Teachers’ Training Experience as a Critical Determinant of the Quality of Drug Education among Students

Abstract

Educational system plays a significant role in drug prevention nowadays. Preventive work requires an interaction of all the links in the anti-drug preventive measures system due to the responsibility and complexity of work with young people. Therefore, the appropriate training of teachers, that will enable them to integrate some components of preventive education programs into the learning process, as well as to use suitable teaching methods is of great importance. The purpose of the paper is to identify key obstacles for teachers in implementation of preventive anti-drug activities among students and to reveal some ways of increasing its effectiveness. According to the results, the key constraints for teachers in delivering drug prevention activities to students are lack of knowledge on the topic; inactive civic standpoint; lack of personal commitment to carry out this type of work; teachers’ belief that drug abuse prevention is a responsibility of specialized trained experts, but not all teaching staff; low level of social recognition of a teacher’s profession in contemporary society. The article suggests the following possible ways of enhancing the effectiveness of prevention in educational institutions: the development of positive motivation of teachers to implement elements of prevention; qualified pre-service training with the focus on effective prevention techniques; continual education and retraining of both the teachers and the training of staff by means of training courses, workshops; active cooperation of all agencies involved in prevention activities.

Keywords: Teacher, training, drug prevention activities, youth, efficiency

Introduction

Drug abuse and steady "rejuvenation" of the narcotization process is a critical issue in contemporary

society. Age of first drug experience is about 11-14 years in Russia (Yentina, 2001) and 11-15 years in

the UK (Fuller, 2005; Miller and Plant, 1996). Numerous studies show that the number of young

people experimenting with drugs have significantly increased during the last decades (Parker, Aldridge

and Measham, 1998; Balding, 1994). Despite the fact that some authors underline the stabilization of

continue to pose a major threat to the future of the nation. Therefore, the organization and

implementation of drug prevention activities is a priority task for any government and country. This

complex task requires interaction of all the links in preventive measures system. Primary prevention is

perceived as the most effective and preferable. School-age is critical in terms of experimenting with

illicit substances and development of deviant behaviors that can lead to drug use. Therefore, schools

and other educational institutions are seen as one of the main places in which drug prevention and

education take place. Surely teachers cannot be solely responsible for drug prevention, but the system

of education has incontestable advantages in providing drug education programs. Firstly, young people

spend considerable part of their lives in a school setting and teachers have an opportunity to create

health-promoting environment and to encourage the youngsters make right choices and have healthy

lifestyle. Secondly, teachers are able to constantly assess the results of preventive work and have a

chance to increase the effectiveness of drug education by means of close cooperation with parents. In

these circumstances the teachers’ training in terms of drug education becomes of paramount

importance.

The purpose of the paper is to identify key constraints for teachers to drug education and to define

the ways of increasing teachers’ readiness to deliver preventive programs.

Research methods

The paper is a theoretical analysis of empirical data obtained through teachers’ surveys conducted

throughout Russia and the UK at different times.

The study employs the comprehensive approach that permits the examination of teacher training in

terms of drug education as a complex and continuous process depending on a variety of factors.

General scientific methods such as the method of analysis and comparative method were used. The

application of comparative method enabled the author to reveal the common and the distinctive in the

way Russian and English teachers perceive their role in drug education delivery.

Findings

The effectiveness of drug prevention and education and the role a teacher plays in these activities

are under constant evaluation. Researchers conclude that the efficiency of any program strongly

depends on the quality of teacher training (Sharp, 1994; Tobler and Stratton, 1997; McBride, 2003).

According to Tobler (1992), drug education is effective when conducted by classroom teachers as they

understand the class particular needs and level of students’ development. Therefore, elements of drug

education enter the educational process at an appropriate time and level for students. Besides, teachers

can make small changes to the program to adapt it to the needs.

Surveys carried out in two countries revealed a real contradiction between the preconditions-

primary prevention to be carried out by teachers on the one hand, and teachers’ readiness to deliver

drug education on the second. This contradiction justified the need for detailed study of teachers’ role

in drug prevention among students.

