Technology for teaching and learning: strategies for staff development and follow-up support.
Policy makers and administrators do not always support staff development for teachers. The typical rationale is easy to understand. Teachers describe negative staff development experiences in great detail. "Presenters were not familiar with the needs and interests of the teachers in the audience." "Participants were expected to sit still and listen to information that was irrelevant to their students." "The presenters demonstrated some interesting software, but there were no opportunities to try it ourselves!" It is not surprising that when workshops are over, many ideas that were presented go unused in classrooms. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) observed that "nothing has promised so much and has been so frustratingly wasteful as the thousands of workshops and conferences that led to no significant change in practice when the teachers returned to their classrooms" (p. 315). Unfortunately, their observation continues to strike a familiar chord.
On the other hand, staff development can be helpful. When groups of teachers are planning to implement new programs, staff development is often the first strategy they suggest. This is particularly true in the area of technology, and it reflects a continuing faith that staff development is an effective strategy for implementing change in education. There is broad recognition that teachers must have new knowledge and develop new skills and attitudes before they can teach others about technology or integrate technology into their classroom instruction in meaningful ways. In fact, many technology grant initiatives require a staff development plan as a condition for funding and then support the staff development strategies if the proposal is funded. However, the link between staff development and implementation is not automatic. Workshops and conferences, by themselves, do little to ensure that technology will be used in our schools and classrooms in ways that improve student learning.
Technology staff development is big business, and a continuing emphasis on technology in education provides a unique opportunity to shift the culture of staff development away from "one-shot dog and pony shows" to delivery models that promise more lasting effects. To accomplish that shift, staff development strategies must extend over time, respond to the needs and concerns of teachers, and impact student learning.
In 1995, the North Carolina General Assembly designated specific funds for educational technology. The funds were distributed to local school districts through a grants program administered by the NC Department of Public Instruction. Local district technology plans were required to specify needs, goals, and strategies in the areas of hardware, software, technical support, and staff development. This article presents the results of a review of the local technology plans of the 27 school districts in the northeastern part of the state. The purpose of the review was to identify the staff development strategies that were included in those plans and to highlight examples of strategies supported by research as most likely to result in improved teaching and learning. The results can be used to strengthen planning for technology initiatives. Research on staff development is reviewed first. Sample strategies from the district technology plans are discussed next. Finally, recommendations for strengthening technology st aff development and increasing the likelihood of classroom implementation and improved student learning are summarized.
RESEARCH ON STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Three themes from theory and research on staff development were used to review and discuss the strategies included in the plans: the effects of staff development, teachers' concerns about an innovation, and the evaluation of staff development activities.
The Effects of Staff Development
Joyce and Showers (1995) recognized that the effect of staff development on student learning could not be measured until the staff development had been implemented in the classroom. Therefore, they began their study of staff development efforts by examining three levels of impact.
1. Did teachers understand the concepts that were presented in the staff development activity?
2. Could teachers demonstrate the new skills?
3. Did teachers use the new information and skills in their classroom?
Next, they identified four "incremental" categories of staff development activities:
1. presentation of theory;
2. theory and modeling or demonstration;
3. theory, demonstration, and opportunities to practice with low-risk feedback; and
4. theory, demonstration, practice, and follow-up through coaching, study groups, or peer visits.
The impact of the each type of staff development activity is described (National Staff Development Council (NSDC), 1995) and presented in Table 1.
Presentation of theory. When staff developers talk to a group of teachers and present theory and information, the typical "one-shot dog-and-pony show," relatively few teachers (5-10%) make changes in their classroom teaching behavior. In other words, 90 percent or more of the investment in instructional improvement is lost. Theory and demonstration. If the presenter includes a demonstration in the staff development presentation, the results are only slightly better.
Theory, demonstration, and practice. When the staff development activity includes a presentation of theory and information, a demonstration, and additional time for the participants to practice the skill and receive feedback, there is a marked increase in the number of teachers who can demonstrate the skill. Still, only a few more teachers actually use the new skill in the classroom.
Theory, demonstration, practice, and follow-up. When staff development efforts include a presentation of theory and information, demonstration, practice with feedback, and coaching and follow-up over time, the transfer to the classroom and the return on the investment in instructional improvement are significantly increased.
