Implementing Technology Using the Teachers as Trainers Staff Development Model.

The Teachers as Trainers staff development model provides a comprehensive framework for faculty and staff training. The research-based model focuses on a number of interrelated concepts designed to generate shared responsibility among faculty, staff and administration. The Teachers as Trainers model involves ongoing support, modeling, and accountability. The model was used to develop two nationally recognized programs, Student Assistance for At Risk individuals (SAFARI) and the technology program in the Westfield Washington Schools, Westfield, Indiana. Program developers also received a National Award for Excellence, for the Teachers as Trainers model from the National Council of States on Inservice Education, in November, 1993. An evaluation component has been added to the model since initial development in 1989.

Staff development is one of the last, best hopes for educational improvement. Politicians and reformers continue to devise new solutions to the purported educational decline. While some of these innovations are beneficial, the reality is improvement and change remain closely related to human resource development. Those who seek to improve education must first focus on enhancing teacher and administrator skills. This is best accomplished through planned, coordinated, ongoing staff development. Unfortunately, staff development has not always materialized into the changes desired by school officials (Williams, 1979; Wood & Thompson, 1980; Thompson & Cooley, 1986; Clark, & Astuto, 1994; Maurer & Davidson, 1998).

Many of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s failed to produce the intended results (Clark & Astuto, 1994). Legislated improvement efforts espoused by politicians generally focused on singular solutions with little coordination or movement towards systematic change affecting the entire organization (David, 1991). Sarason (1990) suggested that the failure of reform was related to power relationships between teachers and administrators. These relationships cannot be transformed by focusing on symptoms or isolated issues. Educational organizations must be reengineered to develop human resources and build trust, credibility, and collaboration. Traditional management schemes should redistribute power with emphasis directed towards participatoiy management (Champy, 1995). Many politicians, business leaders, parents, and community leaders see schools as simplistic institutions easily transformed into effective learning organizations. The truth is schools are complex institutions mired in a culture that embraces confo rmity, order, and routine (Deal, 1990). Gilly and Boughton (1996) suggested that efforts to improve productivity have been characterized by a number of ongoing innovations or fads that failed due to educational malpractice. According to Gilly and Boughton (1996) managers actually contribute to organizational dysfunction by supporting people who do not understand management, do not possess human relations skills, or who promote the individual instead of the group. Accountability is also one of the shortcomings contributing to malpractice. In effective organizations, workers share responsibility and focus on problem-solving instead of projecting blame at one another (Kouzes & Posner 1993).

The purpose of this article is to examine the "Teachers as Trainers" model, a site-based staff development program that emphasizes faculty and staff empowerment, accountability, responsibility, and ongoing support. A Teachers as Trainers staff development model was used to provide training for two nationally recognized programs in the Wesffield Washington Schools (Westfield, Indiana). In the first program, Student Assistance for At Risk Individuals (SAFARI), the district provided 2,400 hours of training for 110 employees over a four-year period. Later, the Teachers as Trainers model was refined and used to support a 2 million dollar technology platform, financed in part through a partnership with GTE North, Inc. Through this initiative, Westfield faculty and staff pioneered educational technology. One of major challenges was to train faculty and staff to use and incorporate sophisticated technological hardware and software into classroom instruction. To face this challenge, Westfield teachers and administrat ors developed and used the Teachers as Trainers model.

THE TEACHERS AS TRAINERS MODEL

The Teachers as Trainers Model consists of four interrelated phases which include: (a) Developing a Needs Assessment, (b) Core Team Selection and Planning, (c) Delivery of Training, and (d) Personnel and Program Evaluation (Figure 1). These phases move beyond traditional staff development to address a number of interrelated conditions that impact the delivery of successful training. Conditions include creating a common vision, faculty and staff empowerment, cooperative planning, establishing and maintaining trust and credibility, spirited, non-threatening communication, continuous support, shared responsibility, meaningful program and personnel assessment, and employee recognition. These and other conditions form the building blocks that become the foundation for effective staff development and organizational change. The model created in Westfield has evolved. Since developing the model, a fourth phase, Program and Personal Evaluation, was added to address accountability issues.

The Teachers as Trainers model is contingent on creating and maintaining a transformational work environment. While a fail-safe system for staff development does not exist, there are steps that program developers can take to increase success. When systematically implemented, these steps provide a powerful grounding for educational change.

