Rapid technological advances are presenting education with unparalleled opportunities and challenges. A conservative estimate claims that computer power is doubling every 18 months (Kinnaman, 1997). Each new increase in power has been accompanied by increases in flexibility and affordability. With the affordability and accessibility of increased bandwidths, schools can now have access to an almost endless volume of information from anywhere in the world. Lewis J. Perelman (1994) stated that, "Had the power of educational technology grown at the same pace over the last four decades as the power of computer technology, a high school or college diploma - which still take 12 and 4 years respectively, to produce, at an average cost for either of about $60,000 - could be produced in less than ten minutes for about five cents!" (p. 183). In response to this rapid change teachers must learn how to harness the potential these changes can provide.
Schools for the most part, recognize the importance of providing their students with technological opportunities. These opportunities are interpreted by many in the educational community as the provision of hardware and software. This is indeed an important step in the process but it is dangerous to assume the journey is over at this point. Seeing a school well out-fitted with hardware and software can create a false sense of security. The presence of these devices alone does not guarantee that students are incorporating them into their learning in a meaningful way. The budget spent on technology must include a training component that prepares teachers to incorporate technology into the learning process. All too often this is neglected.
The federal government's Office of Technology Assessment revealed in a 1995 report that U.S. schools spend 55 percent of their technology budgets on hardware, 30 percent on software and only 15 percent on development and training. This last figure is half of what technology experts recommend in the area of development and training and points to a need to reevaluate our priorities in this regard. The Denver-based organization, Quality Education Data, stated that in 1995-1996 schools spent in excess of $4 billion on technology. This translates to $94 per pupil. Only four percent, or $3.35 per pupil was spent on technology training (Harrington-Lueker, 1996).
There are some points of light in this gloomy landscape. Kentucky, for example, affords both technology and professional development a prominent place in its reform plans. Some states such as Florida, Texas and California have mandated the provision of technological training. Florida insists that 30 percent of the state funds a school district receives be directed at training activities for teachers (Harrington-Lueker, 1996). One of the underlying goals of teacher training must be to impress upon decision-makers the importance training plays in the technological reforms within their districts. Failure to achieve this recognition will rob our schools of the opportunities the hardware and software afford us.
Effective staff development faces two major challenges. On one hand there needs to be an increase in the percentage of technological funding directed toward training and on the other hand, it must ensure that existing training is done in the most effective and efficient way possible. In some ways these two aspects are related. To increase the support provided to teacher training we need to demonstrate that these efforts yield returns in terms of the learning outcomes observed in our students (Moersch, 1995). Through effective teacher inservices we can produce the kind of results that will justify this support. The report which follows deals with some key elements of effective teacher inservice and the climate that can be built to support these efforts and enhance their chances of success.
In order for any gains made through inservice to be sustained, it must be clear to teachers what they can expect from the use of technology. These expectations should include both the skills that teachers will be developing as well as what changes to expect in teaching and learning when they apply these skills. A teacher who is using technology with his/her students may be bitterly disappointed if the grade scores of the students do not increase as a result. The teacher may abandon the efforts without taking in to account the multitude of variables which impact on the results they observe (Thomas & Knezek, 1991). Mixing modern technology with turn of the century educational practices may not yield immediate results. This failure may not, however, be the fault of the technology. To avoid this disenchantment we must make sure our inservices make only the kind of promises that the use of technology can keep and, at the same time, make teachers aware of the other outcomes that are enhanced by the process (Dede, 1994). The use of technology often will result in increases such as the students' ability to transfer learning to new situations. This skill may not increase standardized test scores but, like an appreciation of art, is a valued goal for all our students.
As in all learning, teachers must be motivated to accept the challenge. Keller's ARCS model of motivation points to attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction as key elements in motivation. Attention is often built into the technology. The acquisition of a new computer or a digital camera will generate a great deal of excitement with very little effort from anyone. The next question on teachers' minds will be 'how do I use it and where do I apply it?' Teacher inservices have often focused on answering the first of these questions without dealing with the relevance of the technology to student learning (Moersch, 1995). It is important to deal with both issues if the technology is to have an impact in the classroom and if the final element of the ARCS model, satisfaction, is to be achieved.