Teachers are reluctant to speak on drug related topics to their students and deeply convinced that the

problem of drug use prevention among young people is the mission of trained experts. Though teachers

perceive drug education as an integral part of healthy lifestyle, they put themselves only in the fourth

place among those who have to carry out prevention among students after specialized agencies’

employees, psychologists, trained experts (Materials of 11th National Conference of the Association of

Social Workers, 1998).

Teachers usually lack confident knowledge and experience of drug scene (Powney and Lowden,

2001; Materials of 11th National Conference of the Association of Social Workers, 1998;

Chernyshova, 2015), this makes them feel uncomfortable with providing drug education. Despite this,

schools are supported by government and local authorities to deal with drug related incidents; teaching

staff lack confidence to act on their own and often prefer to draw on external supporters from the police

and other agencies. Indeed, external contributors such as doctors and medical staff, police officers,

psychologists, social workers, etc. are often attracted to deliver drug education (White, Buckley and

Hassa, 2004). External sessions often differ from routine teaching methods in terms of interactivity as

children and teenagers get involved in role-playing and discussions. The disadvantage of external

provisions is that experts must fit in the curriculum. Besides, some preparatory and follow-up work

should be done by classroom teachers. As specialized experts are not qualified teachers, their teaching

skills, methods of education delivery and quality of knowledge should also be assessed.

It is important to bear in mind that drug education doesn’t involve only providing information about

drugs. Another and more crucial aspect of prevention is helping young people to make informed

decisions concerning their health and well-being. In this relation, students would rather respond to such

teaching methods that increase their own participation such as role-play or discussion. It means that a

teacher providing drug education doesn’t need to be an expert on drugs. The point is that drug

prevention concerns decision making skills more than just supply of factual information (Cohen, 2015).

So, to guarantee that school-based providers have sufficient and up to date knowledge, understand

effective teaching methods and feel comfortable delivering drug education programs, a certain type of

training is required. Sharp (1994) and Williams et.al (1999) underline that training should directly train

the teacher engaged in the classroom delivery as the trainer patterns often turn to be ineffective due to

key teachers’ lack of certainty, skills and experience in training colleagues. Training represents a stated

value when provided by program developers and offered to motivated and determined teachers (Tobler,

1992).

Speaking about motivation another obstacle for teachers should be mentioned namely inactive civic

standpoint or lack of personal commitment to carry out drug education activities. There is no strong

demand among most teachers for consideration of health oriented education. It’s a concern of minor

number of teachers; for the vast majority of those working in schools drug education is of secondary

concern (Jourdan, 2011). More than 50% of teaching staff who attended training courses on prevention

claimed that they were motivated by external factors such as getting a certificate for increasing the

qualification category (Materials of 11th National Conference of the Association of Social Workers,

1998).

Teachers’ personal involvement with drug prevention programs is also important as it is associated

with the frequency these programs are integrated into the learning process.

It is obvious that hard preparatory work should be accomplished at the stage of initial training of

student teachers. Pre-service training would enrich student teachers’ appreciation of important drug and

health related issues, provide them with contextual information about drugs and drug cultures, about

harmful effects of drugs on health, introduce approaches and methods proven to be effective, build

teachers' confidence to deliver drug education, increase their personal involvement in the process.

Among other obstacles, teachers mention dissatisfaction in their profession’s social position and

recognition (Materials of 11th National Conference of the Association of Social Workers, 1998), lack

of curriculum time, lack of financial support (Thurman and Boughelaf, 2015).

To sum it up, the possible ways of enhancing the effectiveness of drug education are: adequate

teachers’ training, including quality pre-service training with the focus on the effective prevention

techniques, continuous re-education of teaching professionals by means of boost training, workshops,

provision of teaching staff with clear guidelines and resources, increasing their motivation and job

satisfaction.

