PAGE 1
A REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY TRAINING FOR TEACHERS by Allen D. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier September 22, 1987 This document was prepared under a contract with the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, for the assessment, Power On: New Tools for Teaching and Leaming. The conclusions are those of the authors. The document does not necessarily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Board.
PAGE 2
Table of caitart:s Intrcduction l Preservice Technology F.ducation 17 InseNice Technology Trainirg 37 Informal Teacher Train.in; strategies 62 Final camnents 72 References 74 Appeniix 80
PAGE 3
l Technology has become an illlportant part of American education. Most elementm:y arxi secorx:lary schools ro, have conp.rt:ers am more than 15 million students arxi 150,000 teachers use conp.rt:ers as a part of their school experience (Becker, 1986). Colleges arxi universities have also entered into the age of technology by nalifym;J the curriculum and by prcvidm; increased acxa;s to o:anputers for J:,oth faculty an:1 students. Fa, educational institutions are \mtouched J::,y the explosion of microtechnology. In fact, c:anputer technology has becane so much a part of the educational scene that critics are ro, can.in; forth to express their dismay at the unfulf illment of the earlier prcmj ~.s of technology. Critics of c:anputer utilization in the public school arena suggest that the nx:,vement has stalled because of a shortage of o:anputers, the lack of high quality software, inccnclusive researdl evidence for the effects of canputers, an:i the teacher's an inadequate knowledge base (Dronka, 1985). In higher education sane are suggestirg that the c:anputer professionals arxi c:anputer canpanies ra i sed unrealistic expectations m-g college administrators. Li.rm Fleit quotes one college president as sayirg, "Sanebody premised me that canputers and technology ~d make rtrf institution ncre productive, easier to manage, ani 11:)re sophisticated. None of these thin;Is has happened'' (Fleit, 1986). As a result sane administrators are callin; a halt to the rapid expansion of computer technology on their campus. 1
PAGE 4
' on the other side of the argument proponents of computer tachnology suggest that chan;es will continue to be forthcanin;. GiJbe,:t Valdez (1986) suggests that the technology field has mved beycn:i the unrealistic claims of the early zealots to a mre balanced -ot what technology can arxl cannot do. 'Iha quick fix will not occur, but there is an intellectual regeneration cxx::urrin;. Rebert Taylor (Ke?mll & axlin, 1987) suggests that wni processirq, database l::IUildin; an:i use, graphical representatiais of all kirxls, and teleo h11unications are all c:reatin; new environments for leamirq that will chan;e teachin;J, leamin;, an:i schools. '!hose in:lividuals with a positive orientation toward computer use in the schools have been bolstered by the recent upswin; in na, prcduct:s an:i sales. '1he recent bJo year slump in computer sales in which all major prcducers recb1ced payrolls and inventories appears to be aver. A recent TJme magazine noted, "No Mere IDmtime (Bock, 1987) aJXl suggested that Apple, canpaq, IEM, and Tamy are back an the road to success and makin; plans to make a significant push in the K-12 market. Similar headlines appear in the September 1987 issue of CJa&StOCIA IsamiDJ. critics am advocates, as well as researchers, manufacturers, am software developers, all agree that teacher t.ra.inin;J will play a critical role in the viability of cc:q:,uters in education (Office of Technology Assessment (orA, 1987) '1he teacher is central to the growth of technology for two :furx1amental reasons. First, it is the teacher who will for the foreseeable future continue to be the major deteminant of instructional activities in the classroom. Teachers 2
PAGE 5
make choices acout what is taught, when it is taught, am hew it is taught. If canplter technology is to have an ilrpact on teachin; an:l leamin:f, teachers 1lllSt unierstarxl the instructional issues sur.t'Oll1'Xlin the integration of the canputer into inst?.Uction. SUCh an cannct cane withcut l
PAGE 9
time, ~re people are questionin; the costs associated with higher education an:i the overall quality of the education received. '!he result is a cacophony of voices seeJd.rx; the attention of college administrators. 'Ihese exanples illustrate the point that in this era of refo:cm technology trainin; is just one of many in1;,ortant issues confrcntin; schools of edlration. 'Ibis does net mean that deans an:l divisi.on heads are not cognizant of these needs. In fact, in August 1986 the Graduate School of F.dlration at the University of califomia, Berkeley, with support frcm Apple canputer, Inc. sponsored a conference on technology an:l teacher education. Ninety participants frcm across the COl.U'ltry, includin; deans of schools of edlle'4tion arx1 directors of teacher education, atten:ied. Anx:n; the themes di srnssed was the existence of barriers ard problems. inhibitirq the incorporation of technology in teacher edue2tion. 'lhe conclusions of the di srn.ssion best summarize the iss1es -technology education in today's schools of education. 'Ihree in1;,ortant problems were identified. First, schools of education, like their counterparts in the public school, confrcnt an "\ environment of rapid technological chan;e. earl Berger, Dean of the University of Michigan, summarized the issue in the follc,...,in; way, "'Ihe problem is ha../ to prepare teachers for hardware that is not yet invented, for software that is not yet designed, am for cun-icula not yet illlagined. It's haro to have a vision of what technology will be" (Apple Report). Institutions who have spent a considerable annmt of their scarce resources on equipment are ncM firxlin; that it is dated 7
PAGE 10
1 ani that newer software demarx3s nx:)re power, speed, an:i graphics. Unlike_ many technology purd1ases of the past (e.g., overhead arxi xm:,vie projectors), carp.rters ani related technology wear out faster arc;or 1*xme outdated mre quickly. Keep.in; sanewhat up-to-date is 1DL1Ch mre costly than many administrators realized arxi in an era of tight budgets ani retrenchment, it is eas-t to fall behim. A secorxi issue that has ill1plications for the technology t.rainirx.;r is the m::wement "r.rj state agencies to regulate teacher licen.sure programs. califomia, for exanple, has mved to presc:ril:>e the type of technological experiences needed by teachers seeld.n; permanent license to teach. Werxiy Harris, Director of the Office of F.ducational Technology for the califomia state Department of F.ducation, irxlicated that by July 1988 teachers rust provide evidence that they have acquired certain carprt:er calp!tencies in order to obtain.a clear (permanent) teach.in; license. 'Ihe directive has cane fran the Commission on Teacher Credentialirq based on the 'NOrk of an advisoey board of teacher e:ilJ.Cators, teachers ani irxlividuals fran business arxi other agencies. Recent f inan:ial cuts in calif ornia' s technology budget may have a significant impact on future trainin;. Similar technolo;y efforts are tak.in; place in Florida where David Brittain, Administrator of F.ducational 'I'ec:hnolcgy for the Florida OOE, said that plans are urxler..iay for certification requirements for teachers in the carp.ttirq area arxi should be in place by July 1988. It will probably mean that teachers will be required to take a minm.nn set of technology courses. While this is a trerxi across the country, net all states are followirg this t.attem. Paul Berg of the Alaska OOE 8
PAGE 11
characterized Alaska's attitude toward legislatin;; technology requirements as "maverick" in that such actions wuld "go against the grain" of the Aiaskan value system. Alaska's imepen:ient philosophy may be unique; however, other states like Minnesota are discussin; the pros am cons of such actiais. Accord.in; to Harold Maccenx:,t.t, Technology OJrriOllum Specialist for the Minnesota OOE, djsrnssion will continue arxi the OOE.will provide documents that serve as guidelines for schools of edlication am their teacher education programs. In addition to the technology -sane states are legislatin;; the total number of credits in the licensure program. For example, Texas has set a maximum of 18 credits for teacher education programs. SUch restrictions put pressure on the teacher education faculty to develop a curriculum that meets the demams for initial licensure an:i still }:las "roan" for areas such as technology trainirq. Speakirq of the situation in califomia, Harris noted that two major problems are encountered by teacher trainin; programs. First, the teacher education curriculum is already Cl:'C1.\ded with required courses. Secon:i, there is uncertainty about hew to deliver the trainin;, in a separate course or integrated~ existin; courses such as content methods ccurses. Arsvers to these questions are difficult ard var/ significantly acrcsssdlools of education. 'Ihe final issue raised durin; the Apple conference was best summarized by Cean Alphonse Buccino of the university of Georgia. He noted, "A substantial portion of a teacher preparation program of a university is carried on outside the jurisdiction of the school or college of education. Often schools of education ItUJSt cope with 9
PAGE 12
unintegrated programs in general education, excessively narrow subject area majors, arxi poor teach.irq role llXiel.s in un:iergraduate education" (Linn, 1986). General carplter literacy is a responsibility shared with the larger college or university environment. For example, in california sane of the general o:mplte?" literacy -lDLlSt be acquired before students enter the fifth year t.rainirq programs. '1he schools of education do not have control over these courses. While schools of education are devisin; methods for enhancin; the knowledge arxi skills of their students, other efforts are occurrin; outside the school. COOrdinatin; these leamin;J experiences or build.in; upon them often is a diffiallt task. 'Ihese problems are real am llllSt be considered as part of the tctal agenja for aey school of educatia1. It does not mean, however, that answers are not possible or that insights are not available. Deans and directors of teacher education can draw upon a variety of national an:! state organizations for insight into what should be done to train teachers D:)re effectively. National an:1 state organizations 'Ihe na;t positive statement~ab:ut the role of technology in the na, ~iculum of teacher education is fourxi David c. Smith's chapter, ''Radesignirg the 0lr.riculum in Teacher F.dllC3tion'', in -Teacher Fcbratial: 'lbe OlalleD.]e& to college am University readers (1986). Smith includes technology as a pa.rt of the fCUl'X!ations curriculum. He suggests that the beginnin:J teacher needs to have experience in: 10
PAGE 13
o:q,uter applications in education (with some adaptation made to grade level am field); -.is and applications useful to teachers (such as record keepin:J arxi word processin;) (Smith, p. 91) Professional education organizations have also developed general policy statements about the use of technology in the school arxi in the preparation of teachers. Mule there are many organizations -teacher educators, only a selected sanple was chosen for this report. Ten were selected that were representative of two general categories (See Table 1). Grcl1p l Table l Hatimal.OrganizatiaJs American Association of colleges for Teacher F.ducation Association for SUpexvision am Olrriculum Developnent National CcAmcil for Accreditation of Teacher FD11cation Grcl1p 2 American Federation of Teachers Intetnational CcAmcil on carp.rter F.dlication National Association of Secxn:1ary School Principals National CcAmcil for the Social studies National CcAmcil for the Teachers of ED;lish National CcAmcil for the Teachers of Mathematics National F.dlication Association 'Ihe first group is C0ll;nsed of general teacher education organizations or accx:editin; agencies. 'Ihe secorxi represents content specific organizations. 'Ihe director or key representative was sent a letter of inquiry seeking specific information (See Apperxiix for a sample of the letter). Fach agency resporoed. 11
PAGE 14
Generally speak.in;, nest national organizations have not developed detailed positicn statanents on technology nor have they con:lucted research in the area. What specific statanents that do exist are usually contained in broader statanents about overall educational policy. Specific recommermtions about the future direction of technology in teacher edllcation were not clearly evident in acy of the literature received frail the organizations. Group 1 ~--~: 'Ihe American Association for Colleges of Teacher F.ducation (AACm) is the largest organization for professors whose primary interest is teacher education arxi publishes one of the major jan:nals in teacher education entitled 'Ihe Jamal of TeadleJ:' Mx:atial. 'Ihe association has a membership of over 700. In a position statement developed in 1986 entitled "Technology arxi Teacher Fducaticn" AACm outlined ten critical considerations for schools, colleges, arx1 departments of edlJCation. critical consideration four speaks directly to technology tJ:ainm;I in teacher education prcg.rams. Infonnation technologies area a means rather than an erd in the educational precess. Courses on media or computer prcgrammin;J isolated from specific instructional applications are of l.i:mited value; rather, ~instruction on the use of technology should be integrated into appi:opriate o:,urses. Instruction about hCM to use technology is needed only to the extent that such provides clear, functional urxierstaniin;r about hew to integrate technology into instruction. SCDE's should emphasize instruction on hew to use new technologies to enhance the effectiveness of the teach.ir.g process (AACm, p. 4). other issues discussed suggest that all professionals need t:rainirq in usirq technology, deans are critical to the successful implementation of infor.mation technologies, faOJ.lties in colleges of 12
PAGE 15
edua!tion should play a major role in the prcduction of needed knowledge, ani colleges of education administrators arxi faOJlty have a :responsibility to keep the!nEP.J.ves infonned about technological changes arxi new pJ:0ducts. 'Iha dcctm,ent also includes a set of recamnen:3ations about ~ forard" in this area. Like many policy statements, the dcoment is general nature arxi leaves the specifics to irxlividual institutions. 'lbe National Council for Accreditation of Teacher E:lucation (NCATE) is another national organization with two broad goals: (l) to require a level of quality in professional edua!tion that fosters competent practice of graduates, ard (2) to encourage institutions to meet rigorcus academit:: starx1ards of excellence in professional education (NCATE, 0ct:cber 1986, p. 1). Accreditation l:,y NCATE is volmrt:aJ:y on the part of sdlcols of educ3tion. currently there are about 500 institutia,s that have NCATE teacher licensure prog.tams. Within the professional smiles stamard technolr:xfI train.in; is noted in two areas (NCATE, october 1986, p. 29). 'Iha first is as a part of the traditional fOlJl'mticns area in whid1 sbx!ents should uJXlerst:am the "1npact of ~ogy am societal chan;es en schools" ani in the professional smiles canponent in wich sbx!ents shclll.d be prepared to use '"instructional technology." Technology trainin:J also appears as a part of the prcgrm in teacher ed11ca:tion an:i the area of "symbolics of information" (NCATE, November 1986, p. 27). 'lhe foll~ areas are noted as important criteria. 'Ihese are: Professional Studies caoponent: 'lbe study of teac:hirq ani lear.nin; theory includes a basic of all media, materials, an:l 13
PAGE 16
technology arxl of the pro:esses ot communications as related to learn.in;J and the instructional task. 'Iha systematic use of media, materials, arxl technology shculd be a part of th-a teacher trainee's experiences when approac:hirg the study of teadlirq am learn.in;J theoey. Media, materials, am techrX>logy shculd particularly serve the clinical needs of the professional studies cc:qxment of noiem teacher edJratiai programs. Practicum: Direct, substantial participation in teacnin; should incl.1D! realistic 0RX)rb,mities to use media, materials, arxi techrX>logy, unjer personnel qualifiad to help direct the application of such material. 'Ihese stan:m'ds require that general media instruction be a component of the professional studies of the beginnir:g teacher. 'Ihe guidelines are so general in nature, ~, that it is difficult to deteDline the exact role of CXllplters am related technology in these experiences. For example, there is nc definitiai of "technolcx;y" within the dcounerrt:; therefore, although one would assune that canputer edJration would be an i:mpo:rtant part of an education pn:g?am, it is not guaranteed with these st:an:lards. 'lbe Asscciatiai for SUpervision arx1 Ol?rlculum Developnent (ASa>) pJblishes Dmcaticnu Ieadersbip, a well-known journal. ASa> through its journal arxl office in washirxfton, o.c. provides considerable general info:rmation on the role of technolc,:;;/ in education. For exairple, the March 1986 issue of Mx::a+-.ional I.sadel:shjp theme was on "Enp:,werin;J Students and Teachers 'Ihrough Technology." In addition, the organizations research division provides bibliographies of i:mpo:rtant journal articles am other references. Specific statements 14
