LeaderTalk

Principal as a Leader in Professional Learning Communities

For my post today I've chosen to incorporate a new tool that I've been learning to utilize.  The tool is called SlideShare.  This "video" is a slideshow presentation I'd put together a year or two ago.  I was able to post the audio to a site called GabCast and sync it with the slideshow.  Thank you for watching it and having patience with my first use of the tool.

The slideshow is titled "Principal as a Leader in Professional Learning Communities" and pulls information from the book Professional Learning Communities at Work.

| View | Upload your own

... and apparently I do sound like that... ugh....

Principal Tools

Well it's time for my post again and I find myself thinking of what would be worth sharing a group of administrators.  For the most part I like to stick to the point and save everyone around me a handful of time.  So for those waging the "Should we ban cell phones" battle may I offer the following audio/video podcast and supporting documentation as items for review:  "Cell Phones as Classroom Learning Tools".  One last item on the cell phones, "What if" by Karl Fisch.  If you are wondering my take on the whole issue, to again keep a long story short I think they should not be banned they are part of the paper and pencil repertoire of today's students.  However for those that are of the other camp, I hope we can be open in saying it's not that students don't know how to use mobile technological tools and they should be banned, more accurately it is that we and our teachers don't have a clue and therefore don't see the value in the tools.  Mobile computing technologies are an oncoming title wave, whether you ban them or not at this point you can't keep them out forever (refer again to "What if") .

The rest is a bit longer talk on what's going on....

I'd love to be able to say that this posting has been cross-posted elsewhere but as I write this I find myself waging a war of control (I'm probably not the only one either).  That is the control of my web content.  It's become glaringly apparent that I have not the time nor the skill to take advantage of all of the Web 2.0 technological options that are out there if I am to attempt to keep administrative and hosting control over them.

Just when you think you think you know what's going on you're hit with a new way of doing things.  My point being that I am "disbanding" so to speak my traditional website.  I'm going to turn my seanmartinson.org website into a one page portal that points to the myriad of information and tools available on the net that I'll be leveraging.  The Deer River School District has done much the same as they turn over "control" in order to provide more access to current tools to teacher, administration, and students.  Up to this point I've been turning a blind eye to some tools because I just couldn't remove myself from the traditional thought process that I have to maintain direct administrative control over every aspect of the tool.  So in the battle of control issues I'm sacraficing my "direct control" over my content in order to greater leverage the collaborative and communcative options available on the net.

What's preempted this strike?  Over time I've been asked by more than one educator or administrator how to go about podcasting (and this is just one example).  For the most part their needs and uses for leveraging the tool has been to share information.  So although they would like to use the tool to support a basic need the process of creating, uploading, posting, and embedding the podcast into a website was too complicated for them at the time.  Now enter a video podcast by Liz Kolb from the K12 Online Conference (shared earlier by John Evans - THANK YOU JOHN!) and a tool mentioned called Gabcast.  The process of podcasting has now been reduced to leaving a voice mail message (as far as the user is concerned).  Now we have access to a powerful tool in which to communicate with our school community that doesn't require those with the content knowledge to learn a program/process that they do have the time for nor the desire to learn (DR Example just started).

The same holds true for document collaboration and teacher websites, hallelujah Google Docs and web-based website options such as Joomla and Wordpress!  Why do we continue to expect and force those with the first hand content knowledge (district info, classroom/building happenings) to learn and utilize a program that we directly control and are familiar with?  Why not have district teams collaborate through Google Docs?  Why not allow instructional staff the opportunity to utilize a web-based website where they are worried only about adding their content and not about learning the system.

Two last examples I offer in turning over control: ISD 317 Deer River, and University of Mary Washington. Both have forgone the traditional route of purchasing servers and hiring staff to maintain websites bu utilizing an online host.

Thank you for your time and patience as I ramble from short and to the point to the long and winding road.....

;-)

Sean Martinson

Being Prepared to be Wrong

I watched a presentation by Sir Ken Robinson today titled "Do Schools Kill Creativity?".  A comment Sir Robinson made has struck a chord with me and I have the feeling it will be sticking with me for quite a while.... 

"If you are not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original."

