Having just come off of two days of "professional development" within my division, this article in particular interested me. Of course, Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) was a word that was tossed about. There are many definitions, but to put it in my own words, I would say a PLN is a group of learners who pool their resources in order to solve a particular problem. Whether the problem is "how do I make sure my students understand this particular math concept", or more broad like "I want to get better at making computer science interesting for my students" is up to the group. Members may float in and out of the group. These ideas may develop formally, informally, or as a result of in group discussion. I've heard people compare it to a mentor and student relationship, but this is plain wrong. A PLN really is a network of learners.
My current understanding of PLNs, how they are formed, and what benefit they serve, and to whom, was a topic of my master's degree. I am 100% just speaking off the cuff here, My opinion is that they are rarely successful when created by top-down mandate. I think they require an interested group of teachers or learners gathering together informally over a common goal that interests them AND is relevant to their current practice or interests. Trust, Krutka, and Carpenter (2016) echo a similar sentiment: first by discrediting the current state of top-down professional development approaches utilized by most school divisions as deficient and of not much use to teachers. They later float the idea that "informal learning opportunities allow educators to co-construct knowledge for their practice in collaboration with peers, colleagues, and other individuals who are situated locally" (p. 16-17). The authors also note that this type of PD has not been studied well, and that online learning spaces are further adding to the informal nature of PLNs (Trust, Krutka, & Carpenter, 2016). The studies' findings are interesting. I'll note there was a wide variety of teachers who taught a wide variety of subjects involved, and that the study was qualitative in nature. Trust, Krutka, and Carpenter (2016) report that teachers mostly met their PLNs in person, but also that a fair share met online via Twitter, Edmodo, blogs, and other platforms (p. 22). Reasons for joining a PLN ranged from "curating information, exchanging opinions, and [staying] current on research and best practices ... [teachers] learned about and implemented specific teaching strategies, while others redefined their roles and aims as teachers" (p. 23). While we can all agree that these findings are certainly encouraging, my issue begins with the lack of any quantitative evidence within classrooms themselves. I see this paper as an interesting prestudy to what should be a larger effort investigating, say, the effects of teachers learning new strategies in PLNs and implementing them in their classrooms. Did their students performance increase? Would students report that they had a better experience in class? Do not get me wrong... I very heartily believe that if a teacher develops a new appreciation for a subject, or a new want to continue learning so called "best practices", I think this is a GOOD thing that PLNs do. I think people gathering together and learning more is GOOD, as I'm sure we can all agree. But it's also important to know how much of a difference that time utilized actually did for students. Seeing as time is limited, while my idea can seem a bit harsh... why would I use my time doing one thing when perhaps it would be more effectively placed elsewhere? This is where solid research can help us, to save time and grief. Many educational studies are worthwhile and useful, and present ideas that definitely warrant further investigation. Too many stop short of measuring real world effects, always opting to investigate people's opinions (which are fluid, and not always based in reality... I am certainly guilty of not always being based in reality). I have this exact criticism for a paper I am currently writing and have already presented on... my response to myself would be to complete another study on the same topic, but this time implement a quantitative tool as well in order to measure student difference before and after the "treatment" so to speak. Feel free to comment. Remember, stay curious! Works Cited Trust, T., Krutka, D., & Carpenter, J. (2016). "Together we are better": Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102(2016), 15-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMy name is Matteo Di Muro, the original Prairie Boy, and I've been teaching since I was 14. I currently teach mathematics and computer science in Brandon. I try to keep on learning things, and I'm getting onboard with sharing with others, hence this site! Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|