Projects:
Road Ahead
(Suggestions for Schools)
This document is a draft of one of several reports being prepared for
The
Road Ahead, a program of the National
Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE), a
nonprofit foundation
of the National Education
Association
(NEA). The Road Ahead is funded by Bill Gates, co-founder and CEO of
Microsoft
Corporation, from proceeds from his book by the same name. The
program
involves 22 school/community partnerships in 15 states using
technology-based
learning activities that extend beyond the traditional classroom and
school
day.
This draft is subject to review and revision, and was prepared by
staff of
the International Society for
Technology in
Education (ISTE). All statements and opinions expressed are
those
of the authors and do not represent policies or positions of the NEA,
NFIE,
ISTE, or Microsoft Corporation.
Computer Technology and Professional
Development:
Suggestions for Schools
The information technologies are now pervasive in our society. Rapid
growth
in availability and use continues unabated. Increasingly, schools are
setting
specific goals that call for thorough integration of information
technologies
across the grade levels and across the curriculum.
This means that educators need a professional development system to
help them
gain knowledge and skills in the information technologies to
facilitate their
professional work and to help their students learn.
This report examines the professional development challenge in
information
technology. Key to meeting this challenge is the active involvement of
teachers
as both learners and as facilitators of their peers' learning. In
addition,
teachers need to learn from their students.
Links to major headings
top
Introduction
The installed base of microcomputers, printers, network connectivity,
CD-ROM
drives, scanners, digital cameras, interactive TV, and other
information technologies
in schools, homes, and businesses is now quite large, and it continues
to grow
quite rapidly. For instance, K–12 schools in the United States in
the early
1980s had approximately one microcomputer or computer terminal per 120
students.
The ratio is now about one per eight students. Moreover, the
microcomputers
that schools are now buying are several hundred times as powerful as
the microcomputers
available in the early 1980s. This means that the amount of "compute
power"
available to students in K–12 schools has grown by a factor of
several
thousand in the past 15 years.
The past decade has seen very rapid growth in computer networking.
Networking
is now commonplace in higher education and in businesses. Many
K–12 schools
have local area networks (LANs) and Internet connectivity. A large
number of
school districts and a number of states are committed to providing
Internet
connectivity to all classrooms in their schools. This goal is part of
the national
agenda of the Clinton administration.
The world's telecommunications system is rapidly becoming digital. We
are at
the beginnings of a merger of the computer, telephone, and television
(Negroponte,
1995). Home access to the World Wide Web is growing very rapidly. A
steadily
increasing percentage of children are growing up in home environments
that include
microcomputers, Web connectivity, and other uses of information
technologies.
We are now well into the Information and Communication Age. Our
school systems
are facing the task of dealing with the changes this is bringing to
curriculum
content, teaching processes, and assessment. One of the major problems
that
educators face is gaining the knowledge and skills to effectively
integrate
electronic digital technology into the curriculum. This booklet
discusses professional
development for educators in the Information and Communication
Age.
top
Professional Development as Change Agent
Professional development is a major tool for implementing educational
change.
There is extensive literature on effective inservice education
practices, some
of it (Moursund, 1989) focused specifically on technology in
education. Two
recent reports (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education,
1996;
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996) are
helping focus
national attention on improving preservice and inservice education.
The National
Staff Development Council (NSDC) has developed standards at the
elementary,
middle, and high school levels for staff development. These various
reports
emphasize that well-prepared teachers are the foundation for school
improvement
and change.
However, as pointed out by Fullan (1991) and others, professional
development
that leads to significant and lasting educational change is difficult
for the
following reasons:
- Change is multidimensional. We are dealing with change in a
school system,
and a school system is a very complex entity. Professional
development is
an important factor in producing change. However, by itself, its
value as
a change agent is limited. Many other aspects of a school system
need to be
addressed simultaneously to produce significant and lasting change.
For example,
are the infrastructure, school administrators, school board, and
parents supportive
of change?
- Change is a slow process. It is the nature of a stable and
functioning
system to resist change. Many school systems are quite resistant to
change,
and others will only change slowly.
- Effective inservice is resource-intensive. In many settings, the
resources
available for inservice education may not be adequate to produce a
significant
change. To be effective, ongoing professional development is
necessary; there
has been extensive research showing the shortcomings of one-shot
professional
development (Moursund, 1989). However, ongoing professional
development requires
a great deal of time and commitment from the participants, as well
as other
resources.