I invite you today to spend the time you would have set aside to read this post to instead watch the 19minute presentation by Sir Ken Robinson and see how he elaborates on the above quote.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

Competition vs. What's Best for Students

Cross posted at: www.TheRightPrincipalFor.us

In my previous post I referred to a book that I was starting to read, The Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Power .  I write today in the spirit of what I've read to date.

Throughout my work in education I've often heard people refer to doing "what's best for children".  What I'm pondering at this moment is if that philosophy of action can coexist in an environment of competition and limited resources.  Competition in the sense of districts/schools pitted against one another, struggling to keep/gain students during times of declining enrollment.  Resources in the sense of funding formulas and educational reform acts.

With current educational funding formulas and educational reform initiatives (such as NCLB) tying school funding to school performance and school performance to high-stakes, one snapshot in time, testing.... can we truly live up to the motto of doing what's best for all children?

Can we take an honest look in the mirror for a moment?  Are we really meeting the needs of all children by measuring their growth and achievement through standardized assessments?  By their nature, and the definition, does "standardized" not eliminate meeting all learners?  Or is it that our student bodies can be neatly summed up, measured, and stamped USDA GRADE A/B/C as they proceed down the assembly line?

Are public schools being set up to choose between doing what's best for all students or doing what's best for most students?

Some will read this and say, that's the point, reach most students... NCLB, funding program xyz, are great.... they make us reflect on why we are doing what we are doing and making sure we are following standards and moving children forward.  Fine.  If that's the case, why don't we just say that we're doing what best for most children.  But let us not pretend that this system meets the needs of all students and that all students will be proficient by year 2???.

How does this relate to leadership in education?  When, and how many voices will it take, before we say, "No More." and we are heard?  When will those creating policy realize that we, in public school education, are not creating widgets.  Some pearls of wisdom now come to mind from an administrator I work with...... if it's my job to help those around me (staff) succeed, then I must make the time and resources available  for them to do so.  Defining success for each child can not be done through standardized testing nor can change be initiated through the public flogging of education.  Let us identify what is not working and what is working.  Let us provide those in education with the support, time, and resources needed to improve instruction and learning.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

Leadership & Technology

I now close my six-parter on technology integration with a look at how educational leadership affects technology integration.

Previous Posts: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.

In order to successfully integrate technology into the classroom a school district must also motivate teachers to use technology in existing curriculum.  Motivation for reform is instrumental in initiating the change process for educators (Smylie, 1994).  When administrators use electronic technology to communicate with teachers, they model a willingness to innovate and they begin to identify with the challenges, frustrations, and expectations that teachers develop as they learn to use technology (Cradler, 2002).  The Office of Technology Assessment (1995) emphasizes the importance of an innovative school culture that encourages teachers to experiment and collaborate as they learn to use and integrate technology with curricula.

In order to successfully integrate technology into the classroom, a school district must also find and provide continued technology funding.  This includes funding to attend professional meetings and conferences that pertain to technology.  Bradley and Russell (1997) recommended that administrators should not only allocate additional funds for training, but also allow teachers to plan and evaluate the training.  Teachers who collaborate with other teachers and attend and make presentations at professional conferences demonstrate exemplary use of computers and 'active learning' instructional practices and philosophies (Becker & Riel, 2000).  Almost every area listed for successful implementation of technology requires some source of funding, and in the case of most districts this burden falls on the shoulders of the leadership.  Leadership can include district administration as well as educators who take an active role in the policy and direction of the district.

Leaders should also focus on how technology is being used, not just getting it into the classrooms (National School Board Foundation, 2002).  Teachers are still unprepared to integrate technology into their teaching even when given adequate access to what’s already been identified in my postings (access, time, and training).  Many areas of technology integration overlap with overriding strategies that meet and support many areas.  It is suggested (Sandholtz, et. al., 1997) that administrators invest in technology support rather than additional hardware and software.

Curran, Hall, and Barker (1995) summarize the importance of leadership when they discuss how the introduction of technology into a school system is frequently through the driving force of a single individual, often an administrator.