Phase I: Needs Assessment

A needs assessment represents the initial step in the Teachers as Trainers model. In most instances, the needs assessment addresses an identified area of need closely related to a specific program. For example, the assessment may focus on thematic instruction, mastery learning, technology, or at risk programming. Effective needs assessments are not forms placed in a teacher's mailbox or computer generated printouts but represent meaningful, honest, discussion between the principal and teacher. The goal of the assessment is to establish a common understanding of the teacher's training needs. In Westfield, the building principal met individually with each faculty member to discuss training needs. In most instances, the needs assessment took approximately 25-35 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the assessment, the principal and faculty member prioritized training needs. Prioritization is one factor used to schedule staff development activities.

From the needs assessment, an employee profile that was used in determining future staff development activities emerged. The needs assessment provided a road map for training and allowed district officials to group faculty and staff on the basis of need, interests, and skill level in each particular area. Too often districts provide the same training to all employees. It was obvious to Westfield program developers than math teachers had different technology needs than art, physical education, or science teachers. Administrators understood that "auditorium style" staff development failed to address individual faculty and staff needs. A personalized employee profile used to create staff development saved time and money by focusing on specific faculty, staff, building level, and corporation needs.

Phase 2: Core Team Selection and Planning

Core teams consist of teachers who provide staff development and support to faculty and staff in their respective buildings. Technology staff typically trains core team members based on needs assessment data discussed in Phase I. Training might also include sending core team members to conferences, workshops, other district, and providing release time for core team members to develop presentations.

Selection of core team members is a critical component of the Teachers as Trainers process. Core team members are generally (a) master teachers (b) who have credibility with faculty and staff, (c) possess a positive attitude, (d) are adept at problem solving, (e) exhibit excellent communication skills, (f) have a sense of humor, and (g) understand the dynamics of change. In many instances, core team members previously demonstrated an interest and an aptitude in a particular area.

Core team members play a pivotal role in program delivery and become the "eyes and ears" of the building by listening to faculty and staff comments, squelching rumors, proactively addressing concerns, and being change advocates. On the most successful core teams, team members create operational ground rules. Predetermined procedures along with defined roles help avert misunderstandings and conflicts among core team members. Trust and credibility between the principal and core team members is accentuated thought interaction and the collaborative development of activities. The principal and core team tabulate needs identified through the needs assessment administered by the principal. Although not typically involved in the delivery of staff development, principals must understand the purposes and content of staff development and help to remove barriers for core team members. To provide instructional supervision, principals must comprehend training topics and concepts to be used by teachers in the classroom. It is recommended that whenever possible, principals spend a few minutes observing training and interacting with faculty and staff. If teachers do not feel the principal supports training or feels training is important, it is unlikely that faculty members will transfer newly learned concepts into classroom instructional activities.

In Westfield, the Director of Technology and media systems supervisor initially trained teachers with less than optimum results. Earlier technology training efforts conducted by technology staff failed in part because technology staff were not teachers. Technology specialists, although highly qualified, had never worked as classroom teachers. They generally did not understand classroom instruction or have credibility among teachers. Administrators discovered that the school environment can be a foreign land for non-educators. Based on these early experiences, it was decided that teachers must be used to deliver training. Core team members were trusted members of the faculty and staff who understood the school culture, the classroom, and the link of technology to instruction. Teacher involvement in staff development delivery helped counteract cynicism, hostility, and the general resentment toward technology.

Establish Program Outcomes

Following the review of needs assessment data and development of staff development topics, core team members establish program outcomes for training sessions. In most instances, core teams create two to three written outcomes per training session. Outcomes provide a framework for designing activities. Core team members must insure that outcomes are easily understood, measurable, and directly relate to the needs assessment. Core team members discuss program outcomes with teachers in the Delivery of Training phase. These previously agreed upon targets are monitored and assessed by core team members, faculty and staff, principals, and district officials throughout the process.

Design Activities

Core team members next design activities based on the desired outcomes. These activities are gleaned from the aggregate needs assessment data and specifically designed for teachers to receive training in an identified area of need. For example, a training session might involve participants learning to use a scanner, edit video, or develop a spreadsheet. Under the best of circumstances, faculty and staff should be grouped according to their respective competency levels established during the needs assessment phase.

Active participation of teachers meets the adult learning needs of teachers. Knowles (1980) suggested adults possess specific needs. Learning must be self directed and linked to previous experiences. Activities are most effective when the focus is on realistic problems and immediately applied following training activities. In Westfield, the most successful staff development provided teachers the opportunity to develop products using the technological hardware and software. The goal was for each teacher to design a lesson using the hardware and software that would be incorporated into classroom activities.

Phase 3: Delivery of Training

Phase 3 consists of six interrelated components that include (a) Conceptual Framing, (b) Guided Practice or Modeling, (c) Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks (d) Psychological Technical Support, (e) Retraining, and (f) Celebration and Recognition. A systematic approach is critical to faculty and staff learning and the incorporation of staff development concepts into instruction.

