T&L – Journal #5 – Professional Development of Teachers

After completing my Master's program in ITEC, I hope to move on, within a few years, to a new job either as a Technology teacher in the classroom, teaching students how to use technologies in parallel with their learning, or in a Technology Director type position, in which I would deal primarily with supporting the use of technology in the classroom facilitated by teachers (rather than the things that many Technology Directors do--working on the server, problem solving, installing new programs, doing repairs, handling paperwork and such). So, in this second possibility, I would like to see the professional development of teachers in relation to technology become a major facet of my job. So, this particular Journal assignment really interested me.

Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools: Implications for Professional Development by Emily Hixon and Janet Buckenmeyer

The first paragraph of this article was one that I disagreed with. In it, the writers propose that the lack of technology integration by teachers is not a result of "lack of time, training, equipment and support" as is often said, but rather a result of the core values of teaching and learning of the teachers. This can't be true for all teachers - because it's not true for me. I fully understand and value the use of technology in the classroom, but don't have the time--primarily in my curriculum, not my school day--to make it happen.

The writers then continue by contradicting themselves in reporting, essentially, that while the prevalence of computers & technology in the schools has increased, the technology is underused primarily due to a lack of teacher training. Didn't they just say that "lack of time, training, equipment and support" were not the cause of the underuse of technology in the classrooms? Regardless, after their apparent change in heart between paragraph 1 (actually the abstract) and 3, I now agree with them. They continue in saying that while technology use in the classroom has become very common, that most if it is not "high-level uses of technology." Again, I agree.

Hixon and Buckenmeyer continue, "With all of the advantages offered by technology, why isn't technology being fully utilized and why hasn't education changed?" Their answer is the aforementioned contradiction--"lack of time, training, equipment and support"--which they then assess, through a quote from "well-documented literature" as "certainly valid concerns and issues." They then begin to move away from this standard explanation by saying that these reasons are not enough. They reference teachers' use of technology at home and other teachers' successful technology integration despite the same resources as reasons that there must be more causing the slow integration. I suppose that I can agree with this.

Hixon and Buckenmeyer briefly discuss a success story in a school system that suffers from all of these things--"lack of time training, equipment and support"--but were able to successfully integrate technology. They mention the idea of first discussing what the students and parents may be able to do or gain from certain technologies, before attempting to learn how to use them. It seems insignificant, but it makes sense to figure out why one would want to learn how to do something prior to learning it. As teachers, we often set and announce goals for our students, why not do the same in our professional development. "Today we will learn how to record a podcast so that . . . and because . . . " Then, the teachers may be motivated to learn and to implement the technology.

The authors then begin to sell me on their point, discussing the fact that while the aforementioned barriers to technology integration are valid there are another set of barriers slowing down the integration. They are second-order barriers which, "include teachers' attitudes about teaching and learning, resistance to change, innovativeness, teachers' beliefs about technology, perceptions of control, problem-solving abilities and fear."

One thing that strikes me is the realization that some of these barriers could be alleviated if more administrators learned the subject matter of the KSU ITEC course Managing Technological Change, because if technological initiatives were handled more appropriately, they may be more successful. Showing the parallels of technology integration to the Managing Technological Change course and subject matter, the authors cite a variety of similar theories that describe a teachers development from being resistant to use technology, to minimal use of technology first for personal (teacher) use then for instructional (class) use and up to high levels of technology use, with some intermediary steps in between. The authors quote a piece by Moersch in saying that "These developmental theories suggest a movement from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered classroom; from teacher as dispenser of knowledge to teacher as facilitator of discovery; from contrived text-based activities to authentic hands-on activities; from compartmentalized learning to thematic learning; from technology as the focus to technology as a tool/resource."

Their first implication for implementation is that the schools must first move beyond the first-order barriers (availability of time, training, equipment and support) and then handle the second-order barriers. I agree with this implication. The authors argue that if these second-order barriers are not attacked in an appropriate manner, it may be a useless attempt and that technology integration may never be fully successful in that setting. Unfortunately, they report, teacher trainings are typically not the best way to attack these barriers. Differentiation and readiness must be taken into consideration. Some teachers may not be ready for the technology, while others might already be partway through implementation and need a different level of support. Individuality is an important aspect of these changes. Some tools to aide in this process include the LoTi--which I would like to see--but there is no one way to assess and attack these barriers.

The authors cite Hew and Brush in three aspects of good professional development: a concentration on the technological content, permitting an opportunity for hands-on work for the teachers and basing the training on the needs of the trainees.

