The Technology Lead Teacher Program -
Peer Training in Technology
William R. Warrick
George Mason University
May 1999
Introduction
For many years teachers
have witnessed the infusion of millions of dollars' worth of hardware
and software into schools. The "Wave
of the Future" has swept into nearly every classroom and school.
Few people have doubted the appropriateness of purchasing computers.
The prevailing opinion has been that if they are in the classroom
some good will come of it.
Now that computers and, more broadly, instructional technology, has
been a part of the school environment for many years, there is a move
to show actual results and benefits from this investment. Administrators
and school boards wish to see what they are getting for their money.
This has given rise to a push for accountability on the part of the
school systems to show that they are using technology, how they are
using technology, and what effect new technologies have on learning.
A by-product of this movement to justify the costs of technology
are mandates regarding the skills of teachers and other professional
personnel. Various states have adopted competencies that all professional
staff must meet.
Inasmuch as this is the first attempt to quantify the skills and
performance of teachers in this area, school divisions across the
country will need to provide access to training for all licensed personnel.
How will local school divisions meet the training needs of their staffs?
Given the need for training in areas that have been targeted, new
approaches to staff development, concentrating not only on basic technology
skills but integration skills as well, must be developed. In a relatively
short amount of time, all teachers must meet the goals.
This study seeks to identify strategies and programs which will meet
the needs of the instructional staff in completing the state-mandated
technology standards.
Review of Literature
Many studies have reported on the effects of technology in the schools.
While several of these studies found evidence that technology can
improve student achievement, researchers have been wary of presuming
that the same results could be replicated in other classrooms where
teachers might be less motivated or knowledgeable about computers.
(Archer, 1998)
Where once the purchase of computers was seen as good for its own
sake, now teachers are called upon to show how they will be used in
the classroom and how their use will affect test scores. Policymakers
and the public are finally starting to demand evidence that their
investments in education technology have been worthwhile. (Trotter,
1998)
Since the first computers were introduced into classrooms some twenty
years ago, the need for training has not gone unnoticed. From the
earliest, it was recognized that technology training was something
that was critical to the integration of new technologies. Unfortunately,
most of the training was provided to those with an aptitude or at
least an affinity for computers and other technologies. The training
that these people were given was normally in the area of training
on the operation of the computer rather than its use as a tool
for learning and for teaching. However, unlike toasters or televisions,
educational technologies are not household appliances you simply plug
in and turn on. They demand significant amounts of effort, at both
individual and organizational levels, to successfully implement and
integrate. (Southern Technology Council, 1997)
In a report titled, "Harnessing Technology for Teaching and
Learning", the Educational Commission of the States reported,
"Few states or schools mandate or invest adequately in either
preservice or inservice training for teachers. As a result, most teachers
have not had the opportunity to observe and learn about the wide range
of educational uses for technology in the classroom".
Now, as teachers are called upon to show the effects of technology
on student achievement and learning, more and more of them are looking
for insight as to how they can effectively integrate technology into
the curriculum. The benefits of technology are being seen in areas
that are hard to measure - higher order thinking skills, for example.
For this reason, professional development programs are being developed
to focus on integration strategies rather than on the basics of computer
operations. The use of technology is not as easy as putting in software
and letting the students play an educational 'game'. A unique attribute
of computers as an educational innovation is that their use demands
many new skills and competencies and embraces changes to educational
ideologies. (Norton, 1998) These changes to educational ideologies
can only be facilitated by those within the educational community.
Training in the effective use of technology must be conducted by practitioners
who understand the educational environment and who understand the
need for this change.
Staff Development programs have often relied on outside instructors
to work with teachers in their preparation to use technology in the
classroom. While these outside trainers might be well versed in the
operational intricacies of the computer, they are often not aware
of the realities of the classroom, nor of the methods by which technology
can be exploited to the fullest. Providing continuing education for
teachers is more important now than ever before as the role of teachers
is shifting to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society. Fortunately,
in recent years there has been a growing commitment in some school
districts to a vastly improved conception of staff development, one
which entails peer coaching and substantial, long term investment.
