Against the odds: Professional development and innovation under less-than-ideal conditions.

This article reports surprising accomplishments of teachers who, despite overwhelming obstacles, are creating new learning opportunities for their students and are taking advantage of electronic technologies to support those innovations. Prior research has found that certain conditions should exist in a school for teachers to pursue professional development so they can implement useful applications of technologies in their classrooms. Examples of these conditions include administrative leadership, shared vision, opportunities for reflection and collaboration, a long-term professional development plan, and other supportive conditions. However, in many schools those desired conditions do not exist and there are formidable obstacles to creating those conditions. This report summarizes some of the findings of a research project conducted over a period of two and a half years with about 100 teachers in a pre-k-12 school complex that is part of a large, hierarchical school system. Teachers having a common vision fo r innovative practices worked in small teams to plan, implement, and evaluate new practices in their classrooms and school community. In this article some aspects of these innovations are described. Essential elements of the strategies Vanguard for Learning used for professional development are described and factors contributing to the teachers' ability to make such dramatic accomplishments "against the odds" are described. Ways in which these strategies can be adapted in other school settings are suggested.

Context

Teachers are being asked to learn new methods of teaching, while at the same time are facing even greater challenges of rapidly increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom... [given such challenges] relatively few teachers (20%) report feeling well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction. (US Department of Education, 1999a).

The importance of teacher development with respect to technology is recognized by many. The US federal government has created initiatives and funding opportunities for local education agencies to implement "continuous professional development for teachers, administrators, and other individuals to further the use of technology in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community." (US Department of Education, 1999b). Over the past fifteen years or so, educators, researchers, and technologists have documented principles that serve as a foundation for successful professional development practices. (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Becker, 1999; Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; Means & Olson, 1995; Brand, 1998; National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE), 1996; NFIE, 1998; Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 1995; CEO Forum on Education & Technology, 1999; Coughlin & Lemke, 1999). The research reported in this article corroborates many factors that have been found by oth ers to be important in teachers' professional development and successful implementation of new pedagogies and technologies in the classroom. This study is, in addition, very sobering with respect to the difficulty or perhaps impossibility of creating those desired and essential conditions in a large school system. Structural, cultural, and political characteristics of a school system may be such that it is unlikely to resolve fundamental obstacles in the near term, despite valiant efforts of some administrators. This study provides a theory of action and evidence of dramatic successes achieved through short-term strategies that can be adapted for use in other school communities.

SCHOOL SYSTEM CONTEXT: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY (DODEA)

The DoDEA is comprised of the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) and the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS). DoDDS serves dependents of US military and civilian employees in foreign countries. DDESS schools serve military dependents in the United States and her territories. In the 1997-98 school year DoDDS served a total of about 81,000 students in 161 schools. DoDDS staff numbered 9,500 in 14 countries around the world. DoDEA is a Department of Defense field activity operating under the direction, authority, and control of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel Support, Families, and Education. There are 14 District Superintendents in DoDDS, reporting to a Europe Area Superintendent and a Pacific Area Superintendent, each of who reports to the Director of DoDEA, located in Virginia. Most decisions about school improvement priorities, budgets, curriculum standards, learning materials, school staffing, technology, and professional development are made at the Headquarters in Virginia. Local schools do not have a local School Board and have little control over budgets, technology plans, hiring, curriculum, testing, school improvement priorities, or professional development strategies and opportunities. The school system annually publishes on the Internet and in news releases, the average standardized test scores of students at specific grade levels in each individual school. (http://www.odedodea.edu/profiles).

SCHOOL COMMUNITY CONTEXT: AVIANO AIR BASE, 1996-1998

Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, about 50 miles north of Venice, is Headquarters of the 16th Air Force and home base of the 31st Fighter Wing. Since 1994, military personnel stationed at Aviano have been engaged in a variety of high operations of the US and NATO, such as peace enforcement operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, northern Iraq, Albania, Kosovo, and elsewhere (http://www.aviano.af.mil). Military parents often work long hours, extra shifts, and are sent on temporary tours of duty away from home base, resulting in stress for families and children. There is no on-base housing for American military families in Aviano--families live in various Italian villages and towns spread over hundreds of square kilometers, resulting in many transportation issues and costs for families and the schools. Physical facilities on the Base, including schools, are overcrowded and in a continual state of construction and redevelopment. Due to the high operations state of the Air Force in Aviano, personnel mobility rates ar e very high. In the 1997-1998 school year, the mobility rate of students of the elementary schools serving the Air Base exceeded 50%.

Four schools currently serve the families of US military and civilian employees of Aviano AB. Table 1 summarizes student population and teaching force of the schools at three locations, which are geographically separated by a 20-minute drive.

As indicated in Table 1, the schools experienced very high rates of student mobility (i.e. percentage of students who move from the school before the end of the school year). Table 1 also reflects a very high rate of administrative turnover between 1995 and 1998. All of the schools have different principals and assistant principals today than they had when the project began; 16 different administrators have served these four schools during this period. Such high levels of administrative turnover make it nearly impossible to establish and sustain administrative leadership for a school-wide reform effort.