Ultimately, any deeply embedded and long lasting impact is felt when district leadership places an importance on an initiative, be it implicitly or explicitly.  District leadership is exactly that, the leadership.  If an initiative is that important, it falls to the leadership to collaborate with students, community, and district staff to create a critical mass of like-minded individuals.

Rural northern Minnesota school districts (where I am located) operate under the constraints of declining enrollment and decreases in state and federal funding revenues.  For leadership, and schools, to thrive in this type of setting school district administrators must learn to leverage existing resources, resources such as equipment and human capital.  Strong leaders find a way to motivate each individual employee to put forth their best effort and to maximize their potential (Teachers were found to be motivated for professional development by career advancement opportunities, pay increases and personal satisfaction > Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995).

Classroom teachers are overwhelmed and often under trained with technology tools that are currently available for integration.  In order for teachers to integrate technology they need training and support from their leaders.  Training, support, and leadership come from many sources and can include any positive and reinforcing individual in the district.

District leadership (staff and administration) must place priority on the integration of technology into the classroom.  Leadership must place the same priority on technology as they would when improving math scores when failing AYP (adequate yearly progress) for that subject.  It cannot be assumed that staff will effectively use technology in their teachings by simply putting the latest tools in their hands.  Technology integration must be a concerted effort by the district and cannot succeed unless it is placed as an item of priority.

The challenge falls to the leadership of districts to prioritize technology integration, locate funding, motivate teachers, and train them to appropriately and effectively utilize technology in their instruction.
District leadership must examine how their words and actions align.  Priority must be placed upon technology integration through words and actions.  Leadership must demonstrate the use and value of technology through their own uses and willingness to support staff as they integrate technology at the classroom level.

Overall Conclusion

The use of technology in education has the ability to accomplish important goals in education such as allowing for student centered learning, focusing on the individual strengths and weaknesses of students, and creating an environment that promotes lifelong learning (Web-Based Education Commission, 2000).  Ultimately the success of technology integration, as well as any educational initiative, falls upon the shoulders of the leadership.  Be they the students, community, classroom teacher, building administration, or politicians, it is up to each individual in education to place value on technology and ensure that it succeeds.  Students should demand technology in their learning and demonstrate their willingness to learn.  Families and communities should demand technology to prepare their children for an ever-changing world and technologically rich working and living environment.  Teacher should find, fund, and utilize technology in their teachings, and demonstrate the value to their superiors.  Likewise administrators should find, fund, and utilize technology in their workings and demand funding from their superiors and politicians.  Politicians should listen to their constituents; keep campaign promises, and fund mandated and innovative yet voluntary educational initiatives.

Until technology integration becomes an integral part of the school community and develops into an attitude of, “It’s just what we do” then change and impact can not and will not be felt and we will continue to fail in preparing our students to live and learn in an ever-changing world.

Thank you to Greg Farr for the virtual kick in the pants.  For my September post I plan to take a more “provocative” or at least a deeper look into what it means to be an educational leader.  Looking forward it’s my plan to share and talk a bit about a book that I’m reading: The Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Power.

Sincerely,

Sean M. Martinson

• Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructive-compatible computer usage (Report no. 7). Irvine, CA: Teaching, Learning, and Computing. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/.
• Bradley, G. & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxiety. Educational Psychology. 17(3), 267-284.
• Cradler, R. (2002). Netschools evaluation. San Mateo, CA: Educational Support Systems.
• Curran, J.A. (1995). Technology as an academic tool in a rural high school.
• Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
• National School Board Foundation. (2002). Are we there yet? Retrieved August 8, 2007. http://www.nsbf.org/thereyet/fulltext.htm.
• Sandhotz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New York: Columbia University.
• Smylie, M.A. (1984).  Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections to the classroom.  In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.). Review of research in education, 1994,  (20), (219-177).  Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection. OTA-HER-616. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the internet for learning: Final report of the web and education commission.

How does technology funding affect technology integration?

Posting 5: How does technology funding affect technology integration?

This posting is the fifth part in a series on Technology Integration, the obstacles schools face in implementing technology into the classroom, and what educational leaders can be doing to help overcome these obstacles.

