Showcase
VITTL: Virtual Interactive Technology Teachers' Lounge
An Action Research Project
Kimberly Harrison and Yvonne Bowman, Researchers
| Statement of Problem |
|
Review
of Literature
|
For a PDF copy of the Action Research/Review of Literature presented below, click here.
Statement of Problem
In today’s changing educational climate, educators face the challenge of finding ways to use computers that are being placed in their classrooms. “Teachers already have so much to keep up with—daily lesson plans, classroom management issues, grading, new standards, assessment strategies, and more paperwork. Whew! Add a computer to the mix and what teacher wouldn’t feel overwhelmed?” (Bray, 1999, para. 2) . For educators to be able to learn the necessary technology skills, integrate them into their classroom instruction and teach the skills to their students is quite a challenging endeavor. As Jamie McKenzie points out,
. . . teachers should be learning 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 . . . students should be able to read, reason, and write more powerfully; communicate productively . . . conduct thoughtful research . . . make sense of a confusing world . . . and perform well on the new, more challenging state tests . . . (McKenzie, 2001a, p. 20) .
Unfortunately, educators receive limited training in technology use and even less in how to effectively use the technology to actually enhance the education of their students. Jamie McKenzie has indicated that “the majority of American teachers receive fewer than five hours of technology-related professional development annually” (McKenzie, 2001a, p. 20) . In addition, Rodriguez and Nuth have added that “sit-and-get training sessions or one-time-only workshops have not been effective in making teachers comfortable with using technology or adept at integrating it into their lesson plans” (Rodriguez & Nuth, 2000, para. 2) . Placing computer hardware into the hands of educators and expecting them to use it to complete work traditionally completed in grade books, lesson plan books or with the Teacher’s Editions of their district-selected textbooks is being met with resistance by many educators. Many educators are “reluctant to fix [their] class if it isn’t broken” (McKenzie, 1999, p. 127) . Others want to use their new tools but discover that there has been little money earmarked for training them to utilize the hardware and software. “In spite of more than $6 billion invested nationally in education technology, almost two-thirds of all teachers report that they do not feel prepared to teach with technology” (Oelrich, 2001, p. 48) .
There are many individual educators who are trying to use technology in spite of not being well supported with training. These “early adopters” (McKenzie, 1999, p. 80) have glimpsed the possibilities that technology holds for improving their efficiency and are actively seeking a source to help them harness the power of technology to meet their professional responsibilities. As in the case of the District Technology Leaders in Mono County, they are a minority at their individual school sites and feel isolated describing that they "don't have the technical resources that they need - when they need it - due to distance issues” (Personal communication, May 15, 2001). When the District Technology Leaders were asked how they think they may best be served, these same educators felt that access to an online discussion group would help to alleviate their feelings of isolation and lack of access to on-site technical support (Personal communication, May 15, 2001).
This research project examines what effect the development of a community of practice via an electronic community has upon feelings of support in the educators involved.
Area of Focus
This study addresses the issue of the establishment of an electronic community of practice comprised of educators who strive to communicate with others with similar interests and needs. Our goal is to create an online community of practice where participants share problems, ideas, solutions and suggestions leading to a heightened mutual support system. Knowing that participants will be at various levels of technological competence and experience, we hope each participant will give and take from the community as needed.
Rationale Statement
Teaching can be an isolating experience. When an educator is part of a select few at a school attempting to use technology in his/her daily practice, it can seem even more so. Distance, amount of and proximity to training and/or expertise, budget, support and time all serve to limit an educator’s ability to get the support needed.
In May 2001 participants in the Mono County Office of Education District Technology Leader program discussed communication needs for the 2001-2002 school year. The educators in this program serve as technology leaders at their individual school sites, providing staff development, one-on-one training and are a resource for other educators in the District.
When questioned as to how to improve the District Technology Leader program, all participants voiced their need for on going, real time communication. One District Technology Leader suggested the use of a listserv and another asked about using an electronic discussion board as a tool for communication (Personal communication, May 15, 2001). Building upon these talking points, the participants came to a consensus that a discussion board open to all educators interested in the use of technology would be the best forum for sharing ideas and resources, asking questions and communicating up-to-date information.