In the end, I ended up really agreeing with this article and enjoying reading it. I feel that if I end up in a career position where I have any say in technology integration and professional development that relates to it, I will refer back to many of the ideas and thoughts from this article. It is best summarized in this excerpt from the authors' conclusion:

In order to promote effective technology integration, we must find ways to address

all of the barriers teachers are facing, including both first-order (external to teacher)

and second-order (internal to teacher) obstacles. Professional development can

address many of these concerns, but the current “one-size-fits-all” technology

training, focusing primarily on first-order barriers, has proved to be inadequate in

light of the developmental growth of teachers’ technology use.

Revamping Professional Development for Technology Integration and Fluency

by Sandra Kay Plair

Sandra Kay Plair's article about professional development & technology integration is not completely different from the previous article, but has a different focus. She believes that the main cause for the slow integration of technology into the core curriculum classrooms of our schools is the veteran teachers. She considers veteran teachers to be those with over 15 years of experience and considers them to be unwilling or unable or afraid to implement technological integration into their curriculum. I am not sure that I disagree with this completely, but do feel that it is a bit stereotypical. After all, many of my ITEC professors have more than 15 years under their belts and my mother, who will retire in the next few years, teaches technology courses at her elementary school.

Those technology (or computer) courses do bring up another of Plair's points. She feels that part of the veteran teachers' difficulty is the notion that the technology that for so many years was "quarantined" to the "computer teacher's" classroom is to be spread into the rest of the classrooms. She stereotypes them as seeing the technology skills to be just that - individual skills that should be taught separately from other skills by specific qualified individuals. I guess this is where here points relate back to Hixon and Buckenmeyer's--she sees these teachers low on the change scale; they do see technology as relevant, but don't see it as a learning tool, they see it as a skill to learn. I agree with this assessment (for some veteran teachers) and agree that this presents a barrier to successful integration.

Plair feels that, aside from attitudes toward technology & its integration, one of the main needs for successful integration is technological fluency. She states "Knowing when and how to use these technology tools to enhance learning is how I define technology fluency." Her method of improving technology fluency is through the implementation of knowledge brokers in the schools. These teachers that are further along in the integration of technology are to act both as role models and facilitators for the teachers that are not as far along in their integration of technology. These people act as the "middle man" between the person that trains the staff in using a skill and the teachers that may still not know how to implement this new skill. She feels--and I agree--that after professional development through staff trainings take place, the teachers need support to actually put these things into practice, as many of them returned to their classrooms annoyed or confused by the training or unsure how to use their new skill educationally. I see this often from the teachers that I work with. She continues in explaining what key functions a knowledge broker could serve for these teachers learning to integrate specific technologies. I agree with the idea of the broker and all of the aspects and ways that they can be of help. My only problem is in how this knowledge broker will find time to do this. It is wise for the broker to be a teacher, as then they can speak not just to how to use the technology, but how to use it educationally, which is a skill that can often only be held by teachers. It appears to me that the best thing that a school system could do is to give these knowledge brokers extra planning time in which they were committed to working with their colleagues. If these brokers have time to support the integration within their school--and can avoid being stressed by the extra burden, which the extra planning time could alleviate--this could be a very successful model for technological change.

Comparing, Contrasting and Relating the 2 Articles

In the first article, the authors spoke primarily about why technological change was so difficult and why it has been largely unsuccessful when compared to its potential. The second article had similar feelings about why this was the case, but primarily discussed a way to resolve this problem--quality trainings and the use of knowledge brokers. While the first article blamed first-order barriers (availability of time, equipment, support and training) and second-order barriers (those inside the teacher) for the slow integration of technology into the classroom, the second article blamed the readiness and attitudes of "veteran teachers." Inherently though, the two articles theories about the causes overlap and, aside from in language, had a lot in common. Both agreed that the theories of successful change need to be applied in the situation of technological integration. The first article directly stated this and, while they didn't directly state it, the second article mentioned a lot of things that are part of the change theories.

After reading this article, I feel motivated to participate in technological integration into the education of today's youth. I feel that the ideas that I have gained from the articles give focus to my ideas of integration. The only question yet to answer for myself is: 'Will I be a knowledge broker or the catalyst of this change?

Works Cited

HIXON, E., & BUCKENMEYER, J. (2009). Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools:

Implications for Professional Development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.

doi:10.1080/07380560902906070

Plair, S. (2008). Revamping Professional Development for Technology Integration and

Fluency. Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74. Retrieved from Education Research Complete

database.