|
|
From
Computer
Lab to Technology Class
A
Formula for
Transformation
By Sandra Sherwood
|
 Download
the full article (PDF, 499 KB, PDF
Instructions)
I
hear, and I forget.
I see, and I remember.
I do, and I understand.
This
Chinese proverb illustrates the powerful concept that
inquiry-based
learning—one of the maxims of American education
today—works.
Yet when it comes to teaching classroom teachers to
integrate technology
into their classes, too often they are told they will
integrate
technology, given a brief "how to," and left on their own
to figure
out how to really do it. In an all-too-familiar scenario,
a school
district creates a computer lab and hires a teacher's aide
to supervise
the lab. Software is selected eclectically. During the
school year,
students move in and out of the computer lab. They learn
the mechanical
aspects of computer use, but they do not see that
technology is
a tool. The teachers transport the students to the lab,
but the
teachers see no curricular purpose for the lab.This
formula results
in wasted dollars and frustrated teachers. But what if you
put a
certified classroom teacher (instead of a teacher's aide)
into the
how-to technology class and build an integrated program
from that
point outward?
That
is exactly what Appleby Elementary School's (Marathon, New
York)
administrators did. Marathon is a small, rural school
district with
87% of the district's total operating budget funded by the
state.
Making the most of every dollar is a way of life. Three
years ago
Marathon administrators had the vision to hire a certified
classroom
teacher to run the computer lab and from there began the
successful
transformation of the technology program. The uniqueness
of this
arrangement has been that the technology teacher functions
as a
classroom teacher and has direct teaching responsibilities
amounting
to one technology class period each week for every
K–6 class.
The transformation changed students from computer users to
technological
producers and moved teachers from observers to
facilitators. The
qualitative changes in these roles were evidence of the
program's
success. Although there is no staff development method
that is effective
in every setting, this transformation evolved naturally as
educators
worked together over the past three years to improve
teaching and
increase learning.
Year
One
 Figure
1—Year One. |
It
is a very simple formula. Begin by looking at technology as
a set
of tools and then approach curricula with this new set of
tools. One
of the first hurdles to be overcome is the need for the
technology
teacher to meet with classroom teachers so the technology
can be infused
into curricula. This can happen informally, such as
discussions over
lunch, or formally during scheduled meetings during break
periods
or outside of school hours.
At this
early stage of the transformation, the technology teacher will be the
primary
instructor of students, and he or she will take on the role of chief
technology
trainer for faculty and staff (see Year One in
Figure 1).
It
is essential that the technology teacher be an active
member of
the faculty to promote the integration of technology into
all facets
of school life. As students begin to create projects that
integrate
technology with classroom material, teachers will
recognize the
technology as a tool, and they will feel the excitement
this tool
generates in the students—which becomes obvious when
students
skip recess or stay after school to work on technology
projects.
As teachers gain appreciation for the new tools, it is
time to begin
offering hands-on demonstrations of the various
technologies—beginning
with software and how it can be applied to address
district or state
standards.
The
demonstrations need to be succinct, and follow-up support
is essential
as the teachers begin to explore and use software and
peripherals.
Having the technology teacher onsite and available to jump
in and
help is crucial. Teachers need to know that they have a
supportive
colleague who has a true desire to see them succeed and
who is not
evaluating their efforts.
By
the end of the first year, the staff should be ready for a
thought-provoking
workshop offered over a period of days in which many
pieces of software
and different technologies are used in an integrated,
project-based
format. This approach will help diminish the feeling many
teachers
have that they must be completely familiar with a tool
before they
can use it with their students. This workshop should be
held late
in the school year or early in the summer break so
teachers have
time over the summer to get ideas for integrated
curriculum projects
to be done during the weekly technology class.
Year
Two
Figure 1—Year Two. |
In
the second
year, the technology lessons and projects will begin to come from the
classroom
teachers (see Year Two in Figure 1). The
weekly technology
classes are led by the technology teacher, but there will be increased
ties between
the classroom and technology curricula. Technology will still only
support the
curricula, as a circle of integration begins. Classroom teachers will
gain enthusiasm
as they see their ideas becoming products. Many teachers may begin to
display
student technology projects with other important milestones, for
example, on class
bulletin boards or in open house displays.
Many
inservice opportunities should be offered during the
second year.
Like many other schools, Marathon offers teachers modest
increases
to their base salary for every 15 hours of inservice
training they
attend. At this point in the transformation, the formula
calls for
workshops that are theme-based—for example, a
workshop on software
and projects appropriate for early readers or a workshop
on intermediate
math programs. Theme-based workshops empower the teachers
by providing
instruction in the "how-to" aspect of software programs
that fit
under one curricular heading and then allowing the
teachers to determine
how the software meets the needs of their students and
their teaching
styles. Theme-based workshops also teach teachers how to
evaluate
software to meet their needs.
Year
Three
Figure 1—Year Three. |
By
the third
year, the teachers should be quite comfortable with technology
integration. The
projects should be entirely driven by the classroom teachers with the
technology
teacher acting as a guide to ensure that the projects have reasonable
technological
expectations and timeframes (see Year Three in
Figure 1).
Ideally hardware and software will become available in the classrooms so
the teachers
can go on to the next step, which is integrating the technology
independently
of the technology teacher.
At
this point, the transformation will continue at a pace
that is comfortable
for the staff and the district. At any one time, there
will be teachers
at all three stages of the transformation process within
any district,
and assessment of the formula should be flexible so that
everyone
can participate when they are ready. As friends and peers
get enthusiastic
and excited, even the true techno-phobe will start to ask
questions
and join in the discourse. For example, some grandparents
have participated
in the technology class. This type of interaction shows
teachers
how technology has entered the everyday lives of their
students.
After such examples, many teachers who were reticent about
technology
began to show interest.
The
key to constructive program transformation is to provide a
colleague
who can facilitate technology integration in a
nonthreatening and
nonevaluative way. The last three years at Appleby
Elementary School
have been very exciting, and the best is yet to come!
|
|
Sandra Sherwood (ssherwoo@cnyric.org)
is a technology teacher at Appleby Elementary
School, Albro
Road, Marathon, NY 13803; 607.849.3281; fax
607.849.4730.
She works with more than 600 K–6 students using
technology
to enhance the classroom curricula. She maintains
all computers
and peripherals and serves on many in-house
committees. She
is an active member of New York State Computers and
Technologies
in Education (www.nyscate.org). Sherwood also
provides teacher
training in her district, neighboring districts, and
across
the state in association with NYSC&TE. She holds
an MS
from SUNY-Cortland.
|
|
The
Flow of Curricular Integration
|
|
|
|
Year One
|
|
|
|
Year Two
|
|
|
|
Year Three
|
|
Copyright © 1999, ISTE (International Society for Technology
in Education).
All rights reserved.
|
