Category Archives: learning organisation

Work & Rights in Australian ELT (#AusELT Twitter Chat 7th May 2017)

directory-235079_640

Our April Twitter chat is happening on Sunday 7th May at 8.30pm Sydney time – click here to see the time where you are. Hope to e-see you there!

If you read the #AusELT Facebook page or Twitter feed, you can see a remarkable group of professionals. The comments, questions and responses clearly show hard-working teachers (and trainers, lecturers and managers), serious about meeting students’ needs, and committed to learning and sharing in order to do ‘this’ better.

Unfortunately, in many cases their hard work, commitment and professional development do not seem to be valued, remunerated or even rewarded with something as basic as a contract. Phiona Stanley’s paper, Economy class? Lived experiences and career trajectories of private-sector English-language school teachers in Australia, captures the instability and lack of recognition that characterises ELT employment for many (you can also see slides from her related plenary at the English Australia Conference in 2016 here).

As Stanley also points out, the individual DoS or manager (who is also hard-working and professional) often has their hands tied as well in terms of balancing who they can retain and who they need to take on. These issues are systemic, and it can seem impossible for individual teachers or managers to make a difference. But there are exceptions and examples of good, ethical, practice.

In this chat we will discuss:

  • what are the exceptions and how can we work to make them the rule?
  • how can we help each other to advocate for ourselves?
  • what are your rights and what can you do if they are not being met?
  • what can individuals do to work towards change?

We are collecting useful resources on this topic, which you can access via the ‘Working in ELT‘ link above – let us know in the comments, Twitter chat or via Facebook message, if you have ideas to add. There’s also some recommended reading below. Please join us for this important discussion on Sunday. Looking forward to e-seeing you then.

Recommended Reading

(* Posted with the permission of the Australian Education Union (AEU). Access more recent issues of The Australian TAFE Teacher here: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/news-media/the-australian-tafe-teacher).

Not sure about Twitter?

Why not have a go? We can help you out. Get in touch with any of the AusELT admin team on Facebook or Twitter (eg, @sophiakhan4 or @cioccas, or by leaving a comment below. Here are some posts that should also help you get started:

This post by @sophiakhan4

Reflective Practice: Benefits, Tips, Feedback (#AusELT Twitter chat on 7/8/2016)

double-tree-reflection

Dear AusELTers

Our August Twitter chat is happening on Sunday 7th Aug at 8.30pm Sydney time (click here to see the time where you are).

In our Twitter chat for August 2016 we discussed reflective practice.
This chat has now taken place but you can read the transcript/summary here.

This topic was suggested after there was a lot on interest in a post on the #AusELT Facebook page recently about using teacher post-lesson reflections effectively. As this is a familiar concept to most of us from pre-service training and in-service observations, perhaps we can use this as as a jumping off point. Some questions we could consider here are:

  • Is this useful? Why?
  • Could we do it better? How?
  • Is RP really a skill that can be developed?
  • How can practising teachers, trainers and managers also benefit from RP?
  • What are some problems or obstacles to effective RP?
  • What are some useful ways to ‘operationalise’ it for individuals or institutions?

Looking forward to discussing these questions or any others you care to bring with you on Sunday.

If you are new to Twitter, please come along, we are a friendly bunch  (send a tweet to me @sophiakhan4 and I’ll look out for you!)

You might also be interested in these posts:

This chat has now taken place but you can read the transcript/summary here.

This post by @sophiakhan4, edited by @cioccas

Systems thinking – chat summary for 6/11/14

An adventure park for everyone’s learning

The last #AusELT chat of 2014 was voted for by the community and the selected topic was ‘systems thinking’ (ST). Nicki set us up with some pre-reading and also connected the chat with the #systhinking community on Twitter. The inspiration for this chat was Adrian Underhill’s recent professional development sessions, in conjunction with English Australia, on ‘Developing a “learning organisation” approach to PD’, and Underhill is referenced several times in this chat. You can read some posts about Underhill’s session here , here, and here.

A little bit of background

For some of us (ahem) this was a new  phenomenon, and you can be forgiven for not having heard of it before – @Penultimate_K described it as ‘one of those “sleeper” topics which is just gaining critical mass in ELT.’

According to Nicki some of the key names to look out for are Daniel Kahneman  and Amos Tversky. Kahneman, a psychologist who specialises in behavioural economics and who was awarded a Nobel Memorial Prize in 2002 is also the author of the bestselling, Thinking, Fast and Slow, published in 2011.

