Running head: Technology Camp

Technology Camp for Teachers: Creating a Staff development Program that Impacts Teachers’ Professional Practice

Roberta A. Niche 
California State University, Sacramento 
 

Technology Camp for Teachers: Creating a Staff development Program that Impacts Teachers’ Professional Practice

      Effective staff development is widely-regarded as being essential in our efforts to take full advantage of the power of technology to improve teaching and learning. The “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB, 2001) mandates “high quality” professional development for all teachers. However, our best staff development efforts often don’t result in changed practices by teachers once they return to the confines of their classrooms. Despite the significant sums of money that have been spent to help teachers integrate technology, technology’s potential to address the most pressing problems in education is largely an unfulfilled promise. Changing teachers’ pedagogy and practice is not just a simple matter of improving their computer skills. It is one thing to know how to make a PowerPoint. It is quite something else to know how to design projects where students use PowerPoint to improve their thinking and learning.

      Experts agree that a new model of staff development is needed. The old model where teachers were passive receptors of one-shot presentations delivered by outside experts has been proven not to work. Teachers need professional development that is what Jamie McKenzie (2002) calls “generative”, meaning that it causes teachers to exchange old and ineffective practices and behaviors for better ones. This review of literature will summarize what is known about adult learning, what makes professional development generative, and what technology professional development models have proven to be most effective.

The Needs of Adult Learners

      Professional development designers must be aware of the unique needs of adult learners. McKenzie (2002) notes that adult learning is distinct from training. Training often happens in a context that is disconnected from the classroom. Adult learning, at its best, supports teacher choice, needs, and readiness. It happens in context of the teachers’ classroom reality and curricular concerns. Job-embedded learning is supported by mentors, coaches, and cadres. McKenzie (2002) adds that “just-in-time” support in the form of help lines, tech support, and readily-available peer coaches is crucial.

      The National Staff Development Council Standards (NSDC, 2001) state that teacher learning can be promoted by diverse means; collaborative lesson design, the examination of student work, curriculum development, immersion in the work of mathematicians and scientists, case studies, action research, study groups, and professional networks. These should all be considered in place of large group presentations and workshops. A large group awareness presentation is unlikely to be generative; an extended summer academy supported by year-long follow up training is much more likely to achieve the desired result.

      The best professional development programs offer multiple ways for teachers to learn. Teachers still get direct instruction but also participate in study groups, collaborate to design lessons, conduct action research, and receive coaching (NSDC, 2001). Adult learning expert Malcolm Knowles pointed out the need for multiple means of learning opportunities, He found that a formal course of instruction is better for new, intensive learning while less formal, collegial, “club” experiences are better for putting initial learning into practice. He noted the flexible, friendly, and informal climate which characterizes this type of experience (Smith, 2002).

      Knowles’ andragogy concept outlined five main characteristics of adult learners (Smith, 2002). Adults are:

1. 1. More self-directed
2. 2. More likely to tap into prior experience to make sense of new information
3. 3. Ready to learn what they need to learn in order to perform their job
4. 4. Focused on learning that can be applied immediately to solve a problem

      The implications for professional development are clear. Teachers must have learning opportunities which enable them to meet a perceived classroom need. It is not just that teachers are taking new knowledge then applying it in their classrooms. The deepest new knowledge actually comes organically from that process of problem solving in the classroom. It might take the form of participating in action research, or writing and piloting a curriculum piece. These kinds of opportunities are most respectful of the characteristics of adult learners and are most likely to be generative. Ann Lieberman (1995) wrote,

If reform plans are to be made operational -- thus enabling teachers to really change the way they work -- then teachers must have opportunities to discuss, think about, try out, and hone new practices. This means that they must be involved in learning about, developing, and using new ideas with their students. (p. 591)

Essential Conditions

      Recent research has identified a number of common denominators in successful (generative) professional development programs. Wells (Wells, 2007) succinctly summarized these “key design features. They are listed and elaborated below:

Evaluation Driven

1. 1. Expected outcomes are made explicit. Teachers know in advance that they will be expected to apply what they learn and that their application will be evaluated.
2. 2. Individual progress is evaluated over time. An example of this would be a understandings and skills with students
3. 3. Teachers are responsible for producing a culminating product. Ideally, this product is contextual, something of use to the teacher in his or her own classroom.