Conclusions

The analysis of theoretical literature and empirical data on the issue of teachers’ training in the field

of drug education and prevention in a school setting revealed the following:

1. Teachers in the framework of educational process have great potential to carefully instill

students with the skills of healthy lifestyle. The quality of drug prevention programs is determined

by the personal desire and involvement as well as by the level of teachers’ training.

2. The key constraints for teachers in delivering drug prevention activities to students are lack of

knowledge on the topic; inactive civic standpoint; lack of personal desire to conduct such work;

teachers’ belief that drug abuse prevention is a responsibility of highly specialized experts, but not

for teaching staff; growing dissatisfaction of a teacher’s work due to low level of social recognition

of this profession in today’s society.

3. It is crucial to carry out preliminary work with the teachers in order to get them interested in a

result because lack of motivation and personal commitment to drug education may make teachers to

be less successful in prevention. The teachers’ training should take into account their individual

psychological characteristics and internal emotional state.

4. Pre-service training in drug education for student teachers has to be an integral part of

educational process and should begin with modeling the pedagogically justified learning

environment.

Recommendations

The findings of the study can be used by pedagogical and social staff to develop the algorithm of

activities aimed at increasing the effectiveness of drug prevention educational programs provided by

teachers.

References

• Balding, J. (1994). Young people and illegal drugs, 1989-1995: facts and predictions. A report based on

• data collected between 1989 & 1994, using the Health Behavior Questionnaire. 37p.

• Balding, J. (2000). Young people and illegal drugs in 2000. Exeter: Schools Health Education Unit. 29p. Chrnyshova, V.N. (2013). Increase in effectiveness of training of comprehensive school institution teachers for drug prevention among pupils. Topical issues of pedagogy, 1:145-148.

• Cohen, J., (2015). Drug education – Bridging the divide between teachers and students. Education in the North, 22:74 -76.

• Fuller, E. (2016). Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2005, a survey carried out for The Information Centre for health and social care. Retrieved January 31, 2016 from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB00301/drug-smok-drin-youn-peop-eng-2005-rep2.pdf.

• Jourdan, D. (2011). Health education in schools. The challenge of teacher training. Saint-Denis, 144p. McBride, N. (2003). A systematic review of school drug education. Health Education Research, Vol.18, Issue 6:729-742.

• Miller, P.M., Plant, M. (1996). Drinking, smoking and illicit drug use among 15 and 16 year olds in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 313:394-7.

• Parker, H.J., Aldridge, J. and Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure: the normalization of adolescent recreational drug use. London: Routledge, 183p.

• Powney, J., and Lowden, K. (2001). From information to moral issues: dilemmas in drug education. Pp.84-92. Retrieved May 15, 2016 from: http://www.ser.stir.ac.uk/pdf/123.pdf.

• Professional skills social workers. (1998). Materials of 11th National Conference of the Association of Social Workers. Moscow: Social Work.

• Sharp, C. (1994). Alcohol education for young people: a review of the literature from 1983-1992. National Foundation for Education Research.

• Shiner M., and Newburn T. (1996). Young people, drugs and peer education: an evaluation of the Youth Awareness Programme. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper. Paper B, 13. London: HMSO Books. 66p. Thurman, B., Boughelaf, J. (2015). “We don’t get taught enough”: An assessment of drug education provision in schools in England. Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol.15, No.3, pp.127-140.

• Tobler, N. (1992) Drug prevention programs can work: research findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 11, 1–28.

• Tobler, N., and Stratton, H. (1997.) Effectiveness of school based drug prevention programs: a meta-‐analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18:71–128.

• White, D., Buckley, E., Hassa, J. (2004). Literature review on the role of external contributors in school drug, alcohol and tobacco education. Staffordshire University, 161 p.

• Williams, C., Perry, C., Farbakhsh, K. and Veblen-‐Mortenson, S. (1999). Project Northlands: comprehensive alcohol use prevention for young adolescents, their parents, schools, peers and community. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 13”112–124.

• Yentina, E.G. (2001). II Materials of Congress on Child Psychiatry. (72-73). Moscow: Rosinex. 372p.