- The inservice often fails to involve key stakeholders. Research
strongly
supports the need to have school administrators learn alongside
their teachers.
Teachers, teachers' assistants, school administrators, and school
district
administrators need to work together to produce school
improvements.
- Adult learning styles are complex. A typical inservice will
involve adults
with widely varying interests, characteristics, and backgrounds. It
is a major
challenge to professional development facilitators to meet the
varying needs
of the participants. Many inservice providers do a relatively poor
job of
meeting such demands.
- It is difficult to involve teachers in setting inservice goals
and working
toward achieving them. As indicated in the 1996 NFIE report, there
is substantial
research indicating that teachers can and should be involved both in
setting
professional development goals and in working to accomplish these
goals. However,
this in itself represents a significant change for most
schools.
- Mechanisms for evaluation of inservice programs are ill-defined
and infrequently
used. Formative, summative, and residual-impact evaluation are all
important
to a staff-development endeavor. However, most
professional-development activities
are inadequately evaluated. Thus, there is little information
gathered that
supports improvements in the professional development program.
There is substantial research on and practitioner knowledge about how
to address
and overcome these problems. Excellent summaries are provided in NFIE
and NCTAF
works previously cited. Both of these documents stress that it will
require
a major and continuing commitment to excellence in professional
development.
Both stress the need to empower teachers to play a major role in their
own continuing
professional development.
top
Goals for Information Technology in Education
Although there are currently no national standards for information
technology
in K–12 schools, almost all states and many districts and schools
have
strategic long-range technology plans. The International Society for
Technology
in Education (ISTE) is coordinating a national effort to develop
national K–12
standards, and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education
(1993) has already established information technology requirements for
preservice
teachers.
There is general broad agreement on the goals for educational
technology (Moursund,
1995): Information technology should be integrated throughout the
curriculum,
in all subjects and at all grade levels. All students need to learn to
make
routine and effective use of information technology tools as aids to
representing
and solving the types of problems that they are studying. All students
need
to learn to use electronic sources of information and aids to
learning.
top
The Professional-Development Problem
Professional development is an ongoing part of an educator's life.
Teachers
are continually faced by changes in the theory and practice of how to
be most
effective in their teaching areas. School administrators face
continual changes
in the specific tasks they must accomplish. There are also substantial
changes
in the makeup of the student body and the needs of the community.
Thus, all
educators are lifelong learners, actively engaged in adjusting to the
evolving
demands of their profession.
The information technologies—which can affect content, teaching,
and assessment
in any academic subject—add a major new dimension to the ongoing
professional-development
task faced by teachers. The typical teacher is faced by a situation in
which:
- He or she has had limited formal training and experience with the
information
technologies. This will change as technology becomes more common in
the schools
and colleges graduating young teachers. But for most teachers, use
of computers
and related technologies has not been a routine part of their own
educational
environment. Thus, many teachers lack a functional computer-literacy
foundation
upon which to build new knowledge and skills.
- Many students, compared to their teachers, have more computer
training
and experience, better computer access at home, and more time to
spend on
learning and using the technology.
- The applications of information technology in education change at
a much
faster pace than the teacher has faced in any other area of
professional development.
- The technology infrastructure and support system in the school is
relatively
weak. Teachers using networked multimedia in a class are on their
own if there
are any problems with a computer or network connection. The chances
are that
there is no immediate technical help or replacement equipment.
- The teachers already feel overwhelmed by the demands of classroom
management,
assessment, curriculum development, administrative tasks, and other
myriad
duties. They literally do not have the time to master new
technologies and
integrate them into their activities.
top
Three Modes of Staff Development
This section discusses three different approaches to professional
development,
each of which can help meet the professional development challenges
listed in
the previous section.
Large-Group Inservice
Traditionally, professional development has been a large-group
activity, such
as a university inservice class spread out over a number of weeks, an
intensive
weekend workshop, or a shorter workshop at a conference or
after-school meeting.
There is substantial research on how to design and implement
large-group inservice
activities in a manner that will lead to school improvement.
Guidelines for
this are provided later in this booklet.
A distinguishing characteristic of large-group professional
development is
that it is facilitated by a "professional" who often spends a
considerable amount
of time preparing to do the formal presentations. Although this
facilitator
may also be a regular classroom teacher, often he or she does not
teach in the
school of the inservice participants. Thus, this facilitator is
typically unavailable
to provide follow-up support.