The investment in technology staff development continues to be substantial. To maximize the return on the investment in staff development, significant resources must be directed toward follow-up activities. It must be recognized that staff development is not "finished" when the workshop ends. Teachers must have ongoing support for the implementation of the concepts and skills presented in the initial workshop. There must be plenty of time and equipment for practice, and help must be available when teachers encounter problems. Peer coaching allows teachers to observe and help each other with implementation efforts. Collegial study groups organized by grade levels, departments, or special interests will support an ongoing dialogue on technology issues and provide opportunities for collaborative planning and problem solving. When study groups are organized, there must be time for the group to work, and the results must be valued and used by the organization (Murphy & Lick, 1998).
The Concerns of Teachers
Teachers' concerns about technology are varied. One teacher may seek new uses for technology at home and in the classroom, while another may be afraid to turn on a computer. Many teachers admit that they know very little about computers and are not interested in learning. Some are afraid to use computers in the classroom because their students know more about technology than they do. Implementing technology in a particular classroom is ultimately a very personal process. Just as teachers must individualize classroom instruction to meet diverse needs of students, staff development must respond to a wide range in teachers' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and concerns.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) acknowledges that the implementation of a new skill or program is both individual and developmental (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987). The CBAM model identifies seven "stages" of concern that teachers may experience as they implement any change in their classrooms. The first stage is awareness. With respect to technology, teachers at this stage have little information about technology or interest in it. Early in the implementation process, they are concerned primarily with the impact of the change on themselves. As they become more interested and comfortable, they move through six stages: informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. The focus of their concerns moves away from self to the logistics of implementing technology and finally to the impact technology is having in classrooms and the broader educational environment.
The CBAM model also identifies "expressions of concern" at each level. It suggests strategies for meeting needs at each stage and encouraging growth to a "higher" stage. Table 2 shows the stages of concern and presents examples of expressions of concern and staff development strategies that are specific to technology. The CBAM model helps principals, teachers, and central office personnel identify the teachers' concerns and design appropriate staff development strategies.
When implementing technology in schools, equipment and programs change quickly. Participants in a specific workshop may represent all stages of concern, and at any one time, the same teacher may be at different stages of concern with respect to different innovations. For example, upgrading to a new release of Windows could cause a teacher who has been functioning at Stage 6 (Refocusing) to return to Stage 0 (Awareness). Staff developers must be able to identify such concerns, understand what they mean, and develop strategies that meet individual needs and move teachers, individually and collectively, toward the vision for technology in schools.
Evaluating Staff Development
The evaluation of staff development activities provides important feedback for the assessment and planning process. Traditional efforts, focused on the satisfaction of the workshop participants, often requested information on everything from whether the presenter started and stopped on time to the temperature of the training room and the quality of the refreshments that were served. Evaluation that goes beyond participant satisfaction often focuses on what teachers learned as a result of the staff development. Occasionally, there may be a strategy for developing an implementation plan or monitoring classroom use. Guskey (1994, 2000) argued that evaluation efforts must address the results of staff development, including the effects on student learning.
THE REVIEW OF DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY STAFF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
To qualify for technology funds provided by the state legislature, school districts developed plans that detailed how the funds would be used and how the results would be evaluated. The district plans included a staff development plan and an evaluation component that were the primary focus for this study, but all sections of the plans were reviewed for additional information regarding staff development and evaluation strategies. The study addressed three research questions:
1. What models of staff development were used, and how did the districts intend to provide follow-up support?
2. How did the districts propose to address participants' varied levels of concern about technology?
3. What was the focus of efforts to evaluate staff development activities?
Matrices were developed for each research question, and data from each plan were entered in appropriate categories during the initial review. The completed matrices were then reviewed for accuracy by the regional technology coordinator who worked with the districts on a continuing basis.
This initial review did not evaluate the level of use of each strategy in terms of the number of districts using each strategy or the effectiveness of the chosen strategies in each of those districts. It is also important to acknowledge that mentioning a strategy in a district plan did not guarantee its use, and the absence of specific strategies did not necessarily mean that they were not used. The focus was on movement toward more effective staff development practices in the region as a whole, and the purpose of the study was to highlight strategies that might be helpful as districts revised their plans or developed new ones. The results provided an indication of staff development strategies that were sufficiently valued by the developers of the district technology plans to be included. Ongoing research will be needed to measure the level of use of different staff development strategies and to examine the relationship between the strategies and improvements in teaching and learning.