(McKenzie, 1991)
In order to address the needs of the teachers in professional development,
many systems are experimenting with new approaches to technology training.
Recognizing that teachers need both basic skills and integration strategies
and methodologies, a number of school systems are utilizing teachers
as technology trainers. This type of peer training has several advantages,
not the least of which is that the trainer is a teacher who understands
teaching and learning. Training provided by practitioners has been
used in many areas for technology staff development. School-based
personnel stated repeatedly that the most effective training was provided
on-site by teachers for teachers. Training sessions led by outside
trainers with no k-12 experience were not as helpful. (Southern Technology
Council, 1998)
With mandates for teacher competencies becoming more and more commonplace,
there is a great need to discover new and effective strategies for
widespread technology training programs. Where once only those who
were interested in 'trying' technology in their classrooms participated
in technology training, now all teachers are being called upon to
demonstrate competence in the use of technology. This has created
the demand for new professional development strategies to meet this
growing need.
Statement of the Problem
Many school divisions across the country have been burdened with
mandates from state and local governments to provide training for
professional staff. While the competencies provide a framework from
which school divisions can derive training curricula, there remains
the problem of bringing all professional staff in the localities to
the level of meeting those competencies in a relatively short amount
of time. Clearly, new models for large scale training need to be developed
and implemented quickly.
One such model might be peer training. Research has shown this to
be an effective model. However, very often the people chosen to be
peer trainers are teachers who are comfortable with technology but
may have little to no teaching experience. There is a need for exemplary
teachers who understand curriculum and methods to serve as models
of effective technology integrators for their peers. These teachers
may not have experience with technology and may not be comfortable
as peer tutors. Therefore, the problem of the study is to evaluate
the attitudes and use of technology of exemplary teachers after receiving
training.
Questions
Will a Technology Lead Teacher program effect the skill level of
the participants?
What effect on the attitudes towards technology integration will
this program have?
Will a Technology Lead Teacher program provide the participants with
the skills necessary to effectively integrate technology into their
teaching?
Methodology
Design
The Technology Lead Teacher program being implemented has three main
goals:
train a cadre of teachers (TLTs) via a technology certification program
at a local college;
design and implement a training program for the TLTs to follow; train
remaining division staff on state mandated technology standards
The ultimate goal is to insure that all Instructional Personnel will
meet mandated technology standards prior to the beginning of the 2002
- 2003 school year. This program is unique so far as is known and
the success or failure of the program to meet its goals will be of
interest to all school divisions.
This research project sought to identify factors which would indicate
the effect this program had on the attitudes and skills of the participants.
Specifically, data regarding the technology skill level of the participants
will be collected by means of observations of demonstrated skills
and surveys given before and after participating in the training program.
This data will then be analyzed to discover the effect of the training
on the level of competency of the participants.
Additionally, inasmuch as the level of technology integration into
the curriculum is influenced by teachers' attitudes and perceptions
about technology, data will be collected through interviews and observations
of the sample group.
Due to time constraints, the collection of data was completed prior
to the completion of the full training. It is felt that there was
sufficient time to reveal changes in the skill level and attitudes
towards technology integration of the sample group.
Subjects
Based on the available funding and the expense of contracting with
a local college for the technology certification courses, it was determined
that training would be provided for 70 teachers within the county.
Since the number of trainers needed at a school site is determined
by the size of the staff, the number of participants was tied to the
number of students within each building.
Experience with training for teachers has shown that forced participation
significantly lowers motivation to succeed and builds resentment.
For this reason, it was strongly recommended to principals that the
participants from each building be volunteers. Those teachers who
have an interest in participating were asked to complete an application
form and submit it to the principal. While it was left to the principal
to make the final determination as to who would participate in the
program, the Coordinators of Instructional Technology and the Professional
Growth Coordinator suggested that the teachers be:
The philosophy behind these criteria was that the Technology Lead
Teachers were to serve in their buildings as models of excellent teachers
integrating technology. It is thought that these teachers, by virtue
of their standing within their buildings as outstanding teachers would
provide the best model for the instructional use of technology. Hence
the emphasis on participants being outstanding teachers rather than
technologically competent.