A number of inservice providers have experimented with having
students participate
alongside educators in large-group inservices. This has proven to be
quite a
successful approach. The educators learn about their strengths and
relative
weaknesses as learners compared to students. The educators get used to
the idea
that it is all right to learn from their students, and students are
exposed
to a model of lifelong learning.
Teacher-Designed Staff Development
An alternative to the traditional, large-group inservice is making
professional
development part of the ongoing duties of building-level staff. Joyce
and Showers
(1988) and NFIE (1996) both focus on schools having teachers play the
major
roles in organizing and conducting their own professional-development
activities.
One excellent way to implement this approach is to have every teacher
assume
some of the responsibility for professional development in the school.
Each
individual has a niche, an area in which they maintain knowledge and
skill beyond
that of the other teachers in the building. The "expert" teacher then
has a
responsibility to help colleagues improve their capabilities. The
whole volume
of information on educational technology—thousands of articles
published
each year and thousands of products coming to market—is
impossible for
any individual to digest. However it is quite possible for a teacher
to become
expert in one or two ideas or products that meet particular needs in a
school.
The actual instruction in this model may occur in a one-on-one or
small-group
setting. It may be informal and spontaneous. The faculty expert on the
World
Wide Web may step across the hall to help a colleague connect to the
Internet.
The expert on electronic assessment may end up giving an impromptu
demonstration
when he or she brings a laptop to the teachers' lounge to work on
grades.
Students as Professional-Development Facilitators
Still another important professional development approach is learning
from
and with one's students. This is especially effective in settings in
which students
work in cooperative learning groups that make extensive use of
computer technology.
The students learn from each other. The teacher becomes just one more
member
of this learning community. The teacher models being a lifelong
learner who
is able and willing to learn from anyone who has the appropriate
knowledge and
skills.
This approach to professional development fits well with the other
two. It
is "learning by doing," and it can become a standard part of a
teacher's repertoire.
Indeed, whenever the teacher encounters software or curriculum ideas
that might
be relevant to a class, the teacher can ask the students for help in
exploring
the software and curriculum ideas. The students can become part of the
team
that helps bring new software and ideas into the curriculum.
Many schools have experimented with giving students significant
levels of responsibility
for the information technologies in their school. Students run
computer networks,
evaluate software, and participate in a licensure procedure through
which other
students demonstrate their mastery of hardware and software. For
example, the
public schools in Olympia, Washington, provide excellent examples of
students
running the computer networks, evaluating hardware and software, and
helping
both their fellow students and their teachers learn about the
information technologies.
In a comprehensive professional-development plan for technology in
education,
all three of these approaches can be effective. Both large-group and
one-on-one
professional development can be done using the Internet or other
distance education
modes. In both cases, it is important that the learning facilitator
have an
understanding of how adults learn and how to work with adults in both
formal
and informal learning situations.
top
Adult Education
There has been a great deal of research on adult education and the
specifics
of effective inservice for educators. Some key findings:
- 1. Adults learn by doing; they want and need to be involved. Mere
demonstration
is seldom effective—practice and coaching are highly desirable.
2. Problems and examples must be realistic and relevant to their
specific
professional needs. Changes in pace and instructional method help
keep the
interest of the adult learner high. Handout materials should be
designed
to specifically fit the needs of educators as they apply what they
are learning
to their professional work. Teachers especially appreciate
receiving detailed
lesson plans and student handout materials, along with help in
learning
how to use them.
3. Adults relate their learning very strongly to what they
already know.
They tend to have a lower tolerance for ambiguity than children,
so explicit
attachment of new knowledge to their existing base is a paramount
necessity.
4. Adults tend to prefer informal learning environments, which
are less
likely to produce tension and anxiety. Instruction carried out in
the environment
similar to that in which implementation is expected is highly
desirable.
5. Unless the conditions of training absolutely require it, a
grading system
should be avoided. Checklists of criteria met in the course of
training,
for example, are less intimidating than the assignment of
grades.
6. The instructor should serve as a facilitator of learning
rather than
as a font of knowledge or expertise. This guarantees that
participants will
find the trainer approachable, an absolute precondition of
communication
between adult learner and teacher.
Perhaps the single most important idea is that adults want
instruction to be
relevant to their needs and concerns and at a level that is
appropriate to their
needs.
top
Stages of Concern and Levels of Knowledge
There has been quite a bit of professional development research
focusing on
Stages of Concern (Hall, 1974). An educator who knows very little
about information
technology has different concerns and professional-development needs
than an
educator who has been making personal use of computers and other
information
technologies for several years.
