On page 50 Cochran-Smith & Lytle describe teaching as a “complex activity that occurs within webs of social, historical, cultural, and political significance.” This description bolsters the point that an “inquiry stance” provides a “grounding within the changing cultures of school reform and competing political agendas.” How does “generating local knowledge” provide a means for “grounding” oneself in an atmosphere of change?
On page 54 Cochran-Smith & Lytle describe the relation between “inquiry stance” and leadership. There is an “activist aspect to teacher leadership” and I take this to mean that teachers are encouraged through inquiry to question changes in practice. Does “activism” lead to inaction and how do the “predetermined ends” look different from traditional outcome focused goal setting?
Stokes
The discord that was present following the survey mentioned on page 146 occurred because of “emotional” perspectives that were present due to “different levels of experiences”. Since the group generated “different knowledge- from the same set of evidence” could this mean that the survey tool was constructed in such a way that led to different conclusions? Is this a sign that personal perspectives impede data analysis?
Throughout this piece there are examples of a “shared sense of mission” amongst the teachers at Rogers over the course of the 5 year study. There is also the example on page 150 of “collectivity of effort” for the teachers to “learn and change from self-study”. With this “collectivity of effort” there came the need for a “slow down” of the pace of change in order to not “alienate individuals or sub-groups.” I feel that this values the connections that teachers have with their “local” professional peers, but I wonder how this works within settings/initiatives that connect multiple schools with teacher inquiry and input shared from different settings. Can the inquiry mentioned in this article expand across local networks or is it best suitable for groups of teachers who share a common school environment?
During the data collection process I have completed three formal, recorded, interviews where I have discussed with teachers their experiences with professional development, technology professional development, their professional learning preferences, and their perceptions of technology programs currently in place. I have also kept a technology log for the past two weeks where I have been writing down brief notes on the interactions and support that I have provided for teachers. The purpose of this log is to help me track the activities and opportunities for a technology liaison, or any embedded form of professional development, to provide in-time support that is relevant to the school staff.
While researching professional development models, technology use in schools, and theories behind learning how to integrate technology, I had developed an idea of what I would be looking for as I tracked my own experiences and feedback from teachers. A common theme (or finding) that I have extracted from my data is that teachers feel that useful professional learning takes place “in action” through reflecting/working on an actual project or unit in the school building. One of the questions I asked in the interviews related to conditions of professional learning and a specific reply that I received from a veteran 4th grade teacher was, “It doesn’t matter where I learn it, or under what kind of direction I learn it, but when I feel that I have someone here to turn to ask questions to then I feel a lot more comfortable learning it and accepting it.” This particular teacher frequently mentioned peer support and she mentioned courses and trainings she has been to that did not “stick” with her due to a lack of follow-up support. When I asked her if she felt comfortable reaching out to instructors (professional development providers) she mentioned she that felt as if they had been “paid for their days work and have moved on.” This feeling toward an “outsider” also surfaced in another interview I conducted with a first grade teacher who mentioned, “they pour out their examples and rush through how to use something, but I sit there scratching my head trying to make a connection to what actually happens in my room during the day.” Based on these interviews, as well as the type of support I have documented on a daily basis, I can make the claim that professional development needs to be supported internally through collaboration and established support networks. Having someone to “turn to” with familiarity of the school community is a necessity.
Since the data that I have collected is more qualitative I believe that another individual could possibly reach different, yet similar, conclusions. The reason I say this is because in some of my interviews the responses mentioned events, individuals, and situations that I was familiar with but someone listening in on would probably not make the same connections. I believe this “personal” knowledge could be a type of bias. I have made attempts over the course of conducting the three interviews to improve my questioning and lead the interview in such a way that removed my influence (familiarity) from the situation. I did this by asking specific clarifying questions that led the interviewee to explain situations from their perspective (instead of internalizing my own). Despite this, I do believe that the information and reflections that I found are pertinent and connect with what I have been reading.
