OUTSIDE THE

BOX

S WORKSHOP
Professional Development

Do you oversee a school whose hardware, software, and networking equipment are state of the art but, sadly, not used to their potential? It takes a new vision of professional development to enable teachers to take full advantage of computer technology in teaching and learning.
B Y D EBRA B EAVERS

chool after school has learned the hard way that simply having computer equipment doesnt matter if teachers dont know how to use it. If the problem is that teachers dont know how to use the technology, the solution must be professional development, right? Of course. But conventional, intermittent staff development workshops that focus on only the mechanics of using computer technology are not the answer. Recent studies have shown that they simply dont work or, at best, are of benefit to only a few teachers. Grant (1996) notes that simply sending teachers to learn specific technologies has not yielded the desired results: Too often the results of these sessions have fallen short of hopes: there has been little carryover into the classroom, and new technologies have remained on the periphery of school life and been used only sporadically by teachers, despite the high expectations of trainers, reformers, and the teachers themselves. Effective integration of technology into education calls for a new vision of professional developmentnot one that attempts merely to add technology to an established system but one that takes a fresh look at teaching and learning in general. Professional development composed of a few days of inservice workshops every year must be replaced by ongoing programs that are tied to your schools curriculum goals, designed with built-in evaluation, and sustained by adequate nancial and staff support. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) make compelling recommendations for a paradigm shift in staff development, driven by what they call three powerful ideas: results-driven education, in which students come to know and be able to do; systems thinking, which emphasizes organizational structures and the dynamic interactions among all elements (including technology) involved in the education system; and constructivism, which views each learner as the active builder of his or her own knowledge through active exploration, inquiry, discussion, reection, and application. As Sparks and Hirsch make clear, the focus of professional development should ultimately be the student, not the teacher. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. Loucks-Horsley and Sparks (1994), for example, recommend moving from too much focus on teacher needs, individual development, and pull-out training to more focus on student learning outcomes, individual and system development, and job-embedded learning.
M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 1 43

If technology is to become a signicant factor in student success, we must make fundamental changes in the system. What would a system that unleashes the potential of technology to improve academic achievement look like? First, it would do much more than provide sporadic development for teachers. Indeed, it would be a system in which public schools weave continuous learning for teachers into the fabric of the teaching job (NFIE 1996). As they explore the role of technology in teaching and learning, teachers would be encouragedand empoweredto move beyond a cover the curriculum mindset to a broader teaching approach that challenges students to be successful both in and out of the classroom. To bring this about, teachers would be given the time and resources to learn new strategies and concepts. The resulting professional culture would be one in which teachers collaborate with colleagues and participate in their own renewal and the renewal of their schools (Lieberman and Miller 1990, p. 1051) and in which, as a result, students would be thoroughly engaged in the learning process. (For more on engaged learning, see Jones et al. 1994.) Following are three models for effectively integrating technology into the curriculum through staff development peer coaching, study groups, and thematic curriculum. These models support learning and emphasize the ability to access, interpret, and synthesize information (as opposed to rote memorization and the acquisition of isolated skills).
Peer Coaching

Host an orientation meeting to explain the program in greater detail, answer questions, distribute handouts, and generate interest. (Meyer and Grays model includes a brief explanation of the program and how it works, an application form, topics to stimulate discussion and exchange between the coaches, and a short write-up about research on peer coaching.) Have the participants choose partners and determine which classes they want their partners to attendif the programs focus is technology integration, the courses will naturally be technology relatedand when they will visit one anothers classes. After the coaches have visited one anothers classes, they meet to discuss their observations. Peer coaches observations can be summarized in a report, presented to other faculty members, or disseminated in a variety of other ways as determined by the programs structure. The steps outlined above can be adapted to many situations. Meyer and Grays packet provides the coaching teams with self-assessment questionnaires to stimulate exchanges between the participants before the rst class visit. They also provide forms to be lled out by the coach and the teacher after each visit.
Study Groups

Peer coaching is a process by which teachers work together to enrich the curriculum and pedagogy within subjects (e.g., by approaching subjects from a multicultural perspective) and to make connections between subjects (e.g., by exploring the workplace applications of academic subjects). Peer coaches attend one anothers classes, discuss what went on, and help one another solve problems. Unlike performance-review visits, which can be tense, visits from peer coaches are stress free and even enjoyable because the process is based on mutual support. Peer coaching provides an opportunity for teachers to help one another and to share the ups and down of teaching. Peer coaching is not subject-specic, so it is adaptable to just about any discipline, including technology integration. (For more on this process, see Meyer and Gray 1996.) Applying peer coaching to technology integration: Publicize your peer coaching program among your teachers (using newsletters, yers, bulletin boards, and other channels of communication). Give general information about the program, invite interested persons to an orientation meeting, and offer participants a small stipend. (This is especially important. The program requires after-school time for which the teachers should be paid, even if it is only a token amount.)
44