The review of district technology plans yielded evidence of positive movement away from one-shot technology workshops toward long-term technology staff development initiatives. Districts identified a variety of strategies for follow-up support. The different stages of teacher concerns about technology were addressed in many ways, and some districts planned to gather teacher and student performance data in their efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of staff development and other components of their technology plans.
Models of Staff Development and Follow-up Support
A matrix using the four "models" of training (Joyce & Showers, 1995; NSDC, 1995) was used to analyze data from district plans in response to the first research question. Information describing specific technology training events and the identity of the district were recorded in the most appropriate of four categories: (a) presentation of theory, (b) modeling or demonstration, (c) practice with low-risk feedback, and (d) coaching, study groups, or peer visits.
District plans often listed a menu of staff development workshops, including specific applications, software, or tasks (see Table 3). Some workshops were school-based, but most staff development programs were district efforts. Timing was an important issue. Some were scheduled during summer months, but many were offered during the school year. One district developed a plan to use teachers' planning periods at regular intervals throughout the year. Some districts provided stipends and substitutes. Many districts used a "training of trainers" approach to build local capacity for sustaining the staff development program over time.
Model classrooms, technology training centers, resource centers, networked labs, and "cyber campuses through the North Carolina School of Science and Math" were created in several districts to support training, demonstration, and practice. One district set up a portable lab using laptop computers. Other districts provided laptops or other equipment for teachers to check out. Several plans suggested visits to model programs outside the district, and one district planned to invite community members to demonstrate technology skills for teachers. One district planned networked labs at each school site. In another district, monthly staff development sessions provided opportunities for continuing practice.
While no district described technology training that would fit in all four categories, and only 2 of the 27 districts planned to use three of the models, it was exciting that 20 of the 27 districts described specific strategies for follow-up support. The strategies described in many of the plans included both technical and instructional support. Sometimes those roles were separate, but often these "first responders" were called on to provide both technical and instructional support to teachers and administrators. The support positions identified in the plans included the following titles: technology users support staff, technology support specialists, instructional technology coordinators, technology mentor teachers, troubleshooters, coaches, expert trainers, technology support coordinators, and site based technology facilitators. Considering the special importance of follow up support for efforts to implement technology in education, it was exciting that most plans included at least some strategies for provi ding continuing help.
Attention to Teachers' Concerns about Technology
A matrix using the stages of concern (Hord et al., 1987; NSDC, 1985) was used to analyze data from district plans in response to the second research question. Information describing specific technology training strategies and the identity of the district were recorded in the most appropriate of seven categories: awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing.
A variety of strategies addressed each level of teacher concerns. Samples are shown in Table 4 and then discussed.
The need to build awareness of technology and its uses in classrooms was mentioned in several plans. One specified that staff development activities were designed to promote awareness of the latest technological teaching tools and strategies. Several districts expected staff development to "move" teachers from "concern" to "skill." At the information level, strategies called for visits to other schools and opportunities to explore new technologies. Stipends for summer workshops provided incentives that could increase teacher interest, and there were several scheduling options to allow teachers to choose times that were best. Questionnaires and surveys were used to determine teachers' personal interests and needs so that training could be planned accordingly.
Management concerns included the management of the technology resources and the management of the curriculum. For example, some plans specifically mentioned student information systems (SIMS) and instructional management systems with test item data banks. Several districts developed plans for integrating state computer competencies into appropriate areas of the curriculum. Others called for multi-media instruction in the classrooms. At the consequence level, a few district plans addressed the use of technology in performance assessment, authentic learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. One plan described how students would use technology resources available through the media center to resolve real-life situations. A few plans also referred to equity of access to technology and other legal, social, and ethical issues related to technology.
