|
 ow
can it be," Stanford professor Larry Cuban once asked, "that so
much school reform has taken place over the last century, yet
schooling appears pretty much the same as it's always been?"
A similar question might well be asked about the integration
of new technologies into education: How can it be that so much
has been invested in equipping and wiring schools, yet few teachers
are using the new technologies on a frequent and sustained basis
to enhance student learning?
The answer, as some schools are discovering, is that the kinds
of training programs offered in the past might not represent the
most generative method of reaching a full range of teachers and
their students. The key word here is "generative" -- meaning that
behaviors and daily practice will be changed for the better as
a consequence of the professional development experience.
According to Market Data Retrieval, the majority of American
teachers receive fewer than five hours of technology-related professional
development annually, and most of that seems to be simple training.
Instead, teachers should be learning to use new tools to help
students master the key concepts and skills embedded in the curriculum
standards.
Education technology is not about PowerPointing, spreadsheeting,
or word processing. The focus of professional development should
be on teaching and learning strategies that make a difference
in daily practice -- on activities that translate into stronger
student performance. As a result of these practices and the use
of these new tools, students should be able to read, reason, and
write more powerfully; communicate productively with members of
a global community; conduct thoughtful research into the important
questions, choices, and issues of their times; make sense of a
confusing world and a swelling tide of information; and perform
well on the new, more demanding state tests requiring inferential
reasoning.
That is a tall order, but fortunately, some schools are identifying
promising new approaches. These districts are finding that adult
learning, curriculum development projects, and informal support
structures promote recurrent use of technologies aimed at deep
curriculum integration.
What teachers need 
The thoughtless embrace of new technologies can result in slick
student performances that are both glib and thin -- what some
call "PowerPointlessness." Networks often bring with them a flood
of information that is shaped, in part, by pop culture and tabloid
values. At its worst, information from the Internet can be Disneyfied
or distorted. Without a focus on sound educational principles,
learning with these new technologies can induce a kind of cut-and-paste
thinking that might actually undermine students' ability to think.
It makes sense, then, to start with curriculum and student learning
as the clear purpose for the school's computer network. Schools
create standards-based activities that employ whatever technologies
make sense -- books, e-mail, web sites, whatever. Learning is
the goal; technologies are mere delivery systems. The true challenge
of professional development is to inspire and prepare teachers
to launch these activities with the tools that make sense.
The evidence mounts, however, that few American teachers feel
adequately prepared for the challenge of using new technologies
in any fashion -- not to mention the challenge of using technologies
to support curriculum-rich, standards-based lessons. Too little
time is devoted in the wrong way to the wrong goal.
Research by Henry Jay Becker of the University of California,
Irvine, shows that teachers' preferred teaching strategies and
styles usually shape the way they use technology. "Traditional"
teachers, he says, are far less apt to allow students to use new
technologies than are "constructivist" teachers, even when they
have five or more networked computers in their classrooms. Becker's
research points to the need to do much more than teach technology
skills to teachers. We must also convince them of the value of
engaging students in problem-based or project-based learning with
these new tools.
Providing 100 additional hours of learning computer software
is not likely to transform traditional teachers into constructivist
teachers. The transformation of teaching styles, preferences,
and behaviors requires persuasion, learning by experience, and
highly personalized learning journeys.
Where we've gone wrong
Schools have relied too long on training models and have put
too much emphasis on learning software. The training model usually
involves a march through a series of skill lessons with little
adjustment made for students' individual learning styles, developmental
stages, or personal preferences. Because the skills are often
learned out of context, they seem remote from classroom practice
and leave many teachers wondering about the utility and worth
of such skills.
What makes this training model even worse is the frequent use
of generic examples that widen the gap even further for the teacher
who is asking, "How can I use this tool to teach fifth-grade social
studies?" And worse yet, many software training companies rely
on business examples and know little or nothing about education.
When "office" training becomes the norm, many teachers rebel at
the intrusion of office metaphors, examples, and content into
programs that should focus on schools, classrooms, curriculum,
and students.
The training model sometimes adds insult to injury by rushing
the learner through dozens of skills in too short a time, with
insufficient guided practice to reach a comfortable level of familiarity
and skill. Rushing learners will only aggravate any anxiety, concern,
and latent resistance they already feel.
Clearly, the training model isn't working. After 20 years of
training teachers to use new technologies, a large percentage
of them report feeling ill prepared to use technologies in curriculum-rich
ways. Data reported in Education Week's Technology Counts '99
show that teachers are not making widespread use of their networks,
now that many more schools and classrooms are wired. In fact,
according to Technology Counts, most teachers say they are not
well prepared to use new technologies.
Cultivating professional development
The most effective learning strategies require a change in the
ways teachers spend their time and the ways they work together.