Contextual

1. 1. Relevant to teachers’ classroom, can be immediately applied
2. 2. Tied to school and district improvement plans, goals, and reform initiatives

Learner Centered

1. 1. Account for participants’ wants, needs, abilities, and concerns
2. 2. Account for and respect participants’ prior beliefs and experience
3. 3. An evaluation plan tied to instructional objectives is in place

Duration of Process

1. 1. Sufficient time allowed for collaboration, reflection, and application in the real-world environment.

Engagement

1. 1. Learners experience the innovation
2. 2. Presenters must model the innovation

Inquiry Based

1. 1. Teachers develop products for implementation in classroom
2. 2. Teachers focus on creating products to solve a problem or create a new, improved condition

Theory/Research Based

1. 1. Teachers must understand and buy into the underlying pedagogy
2. 2. The pedagogy must be supported by the school and district culture

Collaborative

1. 1. Learners’ social needs are met. As Michael Fullan wrote, “People learn new patterns of behavior primarily through interactions with others” (Fullan, 1993)
2. 2. Done as part of a community of practice, not in isolation. Learning communities are an excellent model.

Support

1. 1. Follow-up Opportunities to collaborate, share, and get help are readily available
2. 2. Tech Support helps to resolve hardware and software problems quickly
3. 3. Peer coaching is available “just in time” (McKenzie, 1999)

Sustainability

1. 1. Process is repeatable over the long haul
2. 2. Doesn’t depend on a one-shot infusion of money, or on one particular individual

The Importance of Pedagogy

      A key yet often-neglected part of successful technology integration staff development is paying attention to teachers’ pedagogy. Efforts to use technology in a manner which is disconnected from a constructivist approach will not bring about the desired improvements in student thinking and learning. Frequently the link between constructivism and technology is ignored.

Professional development must be specific to the goal of integrating technology in a constructivist manner. Typically, professional development related to constructivism is disjointed from professional development related to technology integration. The emphasis of such professional development should focus on the rationale of constructivism, not on forcing the use of technology (Judson, 2006).

Modeling Constructivism

      Technology staff development can’t be focused on a need for students and teachers to use more hardware and software. It has to serve as a vehicle for fostering constructivist practices which assist students’ thinking, inquiry, and learning. The best way for teachers to learn about constructivism is to experience it as it is modeled by staff development facilitators who are comfortable with diverse means of learning.

Rather than receiving “knowledge” from “experts” in training sessions, teachers and administrators will collaborate with peers, researchers, and their own students to make sense of the teaching/learning process in their own contexts. Staff development from a constructivist perspective will include activities such as action research, conversations with peers about the beliefs and assumptions that guide their instruction, and reflective practices such as journal keeping—activities that many educators may not even view as staff development. (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997)

      The National Staff Development Council (NSDC, 2001) has developed a set of standards which correlate with Well’s findings. These standards consider the context, process, and content of professional development. The recommended context places teachers as members of learning communities focused on and integrated into the school/district improvement goals. The process section emphasizes the importance of teacher collaboration and using data to identify areas of need. This dovetails nicely into what was mentioned earlier about the needs of adult learners to focus on problem-solving and immediate application of learning.

      One successful technology integration staff development program which is built around the NSDC standards is TICKIT (Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology). Based at the School of Education at Indiana University Bloomington from 1999 to 2003, TICKIT identified five program characteristics which led to generative change (Ehman, Bonk, & Yamagata-Lynch, 2005). Building off the work reported in Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT), TICKIT’s designers resolved that professional development should:

1. 1. Be situated in the classroom
2. 2. Require teachers to participate in teams of 2 to 4 from the same school
3. 3. Incorporate a constructivist learning approach
4. 4. Engage teachers in conversations and reflections about their teaching
5. 5. Involve teachers in creating lessons or units they can implement in their own classrooms
6. 6. Support teachers’ efforts after they finish the program

   The 133 teachers who completed TICKIT spent an entire year in the program. The first phase focused on “heightening teachers’ knowledge, skills, confidence, and beliefs about technology integration” (Ehman et al., 2005). Later, teachers worked in teams (school cohorts) to write and try out curriculum. They engaged in action research to gauge the effectiveness of their approaches. Teachers were supported during the process by access to threaded discussion groups which allowed them social and emotional support and encouragement as well as constructive feedback. Teaching teams formally presented their work to their peers at the end of the year and celebrated their accomplishments. Schools were required to support TICKIT cohort teachers with suitable numbers of computers and other resources.