One district plan viewed the technology initiative as a means for increasing teacher collegiality, an appropriate goal for teachers concerned about collaboration. Lesson plans were to be shared among teachers with common instructional goals. Several districts also focused on curriculum integration. One district identified and trained three-member teams to develop replicable instructional models at "technology integrated educational sites." Collaboration extended beyond the district to explore options for distance learning. A few district plans included evidence of refocusing. One district planned to become its own Internet provider to support an electronic learning environment. Another planned to implement an electronic portfolio assessment project to improve and evaluate students' writing. Although the staff development plans did not address the need for single training activities to respond to teachers at varying levels of concern, there was evidence that districts were aware of the necessary progression. M ost activities, including the menus of technology workshops, were designed to build awareness and provide information. However, the plans included a few exciting examples of staff development activities to address higher levels of concern.
Evaluation of Staff Development Activities
A matrix using four levels of evaluation outcomes was used to analyze data from district plans in response to the third research question. Information describing specific evaluation strategies and the identity of the district were recorded in the most appropriate of four categories: (a) participant satisfaction, (b) teacher knowledge and skill, (c) classroom use, and (d) student learning. The results are summarized in Table 5 and in the discussion that follows.
At the first level of evaluation, client surveys asked participants for information about their perceptions of the instructor, methods, materials, times, and the training facility. At the next level, 12 districts planned to evaluate changes in teacher knowledge and skills. One district planned to require a minimum number of renewal credits in technology--an indication that "seat time" continued to be valued in our profession.
Self-report surveys were also mentioned and will be easy to use, but others planned to require more rigorous measures: portfolios, professional development plans, and other demonstrations of teacher knowledge and skill. In fact, one district expected teacher portfolios to include evidence of collaboration among teachers and the community. In many districts, teachers were expected to "pass" the state's eighth-grade computer competency test, and/or meet the standards adopted by the State Board of Education.
The level of classroom use was addressed in 11 of the 27 evaluation plans. Administrator observations of teachers using technology in the classroom were a source of evaluation data in some districts. Schedules of technology mentor teachers, logs of software use, and analyses of thematic units designed to integrate technology into classroom instruction provided additional evidence of classroom use.
Student performance data were identified in 16 district evaluation plans. State tests, including end-of-grade tests, end-of-course tests, tests generated by the instructional management system for vocational courses, and the computer competency tests, will allow districts to begin to evaluate technology staff development in terms of student performance. In addition, districts planned to use surveys, interviews, student projects, and student portfolios, including electronic portfolios. One district also planned to examine trends in unemployment and graduation rates.
Taken as a whole, the district technology plans provided evidence of growing commitment to long-term staff development initiatives that include a variety of personnel and organizational structures that provide ongoing follow-up support. In addition, there was evidence that some districts recognized the need to examine the impact on both teacher and student learning. However, few if any of the district plans could be described as comprehensive efforts. Table 6 summarizes the data by district.
Although 20 of the 27 districts described specific strategies for follow-up support for technology staff development, 6 districts mentioned only one training model or component, and 3 districts did not describe any specific training components. As for stages of teachers' concerns about technology, 8 district plans contained differentiated strategies for responding to two or more stages of concern, but 11 of the 27 plans did not address this issue at all.
A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of technology and related staff development could be expected to include measurable outcomes in all four areas: participant satisfaction, teacher knowledge and skill, classroom use, and student learning. Two of the 27 district plans did address all four levels of outcomes. One of those districts, however, described no specific training components and did not indicate differentiated strategies for teachers' stages of concern. Although it was encouraging that 11 districts planned to gather evidence of classroom use and 16 districts would examine the impact on student learning, it will be important to help the remaining districts improve their evaluation efforts.
A number of other "inconsistencies" are worth noting. Five of the districts that planned to evaluate the impact of technology and related staff development on student learning did not include strategies for follow-up support in their technology staff development plans. Without long-term support, especially in the area of technology, classroom use and the opportunity to impact student learning are unlikely (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Only 11 of the 20 districts that described strategies for follow-up support included student learning outcomes in their evaluation plans. This trend suggested a need to emphasize that the ultimate purpose of increased technology and related staff development was to improve student learning.
Is technology changing the ways teachers teach and teachers and students learn? The answer is probably mixed. Some teachers in some schools are using technology in exciting ways to manage, deliver, and enrich the instructional program. Some students are learning differently with technology, in schools and at home. Increased technology is available in some schools and classrooms, and teachers and students may or may not be using it.