Informal support systems, partnerships, teams, and collaborative
structures might be the most effective elements in a broad-based
change effort.
Gardening provides a useful metaphor: We will see more growth
if we cultivate the soil and fertilize before planting. Focusing
exclusively on skills and software is a bit like spreading seeds
across a concrete playground.
As in gardening, too, cross-fertilization can produce more fruitful
results than can individual efforts. In many schools, teachers
are isolated from each other and preoccupied with getting through
their schedules. Many teachers will cling to routines they have
enjoyed in the past until they are equipped and encouraged to
find, invent, and test new routines that are suitable and reliable
replacements. This creative exploration requires a change in schools
that breaks down isolation, facilitates the work of teams, and
provides ample time for program development.
The work of Michael Fullan, Bruce Joyce, Terence Deal, and Ann
Lieberman makes it quite clear that real change requires attention
to many organizational issues rarely addressed by those installing
networks and computers.
Effective strategies
Real change in a school's learning culture also demands a comprehensive
effort. Taken separately, various individual efforts might make
important contributions, but the best approach is to blend many
strategies together so that they create a compounding impact on
the learning culture. Here are some to consider:
• Professional growth programs. Under this scenario,
the district -- with the support of the teacher association --
adopts a professional growth program that clarifies the commitment
of the board and the staff to the value of on-going professional
development and change.
A key component is the professional growth plan (PGP) written
by each teacher, following district guidelines. This document,
which is shared with the building principal, becomes the road
map to guide each teacher's learning during the year and helps
the principal be an effective supervisor, providing resources
and support as needed.
Typically, the teacher lists two or three main areas for growth
and specifies activities most likely to promote the growth. If
the district has made a major investment in new technologies,
all teachers might be asked to include a technology integration
goal.
• Study groups. Teachers gather in small groups
of their own choosing to meet weekly for an hour or more to pursue
shared growth goals, as listed in their PGPs. They determine the
best path toward completing the goals. They might sign up for
classes, call for small tutorials, browse online resources, read
outstanding professional books, and attend conferences together.
In keeping with the tenets of adult learning, teachers learn best
when they can make choices in content, pacing, and styles while
enjoying the support of a team of like-minded fellow learners.
• Curriculum development/invention teams. When teams
of teachers gather to build standards-based units that they can
actually use with their students, some remarkable technology learning
takes place. Mixing skeptical, late-adopting teachers on the same
team with enthusiastic early-adopters and a strong school librarian
can lead to convergence and mutual respect, as all the inventors
find common ground during the invention process.
Even though the focus of these activities might be student learning
and curriculum, participants are "learning by doing" -- another
basic tenet of adult learning. Those with limited technology skills
often emerge with more comfort, skill, and competence -- and the
appetite and inclination to use the new tools.
Many school districts -- including Baltimore County, Md.; Grand
Prairie, Texas; and the Country Areas Program in New South Wales,
Australia -- have employed this strategy to create dozens of research
modules. Another successful example of this approach comes
from California, where, under a three-year Challenge Grant program,
the San Diego Schools immersed teachers in substantial learning
that resulted in the creation of many outstanding Internet-based
lessons, called WebQuests.
• Technology coaches, mentors, and cadres. Just
as novice rock climbers and pilots benefit from the tutelage and
support of more experienced climbers and fliers, schools find
that teachers can make good progress with the kinds of learning
associated with new technologies if they have skilled partners
working alongside them.
Some districts assign effective teachers to this role full time
for a year or more, so that late-adopting teachers have a built-in
support system to take them through the difficult early stages.
The mentor's involvement is temporary and drops away as the novice
teacher develops skill and confidence.
In a related strategy, schools create leadership cadres with
a broad mix of teachers who explore the leading edge of new practices
and sort through publishers' often inflated claims to help the
rest of the teachers focus their learning on opportunities that
are worth pursuing. In this way, the cadre becomes a prime factor
in planning professional
development opportunities for the rest of the staff.
In Omaha, Neb., Educational Service Unit No. 3 made peer coaching
and the teacher cadre key ingredients of its highly successful
grant-supported project, The
Learning Web. Invention teams from surrounding school districts
gather each summer to invent curriculum units with strong technology
elements. Each team works with a specially trained facilitator
to guide the process.
• Just-in-time support. In this approach, schools
strengthen the resources available on a day-to-day basis so that
any teacher who is having difficulties can find help within minutes.
Instead of relying on a few specialists who never seem to be available,
the school makes sure that one-third of the staff has specialized
technology skills and can be called on to support colleagues who
are looking for guidance, encouragement, and timely trouble-shooting
assistance. Supplementing this adult support is gender-balanced
support from students who are taught how to support others diplomatically
in their technology efforts.
