As Paul pointed out, train the trainer programs are really useful but are not necessarily offered all that often. Since one of my most recent projects was one of these programs, I thought I’d kick off my posts on this blog with a discussion on that project.
The program? We called it Teaching Teaching. (I described it in detail on my blog the other day.) Instead of going into the specifics of planning and content, I’ll use this space to talk a little bit about the drive behind the program, what made it successful, and how we knew it had done its job.
DEFINING “TEACHING TEACHING”
Teaching Teaching was a program that I worked on with a colleague, Roz Tedford, to support teaching at our library. We’re a mid-sized academic library that teaches traditional library instruction, technology workshops, credit bearing classes, and workshops for faculty.
This program took the form of a one-credit “course.” The program took place over two semesters (and will likely be revived in future semesters as well). In each, we treated it like a one-credit course, without the assignments and testing. The goal was to make a very low barrier for participation… the only thing people had to do was save an hour in the morning to show up.
For the first semester, Roz and I led classes. We’d model good instructional practices, and stick to around 20 minutes of lecture and discussion followed by an active learning exercise. We’d try to vary the exercises so that after the class was completed, people had a toolkit of potential activities to use when teaching.
The second semester followed a different model. By the time we had the second semester course, we changed the model. I wanted people to realize that they didn’t need an “expert” at the front of the classroom telling them what to think about and that every teacher is a potential resource. I started the semester with a facilitated discussion about what people wanted to learn, and set up the semester’s schedule around that. Then, each week, I sat with everyone else in the classroom and facilitated discussion.
WHY IT TOOK OFF
People were asking for a program like this. Teaching Teaching wasn’t something that I decided everyone needed to do. It wasn’t something the administration felt the library needed, either. Teaching Teaching evolved from several discussions I had with different librarians in the building and was based on their needs and interests.
People had a drive to do more with their teaching. People were already good teachers. Some had been teaching for a very long time. But people were interested in learning more about the principles behind what they were doing, understanding the research that supported some of the techniques they were interested in trying, and improving the good teaching already taking place.
This course was an opportunity for instructors with no obligations. I firmly believe that Teaching Teaching went over well because it was presented as an opportunity that people could choose to participate in, with no expectations for preparation or outside work. Finding one hour for something you’re motivated to do is much easier than finding an hour plus extra work time. And since people chose to participate on their own, there was no resistance to the program.
WHAT MADE IT SUCCESSFUL 
Classes contained useful information. People came to learn, so I made sure we were covering content that would be useful. I planned the curriculum for the first course, because I understood the issues people were interested in learning more about and I had the background to know how to structure the content. And the second course was even more student-driven, as the entire curriculum was based off the conversation from the first day of class. Since we were all using valuable time to participate, I wanted to be sure that every class had something for everyone.
Active learning was central to the design of the workshops. We knew people wanted to learn more about how to incorporate active learning techniques, and we knew it would help people learn the content more effectively. However, as most of the participants preferred learning in lecture-style settings, we were careful to construct exercises that would be non threatening, and would make good use of pair and group work. In the end, people enjoyed it and had new ideas about how to incorporate active learning into their own teaching.
The class became a community of learner/teachers. I heard over and over again that people got as much out of being part of the group as they did from the content of the courses. People said that having an hour a week to set aside for thinking about instruction helped them be more intentional and reflective of their work. Knowing that they’d have a session to share new ideas and ask questions every week meant they were able to adapt and change things more quickly. And, as we phased into the second semester, the transition to a learning community was truly illustrated as I shifted to a role where I tried to keep my mouth shut for much of the sessions.
HOW WE KNEW THE PROGRAM WAS A SUCCESS
People kept coming back. I originally had doubts about attendance for this program. An hour every week for two semesters meant people were devoting up to 30 hours of time to the program, or nearly a work week of the year. Everyone’s swamped (who isn’t these days), yet over half our teachers attended every session for the first class, and a smaller group of the same people attended every session of the second semester. Nothing says things are going well like repeat attendees!
People indicated they didn’t need a third semester. Towards the end of the second course, I started asking around about the need for another semester. I felt people had a pretty good grasp of the material, and wasn’t sure it was the best use of time at that point. And most people agreed. However, it was interesting that many asked we reserve the right to do something like this again, perhaps at a more advanced level, in future semesters.
Librarians started doing more instructional design. I noticed that librarians were doing more instructional design. Whether it was redesigning their credit course based on the Teaching Teaching information or working with faculty members to adapt their assignments based on library resources or technologies, more librarians were doing more instructional design work as part of their day-to-day jobs.
My role had changed. When I first became the Instructional Design Librarian I often worked with library staff to adapt their classes based on specific issues. By the end of the Teaching Teaching program I more often met with library staff to verify that they were on the right track and doing good work. My role as an instructional designer had shifted from a consultant role to a second set of eyes to double check the (good!!) work that had already been done.
So that’s the story of Teaching Teaching. Don’t worry, I didn’t teach myself out of a job. But as a train the trainer program, it was a successful one. With good planning, some work along the way, and constant feedback from participants, we were able to develop a program that supported the work of the library and is helping us better meet the needs of our users.
Have you done any train the trainer programs? What made them work for your community? How did you know they worked?
Image Credits:
pronouncing dictionary by Muffet
Shuttle Endeavour Blastoff by jurvetson
successful business woman on a laptop by Search Engine People Blog
New Years Eve 2006 by monkeyc.net
Lauren Pressley is the Instructional Design Librarian at Wake Forest University. She also blogs at Lauren’s Library Blogs and spends a fair amount of time at Twitter, too.
Recent Comments