Having teachers and administrators form study groups to exchange ideas, plan lessons, and discuss school policy is another effective method of developing partnerships among educators. Successful study group programs usually involve small groups that meet regularly (at least one hour a week) and typically research and practice new methods for meeting student learning goals. Study-groups are flexible and can vary according to need. Murphy and Lick (1998) note: The professional study group process allows teachers the freedom and exibility to explicate, invent, and evaluate practices that have the potential to meet the needs of their students.... As teachers work together in these study group approaches, they alter their practices to provide new and innovative opportunities for their students to learn in challenging and productive new ways. Using study groups to integrate technology into teaching: Study groups of no more than six people work together to plan technology-integrated instructional units and research uses of technology in teaching and learning. The teachers need not be from the same grade level, but the groups should be formed with a view toward selecting people whose schedules permit regular meetings. The proceedings of each meeting should be carefully recorded. The same person should handle this task at each meeting to ensure continuity.

P R I N C I PA L L E A D E R S H I P

 Participation in a group should be mandatory for all teachers and administrators. An overview committee composed of teachers and administrators plans the content and topics of discussion ahead of time. Educators can focus their discussions on technology integration into individual courses. They can share lesson plans, exchange ideas, develop collaborative units, and discuss and develop new technology instructional methods. The goal of these meetings is for educators to learn from one another. The curriculum and methods used by other teachers can be used and implemented in their own classrooms, creating a more collaborative and coherent educational environment for the future.
Thematic Curriculum

The term thematic curriculum refers to a process by which teachers develop teaching strategies by working together as members of self-directed professional teams. The process stems from the belief that conventional education is too much like an assembly line. As Finch et al. (1997) put it, just as an automobile travels down a predetermined path with workers adding part after part to its frame, students in traditional educational settings move from course to course and end up some time later gathering all the required parts to qualify for graduation. In contrast to the assembly-line approach, teachers involved in the thematic curriculum process are encouraged to explore broad, inclusive curriculum themes. (For more on this process, see Finch et al. 1997.) Steps in planning a thematic curriculum: Select the theme (in this case, integrating technology) for breadth and depth of coverage. Because the learning is integrated and collaborative, momentum builds and sustains motivation. Assess the groups prior knowledge of the theme. Develop a word bank of relevant vocabulary. Select key concepts or principles to cover. (This could be technology applications, using the Internet, creating webpages, or any of numerous other concepts involving technology integration.) Be sure that the theme provides opportunities for critical thinking, content area concepts, and application. Use community resources so students have an opportunity to see real-world connections. Parents can play an important role by sharing their experience and expertise. Businesses, organizations, museums, and other entities can offer resources that extend and enrich the unit by providing practical, concrete examples and applications. Allow plenty of time. Planning thematic units can be time-consuming, and delivering a unit in the classroom generally takes several weeks.

Research has shown that, by and large, teachers are open to these kinds of recommendations, especially with regard to technology. Most teachers, according to Guhlin (1996), want to learn to use educational technology effectively, but they lack the time, access, and support necessary to do so. This is where principals come in. Administrative support and involvement are crucial to the successful integration of technology into the curriculum. Studies show that the commitment and interest of the principal are the most critical factors for successful implementation of any school innovationespecially technology.
References

Finch, C.R.; N. R. Frantz; M. Mooney; and N. O. Aneke. 1997. Designing the thematic curriculum: An all aspects approach. Available online at http://vocserve.berkeley .edu/AllInOne/MDS-956.html Grant, C. M. 1996. Professional development in a technological age: New denitions, old challenges, new resources. Technology infusion and school change: perspectives and practices. TERC. Guhlin, M. 1996. Stage a well-designed Saturday session and they will come! Technology Connection 3 (3): 1314. Jones, B.; G. Valdez; J. Nowakowski; and C. Rasmussen.
46

1994. Designing learning and technolog y for educational reform. Oak Brook, Ill.: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Lieberman, A., and L. Miller. 1990. Professional development of teachers. Encyclopedia of educational research, 6th edition. New York: MacMillan. Lieberman, A., and L. Miller. 1991. Revisiting the social realities of teaching. In Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives, edited by A. Lieberman and L. Miller. New York: Teachers College Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., and D. Sparks. 1994. Presentation developed for the Goals 2000 Conference, Washington, D.C., May 1994. Adapted from D. Sparks, A paradigm shift in staff development, Education Week, 16 March. Me ye r, J . , a n d T. Gr a y. 1996. Peer coaching: An innovation in teaching. Paper presented at online conference Innovative Instructional Practices, Kapiolani Community College. Available online at http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf96/meyer.html. Information packets on this peer coaching model are available from the Department of Criminal Justice, Box 30001 Dept. #3487, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001. Murphy, C. U., and D. W. Lick. 1998. Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful way to change schools and enhance learning. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE). 1996. Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. NFIE. Available online at www.nfie.org/publications/ takecharge.htm. Sparks, D, and S. Hirsh. 1997. A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at www.ascd .org/readingroom/books/sparks97book.html. Debra Beavers (dbeavers@cord.org), a teacher for 15 years and a former technology director, is a training and development specialist at CORD. PL

P R I N C I PA L L E A D E R S H I P