Key Pieces
(8 pages of key concepts from a 52
page dissertation)
Professional
Development –Culmination
of several theories of teacher development stages in integrating technology
into the classroom
Professional
Concerns – Barriers teacher
face (adequate access, time, collaboration, administrative support, and a
collective vision.) Eliminate these as much as possible to support teachers.
Implications –
Implications for Staff Development, for Pre-service Teacher Education, for Policy
and for Further Research
Professional Development
Theories concerning the professional development stages
teachers' experience while learning to integrate technology into their
classrooms are just beginning to surface in the literature. Sandholtz,
Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) identify and describe five
stages of teacher evolution in learning to integrate technology into the
classroom as a result of their ten-year study. Knupfer
(1993) describes four levels of computer assimilation. Pallas (1996) identifies
and describes three stages of teaching and how technology plays into these
stages. Finally, Evans-Andris (1996) describes three
general orientations that teachers employ in their use of technology with
students. In this study, I used Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) descriptions of teacher
development stages throughout technology integration as a dominant tool for
analysis. This next section will describe Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) five stages: entry, adoption,
adaptation, appropriation, and invention, while blending in the theories of Knupfer (1993), Pallas (1996) and Evans-Andris
(1996).
First, Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) entry stage is most
readily identified by concerns about new classroom management issues. Students
have a new set of misbehavior opportunities, teachers have to deal with
technical difficulties during lessons and the teacher has to contend with new
physical classroom structures. A new and, most likely, noisier classroom
environment emerges. Teachers in this early stage of development feel
unprepared to deal with the new management issues that naturally arise when
technology is placed in the classroom. Evans-Andris
(1996) includes a description of a teacher in this stage and coins it distancing.
The term distancing describes a teacher who limits his/her interactions
personally and professionally with the computer. For example, she grades papers
while students are working on skill-and-drill software that may not relate to
the classroom curriculum. This teacher incorporates technology into the
classroom only in ways that will not challenge her existing classroom
management. This teacher does not always participate in his/her scheduled lab
time and cuts short what time is spent in the lab with students. This teacher
does provide opportunities for students to work on computers, but avoids any
meaningful contact with the technology. Knupfer
(1993) describes teachers in this early stage as needing to recognize that
computers in the classroom bring with them a process of change. This
process may change the role of the teacher and the students; the amount and
quality of student, teacher, administrator and parent interactions; as well as
pedagogy utilized in lesson plan development. Knupfer
(1993) reports that a teacher's attitude, openness to change and increase of
personal technical and pedagogical skills, has incredible impact on her ability
to implement effective technology use in her classroom.
Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) call
their second stage of professional development, adoption. Teachers in
this stage become more competent and proud of their troubleshooting techniques
with the technology. They use new classroom management strategies and become
comfortable in this new atmosphere. Teachers most commonly use traditional
methodologies as they incorporate the use of technology. A computing style
coined technical specialization is described by Evans-Andris (1996). This teacher is described as being well
versed in technology, but does not appear to truly integrate technology into
the curriculum. This teacher teaches about technology by placing
technology in the curriculum as a subject, rather than teaching with it,
placing it in the curriculum as a tool. Students are not engaged in meaningful
use of the computers and do not like the 'subject' computers. Pallas (1996)
describes a teacher in this stage as an overwhelmed individual who uses
hand-me-down curricula incorporating the same methodologies used when she was a
student. The instructor may use technology in a small way, but does not usually
challenge students beyond traditional methodologies. Teachers at this stage
begin to see a positive outgrowth of using these technologies with their
students as they [the students] become more productive in meeting curriculum
expectations (Sandholtz, Ringstaff
and Dwyer, 1997).
Pallas' (1996) second stage of teacher development is
described as improving upon methodologies. The teacher may add and
change lessons to enable students to collaborate and/or engage in more
problem-solving experiences. The instruction improves, but does not completely
meet the needs of the students. Evans-Andris' (1996)
second orientation, Embracing, is described as occurring when a teacher
increases her opportunity to use computers whenever possible. She describes a
teacher who increases her time in the lab whenever possible, has the students
engage in activities that are integral to their larger classroom curriculum,
uses computers for personal/professional work often and models the use of
computers for her students. This teacher provides meaningful experiences on
computers for her students and they [the students] are very motivated by the
curriculum. In Sandholtz, Ringstaff
and Dwyer's (1997) third stage of development, adaptation, a teacher
finally begins to develop instructional strategies that increase the amount of
material they can cover in a day. Teachers move from concerns about teaching in
a computerized classroom to a fear of having to teach in a classroom without
technology. In this stage, the use of technology truly begins to change the
nature of instruction in the classroom. According to Knupfer
(1993) teachers experience a stage called planned implementation where
they begin to develop a curriculum to effectively educate students and
determine how technology can support this plan, as opposed to allowing the
computers to determine the curriculum. Teachers become aware of the learning
theories they apply as they plan activities for students. Knupfer (1993) states that teachers
must do this if they want to effectively integrate technology into their
curriculum and prepare their students for the 21st century.