PAGE 17
about what needs to be done to prepare teachers to use technology have net been developed by the organization as a whole. Group 2 responses; 'lhe International camcil of CcJlp.lteJ:' &3ncation (ICCE) one of the leadirq prcponents of usin; technology in the classrcan, Pll)lishes a major jcurnal, 'Iba Q:mpJtinJ Teadier, and a secorxi focusin; on teacher ed1x:ation, the SIG Bll.letin. It also sponsors a national o:nference on technology an::l the schools, National F.dlicational catpltin; conference. 'Iha ICCE continues to p:calX)te dialogue mq ed1u:ators focused upon the o:mpetencies for class:rcan teachers and irxlividuals seekirg to become ccmp.rter coordinators. 'Ihe goal of ICCE is "to fomulate ~tions an:! guidelines for state committees to use in developin;J their own teacher certification arxi for Schools of F.dl:ication to use in developin;J their canputer edncatian anrl.culum" (Jonagegan, 1987). 'Ihe Icx:E .. no aooei~tions call for all teachers to urx!erstand the ccmputer as a system, to be able to use CCIDplter applicatiais in ed1r:ation, ani to use the ccmputer as a tcol for personal use. Ia::E's orientation for teachers who teach ccmputer courses focuses on a scum backgroun:i in ccmputer science ard supports trainin;J recamnerded by the Association for canputirq Machineey (AO!) which has a ex>re of stu:rJ focused on hardware and lan;;iuages. For ccmputer coordinators Ia::E recamnems a broader base of t.rainin;J that includes supervision, curriculum development, administrative skills, and kna.,/ledge of future directions. ICCE, according to their position statements, seeks to provide the stmllus for grass-root discussions about technology competence amn;r teachers. 15
PAGE 18
A statement frcm the National Asscx:iation of Seccmar:{ SChool Principals' Association (NASSP) office best s.i.munarizes the responses fran the other respordents in Group 2. Mr. sc:ott 'Ihcmson writes, ''While the NA9SP is centnlly interested in the use of technology in education, we do net focus on teacher education because of our limited resairces" ('lbanson, 1987). National organizations such as NASSP do not focus their attention on teacher edlJCation issues; they focus on broad issues related to the particular discipline or to curriculum ocntent issues. At best these organizations may provide general policy statements such as these adopted by the American Federation of Teachers in which resolutions are passed that support the opportunity for all teachers to have acx:ess to computers within the school arx1 that training in ccnp.rter use arx1 function be made available on a volra1tary basis to all interested faculty members (Rcsenbe:rg, 1987). As ncted earlier, schcols of education cana1so receive direction in their efforts to provide technology training :Eran directives am documents frcm the various OOFs. In sane cases1 legislation is being passed to prescril:>e canpetencies (califomia an:l Florida) while in other cases guidelines are provi~ (Minnesota and Alaska) SChools of edtJCation, ~, are net wit:hc11t experience in developing their technology training programs. For over a decade they have been involved in both prese?Vice arx1 inservice teacher training. Both areas can be examined for additional insights into what educators should be doing in the future to better prepare teachers to utilize technology as a part of the instructional precess" 16
PAGE 19
Presetvice 'l'edlJx>logy Ekbx:at.iai In 1986 the National Center for Fdlication st:atistics estimated that 144,000 new teachers were licensed to begin their careers (Feistritzer, 1986) 'Ihese begi.nn.in;J teachers were prepared in over 1,500 private ani plblic institutions in teacher Edlication pro;rams ran;in;J in size trail these prepariD;J a small number of teachers to these institutions that graduate several mmdred each year. In almost all of these teacher licensure px,:,g?ans prospective teachers had sane access to train.in:J in canputers. Preservice Courses; A Brief History With the intr0duction of the micrccanputer in the late 1970's, teacher licensure programs respon:ied to the pressure to better prepare their carxlidates for usin;J the c:cmp.rt:er as both a personal ard instructional tool. As the nurnt:>A..r of computers increased in schools, colleges, arx:l universities, teacher licensure pz:ogz.ans resporded in bJo ways. First, a set of guide] ines or ccq:,uter literacy statements spellin; out the school's philosophy about canputers arxi education were created. Secon:i, the teacher licensure curriculum was nxxH fied to include either a specific ccurse in technology an:3/or the modi fi.cation ... of selected methcx!s courses to incllX!e technolo;y. Although the literacy statements varied considerably fran institution to institution, the university of Minnesota college of Fducations literacy statement developed in 1983 is typical of many institutional plans arxi has been documented in the literature (carrier & I.ambrecht, 1984) Drawin;J upon the work of caniel Watt ( 1980) an all-college Technology Task Force define:l computer literacy as: 17
PAGE 20
I. the skills, kncwledge, value, ard relationships that allow the teacher to c:anfort:ably use the ccmputer as an instructional tool to prepare students to be prcductive citizens in a ccmputer oriented society. To meet the college gcaJ. of preparin1 a ccmputer literate teacher edJJCaticn graduate, seven specific mupetencies arxi one optional canpet:enc'/ were developed (see Table 2) Table 2 Basic 0:llpJtez" Literacy -Cb]] ege of Mlcatim University of Mimesota 'Dle CXllplt:eJ;' literate teamer sha1ld have: 1. kncwledge of basic computer o:mq:,onents arx:l operation. 2. kncwledge of materials arx:l projects related to computer ed11cation. 3. kncwledge of ed11eational ar.d personal uses of the computer. 4. kncwledge of individnaJ differences as they relate to canputer-assisted 1~. s. an ability to evaluate instructional software. 6. an ability to developjmanage an environment in which computers are available for teadlirq/leamin;. '\ 7. kncwledge of edlicational arx:l sccietal implications of the "information age. 11 8. (Optional) an ability to use authorinJ l~es ani to prog1am. Source: carrier, C.A., arx:l Lambrecht, J.L. (1984). PreparinJ teachers for using camputers in instruction. Fducational Tec.hnolCXJY, 16-20. Optional OJltq;etency eight, authoring languages an:i programming, was symbolic of the major controversy of the early years of technology 18
PAGE 21
trainm1 for teachers. considerable energy was expen;:ied throughout the profession d1S01SSinJ the pro's arxi con's of teachin:J teachers to prograt4. P.rcponents suggested that l:,y leamin;J to pro;J?am much of the mysteey -the operation of c:anputer programs 'WCUld be renx:wed arx1 the teacher 'WCUld have greater flexil)ility in usin; the c:anputer (Bramble, Mason, & Berg, 1985, p. 225). P.rcponents also suggested that teachers needed -skills in order to m:dify software arxi develop their own materials (Sin;letaey, 1987) to feel better about themso.J.ves as a part of the c:anputer literate society (Ollp, 1986), or to :become better problem solvers (I.uelmnann, 1985). other educators (Mcursurxi, 1986; Friedman, 1982; Nietzke, 1985) suggested that c:anputer literacy skills should focus on usin; the cxmputer as an instructional arx:l personal tcol, as a medium for data storage am analysis, am as part of the instructional strategies utilized by the teacher. Althcugh a variety of literacy statements were drafted in the late 1970's am early 19801s, only one of the l5 la:rgest schools of education based on the ronnber of~edncation graduates in 1982 reported haviD; a c:anputer literacy requirement for graduation, Illinois State university (Ress & Rcchford, 1987) While no specific data are available, it 'WCUld be safe to assume that the other 14 arxi many of the other institutions across the nation had done sane modification of the curriculum to meet the increased demarx1s for mre technologically trained teachers. 19
PAGE 22
once literacy statements were developed decisions were made about what approach should be followed in prcvidin; the trainin; needEd to achieve the designated goals. one philosophical approach favored a required -ocmputer -course for all students. Another assumed that no one course should be developed to meet all the gcals, that faculty frail acrcss the college should be involved in the effort, am that -need net be a requirement. Elementary education students, for example, were to leam about specific applications of the mnputer in critical areas of the curriculum such as mathematics through their methods courses. While they might take an intrcductory course, the instructional nee1s were to be taught in content courses. Durin; the late 19701s am early 1980's schools of education di scnssed strategies which wculd be nrst appropriate for their institution. Decisions often were based en the point-of-view of the dcminant mnputer expert en the faculty. For examp\e, if an advccate of --for-all" was the nrst daninant voice, the philosophy wculd be followed. If a spokesperson for a ncnprogrammin;J approach held sway, such a p?cg?am emerg~. No data are available fran those early days of prese?Vice education that wculd suggest the effects of either of their points of view on the act:l.ktl type of trainin; provided or its quality. Conp.rt:er Literacy in 1987 In 1987 several important changes have occurred that directly affect teacher technology trainin; programs. First, the general knc:Mledge level of enterirq sttJdents has changed significantly. High 20
PAGE 23
schcol students now have at least minimal experience with the computer. Approximately 60 percent of enterirq freshman have experience usin; the cx:mpiter ('l\lmer, 1987) A traditional canputer literacy course focusirq on -has been replaced by nme tool-oriented courses in which students lear.n word processirq, data management, arx1 data analysis skills. students are no lorqer satisfied to learn prcgranming as their basic intrcduction to the ccmpl1:er. '!his chan;e in the experience level of the student enterirq the teacher education program has meant that rx,t all leamirq has to begin at the veey basic level. Teacher edlr:ation programs can expect, like the california regulations, that sane general canputer skills should be acquired prior to enterin; the pro;p;am. SecOJd, many college faculty have increased their knowledge arx1 use of ccmputers in their CMn acad$ic area. TUrne%' (1987) suggests that the general literacy level mq faculty has increased arxi this krx:Mledge has c:hatYJed the manner in which sane professors teach arxi comuet research. 'Ihese activities, in an irxlirect way, influence the students' knowledge of hew the computer can be used as an il'lsb:uctional tcol. Word prooessin; is probabty the mst 01,anm tool used by faculty acrcss the college or university. 'Ihird, ccmmercially available software has become easier to use, mre powerful, an:i mre useful. In the l970's a potential teacher needed considerable knowledge about the technical aspects of the computer in order to load arx1 run a progJ:am. ~e not as userfriendly as ccnmercial developers would suggest, today s programs are 21
PAGE 24
lll1Ch easier ar.d several times mre powerful than these pro;rams of five years ago. Fourth, state -of education arxi professional organizations are providirg guidelines for technology. 'Ihe Minnesota Task Force on Tead'ler F.ducation for Minnesota's F'.Jture report entitled Mmnesotas Visial far 'J"ead>er tiratiai: SLta:,ger standams, New knew arxi hCM they should act to praoote the greatest learning arxi -in their efforts with students." 'Ihe final doonnent is a m::xiel of teacher education that is to be used as a guide for schools of edJ1eation t:hrcughout the state am for state agencies in evaluating teacher licensure programs. Although not specific in nature, the document makes note of the teacher's need to ''use state-of-the-art cxmmmicatlon technology am information systems (Task Force, p. 26), "technological lan;uage an:i cammmication (p. 28), am lalcwledge about effective learning an:l teachirxJ as they relate to technology (p., 29). Documents like these are prcvidirg data for further dj so1SSions about the curriculum of technological trainin;J for teachers. Similar efforts are~ in other states am regions. In an effort J:83un in 1984 the Northwest Council for canputer Faucation (NCCE) has developed a set of guideline caupetencies to aid in the development of teacher edlication programs (Mcore, 1985). 'Ihe project identified two areas, general teacher education -ani specific ccmputer education requirements. '1he goal was to provide general guidelines for these schools of edtication in the Washington an::l 22
PAGE 25
Ore;Jor1 region interested in preparin; teachers in these ~-areas. '!he general education canpetencies are listed in Table 3. Table 3 General Teacher canpetencies in Technology 'Iha teacher shculd: 1. have an appreciation for usin; the cmputer as a tool for solvin; problems. 2. have the experience of usin; computers in the leami.rq of subject matter. 3 have krDlledge of ccmputer vccabulazy. 4. be able to use the ccmputer as a tool (usin; applications such as wrd prccessin;J, spreadsheet analysis or data base management) s. be familiar with ccmputer hardware, includin; the fNerfdaY operation am use of a variety of machines. Mcore, N. (1984, october) Preparlrq a:anpiter-usin; ed1u:ators. '1he Cgnputer Teacher, 48-52. other states are providin; specific rules am regulations about the prepai".'atiat of teachers. As di SOJSsed previously, califomia state Assembly Bill No. 1681 specifies., that cegimin; July 1, 1988, carxlidates fer a clear (pmmnetlt) teaduD;J credential. in the state 1DLlSt satisfactorily cc:ir;>lete computer education coursework that includes "general arxi specialized skills in the use of ccmputers in educational settin;s" (Blurton, 1986-87) Included in the law is the charge to develop specific regulations regardin] these skills arxi to disseminate voluntary st:amards for the train.in; arxi performance of 23
PAGE 26
teachers arxi resource personnel in ccmp.tte:r education. other states are considerirq similar legislation. In 1987 al~ all the sc:hcols of ed1:a.tion in the united States gave prospective teachers sane access to mnputers. AccorclinJ to a DepM:bient of Fll11'"3tion surYft-J ot teacher edlration institutions in 1984 (OERI a1l.l.etin, 1986), two types of ccurses typify nast offerin;s. 'Iha first devctas aver 801 or mre ot the class period to CCllplters as objects ot learnin; or to their use as learnin; or teachin:;J tools. 'Ihe secad devctas only a smal J portion ot class time to canp.rt:ers ani focuses primarily on techniques of usil'q carp.rte:rs for teac:h.irq subject matter (OERI all.let.in, 1986). 'Iba breakdown of these ccurses for 1984 is shewn in Figure 1 (page 25). At the preservice level the nast o atatb(t CCllplter course available to students isthe intrcductory ccm:se. AccordiD;J to the Department of !'duoation data (see Figure 1) the vast najority of sc:hcols of education offered sane variation of this course. Often the course may have been listed at the graduate level to aco 1m1mate both urx:!ergraduates arxi graduate students. A smaller portion of the CCllplter experience is in the methcds courses. It such~ were oo:urril'q in 1984, it wculd '\ be safe to assume that the level has net declined durin;J the past three years am has probably in::reased slightly. It is iltportant to realize, haw1ever, that the effort to infuse technola;rJ into the traditional methods course is still a difficult task. A surve'f ey Mccra (1984) and presentations J:,y Professors Bitter (Arizona State), Hannah (california state, Sacramento), and Scherer 24
PAGE 27
No CGIIIIU cniniftl (11 ,-amt lntlf'Wia niniftt onty-. .,._ __ __, (2peranq Figure l Source: u.s. Department ot Education, 1986 MldlNI COUf'IIS and.,.,. COU1'111; IIO ift9WCI rnintftl (20 Plf'CIM) (Batllll'XJ Green) at the 1987 National F.ducational COmputin; Conference suggest that many issues such as faculty tra.inin;, access to appropriate software ard equipment, arxi addin; another topic to a course syllabus remain as real problems. It is often easier 25
PAGE 28
