RSA #4 “Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices”
In this article, Brinkerhoff (2006) details the progress of 25 teachers through a two-yeear professional development academy created to help remove barriers to teachers’ implementation of instructional technology in the classroom. The article details the selection of participants, subjects covered in the academy, and the outcomes of the academy based on data-collection from participant surveys.
Four key obstacles to the use of instructional technology are identified: resources, institutional support, experience, and attitudes towards technology (Brinkerhoff, 2006). The experiment speculates that a long-term academy providing follow-up, support, and resources would help improve teachers’ attitudes and knowledge, and thus increase their use of instructional technology in the classroom. Teachers met for three weeks in the summer and five days throughout the school year for two consecutive years (from 2003-2005). The teachers learned greater hardware proficiency and created projects using a range of software, online resources, and multimedia.
The resulting data generally showed an increase in teachers’ attitudes towards technology and an increasing belief that teaching technology was an important part of the regular classroom teacher’s responsibilities. However, the teachers did not report an increased amount of instructional technology employed in the classrooms during the same time (though they did feel their teaching had changed as a result of the academy) (Brinkerhoff, 2006). Of perhaps greatest importance to technology trainers were the data supplied after the first three-week training session. While over two years nearly all indicators of attitudes towards technology increased markedly, after the first round of training participants’ attitudes actually declined. This either shows a very poor training session or demonstrates that technology proficiency involves an intense and difficult early period preceding a rise to mastery. If the latter is the case, then we need to take that into account when conducting training (and perhaps share this with trainees).
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
RSA #3: Content Focused Technology Inquiry Groups
"Content Focused Technology Inquiry Groups: Cases of Teacher Learning and Technology Integration"
This article focuses on a professional learning community that is formed for the sole purpose of advancing the participants's use of instructional technology. The group is purposely comprised of teachers who teach similar courses (within the humanities) so that all instructional technology will be learned within the context of content-specific learning. Basically, the university team who designed the PLC and wrote the article cite research indicating that technology discovered and utilized by instructors for the specific purpose of augmenting their core content will "sustain educational reform, structure professional learning and improve practice, and improve teachers' instruction and students' learning" (Hughes et al., 2005, p. 369). The PLC consisted of three members from the University of Minnesota (a professor, graduate student, and undergraduate student) and three teachers in a Minnesota middle school. Group members met monthly (with particpant attendance varying widely) for a total of sixteen months.
The article summarizes the experiences of the three teachers separately, with the summary and analyses broken into three parts: A chronological narrative, documentation of specific instances of technology learning and integration, and the identification of patterns of behavior. All three case studies are quite different in terms of how the teacher went about integration. The tie that binds them is the importance of communication and feedback among group members when planning and evaluating the lessons. From the quotes and examples, it becomes quite clear that several technology interventions would have been aborted if not for the encouragement, support, assistance, and knowledge of other group members. At various points, the teachers even adopted or borrowed activities first introduced by a different member and then reported on modifications that had worked (or not).
In conclusion, the PLC itself was an effective catalyst for experimentation. However, there were some problems raised. Specifically, two teachers relied solely on University expertise to deliver materials and lessons, and never demonstrated fluency with the technology applied. Also, one teacher chose a tool that clearly did not relate to the stated goals of the group. The lesson not only did not further goals, but since he only demonstrated to students without allowing them to use the technology (a GIS geography application) the lesson did not even positively affect the classroom. The researchers suggested more time, and the inclusion of a technology integration specialist as well as a content coordinator would have helped the participants develop greater facility with the technology and make wiser choices for instruction.
With our final papers in mind, this was an interesting resource to contrast against my next RSA ( "Effects of a Long-Duration Professional Development Academy on Technology Skills, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Technology Integration Beliefs") as I have been wondering when I design PD whether content-relevance or application-fluency will be more important. I wasn't overwhelmed by the content-specific implementation but will look for more research (Hughes et al. reference Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001/2002) before I write it off.
Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-379. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
This article focuses on a professional learning community that is formed for the sole purpose of advancing the participants's use of instructional technology. The group is purposely comprised of teachers who teach similar courses (within the humanities) so that all instructional technology will be learned within the context of content-specific learning. Basically, the university team who designed the PLC and wrote the article cite research indicating that technology discovered and utilized by instructors for the specific purpose of augmenting their core content will "sustain educational reform, structure professional learning and improve practice, and improve teachers' instruction and students' learning" (Hughes et al., 2005, p. 369). The PLC consisted of three members from the University of Minnesota (a professor, graduate student, and undergraduate student) and three teachers in a Minnesota middle school. Group members met monthly (with particpant attendance varying widely) for a total of sixteen months.
The article summarizes the experiences of the three teachers separately, with the summary and analyses broken into three parts: A chronological narrative, documentation of specific instances of technology learning and integration, and the identification of patterns of behavior. All three case studies are quite different in terms of how the teacher went about integration. The tie that binds them is the importance of communication and feedback among group members when planning and evaluating the lessons. From the quotes and examples, it becomes quite clear that several technology interventions would have been aborted if not for the encouragement, support, assistance, and knowledge of other group members. At various points, the teachers even adopted or borrowed activities first introduced by a different member and then reported on modifications that had worked (or not).
In conclusion, the PLC itself was an effective catalyst for experimentation. However, there were some problems raised. Specifically, two teachers relied solely on University expertise to deliver materials and lessons, and never demonstrated fluency with the technology applied. Also, one teacher chose a tool that clearly did not relate to the stated goals of the group. The lesson not only did not further goals, but since he only demonstrated to students without allowing them to use the technology (a GIS geography application) the lesson did not even positively affect the classroom. The researchers suggested more time, and the inclusion of a technology integration specialist as well as a content coordinator would have helped the participants develop greater facility with the technology and make wiser choices for instruction.
With our final papers in mind, this was an interesting resource to contrast against my next RSA ( "Effects of a Long-Duration Professional Development Academy on Technology Skills, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Technology Integration Beliefs") as I have been wondering when I design PD whether content-relevance or application-fluency will be more important. I wasn't overwhelmed by the content-specific implementation but will look for more research (Hughes et al. reference Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001/2002) before I write it off.
Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-379. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Friday, February 4, 2011
RSA #2 "Professional Learning Communities: Developing a School-Level Readiness Instrument"
"Professional Learning Communities: Developing a School-Level Readiness Instrument"
This collaborative article represents the efforts of the New Brunswick Provincial Schools to form a University partnership so that the schools and the university could collect and analyze data relating to the readiness of the schools and districts to develop PLC's (at the school, district, and provincial level) which would then initiate curricular and operations reforms.
The introduction clarifies definitions of key terms.
A PLC:
1. shares values and vision
2. holds collective responsibility
3. engages in reflective professional inquiry
4. collaborates
5. promotes learning
The Organizational Characteristics essential to determining readiness include:
1. culture
2. leadership
3. capacity-building
The Operational Characteristics essential to determining readiness include:
1. Professional Development
2. Data Collection
3. Systemic Trust
(With a little imagination, it's easy to see how attitudes towards these characteristics can correlate with Martin-Kniep's dispositions).
The project included teams from four schools. Each team had five members including a lead teacher, a principal, and three teachers. The team developed a scale to help groups monitor their readiness for PLC collaboration. Sixty questions were designed to correlate with the scale and the questions were distributed to all four schools. The results of the surveys helped the teams determine current levels of readiness and identify barriers that must first be addressed before successful PLC integration could begin. The most common barrier turned out to be the self-imposition of isolation, especially among high school teachers. Many teachers even given the chance to work in groups would choose to work alone.
Clearly there is a lot left to be done to convince teachers that collaboration and collegiality are assets.
Mitchell, C. C., & Sackney, L. L. (2002). Relationships in the Study of Learning Communities. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 13(4), 453. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
This collaborative article represents the efforts of the New Brunswick Provincial Schools to form a University partnership so that the schools and the university could collect and analyze data relating to the readiness of the schools and districts to develop PLC's (at the school, district, and provincial level) which would then initiate curricular and operations reforms.
The introduction clarifies definitions of key terms.