Professional development is more effective if it specifically
addresses the
concerns of the educators and builds on their current levels of
knowledge and
use. This is one reason to emphasize one-on-one inservice and teachers
learning
alongside their students. In both of these professional-development
approaches,
the learning opportunity can be carefully tuned to the stage of
concern and
level of knowledge of the learner.
The various Stages of Concerns and Levels of Knowledge (SC&LK)
that teachers
have about the information technologies are not easily grouped into
simple categories.
However, the following list is indicative of the range of possible
situations.
It is a Stages of Concern model that has been adapted specifically to
microcomputers
and other information technologies such as CD-ROMs, networking,
digital cameras,
and scanners.
- 1. Awareness: I have an awareness of microcomputers and
other information
technologies, but I do not make professional use of them. I do not
engage
my class in discussions about information technologies even when I
realize
that this would be relevant to the topic at hand. I am somewhat
technophobic.
2. Informational: I have a novice level of microcomputer
and other
information technology knowledge and skill. Although I sometimes
make personal
use of these facilities, my level of knowledge is not adequate for
professional
use. I am concerned about gaining more general information about
their potential
uses in my professional work.
3. Personal: I am beginning to make use of microcomputers
and other
information technologies in my professional work. I am concerned
about how
using this technology will affect me personally in my professional
career
as an educator.
4. Time: I am concerned about the time needed to learn
about and
keep up with the rapid changes in the information technologies in
education.
As I continue to learn, I sometimes feel overwhelmed by how much
there is
to learn and how much time it takes to keep up.
5. Consequences: I make quite a bit of use information
technologies
in my professional work. I am concerned about the effects my use
of microcomputers,
networking, and other information technologies are having and
should be
having on my students and on my professional work.
6. Collaboration: I occasionally help a colleague to
handle an information
technology hardware or software problem in an informal, one-on-one
setting.
I am concerned about doing more extensive work with my peers so
that we
can all learn more about information technologies in
education.
7. Refocusing: I am comfortable making routine
professional use
of information technologies and helping my colleagues to learn. I
am concerned
about learning new ways to use what I already know and about
expanding my
horizons.
8. Leadership: I am a technology leader and high-level
facilitator.
I am concerned about continuing to maintain and improve my
leadership and
professional-development skills in my school, school district, and
beyond.
This scale can be used to do a needs assessment in a school or school
district.
Teachers who are at the higher levels can help others determine where
they fit
and then help their colleagues to move up the scale. A faculty can
assess all
of its teachers, and do a scatter plot of the resulting distribution.
The professional-development
goals of the school might be to help each individual teacher move up
the scale
and to produce a cadre of teachers at level 6 or higher.
top
Risk-taking Early Adopters
The following are some questions to ask yourself and to use in needs
assessment:
- When it comes to information technologies in education, am I a
risk taker?
- Am I an early user of new software and hardware?
- Is my level of classroom implementation usually somewhat beyond my
knowledge
and comfort levels?
- Do I frequently learn alongside my students?
If most of your answers are "yes," you fall into a category known as
"early
adopters." A person who responds "no" to most of these questions will
probably
prove to be a late adopter.
For any new educational innovation that is eventually widely adopted,
there
are early adopters (perhaps 5%–10%), a large middle group that
takes much
longer to adopt the innovation (perhaps 80%–90%), and the
laggards or late
adopters (perhaps 5%–10%). The early adopters tend to push the
information-technology
instructional envelope. They frequently bring other teachers along
with them—indeed,
a few early adopters can sometimes change an entire school.
The SC&LK model partially represents actual classroom
implementation of
information-technology knowledge. However, educators may practice at a
level
quite a bit above or below what one might expect from their placement
on the
SC&LK scale.
The diagram in Figure 1 depicts increasing levels of professional use
along
the vertical axis, and increasing levels of SC&LK along the
horizontal axis.
The band along the 45-degree part of the diagram depicts educators who
are making
professional use of the technology at a level consistent with their
levels of
SC&LK. The small dots outside of this band depict
outliers—educators
whose use levels are quite a bit higher or lower than their levels of
SC&LK.
Figure 1. Graph of use levels versus Concerns & Knowledge
levels.