I have to admit it, I am struggling with this. I have written at least three different editorials already and I keep scrapping them because I feel this is all too muddled. The problem is I get too technical with what I am trying to say, and I feel that it (educational technology professional development) is a hard thing for the public to be concerned about. So… I feel like this is 80% complete. I keep moving sentences around, and trying to find where this is all leading to…
Billions of dollars have been spent over the last few decades on wiring, connecting, and equipping public schools with technology. Even today there is talk on how we can continue to modernize current school technology infrastructures to help our students compete on a more global level. Beyond the surface level appearance, educational technology is a diverse field with experts and special interest groups tugging at the corners. There are the hardware and software companies who want districts to commit to long-term contracts. Educational technology administrators who struggle with allocating resources to those who they believe will utilize the tools with their students. Support personnel who maintain and service various hardware and software issues. And, mixed somewhere in the middle are the teachers who watch this swirling around them. A disconnect can develop regarding the goals and missions of the groups listed above. In the end the pressure and expectation for academic success falls on the shoulders of the teachers and school based administrators. Who then ensures that teachers use district technology for their own personal productivity as well as integrate that technology (paid for with tax payer or grant money) into their curriculum? Who will provide the training and support? When is there time for training that is relevant to the teaching community?
Training and support questions grow from push for teaching to become more “innovative” and “cutting edge”. These words can cause veteran teachers to cringe with skepticism. Too often they have heard similar phrases spoken AT them while attending in-service professional development sessions at a district, county, or regional conference. The messenger communicates that their method, tool, or technique, is what has been missing from their instruction and classroom. Their *new* way can enhance the learning experience and scores of the students. Sometimes these veteran teachers, and their colleagues with fewer years in the classroom, are convinced by the messenger and try out the new method, tool, or technique. Impatience, or misuse, can lead to slow or low results. The zeal of the messenger’s examples did not lead to the anticipated results. There is doubt and a seemingly justifiable conclusion that what was preached by the messenger, although positive and useful in certain settings, lacked the fortitude of the current system in place. Clearly, this is a negative outcome with precious time and resources misallocated.
I could, right now, list examples of teachers who are doing “innovative” and “cutting edge” work with their students involving technology. I choose to not do this because I believe that even though case by case examples are useful and the actions of another teacher may be commendable, it does not necessarily mean that the examples are replicable. What matters most to a teacher is not what someone else is doing far away with a totally different set of students at a different grade level. There are too many other immediate concerns that dominate their daily reality to professionally consider options outside of their area of expertise. What matters is how their own teaching practice, students, curriculum, and teaching arrangement can be supported within the frame of something “innovative”. How we get there is through emphasizing educational technology professional development opportunities for educators that are personally and professionally relevant. We can find out if this is happening by inquiring into how our school district plans to support professional development that is beyond “click here” or “sit and get” sessions where teachers are corralled into large auditoriums and provided a printed guide sheet for following along. There needs to be…
….and this is where I lose it… I keep coming back to the end and I am having trouble focusing my wrap up. I want to continue by painting a picture of what I think one form of educational technology professional development should look like, but I believe my P.OV. is only one way. It is one component. I feel that my start, although important for illustrating the key players, does not relate to my conclusion.
Over the course of this semester I have researched a wide variety of topics that support my main goal and questions regarding the activities and purpose of technology liaisons within the elementary school setting. I have looked at various models for professional development/ professional learning communities, the development of teacher knowledge (TPCK), and the challenges that affect teachers when they seek to use technology within their own instruction. As a technology liaison in my school I support fellow teachers and the data I hope to collect should reflect the job that I am doing and the activities and reactions of the teachers that I support.
To begin I hope to give a survey to the teachers in my building asking general questions regarding professional development and technology integration. The questions that I will use will be variations of the same type of questions that are posed at the end of our in-district evaluations, but instead of focusing on one particular event I hope to gain information regarding the type of professional development courses that the teachers sign up for. I also seek to learn about their feelings regarding length and time of professional development courses, the setting for these courses, and the connection between the courses and their practice in the classroom. Using the “Levels of Technology Integration Framework”, or LoTi, I plan on selecting some questions from the LoTi evaluation for learning about both the skills teachers have as well as those that they still seek. For example, here is a type of survey question from LoTi.
Curriculum demands, scheduling, and/or budget constraints at our school have prevented me from using any of the available technology resources during the instructional day.
