IT vs. TI: How Can You Tell the Difference in Staff Development

by Michael J. Johnson, Ph.D.

T

oo many of us involved in education from legislators to school board members and parents to superintendents and district office administrators to principals and teachers, do not understand what effective classroom technology integration is, let alone what are effective staff development programs that educate teachers on how to get there. Many IT directors (those whose responsibility it is to lead Instructional Technology (IT) (and often the network, MIS, and other technology functions) do not fully understand Technology Integration (TI). The common misconception is that school districts purchase technology and give the teachers a day or two of training on how to turn it on with some instruction in word processing and a computerized grade book and then expect something marvelous to happen with technology in classrooms. It just doesnπt happen that way and I have seen it done over and over again in every one of the 30 states I have visited in the last four years.

The Problem Is Scaleable

This subtitle of course is another play on words. Many curriculum and staff development professionals often want to know if a staff development program is scaleable, if the program/system works from a few teachers in a school to the state level covering thousands of teachers. Well this lack of in-depth knowledge about technology staff development goes from the state levels to the classroom. I have heard high ranking Department of Education officials in several states advocate for a day or two of in-service as being sufficient and add then explain that their vision (and the best use) of educational technology is to track every studentπs progress on their state standards. Given that perspective, the inoculation method (there are only two staff development days left until the new millennium) might be a valid solution. Some have even designed large-scale models of technology staff development based on this limited understanding. But if educators really want to understand and experience the power and the promise of educational technology for transforming classrooms into places of curiosity, joyous hard work, and wonder, then they might want to think about TI.

They Just Donπt Go Far Enough

Those who believe that a day or two software skills training is an effective staff development program for technology integration are not completely off track-- they just donπt see far enough. Software skills development is the first Tier of staff development for an effective technology integration program. The problem is that there are at least two tiers beyond that level that have to happen and these tiers are not amenable to the one in-service day per year approach.

So How Would You Know TI If You See IT?

Just about every school district with technology delivers basic software skills training (the click and point of computing) and most do a pretty good job of it. Technology Integration staff development and beyond are the problem. I have gleaned some basic concepts from the ACOT ten year plus longitudinal studies and from my independent research and writing over the last four years, visiting over a hundred schools across the nation.

If you walk into a staff development session and you see some of the following, then you are seeing some of the elements of TI and beyond faculty development. (This list is not meant to be inclusive, just a basic sampling of good practice.)

You know that the staff development your are observing is on the right track if you observe:

∑ Participants are learning by doing, situated learning. The staff development instructor has set up the classroom just like the teachersπ own classrooms and teachers are organized in a manner similar to how they are expected to organize their students for effective technology integration

∑ The instructor is modeling what she/he is expecting the teachers to do in their classrooms

∑ Teachers spend time reflecting and writing about what they are learning and how they learn

∑ Teachers have structured time to interact, discuss what they are learning, and plan together during the in-service and when back in the regular classroom

∑ The in-service is part of a series of in-service days and activities, not a one shot day or two

∑ The principal and other administrators are there learning with the teachers, or at least present during the sessions, to show their interest and the importance they place on the in-service

∑ The instruction involves ≥make it and take it≤ activities where teachers can take what they develop in the sessions and immediately use them with their students back in their classrooms

∑ The instruction involves projects, working together to create materials

∑ The session projects are based on and tied to state or national standards (such as the ISTE national standards) for technology integration and teacher technology skills

∑ Make it and take it projects are based on state and national student standards and tend to be interdisciplinary

∑ The instruction considers and supports learners at all ends of the spectrum (Teachers will vary greatly in their experience and skill level with technology and with technology integration and with how fast they incorporate change)

∑ Teachers are not sitting there passive listening to a long lecture (about how to implement student learning teams for example). Whole-class instruction (one instructor lecturing) is just one method of instruction and not the main one. You see teachers working together and doing things themselves with the instructor walking around facilitating and checking for understanding

∑ Those attending the in-service want to be there and emphasis is placed on training teachers who are ready and interested, resources are not wasted on those who are not interested yet

∑ The technology instructors (and principals) tell the truth: Effective technology integration ≥requires teachers to make changes of huge magnitude in educational philosophy, classroom management, and curricular goals≤ (Quote found in: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-15/32foa.h15)

∑ The social and emotional aspects of learning to use technology are taken into account: the workshop planning involves sharing ideas and food and times for social interaction where expressing emotional aspects of change is discussed. Feelings about change are identified and expressed in a positive setting

∑ The instruction is taking place on-site, if possible in the teachersπ own school. (Some principals establish small training labs in their school for this purpose.)

∑ The staff development activities also involve teachers visiting other teachersπ classrooms and/or a permanent teacher development center. This model classroom is functioning classroom with real students. Teachers can come observe, ask questions, and learn to model by first hand experience

Donπt Forget Change Models and Factors

This brief article does not address the other major research and planning factor of the technological change: The sociological aspects of human change and how innovations move across human populations. Human change involves individuals and groups making decisions about what innovations or methods to adopt. Change is an evolutionary journey that has definite stages. I will cover more about this topic in future articles. For more information on this aspect of staff development see:

http://www.Apple.com/education/k12/staffdev/tchrcenterstaff.html

Summary:

Sir Isaac Newton once said, ≥If I have seen farther, it is only because I have been standing on the shoulders of giants.≤ In education we have thousands of giants, those innovative teachers and administrators who gone before us and explored and mapped this raw land of educational technology and all the promise that it holds for revitalizing Americaπs education system. When you walk into those special classrooms and see excited, enthusiastic students loving learning and what they are doing, -- you know that teachers and technology are really making a difference in the lives and learning of students.

References:

∑ ACOT refers to the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow longitudinal study of classroom technology. The research involved Apple Computer, the National Science Foundation, and 23 other organizations, universities, and school districts.

http://www.research.apple.com/go/acot/

http://www.Apple.com/education/k12/staffdev/staffdevelop.html

∑ Two articles in Education Week by the author and Lin Foa and Richard Schwab

Upgrading School Technology: Support the Zealots

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-15/32foa.h15

Connecting Teachers is Only a Start

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/02foa.h17

∑ Upcoming article in Journal of Theory into Practice (Winter, 1999), ≥Reconstructing the Process and Meaning of Teaching with Technology≤

About the Author:

Dr. Johnson has 25 years experience as a teacher, school administrator, university professor/department chair, state department of education coordinator, and school board association manager. He is currently Director of Strategic Initiatives for Western Region Education for Apple Computer, Inc.