One brain, two systems

In his book, Kahneman puts forward the idea that within each person’s brain there are two types of thinking, two different systems. Type 1 thinking is the ‘knee-jerk’, intuitive thinking. It’s the thinking that doesn’t think! Rather, it is a response to a situation – it’s the system that we use to deal with stressful situations or other times when deliberation could be harmful or where speed is of the essence. Type 1 is the system that guides our actions. Type 2 thinking, on the other hand, is where our actions are thought through and, through this process, those actions can be analysed and validated (or not, as the case may be). Type 2 is where we reflect and theorise.

There are many YouTube videos, both long and short, where Kahneman explains his ideas. The one that was cited in the pre-reading blog post is this one .

@sophiakhan4, who hadn’t read Kahneman’s book, wasn’t hugely convinced by the illustrative example given in this video, which centred around the hypothetical case of Julie, who ‘read fluently at age 4’. She (hypothetically) graduated recently, and Kahneman asks ‘What was her GPA?’ Apparently we are meant to assume it is high, and this is meant to illustrate the fact that we make many decisions in everyday life that we think are logical but are in fact based on beliefs and biases. This might not have been the best example, but as @michaelegriffin pointed out, ‘it is just a metaphor’ and a way to think about the issue.

@sophiakhan4 had a concern about dichotomistic divisions along the lines of “there are two types of people in the world…” – even if this is not what Kahneman intends, people unfamiliar with his work might easily interpret his ideas in this either/or way. She asked for opinions on the book and @michaelegriffin had a glowing recommendation: ‘I loved it! I said to myself many times, “Gosh this is so related to teaching I can’t believe it.”’

So what IS ‘systems thinking’?

Systems thinking can happen on a number of levels and is open to several interpretations. However, for our purposes, we were viewing ST as the awareness of the two systems at work, and how this awareness can shape our professional development as teachers and learners, and benefit, not only the individual, but organisations.

@aparnajacob said that ‘Underhill mentioned complex systems, how ST was really about understanding the interconnection/interaction between parts of a whole.’ This resonated with @sophiakhan4, who saw this as linking in with established theory on dynamic complex systems, emergent language, etc.

 

@sophiakhan4 suggested that ‘ #systhinking sees the complex interactions of the whole, not just an isolated event & its immediate cause/consequence.’ @Penultimate_K agreed with this, adding that ‘the interactions can have either positive or negative outcomes.’ @aparnajacob further added ‘And his point is that all of these outcomes are learning opportunities’, giving the example of a school that launches an unsuccessful new product, with investigations revealing inadequate market research, which makes for a huge opportunity for ‘wholeorglearning’. (Isn’t it great that Twitter allows collaborative definitions like this??)

You can find further simple definitions and explanations of systems thinking here and here .

 

Types of thinking

@Penultimate_K outlined the two types of thinking for the chat participants:  T1 (fast, instinctive) & T2 (slow, logical), and asked ‘Which do you use more in your work?’. For herself, she said, ‘My role [as an academic manager] demands more type 2 thinking than type 1.’

@michaelegriffin said, ‘For me personally, I think I need to intentionally engage T2 at certain times or it is all T1 … but I’m not convinced all T2 all the time is practical or possible or beneficial,’ and later he further clarified: ‘I see T1 as the usual mode. The one we need for surviving and filtering and all. Better decisions and clearer thinking from T2.’

@aparnajacob speculated that ‘T2 would be ideal but a combination is required’ and also wondered whether groups tended towards T2 and individuals towards T1. @Penultimate_K thought this was probably the case: ‘Group thinking would need to be more deliberative, I guess.’

 

There seemed to be an implication that fast, instinctive thinking is inaccurate or unreliable. @mikejcsmith was not convinced of this, and @sophiakhan4 agreed: ‘sometimes you need to react quickly, and sometimes instincts are correct.’ @HairyChef suggested that Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, which is about the remarkable accuracy of ‘first impressions’ and ‘instincts’, might be useful reading to accompany this debate.

Following the instinct debate, @michaelegriffin asked: ‘Could we say that instincts are prone to bias?’ Several participants agreed with this: @HairyChef said, ‘Absolutely – otherwise they would not exist (or humans would process info much faster).’ @sophiakhan4 thought this was probably true but wasn’t sure you could say T2 was any freer from bias: ‘some biases can be so ingrained that even T2 doesn’t always take the layers off.’