The teachers in the Aviano AB schools are highly experienced. On average, teachers surveyed in the fall of 1996 reported 21.1 years teaching experience. The school community situation of the Aviano Air Force base and the DoDDS system results in stressful working conditions for teachers. While the causes of stress and workload in these schools may differ from those at schools in the US, many of the effects are similar. Some causes of stress include family disruptions and high student turnover; high rate of administrative turnover, inadequate and overcrowded physical facilities, unstable technical infrastructure, little local control over resources; no sustained or long term professional development program, frequent shifts in school system priorities and curriculum, geographic isolation from school district office support and other schools, lack of common school-wide vision, no local technology plan, extraordinary workload of both duty and extra-duty assignments, an aging teaching force, and other factors. Al though the reasons may differ, these working conditions are not unlike conditions in many other schools in the US.

MODEL SCHOOLS PROGRAM AND THE VANGUARD FOR LEARNING PROJECT

In 1995, the Aviano schools applied for and were selected by DoDEA to become part of the DoDEA Model Schools program. The Vanguard for Learning project, funded by the National Science Foundation, is one part of that Model Schools program. The goal of the Vanguard project was to help the school community build their own capacity for innovation, and feed back the lessons learned to the larger school system. A central organizing structure of the Vanguard for learning project is the Team Action Project (TAP).

TAP Strategy and Resources

The TAP is a way of organizing innovation processes and professional development in a school community. The Vanguard for Learning team adapted the TAP philosophy and structure from previous work in the California Model Technology Schools (Coley et al, 1997). The basic premise of the Vanguard TAP structure and strategies is that a small group of teachers forms a project based on the fact that they share a common vision for how to improve learning and teaching of their students. Thus, the members of the TAP share a sense of ownership of their project. TAP is a structure for initiating, organizing, planning, implementing, evaluating and communicating new ways of teaching, assessing, learning, collaborating, building knowledge, and organizing schoolwork. All teachers, administrators, and parents in the Aviano-Pordenone-Vajont school complex in the spring of 1996 were invited to create TAP teams based around their own particular visions for improving their teaching and better meeting students' and families' needs. TAPs were encouraged to incorporate the following elements into their projects:

* A "TAP" must include at least two leaders (i.e., cannot be an individual project);

* Address one or more of the DoDEA School Improvement Plan (SIP) benchmark priorities;

* Take advantage of the leverage for learning that can come from:

* integrating subject matters in the curriculum or better articulating curriculum across grade levels,

* engaging parents and other members of the community in the learning and teaching process,

* expanding the roles that students play in the classroom and community,

* collaborating across DoDDS schools, and

* using appropriate applications of electronic technologies in support of innovations.

Depending on the nature of the project, a "TAP" might at the beginning include two or several teachers, a specialist, an administrator, parents, students, or outside experts. Teachers formulated and conducted their own investigations into the improvement of teaching and learning in a very concrete way, and thereby experienced for themselves a learner-centered, project-based inquiry in a supportive structure. Teachers and other TAP members identified areas of student needs, curricular and pedagogical improvements, school improvement priorities, and opportunities that might come from engaging students and families in new ways. For instance, the Project-Based Learning--Elementary (PBL-E) TAP teachers felt their third graders would benefit from taking more responsibility for setting and meeting high standards for their work products. A TAP formed by science teachers at secondary and elementary levels saw a need to better understand and coordinate the science being taught across grade levels. The Student Authors T AP teachers saw the need to engage parents more deeply in their young children's learning to read and communicate.

With the support of their partners in the Vanguard staff, TAP teams investigated resources and methods that others have used to address similar needs. For instance, the PBL-E with the help of Vanguard staff found a teacher from Maine who had used Multiple Intelligence methods to help students seek high standards. The science TAP learned about a set of curriculum materials for use with laboratory probes that could be used across grade levels, with high school students teaching elementary students. TAP teams were offered various forms of support including professional development opportunities, a monthly TAP review session facilitated by Vanguard staff, equipment and software, technical and educational consulting, assessment support, and help with dissemination. The TAP teams constructed innovative teaching practices and learning environments that they implemented with their students, tested and evaluated, and disseminated to other teachers and stakeholders in the local community and school system. For instance , several TAP teams conducted workshops for teachers within their own schools and teachers from other schools in the DoDDS Italy District.

Aviano TAP Teacher Participation

Approximately 50 teachers from the four schools created or participated in one or more of 15 TAP teams (Hunter, Reider, & Bielaczye, 1999). This is a little under half of all teachers in the four schools. As of fall, 1998, the elementary school TAPS were growing in teacher participation, while the secondary school TAPS declined or held steady. At the outset, the majority of TAP teachers were at a beginner level of technology use, while a handful, such as the computer teachers, were more advanced in their technical skills and knowledge. Irrespective of their level of technological literacy at the outset, the teachers were able to function at the highest level, "Invention" which has been defined as "developing entirely new learning environments that utilize technology as a flexible tool. Learning becomes more collaborative, interactive, and customized." (CEO Forum, 1999; Coughlin & Lemke, 1999).

Nature of TAP's Innovations and Technology Applications

The Aviano TAPS have undertaken very challenging innovations in curriculum and classroom practices and other aspects of local capacity building. By the spring of 1998, the TAPS were at differing stages of implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Vanguard researchers rated each TAP using a rating scale of 1 to 5, with five being greatest contribution, for each type of contribution that TAP would be likely to make if its efforts were to be sustained. Table 2 summarizes for 11 teams, the types of contributions each TAP is making to the school, community, and classroom, or would make if their efforts are sustained. Descriptions of the TAP innovations are available at http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/curriculum-projects/curriculum.html.

