CEPI - Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute

View Print Friendly Version | Close Window

Technology Training

In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on professional development for technology use in K-12 classrooms. Studies such as the U.S. Department of Education Study (1999) and Market Data Retrieval (1999) reveal that only 24% of new teachers feel “very well prepared” to use technology in their curriculum and 61% of practicing teachers feel that either they are “not at all prepared” or only “somewhat prepared” to make effective use of technologies in their classrooms. These findings and similar ones have led Fatemi (Office of Technology Assessment, 1999) and teacher technology trainers to state that the lack of professional development for technology use is one of the most serious obstacles to fully integrating technology into the curriculum. This renewed realization, along with state and national ambitious funding programs such as the U.S. Department of Education’s allocation of $135 million to develop technologically proficient teachers, has resulted in competition for leadership among trainers in K-12 schools and in higher education institutions. In sum, the support is as follows:

K-12 trainers support school-based teacher trainers in the areas of sustainability, accountability, day-to-day teacher connections, and long-term successes.

Higher education institutions, especially colleges of education, support university level teacher trainers because of their institutional charge to link theory and practice, their improved programs in technology integration, and their need for collegial teaching and learning experiences in classrooms and in communities.

There is strong agreement among all professional development specialists that a need exists for improved training in the use of technology. Additionally there is agreement that the responsibility for pre-service education technology training rests primarily with higher education. Different views, however, surface with regard to who delivers, where the delivery takes place, and the amount of and time in-service is delivered.

K-12 teacher trainers say:

Training must be an integral part of a teacher’s daily activities and should be based in the school. Technology used in training should be the technology accessible in the workplace. Higher education trainers, because of their separation by location from schools, are often unavailable to train teachers “just-in-time,” on a regular basis, and on the technology available in the teacher’s workplace.

Sustained teacher-to-teacher training is the most effective training. Trainers agree with Wolinsky (1999) states that relevant in-service training must consist of face-to-face training by teachers who can provide ongoing follow up.

Teachers respond more favorably to colleagues and mentors located in their schools or partner schools who work with similar students under similar conditions. Fifty-one percent of teachers surveyed in studies conducted by the National Center of Educational Statistics (1997) and Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (1996) indicated that teacher-initiated activities promote greater teacher use of advanced telecommunications in the classroom.

The success of the teacher training will ultimately impact student mastery of technology standards and Standards of Learning that require the use of technology. Teachers will be held accountable for student mastery. Thus, trainers say that the content of the training must be sufficiently flexible to deal directly with what teachers need to learn free of clock and calendar constraints. Higher education courses and instruction must often be approved in advance and, therefore, cannot be fully responsive to ever changing classroom issues relating to needs such as lesson plans and alternative methods of instruction.

Time for training is critical to the effective use and integration of technology. Trainers agree with Concoran (1995), for example, who states that teachers need more time to work with colleagues. Time to receive training also supports in-service from within. On demand professional development employing technology from archived and accessible resources is a relatively new way to change the time frame of in-service training. Teacher education trainers not assigned to schools on a continuous basis will experience delivery problems relating to time.

Few teacher-training programs at higher education institutions integrate technology into their own programs. Support comes from Barksdale (1996) who said, “… there are few teacher education programs that are consistently mentioned as leaders in integrating technology into their teacher training programs.”

Higher education teacher education classrooms have less technology and trainers generally have less technological expertise than K-12 trainers.

Higher education trainers say:

Teacher training programs offered by higher education institutions provide resources that are not available in the school. These resources assist schools to focus on a larger commitment to education reform that is linked to improvement in student learning.

The advent of newer communication technologies such as e-mail, the Internet, and teleconferencing eliminate or reduce barriers related to time, location, face-to-face training, and follow up.

While critics have noted that teacher education programs do not integrate technology into their own programs, they also recognize that there are a growing number of teacher education programs that are consistently mentioned as leaders in integrating technology (Barksdale 1996).

Teacher training institutions are qualified to conduct research that contributes to learning theory and the technology skills and standards teachers are required to master. Additionally, collaborations between local schools and teacher education programs result in improved use of technology in each institution by linking theory and practice. Technology trained faculty admit that a gap exists between ideas, techniques, and approaches that teachers acquire as a result of their study and the application of ideas, techniques and approaches in the classroom, but hasten to note that the gap is closing.

Higher education teacher education programs provide opportunities for teachers to use in-service training credits to meet requirements for advanced study and degree programs.

At present, the debate over what trainer should provide in-service training is rather subtle. All school professional developers of in-service training for K-12 teachers are just beginning to explore how many newer technologies might be used in the classroom. And, while this applies equally to higher education professional developers, concerned trainers in colleges of education are making progress through forums and legislative discussions to become recognized as leaders prepared, if funded, to accept leadership for K-12 in-service training.

Obviously, K-12 and teacher training institutions believe each has a strong role in the use of technology in education and teacher training for technology use. The professional development section: Models of Success: Case Studies of Technology in Schools by the National School Boards Association’s ITTE education technology leadership (1999) provides case studies of successful programs. Members and staff within the National School Boards Association: The Council of School Attorneys, a member organization of 3,000 committed, education-focused attorneys and the Technology Leadership Network have developed Legal Issues and Education Technology: A Leader’s Guide to assist schools.

It is understood by educators and information technology business leaders that preparing our students for computer use in the workplace is as essential as teaching students to read, write, and do mathematics or science. They recognize that sixty percent of all jobs in the United States will require information technology skills in addition to knowledge and abilities in science, mathematics, English and social studies. As exploration of the use of newer technologies for in-service training increases, related legal issues for school administrators will increase. While some of these legal issues may not relate solely to the education profession, school administrators must be prepared to deal with them should they present themselves. Included among these issues are:

E-mail use in adverse ways. Use of e-mail messages to harass and discriminate.