Staff development is an important consideration when implementing any innovation, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Visioning, planning, and financing are necessary steps in the implementation of technology initiatives. The vision of what technology in schools should look like and how it can be used continues to change, and teachers must be active participants in shaping that vision. Long-term technology plans are important, but they must be responsive as unexpected developments occur. New equipment and software, price changes, and classroom needs are just a few of the predictable changes that will impact long-term technology plans.
Teachers must be encouraged to think of and try new ways to use technology, personally and in the classroom, and they must have opportunities to talk with each other about the results. Results must be monitored. Coaches and resource personnel must be in place to help work through problems and to recognize needed adjustments. Ultimately, unless teachers are comfortable with technology, understand how it can be used to strengthen the instructional program, and want to use it in the classroom, teaching and learning are not likely to change.
Will technology staff development change teaching and learning in these 27 districts? The plans provide promising evidence that staff development could make a difference. A number of school districts and individual schools were planning long-term staff development initiatives and establishing structures for follow-up support. Support personnel were in place in many districts to provide assistance with both technology and the instructional program. Teachers' concerns were addressed at many levels, beginning with the need to build awareness and provide information and extending to opportunities for teachers to work collegially to develop curriculum. As teachers increase their own knowledge and skill and begin to work together to develop curriculum, they will be able to increase the use of technology in classrooms, align the technology curriculum, and integrate technology into other areas of the curriculum. In many districts, student outcomes will be monitored as part of the state accountability plan, and additi onal data will be gathered through student portfolios and other work samples.
The purpose of this study was to highlight effective practices described in district technology plans so that others could learn from them. Although promising strategies were evident, they were not present to the same degree in every district plan. The research on staff development effects and teachers' concerns suggests that these promising strategies should be more prevalent. The following recommendations can be used to strengthen existing plans or to develop new ones.
1. Ensure organizational support for technology staff development. Involve teachers and administrators in building a shared vision for technology and a long-range plan to achieve it (Guhlin, 2002).
2. Be prepared to respond to upgrades in hardware and software, changes in the market for technology, and fluctuations in financial support.
3. Help teachers and administrators become familiar with and apply research on staff development to be sure that teachers develop knowledge and skills in technology and use them in the classroom to improve student learning. Design staff development activities that include opportunities to practice new skills with feedback, and include follow-up after the formal training activity ends (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Peer coaching and collegial study groups allow teachers to help each other with implementation and work through problems that arise. Those strategies also allow schools to capitalize on the power of collaborative work cultures that support innovation to engage students in technology (Fullan, 2001).
4. Develop school and district structures to support technology and instruction. Many of these districts created new roles for teachers and new positions for technical support personnel.
5. Provide time for teachers to work and plan together. Many districts in this study planned activities during and after the school day and during the summer months.
6. Increase teacher access to technology. Meltzer and Sherman (1997) called for opportunities for teachers to "play" with technology. Several districts used networked training sites and made computers available for teachers to check out. When possible, the hardware and software used in training and available for practice should match the hardware and software that will be available in classrooms (Bradshaw, 1997).
7. Acknowledge different stages of teachers' concerns about technology (Hord, 1987), and provide appropriate training and support to respond to the needs at each stage and to prepare teachers to function at higher stages of concern. Sparks (2002) noted that the technical and adaptive challenges inherent in technology evoke social and emotional responses and demand consideration of the "human side of technology issues" (p.3).
8. Several districts made stipends available for teachers who engaged in technology staff development, especially when the activities took place outside the school day or year. Murphy and Miller (1996) supported the use of incentives, especially when teachers had a choice of learning options from traditional workshops to independent study.
9. Evaluate technology staff development not only in terms of teacher knowledge and classroom use, but also in terms of the impact on student learning (Guskey, 2000). As part of the evaluation plan, consider using individual teacher development plans that include opportunities for teachers to observe each other using new knowledge and skills.