Professional development can be aimed at moving educators both toward
higher
SC&LK levels and toward a higher level of use. Several ways to do
this include:
- 1. Provide a supportive and personal approach. One-on-one help is
particularly
important. Some of this can occur in the teacher's classroom, with
the facilitator
taking over the class and demonstrating the desired levels of
activities and
then facilitating the teacher to function in this classroom role. In
other
cases—for example, helping a teacher learn to use an electronic
gradebook
or surf the Internet—individual help outside of the classroom
setting
is very effective.
2. Using the school's technology resources in a manner that
supports risk
taking on the part of teachers. Have a system in place that
provides immediate
support to a teacher who runs into hardware or software difficulty
while
using a computer in the classroom. Develop a school leadership
structure
that encourages and rewards risk taking.
3. Provide special training to some students to serve as
classroom assistants
for information technologies. Some of the burden of helping
students learn
to make classroom use of these technologies is then transferred to
these
students.
top
A Rising Tide of Expectation
The SC&LK model does not specifically address the rising tide of
expectation
that is accompanying the field of information technology in education.
Each
year, the standards are going up. Each year, the average level of
information-technology
knowledge of students in increasing. Each year, more information
technologies
are being integrated into the guidelines, benchmarks, and standards
that help
drive curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
This rising tide of expectation means that every educator needs to be
involved
in ongoing professional development in the information technologies.
In just
a few years, a person who was an early adopter and a school leader can
fall
behind unless engaged in ongoing professional development.
top
An Effective Inservice Model
This section outlines a model for working with small to large groups.
It is
research-based model for staff development for technology in education
that
has been shown to be quite effective (Moursund, 1989). The inservice
might be
targeted toward a number of teachers from different schools in the
school district.
For example, it might be specifically designed for high school social
studies
teachers or for middle school math teachers. Alternatively, in a
specific school
an inservice might be targeted at all teachers who are at levels 1 or
2 on the
SC&LK scale. As indicated earlier in this report, this same model
for group
inservice has proven effective in working with a combination of
teachers and
students.
- Do a needs assessment. Many schools and school districts
have developed
a long-range plan for computer use and a more general long-range
plan for
their schools. These plans provide a good starting point for a needs
assessment.
The overarching goal of the inservice is to facilitate classroom
implementation
of goals specified in the existing plans of the school and district.
- Plan carefully. Design the inservice and make the
necessary arrangements
for facilities. Give careful consideration to holding some or all of
the sessions
in the participants' schools. Make sure that the planning process
includes
the participants and that the plan actually meets their needs.
- Recruit participants. Keep in mind the desirability of
having a
critical mass of participants from each participating school and of
having
administrative support and participation. By and large, it is easier
to work
with participants who have relatively homogeneous computer
backgrounds and
teaching interests. Job-alike groupings can be especially
effective.
Cycle through steps 1–3 as needed. For example, information
obtained
during the recruiting process may contribute to the needs assessment
and lead
to changes in the plans. Some participants will have considerably
more experience
than others in technology and in classroom implementation. Consider
how these
more knowledgeable educators will be facilitated and used in the
inservice.
They want to learn, but at the same time they can be a valuable
resource for
others.
- Do extensive advance preparation. Carefully and fully
prepare the
content of the inservice series. Prepare handout materials. Make
sure that
the handout materials include good examples that the teachers can
immediately
use in their teaching. As a rough rule of thumb, the first time a
person facilitates
a particular inservice they will probably need to spend at least 10
hours
of preparation time for each hour of inservice.
- Check out the inservice facilities. Pay particular
attention to
the hardware, software, networking and connectivity, and room
lighting. Is
the lighting appropriate for use of projection equipment? Make sure
you arrive
at the inservice site early enough to recheck all of the facilities
to make
sure they are working well.
- Do an inservice session. Be aware that teachers like
inservices
to have a substantial hands-on component. (In general, from the
participant
point of view, the more hands-on time, the better.) Conducting a
hands-on
inservice for a group of educators is very challenging to the
facilitator.
Having participants work in teams of two tends to reduce pressures
on the
facilitator. Even then, very few inservice providers can effectively
handle
a group of more than 15–20 educators in a hands-on session. For
larger
groups, assistance is essential.
- Focus on classroom implementation. Each inservice session
should
have a major emphasis on preparing participants to immediately make
use of
their new knowledge and skills. There should be an expectation that
teachers
will begin classroom implementation immediately.