Previous Posts: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Here’s a refresher on what Technology Integration is; Technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning. It is not something one does separately; it is part of the daily activities taking place in the classroom.  It is not taking students to the computer lab once a week for 40 minutes, and neither is using the computer as an electronic worksheet or reward station for students who are finished with their other assignments (Dias, 2007).

How does technology funding affect technology integration?

One of education’s primary goals is to help students develop the skills and knowledge they will need to be successful in life (Boyle & Ritchie, 1999).  The United States Department of Labor (2006) lists informational technology skills as a requirement for 90% of today’s jobs.  To prepare students for the job market of today, technology funding must be a priority in education.

In education, technology funding and purchasing encompasses many areas such as: hardware, software, network, training, support, and maintenance of technology tools.  Before districts consider spending funds they should have a technology plan in place.  Such a plan is created with input from all stakeholders in education.  These stakeholders include: students, families, community members, and staff.  A plan should encompass not only what is going to be purchased but also why it is being purchased.  Plans should include training and ongoing support of technology purchases.  The plan often sets out the school’s technology vision, identifies how technology will be used to accentuate teaching and learning, and lays the groundwork for technology implementation, management, and evaluation (Boyle and Ritchie, 1999). Technology plans must also include staff development and maintenance.  Without proper training and maintenance of equipment the district will find itself with machines that are under-utilized or inoperable.

Technology funding in education must undergo reform if technology is to be effective in education.  Historically, schools across the nation have approached instructional technology as an 'add on' in terms of funding (Sun, 1996).  Sun goes on to explain that schools that would like to obtain more technology can use the following strategies for funding technology acquisition and implementation:

•    Technology funding must be tied to the district technology plan.
•    Technology funding should establish a link between technology and the bigger picture of teaching and learning.
•    The best bet for technology funding is to build community support and to develop funding out of local resources.
•    Technology is an ongoing investment and therefore should be considered as a regular expense, not a one-time purchase
•    Bond initiatives are useful for initial technology implementation, but they do not address ongoing expenses.
•    The value of grants can be increased if they are matched by local contributions.
•    Equipment donations must be critically appraised as a funding mechanism for technology.
•    All technology funding requests should incorporate discussion of how the results of the funding will be evaluated for their impact on teaching and learning.

K-12 is one of the last, vast areas of our social structure that has not produced a good model for on-going technology funding (Ohler, 2006).   Ohler further suggest that K-12 technology be considered a part of the community infrastructure, on par with road maintenance.  Technology funding should be separate from school expenses in order to eliminate competition with district initiatives.

Equipment depreciates daily and even with the presence of a technology plan many districts are finding that they do not have the funding to maintain current technology tools let alone upgrade existing and/or purchase new equipment.

Technology must be made a regularly funded portion of the budget.  Grant funding and corporate partnerships should not be looked at as a means to supplant funding but as seed money to spark growth in a project.  There must be a technology plan that serves as a living document, which drives the purchasing, and prioritization of any technology funding initiative.  Cooperative purchasing and collaboration must be utilized to defray costs in smaller rural school districts.  A shift must be made in the technology budgeting philosophy moving from an 87/13 hardware split to one that recognizes the importance of staff training.  A comprehensive needs assessment should be implemented to prioritize purchasing.  The goal for technology funding is increased technology integration and use in the classroom on a daily basis.

Districts should revisit and evaluate technology plans to ensure that they are documents capable of guiding daily technology purchasing decisions.  Districts should budget annually for the on going purchasing, upgrading, and maintenance of technology tools and technology staff development.  Districts should also actively seek technology grant funding as sources of seed money for new and innovative technology tools and approaches.  Districts should also explore the uses of open-source technologies for classroom and district use.

My two cents.  Thanks for your time.  My next posting will cover how educational leadership affects technology integration, and offer my final conclusion regarding this series of postings.  That’ll lead us right into the school year!

