This is my forth post about the Natural Sciences training that we ran last year for subject advisors across the country. You can read more about the project goals and design (part 1), the programme and resources created (part 2) and how we assessed and exposed key misconceptions in the different knowledge areas (part 3).
At Siyavula, we believe in constantly asking for feedback from a group both during and after a workshop. What often comes to my mind when reflecting on feedback are examples from biology where one can get positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. Both are necessary for a healthy individual or ecosystem. The same is true for any process where you want to constantly be tweaking, making adjustments, finding a balance between different needs and expectations and using the feedback to respond and evolve. Closing these feedback loops is crucial in developing a successful, sustainable, long-term process.
Open communication is also vital to building and maintaining a community of practice. By keeping the lines of communication directly open with your participants, and following up with correspondence, I believe you also help to build relationships which will last beyond the physical interaction at a workshop. This will have a long term benefit in creating a community that is willing to share and learn from each other. Following is a summary of some of the feedback that we received, via email and in the post-workshop survey, and some reflections on the success of the various sessions throughout the workshops. Personally, I also find it a consolidating process to write all of this down, which is why i have written these blog posts, as it allows me to reflect on my own experiences as well.
As part of conducting the Natural Sciences training, we were asked to conduct a performance analysis, both before and after the workshops, to assess the subject advisors’ content knowledge. I think one of the main reasons for wanting this was to have some way of assessing the “impact of the intervention”, and a data-based performance analysis is often what is looked to as the easiest measure of impact. However, we were at first opposed to doing this right at the start as I felt that it would not be the most welcoming approach to administer a test as everyone first walks in the door. I also felt it would not set the right tone for the rest of the training.
Continue reading “Natural Sciences training: Evaluating content knowledge (Part 3)”
In this post I want to outline some of the details of how we structured the workshops, the different sessions we ran and the content we decided to focus on. We also created and used a number of openly licensed resources, which have all been made available online for anyone else to build upon and adapt for their own use. You can read more on the project goals and design in the first post here.
Continue reading “Natural Sciences training: Workshop structure and resources (Part 2)”
At the end of 2014, Siyavula was involved in planning, designing and conducting training workshops for the Gr 4-9 Natural Sciences subject advisors in all 9 provinces in South Africa. I coordinated the training project from our side and learned an enormous amount, from designing training workshops, to working with different stakeholders in the education system, to delivering training and teaching concepts, to working with a diverse team, and importantly, interacting with the subject advisors and building relationships across the country.
This blog post, and the few to follow, are reflections on the training, including how it was designed and conducted, our experiences, challenges we faced and recommendations for going forward with future, similar training programmes.
Continue reading “Natural Sciences training: Project goals and design (Part 1)”