to provide a separate course on usin; the computer, than to convince, train, an:i support mathcds instructors. '!his does not mean that nx:,vement has not occurred. Access to cauputers for faculty has increased ('l\lrner, 1987). As a result, faculty skills have increased. Discount p.ll'Chasin; plans, colleges purchasin; cc:mp.tt:ers for faculty, ard alliance!i with blsiness to provide equipiP...nt, software, am tra.i.nin; have all had an impact on faculty expertise. sane colleges have instituted plans to train faculty. SUCh preparation does net need to be exo?bitantly expensive or tiJne C0l'lS\lllUnl. Professor Betty Collins, cun-ent president of ICCE am an associate professor of ed1ication at the University of Victoria, described an -am relatively inexpensive approach to helping faculty in methods courses :begin to use ccmp.rt:ers in their ewn teach.in;. colllns was released tran one of her courses for the year so that she could team up with methcds instructors in all subject matter areas to int:IoJuce computer-related activities within ex:f.stin; courses. In one year she helped out with mre than 60 such class activities. She in:licated that a key to the suo:ess of this pn:g.cam was wcrki.tXJ with the instructor to identify~ key problem or topic that he or she Joel.ieved was extremely important am then usin;;J the cxq:uter as an aid to teachin; that topic. MaI'J'f of the methods instructors had never used the computer in their courses arx1 as a result of their work with Collins, :began to explore other uses. As confidence arxi expertise increase so to does the prcbability of use. In 1984 about 20, ooo micrccanputers were available for education students (OERI, p. 2) 'lhe typical configuration is an 26
PAGE 29
( "insb:uctional/lab facility'' in which courses are taught arxi when net in use serve as open lal::)oratories. As oolleges arxl universities have lll7led to create.general CXllp.11:e?' laboratories across the institution, ecbx:ation students have gained more access to computers. To support these efforts oolleges an:l universities have beglU'l to charge a fee. A 1987 surveci by Elect;gdc Iemfro of 41 institutions founi a thim dlarginJ fees (~voy, 1987). A sample of the fees are shewn in Table 4. Not everyone surveyed, however, believed a special fee should m assessed. ccst, ao:xmlin; to these irxlividuals, should be a part of general tuition fees. Table 4 Student Computer Lab Charges t,Unlwntty of MlcNpn ::.Ann Albor, Ml .000 Montana State Unlwntty Bozeman. MT .' 10.741 New Mexico State Unlwrslty Las Cn1C1s, NM 12,000 ., Pan American >:. Unlverstty ~~-. Edinburg, TX .: 1,444 micro-S15per.....-r:7'. S mail,....,. sa: semester;~ s --~~Yi~fr.;};i:fstfrt/i 4,000-.v. 6,000 4;[: .. .. ~---4---~~llnota State University v .. Same Normal. IL :,110 Oregon State University Corvmlis. OR 17,812 S1.50 per hour .~:. 1 hour Source: Electronic Leammg, Vol. 6, No. 4, Jan, 27 Same I
PAGE 30
I. In an Electrau.c I.aamirq surl8'/ corducted i:,y John Ress am Terry Rcchford (1986) it was found that m-q the 15 sc:hcols tllat graduate the la:t:gest mmlbers of teadlers ten reported havirq a canputer literacy ccurse -tor graduation (Sea Table 5) '1hree reported that they m:orporate units of canputer edtlCation into general methods classes. '1'v0 scllcols irxiicated that students had to dena'lstrate specific canputer literacy canpetencies thrco;h coursework, life experience, or l>rk experience. Of the fifteen institutions only one school offered an -te dq.ree in oaaputer aication. Ard, the deg?ee was for seccn:w:y school students only. CCmbinin:J the DeparbDent of &!lication data am infol:llBtion f~ the Electrarl.c IeaminJ 5UrV8'J arxi emergirq state _, one my conclude that taia:rcw's teachers are receivirxJ at a minilllum an int:J::oiuctian to the instructional uses of the canprt:er. When o:anbirm with sane of the other canputer experieires students have prior to entering teacher ed11catia, pi:O;Jzams, these bagi.nnirq professionals may be minimally prepared to begin usin; the carplter. Are they? Ib schcols of education graduates feel they are prepared to use the CClllplter? onfortunately, f9! data are available at the national level to prcvide insights into this question. 'Iha professional literature ccntains no surveys of students' attit,~ or assessments of cx:mp.tt:er skills. studies that are reported tern to focus on questions alxut the existence of ccmplter trainin:J programs, the types of courses offered, am the rnmbo...r of oanputers available for instruction. SUC.h surveys reflect the current corditions of technology 28
PAGE 31
' '1'ab1a !5 Q:mp1taELitm:acy Requ:b:aDants: 15 Iargast Sdxx>.1a of mucaticn in tba U.S.A.* tlnivm:aity Rlq1:l.nd. far Required tor Gr:dat:f.cn cartificatial califomia state No No Im An;a].aa, CA Pan Anmican Cbllaga Y Y minb.D:g, Brigham Y01.1111 Yes Yes P1'aV0, t11' Chio state Yes N/A Q)lumbus, (JI Orega1 state Yes t' No Onval.lis, OR U. of North Cl!IJcDta Yes N/A Grarxl Fords, ND lllinois State Yes N/A Ncmnal,IL U. of Wiscxnlin No Yes Hadism, WI U. of N0rtham 0:,lando sea nota 1 N/A GJ:aal.ay, (X) Westem Kentucky stata Sea note 2 N/A Bc::Mlin; Green, I(! North Texas state u. Yes N/A Dantat,~ cantral Michigan No N/A Jbmt Pleasant, MI Glassboro stata Yes Yes Glassboro, NJ' Scuthwest Texas stata Yes Yes San Marcos, TX GeoJ:gia State Yes N/A Atlanta, GA Adapted fzan data presented in Ress, J. am Rcc:hfom, T. (1986), ''New Teachers Better Prepared for Cclrplters" Elect:rau.c IsaminJ, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 23 24. lElementaey am secormry F.d majors 1lllst denaistrata catp!'tenC'J 2caap.tter 1lllSt be daa1strated by workmJ in the cx:arp.iter lab under the qualified superlisar 29
PAGE 32
' train.in; in both higher ecb1catia1 arxi the K-12 sector. ~forts have been made to focus on ''What is?" rather than "Is it effective?" 'Ibis is not to demean this type of wcrk, but simply to note that this is a o,, ... nn evoluticnm:y pattem in research in a new ard ever-chan;in; field. 'Iba data that do exist are US'Jal.l.y irdividualistic am school specific in nature. Professors evaluate their a,,n courses to receive :feedback, l:::lut such results are seldcm shared with a broader au:lience. Also, schools of education collect data for inteI'nal use for internal prcg%am evaluation am for use with outside ao::t:a:litinif agencies. 'lhe data are usually gathered via a questionnaire sent to recent graduates ard over a pericxi of years. '1hese data are seldan p.lblished in the literature. Given these are o:@m practices across institutions, data gathered frcm recent gradua~ frail the Colle;e of F.ducation at the university of Minnesota may be illustrative of the impact of schools of ecbrations' efforts to prcvida better tecbnolt:qJ train.in; for preserlice teachers arxi of the efforts need3d in this area in the future. As a result of a S1lrV8'J of graduates frail 1980-81 the College of F.dualticn at the University of Minnesota made a concerted effort in 1982 to ilnpJ:cve the preparatia1 of its teacher licensure carnidates in the area of catplter education. College-wide reports frail graduates teachin; in 1980-1981 irdicated that they had received a.lm:st no preparation in usin; o::mp.tters in the classrcan (See Table 6) 'Ibis was not a sui:prise because there had been little attenpt to infuse technology into the curriculum or to provide a course on technology available to all students. As a result, a more effective instructional 30
PAGE 33
.. cmputer lat>oratoey was created, a special intrcductory course was designed, am efforts 1::,eglm to intrcduce technology into the methcds courses at both the elementar/ am sec:ormry level (Gleim, 1984). In a folla.,r-up study of graduates frail 1985, the mean score, 2. 625, iniicated that students were min; prepared t,ut the preparation was net sufficient (see Table 6). 'Iba trerd line was enocmagin;J; I it is evident that Jm:)1"8 efforts need to be made to insure that students acquire needed skills. It shculd be noted that the response means reflect a graduate's perception after a,e year in the classrcan. Table 6 Results frail Annual Secorxi Year Follow-up of College of Fdualtion Graduates* How wculd ycu rate your preparation to do these th.in;s? 1 no preparation 2 poor preparation 3 fair preparation 4 geed preparation 5 very geed preparaticn It:aa Year/!fean sare t1sirJJ CXllp1ta1'S in 1980-1981 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 tbs cJ asstOCIL 1.684 1.929 2.140 2.545 2.625 *Fran SLtau, S.M. (1987). sunmmy of findirxJs frail the 1986 surve'/ of graduates, College of F.ducation, tJniversity of Minnesota. 'Iha Minnesota evample illustrates several issues. Prepari.rq presexvice teachers to work effectively with technolo:J':f is a complex task. Intrcductoey courses that are not required must be fit into already filled course sequences an::l not all students firxi time or furxJs to take the course. Technology trainirq in methods courses is limited 31
PAGE 34
in nature because it is net central to the subject matter of the ccurse. Many sch0ols of edJ1C2t+-..ian are also faced with licensure prog%ams that have hurmeds of graduates. Prcvidm] in-depth tec:hnology trainin; for all students cea:mes a carplex dlallen;e of bal.ancin; staff am resources. Finally, it may not be possible for preservice edJ1C2.ticn to pJ:OVide the level of technology instruction needed for an mlividual to effectively use technology durirq instruction. Preservice tec:hnology trainin; may be able to provide -skills only. Inservice ard c:onti.num;J education, subjects of the next section, my be areas in which advanced trai.nin; must occur. It is clear, ruM!Ver, that in the CXllldn; years schools of education will need to tUl:n their attention to the inplct of the tec:hnolo;ical trainin; efforts on preservice teachers' knc:Mledge, skills, arxi a~tudes. Considerable have been allocated to meet the demands of CCllp1ter literacy. "Have these :resources been well spent?" will bernne a 11:)?'8 critical question durin; the next several years. Areas of Needed Reseatr,b Preselvice teacher technology trainin; has net been an area of focus for edu~tional researdlers. Although mlividual course evaluations are o a,au(,n as are evaluations fran an all-college perspective, few studies exist in the literature that focus on tec:hnology trainin; arxl preservice ed11cation students. Since during the next several years significant numbers of teachers will be leavinl the schools through retirement am there is a potential 32
PAGE 35
I teacher shortage, it is critical that educators exam]ne the followin; isaleS related to technology trainin;J at the preservice level. What are presm:vice teachers perceptions of the trainin; they have received as a part of their teacher education pt031am? What technology skills 1lllSt aa taa;ht prior to t:eac:hiD; curriculum applicatiais"/ What techniques can aa used to assess preservice teacher technology canpetencies? Which approach, specific: ccurse or integrated methcx:ls, is 110:re SllCCeSSful in teadliD;J basic skills, arxl instructional strategies? Hcw much train.in; is needed to prepare the preservice teacher so that (s)he feels confident in us!DJ technolcgy in the classzoc:m? lihich skills are essential for preservice instruction and which ones shalld m delayed until the initial year of teachin;? What type of technology experiences shalld be inclmad in practialDl and stu::lent teadlin;? Hew much trainin; shalld occur on-site in the sc.hcol? What n:del~ of technology trainin; are na;t effective for different types of teacher edl:ication programs? For example, institutions that annually graduate 500 beginnin;J teachers have different 33
PAGE 36
problems than small pro;zans that graduate fewer than one hurm'ed stimnts. Hew much int:ra!uctol:y tedmolo;y trainm;J can be delivered via technology am in irxlividualized manner? Wculd such an approach mas successful as the traditional sir,Jle ccurse fo:cnat? In 1986 144,000 in:lividnals received their teachirq degl:ee. AssuminJ a grcwt:h in cx:anputeractivities in sdlcols of education since the Department of Education's survey in 1984, Dl9t of these graduates had sane minimal t:rainin;1 on how to use the cx:anputer in the classrcom. Based on the available data about preser.,ice teacher tedmolo;y trainmJ an::l the unanswered research questions noted above, it is evident that several important reo i!U1erv.3ations may be made about needs in preservice ecbacation. 'Iha follcwin; reo ,,a,ei,dations are based on the analysis of the current state of preser.,ice teacher technology trainmJ an::l can serve as indicators for teadlin;, research, am policy activities. Re;g,g.fldation 1; SChcols of education, K-12 sdlcols, an:1. depcizbieats of education need to~establish guidelines to insure that canpetence with tedmolo;y is part of the exit for all beginning teachers. D.lrm;J the next several years inp:>rtant revisions will take place in teacher edJJCation programs. It is critical that the technology trainmJ of beginnm;J teachers be integrated into the new curriculum of teacher education. Sc.hcols of education, K-12 sdlcols, and deparbnents .. of education within each state need to 'Nerk cooperatively in establish.in; guidelines for technology trainirq. Preparing teachers to 34
PAGE 37
use tec:hnolcgy is a canplex am expensive task. :Each partner cannot achieve the goal of a canputer literate baginn.i.BJ teacher alone. Rsscurces am expertise 1D1JSt ca used effectively. Rap dP!WlPlt;iQn 2; SChools of ed1ication need to establish tachrX>logy trainin; prog2:ams for fac:ulty trail acrcss the teacher ed1ra:tian pr031'am. Faculty within specific licensura areas 1DllSt be trained to share in the responsibility for preparln; preservice teadlers to use technology effectively in the classroan. A cadre of tedmola:;t literate ''methcds" fac:ulty 1lllst be available to support mi expan:i the efforts of tedmology fa.c:ulty. 'lhe methcx:ls instructors must be able to sm:ve as :role n::dels for bagil,nin; teadlers. While the developnent of canpetent faculty is important in all institutions, it is especially critical for lm:ger institutions where a major portion of a sbJdent's edJx:ational pzog.t:am is tau;ht directly by ccntent specialists. Recggg,ermtion 3: SChools of edlicatiai need to work cxx,peratively with the college or university at large in establish.in; canp.rt:er literacy -am cx,urses. tm-irg the next several years students enterin;;J teacher edl1eation progzams will have mre experience usirg CCDp.Iters than those students in the past. 'Ibis will be especially true for the schcols of ed1lC'ation that have fifth year teacher edtJCation pi.og.r.ams. If students are more o::mputeJ:-literate, schcols of edlication need to work with their colleagues in the liberal arts to insure that edlication students enter programs with appropriate skills. Reqq,.Jar.ermtion 4: SChools of edlication need to comuct research studies to answer the questions posed in the precedin; section. 'Ihe research base in teacher technology education is a virtual Sdlcols of education have been in a reactive n::de for the past 35
PAGE 38
f; I decade an:! nmt researdlers have focused their interests on the inp!ct of canp.iters on students learninJ ard attitudes. It educators are to cegin to the role of trainm;J in helpin; teachers use CXllplters mre effectively, research activities must be initiated. since resources at the collegiate level are always quite limited, both the federal mi state agencies related to tec:hnol03Y need to include such :research activities in their fl.min; agam. Ra.grerhPtjpn 5; SChools of edlration need to explore establishin; cxx,perative relations with business mi imusb:y. Historically sc:hcols ot ec:bication have not established cxx,perative relationships with business ard indust:zy. Because of the ccsts involved in maintainin; up-to-date equipment am emer:girq software, schools of ecbJcatian cannct maintain a state-of-the-art technology program. A ItCre detailed di soJSSian of this area is presented on later in this report. eonc1usion Dlrin; the next decade many teachers will be leavirq the profession and new teachers will be cegimrl.D; their careers. In sane states severe teadler shortages are projected while in others the demam may be less. talatever the case, it appears many new teachers will l:)e enterin; the profession. It is also evident that another ccnprt:er expansion is ocx:urrin; arxl that new technologies will continue to chan;e the character of American edl1eation. Beginnirq teachers must be minilnally prepared to use technology am to urxierstarxi its instructional potential. 36
PAGE 39
I:nservica Tectmclcgy T.ra.iniDJ Sc:hcols of edJ1caticn prepare an iniividual to begin a career as a classrcan teacher. on receivin; a license the teacher may continue professi~ stmies by attenllr,;J a graduate institution, enrollin; in special seminm:s, mi participatin; in a variety of insezvice pi:o;xams offered i:,y the sc:h0ol district. In fact, the nmt consistent professiaial education experience for a teacher is the inservice prcgl.am sponsorec1 l:Jl, the district. At least once ch.Jrin; each year all teachers attend sane type of inservice ltJOrkshcp on a topic of their dlocsin; or of the district's sponsorship. curin; the last decade considerable resources have been allocated to inservice technology trainiD;. Districts have utilized a variety of approaches in attemptin;r to provide the trainin; need3d to have teachers use CCll1plters effectively in the classuxm. 'Ihis section focuses an these efforts f'ran two .broad perspectives, general principles al:x,ut effective staff dsvelc.pnent mi firx1in:,s f'ran resem:h studies on inservice technology train.irg. Before disrussin; these two topics however, several general points need to be cxmsidered. First, technology trainin; involves unique that distin;uish it f'ran inservice activities in nme traditional subject matter areas. 'Iha need for a well-equipped facility is perhaps the nmt obvious example. While it is possible to run an inservice session on a new readirq or mathematics technique in a traditional classrcan, teachirq teachers to use a word prccessin; or gradebook program is only effective if they can work iniividually or in pairs at a carp.11:er. But despite special_, there is much to be gleaned from the 37