In the Antelope
Valley (Calif.) Union High School District, this just-in-time
support is delivered via laptop carts at each high school by providing
extra staffing that is rarely available in most schools: (1) a
full-time instructional technology teacher with technology coaching
responsibilities; (2) a one-period laptop coordinator; (3) a technology
aide responsible for keeping all the laptop carts and equipment
operating at full capacity; and (4) one or more computer lab assistants
and full-time network support technicians. This additional staffing
makes just-in-time support a reality, allowing teachers to focus
on teaching.
• Help lines and FAQs. Just as many companies are
finding that customers can get timely assistance through online
help resources and FAQs, schools could and should provide more
of this kind of support so that teachers can swiftly find answers
to commonly asked questions and frequently encountered problems.
A friendly person on a help line can ease teachers' sense of isolation
and frustration and boost their willingness to take risks with
technology.
• School visits, conferences, and other excursions.
Real change can occur when teachers have a chance to see more
of the outside world. Typically isolated from new developments
in the workplace or in other schools, teachers have little basis
for shifting their own behaviors, little opportunity to appreciate
the upheaval in practices around them. A day spent behind the
scenes in an architectural office, a shipping company, or a newspaper
can show how technology works in other settings and motivate teachers
to explore new approaches. Such excursions can have tremendous
value, provided they are followed by well-structured consideration
of implications for the learning program back at school.
• Online learning. Many teachers are beginning to
taste a mixture of online learning experiences that allow for
progress without attending formal classes. Some of these new offerings
are little more than 1950s college syllabi dressed up with online
reading assignments and chat sessions. Others offer learning that
is enticing, substantial, and generative.
Districts can now contract for online professional development
programs with providers such as Apex
Learning, Classroom Connect's Connected
University, and Teacher
Universe.
If designed properly, these online learning programs may offer
many advantages: an emphasis on learning as opposed to teaching;
learning that is independent of time or place; and learning that
is self-paced, customized, and competency-based.
The bottom line
When a district puts the horse before the cart, investing all
of its money in equipment and networking rather than taking a
more balanced approach, there will be little left over for human
infrastructure once it has finished with the installation of a
network.
But it need not be so. By slowing down and taking advantage
of concepts such as "strategic deployment" -- moving wireless
computers around to maximize usage -- a district can achieve more
actual contact time with fewer desktops. Unfortunately, most districts
spread equipment out thinly and evenly, so that no teachers have
"critical mass" of available equipment. In many of these classrooms,
the equipment will see little use.
Before committing most funds to equipment, school boards should
give attention to planning concepts such as the total cost of
ownership -- that is, all of the costs associated with operating
a network of computers. While it may be tempting to focus on the
hardware, that is a dangerous and short-sighted approach.
Boards should also ensure that a thoughtful assessment strategy
is in place to determine teachers' level of development and identify
offerings that match their needs and preferences. Such an assessment
strategy makes it possible to steer the program forward. (See
"Finding
Your Way Through The Data Smog" by Joe Slowinski.)
The ultimate goal is daily, effective use of new technologies
in standards-based, curriculum-rich lessons. We should be able
to walk down the hallways of any school in the district and see
teachers and students using tools -- sometimes a book, sometimes
a calculator, sometimes a networked computer -- in appropriate,
powerful ways.
If we invest in robust professional development with an emphasis
on adult learning strategies, we can expect all teachers to learn,
grow, and move forward, sometimes relying on high touch, sometimes
on high tech, and sometimes on a magical blend of both.
Jamie McKenzie is the editor of From
Now On, an online education technology journal. His most
recent book is Beyond Technology: Questioning, Research and
the Information Literate School, published by FNO Press. This
article copyright 2000 by Jamie McKenzie.
Becker, Henry Jay. Internet
Use by Teachers. 1999.
Deal, Terrence E. and Kent D. Peterson. Shaping School Culture:
The Heart of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Fullan, Michael G. The New Meaning of Educational Change.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.
Fullan, Michael G. What's Worth Fighting for in Your School.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.
Joyce, Bruce R. and Marsha Weil. Models of Teaching.
Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, 1996.
Joyce, Bruce R., editor. Changing School Culture through
Staff Development. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1990.
Lieberman, Ann and Lynne Miller. Teachers -- Transforming
Their World and Their Work. New York: Teachers College Press,
1999.
McKenzie, Jamie. How Teachers Learn Technology Best.
Bellingham, Wash.: FNO
Press, 1999.
Mendels, Pamela. "Survey Finds Teachers Unprepared for Computer
Use." New York Cybertimes, September 8, 1999.
Technology
Counts '99. Education Week. Sept. 23, 1999.
Trotter, Andrew. "Preparing
Teachers For the Digital Age." Technology Counts '99.
Education Week. Sept. 23, 1999.
|