The issue of relevance relates to how the teacher can apply the technology to their classroom activities. Mark Steinberger (1995), is a technology coordinator for Community School District 4 in New York City. He readily admits that his first attempts at teacher inservice saw him teaching teachers the way he was taught. While telling teachers to integrate technology, he was teaching it as an isolated subject. Teachers claimed to enjoy the classes but did not apply what they had learned when they returned to the classroom. He has since redesigned his staff development program around classroom-based and school-based projects. Teachers learn to use the program PageMaker, while producing and publishing a yearbook. The use of data bases is taught by constructing a data base of books their students have read. These kinds of activities address the issue of relevance by showing the teachers how to use the software at the same time as they are learning how it can be applied.
Many teachers do not feel confident with the use of the computer. While many students have grown up with the technology, their teachers have not. The workings of a computer are often bewildering and threatening to adults for whom setting the clock on a VCR represents a major technological challenge. As a result many educators are reluctant to incorporate technology into the learning activities of their students. There are a number of strategies to increase teacher confidence and thus increase the likelihood of moving technology from the inservice to the classroom.
In order to be encouraged to apply technology, teachers need to feel that there is some help available if they run into a problem. This can take the form of on-site technical support. It is inevitable that technology will fail us from time to time and usually when the time is least appropriate. Educators are more likely to employ technology if they have the assurance that someone can show them how to fix the problem (Solomon & Solomon, 1995). Some schools cannot afford this type of on-site technical support. In such cases students can often provide valuable assistance. Kentucky has a program called the Student Technology Leadership Program (STLP). Under this program schools are supported to develop student tech crews who help teachers with technology issues (Holzberg, 1997). This provides a symbiotic relationship where the teacher learns about the technology while the students learn valuable communication skills.
Through collaboration with fellow educators, a teacher can gain support in their efforts. It is a great confidence builder to have someone with whom you can share and overcome your problems and challenges. Teachers collaborating over the application of a particular technology will gain valuable insights into both the technical and educational aspects of the program. With modern telecommunications this collaboration is possible beyond the walls of the particular school as well as with the teacher in the next room (Solomon & Solomon, 1995).
It is important to support inservice with follow-up. One session is unlikely to result in giving teachers the skill and confidence to use the particular strategy in their classrooms. The National Staff Development Council's (NSDC) standards for professional development suggest that as many as 20 follow-up sessions may be needed before a particular strategy becomes a part of a teacher's repertoire. NSDC recommendations point to the need for reflection and collaboration as well as providing the time required for this to take place (Harrignton-Lueker, 1996).
Many teachers attempting to incorporate technology into their students' learning will be taking a 'leap of faith'. It is natural for them to feel somewhat uncomfortable with a strategy that changes the 'normal' way they do things. Administrators can assist with this change by supporting teachers in their attempts. It must be recognized that as with any change, not every aspect will function as it was intended. This failure should not be viewed as a negative aspect but instead as a stage in the successful restructuring of the existing paradigm (Rhodes, 1994). Teachers need to be confident that administrators understand this and support them.
The support of parents and students is also required before any change can be sustained. Parents must understand the changes that are taking place, the reasons for them and their intended outcomes. Administrators can play a valuable role in communicating this information through school newsletters, month end reports and other similar avenues of communication. While this support does impact directly on the inservice as such, it is imperative to establishing the climate of change which is necessary if the inservice is to reach its goal of making real change in student learning activities. This support is critical in both effecting change and in building teacher confidence.
The final element of Keller's ARCS model, satisfaction, should also be considered in motivating teachers to transfer the skills gained in the training session, to the classroom. Inservices should be designed to produce success. Inservice leaders must assess the skill development of their audience and provide them with a challenge that is within their ability. Teachers, who leave an inservice on HyperStudio with a completed project, even if it involves only one aspect of the software program, can gain this sense of satisfaction. If we make our inservice goals too broad we run the risk of having teachers leave our session without the feeling of accomplishment that is so necessary to support change.
Since teachers' technology skills and personal timetables will vary widely, it is important to provide a variety of inservice formats to accommodate these differences. The topics covered, the length of the sessions and the time of day they are conducted should be tailored to suit the particular needs of the intended audience. By targeting a particular audience we can avoid those inservices that often bore the more capable and frustrate the more novice members of the group. Our understanding of learning theory show us the need to allow for individual differences in our classrooms. We must follow the same principles in the training of our teachers.