Internet use to receive and send inappropriate information. Use of the Internet to download and release pornographic, confidential, and security-threatening information.

Cordless telephone use in inappropriate ways. Use of cordless phones to intercept private messages and conversations.

Survey findings such as those revealed in a 1994 U.S. Department of Education survey show that only 15% of the nation’s teachers have had at least nine hours of instruction in educational technology. The resulting interpretation by K-12 and college of education trainers is that there is a critical need for more than nine hours of instruction to prepare teachers for effective use of technology in the classroom.

Technology training success stories are found in teacher certification programs, local school division/district staff development programs, and in college of education pre-service programs. A few are listed below:

Teacher Certification:
Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Wisconsin have made certification standards more rigorous to include courses directly related to the courses teachers teach. Technology is one element of mandated coursework. In Virginia, North Carolina, and Idaho, teachers are required to take technology-skills tests to demonstrate mastery of skills in state standards. Virginia has developed technology standards that apply equally to K-12 and higher education instructional personnel.

School Division/District Staff Development:
Staff development programs are more comprehensive and better funded in some local schools in states than in other local schools. In Virginia, for example, the Learning, Creating, Integrating (LCI) technology staff development program in Chesterfield County Public Schools, and the on-site advanced degree information technology program developed by Hanover County Public Schools have required elements and have been implemented sufficiently long to involved several hundred teachers across several years. Many other school division technology programs in Virginia do not have these components. Out of state examples include the allocation of funding and peer training in the Palos Consolidate School District in Illinois and the Dallas, Texas ISD teacher technologist program.

College of Education Pre-Service:
Some colleges of education training programs are integrating technology into their pre-service and in-service programs. The College of Education at the University of Houston uses web pages, e-mail, electronic lesson plan sharing, and one-year school internships for seniors. Peabody College at Vanderbilt University requires technology modeling by faculty. The Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia uses newer technologies in its training programs and makes it “a point to get out of the ivory tower and into the community.” One UVA initiative is a pairing of pre-service teachers with local classroom teachers.

Technology use in the classroom requires teachers to learn new roles and innovative ways of teaching. This, according to the North Central Regional Laboratory and in-service trainers across the United States, translates into a long-term developmental process requiring teachers to focus on changing their own practice. Change in practice will require decisions about program issues such as classroom time, essential in-training components, communication tools, certification, location, and the identification of providers. Such change will necessitate planning to incorporate:

Time and access. Teachers believe that increases in student achievement are an outcome of teacher training. They say that state and legislative leaders who link student time-on-task to performance often impose school calendar challenges that impact training time and access.

Collegial collaboration. Future reviews of in-service training for K-12 teachers are likely to reveal that there are overlaps and ineffective uses of resources appropriated by policy makers and public funders. Such reviews will result in a call from funders and policy makers to educators to clarify roles.

Appropriate use of the Internet and electronic media for communication. Internet and electronic media are public consumer tools that have entered the classroom. Decisions regarding such matters as use, security, and copyright must be addressed through policy to protect the educator and to influence greater policy development.

Availability of infrastructure and classroom technology. A shifting in focus to look more closely at how technology can contribute to education will reveal a gap between what technology many schools aspire to have and what they have. Access to technology in classrooms will continue to challenge schools, vendors and trainers. Additionally, the development of common standards and tool compatibility will be high on the list of challenges.

Equity. There are considerable costs and challenges to schools and states to ensure that the gap in access to computers and the Internet is closed between the “haves” and “have-nots.” It should be noted that the gap is not limited to students; it also exists among school instructional personnel who must utilize the tools of the information age to improve their performance and achievement in the classroom and on the job.

Funding. Few public schools and colleges of education have been able to obtain sustained funding for the use of technology. Significant costs for technology and teacher training will challenge local boards, state and national governments, private and other funders today and in the future. The recommendation by industry trainers to allocate 15-20 percent of the total budget for training is far from best practice. Virginia legislators’ believe that the state should fund technology training. However, the state’s ability to fund technology training for teachers has been limited to 25% of the 20% of total training funds allocated to schools.

Teachers are gradually learning new roles and ways to employ technology in the classroom. The classroom is the best environment for the development of models of practice, technology information exchange, and “on-demand” professional development. Technology-based in-service in the classroom will continue to employ such practices as face-to-face interaction, seminars, mentoring, peering, coaching, workplace training and team teaching. Simultaneously, assessments will be made of the effectiveness of all training provided. At present, it appears that teachers who take charge of their own training experience more positive results. The support role of colleges of education is equally strong in areas such as data collection, application of innovative techniques, pre-service and modeling. Training at each level will need financial and policy support.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Technology Training.”

SECONDARY RELATED CONCERN:

Teacher in-services for the nation’s teachers extend beyond the training provided by educational institutions. Other valuable training resources are parents; university and college schools of mathematics, science, social sciences and the arts; business and community groups.

Parents provide data on access to technology in the home, parents’ proficiency with technology, what students know when they come to school and the value of technology to the family (Barnett, 2000).

University school of arts and sciences responsible for the training of teachers in chosen fields provide insight into the selection and depth of content, course requirements, the use of technology by instructors and subject matter research applicable to teaching and learning.

Business and community leaders such as school boards who are engaged in policy making provide information such as data on workforce needs, trends, economic projections, and advances in technology development.

Texas Education Agency, Evaluation of the Centers for Professional Development and Technology. E-mail: aaajuria@tenet.edu

Technology and Teacher Professional Development. http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/RAND/Teacher.html

Legal Issues and Education Technology, National School Boards Association. http://www.nsba.org

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

View Print Friendly Version| Close Window