Home PublicationsL&LIssuesVolume 27 (1999-2000) November (No. 3)

Download the full article (PDF, 100 KB, PDF Instructions)

In a fifth-grade classroom in a Midwestern elementary school, Mrs. Blakely is attempting to integrate technology into the social studies curriculum. The class has been studying the westward expansion in the United States, so Mrs. Blakely has selected the software program Oregon Trail® for her students to use. Twenty of her 26 students are using the program on 10 computers that line the walls of her classroom. Working in pairs, one student operates the keyboard while a second takes notes as they encounter situations, make decisions, and experience the results of those decisions. The remaining six students are gathered around Mrs. Blakely’s computer, the only machine in the room that is connected to the Internet. Mrs. Blakely is attempting to assist them in locating information about the Oregon Trail that might provide the resources for the written reports they are completing. They are using the search engine Yahoo® with keywords Oregon Trail. The only resources they are able to locate are software sites that sell the simulation software the other students are already using. (Note: This search was conducted in April 1998. Search results may differ now.)

One pair of students approaches the teacher announcing that the game’s instructions say that students’ progress can be saved as a text file and opened in a word processor, which might save them the trouble of taking notes for the journal assignment they will be doing. But their attempts to save the notes have resulted in an on-screen message stating that they do not have “saving privileges.” Neither they nor the teacher have any idea how to solve this problem.

“Keep writing,” Mrs. Blakely suggests. Meanwhile the group at the Internet station has located the Portland Trail Blazers basketball team’s Web site.

“At least we found something in Oregon!” cries one of the students. A second pair of simulation game players approaches Mrs. Blakely to report a frozen computer screen. As she unsuccessfully attempts to restart that computer, she notices that the Internet research team has begun surfing NBA.com. Mrs. Blakely has now spent twice as long on the westward expansion unit as she had in previous years. Many of the activities that she is using, conscientiously selected from the documentation that accompanied the software, do not seem directly related to the district curriculum and are certainly not reflective of the content that she taught before the arrival of technology. She makes a mental note to revert to her traditional teaching strategies tomorrow.

This scenario, based on an actual visit to a school often named a model site for observing technology integration, has proven to be fairly typical of proved technology use in many schools in the United States today. Technology resources, most often computers, are being inserted into classrooms on the basis of formulas describing students per computer rather than in support of specific learning solutions. Classrooms are being connected with little planning for what will take place across these connections. Teacher training, where it exists, is primarily in the use of operating systems and application software and measured in hours of seat time—as if such training will prepare those teachers for the successful use of technology in support of learning. The net result in many cases is the adoption of an ill-thought-out strategy for the integration of technology that is aptly described by Bernajean Porter (personal communication, June 1999) as “Do something. Do anything. Just use it!”

This inefficiency has not gone unnoticed. As the price for technology in schools has soared from the millions to the billions in annual spending, policy makers and members of the media are beginning to ask for evidence of improvements in student learning. But in an environment where the use of technology is not focused on specific learning needs, improvements in student learning are virtually impossible to assess.

In 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia legislature halted all funding for educational technology and commissioned the Milken Exchange, in partnership with the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL) and SRI International, to evaluate the effect of the money spent on technology to date and make specific recommendations about how future spending might become more focused. Lawmakers in Ohio and West Virginia have initiated similar reviews. Increasingly, policy makers at the state and local levels are asking, “Are we getting our money’s worth from our investment in technology?”

Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress

In anticipation of these concerns, the Milken Exchange began in 1997 to tap the best thinking of a number of respected experts in the field of educational technology to explore the essential conditions under which the use of technology is likely to improve student learning and to develop strategies for assessing whether those conditions exist in a given school or district. The result of that effort is a framework of progress indicators to help schools develop technology programs that are systemic and intentional.

This framework of progress indicators, called the Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress (Lemke, Coughlin, et al., 1998), identifies the elements of the educational system that must work interdependently if schools are to bring technology-enriched learning opportunities to students. The seven dimensions are:

1. Learners
2. Learning Environments
3. Professional Competency
4. System Capacity
5. Technology Capacity
6. Community Connections
7. Accountability

Additionally, the framework requires that schools be intentional in their implementation of technology, (i.e., that they have clear and defensible student learning goals that they will support through a specific and well-designed use of education technology). Intentional applications of technology to student learning must also include careful measures of the effectiveness of those applications. To read more about the seven dimensions and how to use them, visit http://www.mff.org/edtech/projects.taf.

The Need for Professional Competency with Technology

In the early discussions related to the seven dimensions model, it was evident that Dimension #3 Professional Competency was of special concern to those with responsibility for encouraging effective use of education technology. This concern has been validated recently on several fronts.

A recent U.S. Department of Education study (1999) found that only 20% of teachers feel well prepared to effectively integrate technology in the classroom.

One of the key findings in Milken’s statewide evaluation of technology use in Virginia schools was that teachers are becoming more comfortable with technology applications for professional purposes (e.g., word processing, e-mail, and spreadsheets). However, their comfort level is not translating into strategies for applying technology effectively to powerful learning opportunities for students (Milken, NCREL, & SRI, 1998).