Initially the threaded discussion board will operate to support the collective knowledge shared by the technology using educators spread throughout the rural areas of Mono County and a selected group of computer lab instructors in the San Joaquin Valley. The educators will be invited to join the discussion and encouraged to contribute knowledge about such topics as web-based education resources, conferences, troubleshooting and computer maintenance, connections to their instruction and new trends in educational technology. The asynchronous posting of information in a threaded format will allow for unlimited discussions to occur and for educators to browse topics of interest in an unrestricted and accessible environment.
Through the threaded discussion board, participating educators will develop an understanding that the discussion board is highly interrelated to their own learning and practice. The learning that will take place as a result of the knowledge shared in the discussion board forum “is built out of the materials to hand and in relation to the structuring resources of local conditions. What is learned is profoundly connected to the conditions in which it is learned” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, Learning, para. 2) . This learning within the context of each participant’s situation will become more profound and relevant to his or her practice. The group of participants will discover that “the central issue in learning is becoming a practitioner not learning about practice” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, Learning, para. 5) .
The interaction between the group members builds a community of practice in which members contribute and share ideas that enhance their professional development and expand their knowledge. The learning that takes place by the participants will serve “as the bridge between working and innovating” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, Introduction, para. 5) . As a result, new ideas, innovations, and collaborations will be born.
By creating this community of practice, the project will serve two needs: the needs expressed by the Mono County Office of Education’s District Technology Leader program participants for real time communication as well and the larger need held by many educators to have access to support as they endeavor to use technology in their daily professional practice.
Implementation of the VITTL Project
To provide relevant information about the Virtual Interactive Technology Teachers’ Lounge (VITTL) Action Research Project to participating educators, a web page was created that described the purpose of the project, displayed the informed consent letter with instructions on how to complete and return and links to the three surveys that were developed to measure attitudes, support, and personal technology proficiency. There was, as well, information on how to access the project’s discussion board. The web page was designed to be very linear and guided the participants through the process in a sequential manner (http://imetresearch.freeservers.com).
The Teacher Attitude Scale and Teacher Support Survey were developed using www.freeonlinesurveys.com. After developing the surveys, we discovered that they would only be hosted at this site for 10 days following the creation date. To overcome this obstacle, we put a message on the Surveys page of our VITTL web that gave directions for pre-October 8, our last day for our online surveys’ availability, and post-October 8. After October 8, the pre- message was removed and word documents containing the surveys were added as links with instructions on to how to complete and return the surveys.
The Teacher Attitude Scale consists of 15 questions concerning attitudes toward the use of technology in general and is measured on a Likert Scale. The questions range from the perception of the importance in knowing how to use technology to the participant's feelings about using technology. The Teacher Support Survey contains 18 questions total, of which 11 are yes/no questions and 7 are questions that ask participants to explain in detail their answers. On both surveys, technology refers to computers, the Internet and software.
The third survey is the statewide CTAP2 (http://ctap2.iassessment.org/) online self-assessment of personal technology proficiency. This web site is operated by the California Technology Assistance Project and measures the level of an educator's personal technology proficiency in nine different areas: Presentation Software, Spreadsheets, Word Processing, Databases, Email, Internet, Instructional Technology, General Computer Knowledge and Skills, and Publishing. Educators throughout California are being asked to take this survey in both the Fall and Spring to help in providing and assessing staff development at the site and district levels, and to measure growth in personal technology proficiency. Many of the grants, such as Digital High School and the Knox Bill, were written by schools to include the CTAP2 self-assessment as the measurement tool for technology proficiency. The results for educators can be disaggregated by region, county, district, or school and are displayed as bar graph charts. Although a nice feature of the web site, it was not useful to us because the educators we anticipated participating in the VITTL project were spread throughout Northern California. We were able to create a special project where participants could associate the results of their self-assessment to our VITTL group. This would chart only the results of the participants in our group. All of the results provided for this special project, called Mono AR, are anonymous and the participants cannot be individually identified. As the project was refined the researchers realized the timeline set forth for this research project was too short to adequately measure technology skill growth and decided to not include these results in our final analysis.