 

@mikejcsmith pointed that ‘instincts develop via natural selection. If they fail too often, they disappear,’ the implication being (in agreement with Gladwell) that instincts we have evolved are more likely to be accurate than ‘biased’. @michaelegriffin agreed, saying ‘[that] is why I think System 1 is very good for hunting but probably not so good for planning courses’ though @mikejcsmith found room for both T1 and T2 even in hunting: ‘maybe [T]2 is good for stalking, [T]1 good for the final lunge and kill.’ @michaelegriffin accepted this, and put it in a nutshell: ‘Using [T]2 all the time is impossible and tiring. Sometimes we need [T]1.’

 

 

What contexts can systems thinking apply in?

 

@mikejcsmith commented: ‘I am trained in systems engineering, but I seem to find methodical lesson planning very difficult.  Mostly teach instinctively.’@Penultimate_K asked, ‘Do the disciplines of systems engineering have any crossover into classroom instruction?’ and @mikejcsmith replied that ‘they certainly come into play in the art of needs analysis … Needs analysis happens continuously for me.  Always thinking about it in class.  Always outweighs lesson planning.’ @Penultimate_K summarised this as ‘constant fine-tuning according to the class context of the learners in front of you’ and @mikejcsmith agreed: ‘Yes, perhaps the way to think about it is that T2 (methodological) is the undercurrent, and T1 (adaptive) steers.’

@michaelegriffin made a point relating to the pre-reading blog post which seemed to be focused on how/why we need to teach students to be disciplined thinkers. He noted ‘I’m much more focused on decisions I make as a T than teaching Ss to think in this way.’ @sophiakhan4 agreed: ‘That makes more sense to me at the moment – though it’s fascinating how ‪#systhinking can apply to so many diff contexts.’

 

@Penultimate_K agreed with this and emphasized the importance of distinguishing between systems thinking in classrooms, in teaching approach, and in organisations. Even further contexts had come up earlier, when @michaelegriffin had shared posts showing how systems thinking is linked to language emergence and to career development. As @Penultimate_K put it, ‘it’s hard to confine the ideas to one area’ with this particular topic.

@HairyChef thought there were also applications to behaviour management – ‘how teachers respond to students’ behaviours in young learner classes.’ He wondered whether a ‘fast-thinking’ T1 teacher would get better results than the T2 teacher ‘who always thinks before reprimanding,’ thus ‘missing’ instances of bad behaviours. He also connected the topic of systems thinking to cognitive psychology models of short term memory vs executive functions, giving the example of a new vs an experienced teacher – the latter has ‘more confidence and reliance on T1 pathways/systems.’

 

@mikejcsmith pointed out that a systems thinking approach is ‘difficult’ when it comes to very personal areas such as behaviour analysis or management and felt that ‘human behaviour may be too complex for a classical systems approach … Humans, especially learners, are not machines. They react emotionally.  Learning barriers are almost always emotional.’

 

Is there a place for systems thinking in the classroom?

 

Focusing in on the classroom, and echoing the pre-chat blog post, @Penultimate_K asked ‘So is there “a need to educate learners to be disciplined thinkers”? … How do you think that could be done in among everything else that happens in class?’

@sophiakhan4 wasn’t sure: ‘in terms of language aren’t we aiming for automaticity? Though clear benefits to e.g. editing, self-monitoring … At the moment I see more benefits to exploring this for ourselves/our organisations rather than as something we “teach” students.’ @michaelegriffin felt the same, and simply said: ‘I’m not sure this is my job or how much I can really do on this in an English class.’

 

However, other chatters felt there might be classroom applications. @HairyChef suggested that there may be ‘a need to draw attention to ways learners evaluate peers, own learning from day to day,’ and @DesouzaJuanita gave a concrete example: ‘I have a CAE student run the risk of another failure because [of] not trusting instinct … we need to train them to be adaptive thinkers.’ She explained that she had extensively encouraged to this student to trust his instincts, but that this may be ‘just how he thinks’, even in his L1. (At this point, @Penultimate_K’s response wins Quote of the Night: ‘So his instinct is to be cautious? T1 meets T2!!!’)

@mikejcsmith also suggested that ‘using empathy methods in teaching’ allows students to access T1, not just rule-driven T2 (eg, pair work) and that this T1/T2 combination approach is important in any grammar lesson.

 

Can systems thinking turn organisations into ‘an adventure park for everyone’s learning’?