PAGE 40
literature on effective staff develq:ment 1:rainuq that can be applied to tecllnolcgy inscvica 1:rainuq. Seem!, it must be pointed out at the outset that there has been little empirical research on inserli.ce technolcgy traiJlin;J for taac:hars. ?t.1d1 ot the literature takes the fom ot descriptions of com:ses or p:o;rams, prescriptions for lla\f technolcgy 1:rainuq should take place, or reports ot surlf4'/ statistics. Only a ffN empirical investigations of specific mathcc:1s or prcg1ams are available. In fact, despite the widespread acceptance of the need for teachers to receive CCll'plter train.in;, research on mathcc:1s or mdels of such train.in; is sparse. 'Iha focus of research typically has been the student rather than the teacher as exemplified in studies of the effects of cxmpiters on student behaviors m:l attitudes (RUJ.ik, 1983; muik, aan;ert & Williams, 1983) am naticnu SU%VeYS estmatin; student time spent work:i.n:J with cxmp.rt:ers or reportm;J numbers of ccmputers per s.tudent in schcols (Becker, 1986) A deter.rent to conducting research on inservice technology trainin; has been the difficulty of assessirg transfer of t!'ainin;J content to the classrcc:m. Teachers can apply Tvhat they have leamed in an inse?:vice session a1ly if they have convenient access to the tecllnology once the inservice has erxled, both for gain:in; confidence through practice am for application in the classrcan. A teacher who has learned to use a social studies database progi&n in a workshop must have access to carprt:ers to tey out the prog.tam with students if it is to remain fresh in her min:i. 'lhe difficulties of assessing transfer 38
PAGE 41
plague all research on staff develc:pnent J::,ut no mre so than in tachnology trainin;J. Effective statt eye1ggnent 'Iba pcsition taken hara is that there is no sin;le, superior math0c1 of staff develc:pnent that will work equally well with all teac:hars for all topics. certain characteristics of staff developnent do have generalizability to many topics am many types of teachers, however. Sparks (1983) reviewed a large rnnnber of studies that reported data on the effects ot various staff developnent apprcaches am variables. Her analysis led to a description of five ccmponents that seemed to characterize effective staff develc:pnent approaches, with effectiveness usually defined in tm:lns of char.ges in teacher behaviors: Diagncsin; ani prescribin:J Begin with teacher's current level of expertise Givin; infomation am deaaistratin; Sensitive presenters Live moiels, videotapes, si:mnlaticns DisalSsin; application Sharin; ideas Teacher-to-teacher interactions Practicin; ani givin:J feeaback Mi-. Peer observation C.oachin; Ps:eivin; feedback Nonthreatenirg assistance In addition to these canponents there are other factors that will influence a teacher's ability to learn nEM skills within the context of staff development or training activities. Teachers, as persons am professionals, differ :from one another in a variety of ways. 39
PAGE 42
A nmt pcwerful sat of characteristics that affect how teac-llers approach tha use ot technology are their cxn:::er.ns or anxieties when intra:biced to ccimputar technology. Williams arxi Williams (1984) in their book in Elementm.y a:hlcatial: Petspct.ives ai J:111)].emntatiai su;,gest dimensions of teacher COllplteJ:' attitudes that lead to c::cncm:ns am anxieties. Briefly Stnmnarized there are several key dimensiais. 1. Fear of Uncertainty: lhlt exactly is a CXIDplter? MCM does it function? Tead1ers are in chm:ge in the class?'0all. If they don't knew about sanethin;J, it can lessen authority. 2. Fear of O]an;e: Cllan;Je always means alterin; one's role. If thin;s are gofn; well, why chan;e? 3. Fer of Technology that Qwpes Teacher/student B@lationshim: canputers often :activate students, reL-iforce basic skills, keep rec0%ds, focus attention, &::fnulat.e environments, calculate, am give i'IJlll1Eldiate feedback. 'Ibey can do many of the thin;s teachers do. Teachers see that sbnents are often much mere enthusiastic a1xut l\10rkfD1 with ccmp.rt:ers than with the teacher. canputers also can store considerable~ data. 'Ibey may ''knc:7..i'' mcre the teacher a1xut certain th!DJ3. canputers alter roles am relationships. Sane teachers are uncanfortable with these c:harqes. 4. Fear of Accountability: canputers make it easier to meter productivity. student scores can ce natltored am teacher success can be "checked" against these scores. Accountability tied to centrally kept records creates concerns. 40 L
PAGE 43
I 1 '!his secticn has examined insel:vice practices that lead to the growth of knowledge am skills in teachers. Teacher characteristics that affect hatlreceptive teachers will be to leamin; new thin;s, how JlllCh structure or flex:ibility they will need, or hew anxious they will be about in;,lemantin;, new techniques have also been considered. Fran this literature a sb:aq case can be blilt for followin:J certain ganeraJ. principles when designirq technology inservice pro;zams. A closer look at three smlies that prcduced data about different inservice techncla:J'tf trainirq pro;cams mi canfim many of these principles will be disolSsed_ '1w of these studies, those by Stecher am solorzam (1987) am stedler (1984) were sponsored by the FihJca1-.ional TestinJ Sel:Vice. '!be thiI'd study, reported by H:>rehouse, Hcaglmn, am SdDnidt (1987) fcnlSEd ai the Minnesota Technology 'lh;ee Refrnrnb stJpies Sil Techrploay mi Teacher Tpjnjzp '!he stacher mi Solorzpp stu:lv '!his study, sponsored by the F.dJ1eational TestiD; Sel:Vice am reported in April 1987, examined the followin:J questions: 1. Ara there aey models of effective in-seJ:vice canp.tter ednca~.ia,. pro;zams? 2. What are the oanponents of these p:o;rans, includin; access to micrccx:q:uters? 3. Who are the staff of these programs mi wat tra.inml have they had? 4. Which elements contrlb.tte to p%og:t:am effectiveness fran the perspective of the staff arxi the participants? 5. What guidelines for effective ccnrputer in-sezvice can be derived frail these :mdel projects? (Stecher & SOlorzam::>, p. 6) 41
PAGE 44
Ten school districts were studied, varyiD; in size arx1 geograptlc -cs. 'l!le primary data collectiai tools in the study were -cbServations an:i inlividl1al interviews. Separate interview protocols were created :for the :followin1 groups: staff devalqment administrators, a:anplter' administrators, school cxxrdinators, trainers, participatin; teachers ard graduated teachers. Each site visit lasted three full days. Extensive field notes am amlotape recordm:1s as wll as dccumentatiai of various types fran the sites were used as data. 'Iha results of this study were presented to cmiespcrxi to five factors carprism;J an initial ccn:::eptual Dmel presented by the researchers: out:canes, inservice delivery system, teacher c::haracteristics, organizational context an:1 unanticipated factors. A brief summary of major firxlin;s under each of these factors follows. Qrt:O'J"@I~ Based cm the site visits the :researchers related the ~ity of eadl district's inserlice pxog1.am at a scale frail l to 10. one received a 9, seven received a 7 or 8 ani b.10 received 6 's. In general the researchers were impressed with the quality of the programs they cbserled. 'Iba j1x1gmerTts of teachers, trainel.S, ani administrators cm1:cixJrated the researchers' ratm;s. Mcst teachers made favorable 011a1ents about the inservice activities in which they had participated. Many of these teachers felt their anxiety about canplters had lessenei arx! that they could use ccmputers with students. In general teachers were positive about the skills of the trainers. 42
PAGE 45
Negative o tiP!ents by teachers fOOJSed mere on ext:eJ:nal comitions, such as lack of access to canputers, than on the inservice experience itself. 'lbs j1~ of trainers mi administrators inilcated they felt cx:mpitar inservica was well-received. 'Ibey cited eviderx:e that de.mard by taachars for such inservic:a had grown and that district had in=raased. 'Ihese inilvidJ1al s reported that many graduates of inservice sessions were usin;J canputers with their students. Cel,ivery systems. 'l\velve specific insb:ucticnal practices that ccntributed to successful. inserlice trainmJ in these districts wre identified: l. Extensive pract:l.ce with CXJIIUb!rs. In most sessions observed at least half the time was spent with teadlers workin;J an the canp.rt:er. 2. QJnfar:table and n,Jaxed a+111 sp,ere. A frierxil.y wam a'bla;phere, often in::11.Xlin;J snacks and opportunities for sccial interaction, was mentioned J::,y many teachers as important. 3. -balance between lecture and g,1:f ded practice. A C'jCle of minipresentations, den:mstrations and practice sessions~ to be the nmt effective approach. 4. Irdiv:fd!Jal iHd att:ential. Teadlers like trainers who answer their inilvidJ1aJ questions. 5. Kncw.l edgeah1 e trainem. T.rainers who are knowledgeable about canputers am edl1catiai and who can cxmnunicate technical cantent to teachers are cptimal. 6. Detailed curriculum ga1ides am. lessai plans. Well-planned materials were a visible canponent of the best inservice pi:ograms. 7. Clear and J:elevant objectives. Teachers needed to feel they had a clear of what they wculd leam ani of their responsibilities. 43
PAGE 46
s. Iessrn-J:elated JIBterials am bamcuts. SUch materials appeared to free teachers frail extensive notet:akin; or reliance en CXllp1ter manuals. 9. Insm:vica less DI linked to inst:m::t:ia,. Teachers liked specific help en preparinJ materials am experiences for their aai students. Teadlers a;preciated am learned frail gcccl lDOdelin; a\ the part of the trainers. 10. Peer int:encticn. cmu,micaticn mq participants durin:1 hands-at sessions was partiallarly effective. 11. Valuntazy-. Olocsin:J, rather than bein; forced to attend inserlica trainin:J, led to better ratin;s by teachers. 12. stzategies far teact>i111 cJc:sses. Trainers who had ways to deal with students of differin;J levels of prior knowledge am anxiety were mre effective. For example sane trainers used teach.irg assistants effectively in helpin:J less or mere advanced students. Where followup oocurred, the effects of inservice t:rainirq were much sb:onger. A typical examp\e of follow up W0.lld be a short session in which teachers could report an their use of an appl~catian in. the classzoan. Althcu,;Jh many of the districts in the study did not have exenplary followup pr:oadlrres, a variety of approaches to followup were observed. Teacher characteristics. '1be major firx:lin; d1 SOJSsed was the three types of teadlers who have received, or will receive, insexvice t:rainirq. 'lbe first group ccnsists of highly mtivated, eager teachers anxious to build their skill am knowledge base. 'Iba seccni group are those teachers who are less eager but feel they don't want to be ''left behini'' their peers am their students. 'lhe thiit1 group consists of those teachers likely to resist trainin:J until it is marx:lated by the district or the State. 44
PAGE 47
organizational c:cntext-'Dlese f~ related to the problems associated with J:Unnin;J inservice sessions separate :fran the ccntent of the traininJ or the attendees. Often these were problems that an irdividJv,J sch0ol or au entire district had to face as they planned and executed technology trainirq. 1, I.pqistics, H:at -in the study felt that the lcgistical prcblans associated with J:Unnin;J technology traininJ are much greater than with mre traditional inservice topics. 'Ihe acquisition am maintenance of ha%dwara was a major lo;istical ccncem. Not only was there a need to insure that the right ana.mt of equipment be available but the pi:cper configuration of equipnent needed by the trainer to denw, software or ergage students in practice. 2. Facilities. Plcperly equipped facilities were _,required arxi these were net ~ways in the ilmt ccnvenient locations. had to be made for the use of these facilities. sane districts in the study c:hcse to set up a district-wide trainirq facility where all teachers to be trained wcul.d go. ltlile a ccstly solution, this allcwed for mere efficienc-J within the trainin; progzam because one staff cculd keep the center well maintained. 3. T1JP9, Ccurses were often scheduled in the evenin; or a few days before sc::hcol in the fall. H:at districts did net have the u::sney to pay teachers to have them participate in summer inservice trainin'l activities. vllen this did occur, teachers reported Vert favorable reactions. '!hey liked the opportunity to spem exterded pericm of time leanuJ' carp.rt:er skills without the exhaustion associated with teach.llg students at the same time. 45
PAGE 48
4, organization of staff, Many districts att:enpted to centralize and such centralization increased as districts offered a wider variety of inserlice trainin; opportunities. Districts with minimal levels am types of opportunities had little centralization. New career cpportunities for teac:hez:s otten resulted fran centralization activity. Teachers who became very involved in cx:q:,utin; often be:ame canputer ccordinators tor a buildin; or a district. Sana teachers left teachirq to take positions in the private sector ax::e they had become carpetent with technolCXIJ. 5. Use of outside agencies. 'Ihe use of college courses or 'WCrkshops was a o 11ut..m UO:,el ., Regional or state agencies were also a source of train.in;r. In Minnesota, for example, the Minnesota Fd11cational CCllpltmJ COJ:poratia1. was a frequent supplier of inservice training for CXllplt:in:J. Mrn1Ntitl?ttiye SuQQrt, RespaDmts used the tem "cxmn:itment" buildin; pritx:ipal to release teadlers to receive trainirq, the de;ree to which the lam were well equiR*=l am well maintained, the extent to which dollars were spent on so~ acquisition, am the like. Unanticipated factors. 'I!le last categmy in the ioodel had to do with issues net adequately covered by the other categories am not planned for in the original desired cutcanes. 1, Cgnplexity of the leamim task, Fcur distinct types of knowledge were required: hcM to operate equipment, new classrccm mar,.agement strategies, how to use new softWare, and how to apply these new software tools to 1:he curriculum. Because learning these new 46
PAGE 49
elements is a oarplex prca!SS, m::st districts were ccmin;1 to realize that inservice in technology requires extemec1 periods of time and a lorq tam o:,nmi tment of resources. 2, tack ot acx;ess to ccmpiten;, 'Ibis himers the prca!Ss of transfer of knowledge tran the t:rainm;J setting to the classrcan. '1'eadlers reported frustration with learnin; new skills am then not beirq able to access a machine to practice them. sane teachers reported waitin; periods of a week or mre 1'efore they ,:culd schedule their sbx1ent:s into the canputer lab. 3 Iack of lesson-related denpnstration. Teadlers appear to want a geed aDDJnt of direct demonstration of how to use a piece of software with students in a specific curriculum area. 'Ihis application-oriented preferm::e was seen in m::st of the teachers surveyed. ;pwmrs secxmanr school 2?"'"rt'8r-education prog;g Usirg case stmy methcdolcgy, Stadler (1984) examined the summer W0Xxshcp canponent of the '1'eacher 'n:ainiD:J Institute (Tl'I) sponsored t,y IEM. 'D1e 'ITis were designed to provide trainiD;J en the use of canputers in all subject matter areas. SC.hools tran eight regions were organized into local networks. 'Ihree or mre teachers tran each secax1ary school involved were given a one 1lalth trainiD;J p:~. Follcw up trainiD; occur.red throughcut the year at the 'ITis. 'Ihis study looked at three of the summer ~rkshops involvin; 28 teachers divided equally between the scien:es arxi the humanities. Fran three to five teachers fran each school represented were included in the sample. 'Ihe two instructors were from an institution of higher education am had :received two weeks of t:rain.in;J frcm IBM. 47
PAGE 50
