You are here:

Staff Development: A Tale of Two Programs
PROCEEDINGS

, Temple University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-44-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Abstract: Over the last decade or more, large amounts of money have been invested in establishing school based computer labs, classrooms with Internet connections, and at least on Internet ready computer per classroom. Research indicates that staff development is the key to whether these investments are successful. This paper presents two staff development programs from on large urban school district with different outcomes. As school districts continue to spend scarce resources on technology innovations, learning how to predict sustainable change is important.

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade extensive amounts of money have been invested in establishing school based computer labs, classrooms with Internet connections and at least one Internet ready computer for every classroom. Conferences are dedicated to discussing the impact and importance of computers in education (e.g., SITE, Ed-Media). The proceedings from these conferences offer tips on how to integrate technology into teacher education programs, staff development tips, specific topics related to teaching math and science, and comparisons of technology implementations between countries. There are journals dedicated to technology in education, again with examples of implementation programs, uses of the Internet, and more. The key to effective impact of technology in classrooms, however, lies in whether the teacher knows how to use the computer, Internet, and/or software in pedagogically appropriate ways for her students.

Current technology training for teachers is insufficient. While the U.S. Department of Education recommends spending 30% of school technology money on training, the reality is that only 12-18% is used for training (Giordano, 2001). The fact that many teachers do not use technology in ways other than for games for reinforcement is not shocking. Most public school teachers were not taught by teachers who used technology, so they have no model from which to work. Rogers (1995) theory of "diffusion of innovation" explains that only when the innovation is seen as better than current practice, among other characteristics, will it be embraced. The ACOT studies (Fisher, Dwyer, and Yocam, 1996) demonstrated that teachers need time to reach the point where the technology is truly one more tool in the toolbox. And, while there are numerous studies that indicate positive outcomes from technology infused teaching and learning, technology is one more intrusion into classroom activities, often seen by teachers as something to take up time. This paper compares two teacher development projects designed to help teachers learn how to appropriately use technology to improve literacy, and attempts to predict which will more likely provide sustained change.

BACKGROUND

As part of a Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) Grant received by a large urban school district (e.g., over 200,000 students district wide), several projects were developed to help teachers learn how to use technology to impact reading and writing abilities of children in grades PreK-8. One of those projects was designed to teach 4th through 8th grade teachers how to use technology as part of project centered learning (PCL). Another project created a mentoring process coupled with both face-to-face and online training to teach Kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers how to use technology in their classrooms more effectively. These two projects had the same overall goal using two different approaches.

The school district contracted this author to assess of the implementation of the grant. My objective was to assess how each project was implemented and the impact on teachers in classrooms. This paper presents a comparison between two of the staff development approaches to help teachers use technology to improve literacy. A sample of teachers who participated in the two projects were interviewed and observed in their classrooms after completion of the training programs, or participated in focus group discussions of their experiences. This qualitative data was used to compare teacher response to the two programs and to provide guidance for future program development.

PROJECTS

The developers of the first project adapted an established teacher development course in PCL for infusion of technology into PCL. The course lasted 15 weeks, and teachers received a Mac computer for their classroom upon successful completion of the course. The course taught the basic principals of PCL and how to design a cross-curriculum project. In addition, the course taught the participants how to effectively use specific software, and how to use the Internet. The course was delivered through community technology centers to selected teachers selected. The trainers were oriented to the course two weeks prior to the first implementation to ensure to ensure comparability of delivery across trainers. The PCL project director did not participate in delivery of the course. Approximately 500 teachers started the course, and 450 completed it.

The second project involved identifying teachers who were successfully integrating technology into classroom activities (mentors), and teachers who wanted to learn how to integrate technology into their classrooms effectively (mentees). This project was initially developed through another grant, and the director both developed the program and taught most of the face-to-face classes.

The mentees initially attended 3 face-to-face classes where they learned how to use a laptop computer, to use specific software, and to use the Internet. They were introduced to an online discussion forum, where they would have five online modules for the program, assignments and a journaling area. These teachers were loaned a laptop computer throughout the program to do the online assignments either at home or at school. After the face-to-face sessions, the mentees were paired with a mentor, whose classroom they visited over two days. During this time, the mentors modeled infusion of technology. The mentee was to "soak up" as much information as possible and return to his classroom to implement technology into literacy activities. There was follow-up over the next three months by the mentor and a district technology person. One hundred and sixty eight teachers completed the mentoring program.