To this the respondent would respond on a 0-7 score. 0 being N/A, 1 and 2 meaning “Not true of me now”, 3-5 meaning “Somewhat true of me now”, and 6-7 meaning “Very true of me now”
Another question from the LoTi questionnaire that I like is…
I need access to more resources and/or training to begin using the available technology resources as part of my instructional day.
This survey should facilitate the development of an overall view of staff needs. Also this survey should help me understand what teachers have experienced regarding professional development, as well as how they use or do not use technology right now.
Extensively in my research I have come across the major issues regarding technology implementation in elementary settings. The number one response I frequently see is “time.” This means both the time needed in class to include technology into a lesson, as well as the time needed to learn how to use a particular technological tool. Along with time, the other most frequently mentioned barrier is professional development opportunities. The survey’s initial role in my study will hopefully help me better understand the “current” situation. What I am concerned about, and will keep working toward improving, is creating a survey that is extensive enough for me to collect enough data, yet succinct and relevant to the overall project.
In my work with teachers I function as a node for professional development. Within this role my conversations and assistance lead to knowledge development as well as skill development. I have mentioned since the first memo my interest in using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework for thinking about the questions and assistance I provide. I see now that with the data that I plan to collect that I need to use TPCK to see how practice has “altered” for those that I assist. In order to track TPCK I will use a journal to jot down who I met with, how long we met, what questions were asked (TPCK), the advice or resources that I provided and I would like to go one step further by then asking the person who I assist what they plan to do next. With my intitial meetings with Tom I did not focus on the “next” part of the interactions and assistance that I provide. It is the “next” piece that will afford me the opportunity to see and learn from my interactions instead of merely being a passive container of information.
Along with the initial school wide survey (which I plan on creating along with a fellow technology liaison, as well as submit for review through my principal and Director of Math, Science, and Technology), and the journaling (which will last daily for 1 month following the survey), I also plan on selecting five different teachers (2 third grade teachers that I work daily with, 1 first grade teacher, 1 fifth grade teacher, and 1 special area teacher) from my school to interview. The interview will be semi-structured with an influence on gaining from the interviewee specific recollections and experiences with professional development. The first portion of the interview will consist of professional development related questions. Here are a set of 4 questions I will ask…
- What is one of your more recent professional development opportunities?
- What are some of the aspects of the opportunity that you liked?
- What are some things that you disliked about that session?
- What type setting do you prefer for professional development and why did you prefer it?
Along with this set of questions I hope to find out about their technology use for both personal and professional purposes…
- What are some of the computer programs you use for finding, creating, or sharing resources?
- What is one piece of technology, in this school, that you would like to use more of with your students?
- How do you hope to use this piece of technology and what type of assistance do you think your will need?
The semi-structured questions will lead to further questioning where I will seek to find out answers to specifics from their experiences.
Ethically I hope that bias does not interfere with the results and data that I collect. I hope that this experience provides me with valuable information that I can then use to comment on a particular model of professional development specific to technology integration.
What style/model of professional development can a technology liaison utilize to assist a group of K-5 teachers meet their professional and/or personal learning goals?
This question is important to me because the position I am in is meant to be a support beacon for technology in my school. What I do not know, or would like to research more, are the different school/site based informal support models that have been used in various educational settings. Some of the different models that I have read about are “Communities of Practice”, “Peer Mentoring and Coaching”, as well as “Collaborative Apprenticeships.” All three of these models have individual components that I see myself accomplishing or using everyday with fellow teachers in my school. Although I am not leading a school wide effort, I am functioning in some of the smaller roles mentioned in these different models.
How much time is spent providing support?
Time is something that is sparse once the year gets rolling. Just this past week I had parent conferences to prepare for, as well as a staff training for the new report cards. Also with grades closing at the end of this week it has meant that a lot more of my focus has shifted inwardly to my students (as it should be!). Regardless of this, the support I have provided thus far has been quick 5 – 10 minute fixes and demonstrations. Frequently these are 1:1 and the questions range from very specific technological content questions (How do I use the VCR to show clips from a musical for my students?) to general computer operations technological knowledge questions (How do I make a new folder?). The general computer questions are quick but sometimes the more specific questions lead to further questions later on. So instead of one 3 minute example, the more specific questions turn into three or four 10 minute sessions.