The final component of the VITTL project was to establish a discussion board. Because the iMET server does not support discussion boards, we were left with the task of finding a web-based, preferably free, online discussion board service. After looking for those services that could be connected to from behind an Internet security firewall, we decided to use www.ezboard.com. Prior to sharing our project with our prospective participants, we created a threaded discussion board located at http://pub94.ezboard.com/bvittl. In order to introduce participants to the discussion board, we provided a threaded discussion titled “Welcome” which invited participants to post their introductions.
In Mono County, VITTL was first introduced at the District Technology Leader Meeting on October 2, 2001 (the agenda for this meeting can be found at http://www.monocoe.k12.ca.us/DTL%20mtg%20100201.pdf). Five of the seven District Technology Leaders (DTLs) were in attendance. Additionally a former DTL, now district network administrator, attended as well. Of the six attendees at this meeting, all appeared to be interested in participating in the action research project when it was presented to them. The project was introduced and explained via the web page (http://imetresearch.freeservers.com) and the participants were given time to ask questions. No questions were asked and each of the six attendees looked at the three surveys. Of the surveys, they agreed to complete the first two within the next few days, and completed the CTAP2 online technology self-assessment prior to leaving the meeting. Due to technical difficulties, the special project category on CTAP2 had not yet been set up. The DTLs were told that the Mono AR special project would be added within the next few days and that they would need to associate their results to this project. They assented to associating themselves as soon as they were notified that the Mono AR special project category was in place. In addition, the participants were given a preview of the VITTL Discussion Board hosted at www.ezboard.com. They were instructed that before they could post to the discussion board, they would first need to register with ezboard and would receive a confirmation to their registration via email.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the attendees were reminded that if they wanted to participate in the action research project they would need to complete their informed consent letters and turn them in. All of the attendees submitted a signed informed consent letter. The new action research participants left the meeting with promises of completing the Teacher Technology Attitude Scale and Teacher Support Survey online and to associate themselves to the Mono AR Special Project at CTAP2 once they received email notification that it was available.
In the San Joaquin Valley, the project was first introduced via email in early October 2001. Participants received an email with detailed instructions on how to enter the VITTL website and how to navigate through it to complete the consent forms and the two teacher surveys. Two of the four educators completed all necessary components and mailed in their consent forms. One reported that she wasn’t able to access the Internet with her computer and the other stated that her email account was disconnected and she was setting up an alternative Yahoo! address. At the October 8, 2001 staff in-service meeting, the VITTL project was discussed with both participants who had not completed their consent forms doing so. Both left the meeting promising to do the two remaining surveys that night.
There was some discussion amongst the participants in the San Joaquin Valley of the challenge in finding an acceptable logon name at ezboard. One educator said it took her about 15 minutes of trial and error before she found a logon name that ezboard didn’t reject as already used. Another participant echoed these comments and frustrations.
On October 4, 2001, the researchers discussed our progress and felt that it was necessary to provide a model or example of what to post on the discussion board, as no one had yet posted. So, each of the researchers posted a brief introduction about themselves. Several days passed and still the participants had not posted to the board. Only five surveys had been returned and there were still no participants associated with the Mono AR project at the CTAP2 web site. A reminder email was sent to the participants listing the web address of the ezboard and asking them to post their introduction in the next few days. One educator posted an introduction on October 28, 2001.
The researchers, again, discussed the lack of data being received from the participants and pondered why this could be. It was decided that the participants needed another reminder to complete the surveys so the participants were emailed and reminded to fax in their completed Technology Attitude Scale and Teacher Support Survey as the online deadline had expired. As well, they were reminded to complete the CTAP2 survey if they had not already done so. Because one of the researchers has administrative rights to the CTAP2 assessment, we are able to associate results for those participants who had taken the CTAP2 self-assessment. We hypothesized that the lack of activity on the ezboard sponsored discussion board was due to the complexity of registering for the service and using the board.