Eleven of the TAPS are attempting to create a better articulation of curriculum content across grade levels. Eight TAPS are working towards stronger integration of different subject matters.

Expanded student roles. All of the TAPS teachers are engaged in changing their teaching practices to better meet more of their students' needs and are enabling their students to perform new roles in the classroom and school community. Examples include cross-age peer tutoring, student exhibitions, and presentations to community events, student development of standards and criteria for assessment of their work. In 1996-1997 and again in 19971998, teachers responded to questions about the importance of various student roles and the extent to which teachers have students engaged in those roles. For instance, "How important is it that students are involved in teaching others?" and "Are students in your school involved in teaching others?" On four such questions at one or more of the schools, teachers in the second year reported significantly more engagement of students in such roles as teaching others, evaluating their own performance, developing useful products for the schools and community, taking responsibility for their own learning, and receiving academic credit or formal acknowledgement for special work they do.

Contextualized learning. Several TAPS are working towards teaching practices that provide a more contextualized way of learning curriculum content, for example through interdisciplinary projects and through links with the community. A variety of pedagogical innovations are being tried out, such as a large field study of radon levels in buildings in the area conducted by a broad range of students from grades 7-11. (Lucidi, Raymond, & Hunter, 1998; Lucidi & Mecca, 2001). Some TAPS are focusing particularly on ways to meet special needs of some students, for example by using text-to-speech technology to help visually impaired students. Others are working on new ways of assessing students' learning, for example by developing rubrics for evaluating students' work samples and portfolios. (Russell, 1998).

Technology applications in the TAPS. The TAPS employ a wide range of technology applications in support of their curricular and pedagogical innovations. Examples include word processing and desktop publishing, information retrieval, e-mail, World wide Web (WWW or Web) student publishing, presentation, design, multimedia production, spreadsheets, telementoring, Micro-computer Based Laboratories, Geographic Information Systems, Text to speech. Some TAPS are more dependent on technology than others, but technology plays an enabling role in all of them. For instance, in PBLE, each week the students produce a video of themselves explaining their work and the standards their work meets. The student takes the video home and watches it with a parent, who fills out a short form describing the progress they observe from the previous week in their child's work. The use of video recorders is highly effective--nearly all parents do watch the videos with their children regularly, thereby gaining a deeper involvement in the ir child's work than if they depended only on test scores and grade reports. The TAPS differ from each other in the technologies they use, including a wide range of different hardware devices, software tools, and communications capabilities. The opportunity to obtain specific equipment they need, beyond the "standard issue" equipment, to support their own vision and innovation is a very motivating factor for teachers.

TAPS focus on students, not technology. Often in a school that gets a large infusion of computers and networks, there is a tendency to focus professional development (or "training") on the technology itself. Many teachers (and teacher trainers) believe that the teachers must master the technologies before they can engage their students in innovative practices. In contrast, the TAP process starts with teachers' vision of what students or parents might be able to do and learn under new conditions of learning and teaching. Most of the TAPs kept their focus on students, parents, curriculum, and pedagogy, and introduced technology applications as they were needed and available to support the pedagogical changes. They learned with their students. They provided their students with opportunities to exhibit their work to others. The TAPs that kept this student focus made much more rapid progress than the TAPs that had a predominantly technology focus.

Most important is awareness of student development. When you get involved with these types of projects, and you empower students to do things...you are surprised at what they can do, and how much they do when you unleash them and point them in the right direction.

The most important aspect of professional development is to try something in the classroom and learn from the experience.

All TAPS except two were able to work with at least a few students in their first, pilot year. In most cases, the number of students involved in a TAP grew from the first year of TAP work to the second year. Tables 3 and 4 show the number of students per TAP per year for elementary and for secondary TAPs respectively.

Evidence of Value of TAP Innovations

Three types of indicators provide evidence of the value the TAP innovations, even after a relatively short time. These include institutionalization of the innovations; systematic assessments of student learning; and the perceptions of stakeholders in the school community.

Institutionalization. Some of the TAP work, processes, or products are already being institutionalized system-wide. For example, DoDEA Headquarters is sponsoring an effort to replicate and test Student Enablement Action Team (SEAT) course in other DoDDS schools around the world. The course (renamed the Technology Leadership Corps or TLC) has been placed in the official course catalog (Reider, Hunter, & Engbrecht, 1998). The School/Home/Community Resource Centers have been institutionalized DoDDS-wide by being incorporated into specifications for new school buildings. (Hunter & Hansen, 1998). The Italy District Superintendent has adopted aspects of the TAP process in a new initiative to design middle schools.

Systematic assessment of student learning. Vanguard research staff worked closely with teachers and administrators over three years to help build local capacity to assess student outcomes from innovative practices (Russell, 1998). Three general types of systematic assessments were used:

1. student portfolios or work-sample rubrics,

2. pre- and posttests of specific skills, dispositions, and knowledge, and

3. student self-reports (through interviews at the Elementary School level and a written student feedback form at the High School level).