Within the framework of TPCK, what area of technological knowledge (technological content/ technological pedagogical/ or technological) do K-5 teachers seek the most support for?
I find this question relates directly to the time question. In seeking to shift my role from a reactionary position to a pro-active position I feel that it is necessary that I develop some sort of skill inventory or assess the type of questions and support I have provided thus far. Through developing an idea of what questions are asked most I can develop a set of materials, web based resources, and even seek to find fellow teachers who can reach out to members of their grade level team to share the information or support I am providing.
Aside from personal interaction, what technological tools (websites, email, multimedia, etc.) can assist with professional development?
I ask this question only because some of the questions I have received could have been supported with a web based resource. This year, more than the past couple of years that I have been in my school, more teachers are communicating via email outside of school. I have received a few questions on Saturdays and Sundays via email and it is easy for me to respond and address the question right then as compared to the teacher waiting to find me on Monday morning to ask the question. I see this type of question relating back to the time question because it represents time I set aside to assist outside of school.
It has been a few days since my charrette presentation and I have had time to ponder the material that I shared as well as the way I organized and expressed my ideas regarding my research topic. I sensed that my delivery and clarity was scattered, and I feel that this was due to my own inability to balance the technicalness of the topic as well as the context that I work within.
It was too broad.
Broad in the sense that I presented TOO much and explained too little. With respect to that I am grateful of the feedback that my fellow classmates provided. I only wish that I had more time to express and share my thoughts. This would be unfair to all of you and defeats the purpose of a charrette. Even if I had time to carry on and provide direct feedback I realize that my thoughts would be based on contextual experiences. I feel that these contexts are challenging to express due to the need for bridging differences through anecdotal evidence.
Despite that I have a plan!
After hearing your concerns, ideas, and responding to your questions I have decided to “trim” back the material that I plan to observe. As I had mentioned in the presentation, the tasks that are happening now have been occurring for a while. The teacher support, classroom projects, and the grants are all in process and are a part of my job regardless. I feel that I may made it seem that these would be all NEW things that I would bring into the context of my daily work. All that I was attempting to share was that these things are happening, and that I could possibly use them individually, or en masse, as a point for collecting data and understanding what helps teachers learn best. The purpose of the “bubbles” was to help share with you how I define the type of problems I work with regarding professional development. The different components of technological pedagogical content knowledge are the “questions” that I answer on a daily basis.
For example: A teacher comes to me with a broken speaker. I fix it. At that point s/he is looking to me for my technological knowledge. If they ask me to show them how to fix it then they are seeking to gain technological knowledge.
The same is true if I am looking to try to incorporate literature circles as an extension of my english and language arts activities. I may go to the reading specialist in my school and seek to gain her pedagogical knowledge and experience. Once I become specific by sharing with her the content/books that I hope to use and the abilities of my students, she can then provide for me better support that is tailored to my needs.
As teachers we do all of these things on a daily basis, and with “daily basis” as my launching point I plan on keeping track of the different types of support I provide and classifying them by the different knowledge areas (specifically the technological knowledges TPK, TCK, and TPCK) I share or use. I no longer will worry about collecting data from my own teaching for this project. That data will not be for this project but will be the usual information that I collect to naturally improve my own teaching and learning experiences of my students. I will also not worry about the TELL grant and collecting data for that. I plan solely to focus on what it means to be a technology liaison within the confines of my own school. Through this I am focusing the context to my locale. I will do all of this by looking at the support I provide, the type of support it is, and I will seek to collect feedback from those I work with.
Over the next few weeks I hope to learn more about data collection because although I have specified (with your help and guidance) and trimmed the areas that I will focus on, I still need to pick specifically the way that I will collect data.
So, I thank you all for being patient and helpful through my presentation and I shall continue to write about my ideas, discoveries, and research.
A couple nuggets have come my way in the past day regarding TPCK and the need for schools to focus on improving the professional development that teachers recieve when thinking and working with incorporating new technologies into their classrooms.
“Inherent in that statement and in Willingham’s post is the idea that we have to think differently about how we do professional development. The drive by trainings for every teacher are not the answer. We should be investing in those who do show an appetite for learning, for risk-taking, for reflective practice.”