In spite of significant investments in technology staff development, technology does not automatically improve teaching and learning for all teachers and students. It is not enough for hardware and software to be accessible. Teachers must become skilled in both the use of technology and its application to the instructional program. Even when teachers use new skills and programs in their classrooms, changes are difficult to sustain. Institutionalizing technology in schools requires staff development that responds to teachers' concerns, supports the kind of collaborative relationships needed to sustain new teaching skills and attitudes, and provides for the continuing development of personal and pedagogical skills. Using technology to improve teaching and learning is both a challenge and an opportunity for staff developers. In response, technology staff development strategies must be consistent with what we know about the impact of staff development and the change process!
Table 1 Relationship Between Levels of Impact Components of Training Levels of Impact Components of Training Concept Skill Understanding Attainment Presentation of theory 85% 15% Modeling or demonstration 85% 18% Practice with low risk feedback 85% 80% Coaching, study groups, or peer 90% 90% visits Components of Training Application and Problem solving Presentation of theory 5-10% Modeling or demonstration 5-10% Practice with low risk feedback 10-15% Coaching, study groups, or peer 80-90% visits In NSDC. (1995). Standards for Staff Development, p. 31. Adapted from the research of Bruce Joyce by the National Staff Development Council and the National Association of Secondary School Principles. Table 2 Stages of Concern: Typical expressions of Concern about Technology and Related Staff Development Strategies Stages of Concern Expressions of Concern 6 Refocusing I have some ideas about how I can use technology to make this unit better. 5 Collaboration I am concerned about how we can work as a grade level to be sure that all students have the tech- nology skills that will be expected in the next grade. 4 Consequence I want to know whether incorporating technology into classroom instruction has had an effect on student learning. 3 Management I need to develop assign- ments and work out a schedule to give every student meaningful computer time each week. 2 Personal I want to know how using technology in the classroom will affect me. 1 Informational I would like to know more about technology. 0 Awareness I'm not interested in technology. Stages of Concern Staff Development Strategies 6 Refocusing Support program improve- ment and program develop- ment. Provide resources. 5 Collaboation Involve these teachers in visioning and planning for technology. Use them to provide coaching and support for other teachers. 4 Consequence Analyze student performance. Gather data needed for ongoing evaluation. 3 Management Provide practical help with "how-to" issues. Find time for teachers to work together. Help develop activities, sehedules, and timeliness. 2 Personal Accept personal concerns and encourage teachers at different stages to talk about technology. Show how technology can be implemented one step at a time. 1 Informational Provide information in a variety of ways--individually, in groups, and through any available media. Encourage visits to teachers and schools where technology is being used. 0 Awareness Share information about technology without over whelming. Provide a safe environment for asking questions. (*)Adapted from "CBAM" in NSDC. (1995). Standards for Staff Development, p. 18. Table 3 Sample Evidence of Training Components Included in District Plans Training Components Number (*) Presentation of theory 11 Modeling or demonstration 8 Practice with low risk feedback 7 Coaching, study groups, 20 or peer visits Training Components Examples Presentation of theory Workshops, conferences, and training sessions; Awareness sessions and updates; information sessions provided by vendors Modeling or demonstration Model classrooms; Demonstrations by community experts and vendors; Cyber campuses; Visits to model programs Practice with low risk feedback Teacher Technology Centers; Networked labs for training; Equipment available for check out Coaching, study groups, Support personnel; technology or peer visits specialists, instructional technology coordinators, technology mentor teachers, lead teachers for technology, internal technology trainers, troubleshooters, "first responders," and technology support coordinators; School-level committees to align the technology curriculum wiht state and national curriculum standards; School-based Technology Advisory Committees to plan and provide appropriate technology staff development; Forums and other opportunities for sharing successes (*) NOTE: The numbers in this column indicate how many of the 27 local district technology plans contained specific evidence of plans to use each training component. Table 4 Sample Evidence from District Technology Plans of Attention to the Stages of Teachers' Concerns about Tecnology Stages of Concern Number (*) Sample Staff Development Strategies 6 Refocusing 4 Support an electronic learning environment by