Through our reading for the review of literature on the subject of communities of practice, we wondered if our project was missing some of the necessary elements required to bring our participants together. We also thought that knowing the incredible quantity of work that educators do on a daily basis, they might not actively seek out the discussion board. We wondered if before the community is running successfully if educators perceive seeking out the discussion board as just one more thing for them to do in a day?
To help simplify the communication, we decided to modify our project by eliminating the discussion board and establishing an email listserv. The VITTL Project listserv was created using Yahoo! Groups (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/vittlproject). Participants who had completed an informed consent were automatically subscribed to the email listserv. An email was sent through the listserv announcing the change from the discussion board to an email listserv. Subscribers were given the important URL links and instructions on how to unsubscribe and edit their membership if they so desired. Finally, to be as unobtrusive as possible on their email inboxes, the listserv was set up so the participants would receive any posted messages in a form that Yahoo! Groups calls “daily digest” where all messages sent by participants in a day are condensed into a single email containing all messages. To begin the email dialog, we captured the Welcome message from our original discussion board and posted it to the listserv. Each of the researchers again posted our introductory messages that had initially been posted to the discussion board. The researchers had decided that to promote the community aspect of the email listserv, we must become actively involved in bringing our participants together by providing on-going posts to the listserv to spark interest and desire within our educators to share their thoughts, ideas and resources.
Data Collection
The results of the 2 pre-surveys and exit survey are listed below. Of the 12 educators involved in the VITTL project, 5 submitted responses to the Technology Attitude Survey, 3 replied to the Teacher Technology Support Survey and 7 responded to the Exit Interview questions.
Technology Attitude Survey
% and type of response
Knowing how to use technology is a necessary skill for me
100% strongly agree
I feel confident with my ability to learn about technology
40% strongly agree
60% agree
Working with technology makes me feel nervous
40% strongly disagree
40% disagree
20% neutral
As a teacher, I use my knowledge of technology in many ways
20% agree
80% strongly agree
I like using technology in my professional practice
20% neutral
20% agree
60% strongly agree
I wish I could use technology to complete my professional practice needs more often.
20% disagree
60% agree
20% strongly agree
I don't expect to need to use technology much in my professional practice
80% strongly disagree
20% disagree
I am not the type of educator that feels comfortable with technology
40% strongly disagree
40% disagree
20% agree
Working with technology is boring to me
60% strongly disagree
40% disagree
Learning about technology is a worthwhile and necessary subject for all educators.
20% neutral
20% agree
60% strongly agree
It is important to know how to use technology in order to get a good teaching position.
40% neutral
60% agree
I am able to do as well working with technology as my fellow educators.
20% neutral
40% agree
40% strongly agree
I think using technology will be difficult for me
60% strongly disagree
40% disagree
Technology makes me feel uneasy and confused
40% strongly disagree
60% disagree
Once I start using technology I find it hard to stop
40% neutral
60% agree
Support Survey
% and type of response
Do you have a home computer?
100% Yes
Do you have Internet access at home?
100% Yes
Do you have a computer at school that you can use for your daily professional practice?
66% Yes
33% No
Do you currently use technology in your professional practice?
100% Yes
If the answer to the previous question was “Yes”, please explain more fully
I am a computer teacher at a private school
I am a technology instructor K-8th
I teach in the computer lab at three different schools. I am constantly using technology to teach the kids technology. In addition, I use technology to keep track of class lists, prepare tests, etc.
Have you ever attended technology training paid for by your administration?
66% Yes
33% No
If the answer to the previous question was “Yes”, have you been able to apply what you learned? Why or why not?
Yes most of the time. It really depends on the topic.
Yes, I recently took some MAC administration courses. I have used just a bit of what I have learned so far, but I will be using more of it in the future.
Do you feel as if you have support from fellow teachers as you try to use technology in your professional practice?
66% Yes
33% No
Please explain your answer to the previous question more fully.
I integrate what the students are learning in the classroom with what I teach them in the computer lab.