DISCUSSION

These two projects were very different, even though they had the same goal. The first had a project director who helped write the curriculum, helped train the trainers, and then went on to new projects. The second project had a director who was intimately involved with curriculum development and out in the field with the teachers in the classrooms. The first project depended on many sites and instructors to implement to course, while the second brought all the participants to a central location for training with a small consistent group of instructors that included the project director. The teachers in the first project only had access at the training centers to the new software they were learning and received a classroom computer upon successful course completion. The second project provided laptop computers for the teachers throughout the training and then replaced the laptop with a Mac computer for the classroom. Training received in the PCL course depended on the trainer, while formal training in the mentoring program was centralized and scripted. The only variant for the mentees was to which mentor they were assigned. The first project had no follow-up activities or support, while the mentoring program had 3 months follow-up technical support and ongoing support through the project website.

The full impact of these two projects cannot be assessed in a short time, no matter what teachers say upon interview. According to the ACOT studies, significant change in teaching with technology takes years to accomplish, not weeks or months. Obviously, this paper cannot report which project achieved definitive change. However, using the literature on diffusion of innovations and on implementation of innovative educational programs as a guide, there are elements in the two project descriptions that can be used to predict sustained change. Rogers (1995) suggests five sequential stages in the process of adopting an innovation: knowledge of the innovation, forming an attitude toward the innovation, decision to adopt or reject, implementation, and confirmation of decision. The ACOT (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1990) studies also suggest teachers go through five phases toward technology integration: entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation and invention. Fullan & Pomfret (1977), in their review of research on curriculum and instruction implementation, posit five dimensions of implementation in practice - changes in materials, structure, role/behavior, knowledge and understanding, and value internalization.

One of the most comprehensive studies of educational innovation was the RAND Change Agent study of implementation of the ESEA Title III, Bilingual Education, Right-to-Read, and Vocational Education programs of the late 1960's through the mid-1970's. They reported that well-implemented reforms had a strong training component, practical workshops and locally available technical assistance. Effective follow-up support must address teacher's specific problems in implementing the strategy in their classrooms: "Classroom changes were most apparent where the projects provided teachers with some form of classroom support, which complemented the training and/or materials development phases of the project" (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975, p. 45).

Using this literature as a lens on the two projects, one could argue that the participants made it through the technology integration entry phase and were working through the adoption phase. They had received training in, what was for them, innovative ways to use technology to affect literacy. Both projects provide knowledge of the innovation, an opportunity to form an attitude and to adopt or reject, and to implement new skills in the classroom. Participants were provided materials, examples of different classroom structure and teacher/student roles, and opportunity to develop knowledge and understanding of infusing technology into teaching literacy. However, only one of the two projects provided the follow-up support back into the classroom. Previous assessment of success of educational programs for change indicates that one predictor of success is ongoing support after teacher training programs. The mentoring project described has ongoing support for the participants, initially through classroom visits, and then through the online discussion at the website. The PCL project offered training and technology with no follow-up. One can predict that as these teachers are re-interviewed in the new academic year that teachers who took the PCL training may continue to implement the principals of PCL using technology, but that the teachers who took part in the mentoring project will more likely continue to use both the technical skills and resources acquired.

CONCLUSIONS

School districts are obligated to provide teacher development programs of all kinds. Some training has greater impact than others. Overall, behavioral change is difficult to accomplish. In the case of the two technology-related projects described, support beyond the training program may be the key to sustained change. This paper presents only the first year of looking at the implementation of two programs intended to change teaching behavior, however, long term impact may be predicted. As school districts continue to spend scarce resources on technology innovations, learning how to predict sustainable change is important.

REFERENCES

Berman, P. & McGlaughlin, M.W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. IV. The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1990). The evolution of teacher's instructional beliefs and practices in high-access-to-technology classrooms. Boston, MA: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D.C., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1): 335-397.

Giordano, V.A. (2001). Teachers, technology and staff development: Planning for sustained change. Paper presented at the 12th International Society for the Information Technology in Teacher Education Conference, Orlando, FL.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Citation

Schifter, C. (2002). Staff Development: A Tale of Two Programs. In D. Willis, J. Price & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2002--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 712-715). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.