction was organised on district level basis:

Because the induction was organised on district basis, there was no opportunity to interact and socialise with UTs from other districts (UT4f: 18/08/2011).

Another had strong concerns about some of the facilitators’ attitudes during some of the induction sessions. As shown in the quote below, a UT had experienced problematic comments about their behaviour from facilitators in which negative judgements about their village context were embedded. This UT perceived these comments as revealing a negative sense of their presence and a lack of respect for their status:

When the facilitator was delivering the session, some UTs sitting at the back of the hall were conversing………….the comment from the facilitator actually killed my spirit…..shouted by saying if this is the behaviour we exhibited in our villages, then we should not do it here, otherwise we shall all fail our final examination……I think the facilitator doesn’t respect us (UT6m: 29/08/2011).

Probing further, the same UT commented on the content load of the induction programme:

Some facilitators could not finish exhausting their session; as a result some important aspects were left out. In some cases too, the facilitators had to rush in order to finish their sessions (UT6m: 29/08/2011).

Another UT reported that some facilitators’ approach to delivering their session was not adequately focused. Such facilitators adopted the lecture method, talked from the beginning of their session to the end with little space for questions. The irony of this is that facilitators who were expected to propagate and practice learner-centred methods

adopted teacher-centred methods, which obviously defeats the programme’s philosophy of learner-centredness to teacher development. To this UT, this approach produced a sense of isolation:

I felt bad and isolated sitting in some of the sessions……some facilitators only presented themselves and without any material, talked throughout the whole session…no chance to ask questions (UT2m: 8/08/2011).

Overall, the views expressed by UTs in this category seem to suggest both positive and negative dimensions of this induction programme. In the positive dimension, the induction programme was seen as supporting UTs in a number of ways: (i) learning through social interaction (ii) fitting well into the college of education context and (iii) professional recognition and identity and gaining more confidence.

On the contrary, the content of the induction programme was seen to be too loaded making it impossible for some facilitators to complete their sessions. The use of teacher- centred methods provided no room for UTs to draw on their own experiences. Again, the programme organisation limited the extent of social interaction among UTs from different districts. Also the programme placed a lot of emphasis on activities that UTs were likely to experience at CoEs which demonstrated a lack of concern for the contexts in which UTs were working in.

These contrasting views on the induction programme seem to suggest that some aspects of the induction programme did not meeting the expectations of UTs and that there were deficiencies in the implementation strategy.