   TICKIT’s designers state that their were two critically important factors in the success of the program. First was time; a year-long program allowed teachers time to create, discuss, explore, and implement. Second, was situating the learning in the context of each teacher’s classroom.

   At the heart of the program were teachers working in their own classrooms to invent, to teach, and reflect upon their technology integration and daily teaching practices to build practical knowledge.(Ehman et al., 2005)

Follow-Up Support

      Even the best designed staff development program will not be generative without sufficient attention to follow-up support. Successful programs have documented various means of doing this (Hu, 1999)

1. 1. On-site visits
2. 2. Email
3. 3. List servs
4. 4. Telephone help lines
5. 5. Support web sites
6. 6. Synchronous communications (chat such as Tapped In)
7. 7. Asynchronous communications (threaded discussion groups).

      Hu presents research on the benefits of creating a cyber community to support teachers post staff development. His report on the Health Sciences and Technology Academy (HSTA) teacher training describes the benefits of having a portal which helps teachers in their mission to integrate technology. This portal had the following features:

1. 1. A showcase of teacher projects and student work
2. 2. A threaded discussion group and chat (via WebBoard)
3. 3. Links to resources, articles for further study, and activity design ideas
4. 4. A link to quick case-based tech support

      The portal allowed teachers to collaborate, share, and reflect. One interesting design element was “ask an expert” which allowed teachers to connect with peers who have expertise in a specific subject area.

Conclusion

      There is a growing consensus about what constitutes good professional development. The literature mapped out a road for the creation of an exemplary program. First, the needs of adult learners will need to be considered. Activities will need to have immediate application in the individual’s classroom. Prior knowledge must be respected and acknowledged. A fun, collegial atmosphere must be established. Collaboration must be encouraged. Second, sufficient time must be allowed for teachers to absorb and apply their new learning. Involving teachers in creating and testing lesson plans/units ensures that sufficient time will be spent (avoiding the dreaded one-shot training) and also builds in follow-up. Third, teachers’ pedagogy must be cultivated before the seeds of instructional technology will sprout. Discussions about constructivism and related topics such as multiple intelligence theory, cooperative learning, and concept attainment will enable new understandings about technology to take root in teachers’ practices. Better yet, teachers should experience constructivism by being taught the way we would have them teach. Facilitators need to practice what they preach. Finally, in order for staff development to be generative, we must pay real attention to follow-up support. “Just in time” assistance via coaches, a communication portal, and robust tech support are all important. In addition, teachers must be held accountable for producing explicitly defined outcomes or culminating products.

      The ultimate test of the efficacy of a professional development program will be its impact on student achievement. Little research has been done in this area yet. Most research has measured the success of professional development by how teachers self-report its effect. The best and most recent research has taken it a step further, looking at how teachers’ practices change as measured by portfolios, video taping, and observations. Examining how professional development translates into student achievement will be the next frontier.

 
 

References
Ehman, L., Bonk, C., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2005). A model of teacher professional development to support technology integration. AACE Journal, 13
	(3), 251-270.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depth of educational reform. London: Routledge Falmer.
Hu, J. (1999). The After-Training Support: Using Internet Technology to Help and Connect In- Service Teachers in Their Teaching and Professional
	Development. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 1754-1757). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher
	Education, 14(3), 581-597.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591.
McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, Washington: FNO Press. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from
	http://fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html
McKenzie, J. (2002, September). Beyond toolishness: the best ways for teachers to learn and put new technologies to good use. [Electronic version].
	Multimedia Schools, 9, 34-36.
National Staff Development Council. Standards for staff development. (2001). Retrieved March 7th, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm
Smith, M. K. (2002). Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from
	http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-know.htm
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Wells, J. (2007). Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology Professional Development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15
	(1), 101-122.