Prllnm:y data collection tools lvere ~ilnenter observations am field notes, inta:rviews, teachers' diaries, participant written evaluations, in.i'onnaJ a::rwersatians, arx1 dccuments generated by participants durlrq the wcrkshq). 'Iba objectives of the 4 week pn:,g%am were the folla.rln;: to acquaint teachers with the IEM-PC, to help them master the use of various pieces of so:ftware, to have teachers develop lesson plans that incorporate ccanp.tters into the classrcan, arxi to have them plan for the sc:hcol-wide implementaticz of canputers into their classroans. 'Iha results of the study m;gested that twenty-three factors were significantly related to the success of the T1'I #1 trainin; pro;xam. A list of these factors is sham in Figure 2 with items in categories listed in order of decreasing illp:,rtance. Orxier contextual elements, the availability of hal:dware was the single nx:st illp:,rtant factor in the success of the p?.O'l,Cam. Teachers need:ed individJ1aJ access to machines for as much time as was needed to cc:mplete their tasks. 'lhe researdler noted that within the four week p:cgxam, each teacher spent frail 75 to 100 hours using the canputer. SUcoessful software was applicaticns-oriented am relevant to what teachers hcped to ac:o aoplish in their curriculum. It was also relatively eas'f to use. 'Iha classrcan faculty itself was canfortable with e,coallent lightir,;, chairs, arxi workspace. Coffee ani snacks were made available to teachers; many of them expressed pleasure that so much care had been taken to make sure they were ccm:fortable during the day. With respect to the pnxftam itself, the nx:st important feature was adequate leaming time. 'lhe practice neeled to become familiar with, 48
PAGE 51
am to develop sane degree of confidence about operatin; the equipnent am usm;J the software is enm;m:,us. Fran their diaries, the researcher was able to discern h'7II critical exploration time was an:i ha., i:mportant opportunities for trial and error were in the leaznin:J process. Settina' realistic and clear gcal.s for the len;Jth of the wcrkshcp made tha taadlers perceive they cculd make sucstantial progiess withcut b!Mxm:ln; overloadsd. 'Iba creation of subject-based special interest groups as well as opportunities for teachers t.ran the same schcol to~ together on projects necessitated a gccc1 amount of interaction ani was a frequently cited stren;t:h of the pro;1.am. 'Iha assi91mmt of specific tasks usm;J various software packages prcvidsd the necessaey application exercises arxi also lent structure to free time. Givm;J teachers tco little structure with ccntent that is new and pm:haps threatenirq my lead to wastin; valuable time and cause them to becc:1ne frustrated. 'Iha last category of factors, perscnal characteristics (see Figure 2), referred to the behaviors and attitudes of the trainers. 'Ibis study identified several d1aracteristics of trainers that seE='D'ed to '\ pcawte high perfcmnance frail teachers. one of these was the dsna'lst:ration of respec:t for the teacher participants. Many teachers camnented upon this dlaracteristic in a p:sitive way, su;gestin; that not all inservice m:perlences have been viewed in this way. Knowledge of both the technical aspects of ccmputirg arx1 of education was seen as a critical combination for trainers. A trainer of teachers must not only shew high levels of technical proficiency in 49
PAGE 52
.. I. oparatin; equipnent arxi usm.;J software but must have ideas about hew these tools can ca used effectively with students. Alon;, with this, Figure 2 'KB'/ Features for cauputer F.ducaticn Pl.ograms Hardware Availability Software Selection Institutional Suwart Classrcan Facilities CcDpltex" System Features Pu.g;aumatic Fectum, Adequate Leaming Time Clarity ot Goals Group Interaction Plannin;J tor Implementation structured Iessa,s Software-Based Assi91ments Volmrt:ary Participation Attention to Social Needs Re:JJlCed Distractions Use ot SUpplemental Expertise Personal am:acteristics Respect for students I<'nr::Mledge of canp.iters and 'lheir Use in Fdl1ca.tion Flexibility Fami J iarity with Sdl0ols creativity sense of llmx)r st:rm.;th of Personality Evaluativeness SOUrce: Stecher, 1984, p. 41 sensitivity to how schools operate was seen as givirq the canputer trainers credibility. 'Ibey need to urmrstarxi the limitations of schools with respect to tec:hnclogy as well as the potentials. BeiDJ flexible, havm.;J a sense of h~r, shewing creative deviations frcm the course agenda, beirq able to effectively 'Nerk with teams of people as 50
PAGE 53
well as individuals wre all characteristics seen as crucial to the effective cxmplter trainer. Also, havin; genuine curiosity about hew well the pt0g:ta:m is wcrkm;J arxi sha.dn; intet"\~~ in fonnative evaluation ware cbaract:aristics mentioned as important. Minnesota Tecmplcay Pfflrn2ntl:ation Site evaluations 'Iha Minnesota Tedmclcgy Demonstration Site Pl:og!am was furxled as part ot a major tedmolcgy in ed1lt2tion initiative D'/ the Minnesota state Isgislature in 1983. one major goal of this program was to inservice teachers within the sites tliemso~ves as well as staff fran other sc:hcols. '1be evaluation study lasted for a three year period of time (1985 1987) am was _designed to provide a wide rarge of information to schcol districts, the state Department of F.dlication, arxi other policy am decision-mald.rq bodies about how to finance, organize, mi implement technology within schcols. study. At each site general infcmnation about users was collected. ?tbst sites also looked at student achievement am attitudes thralgh the use of testiDJ mi surveys. In sane auses data fran parents am other Inservice activities varied widely across the sites. 'lbe met u:,oum fo?l1Bt was a ~kshcp or class. other forms included a mbile van o:>ntainin; a large variety of equipnent arxi materials mved fran schcol to schcol was available to teachers durin;r free periods or after schcol. Irxlividualized insetvice was also provided by den:>nstration site staff. 51
PAGE 54
Data on teacher inservice took many form but the Dmt o; 1on011 types of data ware narrative descriptions of the types of inse?vice activity, a~ at the activities, teacher atti'bldes toward the insez:vice, blild.in; principals' am other administrators' perceptions of the value of the inservice, am sana ci:serlatiaial data to examir,,a the daI.ree of transfer tran inservice to actual classrcan set.tirxJs. A snmmary of the entire collection of infor.mation relai:inJ to insetvice ccnp:ments of the program acrcss all sites was canpiled in a report by the pJ.ogl.841 eval~tcrs. 'Ihe results of the study led the evaluators to suggest that there was a progression of inservice technology topics at Dmt sites. At the "awareness" stage: large group workshops run to acquaint teadlers with a general oveIView of ha,, tec:hnolcgies work an:t to alleviate anxiety. "0Ve%View'' wcrkshops that delivered additiaial detail on hew particular technologies W0%:k am us1ally prcvided examples of the ai;plication of technology to particular subject matter areas. ''Topical" stage: a mre focused approach (e.g., usin;;J canputers in the social studies) with fewer participants. "Adoption/implementation" stage: mere focussed with intense W0%:k by each participant. "Integration" stage: '\ characterized D'J fine tunirg of curriculum materials that use technology or guided assistance in integrai:inJ certain types of technology into a teacher's lesson. As a rJle, teachers in the study reported that they preferred learn.in; about tedmology frail other teachers or those who umerstar.d the settin;s in which they work (includin; the lill\itations/constraints of these set:tin3s) that they want access to follow up support, an:i 52
PAGE 55
that they want access to equipment and software c:1urm; an:i after the inscvice. Seventy-eight percent of the san;,le reported that they participated in the inservice because they were curious, had specifically raquested the topic or preferred a technolo;w-related topic to other ncnt:ac:tn,lcgy inservices that were available. Nearly 801 ot the teachers in the study said that they have either adopted or adapted the applicaticn in which they were trained durlnJ the inse%vice. Intern.ewe with technology site directors or district superinterx1ent irxlicated that they believed st:z:01qly that teachers themselves be involved in the plannin; of technology inserlice activicy and that such activity must be based on teadlers' needs. '!hey felt that enthusiasm for the use of technology is festered more readily in a ''bottan up" fashion with teac:het's ignitin; the interests and curiosities of their peers. Oevelopirq reward structures that make it attractive for teachers with expertise to l\10rk with their colleagues was perceived as an in;>ort:ant step if teachers are to be involved. 'Iba evaluators ocncl.llded that for. inservice edlration to be a pcwertu]. force in m:,virq technology into classrcans, the inservice activities 1IILlSt have a str01g practice or ''harx3s en" ccnp:ment, must ce taught by crecl.ible scurces (mst notably other teachers), must meet teachers where they are at in tetms of c:xmprt:err.e, must include follow up support arxi guidance, must be sufficiently lon;, an:i should include extensive instruction in the use of tools. 53
PAGE 56
AnMI ot Nea;.ied Peee,mb While this review has yielded sane principles that seem to predict success'in inservice traininJ in general, and technology training in particular, a variety of imicators suggest that there are isa,es which need nr:>re attentiai frail researchers and staff developnent specialists. SUch resea%Ch sh0uld be carried cut l:,y universities, sc:hcol districts, -of edJicat.ion, hardware an:i software canpanies, and others that have a stake in the quality of the teachin;J force. Specific questions that need addressin; include: What are optimal sequences of content for technology trainin;? Which skills are ):)est taught early on? Iater on? ltlat characteristics of teadlers ):)est predict their ability to leam ab:ut technology? Usin; technology with students? stayinJ with it over ~? What are the effects of different incentives on mtivatin; teachers to leam about technology? To use technology with students'] Ib skills aCXll,1ired in insetvice transfer to the classroan? What elements of inservice facilitate transfer? !bl can the effects of inservice trainin; be assessed in a ccst-e:ffective manner? can the ccst of trainin; be red11C8d (such as through the use of peers helpin; peers) without 1~ quality? Will requirfn; experienced teachers to meet technology enhance their use of technology use in the classroan? 54
PAGE 57
HCM can partnerships {e.g., school districts o::mputer carpmies) be st?Uctured to insure that techD:,lo;y train.in; can benefit all parties? Ra;, fjff}}ftjgns As this report has shewn, teachers as a group are UIDaJ:' national, state, ard local SCJ:Utiny. 'lhey are being asked to better analyze the needs of their st:lDmts, to l:)e D:lr8 efficient managers, to be llCr8 Jaxwledgeable in subject matter, am, in general, to beo:aue sb.ager professianals. Ala,; with these pressures, teachers are also b!mJ told that they lDLlSt becnne canpetent with technology use in their classtooms. Technology mania has en;ulfed the nation, includin; the nation's sdlocls. But while teachers are b!mJ exhorted to acquire ncre laxwle:1ge an:i skills, preservice tra.inin; pmg%ams may actually beccme sbcrter in duration at many institutia1s. alildin;J .in time for the devalopent of tedmolcgy canpetence within preservice progzams is a problem that met college am school of edl1cation are attemptin; to '!be problem dces net becme appreciably easier to solve for the inscvice teadler pq,.ilatiai. ~la,J trainirq requires expensive equipmmt in quantities large encu;h to support plenty of hams-on activity. In order for the trainin; "to take" once it is canpleted, teachers must be able to access the hardware arxi software conveniently. '!be only conclusion to be reached, however, despite these obvious constraints, is that all of the institutions arxl organizations involved in teacher trainin; 1DLlSt take the technology problem seriously. It is inconceivable that the effective teacher of the 1990s cculd be 55
PAGE 58
. .. illiterate accut the role of technolo;ay in facil.itatin;, managin; ani dalivarin:;J instructiat or at integratin; its use into many aspects of day-to-day life in the clasm:can. It is sinply unacceptable to settle far anly a smal I percentage of the teachin; force beiD:J mnpetent with taclmology. What follows are sane recamnendations that sean reasonable in light of the many pexspectives, isS11es, am research finam;,B discussed in the previous sections. Reg..glJ-=trlftion 1: T.t:ainm; shalld ocx::ur not as a one shot event mt as a systematic set of experiences lastirg aver a period of tillle. Scbcol districts have invested heavily in the acquisition of both hal:dware and software. Irxlicators that they will continue to do so aver at least the next several years. In addition to these p.trehases, schools will be hirin; m:re new teachers to fill the vacancies left by retirements. If technology trainin; is to continue, schcol districts 11111:t maintain an on-goiDJ insernce pt03Iam. 'Ihis will be a major dlall.en;e becmJSe of the pressures brought to bear on training and developnent bx1gets in school districts. Technology training cannot ocx:u:r in a short period arxi, if teachers are to mve beyaxi the silllple use of technology to a mre integrated instJ:ucticnal ~' significantly different insernce p]X)g%ans ao:,c 114:enied l,y follow-up support will be needed-r As schools districts are amfronted with tlldgetarf problems to maintain an active technology trainin; progzam will be major dlall.en;e. Recnrur.en;letion 2: Teadlers shalld be encouraged to teach their colleagues acout technology tut will need special trainin; to do so effectively. Teachers often express a preference for receivin; t.rainin; frcm their colleagues rather than outsiders but this strategy will be 56
PAGE 59
. .. effective only it the trainers are ccmpetent at instructin.1 adults. It cannot be asSPuned that such canpetence is a conelate of ccmpetm with technology~ In what ways might teadlers "gear up" to provide high quality trainirq experierv:es for their colleagues? college or university ccurses :focusiDJ ai the needs of the adult leamer are one sc:urce. Districts might provide trainin; for a grcup ot teachers who are gcod carxlidates tor~ with their colleagues. IB::entives for involvement might include additional -pay, release time or summer employment. ResA,,,e,gatign 3 : Teclmology trainiD;J should emphasize the application of technolcgy-based tcols. 'lhe 1986 TAIMIS report which examines the K-12 market for personal mnputers am software by surveym;J the attitlldes am predictions of district level ccmp.rt:er ccordina.tors 1:a.eJ:d ccmp.rt:er use am software several interestin:J i:mplicatians for insezvice trainin; needs. Tool use is expected to be the primary ecb:icaticnal use of personal mnputers within three years. As newer am 110re sophisticated tool packages bacme available there will be a need to investigate the n:st effective strategies for teachin?J teachers to use these packages to iJDprcve their am efficienc'J. 'Ibey will also need help -hCM best to facilitate student use of these tools. TAIMIS data also shc1Ned that another trerxi expected to grr:M in the sdlcols is mre time spent on problem-solvirq software or that pw:ported to teach ''higher level think.in; skills". 'Ihis was the seccni highest rated computer use category. Many questions remain to l:e answered about the use of such software. What i.'1 the nature of 57
PAGE 60
train.in; needed by teachers if they are to in:xnp:)rate these programs into their curriculum? Pemaps the onus of preparlniJ ard deliverin; train.in; an tool packages or pi:cblem solvin; software should fall on the prcducars ani ven:l0rs of these materials. A geed example of this ai:proach wculd be the train.in; materials developed by MEa:. For years they have provided inservice t:rainin1 packages that districts calld use to help teachers use MEa: prcducts. Recrgr@Matj.cn 4: Incentives are needed to encourage teadlers to learn about and use technology. Olrrently m:,:ce t.han 50% of American school teachers hold masters additional inservice experiences or oanplete academic cx,ursework related to technology 1IILlSt not be tied solely to the eamin; of an degl:ee. Both school districts am state departments together 1IILlSt envision incentives for teachers that encourage them to stretch beyond their current levels of expertise, the D:)r8 novice users and challenJinJ those with greater skills. F.xamples of incentives include: S1 mm,er employment release time durin:.r the school day additional pay use of equipnent at ham opportunity for travel to professional conferen:::es a budget for software ao;iuisition tuition reiJDbursement Recomrnemation 5: A clearin; house for info:cnation en technolo;y t:ra.inin;r for teachers needs to be established or this function assumed :by an existin; clearin;house. 58
PAGE 61