Teachers at my site realize that they must begin to implement technology, but it has not become a mandatory for them.
Yes, I involve other teachers in planning independent projects for the children to do in the computer lab. Most teachers are excited about what we are doing and cooperate fully.
Do you feel you have support from administrators as you try to use technology in your professional practice?
100% Yes
Please explain your answer to the previous question more fully.
The administrator hired a company to bring in a Teacher to do what I am doing in the class.
The administrators at my site as well as my employer (I am a contracted service instructor) support me fully.
The administrators at my school are also excited about what we are doing in the computer lab and provide full support.
Do you have a technology coordinator or team at your school?
33% Yes
66% No
Do you have a person to whom you feel comfortable asking technical computer questions?
66% Yes
33% No
Please explain your answer to the previous question more fully.
I am the most knowledgeable about computers at the school
I contact my superior who is the Owner of the company for which I am employed.
Yes, I have my boss, as well as other computer teachers employed at my company.
Do you have a person, or group of people, who you consider mentor(s) or partner(s) in your quest to use technology in your professional practice?
100% Yes
If you answered "Yes”, to the previous question, describe the people you refer to and how they help you.
My fellow teachers that work for the same company that I do. We go to different school sites and teach their computer labs.
I contact my superior who is the Owner of the company for which I am employed.
Yes, my boss and fellow computer lab instructors. I can ask them questions as needed.
Have you ever participated in an on-line listserv or discussion board?
33% Yes
66% No
If the answer to the previous question was “Yes”, please explain what keeps you participating with the on-line listserv or discussion board. If you are no longer participating, please describe why you discontinued.
I no longer participate for no other reason but time.
Exit Interview
% and type of response
Did you visit the VITTL web site?
14% Yes, the day it was presented to me
86% Yes, within a few days of it being presented to me
Check the surveys that you took:
57% Technology Support
57% Technology Attitude
57% CTAP2
Check the surveys you submitted and how they were submitted:
Technology Support
100% Electronically
Technology Attitude
80% Electronically
20% US Mail
58% CTAP2
100% Electronically
Check all that apply concerning the ezboard web site:
43% I visited the site and signed up
29% I visited the site, signed up, and received my login information
29% I didn’t visit the site
Check all that apply concerning the VITTL Yahoo! Groups
57% I received the email about the change from the Discussion Board to an email listserv
43% I didn’t receive the email about the change from the Discussion Board to an email listserv
Check all that apply concerning the communication of this project
57% The purpose was clear to me
14% The purpose was unclear to me
72% The expectations were clear to me
14% The expectations were unclear to me
72% The directions were clear to me
14% The directions were unclear to me
86% The time involvement was clear to me
0% The time involvement was unclear to me
I did participate in the VITTL project because:
57% Responded they DID Participate
Helping out a colleague.
I like to stay on top of new technology offered to me.
Because it would help the researchers.
I was interested in project and its purposes. I find the project highly interesting, however personally time consuming I feel the project will have outstanding results for its members.
I did not participate in the VITTL project because:
43% Responded they DID NOT Participate
I went back to the computer and tried to log on but couldn’t download and print the consent forms.
I was confused as to – I understand it was for teachers to communicate with each other but I was confused as to “why” I guess.
Time issues and time constraints and keeping up with work and family commitments.
I participated by doing the surveys and did the bare minimum that you needed and apologize for not doing more.
Data Analysis
The educators who participated in VITTL understood that technology is an important aspect of education and the majority feels comfortable in using technology. They enjoy using technology, find it exciting and realize that being able to effectively use technology is a characteristic of a modern and professional educator.
All participants have Internet access on a home computer and use technology in some aspect of their daily professional practice. A follow up question would be to ask explicitly how they use technology on a daily basis. The majority of the educators has attended technology training and feels well supported by their fellow educators to use technology for their professional practice. Interestingly enough, all of the participants felt they had the support of their administrator to pursue their professional practice through technology use. Although the majority of the educators do not have a technology coordinator or team at their school site, they do have a person to whom they feel comfortable asking technical computer questions. All participants responded that they have a person or group of people whom they consider a mentor or partner in their quest to utilize technology.