In a recent study of teacher-training institutions conducted by the Milken Exchange and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999), it was reported that most prospective teachers are well versed in basic computer skills and are able to use software applications. However, less than half of these teacher trainees make routine use of educational technology when teaching K–12 students, and less than half of field-experience supervisors or cooperating classroom teachers are able to advise on or model educational technology use.

The key questions that states, districts, and schools are struggling with are “What are the skills for the digital age classroom? What will it take to prepare teachers to take advantage of education technology?”

In May 1998, the Milken Exchange convened a panel of experts to attempt to answer the first of these questions. The panel included selected state, regional, and district technology directors as well as representatives from ISTE, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Education Association, the CEO Forum, and representatives of private industry. These participants wanted to develop a comprehensive list of the specific areas within which an educator must be skilled to be successful in the technology-rich classroom. This skill set used several resources as a starting point including the ISTE Recommended Foundations in Technology for All Teachers (ISTE Accreditation and Standards Committee, 1999), the NCREL Engaged Learning Indicators (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1994; read more about engaged learning in Laurie Dias’s article and Beth Buchler’s article), and teacher competency sets created by several states, most notably those from North Carolina and Ohio. The participants in this meeting identified five key areas of competency that must be addressed in a comprehensive professional development program.

1. Educators must become proficient in the use of technology tools.
2. Educators must be skilled in the use of a variety of models for curriculum design, models for learning, and strategies for assessment that are supported by those technologies.
3. Educators must develop new organizational and management strategies to support innovative learning in technology-rich environments.
4. Educators must use technology to support new, more collaborative professional practices.
5. To support classroom teachers in the development of the proficiencies described above, administrators must be prepared to lead significant change initiatives and play an active role in the professional development of all staff within their area of responsibility.

These five areas translated into the five areas of Milken’s Professional Competency Continuum (PCC) (Coughlin & Lemke, 1999):

1. Core Technology Skills
2. Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment
3. Professional Practice
4. Classroom and Instructional Management
5. Administrative Competencies

Within each of these areas of competencies, specific indicators of competency were identified.

1. Core Technology Skills.
   1. The educator has a firm understanding of the principles of operation of the computer system and peripherals and this understanding has translated into the ability to adapt quickly to new technologies as they become available.
   2. The educator is familiar with technologies specific to the disciplines he or she teaches, and he or she is able to successfully use these technologies in support of student learning.
   3. The educator has mastered the use of basic software applications and is able to generalize these skills to quickly learn new applications.
   4. The educator has sufficient skill and experience to be able to make efficient and effective use of complex electronic information resources.
   5. The educator understands the power of computer networks and is able to use those networks to facilitate communications, professional growth, and student learning.
   6. The educator is familiar with multimedia and presentation technologies and is able to guide students in the application of these technologies to the creation of knowledge products.
2. Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment.
   1. The educator is skilled at identifying opportunities within the curriculum for improved student learning through technology and is capable of designing technology-enriched learning activities that support the curriculum.
   2. The educator has a variety of instructional strategies for teaching and learning with technology and is able to match specific strategies with the learning needs of individual students.
   3. The educator understands the possibilities for new roles for educators that might better support learning in the technology-rich classroom, and he or she has mastered specific strategies for adopting these roles.
   4. The educator understands the possibilities for new roles for students in the technology-rich classroom and has explicit strategies for supporting students as they adopt these roles.
   5. The educator is skilled in the design and implementation of a variety of assessment strategies including performance and product-based assessments that are often more relevant in the technology-rich classroom.

   
   Within the area of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment, for example, one of the indicator areas is Curriculum (Table 1). The complete Continuum document is available online at http://www.mff.org/edtech/publication.taf.

3. Professional Practice.
   1. Technology has had a significant effect on the personal and professional productivity of the educator.
   2. The educator is able to use technology to participate in increased levels of professional collaboration.
   3. The educator is able to use technology to more effectively communicate with students, parents, educators, and the wider community.
   4. The educator is skilled in the use of technology to access a wide variety of professional resources.
   5. The educator is sufficiently knowledgeable to play a significant role in the identification and acquisition of technology resources in support of learning.
4. Classroom and Instructional Management.
   1. The educator is skilled in the organization of technology resources in the classroom and in the orchestration of activity within that environment.
   2. The educator is aware of the requirements for access and location of technology resources that are necessary to support chosen applications of that technology.
   3. The educator is skilled in the use of technology to track student progress through the curriculum and manage curricular resources.
5. 5. Administrative Competencies.
   1. Administrators at the building and district levels model the effective use of technology in support of learning and administrative functions.
   2. Administrators are able to initiate and support professional development processes that reflect attention to principles of adult learning.
   3. Administrators competent in leading and managing systemic change processes at the classroom, school, and/or district levels.
   4. Administrators maintain a solid knowledge of the research base related to applying technology to student learning.