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

• Boyle, K., & Ritchie, D. (1998, October). Finding the Bucks for Technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26, 46-50.
• Dias, Laurie B.  (n.d.).  Integrating Technology Some Things You Should Know. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from International Society for Technology in Education, Learning & Leading with Technology Web site:  http://tinyurl.com/yw2lbl
• Ohler, J. (2006, March).  Technology Funding. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from United States Department of Education,  Web site: http://tinyurl.com/2q9syo
• Sun, J. (1996). Funding strategies for school districts to promote engaged learning through technology. Unpublished manuscript.
• United States Department of Labor (2006, October).  Information Technology. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from United States Department of Labor, Career Voyages Web site: http://www.careervoyages.gov/infotech-main.cfm

Technology Integration Pt. 4, Support Structures

Posting 4: How do support structures affect technology integration?

I see I did a great job remembering to categorize my last post!  My guess is that it's quite difficult to view a post when it does not appear in the blog.  Oops.  Here are the links to the previous three posts in this thread:  Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.  Part III will now appear in the LeaderTalk Blog.  My apologies.

This posting is the fourth part in a series on Technology Integration, the obstacles schools face in implementing technology into the classroom, and what educational leaders can be doing to help overcome these obstacles.

Here’s a refresher on what Technology Integration is; Technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning. It is not something one does separately; it is part of the daily activities taking place in the classroom.  It is not taking students to the computer lab once a week for 40 minutes, and neither is using the computer as an electronic worksheet or reward station for students who are finished with their other assignments (Dias, 2007).

So how do support structures affect technology integration?

In order to successfully integrate technology into the classroom, a school district must also improve the technology skills of teachers by providing constant and on-demand technical support, and staff development to a wide range of skill and need levels.  Effective staff development strategies provide for long-term learning, on-site guidance, peer collaboration, and involvement of teachers in planning their own learning of technology integration.  Cradler & Cradler (1995) listed several factors in effective staff development that have applied directly to this posting:
•    Teacher-awareness of effective technology applications.
•    A social network of other technology-using teachers.
•    Availability of teacher-mentors or other peer support.
•    Involvement of principals and other administrators in the planning and training.
•    Adequate time and increased opportunity for staff development and technical assistance.
•    Awareness of and access to educationally relevant technology-based programs.
•    Opportunities for educators to communicate with peers in other schools and at conferences.

Using survey findings for new and pre-service teachers, specific ideas have been generated to improve technology proficiency.
•    Technology applications should be integrated into teacher assignments and activities.
•    Teachers benefit from learning in small groups of eight to twelve.
•    Fifty-minute modules for technology instruction in a computer lab with a video projector addresses oral, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles and enables the instructor to quickly respond to student needs (Abbott, 2000).

Simply said, teachers benefit from receiving technical and emotional support from administrators, peers, and students.

Sandholtz, et al. (1997) found that teachers who showed the most improvement in technology integration were teachers with more support.  This support included support from the project coordinators, peers, and administrators.

Hasselbring and Tulbert (1991) found that a majority of trainings offered to teachers was focused on teaching how to use the computer instead of how to teach using computers.  Research shows that technology training is often limited to software and hardware and does not help teachers use technology as an instructional tool in the classroom (Anderson, 2002; Gross, Truesdale, & Bielec, 2001).  Often training is not useful for teachers and does not apply to the individual’s classroom instruction.  Teachers need to be trained in the same approach many are advocating for students, differentiated instruction.  Staff development should be based on strategies that are necessary to design, deliver, manage, and evaluate instruction (Sheffler & Logan, 1999), and not focused on how to use a piece of equipment.  Training should focus on how to use technology in the classroom. Traditional technology training often does not help teachers develop technology-rich lessons (Vannatta & Beyerbach, 2000).

Reinforcing the previous section, Karchmer (2000) stated that teachers feel as if most technology training programs do not meet their needs and do not help them use technology as a teaching tool.  To be truly effective and lead to integration by the teacher, they must learn to create a balance of training, implementation, and planning (Fisher, Eisenhauer, Schaarsmith, & Smith 1998). Kumar and Kumar (2003) go further in suggesting that technology training be linked with real-life situations to positively change the attitudes and perceptions of technology integration.  Glen Bull (as cited in Salpeter, 2002, P. 52) stated that in order for technology integration training to be successful, “content [in academic disciplines] always comes first. While it might seem obvious that technology should be introduced in a meaningful context, this is rarely done.”