- Evaluate. Conduct informal and formal formative evaluation
as seems
appropriate. For example, have participants fill out an evaluation
form at
the end of each session. The form should encourage participants to
provide
suggestions on ways to make the inservice better fit their specific
needs.
Repeat steps 5–8 for each session in a series. Provide time in
each session
for doing any necessary follow-up support for the preceding
session.
- Do a summative evaluation at the end of the inservice series.
From
the point of view of the participants, what went well and what
didn't? What
could be improved, and what changes in emphasis would make the
inservice series
more valuable to participants? Were the design, implementation, and
outcomes
sufficiently successful so that the inservice should be repeated for
other
groups of teachers? (See the section on evaluation later in this
document.
- Continue to provide follow-up support to the participants
after the
inservice series ends. This might involve a combination of
support from
the inservice staff and the participants providing support to one
another.
- Evaluate the long-term residual impact. Gather data on the
effects
of the training six months to a year after the inservice series
ends. Are
the participants exhibiting the behaviors that the inservice was
designed
to promote? Look for ways to improve the design of the inservice so
that the
next time it is given, it will have a greater long-term impact.
top
Ineffective Inservice
Many large-group inservices contain one or more of the following
flaws:
- 1. The inservice is based on inadequate needs assessment,
not firmly
rooted in long-range technology planning. The inservice is not
designed to
address the participants' SC&LK levels. The inservice violates
the basic
research knowledge about adult education, with little or no focus on
the specific
needs of the participants.
2. A "one-shot" approach is used, and there is little or
no follow-up
support. Research suggests that one-shot inservices are rarely
effective.
Change literature suggests that educational change takes a long
time and
substantial effort. Training may need to be spread out over a
period of
years.
3. The inservice focuses only on a particular computer tool.
Little
or no time is provided to study needed changes in the curriculum,
to learn
to deal with new classroom organization and management situations,
to develop
and critique lesson plans, and so forth. The inservice focus tends
to be
on the "key presses" and details of using a particular piece of
software
rather than on the underlying theory and higher-order thinking and
problem-solving
skills.
4. The inservice focuses on single individuals (one person
per school
or per district) rather than concentrating on reaching a critical
mass of
teachers in a single school. It is essential to define the unit of
change
(large department, a grade level, a school) and have a critical
mass of
inservice participants from that unit. The collegiality of a
substantial
support group contributes substantially to the successful
implementation
of what one learns in an inservice.
5. Most computer technology inservices have unrealistic
expectations
for outcomes. A high school math teacher might be taught how
to use
electronic spreadsheets to present and solve a variety of math
problems.
However, the computer lab is at the other end of the teacher's
building
and is heavily scheduled for computer literacy classes.
Furthermore, the
school's mathematics instruction is dominated by state-mandated
standardized
tests, which don't account for (or even allow) computer use. In
this situation,
the inservice can probably have little effect on instruction or
the desired
student achievement.
6.Handout materials are inadequate. The actual inservice
time is
quite short. Inservice participants are expected to apply what
they learn
and continue learning on their own. Handout materials should help
make maximum
use of the inservice time, include sample lesson plans or other
aids to
application, and direct participants to additional resources for
independent
learning.
7. There is little direct support from administration at the
school
or district level. Research strongly supports the contention
that little
classroom change is apt to occur without such explicit support. It
is highly
desirable for school administrators to participate in the
inservice alongside
their teachers.
8. There are few incentives for teachers to make substantial
changes
in their curriculum. Effective instructional computer use
generally
requires substantial changes in both the content and conduct of
the curriculum.
top
Evaluation of Inservices
Inservices can be evaluated at four levels of outcomes:
- Level I: Implementation of the inservice program. This
measures the
quality of the training itself. The focus is on the preparation of
the facilitator
and the quality of the inservice. Inservice participants are
typically asked
to fill out an evaluation form at the end of the inservice.
Level II: Teacher improvement. This measures actual
classroom behavior
change in the participating teachers. How well are they
implementing the
knowledge and skills addressed in the inservice? The inservice
participants
can be asked to self-evaluate their implementation progress. They
can visit
each other's classrooms to observe and comment on progress, or the
inservice
provider or another outside evaluator can visit their
classrooms.
Level III: Change in student performance. This measures
the degree
to which improvements in teacher performance lead to improvements
in student
achievement. Are students learning to make effective use of
information
technologies? This requires pre-and post-inservice gathering,
followed by
careful analysis. Data can be both quantitative and qualitative.