The PCC Structure

The continuum within each of these areas is structured not as a list of discrete skill statements, but as a set of narratives that would describe each of the competencies as they occurred at each of three stages. The structure of the continuum is based on a simplification of the “stages of instructional evolution” identified in the research from the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow program (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997):

• Stage One—Entry. At this stage, educators, students, and the community are aware of the possibilities that technology holds for improving learning—but learning, teaching, and the system remain relatively unchanged by technology. Educators at this level lack access to technology and the requisite skills to implement and sustain significant changes in practice.
• Stage Two—Adaptation. Technology is thoroughly integrated into the classroom in support of existing practice. Educators at this stage have developed skills related to the use of technology but have primarily applied these skills to automate, accelerate, and enhance the teaching and learning strategies already in place.
• Stage Three—Transformation. At this stage, technology is a catalyst for significant changes in learning practice. Students and teachers adopt new roles and relationships. New learning opportunities are possible through the creative application of technology to the entire school community.

The PCC Online Assessment Tool

One of the major goals for the PCC project was to create a related online assessment that would provide those charged with the professional development of teachers a tool to support the professional development planning process.

The purpose of the online assessment is not to rate or compare educators but to serve as a technical assistance environment for individuals or as part of a professional development initiative. In the case of an initiative, a project administrator can establish a project at the state, regional, district, or school level. Though individual educator data remain confidential, reports describing the current level of subgroups within the population can be accessed as described in section 4 that follows. The PCC Assessment Tool consists of four elements:

1. An online, self-reporting survey that can be accessed in two formats. The first quick-and-easy format allows the user to answer approximately 40 questions related to his or her level of competency in the four areas (or five if the respondent is an administrator) of the Continuum. This survey can be completed in 10 to 15 minutes by most educators.
   

   Figure 1.

   The second format is a survey that delves more deeply into each of the five areas. This survey consists of 30—40 items in each of the five areas and can be completed in multiple sessions or only for selected areas of concern. Each of the items in the survey consists of three descriptions of skill levels within a specific area of competency. Educators are asked to select the description that most closely matches their current level of functioning. A sample of one of the items is illustrated in Figure 1, formatted for the paper version of the survey that was used for validation purposes.

    

2. A database of advice essays is linked to the survey. If an educator rates himself or herself at Stage One—Entry in Curriculum Integration, for example, a click of the mouse will allow him or her to access advice describing steps that she might take to advance to Stage Two—Adaptation. The advice essays that comprise the database were distilled through a formal collection process that involved 24 experts in technology professional development from around the nation. These essays include not only advice for individual educators but also recommendations for the essential support and conditions that must be provided by schools and districts if individual educators are to be successful in developing these skills.
3. A second database can also be accessed based on the assessment results. This database consists of resources—Web sites, articles, books, and training—that the same expert group deemed to be particularly valuable for the educator at that level. This database of resources will be constantly updated during the coming year.
4. Finally, a comprehensive set of reports can be produced. If an educator completes the assessment as an individual, he or she will be provided with a set of graphs providing feedback as to his or her current status on the Continuum in each of the areas assessed. If the educator returns to retake the assessment at a later date, these graphs will display the growth that has been made in the interim. If an educator has completed the assessment as part of a professional development initiative, additional reports describing the status of the population of the initiative are available to the project administrator. The results of an individual educator remain confidential, but a variety of reports graphically displaying the status of subpopulations within the project are accessible.

The assessment tool is accessible at http://www.mff.org/edtech/projects.taf and is a joint project of the Milken Exchange and the North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium (NCRTEC).

Future Plans for the PCC

The Milken Exchange is proud to be a major fiscal sponsor of and participant in ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) project. During the current school year, ISTE will release the book, National Educational Technology Standards for Students—Connecting Curriculum and Technology, and the ISTE Standards and Accreditation Committee will revise NETS for Teachers (for more on NETS, go to www.iste.org/standards). The Milken Exchange will be updating the PCC as well as the Online Assessment Tool to remain compatible with these standards.

References

Coughlin, E., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Professional skills for the digital age classroom [Online document]. Santa Monica, CA: Author. Available: http://www.mff.org/edtech/projects.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=104. This document is available at no charge (up to 20 copies) by e-mail (lhaughey@mff.org) or by mail from the author.

ISTE Accreditation and Standards Committee. (1999). National standards for technology in teacher preparation. Eugene, OR: Author. Available: www.iste.org/standards.

Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and technology for educational reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., & others. (1998). Technology in American schools: Seven dimensions for gauging progress. A policymaker’s guide. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Available: http://www.mff.org/edtech/projects.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid=152

Milken Exchange on Education Technology, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, & SRI International. (1998). Report to the Commonwealth of Virginia: An analysis of the status of education technology availability and usage in the public schools of Virginia. Santa Monica, CA: Authors.

Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

Table 1. The Curriculum Indicator Area for the Professional Competency Curriculum

Copyright © 1999, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.