becoming our own internet provider; Become involved in the Electronic Portfolio Assessment Project to improve student writing and assess student portfolios over time 5 Collaboration 4 Curriculum integration Distance learning; Collaborative lesson planning with groups of teachers who have common instructional goals 4 Consequence 6 Integrate technology into performance assessment and problem solving; Promote authentic learning of prescribed state curricula through technology; Develop critical thinking and problem solving skills 3 Management 7 Summer workshops to develop lessons that integrate state computer competencies into appropriate content areas; Training in student information and instructional management systems 2 Personal 4 Needs assessment, teacher questionnaires and surveys to determine needed course offerings; Training to match hardware and software placed in the schools 1 Informational 2 Opportunities to explore new technologies; Visits to schools 0 Awareness 0 (*)NOTE: The numbers in this column indicate how many of the 27 local district technology plans contained specific evidence of plans to address each stage of teachers' concerns. Table 5 Evaluation Outcomes Addressed by District Technology Plans Outcome Number (*) Participant Satisfaction 3 Teacher Knowledge and Skill 12 Classroom Use 11 Student Performance 16 of Outcome Sample Evaluation Data Participant Satisfaction Teacher surveys; Participant perception of instructor qualities, materials, times, training facilities Teacher Knowledge and Skill Teacher performance on technology competency tests; Teacher portfolios Individual teacher development plans; Teacher demonstration on required skills; Surveys and interviews; Number of certificate renewal certificate renewal credits in technology; Self-reported ratings credits in technology; Self- reported ratings Classroom Use Creation of model classrooms; Administrative monitoring and support; Log of software use Analysis of teachers' e-mail messages; Surveys of parents and students; Examination of lesson and unit plans; Teacher observation records; School portfolios; An aligned curriculum Student Performance Student scores on computer competency tests; Student scores on other standardized tests; Parent and student surveys; of Records technology-based remedeation programs; Student work products; School portfolios; Electronic portfolios (*)NOTE: The numbers in this column indicate how manu of the 27 local district technology plans contained specific evidence that each outcome would be evaluated. Table 6 Summary of evidence from District Technology Plans # TrainingComponents (1) Stages of Concern (2) T MD P FS 6 5 1 X X X 2 X X 3 X X 4 X X X 5 X X X 6 X X X 7 8 X X 9 X X 10 X X X 11 X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X 15 X 16 17 X X X X 18 X X X 19 X X X 20 X X 21 X X 22 X X X 23 X X 24 X 25 26 X X 27 X T 11 8 7 20 4 4 # Stages of Concern (2) Evaluation Outcomes (3) 4 3 2 1 0 PS 1 X 2 X 3 4 X 5 X X 6 X X X X 7 X 8 9 10 11 12 13 X X X 14 X 15 16 X X 17 X 18 19 20 21 X X 22 23 24 X X 25 26 27 T 5 7 4 2 0 3 # Evaluation Outcomes (3) TK CU SL 1 X 2 X X 3 X 4 X X 5 X 6 X X X 7 X X X 8 X X X 9 X 10 X X 11 12 13 X 14 X 15 16 X X 17 X X 18 X X 19 X 20 21 22 X X X 23 X X 24 X X 25 X X 26 X 27 X T 12 11 16 NOTES: (1)Training Components T = presentation of theory MD = modeling and demonstration P = practice with low-rish feedback FS = follow-up support (2)Stages of Concern 6 = refocusing 5 = collaboration 4 = consequence 3 = management 2 = personal 1 = informational 0 = awareness (3)Evaluation Outcomes PS = participant satisfaction TK = teacher knowledge and skill CU = classroom use SP = student performance
Bradshaw, L.K. (1997, December). Technology-supported change: A staff development opportunity. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 86-92.
Fullan, M.G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guhlin, M. (2002). Teachers must push technology's tidal wave. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 40-41.
Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T.R. (1994). Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 42-50.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Meltzer, J., & Sherman, T.M. (1997, January). Ten commandments for successful technology implementation and staff development. NASSP Bulletin 81(585), 23-32.
Murphy, C.U., & Lick, D.W. (1998). Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful way to change schools and enhance learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, M., & Miller, A. (1996, March). Incentives pay off in technological literacy. Educational Leadership 53(4), 54-56.
National Staff Development Council. (1995). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Sparks, D. (2002). Don't ignore the human side of technology. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 3.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Bradshaw, Lynn K.|
|Publication:||Journal of Technology and Teacher Education|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2002|
|Previous Article:||Exemption exam for an introductory education technology course: findings from two years of use.|
|Next Article:||Dee Anna Willis: an appreciation.|