Although
this type of evaluation is typically done by a professional
evaluator, it
can be done by the inservice participants as a type of action
research.
Level IV: Changes in the environment. This measures
changes in the
school that may be indirect—or even unintended—results
of the
inservice program. Are there systemic changes that support
permanent implementation
of the new classroom curriculum, instruction, and assessment?
The goals of professional development in a school or school
district should
be at Level III and Level IV. However, most
professional-development programs
are evaluated at Level I. Only a small percentage are evaluated at
Level
III, and almost none are evaluated at Level IV. Thus, we gain
little information
about whether the professional development is really making a
significant
difference.
top
Final Remarks
Every school needs an ongoing program of professional development for
information
technology use in education. This program needs to be geared to the
specific
implementation levels as well as the Stages of Concern and Levels of
Knowledge
of the educators.
An effective model for such a program has three major components. One
component
is "traditional" group inservice, with large numbers of participants
who are
exposed to essentially the same materials. For example, this might be
appropriate
if a school has made major changes in its computer facilities during
the summer,
such as installing an Internet connection into every classroom, or
making an
initial acquisition of CD-ROM references for the library.
A second component is one-on-one staff development making use of a
peer-support
model. Each teacher has the responsibility of being both a learner and
a facilitator
of peer learning.
A third component is teachers learning alongside and from their
students. Teachers
and students learn together, all working to meet high educational
standards
in their school.
top
References
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.
New York:
Teachers College Press. A definitive work on educational change, with
a major
emphasis on projects designed to produce such change.
Hall, G.E. (1974). The concerns-based adoption model: A
developmental conceptualization
of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin,
TX: Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education. Presents and analyzes
"stages
of concern" as an approach to meeting the staff development needs of
educators.
International Society for Technology in Education. (1993). Curriculum guidelines
for accreditation of educational computing and technology programs. Eugene,
OR: Author. A detailed report on the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) standards for teacher preparation in the area of computer
technology in education. An updated list of these guidelines (approved by NCATE
in 1996) can be found on the World Wide Web at www.iste.org.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through
staff development.
New York: Longman. An overview of models of staff development with
special
emphasis on a coaching model that is designed to personalize staff
development
within a school building.
Moursund, D. (1989). Effective inservice for integrating
computer-as-tool
into the curriculum. Eugene, OR: ISTE. Summarizes the research
literature
on effective inservice for computer technology in education. Includes
a variety
of forms for the evaluation of an inservice.
Moursund, D. (1995). Increasing your expertise as a problem
solver: Some
roles of computers. Eugene, OR: ISTE.An introduction to the theory
and practice
of getting better at solving problems, with special emphasis on the
roles of
computers.
Moursund, D., Bielefeldt, T.; Ricketts, R.; and Underwood, S. (1995).
Effective
practice: Computer technology in education. Eugene, OR: ISTE. A
comprehensive
summary and analysis of the research literature and other information
on effective
uses of computer technology in K–12 education.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996). What
matters
most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author. An
extensive report
by a Blue Ribbon committee addressing strengths and weaknesses of the
preservice
and inservice preparation of teachers. The emphasis is on what needs
to be done
to have better teachers—and hence, better education for
students.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996).
Teachers take
charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for
student
success. Washington, DC: Author. A careful study of professional
development
that emphasizes its roles both in empowering teachers and in improving
education
for students. Includes an extensive bibliography.
National Staff Development Council (NSDC). PO Box 240, Oxford, OH
45056; 800.727.7288;
fax 513.523.0638; NSDCHavens@aol.com.
The NSDC is a professional society supporting the work of staff
developers in
all subject areas.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf. A
collection
of short essays that explore the state of the art of computer
technology from
a multimedia point of view. Negroponte discusses how the ability to
store, manipulate,
and transmit "bits" of information (the hallmark of the Information
and Communications
Age) is changing the world.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and
technology:
Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing
Office. A comprehensive study of technology in U.S. schools. Provides
good insight
into the current status and possible futures of technology in
K–12 education.
Prepared for the National Foundation for the Improvement of
Education by
the International Society for Technology in Education. Copyright
©1997
NFIE. Subject to review and modification. Draft prepared by Dave
Moursund, Talbot
Bielefeldt, and Siobhan Underwood. Contact: Talbot Bielefeldt,
Research Associate
(talbot@iste.org).
|