There are a number of incentives that can enhance an inservices chances of success. Providing teachers with the resources to practice at home is one very effective method (Solomon & Solomon, 1995). I have witnessed first hand, the benefits of supplying teachers with the hardware and software to practice their skill in private. The teachers in our middle school were allowed to take home their computers over the summer holidays. The gains in their computer skills and their attitude towards technology in general were very apparent by the time we reopened in September. A number of staff members felt so lost without the computer at home that they purchased their own. The Edmonton School Division in Alberta actively supports teachers in purchasing their own equipment. The school division lends the teachers the money to buy the equipment. The repayment program is very attractive and teachers can reduce the amount they owe through attendance at inservices offered throughout the year. The Independent School of Rosemount, Minnesota gave teachers credit toward recertification for hours spent in staff development and withheld Internet access until they had completed a two-and-a-half-hour training session (Holzberg, 1997). Incentives like these can take various forms but all share the common goal of supporting the changes required to incorporate technology in the teaching and learning process.
The Hamilton-Wenham Public School System near Boston, provides teachers with the opportunity to participate in pilot projects or apply for mini-sabbaticals. These can extend for days or weeks depending upon the scope of the project (Harrington-Lueker, 1996). This approach provides teachers with the dedicated release time needed to produce something that is both useful in their classrooms and which can act as a model for future development.
I am often struck by the inability of teachers to recognize their own achievements in the use of technology. Once a skill is mastered it does not seem to carry the same importance as the skills they have yet to master. It is important to keep teachers aware of their accomplishments. By doing so, we eleviate the frustration associated with undertaking a task that at times, seems beyond our capabilities. Leo Jankowski (1996) is an educational computing advisor for a number of schools in New Zealand. He recommends a simple checklist in which teachers keep a log of achievements. He also lists six questions which teachers can use when taking an inventory of their existing level of competence. Christopher Moersch (1995), of the National Business Education Alliance, provides a conceptual framework that can establish the level of technological implementation or LoTi ™. This framework establishes a seven-step linear progression of implementation ranging from "nonuse" to "refinement". Skills inventories can be valuable tools in both allowing teachers to gauge how much they have grown and motivating them to move onward in their development.
The Apple Corporation has an excellent site dealing with the issue of staff development (http://ed.info.apple.com/education/staffdev/). It deals with research and design principles as well as providing a list of resources and examples of success stories in the area of professional development for educational technology. This site can serve as a readily available source of information related to staff inservice.
Our goal in education is to provide the best education possible for each one of our students. Several of the partners in education are coming to realize the important role technology can play in realizing this goal. As our schools race to acquire the hardware and software needed, they must recognize the accompanying need for professional development. There must be a climate that encourages teachers to develop the required skills and attitudes, and the will to transfer these into the learning activities of their students. Carefully planned inservices that operate within a supportive climate can achieve the goal of transferring what is learned in the training sessions into practice in the classrooms.
Apple Computer, Inc. (1997). K-12 Staff Development [On-line]. Available: http://.ed.info.apple.com/education/staffdev/
Bias, G. (1996). Students Teach the Teachers. Electronic Learning. 15(4), 18.
Dede, C. J. (1994). Leadership Without Followers. In G. Kearsley & W. Lynch (Eds.), Educational Technology: leadership perspectives. (pp. 19-28). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1996). Coming to Grips with Staff Development. Electronic Learning. 16(1), 32-43.
Holzberg, C. S. (1997). Teach Your Teachers Well: Successful Strategies for Staff Development. Technology & Learning. 17(6), 34-40.
Jankowski, L. (1996). Guidelines for School Technology Development Plans. Learning and Leading With Technology. 23(5), 38-40.
Kinnaman, D. E. (1997). Familiar Themes. Technology & Learning. 18(1), 34.
Lovely, G. (1996). One Size Does Not Fit All. Electronic Learning. 16(2), 51.
Moerch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation [LoTi ™]: A Framework for Measuring Classroom Technology Use. Learning and Leading With Technology. 23(3), 40-42.
Perelman, L. J. (1994). Closing Education's Technology Gap. In G. Kearsley & W. Lynch (Eds.), Educational Technology: leadership perspectives. (pp. 181-195). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Rhodes, C. D. (1994). Sharing the Vision: Creating and Communicating Common Goals, and Understanding the Nature of Change in Education. In G. Kearsley & W. Lynch (Eds.), Educational Technology: leadership perspectives. (pp. 29-37). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Solomon, G., & Solomon, S. (1995). Technology and Professional Development-10 Tips to Make It Better. Learning and Leading With Technology. 23(3), 38-39.
Steinberger, M. (1995). Back Into Bad Habits. Electronic Learning. 15(2), 28-29.
Thomas, L. G. & Knezek, D. (1991). Facilitating restructured learning experiences with technology. The Computing Teacher, 18(6), 49-53.