It is apparent that a lll1l.tim:1e of activities are occurrln; across the ocunt:rJ related to technology tra.inin;i. F.ach. schcol of edlication, school district, am state department of edlJCation has a plan of action am is involved in a variety of activities. To obtain a picture of what is happeninJ means cont:actin1 lnn3reds of mlividJ1al s am agerx:j.es. As a result, redun:mncy occurs, o 1t1mnn mistakes are repeated, ani fa, leam trail the lZX of others. A central cl-wculd Joe a useful way to collect and distril:ute in:fcmnatiai accut researdl ai tec:hnclcgy tra.inirq, 8'del s of trainmJ, am successful approaches to or methods of 1:rairunJ. tlllle a variety of oauputer netwc%ks exists, none focus on 1:rairunJ efforts. Re..g;perpation 6; Medel s of technology tra.inin; that provide differentiated experiences am cxmtext for teachers with different levels of expertise must l:)e implementa:l. 'lbe Appemix prcvides a description of one llk'X1el that the authors of this report have ill;,lemented. Ccnclusicn 'Ihe problems facin; schcolin; am the preparation of teachers in this ocunt:rJ have been well dccumented by numercus national repxt:s. SUggesticns for reform, and responses to these sug;estians, have daninated diso1SSians accut education for the past few years mi have initiated chan;e in our institutions., Schools of education, for example, are with significantly different ways to prepare new teachers. Fifth year programs are appear.in; across the country. 'Ihe schools are makiD1 c:han;es as well. '!he scope of actual ard prqx)Sed ref om is far-read'lin;. It is within this context that the issue of tedmola:;,J use arxi technola:;,J train.in; must be considered. 59
PAGE 62
sane l\Ulld aigUe that the teadler of the future must be a "teacher 1:eC'lmologist", an irdividual able t.o use a modem, a hard disc or an elecb:cnic gradebcok as easily as a textbook or a c:halld:,card. But n:wanent trail where teachers are rr:M to this tuture scenario will be cxstl.y and will require the ax,peratian ot many. Because American taa.chers as a group are highly edllC3t.ed with mre than 50% nt:M holdin;J master's degrees (NFA, 1985-86) schcol districts, state of edlication, mxl CX)lleges ot edncaticn are faced with the c:hal.18J'X18 of tilxim;I incentives to encxm-age experiezx::ed staff to tackle yet one mre skill area, that of technology. Partnerships amD3st a variety of institutions am agencies offer opportunities for effective tra.inin;J. Ikln Rawitsch of MECC makes the observation that three ccrxlitions 1IIIJSt exist for t:rainin; to occur: (1) there 1IIIJSt be sanethiD; to t,e gained trail trainin;, (2) :resources ani (3) expertise. Schcol districts have sanethiD; to gain trail trainirq, have sane resources to devote but lack app.topr.1.dte expertise. A canputer or software canpany may have the needed expertise plus the capacity to subsidize the mre ioodest resources of the sdlool district. If the cnnpany perceives sanet.hiD1 t.o be gained (such as a market for their hamware or sett.ware, or public gcoc1 will), a partnership could be spawned. 'lhe continucus balmx:irq of these three ccrxlitions is needad if the partnership is t.o last. once formed partnerships can work 1'ut require careful plamti.n; am mnitorirg. 'Ihe "cultures" of sdlcols am tusiness differ in in;x>rtant wa.ys; each partner 1IIIJSt 'Nerk to be tolerant of such differences. 60
PAGE 63
-of edlration have been initiators of widespread t:eC'lnllO:JY trainirq in the sdlcols. -of education in states like Alaska, califomia and Minnesota have often led the way, initiatiD; wcrkshq:s, institutes, m:l confererx:es as well as prcvidm;I in:entives for sdxJol districts to becaJ'9 involved. OOEs have also enccm.,aged the establishment of certiticatian requirements, a n:we which affects cm-ricula in colleges am universities am iliservice priorities for districts. unfortunately ecaxmic troubles in sane states (e.g., Alaska) have ~iced capaciey ta run sane ex:lst.in; p%t)glams or to initiate new ones. Massive J:tudget cuts, such as in califomia (Classrcan CCJlp.1ter' I.earnin;) have virtually eliminated major trainirg centers. If tren:3s such as these continue the role that OOEs can play in technology trainin; may be mlirect, such as through the settirq of requirements ar the establishment of policy rather than thrcugh tlle actual delivmy of, or turnin; for, technology trainirg. Paductian in state arxl federal turnin; will also have an il!p\Ct an the ana.mt an:1 quality of researd1 that can ba carried out an teclmcl03Y trainirg. It has been mted t:hrcu;hout this Ieport that there is a dearth of data about beth preservice and inse?vice .. t:edn:>logy trainirg practices an:1 effects. -new an:1 experienced teachers perceive trainirg, what DX!els are nx:,st ~opriate, ha to encourage transfer of trainirg to the classroom are tut a few of many issues that need exploration. Systematic programs of research are needed an:1 do not exist. Here too, partnerships can be useful. An exanple is the recently established MECC;university of Minnesota center for the Study of Fducational Technology. 'Ihe College 61
PAGE 64
ot F.dJ1ca+-..ion at the university of Minnesota am MECC have created an -a:ganizatian whase mission will be to prcmte research on technology in the schcols, incluclin;J teacher trainin;J. FUn:i.miJ fran a variety ot sources will be scu;ht to sponsor this researL1. SC:hcol districts will be involved, college of Fd11cation faculty mi students, arxl MECC software developers, researchers, and trainers. Partnerships lika this one an potentially ~JCe the current ''kncwlqe gap" about technol~ trainin;. Principles ot effective technology trainin;, at the inservice level especially, have been identified ard confh'med by researdl. Teachers like to be tau;ht by other teachers or least by i~viduals who appreciate the canplexities of their jccs am ~l
PAGE 65
\ tha c::cquter as a part ot instzuction, it is iJDportant to conclude the disalssicn of preser,ice am inservice edJ,ca.+-..icn with a di smssion of train.miJ is net tha sole prcperty of sc:tJcols of education. While sdl0ols of edncatiai offer college credit for successfully canpletin;J 0Cll1plter cx,m:ses aDi wcrkshcps, they are not the only scm:ce of technology tra.ininJ for teachers. 02rplter ocmpanies, software developers, mi professicnal organizations also provide technology train.miJ for teachers. In fact, sane ~f these agencies also prcvide equipnent arxi technical~ to schcols of education. carmter canpanies am Pnservicetinservice Techrploay Training While there are many cxq:uter ocmpanies an:! software developers, Apple's, IEM's, Tarx:ly's, am M&T's efforts related to c::cquter use in the K-12 sc:tJcols anj/or sdlcols of ed!acaticn may be used as illustrations of canpanies efforts to work with edJx:ational institutians. CCDplt:e?' ocmpanies have a direct interest in tra.ininJ for several reasons. First, to sell CCllplters to a large district it is often necessary to provide assistance in the trainin;J of teadlers to use these cx:nputers. secan, who leam to use specific technology will want to cantimla to use the equipnent when newer versions are intrcduced to the market. Trainirq efforts therefore are part of the cost of sellin; calplters. Apple caip.iter, Inc. has al::>out 58 percent of the installed micro base in K-12 sdlcols (Ba?:ixJur', 1987) arxi has supported teacher trainin;J efforts through a variety of ccmpany policies. '!heir mst conmtm method has 1:een through equipnent grants am special discounts to 63
PAGE 66
l districts ard edl1cators. lb.1eVe?", they have also sponsored teacher trainin;J wcrkshcps, edllC3tional p.lblications, am conferences for educators. 'Iba conferences brln;J together edncat.ors to diso.JSS issues related to teacher trainiD;J. '!base efforts are chronicled in an Apple p.iblicaticm, IamtiDJ 'l\ MIN If ta.I 'Iba inau;ural issue of IeamlnJ Tcuur.:z:cw, focused on issues highlighted by the Apple Mication Advisor/ CCl.n:il 's meetir,;. K questions were: ltllat are their (policymakers in schools of education) roles as instructional leaders in an information age? ltlat are the implications of technology for the curriculum in teacher edlication colleges ard sc.h0ols of education? What should the trainiD; of teadlers involve? Shculd sc.h0ols of edlication prepare teachers with a vision of the class?oau of tcm:,rrcw, ar prepare them for where scbcols are tcclay? How can teachers with skills in curriculum ard instructional tec:hnol031 aacme a rescurce to sdlcols of Education? HC1il can a tenured faculty be retrained to deal with new tools? Another issue (Lim, 1986) ~ocused on the result.s of a naticmal meetm;J with deans ard directors of ed1icaticn. '1be conclusions of the meetiD;1 were that the use of technology must be widespread in teacher alucation courses am preseIVice teachers shculd be involved in the evaluation of technological innovations to help sb.ldents assess the benefits of technology (Linn, 1986, p. 44). 'Ihree of the four recommendations are relevant to the disoissicn. 64
PAGE 67
Establish partnerships mq universities, industry, ard schcols to respcrx1 to the challen;e of technology in ecbu:ation. Create centers for collaboration on technology mi edlration. create n:rlal classz.oc:ms am schcols lffle1"8 multidi sciplinaxy teams can mcplore teadlin;J, leamin;J, mi technclogy in real educational settin3&. Apple has followed-up on these reo i!lhen2ticns by establishirg partnerships with colleges arx1 universities. '1hese arran;ements include prcvidin;J "deep di scx:,Jllt" p.rogzams to creatin; Apple university consortium links with 32 leadinJ institutions in informtion sharin; partnerships (Ba?tx,ux-, 1986). Althcugh these prCX]laDS are designata:l for the entire college or university, schools of educati,m have banefitted frail such arran;ements by l::em;J able to purchase equipment at a la..r rate. is ~iaJJy beneficial to schcols of edJ1e2.t-.ion since Apple software is the daninant software used in K-12 schcols. To meet the needs of districts who want tra.inmJ as part of a camnitlDent frail a vemor, Apple has also ca1tracted with private corporations arxi cansultants to provide workshops for teachers. For example, Apple has ccntracted with the Minnesota F.d11mtiai canpitirq Corporation (ME(l:) to provide workshops of vaeyin;J len;Jths to schcol districts. Apple pays for part of the instruction arxi MECC designs an:! delivers the ~rkshcp. In almost all cases these 'Nerkshops are part of the district's insexvice activities in which the di.strict provides the released tiJDe for the teachers arxi Apple provides the trainers. Apple has also been ccnsiderirq establishirg links with selected schools of education across the country for research arx:1 development 65
PAGE 68
... \ efforts. At this time, however, the ccncept is still in the deveJ.cpnent stage. 'Iha major pw:pose of the centers wculd be to ccn:hlct research and tra.inin;;J related to technology issues. IEM has made a cancerted effort in the past few m::mths to in:rease its presence in the K-12 nmxst. IIM has irxb:odnc.eci a net canputer, the Medel 25, aimed at the sc:hcol market. Rlile IEM' s cxmni tment to the K-12 sc:hcol market has been questioned by sane ed11cators, IIM has sponsored a verJ large c:urriculum project, WritiDJ to Read, aimed at the elementaey schcols ani has suwarted the tra.inin;;J of inservice teachers to use the materials ar.d the equipment. In addition, IEM has established wcrkiD;J relationship; with sr~kaJ. software p.lblishers to create materials for the new machines. Acc::oJ:dirq to Mr. Iri;o Hentschel, director of insezvice ed11cation, at the insezvice level nmt of the cxapany's efforts are directed to prcvidin; implementation workshops for sc:hcols districts who have purchasec1 IElf software. For evample, IIM has run state department of ed11Cation supported W0%xshcps in various states en the WritiDJ to Read p%0:J%2Wl. other efforts include prcvic:li?xJ equipment for dsmaistra.tion centers. At the. COl:porate level nM has not established a cxanpany '\ policy about presm:vice am inservice teacher edJ1caticn. IEM, like Apple, has al.so participated in oollege arxi university discount by maldn;J cc:q:,uters arxi related technology available at reduced prices. In addition, IlM has ~keel with some sdlools of education in establishirx; researdl programs in teacher education utilizing tec.lmologj'. For exall'ple, Cean James Cooper at the University of Virginia has an ml grant to study the use of computer linkages with 66
PAGE 69
.. student teac:hm:J centers. SUCh researdl-basai efforts can contril:,ute to a variety of areas related to trainin; teachers to use technology. 'lbe Tandy C0J.l)oration has maintained acout 18 percent of the canputer mrket in sc:hcols (~ld, Fran, "Is a powemcuse still a powemcuse with MS-IXS?11 September 6, 1987). Within the past several 11D1tlls, Tandy has made a stJ::aq bid to increase the its share of the market with the int:rcductia1 ot two rat oanputers, '1'andy 100 HX mi~'lbs ccmputers with ?-S-IXS have many nat features and cc 111:ete directly with IIH's new machines. Tamy, acx:ordin;J to canputer analysts, has re-entered the oa,ipetition with a vigorous strategy (Holly Brady, sept:emcex' 1987) 'Dle Tamy company has t:hrol1ghout its histozy provided access to infor.mal t::rainmJ thrcugh its Radio Shack outlets. canpany run seminars ard wrkshcps have been offered for irxiividt1al s interested in leamin; D:>re acout the machines. SUCh wcrkshcps provide opporbmities for teachers in sc:hcol systems usm] Tardy cmputers an opportunity to increase their skills. American TeleplOne am Telegraph (AT&T) is a recent entzy onto the edlication scene. An example is :relationship with Irxliana University. ATG/I! am the Irxliana University SChool of F.ducation have entered into a cooperative agreement in which AT&T is providin; equipment arxi technical support for the reconfiguration of the school's technology program. Kr&T will provide flms for the retrainirq of faculty ani the development of educational programs for both urxiergraduates am graduates in education. or. Lee Ehman, School of F.ducaticn director for the project, states that the project will per.mit 67
PAGE 70
. Indiana to have the latest technology frail AT&T ani the furxlin; needed to utilize the equipnent effectively in redesignin;J the curriculum. 'Iba acove e,camples illustrate c:anputer ccmpmies' efforts to provide the needed support for tha utilization of their technology. It seems clear that vax10rs can am de provide important opportunities for edlJCators to receive additional technology training. Software Developers Tra.inim Efforts nilration software developers also have an interest in the training of teachers to properly use canputers ani related software. Fa~.ll company develops teacher manuals designed to help the classrcan teacher use the c:anputer materials 1IK)1"8 effectively. In sane cases these manuals are spartan efforts contained on a sin;le 8Xll sheet while in others the materials are presented in a booklet of several pages in 1~. Of the current software mmpanies the Mi:nnesota FD11eaticn Canputin; Col'poration (MECX) has the la~ hist:oey of active involvement in teacher trainin;. MECC has been involved in deliverin; inse?vice technology trainin; to teadlers for 14 years. originally fun:ied by the state of Mimesota, one of MF.CC's dlal:ges was to teachers acrcss the state to use technology in the classroan. '!be state was divided into districts am MECC coordinators were assigned to serve the needs of district schools. Recently MF.CC's status with the state as chan;ed ani it no lcn;e.r receives direct state furxlin;. Accordin; to Don Rawitsch, Vice President for Adminstration, MECC has for the last several years contracted with Apple canputer, Inc. to deliver training nationwide. Rawitsch states that the partnerships has worked because all parties 68
PAGE 71
benefit frail the relationship. Schools have the need ard will experience benefits frail trainin:J but have few resources ard may have limited expertise in-hcuse. Apple has the resources but does net have in-hcuse highly q,ial ified trainers who can deliver t.he trainin;. MECC has this e,cpertise but dcse net have the resources available to llDmt a nationwide train.in; pl.(X':11.am. A major problem in the MECCjApple/school train.in; progiam, accomin; to Rawitsc:h, is its high cost. MECC est:bnates that a day of trainin; a:,sts between $200 to $300 per day per teacher. SChool districts at D:>St are willmJ to pay $100 150 for such services. Because oaipanies like Apple stam to gain frail teachers bemJ trained to use their machines, ven:lcrs are willin; to subsidize sane of the cost of the trainirq, thus reducinJ a:,sts to the school district. MECC's fcn:mat for trainin:J has net chan;ecl appreciably over the years. Wo1.kshcps with highly qualified trainers and an emphasis on hams-at, active participation 1'}' teadlers charact:erizes t,m...ir methcdology. MECC' s impressions about the c.haracteristics rleeded. by effective trainers are consistent with the literature but ~Lwitsch said he also has learned that if very high quality t:ra.ininJ materials are used, the trainer can take on the role of adviser, consultant and manager. When asked if he sees that technology-base:! materials to teach about technology might be a future trerxl, Rawitsch was doubtful. 'Ihe cost of prcxiucmJ, updatin; arxi mai.ntainin; such materials is high. Many school districts do not have the facilities or equipment to operate such pro;rams, content charges too rapidly ani teac.hers often 69