Hall (1996) reports that, "Experienced, middle-aged,
women elementary teachers can become very adept at integrating computers into
the curriculum (pg. 177)." Additionally, the experienced teachers in Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's
(1997) study were able to anticipate and develop strategies for changes in
classroom management more quickly than less experienced teachers. This helps
explain why the literature reports that teachers need three to six years of
staff development to fully implement technology-enhanced teaching and learning
into their curriculum (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Hall, 1996).
Teachers with more experience may advance through these beginning stages of
development more rapidly than novice teachers.
A fourth stage of development, dubbed appropriation by
Sandholtz, Ringstaff and
Dwyer (1997), is a stage highlighted by a teachers change in her personal
attitude toward technology as she begins to use technology as an effortless
tool to complete real work. Teachers begin to replace old habits with new ones.
They cannot imagine completing personal and professional tasks without a
computer. In relation, Knupfer's (1993) understanding
of the broad possible applications stage of computer assimilation is best
described as providing a curriculum where teachers are facilitators and
students are involved in planning the curriculum. Here the concepts real
work and involved students illustrate the use of a constructivist
approach.
In Sandholtz, Ringstaff
and Dwyer's (1997) final stage, invention, the teacher experiments with
new instructional patterns and ways of reaching students and colleagues. A
constructivist, interdisciplinary, collaborative, project-based, and
individually-paced instructional atmosphere emerges. Teachers move away from
competitive activities to collaborative ones. Students begin to help other
students and teachers. The teacher is a facilitator in the classroom who
increasingly reflects on her teaching and how it effects
her students (Sandholtz, Ringstaff
and Dwyer, 1997). Pallas (1996) describes the third stage of development as the
period where technology integration becomes the most effective. At this stage
of development, the teacher no longer asks: "How can I survive?" as
in the first level; or "How can I improve what I am doing?" as in the
second level, but, finally asks, "What am I trying to accomplish?" In
this level, a teacher develops curriculum that challenges students to analyze
and manipulate information as opposed to remembering individual facts. Evans-Andris (1996) describes two types of final stage teachers; integration/embracing
teacher and the technical specialization teacher. The technical
specialization teacher was described above as proficient in using technology,
but not providing meaningful activities for students. The integration/embracing
teacher teaches with technology, placing it in the curriculum as a tool.
This teacher integrates the use of technology within the curriculum and does
not simply add it to the curriculum. Students engage in long, collaborative,
problem-solving, project-based activities (Sandholtz,
Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). Technology is used as a
tool and not taught as if it were a separate subject or content area in
effective implementation. Teachers teach with technology and not about
technology (Report to the President, 1997). The methodologies employed by
these, final stage, successful technology integrators, most closely
align themselves within the constructivist theory or learning.
Knupfer's (1993) final stage, acceptance, is essential to
teacher success. In this stage, the entire structure of the educational
institution shares a vision of the changes that technologies in the classroom
embody and how it improves education for all students. This must include
administrators, parents, students and colleagues.
The stages, orientations and styles described above all have
common characteristics. The research reviewed indicates that teachers at the
beginning and ending stages of technology integration have common
characteristics. For example, upon introduction, teachers fit technology into
their existing classroom methodologies. These initial stages are defined as:
Likewise, these authors describe a
teacher's final, successful stage of development in integrating technology
identically. Every account describes teachers using the technology as a tool
within a curriculum applying constructivist methodologies. These final stages
are identified as:
Professional Concerns
A majority of the literature surrounding the topic of
teachers learning to integrate technology into their classrooms does not form a
conversation around teachers' stages of development. A majority of articles and
books focus on the needs and barriers that teachers encounter as these machines
are placed into their classrooms. Administrators and parents are frequently
asking why the technology is sitting there, not being used. In response to
these concerns, authors and researchers investigate the barriers teachers face
in utilizing this new tool. The literature most commonly and repeatedly
considers professional concerns surrounding the issues of adequate access,
time, collaboration, administrative support, and a collective vision.