Upon conclusion of the VITTL action research project, the participants indicated they had completed and submitted the surveys as well as visited the project web sites. When the project altered course from a discussion board to an email listserv, almost half of the educators who returned the survey indicated that they did not receive the notice, which could explain why the activity on the email listserv resulted in the same non-activity as the discussion board. Again, the majority of the participating educators shared that the purpose, directions, and time involvement were clear to them at the onset of the VITTL project. Despite the clarity of the introduction, only two-thirds of the educators indicated they had participated. Reasons for not participating ranged from time issues and constraints to not understanding why they needed to participate.
Review of Relevant Literature
With the onslaught of technology in the classroom, educators have viewed the computer as a tool to maximize student learning and increase their efficacy and efficiency. Most are finding that without proper support, training, resources and vision this outcome is not being realized. “The presence of technology by itself is no indicator of its effective use” (Thornburg, p. 11) . Simply having a computer in the classroom does not elicit change. Educators need a venue for support, training and pioneering new ideas and uses of technology. Even those who are fortunate to have dedicated technology support staff and strong visionary leadership at their school site still need an informal, safe setting to share and develop new ideas. This venue could provide opportunities to ask questions, develop strategies, afford mutual support and evaluate effectiveness in a casual, yet professional, environment. If educators are expected to teach their students to effectively utilize technology while at the same time expand their own understanding of the use of technology, we will continue to see “teachers turning away from technology because . . . it does not save [them] work” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 58) .
The Need for Tailored Professional Development
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges for staff developers is the multiple level of knowledge amongst participants in a training session. It is difficult, if not impossible; to meet the individual and specific needs of all participants when doing homogenized staff development training. “Teachers learn best by studying, doing and reflecting; by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work, and by sharing what they see” (Darling-Hammond, 1999, New Strategies for Teacher Learning, para. 1) .
Dr. Jamie McKenzie goes a step further in differentiating between staff development/training and adult learning. “ . . . adult learning usually involves the learner in activities that match that person’s interests, needs style and developmental readiness” (McKenzie, 2001b, p. 91) . In a different publication he asserts the following:
Choice is the cardinal design concept behind adult learning. Adult learning is an approach that recognizes that people learn most energetically when they have options that match their preferences, their interests, their styles, their interests - One size does NOT fit all (McKenzie, 1999, p. 90) .
Educators need just-in-time mentoring so they have immediate access to needed information. Since the one-size-fits-all staff development does not meet the needs of all, it is critical to provide a learning environment tailored to the needs of all participants. A change is needed. As David Thornburg suggests,
Staff development and participation in the reinvention of our educational system is essential for long term success. . . . This shift in mindset presents a far greater challenge than finding the money to pay for it. . . . Our challenge is not to do old things differently, it is to do different things (Thornburg, p. 13) .
One way a change can be made to the current standard of professional development is by implementing electronic communities of practice as one viable method of providing flexible staff development. “It is generally acknowledged today that teachers need to break out of the isolation of the classroom and join together in such communities of practice . . .” (Whitla, 1999, para. 4) . As John Dewey lined out (Dewey, 1916, p. 5) community and communication are derived from the same root word in Latin. It is through communication with other educators that safeness is developed and the community begins to expand commensurate with the expanding trust. Once a safe community has been created, the basis for ongoing communication and mutually supportive relationships can begin to develop.
A Community of Practice is a cohesive group of individuals that has a “culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding. An essential characteristic in these examples is that the responsibility for learning is shared among group members. No one individual . . . is burdened with the task of “knowing it all”. Rather, knowledge is distributed amongst the group members, each of whom uses their knowledge and skills to contribute to the group endeavor” (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999, pp. 269-292) .