PAGE 72
a want mre mlivid11alistic applications. Rawitsch sees a a:mtinuin; need for ooc:p!rative relationships anaq schools of edJ1cation, computer cunpa'lies, am software developers. Within the last several years other software developers have made a concerted effort t:t:, provide materials to train teachers to use their prcducts n:,re effectively. Efforts by Marge Kcsel of sunburst illustrate these efforts. with schcols in the field sunburst has gained a reputation for high quality problem solvin; activities. Sane of their prog:tams such as Factaey have received national awa:rds. To enccurage teachers to use the products which are mre ccnplex than traditional drill mi practice programs, SUnburst has developed a series of videotapes to illustrate hew a teacher might use the product in the classrcan. 'Iha tapes shew actual classroom applications an:l prcvides. ~ues to teacher an hew to ~e the students am hew to proceed throu;h the lessen. other material contains a di 601.$ion of problem sol vin; in the classroan. 'lbese materials provide the interested teacher with a means of leamin;J alxut the software on his or her C7Nl'l, district personnel with materials for large in-seJ:vice activities, or material to be~ by the sales representative when prcvidin; inseJ:vice edlicaticm. other developers such as the kJen::t for Instructional Technology (AIT) of Bloan.in;ton, Irxliana, provide t.rainin; materials for their prcducts. Ar? has a lon; histoty of cooperatively working with state departments of education in the development of technology materials for the classroan. F.ach set contains a variety of inservice activities to 70
PAGE 73
denalstrate the materials am to train teac.hers to use them in the c.lasS1:oan. 'Iba acove examples are provided to imicate that sane carp.rt:er sottware developers provide both in-person trainin; arx:1/or materials designed to assist the teacher. It is iJDportant for the reader to realize that the e,camptes are illustratiaw of activitins and do n:,t represent a samplin; of software canpa"lY efforts. Ra;ataten:lations Infomal technology edlJCation will ex>ntinue to provide inp:)rtant avenues of trainin; for teachers. Because these efforts are often linked to ccnpany' s marketirq strategies and provide insights into the overall success of the o:npany, it is difficult to gain a clear picture of what specific activities are ocx:urrin; in this area. 'lbe followin; rec:ormnemations are designed to provide a better of current efforts. Reccrnmen:!ation 1: Sdlcols of ed11c.a+-.ian, sc:hcol districts, ani informal trainers need to explore cooperative relationships in teacher technolcgy trainin;. 'Ihis recamnetxlation has been made earlier in this report. It bears repeatirq ha.vever at this p,int because it is evident that inservice education am infonnal education may be the keys to the lcn; term -of technology use in t:QIX)r.rt:M's classrcoms. Reccrnmen:!ation 2: Infol'ml educators need to study the lllTpact of their trainin; efforts an:i make these findin;s available to the larger educational audierx:es. Infonnal educators have the talent to corduct research efforts to explore similar questions raised in the presavice an:l inse?vice sections. While the sharin; of these findin;s is always terrpered by 71
PAGE 74
tt1& business climate mi are sanetimes suspect kJecause of their ties to profits, it is inp:)rtant that resources am talent 118 used to study key questions. Infc:St:mal ecb1eators must b! willin; to risk studies that my net always lead to the canclusions JID5t ccmucive to canpany policy. Pinal 0O:1111111mt1ts:s 'Iba last dec2de has witnessed an unprecedented camnit:ment to the trainin; of teachers to use a new piece of technology in the classrccm. SChcol districts, schcols of ecbraticn, arxi private ccarpa1"lies have allocated considerable resources t.o meet this chall.er,;e. 'Ihis study examined the status of these training efforts in an attempt to provide guidelines for the next few years. '1he JID5t clear canclunion fran the study is that the task of training teachers to use technology remains as a major problem. 'lbe vast majority of America's current teac:hin:J staff still need to b! trained to use cxmp.rt:ers effectively as a part of the instructional pz:ooess~. Arxl, of these classman teachers who have been trained, the level of train.in; is at a minimal level at best. At the presavice level, schools of ecb1cation have made efforts to provide -training, l::ut the level of technical krlaledge remains low as technology training ccmpetes in a c:rcwded teacher education pi:cx;cam arxl for scarce dollars. As educators l00.i1t toward the future of technology trainin; several factors provide hcpe. First, schcols of ecb1eation are in the midst of a reform era that my brln; significant charges to the manner in which in:lividuals are prepared to begin their careers. Technology training can be a part of this refonn effort that will take several years to fully develop. Secord, students enterin; teaching have had mre 72
PAGE 75
e.xperience with tedmolcgy than in the past am this ~ience will lessen of the tension en education progiams to "do it all." Also, attar seve::al years of lackluster growth, ccmplter canpanies seem to be an the reboull:1 am are offerin'J ed!1cators a wide ran;e of new technology am software to enhance the classroan. Ar.d finally, cooperative efforts l.inkirq sdlools of education, sc:hcol districts, an::l businesses are l:)emJ foxged. While is only in the infancy stage these early mcdels may be 11:dels for others as all three institutions seek to get the nest out of limited resources. 'Ihe report contains a series of rec::cmmemations. 'Ihese reeamDemations suggest specific activities that are nee:led if technolo;y trai.nin; is to meet the demams of tcmorrc:M's teachers. While many are obvious to an ciserver of the status quo, they still remain important if edJ,cators are to gain a better of the trainin; needs of teachers am the ~le to be played by key actors sc:hcols of edJ1Ca.tJ.on, sc:hcol districts, an::l private b.tsiness. 73
PAGE 76
BefetaD::S American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, position paper on technology am teacher edlration (Washin;ton, o.c., 1986). ~, A., '"lbree New Entries in F.dtication Market Fom Quite a Crowd," Electronic Ie,znirs., vol. 6, No. s, Februaxy 1987, p. 11. I A. "canp.tter SCien:e AP: Mere can:lidates' I.aNe%' Grades' Elect;ouic Iearn1m, vol. 6, No. 4, September 1986, pp. 22-23. Becker, H. J., "Ollr National Bep:)rt card: Preliminary Results fra1l the New Johns Hopkins survey," Classrogm Cgmputer I.earning. vol. 6, 1986, R> 30-33. Blurton, c., "califomia's New canp.tter for Teachers," SIG Bulletin of the Inten,ational Cgmcil for Computers in F.dcatign. vol. 3, Nos. 2&3, 1986-87, pp. 55-58. Bock, G., ''No Mere Dcwntime," ~' vol. 130, No. 7, August 1987, R> 48-49. Brady, H. ''Tardy Fills out Its 1000 Line," Classroom Ccmputer I.earn;im. vol., 8, No. 1, September 1987, pp. 26-69. Bramble, w., et al., Cgrp.Iters Schools (New York: M::Graw-Hill, 1985). C'arnegie Forum on F.dlcation ard the F-caxmy, A National Prepared: Teachers for the 21st centu:ty, the Report of the Task Force on Teac.hin; as a Profession (New York, May 1986) CUl.p, G., ''Do Ccmputer-Usin;J Teachers Need-?'', ~letin of the International Council for Computers in Education, vol. 3, No. 1, 1986, pp. 25-26. 74
PAGE 77
Dranka, P., Cgplter Integration into Instruction is stuck: Experts mama Unclrr OptjJnal uses am 'Ihree Inplementation Problems, ABC) Update 6 (~ 1985) : 6. Feistritzer, c. E. Teacher Crisis: MYtb or Reality?
PAGE 78
.. Lim, M., Fducation and the Q]allerpe of Technology. proc:eeclin;JS of a ccnference a, Techrx>lo;w and Teacher F.duc-ation (OJpertino, CA.: AR>J.e canpiter, Inc., 1986), i:p. 43-44. Illehmam, A., ,_ Teach -? 'I\v0 Geed Reasons," Elect;a1.ic Ieanrlm, vcl. 4, No. 8, 1985, p. 10. Minnesota Board of -Higher F.dJJCation COoI'dinatin:J Board, Minnesota's vision for Teacher F,ducaticn: st;aper s:t:an,s,zw;: New Partnerships. report of the Task Force on Teacher F.dJJCa.tiat for Minnesota's !'Ublre (st. Pr\ul, MN., oct:cber 1986). !t.,ore, M. "Preparin; canputer-Usin;J F.dJ1cators," 'Ihe Cgmputin;r Teacher,, 0ctober 1984, pp. 48-52. tt>rehouse, o. L. et al. Technology-Related Inseryice F.dcation Finiirps, Issues arxi Eeqgtuuerqations: An Analysis Based on Eyaluation of Minnesota's Techrploay Denpnstration Pnxn.am Qml tty Evaluation ard Develc:gnent. a report of the Minnesota Oepal:lmeut of F.d11ca:+-.icn (st. Paul, MN., 1987). Mcursani, o., "Effective Inservice for Use of catp.tters as Tools," 'nle Cgtp.rtin;r Teacher. vol. 13, No. 5, 1986, R:> 5, 58. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher FdJ1cation, NgATE Atprcwed O,n;rlg.1lum Guidelines (washi.n;ton, O.C., November 1986). National Fducation Association, status of the American Public School Teacher: 1986-87 (West Haven, c:r, 1987). Nietzke, T., ''Wouldn't You Really Rather Have a canputer-Literate staff?", BIG Bulletin of the International CO\Jncil for in F.ducation, vol. 2, No. 1, 1985, pp. 33-34. 76
PAGE 79
Office of Technolo;w Assessment, Trergs ard status of cam;uten in Schools: use in Chapter 1 Ptoarans arxi use with t4roited En;rlish P?.'Qficient $1:Udents. a staff paper of the Science Ftlucation arxi Transportation Pl.o;:ram (Waslli.D;tcn, o. c. Mar. 13, 1987) Reinhold, F. "Is a Pcwet'hcllse still a Pcweiilcuse with ?tS-txs?", Electronic Ie:rn1JP., vol. 6, No. 1, sept.ember 1987, pp. 31. Bess, J. and BcdlfOJ:d, T. ''New Teachers Better Prepared for canp.rt:ers," El,ect;ouic Iern1rs, vol. 6, No. 4, 1986, pp. 23-24. Shalvoy, M. L., ''Sane Sdlcols Institutirq Fees for CCllp.lte%" I.abs,'' Elgct;on.ic I,samim. vol. 6, No. 4, Janwu:y 1987, pp. 13 ,. Sin.1letaJ::y, T. J. "for Leadership," Journal of Teacher FdcatiQn, vol. 38, No. 3, 1986, pp. 26-30. Smith, o. A. ''Redesignin; the Olrriculum of Teacher Fducation, '' ~enina Teacher Fducation, c. Peter Magra~ anc1 (San F:."ar:isco' califomia: Jessey-Bass PUblishers, 1987). Sparks, G. M., "Synthesis of Researdl. on staff Development for Effective Teachin;J," F.dcational leadership. November 1983, pp. 65-72. stec:her, B. M., and SOlorzam;:,, R. S., QlanM:e:d5tics of Effective ConpJte;: Inseryice Pt@:taps (Pasadena, CA: Fducational Testirg Ser/ice, 1984). Stecher, B. M., Training Teachers to Use computers: A case Study of the SUmmer Training Coinponent of the Iffl/E'IS Secon::faiy School Computer F.ducation P.tW;tam (Princeton, New Jersey: F.ducational Testirg Ser1ice, 1984). 77
PAGE 80
ot F4'P!tion Graduatesa summat'Y of firxlin;s from the 1986 surRJ of graduates, college of F.dlicaticn, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN, 1987) 'lbe Helmes Grcup, Inc. Tgpgr;q..,' s Teachers. a report of the Holmes Grcup (Fast Iansirq, Michigan, 1986). Tobias, s., "k'laptirq Insb:uctian to Irxlividual Differences Anaq Sb:dents," Fdcational Psychologist, vol. 16, 1981, pp. lll-120. TUrner, J. A., "Familiarity with New Tec:hnclogy Breeds Olan;Jes in canputer-Literacy Courses," 'lhe Ogonicle of Higher F.ducation, July 22, 1987, pp. 9, 12. U.S. Department of F.ducation, Teacher Preparation in the Use of Cgmputers (W~, o.c.: Bulletin Office of F.dncational Research ani Inprovement, 1986) Watts, D. "canp.rt:er Literacy: ltlat Shcw.d SC.hcols be ~ing About It?'', ___ ......._ ___ ........r.-......r.,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;....___~ Williams, F. arxi Williams, v. Mig:cxnuputers in Elementary Fmication Pelsegctives on Impl~ {Belmont, califomia: Wadsworth PUblishirq canpany, 1984, pp. 32-34). 78
PAGE 81
. ... 79
PAGE 82
. An Inseryice Model that Incorporates these Principles 'Iha literature on inservice technology training programs universally advocates that teachers must be met ''where they are at" in tel'mS of level of canpetence am helped to mcve alon; the continuum toward greater cc:anpetence in usin:J technology. Inplie:l in this stance is the need to provide differentiated training for teachers; sane will need to start at the g.rourxl floor, others must expan:i on their existing technology related skills. Below, a bJo level training m:x1el is descril::s:l which includes elements that the authors of this report have implemented in the last twelve years atxi others that respond to themes that recur in the literature. 'Ihis progiam is designed to sezve teachers who are largely familiar with computer technology. 1. Qiaracteristics of participants. Teadlers enrollin:J in this program usually share a set of characteristics. To begin with, although. most are mtivated to leam, the source of this mtivation varies. Sane report that their own son or daughter is "a computer whiz" an:l that they feel they shcw.d knc1.t1 about c::atpiters to avoid total intimidation. others Ieport that thay have observed peers usin:J CCl1plters with students arxi are an-ious about hc:,.tr they might make use of ccmputi.rxJ in their am classrcoms. still others have general feelin:Js of anxiety about ''bein:J left behirxi" if they fail to leam about these new tec.hnologies. Sane teachers have fourxl themselves in the awkward position of acquirin:J a computer, through no effort of thei.'t9 own, arxi have no idea of what to do with it. Reasons like these 80
PAGE 83
( J ptopel teachers to seek out or take advantage of inservice train.in; on o:mp.rtirq. It is effective to have participants d:fsrnss the reasons for their atterx3ance as a means of ~in; both their anxieties and expectations. 'nlis sharinJ of ideas is often cathartic an:i serves to relieve sane of the initial tensions so oa1anor:place in the early stages of trainin;. 'Ihe question "In what ways have ccmputers made life easier or mre diffia.ll.t for you personally?" usually elicits a flood of tales about bank statements, phony personalized fom letters, or problems with bills. 'nlis provides a seq,,ay into a di srnssion of the role of ccmputers in con:1uctin; ones personal. affairs as well as in the teachin;/leaminq prooess_ Participants in Levell trainirg usually anticipate a great deal of hams-on activity at the computer. 'lhey terd to be impatient with tco muc.h instruc:tor talk; they pref er to sperxi mcst of their tiJDe the machine. Many expect to gain specific skills, such as equipnent operation arxi word pxooessjnJ. In addition, participants enjoy an a~ in which they are free to work or chat with others as they experience 'rlff!W tasks. In:1.ividuaJs have different pref~, of course, for workin; alone or with others, but mcst welcome the opportunity to seek out support frail fella.., participants. 'Ihe participants in the Level 1 program often have anxieties about canputirq are mtivated to become carpetent. An at:m::,sphere of support with opporb.mities for many ''hams on'' activities creates an ideal environment for leaminq. 81
PAGE 84
. { 2. Ccurse content. As time passes, content in the Level 1 pwg.r:am will need to be med] fied, but sane topics are likely to remain stable. a. Operation of eguignent. Everyone learns to tum on the cxmputer, boot a disk, load a prog.Iam, save, initialize a disk, operate the printer. b. 1gp11egge about hardware 'Ihis includes info?."maticn about the intemu workin;s of the carp.tter, usin:f operatirq system, the care of disks, various input am outpit devices, etc. c. Word processing. alildin;J can;.etence in word process.in; is a priority early in the prog?am. Word precess.in; provides the teacher with a flexible new tool that can be useful in many aspects of her life. once she ](na.r.; hew to use it, she can for exalli)le, prepare class materials, write letters to frierDS, arxi canplete assignments for graduate ccurses. Generally, we believe that teachers shculd gain a level of ccmfort am ccnfiden::e with a sirqle word processin;J package before they are inb.crlJJCErl to other packages which may have different features. Masterirq the basic canmar.ds an:i procedures of one package allows beginners to be success~ at a variety of tasks. d. other tools. 'lbe content for a Isvel i p.togiaai provides an intrcduction to many applications for teachers. Although there is rarely time for them to bec:7ne expert users, they have opportunities to practice within eac.h content area. Teachers should try out a variety of program; that will help them create materials for their students. Crosswcrd puzzle generators, pack.ages that produce overhead transparencies or posters, arxi test generators are some examples of 82
PAGE 85