A PLC:
1. shares values and vision
2. holds collective responsibility
3. engages in reflective professional inquiry
4. collaborates
5. promotes learning
The Organizational Characteristics essential to determining readiness include:
1. culture
2. leadership
3. capacity-building
The Operational Characteristics essential to determining readiness include:
1. Professional Development
2. Data Collection
3. Systemic Trust
(With a little imagination, it's easy to see how attitudes towards these characteristics can correlate with Martin-Kniep's dispositions).
The project included teams from four schools. Each team had five members including a lead teacher, a principal, and three teachers. The team developed a scale to help groups monitor their readiness for PLC collaboration. Sixty questions were designed to correlate with the scale and the questions were distributed to all four schools. The results of the surveys helped the teams determine current levels of readiness and identify barriers that must first be addressed before successful PLC integration could begin. The most common barrier turned out to be the self-imposition of isolation, especially among high school teachers. Many teachers even given the chance to work in groups would choose to work alone.
Clearly there is a lot left to be done to convince teachers that collaboration and collegiality are assets.
Mitchell, C. C., & Sackney, L. L. (2002). Relationships in the Study of Learning Communities. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 13(4), 453. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
RSA #1 “Avoiding Learning Team Burnout”
RSA #1 “Avoiding Learning Team Burnout”
This article from Education Week’s teachermagazine.com website deals with a very realistic and important problem. Many schools are beginning the year with Professional Learning Committee initiatives that fade out through the school year for several different reasons. The article seeks to identify some reasons that PLC’s fizzle, and poses solutions to rectify the problem. The author, Anne Jolly, is a former middle school science teacher and won the Alabama Teacher of the Year award before becoming a Director for Professional Learning Teams for a consortium of Southern educators. So we can assume her insights come from real experience (Jolly, 2007).
Among the biggest problems that lead to PLC breakdown, according to Jolly, are the stresses of time, the negativity within some groups, and the haziness of community goals. To counteract all these problems, Jolly makes several recommendations. Among these, several recommendations resonated with Martin-Kniep’s concluding chapters in Communities that learn, lead and last (2008). Specifically, Jolly (2007) maintains that groups must develop clear benchmarks for success and reflectively measure themselves against these benchmarks over time. Furthermore, the group should balance discussion and debate with the development of concrete products that embody the efforts of the group. In these two ways, as with Martin-Kniep (2008), you have a group that is clearly directed towards thoughtful, tangible outcomes.
What struck me as useful and different about Jolly’s perspective were her recommendations about the affective needs of the group. In particular, she suggests ways to embrace a positive attitude, a relaxed atmosphere, and a sense that experimentation and even failure are an acceptable part of the group learning process (2007).
Jolly, A. (2007). Avoiding learning team burnout. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2007/04/04/22tln_jolly_web.html?r=1600455345.
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
This article from Education Week’s teachermagazine.com website deals with a very realistic and important problem. Many schools are beginning the year with Professional Learning Committee initiatives that fade out through the school year for several different reasons. The article seeks to identify some reasons that PLC’s fizzle, and poses solutions to rectify the problem. The author, Anne Jolly, is a former middle school science teacher and won the Alabama Teacher of the Year award before becoming a Director for Professional Learning Teams for a consortium of Southern educators. So we can assume her insights come from real experience (Jolly, 2007).
Among the biggest problems that lead to PLC breakdown, according to Jolly, are the stresses of time, the negativity within some groups, and the haziness of community goals. To counteract all these problems, Jolly makes several recommendations. Among these, several recommendations resonated with Martin-Kniep’s concluding chapters in Communities that learn, lead and last (2008). Specifically, Jolly (2007) maintains that groups must develop clear benchmarks for success and reflectively measure themselves against these benchmarks over time. Furthermore, the group should balance discussion and debate with the development of concrete products that embody the efforts of the group. In these two ways, as with Martin-Kniep (2008), you have a group that is clearly directed towards thoughtful, tangible outcomes.
What struck me as useful and different about Jolly’s perspective were her recommendations about the affective needs of the group. In particular, she suggests ways to embrace a positive attitude, a relaxed atmosphere, and a sense that experimentation and even failure are an acceptable part of the group learning process (2007).
Jolly, A. (2007). Avoiding learning team burnout. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2007/04/04/22tln_jolly_web.html?r=1600455345.
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)