Support has been an area in which many districts are deficient at by not offering their staff, students, and community what is required to succeed in the 21st century. To truly impact change upon the community in which the district operates the district must improve those that face and instruct students each day of the school year.

Conventional staff development is inadequate, often reinforcing the status quo rather than changing it (Sykes, 1996; Floden, 1995; Sparks, 1994).

One of the many obstacles faced by smaller school districts in general is the difficulty in funding any one particular position outside of classroom teachers and other building level and administrative staff.  Rural (isolated) geographic locations of such schools also make it hard to find and employ content area experts to train and work solely with staff..

Staff development for technology training competes with current and new initiatives that are in many cases driven by school improvement plans and high-stakes testing.  Support for staff in the form of an individual specifically assigned to assist teachers with technology is non existent in most rural district who can neither afford to retain or share such an individual let alone find qualified candidates well versed in both technology and education.

Teachers must have on demand technical and integration support from well-qualified support staff be they other teachers or district specialists. An individual retained by a district much like a curriculum director or program coordinator serves to ensure that program goals are met.  To succeed technology integration training must take a whole new look at what most educators think of in regards to professional development. Even though teachers are using technology more than ever, teachers are not using technology more effectively in instruction (Anderson, 2002).  Districts must hire a trainer/tech support that will work with teachers in the classroom setting.  Districts who can’t afford this option must collaborate.  Stand-alone districts are no longer an option.  Collaboration is a must, pooling county/region wide resources for the good of the communities.

Districts should hire and retain highly skilled individuals with both technology and educational knowledge to support staff.  Districts should also collaborate to share technicians and utilize online help desks and technical support structures to provide a greater access and wider variety to technical support.

• Abbott, J. A., & Faris, S. E. (2000). Integrating technology into pre-service literacy instruction: A survey of elementary education students' attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 149-161.
• Anderson, M. A. (2002). The value of staff development. School Library Journal, 48(11), 34-35.
• Cradler, J., & Cradler, R. (1995). Prior studies for technology insertion. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.
• Dias, Laurie B.  (n.d.).  Integrating Technology Some Things You Should Know. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from International Society for Technology in Education, Learning & Leading with Technology Web site: http://tinyurl.com/yw2lbl.
• Fisher, M., Eisenhauer, M., Schaarsmith, M., & Smith, B. (1998). Professional development in action: A first hand report. T H E Journal, 26(1), 18-19.
• Floden, R.E., Geortz, M.E., & O’Day, J. (1995).  Capacity Building in Systemic Reform.  Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 19-21.
• Gross, D., Truesdale, C., & Bielec, S. (2001). Backs to the wall: Supporting teacher Professional development with technology. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2), 161-183.
• Hasselbring, T. S.& Tulbert, B. (1991). Improving education through technology. Preventing School Failure, 35(3), 33-37.
• Karchmer, R. A. (2000). Understanding teachers’ perspectives of internet use in the classroom: Implications for teacher education and staff development. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 61(1), 81-84.
• Kumar, P. & Kumar, A. (2003). Effect of a web-based project on preservice and inservice teachers’ attitude toward computers and their technology skills. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(3), 87-72.
• Salpeter, J. (2002). Training the teachers. Technology & Learning, 22(12), 52-53.
• Sandhotz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New York: Columbia University.
• Sparks, D. (1994).  A pardigm shift in staff development.  Education Week, March 16, 1994, 42-43.
• Sykes, G. (1996).  Reform of and as professional development.  Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), pp. 465-467.
• Vannatta, R. A. & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education faculty and preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148.

Technology Integration Pt. 3, Teacher Knowledge

Posting 3: How does teacher knowledge affect technology integration?

This posting is the third part in a series on Technology Integration, the obstacles schools face in implementing technology into the classroom, and what educational leaders can be doing to help overcome these obstacles.

Part 1, Part 2

Here’s a refresher on what Technology Integration is; Technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning. It is not something one does separately; it is part of the daily activities taking place in the classroom.  It is not taking students to the computer lab once a week for 40 minutes, and neither is using the computer as an electronic worksheet or reward station for students who are finished with their other assignments (Dias, 2007).

So how does teacher knowledge affect technology integration?