One of the most predominant concerns identified in the
literature was teachers’ access to technology. Teachers find they need adequate
access to hardware and software. The machines must be easily accessible and in
good working condition. Adequate access is essential if teachers are expected
to individually learn to use the technology and to have the opportunity to
examine its uses with students (Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996, Kwajeswki,
1997; Murphy and Thuente, 1995; Means, 1995; Meltzer
and Sherman, 1997). Additionally, the teachers need technical support to keep
machines running and to answer technical questions as they arise. As reported
in Sandholtz, Ringstaff,
and Dwyer’s (1997) study, teachers that do not have adequate access to
technology have a very difficult time progressing through the final two levels
of their five identified stages of professional development (described above).
Another identified need is time. Teachers report that they
need personal time to learn how to use technologies (Adelman,
Walking Eagle, & Hargraves, 1997; Meltzer and
Sherman, 1997). Research indicates repeatedly that five to six years of staff
development is required for teachers to learn to effectively integrate
technology into their classrooms (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997;
Hall, 1996). Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) report that
during the first few years that teachers are in technology-rich classrooms,
they do not revolutionize their classroom instruction. In conjunction
with a need for time to develop professionally, there was a reported need for
process time between professional development experiences. Teachers need time
to discuss, collaborate with their colleagues and try different technology
integration techniques. They also need the opportunity to review their
effectiveness in the classroom. This essential component takes time (Meltzer
& Sherman, 1997).
Another need, identified several times in the literature, is
a supportive environment: one which incorporated the time to collaborate with
other teachers to build a community of learners within the context of their
work (Sandholtz, Ringstaff,
and Dwyer, 1997; Meltzer and
Administrative support has been reported as essential to
provide teachers with a feeling of freedom to take risks. Administrative
support is equally essential to ensure teachers are provided with adequate
resources (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Sandholtz,
Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997). Administrative support,
such as giving teachers a voice in the decision making process to ensure
adequate training opportunities, fosters a sense of empowerment, and
development of a shared vision (Hoffman, 1997; Sandholtz,
Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997; Griest,
1996; Kwajeswki, 1997; Holzberg,
1997).
The need for a common vision, which surfaces numerous times
in the literature, almost always relates to the need for an understanding of
how to teach with technology. As stated above, the literature overwhelmingly
defines effective implementation of technology as using a constructivist
approach. Many members of the educational community share this vision, which
encourages meaningful progress on the road to effective technology
integration (Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996;
Means, Olson & Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller,
1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997).
Most of the literature does not break down specific
abilities/skills that teachers need. If abilities are mentioned, readers are
cautioned that skills alone will not enable a teacher to integrate technology
into the curriculum (Mergendoller, 1997; Hope, 1996;
Hoffman, 1997). On the other hand, the literature does identify that teachers
need to possess certain skills to ensure a necessary comfort level with the
technology itself. If teachers do not have this level of comfort with
technology, they will not progress in their ability to effectively integrate it
into the curriculum (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Kwajeswki,
1997; McKenzie, 1991; McKenzie, 1997; Hope, 1996; Sandholtz,
Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). This study of 12
successful technology-integrating teachers helped me to identify the specific
needs and technological and pedagogical skills essential for a classroom
teacher to become a successful technology-integrating teacher.
Implications for Staff Development
The data in this study support that teachers, in order to become successful
technology integrators, must have access to a computer for themselves to learn
a large number of self-identified technical skills. The literature reports that
there are more and more computers in classrooms (QED, 1996, NCATE, 1997). The
participants in this study indicated that most of their technological skills
were self-taught. This is not possible without adequate personal access.
Professional development literature indicates that teachers must become users
of technology for real work. Being unable to imagine completing personal and
professional tasks without a computer, is an identifiable stage in the
progression toward successful technology integration in their classrooms (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer,
1996). Therefore, teachers must have access to a computer in their classroom
and at home if they are to learn the large number of skills needed to become
successful. This would indicate that laptops, or the flexibility to take
computers home, would be beneficial for professional growth toward successful
integration in the classroom.
The data in this study also support that teachers need time to progress
through the several stages of professional development on the road to
successful technology integration. Administration should not expect that a
single course or workshop will prepare teachers to successfully integrate
technology into their classrooms. The data in this study clearly
indicate that teachers need time to practice, learn and experience successful
techniques within the context of classrooms. The participants in this study
needed years to begin to see the possibilities and benefits of technology
integration for their students.