Core teams are encouraged to consider group dynamics when organizing training. Attention must be given to faculty and staff attitudes and their influence on others within the training group. There are typically factions that include "receptive others" who want to learn and "resistant others" who seek to maintain the status quo. The key is to transform the resistant other into a receptive other. Early in the process, trainers observed the dynamics of group behavior. Faculty and staff seemed to conform to group norms. When trainers grouped resistant teachers with receptive or positive teachers, these teachers generally demonstrated open-mindedness towards change. Negative teachers grouped with other negative teachers resulted in resistance, bickering, and negative behavior. Thus grouping a resistant other with a receptive other dramatically impacts the success of training sessions. Program developers are encouraged to carefully examine faculty and staff attitudes prior to dividing teachers into training groups .

In actual training sessions, it is recommended that two trainers work with five teachers. This provides an environment where teachers can comfortably ask questions and receive support throughout the training process.

The dynamics of group interaction and the first-hand observation of progress made by colleagues actually motivates participants. The psychology of group behavior and the impact of motivation and collaborative learning on teachers cannot be underestimated.

Conceptual Framing

The first step in Phase 3 is conceptual framing. Conceptual framing relies heavily on adult learning theory. Adults tend to learn best when they understand the relevancy of training to their classroom. Often characterized as a search for meaning, adult learning involves exploration, interaction, active participation, reflection, articulation, and synthesis or integration (Andrews, Houston, & Bryant, 1981). Conceptual framing is connected to a learner's previously identified needs. Through conceptual framing, trainers work closely with participants in shaping training purposes. Trainers begin by asking why the trainees identified areas in the needs assessment. Initial, informal, collegial discussions, serve as an "ice breaker," stimulating discussion between teacher trainers and participants in a comfortable, non-threatening environment. Reviewing the needs assessment with teachers represents a powerful step uniting the needs assessment with training outcomes. Participant discovery and reconciliation of desir ed program outcomes with needs assessment data are precursors to a teacher's genuine engagement in training. Faulty and staff must understand the need for change and how the new concepts impact the teacher's classroom.

Conceptual framing can be accentuated when trainers share products with faculty and staff. This helps create a mental image for trainees. For example, at one training session in Westfield, the teacher trainer demonstrated a digitized camera and projected images on a monitor. Trainers asked teachers questions about how the camera could be used by the students and teachers in the classroom. Participants compiled a long list of possible uses. Other questions included: How will the hardware improve instruction? Why do students need to learn to use a particular piece of hardware or software? Trainers and teachers openly discussed and debated training outcomes. Brainstorming activities related to practical uses of a particular concept were outlined with the goal for each trainee to develop a personal vision of the upcoming activity.

Guided Practice and Modeling

The second component in the training phase is guided practice and modeling. In this phase, teachers develop a product under the tutelage of a core team member. Guided practice and modeling consists of "active learning" in which participants develop products in a safe, non-threatening environment. Trainers provide continuous support and encouragement. For example, a teacher might create a PowerPoint presentation that can be used in his or her classroom. Trainers demonstrate how to create PowerPoint slides on a large monitor, reviewing help menus and other available training aides and resources. Teachers next develop individualized lessons incorporating concepts that will be used in the classroom. Participants receive ongoing support from trainers and from one another. Working in the presence of a small group of peers produces a subtle pressure to develop a meaningful lesson using newly learned concepts.

Modeling begins with the completion of teacher-developed products. Each teacher presents his or her project to the small training group defending the product and explaining steps taken in creating the presentation. Asking participants to explain product development reinforces the learning process with each learner retracing and clarifying procedures. Effective practice is augmented by continuous collaboration and reflection (Brookfield, 1986). Modeling also provides trainers the opportunity to informally assess the teacher's proficiency. Accordingly, trainers should schedule additional training sessions for those experiencing difficulty. Expecting teachers to use concepts without sufficient mastery adds to frustration with the tendency to entrench teachers into previously used instructional modalities. Through observation, trainers can intercede and offer support and reinforcement throughout the learning process. It is extremely important to protect a teacher's self-esteem throughout the training process.

Establish Evaluation Benchmarks

One criticism of staff development is the limited accountability and lack of support following training. This pitfall can be avoided by stakeholders (e.g., trainers, teachers, and the building principal) collaboratively establishing evaluation benchmarks. This informal, non-threatening procedure builds upon conceptual framing, guided practice, modeling activities, and helps to crystallize program goals and intentions. Establishing benchmarks is a powerful activity. Teachers and trainers are encouraged to craft participant-developed benchmarks during training sessions. This is a time when faculty and staff are most often focused and enthusiastic. The intention is to develop a sense of shared responsibility among faculty, staff, and administrators. Benchmarks are used as a basis for personal and program assessment and become a checklist or guide for teachers as they implement concepts learned in training activities.