Teacher technology knowledge is a broad and overreaching category.  Teacher knowledge includes both technology and instructional knowledge.  Teachers come to the classroom with a wealth of life experience and pre-service training with which they build their knowledge.   Before they enter the classroom teachers have had some form of pre-service training, once in the classroom there are varied forms of in-service training.   Access to the most up to date and advanced technological tools will provide little to no impact on student growth if teachers have not been properly trained in the use of such tools.

Even with the pre-existing knowledge, staff must receive proper training.  Statistics from “Tracking Tech Trends” in Education Week show that as recent as 2002 schools were still spending 87% of funds allocated for technology on hardware and software while spending only 13% on training.  Teachers who are not properly trained to utilize technology in the curriculum not only waste important instructional time, but also divert attention from what should be learned (Litvin, 1998).  Often, teachers are expected to be able to teach in ways they have never experienced or been trained to implement (Little, 1994). 

We currently exist in a digital dive in education where some educators have little technical knowledge, others have some, while others are highly skilled.  There are those who grew up and were educated in a school before the advent of the computer and those that came along as the computer was gaining ground.  Few if any current educators came through their schooling in a setting where their own teachers were skilled in the use to technology outside of the paper, pencil, and occasional ditto machine.  This is not a deficit of a teacher, quite the opposite.  These are educators who are skilled in the pre-technology integrated classroom.  The barrier being, moving these and other teachers into incorporating technology into their classrooms if they themselves have little to no prior knowledge in regards to technology.

So what can educational leaders do to help?

Teacher technology training must be implemented prior to the teacher entering the classroom.  It must be ongoing and treated like any other staff development topic.  Technology staff development should be more than training for a specific technology tool.  Concepts such as classroom level technology integration skills should be focused upon (ex. what does technology integration look like and how do you do it).  Increasing teacher technological knowledge and skill follows the same path as time.  Public school teachers who worked full-time with three years or less of teaching experience were found to be those most likely to seek professional development (NCES, 1996a & 1996b) therefore time must be relished and learning maximized starting with pre-service education at the bachelors degree level and continue through to in-service professional development.

Teacher education institutions must make a concerted effort to integrate and require students to integrate technology into their teaching and learning.  Districts must incorporate technology into existing staff development.  Staff development committees should be utilized to promote technology as a part of on going staff development programs.  Finally, technology training should be incorporated throughout staff development and not simply as a separate and additional component.

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

Little, J.W. (1994).  Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational power and their problem.  Education Digest, 58, 63-68.

Litvin, M. (1998). Navigating the techno-classroom. Techniques: Making Education and Career Connections, 73(6), 16-19.

Administration Podcasts

Picking up on Scott's invitation to post on our off days as well, I thought I'd post something that's been on my mind lately.  Principal/Administrative podcasts.  Currently I'm subscribed to more technology in education podcasts than I know what to do with.  But what about educational administration?  Are there podcasts that you listen to (or watch) which would be beneficial to other administrators as well?

Even if it's only one person picking up your recommendation (me) I'd love to see what others are listening to.

My current search and what I'll be listening to on my drive north today:

• TASA- Texas Association of School Administrators
• Leadership Q & A - itunes URL

Those already on my iPod related to administration:

• Dangerously Irrelevant - Scott's Hunt
• November Learning Podcast

Not much here, I know.  As you can probably guess I've been a bit heavy on the technology and although they hit at administrative issues I'd like to find those where the focus if more on administration.

Thank you for your time and help with this.

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

Candy Hangovers and Teacher Time

This, my second posting on Leader Talk finds me reeling from the Easter weekend.  Now that the candy hangover has begun to subside I find myself reflecting on the many technology related discussions and experiences we had on Sunday.

This weekend I introduced my father to my portable jukebox, aka my video iPod.  Currently it’s at 65% capacity with 2,284 songs, 339 videos (including a couple full length movies), 2,313 photos, my calendar, my contact list, 366 podcast episodes, and Sudoku to boot!  With the help of my iPod I’ve traveled the world for professional development opportunities.  No, you don’t need an iPod to listen to podcasts… but it sure makes it easier!