t i:n:nnediately see the benefits of these 1~ for classroan applications. teachers a. TYpes of instructional prpc~. Teachers leam about the variety of instl:uctional available to than, incluiirg drills, tutorials, sinlll.ations, games, arxi prcblem-solvin;J pro;iams. f. Software evaluation. Basic criteria to be used in evaluatin;r software are di srussec.L Teachers are given opportunities to apply these criteria in several reviews. 3. Teaching strategies. By teac:hin; strategies we refer to the ways in which the content of the trai.nirg is presented, practiced, an:i reinforced. a. Hign structure. Tobias' research (1981) has shewn that lea:tnerS wit.li little P:C-or knowledge alxut the content of instruction they receive tern to benefit fmD high levels of structure in the fo:cm of instructional ~rt. our wrk with teachers in the Level 1 ~2114 suggests validation of this principle. We create a highly structured environment which consists of cycles of a preinstructional activity, the insb:uctional task~itself, a"'Xi postinstructional activity. A typj~.cal sequerx:e 'NtW.d be to inttodnce a progxam, give participants a task in which they 1DLlSt lverk with the p~ to perform certain operations, am then de.brief on their activity. For exanple, in teachin; about software evaluation criteria, we might first present the concept of good docJmentation. We might list the characteristics, create a checklist of criteria to look for, am then use the c..11ecklist as we review one or two exairq?les of strong arxi weak documentation. 'Ihe 83
PAGE 86
' l assigned task would be to review the documentation fran several programs usirq the criteria included on the dlecklist. Once teachers ccmplete this task, either -Y or in pairs, we w10Ul.d reccnvene to debrief alxut issues like the difficulty of assess.in; certain criteria or ways to reduce the time it takes to review dccumentaticn. 'lhis basic cycle, with variations intl:001r.ed to maintain interest, is repeated at many points in the p?ogzabl. b. Team work. Teachers both enjoy, am profit fran, workin; to;ether as they leam about
rtant in establishin; arxi mnitorin; team activity. First, it is in;:)ortant that eadl person interact directly witti the catp.1te?'. sane people prefer to stay in the backgrourx:1 arx1 let others experiment mt it is important that all members of the g.rcup have the opporb.mity to operate the equipment. Secord, it is usually helpful to have teans D:lV'e away fran the CCDplter for p.irposes of plannin;J. Too often a g.rcup remains at the ccq:uter, ane mern~r wants to play, thus di.stra.ctirq the others arxi reducin:J the participation of that irxlividJ,al in the group's activity. 'lhu'd, we mnitor the groJpS to catch aey serious problems in group dynamics. To illustrate, if one mern~..r appears to danirate or to control the computer, it is iltp:>rtant to encourage a change in this pattern. other members of the group may impose internal sanctions but if this does not occur, the instructors should intervene. Related to this problem is the need to carefully sb:ucture the task to allow about 84
PAGE 87
,.. the right amunt of time to canplete it. If too much time is allowed, the group msmbe'tS will beo:me restless ard inp!tient; on the other ham, too little time invariably causes frustration. 'lbe use of groups can be an effective strategy for teach.ir.g many skills related to the canp.rt:er. A careful balance 1DLlSt be st.ruck, however, between time spent havin; people wrkirq to;ether ard -Y sane canp.rt:er skills, such as wiord processin;, require a geed deal of practice. Time must be al.laved for each person to struggle with leamin; these skills individnaJ ly. If each participant does net have access to his own canp.rt:er durin; trainin;, it may be important to S!)lit the group into two or three subgroups to allow sane people to work individually en the available ccmputers while others en;age in alternative activities. c. SUpe;yised in;liyiduaJ exploration time. Built into the inservice program at this level is time for exploration arxl practice. 'lhis is crucial for a variety of reasons. It allows teachers to experiment, make mistakes, arxl try again within a sheltered envircnment. If sanethin; "catastrcphic" occurs, such as forgettirq to save a file before erasirg rreirJr:(, the teacher can get help frail the insb:uctor to~ 'b:f this occurred. ''Teachable nanents" arise again am again as the teacher puzzles over the reasons why the computers mysteriously resporxi in one way or another. '!his exploration time also allows individuals to 'WOrk at their CM1 pace, perhaps retumin; to earlier assignments arxi seekinJ clarification on various operations. 85
PAGE 88
.. .. f ,.. An inservice pz:og1.am for beginners should have at least two broad goals: to create an at:no;phere for exploration arxi -tion, arxi to insure that a number of basic wwpetencies are mastered by participants. '1he canbination of methods descril:ei al:)ove represents a successful strategy for achievinJ these t'wc goals. 4. Folla.tYP 'Ihis canponent refers to activities which occur once the fODDal piogram is canpleted. Inserlice programs for teachers typically are structured in one of several ways. '!bey may be intensive sessions of short duration, such as \tJOrkshops. Alternatively, they may consist of a series of sessions held aver a period of time. A unive.rsity course or an inhouse p~am my nm for 6 to 15 weeks, for example. If the pro;tam is offered over a lon;er period of time, the teacher can begin to experiment with the use of the CCllplter an:1 report her pi:cgress at a subsequent session. Because sane of cur prtgiams have been of the wcrkshcp variety, we have fcurxi a need to c::anuct fella,, up activities. Many options are possil>le; w1e will rep:,rt on several that have tt10rked well for us. Assignin;J a project to use the comp.rter within a lesson has been useful. We encourage teachers to do a simple activity at first. For evample, they may have their students leam the IOOO primitives leam to use Bank street Writer, or make posters with Printshop. A teacher might use a drill to reinforce a mathematics rule or a tutorial to help students learn about the basic focx:l groups. By build.in; in a to carrt out such an activity, arxi report on their results, teachers have the incentive to take the first step in using t.l-ie ccmp.lter with their own sb.Dents. 86
PAGE 89
( .. ArXJther follc:M up strategy is to serd a survey to participants, quetyin;J whether arx1 in what ways they have used the computer after the inservice p?OgXam. Not only do we receive inf0%1Dation about usage, but it also serves to remmi these who haven't used the computer about possibilities for classrcan arn personal uses. 'Iha ideal inse?vice prog.tam will integrate on;oin; formal trainirq e,cpm:iences with actual application in the classrcan. When this is not feasible, follow up activities can be generated which insure that participants will en;age in sane level of application. Isvel 2 pu;g;am A secc.ni stage of trainin; for teachers who have experience usirg the carp.tter focuses heavily on tool use ard classroom integration. l. O'laracteristics of participants. 'lhe mst conrpellin; difference between participants in the two levels of our program is the ., de;Iee of familiarity with the canputer. 'lbe effects of havin; experience manifests itself in several ways with advanced participants. unlike the beginners, these participants are cx:mfortable with the technology. Operation of the equipment has becane autanatic arx1 as a result, they terxl to have much l~ anxiety about its use. Advarx::ed participants' expectations for additional trainin; center arcurx1 needs to exparxi their current use of the computer as a tool for ccmplet.irg professional ard personal tasks. Specifically, they wish to broaden their outlook on ways to use t.his technology for extending their own powers to reach students. '1hese teachers already have experienced both success arxi failure in working with different software arx1 are 110re willin; to take sane risks. '!he novel 'cy of w10rkirx;r with 87
PAGE 90
.. .. ..... the cx:arpiter has lessened arxl these participants are ready to deal with 11:)re sophisticated issues about applications. Another expectation shared J:,y nmt advanced participants is that they will profit frail hearin; about the successes arxi failures of others in the gm.1p. Many expect to leam as much fran one another as they will frail the instructor. Because many of these participants regularly consult with other teachers as they experiment with in their own buildin;s, they realize hew helpful such shared expertise can be. One nx:,tivator for sane participants in level 2 trainin; is the press to insetvice their fellow teachers about o::mp.Itirq. Workin; with other teachers will require knowledge am skill which may in part be different frcm that needs:! to l:>rk with their own students. Participants my hcpe to gain strategies for deliverin;J good inservice instruction. sane of the advanced participants .have begun or hope in the future to create their am software arxl look to the advanced program as an opportunity to pick up helpful hints for this activity. Some have concluded that little of the software meets their needs 1 others who have -skills ~cane the c.hallen;e of creai:in:J new material. AlthcAlgh these participants always represent a minorj:ty, their needs can be partially addressed through sane aspects of the progxa:m. I.evel 2 participants often have clearer expectations about what they need from further trainin;. Because these irxli viduals have the basic oonq..etencies presented in the intrcductocy pro;rai11, they wish to 88
PAGE 91
f .. have their current knowledge an:l skill base enriched in sane Vert specific ways. 2 Course Cgntent. in five general areas, incl.1.Xim; principles of effective instruction, il1sb::uctional design, classrcau management, advanced tool arxi application use, strategies for insetvice trainirq, am software evaluation. 'lhe specific content presented may be briefly summarized in the followin:J manner. a. Effective instruction arxi instructional design principles: Principles of effective instruction am effective instructional design are presented. Denaistration of these principles within technologybasai instruction is provided. Participants practice applyin;J these principles in a series of exercises provided i:,y the instructor arxl in the design of their own instzilctional lessons which incorporate canputers in one or mre ways. 'Ibis area covers issues of incoi:poratin;J the use of canputers in the classrcom. Participants are encouraged to consider hew the cxmp.rt:er can be used for inlividlJal, smal J or l.al'g8 group instruction~ Strategies for designin; preinsb:uctional, instructional an:l post-instructional activities are deloonstrated arxi practiced. c. Advanced tool an:i applications use: Most level 2 participants are experienced users of some tools an:i applications so this t:rainin;J allows them, un:ier guidance from the instructor, to experiment with unfamiliar programs and to exparxi their repertoire of tools. 89
PAGE 92
. J d. strategies for inseryice training: 'Ibis area covers strategies for plamin;J ard deliverin; inservice traininJ for teachers on the use of ccq:,uters. Decidin; what to present, how much time to allow for varioos topics, ac::cclDIJO"latin;J the backgrcunjs am interests of different participants, am givin;J gocxl denr:mst.rations are sare of the topics which are covered. e. Software evaluation: 'Ihis area focuses on developin; systematic procedures for software evaluation within a school or school district. 'Ihe content for this prcg.tam focuses on effective integration of ccmputers into the classroom arx:l the Ct.LtTiculum. Because teachers who atterxi such sessions my serve as resource people to their colleagues, strategies for inservice trainin; are dem:mstrated arxi practiced. 3. Teaching strategies. We continue to use many of the methcxls frcm the Isvel 1 pxog:cam but intzcdnce several different ones as well. a. Peer teadti,m. An important goal c.if this advanca:i pxogz:am is to give participants opportunities to practice traininJ other teachers. Teachers may work irxiividually or in small teams to plan, deliver, an:! evaluate one or~ inservice trainin; sessions. Usually, the schedule is arran;ed so that each practice session can be taught twice. In this way, evaluative feedback from the first ~'5Sion can be used to 11Xlify the secorxi one. As instructors, we observe a~ critique these sessions arxl if possil:>le, involve other participants in this precess. '!his activity gives participants an opportunity to follCM an instructional design process in which the recipients of the ~~ct.-ton are adults rather than children. 90
PAGE 93
b. Instructional project. ~plication of the effective instruction principles presented in the prog.tam is achieved by the assignment of a 'project. 'lhe participat.irq teacher must identify an instructional problem, create an instructional sequence that uses technology, pilot it with his or her st\Xlents and report the results. 'Iha canputer must be incorporated into one or mre aspects of the design. 'lhe project can focus on one noie of operation onJ:J, such as in:lividual instruction, or can combine aspects of irxlividual, small, am large graJJ;> activities. Fach phase of the project is shared with other participants to enccurage generalization of the principles to a variety of instructional tasks. A necessaey in;redient of this project is a teacher's guide. In order to encourage the designer of the instruction to be explicit about his assumptions, he must doom,ent the prooess so another teacher could teach the lesson or l.U'lit ani be reascnably confident abcut its outc::cmes. c. Readings. 'Ihe Level 2 prcgram encourages participants to do mre readm;J than the Level l progI&1.
PAGE 94
.. ~ focus on helpin;;J teachers mve beycrxl isolated applications of canputers to well planned, validated experiences for students. 4. Foll0f'::UP. Folla up activities for Level 2 participants often take the fom of prcvidin; info:cnation about additional resources. For example, the teacher my wish to atterxi a mre irxiepth seminar on aspects of instructional design or may be receptive to additional readin;s on this topic or that of effective teachin;;J. some teachers my select the path of creating their an software. 'lhey will need help in the use of authorin;;J systems or prcgramm:irxJ skills. Providin;;J further assistance on inservice trainin;;J activities can be provided in several ways. Level 2 t.rain.inJ participants can be asked to keep a lo; of problems arisin;;J as they corxiuct such trainin;;J. Sessions can be held whic.h brin;;J together :inlividuals involved in insavice traini"q to disrnss strategies. Teachers who have carpietai the advanced program like to leam about new software that they can use with students. A silrple newsletter announcin;;J, reviewin;;J, arxi prcvidin;;J suggestions for the use of ntN prcducts can be a welcome aid to busy teachers who have little time to go through cammarcial catalogs am read journals. SUmmar{ r.n this t\tJ0 level approach to inservice trainirq on canputing, we have attempted to create a developmental environment for teachers which is responsive to their current degrees of experience, their expectations, arxi their levels of canfort with the technology. What might a third level of trainin;;J entail? One possibility is that participants wculd begin to develop their own software to meet specific 92
PAGE 95
needs usirg authorirg systems or prcgrammin:J larguages. Those who have acquired a krx,wledge base in instructional design arxi effective teac:hirX] principles ~d be in a gcod position to make this transition. Another option wculd Joe that participants en;age L11 researdl on variables :related to effective canputer-based insb:uction. WoJ:kin; in conjunction with in:lividtmJ s such as university faculty who have research design skills, teams of people might begin to investigate a variety of variables that CC:W.d enrich our krx,wledge base about hew best to use these new an:i excit.in; technologies in the classroan. '\ 93
PAGE 96
Dear AF2A: '!be Office of Technology Assessnent, urxier the auspices of the u.s. eon;ress, has asked us to cx,rxruet a review of literature on the topic of teacher technology trainin; at the preser1ice ani inservice levels. To help us in our review we WOJJ.d appreciate receiving from you arry documents produced by your organization that relate to this topic. Examples of such documents might include: -lists of competencies/skills teachers should possess for technology use in general or related to a specific subject matter area curriculum guides for technology trainin; for teachers -sets of recamnen:3ations for how teachers should be trained to use technology in their classrccms -evaluation instruments that assess attitJldes tcwaid technology or o aopetence with technology reports of staff development efforts aimed at technology trainin; other publications about technology trainirx; for teachers surveys of teacher attitudes/needs related to technology Because we are wcrkirg on a short timeline we WOJJ.d like to receive your materials by July 17. Also, we WOJJ.d appreciate receiving the names arx1 telephone numbers of~ in:lividuals in your organization who you think could be helpful to us on this project. We look fotward to hearing fran you. '!hanks. Sincerely, carol A. carrier Assistant Cean CAC:AI:Gjvgl 94 Allen o. Glenn Associate Cean
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EXTWDXXQ4_OK9CQC INGEST_TIME 2017-06-01T18:59:16Z PACKAGE AA00055625_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES