“We have in-service training each year. That gives us more experience, for example, on the [teaching] steps. Or there is perhaps something you can’t manage to do by yourself, but there [at
in-service training], you find the solution and discover how to do it. By yourself, you are blocked, if the supervisor doesn’t come, but there, during the in-service days, you understand as the others
give explanations”. KS, FAPLG Preschool teacher
Teachers were overwhelmingly positive about in-service workshops, viewing them as valuable opportunities to improve their understanding and teaching practice and interact with staff and
colleagues. One teacher stated that these events serve to revive them after roughly six months of pursuing farming activities and helps them make a good start to the year. Another claimed they help
remind him of things he may have forgotten from the initial training, such as L1 terms for numeracy or aspects of the L1 writing system. Teachers appreciated the encouragement gleaned from being with
colleagues, exchanging ideas, discussing problems and seeking solutions together.
When asked about improvements to training and support that they would recommend, teachers expressed a strong desire for more frequent training. One viewed adding another three or four days per
year as beneficial. When asked specifically about the idea of having in-service days during the teaching year, all were in favour and could see the benefit of discussing pertinent issues promptly with colleagues.
However, they all cited transport and funding as potential obstacles to implementing this idea.
Staff views
Support staff concurred with teachers regarding the value of in-service workshops, citing similar advantages. They appreciated the opportunity to address challenges they have observed during
supervision visits the previous year, and specifically teaching competencies that need to be addressed such as L1 literacy methodology, L1 story-based activities, L1 written skills, L1 academic terms, L2 skills
and classroom management techniques.
One staff member regarded in-service workshops as an important opportunity for teachers to develop a “community of practice” for mutual encouragement and the exchange of ideas and
experiences. Another described these events as an important time to “connect” with colleagues. Supervisors advocated increasing in-service provision, especially for simulated teaching practice and
targeting problem areas. Several favoured the idea of in-service days during the school year, thus giving teachers immediate feedback regarding challenges facing them.
Discussion
All stakeholders considered in-service workshops to be invaluable to teachers’ professional development. Like initial training, in-service training has the advantages of small group size, a high ratio of trainers to
participants and the possibility of maximum L1 use due to the decentralised approach adopted. While improving teaching skills is still a major focus, more emphasis is placed on creating a forum for exchange
and cross-fertilisation among staff and teachers of varying lengths of service.
In-service events incorporate many of Vella’s adult learning principles 2002:213: needs assessment; dialogue; solid relationships; immediacy; teamwork and “praxis”. These workshops reflect
several elements of Nunan and Lam’s professional development model 1998:135–136. Training builds on past experiences, encourages teachers to reflect on new skills they have been practising, allows for the
fact that teachers are at different stages of development and fosters in teachers a motivation to develop professionally over the longer term. Training is based on actual teaching experience and helps teachers
tackle problems arising, thus following the authors’ recommendation that training be as experiential and problem-centred as possible.
3.5 Supervision
Local literacy staff one coordinator and two supervisors conduct regular supervision visits to preschool teachers during the school year, either by bicycle or motorbike. A supervision timetable is established at
the start of the year and communicated with FAPLG. Based on this, regional literacy staff undertake monitoring visits to each literacy programme.
Teachers’ views
Teachers reported receiving supervision visits once or twice a month from literacy staff, ranging in length from one teaching session to one morning. During visits, supervisors observe lessons, discuss
progress, test children’s progress, give advice, help teachers solve problems, check the register and preparation notebook, fill in an evaluation sheet or write comments in the teacher’s notebook.
Teachers stated that they found visits extremely helpful and encouraging, and that they help them solve problems quickly. One teacher gave the example of being unsure how to follow the steps of a story
activity. Her supervisor was able to explain things to her again and “put her back on track”. Another appreciated that the supervisor can demonstrate aspects of good practice. Another felt supervision was
particularly beneficial during his first year of teaching when he needed more support. Teachers stated they would appreciate more frequent and longer visits if possible.
Staff views
“[The teachers] themselves know their strengths and weaknesses from their supervisors during supervision visits and from the supervision feedback sheets. The supervisor remarked on this, or
this… So he [the teacher] knows which parts he has not done well. So then when we get together as a group, he knows which parts he missed and together we can look at that part and how to do it
well”. EM, ADPLG Literacy Coordinator
Local staff perceived visiting teachers on a regular basis as central to their professional activities, enumerating the following advantages to supervision visits: checking teachers’ understanding of the
programme; correcting mistakes; giving feedback and advice; answering questions; helping solve problems; giving opportunities to discuss challenges and evaluating learners’ progress. Visits early in the
year allow supervisors to ensure teachers have started on time, gather statistical data for reporting purposes and ascertain which classes need extra support. Staff agreed that current provision for
supervision was insufficient to meet the needs of in-service teachers and feel that currently teachers are not visited frequently enough, often only once a month for a short visit.
During the local staff group discussion, there was lengthy debate regarding frequency of visits. Ideally, they felt teachers should be visited twice to three times per month but in reality they admitted it
was closer to once, maximum twice a month. While they felt this ratio appropriate for experienced and capable teachers, they saw it as insufficient for new or struggling teachers, who should benefit from
intensive support. ADPLG supervisors felt that they had too many classes to supervise effectively and advocated the addition of a fourth supervisor to their team.
Two regional staff members felt strongly that teachers should be visited once a week, especially in their first year. However, lack of funding for additional supervisors’ salaries and transportation was cited
as the main obstacle to improving support. Currently, FAPLG provides partial funding to the literacy associations for one supervisor for every 10–15 classes. Staff explained that this ratio rendered it
impossible to visit classes more than twice a month, especially when classes were geographically distanced. One staff member advocated budgeting for five classes per supervisor to ensure a quality
education programme, while another argued that additional supervisors would allow more flexibility regarding frequency and length of visits.
Discussion
All stakeholders consider supervision visits a key element in helping teachers grow professionally. Indeed, teachers and staff revealed an impressive openness to receiving ongoing input to improve skills.
Graham 2009:189 recommends monitoring visits as a valuable means of supporting teachers as they implement changes in their classroom practice. While not explicitly mentioned, this practice fits Nunan
and Lam’s professional development model well and reflects their emphasis that training be school- based, experiential, problem-centred, developmental and open-ended 1998:135–136.
Several researchers Akyeampong, Pryor and Westbrook 2011a; Graham 2009; Vella 2002; Nunan and Lam 1998 highlight the need for adequate opportunities for reflection linked to actual practice.
Supervision visits enable teachers to reflect on their current practice and provide immediate feedback
from staff to help maximise this reflective process. If Vella’s “one-digit” classroom 2002 is beneficial in training events, how much more so one-to-one mentoring from qualified, experienced support staff in the
classroom. From this data, it is evident that the current FAPLG training and support framework provides
teachers with helpful opportunities to grow professionally, especially through timely, practical training, yearly in-service meetings and regular supervision visits from experienced staff. These aspects are
strengthened by good relationships among teachers and staff and the ability to use L1 for training purposes. However, the impact of these features is weakened by factors such as teachers’ low level of
education, limited L2 skills, lack of time and resources for both initial and in-service training, and practical challenges affecting the frequency and quality of supervision. The following section focuses on
three teaching competencies that emerged as significant from the data gathered, with the aim of discerning the impact of current training and support.
3.6 Teaching competencies