Associate Professor Jim Rogers of Utah State University (Rogers, 2000, Conclusion, para. 2-4) offers the following considerations to create a successful community of practice where all participants share in the responsibility of learning from the community. Structure activities so that everyone at some time will be in an active and central role in the community. Teacher assistance may be necessary with new participants. Activities should tap into the background, experience and knowledge of the participants and be targeted to increase participants’ experience and knowledge. Make goals achievable so that success is found and reflected on early. Make the community one in which all views and participation levels are welcome. Encouraging discussion and sharing of artifacts within the community. Highlight knowledgeable members to lead discussions assisting others to learn how to do things in - and the culture of - the community.
Current Professional Development Practices
Most professional development opportunities place the participant in the role of a passive observer. In David Thornburg’s article, “Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial Metaphors for Learning in the 21st Century”, he described this type of passive training as a campfire. He likens the idea of the campfire as being a gathering place for story telling. The atmosphere of the dancing flames and surrounding darkness lead the captive audience to learning the story and being able to retell that story to others. Educators typically experience this type of professional development when attending conferences, workshops, inservice meetings, expert speakers, staff meetings and generally when staff developers train them. While this is the most prevalent form of professional development, it is only one component of meeting the individual needs of the educators. “ . . . the campfire represents an important aspect of the learning community. It does not stand alone, however” (Thornburg, 1996, p. 2) .
While many staff developers, educators and administrators are comfortable with these types of passive professional development, we need to move forward and embrace other experiences that are more relevant and meaningful to an educator’s practice. The watering hole metaphor is offered to explain the need for an informal gathering place for educators to “share information and learn from their peers” (Thornburg, 1996, p. 2) . This second component is seen in more personal and individual professional development includes professional conversations taking place with a technology leader and/or informally in the teachers’ lounge, email, listservs, chat rooms, and discussion boards.
The third component of Thornburg’s metaphor involves self-reflection: which he calls the cave. The cave is where educators take time to reflect upon the learning we have experienced and plan for application to their professional lives. Professional reading, journaling and participating in a conversation where the educator feels free to express ideas and ask questions are examples of the cave.
“Learners have long gathered around campfires, watering holes and have isolated themselves in the seclusion of caves. They have experienced all these learning environments in balance and, if the balance is offset, learning suffered” (Thornburg, 1996, p. 3) . Only through a combination of campfire, watering hole and cave time are we more assured of meeting the educators’ needs.
Educators have the responsibility for both explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is defined as the concepts educators must learn and pass on to their students while tacit knowledge is the application of that learning. “Since the tacit lives in action it comes alive in and through doing things and in participation with each other and the world” (Brown, 2000, Knowledge as Iceberg, para. 1) . Our most prevalent method of professional staff development (passive observation) teaches mostly the concepts, framework and facts – the explicit knowledge – and does not allow participants to become practitioners of that knowledge. Professionals creating and implementing staff development must consider both tacit and explicit knowledge. Failure to do so is a disservice to the educators who are in attendance.
Bridging the Gap Between What is and What Can Be
The state of professional development, as discussed above, leaves a lot of room for improvement. Meaningful, personalized professional development opportunities must become readily accessible to educators. The power of the Internet provides an opportunity to bring like-minded educators together. The development, and acceptance, of communities of practice developing and meeting on the Internet has become widespread in personal use but is under-utilized in professional environments.
Online communities of practice provide opportunities to combine campfire teaching, watering hole conversation, just-in-time mentoring and an opportunity to plan and/or review tacit knowledge development. There are a number of low- and no-cost Internet communication tools that currently exist to be able to support effective development of an online community of practice. These tools include Email, Discussion Boards/Bulletin Boards, Listservs, Web Pages, Web Sites and synchronous environments such as Tapped-In (www.tappedin.org).
Summary
While this research project was plagued with many issues relating to the design and use of Internet tools in creating an environment where educators can come together as a community, it has in no way dampened our belief in the potential of such an endeavor. We definitely learned a lot about design, implementation and hurdles and offer these experiences to others to be able to better design a community.
As we embarked in creating VITTL, we found a lot of research related to Communities of Practice as a concept and theory but almost none steering us in the building, forming, sustaining and supporting them. This is an area that we hope to see others begin to develop as more attempts are begun.
