Module 3 Responses
From Fringe Area
Contents |
Question 1
In 1998, Hope wrote that technology will have been definitively integrated into schools when "teachers are routinely using computers and related technology to accomplish their work and facilitate students' learning." Until that happens, Hope stated that we must face the reality that while technology is available in schools, very little has changed in the way teachers teach (p. 1). This article was written 10 years ago. Using support from the article and your personal experiences, discuss whether we have made any progress in those ten years.
Hope, W. C. (1998). "The next step: Integrating computers and related technologies into practice." Contemporary Education (69)3, 137 - 141.
Question 1 Response:
In the mid 1990’s my website for teacher tools was one of less than fifteen websites for teachers listed on ISTE. In the ultimate irony, ISTE has grown during that time to be one of the most influential driving forces for technology integration in the realm of education with its merger with the NECC in 2002, while I, on the other hand, have been feeling less productive over the years. Upon reading this article, I found myself questioning why. What was the difference between individuality and the masses? It is true that like many teachers, I welcomed the use of the computer in my classroom. At first it was nothing more than a glorified typewriter for me, a document container. But, when it soon became connected to the rest of the world, my initial perceptions were more of it being an intruder walking in through the door of my classroom versus a host opening the door to the rest of the world. Because my roles as teacher and a system’s administrator were in juxtaposition, there existed clearly a love-hate relationship for technology within me. Perhaps, as Ertmer suggests, this was an attack on my essential belief system of teacher-centered learning. Suddenly, there were online lesson plans, administrators, parents and online grading, that were all distracting away from what I believed inherently was my job: to teach children. How could I possibly teach and deal with all of these distractions?
The technology was being placed there at this time primarily so that teachers could “routinely use computers” for functional tasks. It was placed there so that administrators could track lesson plans; direct parents to contact teachers; and to effectively keep up with grades. Suddenly, a campus or district was behind if it couldn’t tout that it didn’t have a computer in every classroom. The term “technology” became systematically used by all upwardly mobile personnel in the school system. Yet, without the demand for and accountability for its use related to curriculum outcomes, “technology” was nothing more than a management tool. Yet, somehow through successful mastery of basic everyday functional uses and the technical skills of system’s administration, I began to move gravitate more towards the use of technology in the curriculum. Some of my colleagues, however, did not.
As computers became affordable and available for home use, more teachers took those personal experiences to the classroom, like me, and began to see that technology use could be applicable to the curriculum. Still, with little support from administration, it was a daunting task to say the least. My first experiences for implementation of technology into the curriculum were introduced by Bernie Dodge’s series on the creation of web quests. I began to initiate the use of web quests in my classroom. It wasn’t easy to say the least. With limited equipment, challenges by parents and lack of understanding by administration, there were times that I just wholeheartedly thought about abandoning the idea.
With this in mind, my opinion is that progress has been made in terms of the functional use of technology as a management tool in the past ten years. There are still some districts struggling to get their grade books online for parent viewing and, of course, there is the never-ending task of upgrading management software. Personally, however, I do not feel that as much progress has been made to “facilitate student’s learning” with the use of technology in the past ten years as a whole. Or, perhaps, I should say that the implementation of technology into the curriculum, like all other things in education, has been slow to trickle down into the classroom.
By the year 2000, groups such as ISTE were finally growing in size and their impetus to push legislation from the top down started to influence our thinking with regard to technology. It has been a slow and arduous process challenged by a system that has not adapted its measurable outcomes to support technology integration. In a time when most newspapers are becoming unviable in our country, we still continue to test our students by using paper-based tests. In addition, we are just now beginning to require technology literacy of our new teachers as they exit pedagogical programs and enter the teaching force. However, many of the teachers are enrolled in programs at universities that do not support the use of Web 2.0 technologies. So, this method of instruction has produced a system of teachers who at best now utilize some authentic based assignments because they experienced these as classroom assignments themselves, but mainly focus on the skill/drill types of assignments for testing purposes because the educational system does not measure success in terms of project based outcomes, especially in core curriculum areas.
A few years ago, I helped to pilot the LOTI program for my campus. At the time, I felt that Dr.Chris Moersch was simply reinventing Bloom’s taxonomy and was, inherently, in my mind, wasting my time. Now, I’m not so sure that he wasn’t too far off base with what probably needs to happen in order for our curriculum to be restructured to utilize technology effectively had he presented it a bit differently at the time. Every time I had those meetings, I kept thinking to myself: How can I utilize project based outcomes in a system that doesn’t measure them? and Can you show me some research that truly indicates that technology can improve learning versus conventional methods? But, honestly, what I believe should have been emphasized more was the significance of collaboration upon learning and how "technology" can provide that collaboration.
I believe Guskey’s theory that “beliefs follow practice, rather than precede practice.” So, that brings me back to the question: What is the difference between individuality and the masses? The difference now, in my mind, is that the “masses” are interconnected collaboratively and that this collaboration brings about change. I first experienced this almost twenty years ago when the school system in Alaska was utilizing what we call today PLCs (Professional Learning Communities). Yet, even with the publication of the book On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities (DuFour 2005) which gives credibility to the success of collaboration, little has been done to tap into potential “practice” that teachers could gain by utilizing Web 2.0 technologies for staff development. Herein lies the key to making practice “belief” with regard to technology integration. Instead, teachers of common core subject content are thrown into rooms during common planning times without benefit, other than email in many cases and possibly a share drive, to collaborate. If you apply this to the Concerns Based-Adoption Model mentioned in Hope’s article, it is easy to see why teachers cannot seem to get past the management/consequence level to move onto the collaborative stage relative to technology. It is also easy to see why many schools cannot get to the top of the Texas STaR chart. Thus, we have made little progress in this area.
Question 2
Ertmer suggests that a teacher's pedagogical beliefs are critical to the use technology in the classroom. What is the link between belief and practices? How can knowing this impact you as you begin to develop instruction for teachers as an MTT?
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). "Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?" Educational Technology Research & Development (53)4, 25-39.
Question 2 Response
Fundamentally, I believe that practice comes before belief. I believe that as John Locke expounded that we are born with a blank slate or “tabula rasa.” Therefore, practice or experience comes before belief. With this in mind, in terms of pedagogical belief, I feel that we teach as we have been taught. This does not, however, mean that we cannot acquire items to add to our slate through experience or practice; this just means that we will initially approach things based on the skill set that we have on the slate.
As an MTT, I feel that two fundamental considerations are important when assisting teachers with the use of technology into the classroom:
1. What do they already have on the slate? I believe that an assessment tool such as the STaR chart is a valuable source of information with regard to current practices. However, I feel that the assessment should also include personal and educational exposure to technology outside of the classroom. Did they do project based lessons as part of their pedagogy? How often and in what ways do they use the computer at home?
2. How can I add practice to their skill set so that it becomes part of their belief system? And how can I eventually make this practice relevant to content standards? This may mean implementing collaborative planning through PLCs or departments in order for the teachers to learn the technology and gain insight into its potential use in the classroom environment. In addition, I would approach these skill sets with the understanding that the “practice” in many cases must be more than a one-time review session in order for it to eventually become a belief.