Following the establishment of benchmarks, each teacher is given an assignment of using the presentation with students in classroom situation. In Westfield, as in all districts, implementation typically resulted in anxiety. Modeling concepts in a small group was easy; teaching new concepts in front of 25 students presented a more demanding challenge.

Psychological-Technical Support

Teachers need psychological and technical assistance after staff development. The Teachers as Trainers model provides faculty and staff ongoing, continuous support following training. In Westfield, the fact that four to five teachers received the same training and the teacher expert was down the hall and available for ongoing support represented another strength of the model. Teachers involved in training also communicated with one another following training. Because trainers are classroom teachers, most participants felt comfortable asking colleagues questions. The model provides for ongoing follow-up and support at the conclusion of staff development.

Administrators frequently think of staff development as a "one shot" activity. Teachers subsequently participate in workshops, conferences, or district training activities with little or no intention for follow-up, support, or accountability. These ingrained cultural attitudes contribute to dysfunctional or ineffective training activities. Core team members must establish a date and time to meet and discuss experiences with teachers following staff development. The Teachers as Trainers model is an ongoing, results-oriented system designed to support and encourage teachers to use concepts learned through staff development.

Retraining

Westfield program developers created an excellent training program. However, in many instances, district officials failed to provide adequate retraining. In a national study of school districts identified as having outstanding staff development programs, only one in three superintendents reported that follow-up sessions were scheduled to discuss learned staff development concepts (Thompson & Cooley, 1986). The reality is that most faculty and staff initially fail to grasp and internalize concepts at the conclusion of a staff development program. Adults learn at different rates and retraining needs to be scheduled. A short retraining session provides teachers the opportunity to share experiences, to ask questions, and to reinforce and solidify concepts. Staff developers present new information and concepts with the expectation for teachers to use the new information in the classroom. Unfortunately, on many occasions, teachers revert to traditional methods if retraining is unavailable (Thompson & Cooley, 1986; Orlich, 1989). To promote change, staff developers must provide support, reinforcement, and retraining for teachers in need of additional assistance.

Celebration and Recognition

Celebration and Recognition is the final component in the delivery of training phase. A number of studies have cited the importance of recognition in terms of what individuals want from their jobs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Teachers are most often isolated from their peers with many feeling unappreciated and detached from the organization. Celebration and Recognition are motivational concepts that help to re-energize a stagnant school culture. This may involve displaying faculty developed products throughout the building, presenting a certificate of accomplishment, or asking teachers to demonstrate concepts for visitors. In Westfield, over 2,400 teachers and administrators visited the district over an 18 month period. Teachers played an instrumental role in demonstrating software and hardware applications to teachers and administrators visiting Westfield. One program developer stated that "he wanted to set teachers up for so much success that they do not dare fail." Celebration and Recognition should reward exemplary faculty and staff efforts building on positive achievements and helping to revitalize and energize the school culture.

Phase 4: Personal and Program Evaluation

Personal and program evaluation represent the final components of the Teachers as Trainers model. Although the Teachers as Trainers model was successful, program evaluation was not viewed as a strength. The board of school trustees often expressed concern about the amount of the technology investment and the need for teachers to incorporate technology into instructional activities. Principals and teachers collaboratively developed a minimum of one technology goal as part of the clinical supervision process. This represented the beginning of establishing accountability measures.

Accountability and evaluation must become an integral part of staff development. In a national study of school districts identified with outstanding staff development programs, only 15% of the districts reported teachers were evaluated in the use of concepts learned through staff development (Thompson & Cooley, 1986). Although experts have identified a number of components required for effective staff development, evaluation is seldom mentioned as a component (Lawrence 1974; Bishop, 1976; Mohlman, Kierstead, & Gundlach, 1982; Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1985; Orlich, 1989). Staff development systematically linked to personnel and program assessment creates shared responsibility among teachers and administrators. The link begins with the needs assessment, continues with the establishment of benchmarks, and is sustained through the clinical supervision process. Under the best circumstances, clinical supervision is a staff development activity that emphasizes improving faculty and staff skills. Staff development m ust become part of the dialogue that occurs during the clinical supervision process.

An additional accountability tool is the individualized staff development record (Figure 2). The professional development record chronicles all training an employee receives from the time of hiring to the employee's last day in the district. Follow-up and support are also recorded.