The data in this study showed that for the successful technology-integrating
teachers in this study, and concurrent with the literature, the implementation
of a constructivist curriculum enabled these teachers to effectively integrate
technology into their classrooms. Effective technology integration was defined,
for this study, as a curriculum designed from a constructivist approach that
encourages students to participate in social activities where they develop an
ability to readily acquire new knowledge, solve new problems and employ
creativity and critical thinking in the design of new approaches to existing
problems (Report to the President, 1997; Willis, Stephens and Mathew, 1996;
Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest,
1996; Means, Olson and Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller,
1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997). Furthermore, the skill set the teachers
in this study possessed was individual and context specific. Therefore, the
data in this study indicate that it might be beneficial for teachers to develop
and learn self-identified set of skills within the context of effective
classroom practices.
In conclusion, staff development must provide teachers with, at a minimum,
adequate access to technology, time to progress through professional
development stages, and opportunities to learn a large number of
self-identified skills in the context of effective technology-integration, best
practice, models.
Implications for Pre-service Teacher Education
The data in this study indicate that pre-service teachers must experience
effective constructivist, student-centered technology integration methodologies
throughout their courses of study. Technology integration is not a separate
subject or course that is experienced in isolation, but one which should be
included in all content areas. The road to learning how to be an effective
technology integrator is a long-term process and one course, while a beginning,
is not sufficient. Additionally, the data in this study indicate that pre-service
teachers must repeatedly practice and observe the development of constructivist
lessons that integrate technology successfully into the classroom.
Pre-service teachers, due to the context in which they are educated, are not
in the position to learn how to integrate technology within the context they
will be teaching. University classrooms are their most common learning
environments; not grade school classrooms. A large number of the
self-identified skills the teachers in this study found were essential to their
success were context specific. Therefore, in order to prepare
pre-service teachers to teach in a variety of contexts, they must acquire and
retain a large number of technological skills. The larger the number of skills
pre-service teachers possess, the better prepared s/he will be to determine
which skills are essential in his/her particular teaching context upon
employment. The skill building for these pre-service teachers must begin early
and continue throughout their pre-service education.
In conclusion, pre-service teachers must encounter high expectations of
technology use throughout their pre-service education programs. It should be
utilized as a personal tool for completion of assignments and as a key
component of curriculum development. Finally, technology should be experienced
through modeled instruction throughout their preservice
teacher education curriculum.
Implications for Policy
The data in this study indicate there is no identifiable list of acquired
technological skills that a teacher could possess that would identify them as a
successful technology integrator. Therefore, departments of education should
not grant technology endorsements to teachers based solely on a list of
acquired skills; there is no identifiable set. The results of this study would
recommend the evaluation of teachers for granting a technology endorsement via
observation and/or a comprehensive portfolio process that exhibits evidence of
successful technology integration techniques implemented into classroom practice.
A second implication for policy from this study is that beginning teachers
should not be granted a technology endorsement. The data in this study, along
with the larger body of literature, supports the notion that teachers must be
given adequate time to progress through the essential stages of professional
development on their road to successful technology integration. Teachers
must possess a large number of skills, truly understand the benefits of
effective technology integration for their students and understand the negative
impacts of ineffective uses of technology in the classroom.
Finally, the data in this study indicate that state agencies must assure
that a teacher employs effective technology integration methodologies, such as
the constructivist methodology defined in this study, via thorough examination
of classroom practices. Observation is the recommended methodology for
effective examination of effective integration. If there is an attempt to grant
endorsements through a portfolio assessment, it is suggested that the process
be diligently tested for accuracy.
Technology has the opportunity to aid in educational reform. Technology
itself will not demand educational reform, but teachers
who implement the use of technology into their classrooms, utilizing effective
constructivist student-centered methodologies, will help ensure that technology
integration is not doomed to be another discarded educational reform movement
due to ineffective implementation. In preparing students for our new culture,
we must ensure that their teachers effectively integrate the use of technology
into their classrooms.
Further Research
I suggest that further research include a focus on teacher attitude.
The participants in this study indicate that teacher attitude may be a
predictor of whether or not teachers will become successful technology
integrators in the classroom. This study suggests that there would be benefits
from further exploration on how attitude fosters successful teachers and how
one might cultivate this attitude.
A second topic for further research would be the study of the impact of a
web-based Technology Skills Model as a self-assessment tool for professional
development in technology integration. Would the use of this model move
teachers towards effective technology integration in the classroom? Using the TSM to identify teachers who possess a large number of
technical skills; yet upon observation do not use constructivist,
student-centered pedagogy in their classrooms; would create interesting data
for discussion. Finally, this web-based model could be studied for its
effectiveness as an administrative tool in planning staff development.
Finally, the participants in this study became successful technology
integrators despite various obstacles. They may not be representative of the
majority of teachers in the profession. Studying teachers that do not fit into
this group, successful-despite-obstacles, would shed
light into what might be essential supports and/or what essential skill sets
would include for a larger body of educators.