“Presentation Title: Facilitating Technology Integration: A Synthesis of the Research
Description: There is a very small but growing body of empirical research on facilitating technology integration in schools.”
I was surprised, and pleased, to hear him say that TPCK is the “heart of effective professional development for technology integration” and the heart of his presentation and research on “how to best foster TPCK expertise.”
I plan on looking at his sources and the work that he has done in West Virginia. In looking at that work I hope to gain a better idea of the current practices and apply that to my daily position.
He had five minutes to present and this is what he shared…
The words are strong, the beliefs are bold, but what feelings does this cause you to have?
What sticks for me is the mention of technology and technologies that are obsolete. What I do not have, that many of you do have, is the experience of working all year with middle school and high school students. I have testing pressures, but not nearly as much as you all do in your jobs. There is still a lot of autonomy, I believe, for elementary school teachers. We have a curriculum but we design how we want to teach the concepts.
As an aside, I had a wonderful conversation with that 5th grade teacher that I support today regarding the use of computers in her classroom with her students. She was excited to share with me that yesterday a problem came up when she had a student open a new file on the classroom computer. She called my room but I was out for the math scorer training. She determined that she could solve the problem on her own based on the examples and practice she had working on projects with me. She did it! She fixed the problem. In the course of a few sessions that I have had with her she has learned a lot of the technological skills that have not “stuck” over the past 10-15 years of traditional professional development. Our discussions are now starting to lead to how she can apply the technology to her pedagogy. She is asking all the questions. That is and example of the technological pedagogical knowledge she is seeking to gain.
It was great to see that she was so happy to have been successful, and now she is motivated to have her students use the computers more in her classroom for their writing!
Back to the video….
What do you think of the video? Did it make you feel unsettled?
It did for me, but it made me wonder what the future holds. What did classrooms look like 40 years ago, and what will they look like 40 years from now?
As part of my research I have been reading articles and books that focus on the topic of children and computers. I am seeking to clarify my understanding of some of the goals of instructional technology and how these goals mix with different philosophies for how new technologies (such as computers) can be used for building knowledge and expressing ideas.
A concurrent idea expressed in much of what I have read is the power of computers for constructing knowledge through the process of “building.” Building in the sense of creating something original and along the way discovering and confirming new concepts as well as strengthening the understanding of previously held concepts. An early tool for constructivist learning with computers was a programming language/application called Logo. With Logo school children could explore and build geometric shapes as well as highly detailed designs. Also, with some more advanced coding they could construct actual games and activities.
Below is a quick screensnap I just made of a some quick logo code and a simple square design. By clicking on the image you will be brought to the website for downloading xLogo, an open source free logo application for Mac OSX. Here is a link for a free Logo application for Windows.
I mention Logo and constructivism together because of a recent video I saw. That first video, along with another news piece, discusses a program called Scratch developed at MIT. I am interested in using Scratch with my students or possibly with students in the upper grades of my school. What I do not know is how would it fit in with the “content” I teach, and how would I arrange the learning environment?
My technological interest overpowers my pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). I think Scratch looks neat! But neat is not enough of a reason to push/move forward with a project. What I am entering into is a stage of both technological content knowledge(TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). I can sit back and think about how the “tool”, Scratch, matches with content such as mathematics and the creative arts. Math, because of coordinate geometry and boolean logic; Creative arts, because of writing, planning, and the designing that will go into creating an end product. The technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) that I have regarding Scratch lends itself to learning that can take place once there is an established routine set encouraging collaboration and shared discovery. A true learning community where authentic problems lead to new questions. I could also think about the learning arrangements and structures needed for optimizing the time spent using the software. Taking these individual pieces and building my technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is the bridge for truly appreciating the power of a constructivist piece of software such as Scratch. I do believe the best way to build this knowledge will not come from me using the software on my own or hearing about how it is used at a conference. In order to build my own TPCK I believe the best way is to actually use it in action with other interested teachers and students. Real problems, real questions, and real solutions.
Made this at wordle.net using the text from the article on technological pedagogical content knowledge. As you can see the most frequently used words throughout the article are “knowledge”, “technology”, “content”, “pedagogy/pedagogical”, and “teachers”. Seems obvious that those words come up the most…
This is what I will be asking you all about tomorrow night….
to 
my self-assessments?