Of 15 groups of teachers trying out innovative teaching practices in their classes in Avano in 1996-1998, the most comprehensive in termsof changing classroom culture, technology use, and integration of curriculum subjects is the PBL-E. In two years of pilot work, the children in these classes produced work and learning accomplishments that are valued by the children themselves, their teachers, their parents, and the school administration. A variety of alternative methods and instruments have been used by the teachers and outside researchers, to measure the learning of these children in relation to traditionally valued cognitive areas in math, science, language arts, and general communications. These assessments have been useful to the teachers in three main ways as they continue developing and refining their classroom innovations. First, the teachers are advancing their own professional development, skills, and knowledge in the area of assessment. Second, the teachers are using the assessments in a formative manner to help them guide their continuing development of their practices in the classroom. Third, the teachers are refining the methods they themselves use to assess student learning in an ongoing manner as part of the new teaching model. The use of scoring rubrics for student work samples is the method most likely to prove feasible as an integrated component of PBL-E practice. After only two years of development of this comprehensive curriculum effort they found statistically significant evidence of differential gains in their students' language arts and communications skills. Such feedback is very encouraging to them to continue in their development. Systematic assessments of student learning in the PBL-E TAP have demonstrated differential gains in learning language arts and communications skills compared to non-PBL classes at the same grade level. The teachers, with assistance of a consultant expert in assessment, developed and applied a variety of instruments including rubrics for evaluating work-sample s and pre-post tests including performance items. They also used the DoDDS standardized tests scores to assess student progress. PBL-E is being disseminated to other schools through a video and teacher workshops. (Russell, 1998).

Community benefits. Student Authors TAP has succeeded in training hundreds of parents of young children how to help their children develop literacy and communication skills. Within the local school community, student exhibitions, presentations, and performances have been the most influential kinds of evidence of the value of the TAP innovations. Because the teachers work in teams, they are able to divide the extra work of arranging such public presentations. For instance, the Student Authors TAP has an annual all-day event in which parents and other community members come to the community center at any time of their convenience. Their child reads to them a book the child has "published" and the teacher is on hand to discuss with the parent the significance of the child's work and progress. As another indicator of the community's perception of importance of these activities, the military commanders allow personnel to attend these activities during their regular duty hours.

Learning with and from Colleagues in a TAP

In part because of the TAP structure and its resulting collegiality, Aviano teachers increasingly cite learning from other teachers to be the most important resource for their professional development and technology-related learning. In a survey in May 1997, 82% of TAP teachers said they were learning "from teachers in my school." Just six months earlier, 58% of TAP teachers said this. By spring of 1998, all teachers interviewed--TAP and non-TAP--said they were learning with and from other teachers.

The following quotes from teacher interviews in May 1998 illustrate the range of ways in which teachers learned from each other, and the conditions for this learning in a TAP.

On the fact that collaboration is new to these teachers after teaching for many years:

* This is the first school I've worked at where this number of teachers (12) had worked together on a common goal. This is something we all believe is important.

* This is the first time where I've ever been in a situation where this many teachers worked together effectively.

* The greatest thing has been working with other people. We're all in this together. TAP teachers experience something innovative and they can teach other teachers.

* Collegiality with the PBL-E TAP has been the joy of my professional life this past year. I wish I had discovered their TAP earlier.

On the ways in which teachers learn from each other:

* Classroom teachers are much more likely to teach other teachers how we use technology in a classroom because that's our area of expertise. I don't know all the things that a digital camera can do. I only know the things it can do to help me facilitate what I am doing in my classroom.

* So of course that's the knowledge I can share with other people. I don't care how the machine works; I care what it is going to do to make my job easier.

* I have taught teachers after school and Saturday how to use the CDROM on the network, how to use digital cameras.

* When one of us learns something, we teach it to the other teachers in our TAP.

* The biggest impact (of TAP process) has been being able to team-teach.

* All the learning I did about Microcomputer-Based Labs was from a colleague.

On some practical benefits of teaming:

* You have to be political to get anything done. So working with a team of teachers gives you more political power.

* Our teacher team is committed to our project, we all believe in it. So we divide up the work.

* Collegiality and learning from colleagues, especially between us and the elementary school, has been useful for working on science scope and sequence across grades.

* "Teachers in my school" are the best possibility for supporting professional development. Teachers are talented, skilled, experienced individuals that are leading the training. Teachers within a school are credible instructors.

Systemic and Local Obstacles to Teacher Development and Innovation

Teachers in the Aviano-Pordenone-Vajont schools have experienced greater collegiality and mutual support for their learning and trying new practices. They have also become more concerned about local and systemic factors that mitigate against teacher collaboration, teamwork, reflection, peer teaching and learning, and integration of technologies into curriculum, teaching and learning.

Each of the TAPS has encountered a somewhat different set of systemic and local obstacles at different times in their development. Each TAP was rated by Vanguard researchers on a scale from 0 to 5 for each type of obstacle to progress. Table 5 shows the total number of points across all TAPS for each of the types of obstacles. This provides an indication of the relative severity of the different types of obstacles overall.