Program evaluation involves the examination of building level and district goals. It is recommended that teachers and administrators annually review goals. A report should be written by teachers and administrators and distributed to the board and community at a predetermined date. Admittedly, many will fall short of goals. However, emphasis must be on shared responsibility, change, and ongoing improvement. The system of personnel and program assessment involves both teachers and administrators. Faculty and staff empowerment and involvement in decision-making and program delivery, serve as a powerful motivation tool for teachers and administrators.

Staff development is expensive and time consuming. In many instances, funding provided for training is much often less than required. Superintendents identified time for training, financial support, and changing teacher attitudes as obstacles to staff development (Thompson & Cooley, 1986). Unfortunately, there are costs associated with each of the three obstacles. The Office of Technology Assessment, (1995) recommended that district officials designate 30% of a district's technology budget for staff development, not including other district initiatives requiring training. School officials must prioritize training needs in relation to program articulation, available resources, and other identified teacher staff development needs.

In Westfield, as in most districts, the teacher work-day is defined by the master contract between the board and teachers' association. Program developers understood that training conducted after regular school hours, on a Saturday or during the summer, was ineffective. As a result, district officials decided to hire substitutes and to conduct training during the confines of the school day. Full day training sessions proved ineffective due to fatigue and concentration lapses. Program developers surmised that optimum training sessions were two to three hours in duration.

Training during the regular school day rendered several positive results. First, teachers understood the expectations for training and improvement because district officials had allocated time for staff development. The realization that administrators had begun to create a "give and take" mindset helped to alleviate teacher contractual concerns which, in turn, contributed to the creation of a culture of cooperation between teaches and administrators. A number of teachers began to participate voluntarily in after school follow-up training and support activities. Several others willingly worked with trainers during the summer to prepare lessons for the upcoming school year. The school culture gradually changed.

School board members and administrators sometimes question releasing teachers during the school day for staff development. Student achievement is contingent on the improvement of teacher and administrator skills. A teacher using the same stratagems year after year contributes to a "culture of ineffectiveness." Too often school districts invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in technology and other programs with training an after-thought. Training is expensive. However, failing to provide adequate training and support is even more costly if teachers continue to use outdated methodologies. The Teachers as Trainers model is designed to generate results. Systematic implementation of the model can perpetuate change.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of the Teachers as Trainers model are numerous. Consultants come and go and are seldom available for follow-up and support activities. Conferences and seminars represent "one shot" programs but other than generating short-lived excitement, these programs have little lasting effect. Teacher trainers are available for ongoing training and support. Those who wish to successfully replicate the Teachers as Trainers model must understand the link of systematic implementation of the building blocks which are interwoven in each of the four phases. Trust, credibility, and honest ongoing communication among teachers, principals, and the board of school trustees are critical prerequisites to program success. These and other conditions form the foundation for the effective delivery of staff development and organizational change.

References

Andrews, T.E., Houston, R.W., & Bryant, B.L. (1981). Adult learners: A research study. Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators.

Bishop, L.J. (1976). Staff development and instructional improvement: Plans and procedures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering management: The mandate for new leadership. New York: Harper.

Clark, D.C., & Astuto, T.A. (1994). Redirecting reform: Challenges to popular Assumptions about teachers and students. Educational Leadership. 77, 513-520.

David, J.D. (1991). What it takes to restructure education. Educational Leadership, 48, 11-15.

Deal, T.E., (1990). Refraining reform. Educational Leadership, 47, 6-12.

Gilly, J.W. & Boughton, M. A. (1996). Stop managing, start coaching! How performance coaching can enhance commitment and improve productivity. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hoyle, J.R., English, F.W., & Steffy, B.E. (1985). Skills for successful school leaders. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Chicago: Follett.

Lawrence, G. (1974). Patterns of effective inservice education: A state of the art summary of research on materials and procedures for changing teacher behaviors in in-service education. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Service Reproduction No. ED 176 424)

Maurer, M.M., & Davidson, G.S. (1998). Leadership in instructional technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mohiman, C.G., Kierstead, J., & Gundlach, M. (1982). A research based model for secondary teachers. Educational Leadership 40 (1). 16-19.

Office of Technology Assessment, (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Orlich, D.C. (1989). Staff development: Enhancing human potential. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thompson, J.C., & Cooley, V.E. (1986). A national study of outstanding staff development programs. Educational Horizons, 64, 94-98.

Williams, R.C. (1979). A political perspective on staff development. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development: New demands, new realities, new perspectives. New York: Teachers College.

Wood, F.H., & Thompson, S.R. (1980). Guidelines for better staff development. Educational Leadership, 37, 374-378.