Four cohorts were created from the 67 participants in the program.
Each cohort attended all classes as a group. The four cohorts are
comprised of teachers from Elementary (cohorts 1 and 2); Middle (cohort
3); and High School (cohort 4). Participants from the Central Office
(administrators, coordinating teachers, supervisors, etc.) were placed
in appropriate cohorts.
The names of the participants from each building were given to the
Professional Growth Coordinator by December 15, 1998.
The population of Technology Lead Teachers to be studied is too large
to effectively measure the skill levels of all participants. Therefore,
a sample group of 10 have been identified for study using a systematic
sampling strategy from the full list of participants. These ten teachers
were selected randomly from the 32 participants in Cohorts one and
two. These two Cohorts were chosen because they would have participated
in over half of the training at the conclusion of this study. The
breakdown of grade levels taught by the 10 subjects are as follows:
1 pre-kindergarten
2 kindergarten
1 kindergarten-first grade combined
1 second grade
1 third grade
1 fourth grade
1 fifth grade
2 k-12 special education
Each teacher indicated that they teach all subjects. The years of
experience of these teachers range from 3 to 28 with the average being
10.3% years of teaching. The level of expertise with technology is
varied as was expected with some teachers professing to have no experience
at all and others indicating that they had some experiences. All but
one of the subjects have e-mail accounts which would be an indicator
of some level of technology use. All of the subjects are women.
The subjects are teachers coming from seven different schools. Each
teacher had a modern, multimedia capable computer in her classroom
and access to a lab of 25 computers. All of the teachers had access
to the same software within their respective buildings.
Instruments
Several instruments for collecting data were employed in this study.
In order to collect demographic data on the subjects, and to gather
information to be used to stratify results which might give indications
of the effectiveness of the training to different groups, an information
sheet (appendix H) was distributed to all participants for them to
complete at an orientation session prior to the beginning of the training.
This data was then entered into a database in order to facilitate
management of the data.
A Technology Needs Assessment survey (appendix I) was developed and
distributed to the participants at the beginning of the program and
at the completion of the third class. This instrument was designed
to be a self-assessment of the technology skills that each of the
participants possess. Of the 33 questions on the Technology Needs
Assessment, seven (#s 1, 2, 9, 25, 26, 32, and 33) were included
to
assess the respondent's attitudes towards technology use and integration;
11 questions (#s 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 28, and 31) were
designed to measure the skill level of the respondent; and 15 questions
(#'s 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, and 30)
were included to measure the degree to which the participant integrated
technology as part of their teaching. The responses were given on
a five-point Likert Scale that ranges from (1) "strongly agree"
to (5) "strongly disagree".
Treatment
The school division has developed a program whereby a number of teachers
in each building will be trained and then provide training to the
staff of their respective buildings. This cadre of teachers will be
known as Technology Lead Teachers (TLTs). While the motivation for
this level of training is the commonwealth's mandated technology competencies,
the feeling in the division is that the emphasis should be on instructional
uses of the technology. Rather than targeting teachers who are already
competent in the use of technology, the division seeks to identify
outstanding teachers to receive this training. The assumption being
that those teachers are more likely to be successful in reaching their
peers while providing training in the integration of technology into
teaching.
By virtue of its proximity to the school division, and the basic
design of its Technology Certification program, the division has contracted
with a nearby college to provide its program on-site for the Technology
Lead Teacher program. For several years this college has offered a
Technology Certification program for teachers. This program is designed
to provide training for in-service teachers in order to meet the state's
requirement for technology competency. To complete this program, participants
must complete five of the six courses offered (four are required,
participants must choose one of the two remaining electives) which
are typically held on Friday evenings and Saturdays.
The subjects are attending, in cohorts, this series of six technology
certification classes over the course of 5 months. During the course
of this program, the subjects will attend classes, participate in
training, and produce work which will ultimately lead to their certification
in technology standards. A complete description of the program is
included in appendix A.
It was determined that, in order to provide for the specific training
needs of the school division staff and the requirements and responsibilities
of the Technology Lead Teachers, certain modifications would need
to be made to the technology certification program. Specifically,
since the Technology Lead Teachers would be providing a significant
amount of training at their schools, an adult education component
was added. Also, instruction in the evaluation of teacher's technology
competencies will be provided to prepare the Technology Lead Teachers
to effectively provide training in those competencies and evaluate
their student's (teachers within their buildings) mastery of those
competencies.
It was determined that the most efficient manner in which to train
the Technology Lead Teachers would be to offer a series of six courses,
all of which would be required for certification by the college. A
description of the six classes to be offered can be found in the appendix.
Procedures
Since the classes offered are to meet on Friday evenings (4:00 pm
- 10:00 pm) and all day Saturday (9:00 am - 4:00 pm) it was necessary
to stagger the scheduling of each class. An attempt was made to offer
classes approximately every 3 - 4 weeks for each cohort. This provides
the opportunity for the Technology Lead Teachers to return to their
classrooms and practice skills learned in each course prior to the
next course.
Over the course of this study (which, of necessity, does not cover
the length of the TLT training), participants have been interviewed
and given questionnaires designed to elicit information pertinent
to the aims of the study.
All members of the sample group were given the self-assessment survey
at an orientation meeting prior to the beginning of the program. This
established a baseline against which changes in the level of competence
can be measured. Surveys were completed by the focus group to gather
information regarding the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, technology
integration and the meeting of the technology standards.
During the course of the program the members of the sample group
will continue to be interviewed.
Data have been collected and organized in such a manner as to illustrate
the progress of the participants towards meeting the standards.
At the conclusion of the program the subjects will be assessed a
final time. This assessment will be used to gather data on the skill
level of the participants as measured against the technology standards.
Results
The first question of the study asked: Will a Technology Lead Teacher
program effect the skill level of the participants? In order to answer
this question an information sheet (appendix H) and a Technology Needs
Assessment survey were distributed to all participants at the initial
meeting of the TLTs. These surveys were then collected and scanned
to obtain raw scores for each of the 33 questions. The surveys were
also distributed at the completion of the third (or six) TLT class.
The number of responses to each of the five choices on the Likert
scale were calculated and the percentage of respondents in each category
was calculated.
In addition to the surveys that were completed, each participant
was asked to complete an information form which was designed to collect
demographic data on the participants. These data showed that there
was a high level of personal computer use - most of the participants
indicated that they had computers at home and that most had e-mail
and Internet access at home (table 1).
| |
0-5 |
6-10 |
11-15 |
16-20 |
21-25 |
26-30 |
31+ |
| Years of teaching experience |
31.1% |
21.3% |
8.2% |
13.1% |
11.5% |
9.8% |
4.9% |
| |
Yes |
No |
| Do you have a home computer? |
81% |
19% |
| Do you have access to e-mail at home? |
67% |
33% |
| Do you have access to the Internet at home? |
71% |
29% |
____________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Summary of Demographic Data
Results of of the analysis of the data from the initial administration
of the Technology Needs Assessment revealed that the participants
were of varying abilities with regards to technology and its uses
prior to the start of the training. In order to answer the questions
posed in this study, the Assessment was administered to the participants
at the completion of the third class.
A comparison between the responses to those questions which address
the skill level of the participants given on the first administration
of the survey and the follow-up administration is shown in table 2.