Some obstacles did not affect many TAPS, but were insurmountable for one or more of the groups. For instance, one TAP depended upon students' ability to exchange email across schools. Inability to get student email functioning in this way for all students in a class prevented the TAP from testing its ideas for writing conference partners. (Hunter, in press). The pattern of obstacles and their severity varies by school and by the nature of the TAP innovation. In general, high school TAPS encounter more obstacles, and more severe obstacles, than elementary school TAPS encounter. Aviano Elementary School TAPS' total obstacle points are fewer than nine points per TAP. However, secondary school TAPS obstacle points range from 21 to 41 per TAP. (More detailed analysis of obstacles may be found in Hunter et al., 1999).

Time, Workload, and Schedules

The dilemmas of time, workload and scheduling have been well documented (e.g. National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). Here are a few of the voices of desperation among the Aviano teachers--both TAP and non-TAP--concerning these obstacles.

* One of the biggest things we have going against us is that people are tired. They're overwhelmed with what they have to do every day.

* I am spending more time preparing now than I ever have in my life after teaching 26 years.

* We didn't even have a science department meeting this year. The problem is time. Everybody in the high school science department coaches at least two sports. There is never a time after school when all of us can meet together. We don't have a common lunchtime.

* If you want people to work together, you have to provide them an opportunity to see one another. We all live in isolation, even with the email and everything else.

* Biggest thing I have learned is the importance of cooperation and coordination. Can the teachers meet at the same time,? Can they schedule workshops at this right time? Can they follow up to this to make sure everything's working? Can I get the computer guy to come in if there's a crash in the computer, be there in a timely manner? Can I get the software working in time?

* I would like to team with certain other teachers but I cannot do it because I have class when they meet.

* I wish I really had more time for my own learning.

* Time is the critical resource that limits success of anything.

* Today I had no lunch, and no planning. Technically, we have 40 minutes a day for planning. Tuesdays and Thursdays I spend my planning period walking the children across the Base.

* Teaching has changed a lot but they haven't changed the way they expect us to do our job. They are not giving, and so we have more and more to do with less and less time.

* We don't have time to do what we are supposed to be doing. I have reached a point where I want them to give it to me boxed, packaged, and let me teach. Creating all this stuff, it's overwhelming...the whole math program has been experimental...new language, reading process is like that. Everything that they have brought in over the last couple of years is this teacher situation where you've got to create this, and create that, and deal with this. I would like to have some boundaries, and not have to spend as much time as I have to spend to come in here and do a good job.

* They should restructure it so I am teaching maybe four hours out of my day, and the rest of the time is to plan, to grade papers, to get materials together, because there are more and more materials to get together at the younger age. MATH, READING, SCIENCE, THERE ARE ALL THESE THINGS TO SET UP.

* If you are going with technology, you have to be more flexible in your school day, flexible and innovative with scheduling.

* Time, time, time time time, even more than my boxes and my silver platter, I want time, and that's what's being taken away.

* If you want innovation, you just can't look at programs and software. You have to look at time allotments. This staffing and stopping every 45 minutes, run in run out. Doesn't allow enough time to delve into it at all.

* The biggest sticking point on all of this professional development is that we 're expected to do it on our own time. And teachers feel they have enough to do as it is...Its getting threatening to some people. They feel they're falling behind, but also that the school system doesn't care enough about them to teach them this, without making them take their own time.

* A problem is that what they offer is after school. Too many are coaching, supervising and so on after school, traveling, and so forth.

* When they say training is available on Saturday, I throw the notice in the wastebasket.

* Time limitations are more important than anything else is. The time to learn how to use something, and the time to plan it into a lesson, or into a unit. None of that time is ever allocated.

* Most important is the issue of time. Time to learn the technology. Time to develop the strategies to use it. Time to evaluate. Time to change. Just time. With that comes having the pieces in place. All at the same time, when you want to implement whatever you're trying to implement.

* I would like to team with certain other teachers but I cannot do it because I have class when they meet.

* The biggest sticking point on all of this professional development is that we're expected to do it on our own time. And teachers feel they have enough to do as it is...Its getting threatening to some people. They feel they're falling behind, but also that the school system doesn't care enough about them to teach them this, without making them take their own time.

* Our staff is involved in so many outside areas outside the classroom. Athletic program, travel. I have concern about their health and well being and how much they can handle.

* Without time being given to my TAP partner and me this year, the project fell apart. He and I both have activities after school. Giving us that planning time during the school day was extremely important.

* For the students, having the seminar periods last year made all the difference. Without that, there's no time to do the extra stuff.

Factors Contributing to Teachers' Progress Despite the Obstacles

Teachers in Aviano-Pordenone-Vajont schools made amazing progress in a short time, in spite of numerous systemic and local obstacles to innovation, collaboration, and professional development. The following are some of the factors contributing to this progress:

Tapping into the vision, creativity, expertise, and dedication of teachers. The most valuable resource for making progress in a school towards productive and effective use of technologies for learning, clearly are the creativity, expertise, and dedication of the teachers. The TAP concept legitimizes the creative work of the teachers, drawing upon their knowledge and insights about their students' needs and potential. In this study, we found that even mature teachers, who had become cynical of the "system" or were on the verge of burnout from stress and workload, still were able to function creatively and with dedication to their vision.

* The mandated things are the dead part. The living innovations, invented by the teachers, it's very personal to me. You have to be a real stakeholder.

* Personal involvement, personal creativity (in the TAP process) that is the key factor.

* Focusing on students, learning, and teaching rather than technology.

As discussed previously, technology applications were used in support of the TAPs' visions of student learning and other innovative practices in the school community. Many of the teachers were not technically literate or fluent, but they wanted to use technology tools to support their innovations. Thus, they often found ways to enable the students to take the lead in creating a technologically literate culture in the classroom.

Reinforcing collegial support. As discussed, the collegial support inherent in the TAP structure proved to have numerous benefits, even in schools where collegiality had been uncommon and is not generally well supported by the regularities of school life. Both TAP and non-TAP teachers have become more appreciative of the value of collegial support and learning from other teachers, and they have become more aware of the obstacles to teamwork in their schools.

Constructing high-leverage strategies tailored to the local school community. The overall strategies of integrating curriculum and engaging the community were derived from interests, opportunities, and strengths of this particular school community. For example, the military commands and personnel in Aviano have been supportive of technology and innovation in the schools. Articulating and promulgating these ideas helped some of the teachers to "think outside of the box" and in fact did achieve high leverage in many ways. In addition to teachers, the Vanguard project included students, families, administrators, and other stakeholders in workshops and other professional development activities. By formally including people and talents in various creative activities, the message becomes clear that teachers are not expected to undertake the challenges of learning and reform alone--that these reforms require everyone's intellectual, political, and spiritual energies and talents. One teacher concludes: "Teachers need awareness of what is really going on in the real world outside of school. This is most important factor in using technology in school."

Providing control over some resources. In this school system, the local schools typically have almost no control over what equipment they receive--it is assigned to them by Headquarters. The teachers in this school complex had been led to believe by agencies in Washington that they would receive far more equipment and other material resources from the Model Schools program than the school system was actually able to provide. The Vanguard for Learning budget for equipment was modest in comparison with what had been expected, but it was placed under local control. Under the TAP process, teachers had an opportunity to request whatever kinds of equipment, software, or other resources they felt they needed to carry out their innovation idea. A Resource Allocation Team including Principals and School Improvement chairpersons was set up among the four schools, to make decisions about the allocation of the modest Vanguard equipment budget to the competing TAPS. The TAPS requested many items such as digital cameras th at are not "standard issue" by the school system. The possibility of having control over some material resources of their own choosing was highly motivating to many teachers.

Suggestions for Applying the TAP Strategy in Other School Communities

The TAP structure and strategies have proven to be productive in many ways, both for the professional development of individual teachers and for building capacity of the school community to take advantage of technologies for learning and teaching. In addition to the factors identified above, the following are some suggestions for adapting the TAP model for other school communities:

Work towards establishing desirable conditions in the school for continuous professional development and collegiality. Although the Aviano teachers are making amazing progress in the face of many obstacles, they could make even more progress, especially towards institutionalizing worthy innovations, if some of the local and systemic obstacles were removed or reduced. Factors in the school system and school culture that are important for promoting continuous professional development are known and have been reported in the literature from prior research and experience. While it is very difficult to achieve these conditions in many schools, every effort must be made to move in the needed directions on a school-wide and system-wide basis.

Integrate the TAP concept into the formal School Improvement Process of the LEA and school. Doing this will have many benefits. The health and effectiveness of the school improvement process will be stronger if small groups of teachers can obtain resources to test their idea for school improvement and then inform the larger school community of their findings. Professional development activities and resources would be tied directly to school improvement priorities. The investment in technologies would result in higher payoff more quickly. One teacher stated, "We are trying to make the SIP more of what we create, rather than the SIP being issued to us. It isn't there yet." Another important goal in tying the TAP process to the SIP is to move control of technology-related initiatives towards substantive school reform and improvement agendas, and away from technology for its own sake.

Respect the naysayers. Some teachers voice concerns about the pace or mode of technology adoption in school, and "vote with their feet" by not participating in technology-related activities. Some teachers objected to what they saw as excessive emphasis on technology-related activities in Aviano, with comments such as: "I am very concerned about too much focus on technology, not enough on learning, ethics, appropriate use, learning to learn." Administrators, colleagues, staff developers, and policy makers should take such concerns seriously, and address them in school-wide activities and programs. Some of these concerns include:

* the need for training for all students in skills, concepts, and ethics related to the use of technologies;

* conflicting, ambiguous, or poorly understood policies concerning appropriate uses of technologies and networks;

* need for standards and methods for assessing students' work and learning with technology;

* communication by administrators concerning professional development opportunities and how to apply for them;

* expectations that teachers must learn to use technologies on their own time, after school or on weekends;

* need for structure or support for reflection on what are appropriate and inappropriate uses of technologies in the classroom and curriculum;

* procedures for accessing equipment to be shared across a school or department;

* how to make decisions about what important learning and content gets displaced by student time spent on technology-related activities;

* rigidity of schedules precluding students from taking advantage of technology resources.

Foster a culture of learning and sharing via telecommunications. Obviously, there are great potential benefits to teachers being able to use telecommunications to share ideas, experiences, activities, materials, and reflections with colleagues at other schools, particularly when a school is geographically isolated.

Yet, we discovered in Aviano many cultural and systemic obstacles to taking advantage of telecommunications to foster a community of learners. It would take some time to change cultural norms, but the process must begin with a very clear and unambiguous message from the highest levels in the school system to legitimize such activity. Teachers must know that they will not be punished by authorities if they write something in an e-mail that the authorities don't like. Groups of teachers need to be able to create private online forums that are not monitored by authorities. Other mechanisms for legitimizing and scaffolding such online communities of teachers might include, for example, system-wide group e-mail address lists and web support pages for job-alike groups such as all music teachers or all high school geography teachers.

Support teachers' development as action researchers. The system and the localschools must be able to assess not only the implementation of the technology but more importantly the outcomes from the classroom and school-level applications of the technologies. Effective development and implementation of new teaching practices is an ongoing process that requires systematic and multiple assessments by teachers so they can make adjustments in their new practices based on student outcomes. High-stakes standardizedtest scores are used by the system to evaluate schools. These are of limiteduse to teachers for evolving effective practices. After frying out a wide variety of assessment methods in Vanguard TAPs, it was found most useful to establish a "base set" of assessment methods for the teachers to work with and adjust in relation to their own learning about student outcomes. Although action research and formative, systematic assessment of innovative practices may seem at first to be alien to many teachers, these a re essential processes in the end. With considerable support and encouragement, many of the Aviano TAP teachers made important progress in this regard over two years. "For me now, what I need next in my development, is assessment methods. How am I going to assess whether it's important that I really continue doing this (innovation)?" Types of support needed, and the timing of such support, is discussed in Russell (1998).

SUMMARY

It is possible to engineer short-term interventions that enable a school community simultaneously to make valuable changes in learning, teaching and schooling, support continuous professional development and collegiality, and make productive use of technologies. Even when conditions are less than optimal, teachers with little background in technology are capable of developing innovative practices for their classrooms and learning how to employ technologies in support of those substantive reforms. Teachers should be enlisted as creative contributors to school improvement and be given the appropriate structures and support for their own and each others' learning, collegiality, technology use, action research, reflection and dissemination to other teachers. By drawing upon the brainpower and dedication of teachers, and enlisting the talents of students and parents, schools can leapfrog over stages of technology integration and produce powerful results quickly.

Table 1

Characteristics of Aviano Complex Schools

School                   95-96       97-98     % racial or   97-98
                       # Students  # Students   language    student
                                                minority    mobility
                                                              rate

Aviano HS (7 - 12)        425         438          43         22%
Aviano ES (preK-6)        532         650          40         49%
Vajont ES (preK-6)        221         175          37         53%
Pordenone ES (preK-6)     189         135          38         49%

School                  Admin    % teachers
                       turnover     > 10
                        95-'98     years
                                  teaching

Aviano HS (7 - 12)       300%       95%
Aviano ES (preK-6)       400%       80%
Vajont ES (preK-6)       200%      100%
Pordenone ES (preK-6)     0%        92%
Table 2

Types of Curriculum Contributions of TAPS

                         Student  Project  Elem.  Micro-  Writing
                                  Based    WWW    Comp    Conf

new skills for students   1.00     4.00     4.00   3.00    3.00
tech integration          2.00     3.00     3.00   3.00    2.00
community-school          5.00     4.00     4.00   1.00    4.00
collegiality              4.00     4.00     2.00   4.00    4.00
pedagogical               2.00     4.00     2.00   3.00    3.00
innovation
Linking Across                     3.00     4.00   2.00    5.00
DoDDS
new roles for students    2.00     4.00     2.00   3.00    2.00
expanded parent roles     4.00     4.00     2.00   1.00    1.00
writing across            4.00     4.00     2.00           3.00
curriculum
curric articulation       2.00     3.00     2.00   4.00    2.00
curric standards          2.00     4.00     2.00   3.00    2.00
contextualized            2.00     4.00     3.00   1.00    1.00
learning
curric integration        1.00     4.00     4.00           1.00
teacher research          1.00     1.00     1.00   3.00    4.00
software evaluation       1.00     1.00     3.00   3.00    2.00
hardware evaluation       1.00     1.00     2.00   3.00    1.00
tech infrastructure                         4.00           3.00
advance
meet special needs        2.00     2.00     3.00           2.00
SIP process               3.00     2.00     2.00   1.00    2.00
assessment capacities     1.00     2.00            1.00    3.00
Other                                       4.00           4.00

TOTAL POINTS             40.00    58.00    55.00  39.00   54.00

                         Project-  Elec-   Multi-  Student  School-
                         Based     tronic  media            Home-

new skills for students   4.00      4.00    5.00    5.00
tech integration          4.00      3.00    3.00    5.00     3.00
community-school          4.00      1.00    1.00    3.00     5.00
collegiality              3.00      3.00    2.00    3.00     4.00
pedagogical               4.00      3.00    2.00    4.00
innovation
Linking Across            3.00      4.00    4.00    4.00     5.00
DoDDS
new roles for students    4.00      3.00    2.00    5.00
expanded parent roles     2.00      2.00    1.00    1.00     5.00
writing across            2.00      3.00    2.00    3.00
curriculum
curric articulation       3.00      2.00            2.00
curric standards          3.00      3.00            3.00
contextualized            5.00      1.00    1.00    2.00     2.00
learning
curric integration        5.00      2.00    2.00
teacher research                                    3.00
software evaluation       2.00      3.00    3.00    4.00     2.00
hardware evaluation       4.00      1.00    2.00    3.00
tech infrastructure       3.00      4.00    2.00    3.00     3.00
advance
meet special needs                                  2.00     2.00
SIP process               2.00      2.00            2.00     2.00
assessment capacities               2.00    2.00    3.00
Other                                               5.00     5.00