 

Returning to a claim made in Adrian Underhill’s session, @Penultimate_K asked: ‘How close is your organisation to being “an adventure park for everyone’s learning”?’

@aparnajacob thought this could occur ‘only if a culture of healthy 360 degree feedback and learning exists,’ and @sophiakhan4 found this ‘rather optimistic’ – but added that she was ‘100 % pro people listening to & learning from each other beyond the silos.’

@aparnajacob felt that ‘systems thinking can make leaders of everyone in an organisation’ but emphasised that ‘for this we need to revisit the traditional definition of managers/leaders.’ Those interested in exploring Aparna’s ideas further should read her food-for-thought #AusELT post on this which included this quote on which we will conclude:

“Systems thinking begins when we see the world through the eyes of another…and realize that our own perspective is just a point of view”

 

There is nothing ‘hard and fast’ about ‘thinking fast and slow’ – when we start to question our perspective and how this perspective was developed, we can better understand our own thought processes and apply the different types of thinking to produce better outcomes in our classrooms and in our places of work.

This post by @sophiakhan4  and @Penultimate_K

Perspectives on developing a ‘learning organisation’ approach to PD – Part 2

This is the second in a short series of blog posts inspired by Adrian Underhill’s workshop on Developing a ‘learning organisation’ approach to PD, which he delivered at various locations in Australia recently. To find out more about Adrian Underhill, read his recent interview in the English Australia Journal.

TamzenAbout the author:

Tamzen Armer is currently Assistant Director of Studies at an LTO in Canberra, and Reviews Editor at the English Australia Journal.


Adrian Underhill’s session on “Developing a ‘learning organisation’ approach to PD” raised some interesting questions for me about learning in my LTO. In keeping with my key ‘take-away’ from the session, allow me to share . . .

Identify something you have learnt at work recently . . . who else knows you have been learning that?

Throughout the workshop, Adrian made reference to “the mess we’re in”. For me, that mess was perhaps best summed up by the question above – who else in my organisation knows what I have been learning, and indeed what do I know about what others have been learning?

Individual learning can be wasted unless harnessed at organisational level

It seems to me that in my organisation a lot of learning must be getting wasted. I know I rarely share my learning with others and I suspect that is the same for other people. It’s not because I don’t want to share, but there never seems to be the time, the opportunity or the forum.

In an organisation I worked at previously, there always seemed to be discussion about teaching and learning, about how to explain things to students, about how best to teach things, about what people had learned at external PD sessions. It all happened in a very organic way, outside of organisation-imposed PD sessions, and it was extremely important for me as a relatively new teacher. These discussions made me enthusiastic about English, about the job, the possibilities. It helped me bond with my colleagues. It gave me confidence when I felt I could contribute to the discussions and when I didn’t, I learned things.

There are no ‘universal’ solutions to ‘local’ situations . . .

So what is different in my current LTO? Well, to start with, the way our timetable works means that there is no common break time or lunchtime. Or start or finish time. A lot of the discussion in my previous organisation occurred during the short breaks in classes or after class when everyone would be in the staff room. The staff room: difference number two. At my current organisation some teachers are in two-person offices; the others in 10-person rooms. But because of the timetable, there may only be a couple of people in those room at any one time. It seems to me that both of these factors impede the sharing of ideas and opinions and thus learning is wasted.

It’s been easy for me to notice this but to put it in the “too hard” basket. However, having the time in Adrian’s session to focus on this problem, to talk through it with others and to see that no ‘universal’ solution does not mean no solution, was very useful.

We need to develop local knowledge that follows the contours of the setting and circumstances we are in . . .

A number of suggestions were made by other workshop attendees. The first was having a noticeboard in a common area where things could be shared. Unfortunately as our common areas are also common to other departments, as well as accessible to students, I had to rule this one out. A second suggestion was to have face-to-face meetings/idea shares. I know this is popular with teachers as when we have done it in the past, feedback has been good. However, the time constraints mean this is only really possible in our non-teaching weeks which occur four times a year. This did not seem frequent enough to create the kind of collaborative environment I was envisaging and also our sessional and casual teachers, the bulk of the staff, aren’t generally around at those times. However, as people are keen on this kind of forum, it seems worth pursuing and I think it would be possible to have more frequent get-togethers of smaller groups and, by changing the meeting times, different combinations of people could come together. A final suggestion was a closed Facebook group where ideas could be shared. Another attendee reflected on her experience of using this kind of forum in her LTO and it seemed promising and would certainly overcome many of our “environmental” constraints.

We make the mistake of dictating problems and solutions, making people passive, colluding in the problem and dictating answers, rather than inviting them to empower themselves by entering the problem, and developing their own knowledge — Anne Burns

Fortuitously, this workshop occurred just before one of our non-teaching weeks and I took the opportunity to arrange an informal PD session in which I reported back on my learning from Adrian’s session and had colleagues who attended the EA Conference share what they learned there. There did seem to be a general feeling that we could be sharing more and a number of avenues for communication were suggested by staff. Firstly, people were, as expected, keen to meet face-to-face, even for relatively short periods of time. There was also a feeling that email, as our main workplace channel of communication, could be used for such purposes. One colleague suggested having a particular subject-line convention such that emails of this type could be easily identified/redirected into folders to save them disappearing into the mass of email communication which fills the inbox each day. It was also suggested that our staff Moodle site be used to collect and store useful links, and indeed a number of the conference attendees had already put links to sessions they found particularly beneficial on there.

Do you, the teacher, demonstrate the quality of learning you want your students to develop?

In our classrooms we ask learners to communicate, co-operate and collaborate. We expect our learners to think critically about resources they use, and we expect them to become autonomous in their learning. It will be interesting to see now whether we are able to do the same.

This post by @tamzenarmer

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the individuals, and not those of #AusELT in general or of English Australia.

Perspectives on developing a ‘learning organisation’ approach to PD – Part 1

This is the first in a short series of blog posts inspired by Adrian Underhill’s workshop on Developing a ‘learning organisation’ approach to PD, which he delivered at various locations in Australia recently. To find out more about Adrian Underhill, read his recent interview in the English Australia Journal.

AparnaAbout the author:

Aparna Jacob is a first-time Director of Studies at an LTO in Sydney. She is passionate about professional development for teachers and is keen on developing a learning culture at her organisation. She holds an IDLTM amongst other industry-related qualifications.


 

At his workshop on Developing a Learning Organisation approach to PD, Adrian Underhill highlighted a few key ideas that set me thinking about impediments to systems thinking and sharing learning that most Language Teaching Organisations (LTO) would face. Below, I examine some of the ideas from the session in the context of the LTO I work for and look at a few possible solutions.

There is no ‘arrival at quality’. It is not a rest state that you gain and retain.

Quality is an ongoing and permanent journey, driven by the constant inquiring activity of the organisation.

Like most small-medium private ELICOS providers, our LTO operates largely as an “organic organisation” (Robbins, 2011, p.451) characterised by a centralised head, the CEO, from whom all budgetary decisions flow. Vertically, there are few management tiers and departmental structures are uniformly flat with wide spans of control. Typical of an organic organisation, everybody is expected to contribute to all operational aspects and overall there is a low level of formalisation and structures, procedures and practices are flexible. Yet, within this system, largely due to what Charles Handy refers to as the dominant “person culture” (in White, Hockley, Van der Horst Jansen, & Laughner, 2008, p.36), initiative and quick decision making are the norm and any change is quick to be implemented. Profit, rather than a unifying mission and vision, is the driving imperative on which most decisions are based. Daily fire-fighting takes precedence over “systems thinking”. The LTO’s lean processes do not prioritise intangibles such as reflection, learning and investing in individuals. In such an environment, the term “quality” remains a catch phrase, an ever-elusive and mysterious state that we are constantly striving to arrive at.

How can a team of committed managers with individual IQs above 120 . . . have a collective IQ of 63?

 Peter Senge

The Academic and Marketing/Sales departments are often the two main departments at most LTOs. Conflicting priorities often mean they are at loggerheads over every issue from student recruitment, attendance monitoring to agent involvement. In the absence of a clear goal, not only do departments find it difficult to work together but it’s also not unusual for team members to compete against their teammates, focusing only on individual KPIs rather than the common goal of the team.

Such an environment serves as a hothouse for Handy’s “Person Culture” typical of small organisations. Charismatic individuals, keenly focused on self-development thrive and become indispensible to the organisation. This in turn can also breed an unhealthy “Power Culture” where the person who has the CEO’s ear has authority and can establish their own direct line of communication irrespective of hierarchy. Learning, in such an individualistic environment is not shared to benefit the team or the organisation as a whole. Such an environment instead encourages “knowledge hoarding” where knowledge is gained and not shared so that one’s own agenda and status can be furthered rather than add to the learning of the organisation. Individual learning can be wasted unless harnessed at organisational level.

 

Systems Thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole.

Systems Thinking begins when we see the world through the eyes of another . . . and realise that our own perspective is just a point of view.

A systemic view of your school sees how everything is interconnected, healthily or unhealthily.

The various departments in the LTO are largely autonomous and solely responsible for their functions. For instance, marketing functions are only carried out by the marketing team and teachers are divorced from these activities completely.

This also means there is no real need to interact with the other departments thus resulting in departmental and knowledge silos and thereby the isolation of each department. The traditional dichotomy between the English teachers and Marketing Officers is evident at our LTO and the physical location of the two departments within the building contributes to this lack of interaction. The marketing department is located in the reception area so that the students have easy access to their Marketing Officers. Though teachers walk past the reception on their way to class, there is practically no interaction between the two departments.

This lack of interaction or awareness of one another’s roles results in further disconnection between the two teams and even a lack of tolerance. Teachers often view trial students or agent visits to their classroom and an intrusion and interruption. Without an understanding of the various courses, teaching methodologies or classroom management techniques used in the classroom, marketing officers are unable to promote the schools products, services or teachers adequately. This then results in the marketing team focusing on superficial aspects of ELICOS products like “native teachers only” or “guaranteed IELTS results” without fully comprehending the complexity of the learning products. Teachers, on the other hand, lack the time or training to understand the cultural background of the students in their class and may choose to view them purely as learners rather than as fee paying customers.

Human capital is not just having smart people . . . It is having smart people who are connected up . . .

Recent changes at the LTO have necessitated a few frank discussions between the two departments particularly with regard to communication and identifying causes of miscommunication. Pressure from above to meet common targets has also had a unifying effect and this has forced the two teams to cooperate, understand one another’s viewpoints, compromise and arrive at solutions together. Progress is evident when meetings are solution-oriented rather than a discussion of hurdles in the way.

Involving teachers and marketers to collaborate on meaningful projects like looking at the nationality mix in a classroom and making decisions on student recruitment, or allowing marketers to sit in on classes to gain a deeper understanding of products they sell, can provide opportunities to recognise the contribution of the other team and bridge departmental silo-isation. A discussion at the Underhill workshop has also resulted in the idea of Marketing Officers sitting in on classes with a few key observation areas in mind and use their understanding from these observations to better promote the courses. A meet-and-greet for marketers and teachers will also be held in the following months where teachers will develop a better understanding of the cultural background, learning styles and expectations of certain student groups.

Learning becomes not just something that staff do for themselves or for the benefit of the clients . . . but something that everyone does for the flourishing of the system itself.

A small LTO like mine is keenly focused on short term goals and immediate gains rather than developing a sustainable long term approach that involves investing in their human capital. Knee-jerk reactions and seeking quick-fix solutions to problems is the norm and this often results in unforseen long-term costs being incurred by the company. Responding to daily crises takes precedence over Systems Thinking habits like reflecting on our actions and consequences, examining our mental models more deeply, and seeing how our structure affects our behaviour patterns. Such reflection is essential to all LTOs as it will reveal the learning opportunities that lie just below the surface of everything we already do and transform the organisation into a learning “hot-house”.

The first step towards this is harnessing in-house expertise and sharing this knowledge that has already been developed using the time and resources of the company. There are no “universal” solutions to “local” situations. Therefore we need to be guided by knowledge and experience from the people in the local situations . . .

We need to develop local knowledge that follows the contours of the setting and circumstances we are in.

Honest inter-departmental conversations about working towards our shared goal, once identified, are an excellent starting point. Clarity of where we want to be means we can recruit the right people who can join us on the journey and help us get there. Any failures encountered on the way would only be opportunities for further joint learning. This way the entire school and its activities transform into an adventure park for everyone’s learning.


 

References and further reading

NB: You can see the slides from see Adrian Underhill’s presentation by clicking here

Pickering, G. 1999. “The learning organisation: an idea whose time has come? ELT Management Number 27. Available from: http://lamsig.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2-Pickering-The-Learning-Organisation-2.pdf

Robbins, S.P. 2011. Organizational Behaviour. 6th ed. Pearson Australia.

White, R., Hockley, A., Van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. 2008. From Teacher to Manager: Managing Language Teaching Organizations. Cambridge University Press.

 

This post by @aparnajacob

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the individuals, and not those of #AusELT in general or of English Australia.