Initially VITTL was envisioned as a place where 2 separate groups of educators would come together to seek support around the use of technology. We now wonder whether it would have been better to have used just one of the groups and developed a smaller but pre-existing group. In this scenario we would wait until the participants were using the group with regularity - and it seemed to truly be a community - then the second group would be invited in.
We realize that there is much that needs to be changed in addition to just creating an electronic means to get like-minded educators together. The basic culture of education has to be amended; teaching is still primarily a close-your-classroom-doors-and-do-your-thing profession. Teaching and our thoughts about how to best offer it to our students are not usually discussed with a group. It is typically only in student-teaching classes that lesson plans, pedagogy and reflection are routinely engaged in. Educators don’t generally critically discuss or share didactic practices. All these cultural habits serve as hindrances to be overcome. We also wondered if the fact that the Bulletin Board or listserv was essentially a public document factored into our participant’s hesitancy to post. Not only were they being asked to step out and discuss issues with others in the group but the potential for their ideas to be seen by others outside of the group might also be a concern.
VITTL Lessons Learned
Despite a collectively strong and positive attitude about technology as well as a sense of security in using it and having support in doing so, the actual participation in the VITTL project was recognizably nonexistent. Interestingly, the results of the exit interview questions indicate that all of the educators felt that they had participated in the VITTL project to some degree. It is our estimation that the participants did not fully understand the role of the VITTL project beyond the completion of surveys. The participating educators did not seem to understand the reason why they were being asked to participate in the VITTL project, as indicated from their responses on the Exit Interview questions.
The intent of the VITTL project was to provide an online community of practice for educators to overcome self-imposed and geographical isolation. The online environment serving as a venue for educators to be validated in their teaching practice, share and receive ideas and work together to problem solve and proactively plan. Unfortunately this interaction did not take place even though the electronic design was in place. In reviewing the literature concerning the establishment of communities of learning and effective staff development practices as well as examining the exit interview responses, we have determined that the participating educators did not truly understand the purpose or need for an online professional development forum of this kind. Although the electronic aspect of the VITTL project was in place, the personal community building that is extremely important in establishing a community of practice did not take place. The participants did not have a connection with one another, and thus, did not feel a need or have the mutual trust necessary to communicate and share as anticipated. Laying this foundation would have sparked the communication between the participants because they would have had a need and desire to communicate.
Our initial selection of electronic resources was another obstacle in the success of the VITTL project. Due to difficulty experienced by the educators in logging on and using the discussion board, many gave up and did not pursue this as a way of communicating with one another. By the time the email listserv was established, the participants had already decided it was too time consuming to participate. In short, by that time, the payoff was not large enough to offset the perceived time commitment.
Bibliography
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practices (pp. 269-292). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.
Bray, B. (1999). Eight steps to success: Technology staff development that works [Electronic version]. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3).
Brown, J. S. (2000). Learning, working & playing in the digital age. Serendip. Retrieved May 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web: serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown/
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/papers/orglearning.html
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Retrieved March 9, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9802/darlinghammond.html
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Hoffman, A. (2000). Technology built for teachers. T H E Journal, 28(3), 56-59.
McKenzie, J., Ed.D. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.
McKenzie, J., Ed.D. (2001a). Head of the class: How teachers learn technology best. Electronic School, 188, 20-23.
McKenzie, J., Ed.D. (2001b). Planning good change with technology and literacy. Bellingham, WA: FNO.
Oelrich, K. (2001). Virtual schools: A 21st century strategy for teacher professional development. T H E Journal, 28(11), 48-50.
Rodriguez, G., & Nuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved March 8, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm
Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology and Society. Retrieved October 6, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/e01.html
Thornburg, D.Welcome to the communciation age. Retrieved March 9, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tcpd.org/thornburg/handouts/CommunicationAge.pdf
Thornburg, D., Ph.D. (1996). Campfires in cyberspace: Starsong Publications.
Whitla, J. (1999). The Diagnostic Teacher. Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved October 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web: www.edc.org/spotlight/schools/diagnostrialaftrwrd.htm