TOTAL POINTS             57.00     47.00   34.00   65.00    38.00

                         Text to


new skills for students   2.00
tech integration          2.00
community-school
collegiality
pedagogical               2.00
innovation
Linking Across
DoDDS
new roles for students
expanded parent roles
writing across            1.00
curriculum
curric articulation
curric standards
contextualized
learning
curric integration
teacher research          3.00
software evaluation       4.00
hardware evaluation       4.00
tech infrastructure       4.00
advance
meet special needs        5.00
SIP process
assessment capacities
Other                     5.00

TOTAL POINTS             32.00
Table 3

Number of Students Involved in TAP Learning: Elementary TAPS

                  Student  Project-Based  Elem Web   Career
                  Authors  Learning Elem   Pages    Interests

# STUDENTS 96-97   160.00          72.00   12.00      20.00
# STUDENTS 97-98   240.00         250.00   15.00     120.00
Table 4

Number of Students Involved in TAP Learning: Secondary TAPS

                 Micro-    Writing     Project-  Electronic  Multi-
                 Computer  Conference  Based                 media

                  Labs     Partners    Science   Portfolio   Production

#Students 96-97  118.00     40.00       50.00      0.00        24.00
#Students 97-98   70.00     45.00      100.00      5.00        14.00

                 Student


                 Enablement

#Students 96-97    12.00
#Students 97-98    21.00

NOTE: Students may participate in more than one TAP's activities, so
these are not absolute numbers of students.
Table 5

Types and Severity of Obstacles to TAP Progress


SYSTEMIC OBSTACLES
Curriculum                  25.00
Administrative Commitment   22.00
Technical support           21.00
Teacher Time                17.00
Teacher workload            17.00
Technology infrastructure   16.00
Professional Development    16.00
Sports                      15.00
Technology policies         14.00
SIP process                 13.00
Equipment access            10.00
Student email                9.00
Assessment capacities        9.00
Military turnover            7.00

LOCAL OBSTACLES
Administrative Turnover     22.00
School Schedules            24.00
Electrical system            1.00
Facilities, logistics       24.00

TOTAL OBSTACLE POINTS      282.00

Notes

(1.) This work is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant Numbers REC9612906 and REC9896243, Principal Investigator Beverly Hunter.

(2.) The author acknowledges the contributions of Ruthmary Cradler, Peggy Kelly, Kate Bielaczyc, David Reider, Candace Ransing and the teachers in the Aviano DoDDS schools, to the Vanguard professional development strategies and interpretation of factors involved.

(3.) A related NSF-funded project in the Model Schools program was conducted by TERC at the Hanau DoDDS schools in Germany. In addition, technology infrastructure for Model Schools was provided through a project administered by the Department of Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) under the title "Computer Aided Education and Training Initiative" (CAETI).

References

Becker, H.J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-irected student use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report # 1. University of California, Irvine Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.

Brand, G.A. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of Staff Development, Winter 1998.

CEO Forum on Education & Technology (1999). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report: Professional development, a link to better learning. Washington DC: CEO Forum [Online]. Available: http://www.ceoforum.org

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton: Educational Testing Service [Online]. Available: http://www.ets.org/research/pic/compclass.html

Coughlin, E., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional Competency Continuum. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.

Hunter, B., Reider, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (1999). Aviano School TAPS (Team Action Plans): Their contributions to innovation in DoDEA schools. Vanguard Research Report [Online]. Available: http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/products/TAPS.1-99.html

Hunter, B., & Hansen, J. (1998). School-home-community resource centers. Vanguard Innovation Brief [Online]. Available: http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/home-school-community/home.html

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Lucidi, L., Raymond. R., & Hunter, B. (1998). High school students' investigation of radon in the Friuli-Venezia region of Italy: An example of project-based learning. Paper presented at the International GIS Users' Conference, San Diego, July 1998 [Online]. Available: http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/productsframe.html

Lucidi, L., & Mecca P. (2001) Researching radon: Students use GIS technology to anlyze radon levels in Italian communities. The Science Teacher, 68(5), 40-41. National Science Teachers Association.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE) (1998). Historical patterns and trends impacting professional development. Case studies of four districts in A Change of Course. Washington DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE) (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (OTA) (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (Report No. OTA-EHR-616). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reider, D., Hunter, B., & Engbrecht, R. (1998). The student enablement action team (SEA 7): Changing student roles in Aviano [Online]. Available: http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/student-roles/student.html

Russell, M. (1998). Assessing student learning in innovative classrooms: The case of project-based learning at Aviano Elementary School. Vanguard for Learning Research Brief [Online]. Available: http://learning.bc.edu/vanguard/assessment/febPBLassessment.html

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

U.S. Department of Education (1999b). Technology innovation challenge grants (Document No. ORAD 1999-1402). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.