Not to spend too much time talking about my family and my weekend BUT…. one last thing before I get to what I’d promised I’d write about.  I was quite the “gamer” in my day, not quite the Pong player my father was but many a system passed in which I spent countless hours playing, just me and the machine.  It was amazing to watch a video game system be embraced by my family, young and old, as they jumped, shouted, and basically burned off the Easter calories while “playing” our Nintendo Wii.  I’m again amazed at how technology has changed over time.  To watch those that would have previously criticized someone for “wasting their time with silly video games” completely lose themselves as they boxed their spouse or raced cows with their cousins is something to stop and take in.

One last thought on my not so connected introduction… for those that haven’t looked into video games for a while you might just be amazed at the levels of collaboration and communication going on in a media which has long been looked at as a waste of time.

What does any of this have to do with my posting for today?  I’m not really sure other than I’m fascinated with the rapid change of technology.  Maybe putting voice to the thought that teachers must first integrate technology into their own lives before the can be asked to find an educational use for the tool.

Today I want to talk about teacher time, technology integration, and what we as educational leaders can do to help teachers implement technology at the classroom level.  Please refer to my previous post for background information on technology integration.

So, How does teacher time affect technology integration?  In order to successfully integrate technology into the classroom, a school district must provide teachers with the time to learn and use new and existing technology.  In a review of studies on technology insertion, Cradler & Cradler (1995) found that staff development, training, and follow-up assistance are prerequisites for effective and sustained applications of technology and telecommunications. The authors report that effective technology integration requires that:

• Technical assistance is available when needed.
• Time for teachers to plan, learn about, and implement technology applications.
• Long-term staff development, rather than one-time workshops, is needed to support integration of technology into instruction.
• Teachers must have access to technology while planning.

Supportive workshops conducted over extended time periods throughout the school year enable teachers to acquire new technology skills and to learn how students can use technology to meet curriculum content objectives (Honey & McMillan, 1996).

A 2000 study by the Web-Based Education Commission, The Power of the Internet for Learning, demonstrates this point when 82% of teachers questioned cited lack of time to learn and plan how to use the computer in their teaching as their greatest barrier to using technology in the classroom.

There are many real-world obstacles to the time component of teacher use and training in regards to technology applications.  Trainings of any kind compete with current, ongoing, and new district initiatives.  Each competes for the time, effort, and attention of teachers.  Each also competes with the time and funding allocation of the district.

Time is a prerequisite for effective and sustained integration of technology.  However, districts struggle finding time to train teachers in new pedagological and technological approaches.

Teachers are being asked to do more throughout their day with no additional time built in to their schedules.  Teachers must have time specifically designated for the study, training, and practice that quality technology integration demands. Districts who fail to allocate time for teachers to study and practice technology integration will similarly fail at technology integration.

A professional learning community approach should be implemented; integrating technology into the ongoing learning which the learning community is taking place in. Learning communities extend the boundaries of education by recognizing that everyone is a learner and a teacher (Senge, 1990).  Technology can then be integrated throughout the weekly and monthly, large and small group sessions to study issues pertinent to the individual district while integrating technology throughout.  In professional learning communities, teachers build the community by working together towards a common goal.  This may be a unique approach to technology training but innovation requires the efforts of the whole community in creating a vision where the school is to go.

Technology should take its rightful place alongside other district initiatives.  To be fully integrated technology needs to be looked at as a part of the collective school community and should integrate with other topics, not compete for valuable training time.  Finally, districts should also look to utilize emerging staff development options such as web-based, on-demand training tools.

Thank you for lending me some of your valuable time.  Next month I’ll blog about how teacher knowledge affects technology integration.

Sincerely,
Sean Martinson

I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of Apple or Nintendo, but I do shamelessly promote their tools and have no ethical qualms about signing a promotional deal.  My agent stands by 24/7.  ;-)

Cradler, J., & Cradler, R. (1995). Prior studies for technology insertion. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.

Honey, M., & McMillan, K. (1996). Case studies of K-12 educators' use of the Internet: Exploring the relationship between metaphor and practice. Center for Children & Technology CCT Reports Issue No. 5. Retrieved April 9, 2007 from http://tinyurl.com/yqb3fs.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the internet for learning: Final report of the web and education commission.