For clarity and space, the response categories have been compressed
(Strongly Agree combined with Agree Somewhat; and Strongly Disagree
combined with Disagree Somewhat). The results show a marked increase
in the perceived skill level of the participants. In nearly every
question related to skill level there was a significant increase in
responses in the Strongly Agree/Agree Somewhat category. It is interesting
to note that there was a decrease in positive responses in three of
the questions. These questions dealt with the Standards of Learning
for technology, use of technology for managing student data, and the
use of Desktop Publishing Software.
| |
Strongly
Agree/
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree
Somewhat/
Strongly Disagree |
| |
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
| 3. I can save and retrieve
information on a hard drive and/or floppy disk |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 4. I use the skill of
word processing (letters, memos, worksheets, tests). |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 5. I understand and comply
with copyright laws of computer software. |
91.2 |
100 |
8.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 7. I use software as a
productivity tool (newsletters, signs, certificates, etc.) |
86 |
100 |
10.5 |
0 |
3.5 |
0 |
| 12. I utilize e-mail (if
available in the building). |
88 |
100 |
7 |
0 |
5.3 |
0 |
| 15. I am able to select
appropriate software which supports the instructional program. |
87.7 |
83.3 |
10.5 |
0 |
1.8 |
16.7 |
| 21. I use Va-PEN or other
telecommunications programs for personal use. |
71.9 |
83.3 |
15.8 |
16.7 |
12.3 |
0 |
| 22. I use the computer
for managing student data. |
75.4 |
66.7 |
14 |
16.7 |
10.5 |
16.7 |
| 24. I use desktop publishing
software (e.g. PageMaker) if available. |
59.6 |
50 |
19.3 |
33.3 |
21 |
16.7 |
| 28. I utilize technology for assessment
of student growth and development of portfolios. |
45.6 |
83.3 |
36.8 |
0 |
17.5 |
16.7 |
| 31. I use interactive
programming tools (i.e. HyperStudio) to develop and share curriculum
materials. |
21.1 |
50 |
43.9 |
16.7 |
35.1 |
33 |
______________________________________________________________________
Table 2. Summary of Technology Needs Assessment
The second question of this study asked: What effect on the attitudes
towards technology integration will this program have? In order to
answer this question, data were collected from the Technology Needs
Assessment from questions which related to the attitudes towards technology
integration on the part of the participant. A comparison of the results
of the first and second administration of this survey are shown in
table 3.
The responses relating to attitudes show an increase in all but one
question. A comparison of the pre- and post-training testing show
that the participants feel much more positive in their attitudes towards
using technology in their classrooms. Significantly, the number of
positive responses decreased on one question which dealt with an awareness
of the Technology Standards of Learning. It is felt that the training
that the participants have received has shown to them that they are
not aware of things that they might have felt they knew ahead of time.
|
Strongly
Agree/Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree Somewhat/
Strongly Disagree |
|
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
1. I feel comfortable
using the computer for personal use. |
98.2 |
100 |
1.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2. I am comfortable
using the computer that is available at school. |
96.5 |
100 |
1.8 |
0 |
1.8 |
0 |
9. I have an awareness
of the technology available in my school. |
93 |
100 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
25. I am aware of
the technology standards for instructional personnel. |
73.7 |
100 |
21.1 |
0 |
5.3 |
0 |
26. I am aware of
the technology Standards of Learning. |
84.2 |
83.3 |
10.5 |
16.7 |
5.3 |
0 |
32. I am a leader
in working to maximize the integration of technology into the
curriculum. |
70.2 |
100 |
22.8 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
33. I work with
others to plan for the expansion of technology. |
71.9 |
83.3 |
22.8 |
16.7 |
5.3 |
0 |
____________________________________________________________________
Table 3. Summary of Technology Skills Survey
The third question of this study asked: Will a Technology Lead Teacher
program provide the participants with the skills necessary to effectively
integrate technology into their teaching? In order to answer this
question, data were collected from the Technology Needs Assessment
which was administered prior to the beginning of the training and
again after the completion of three classes. Certain of the questions
were designed to elicit responses to indicate the level of skills
needed to effectively integrate technology. A comparison of the results
from the pre- and post-training administration is shown in table 4.
The results show that there was an increase in some areas while other
areas decreased in the amount of technology use. This is likely due
to the fact that many of the participants, because they were chosen
more on the basis of their teaching ability than their technical expertise,
were not aware of the meaning of some of the questions prior to participating
in the training.
| |
Strongly Agree/Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree Somewhat/
Strongly Disagree |
| |
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
Pretest |
posttest |
| 6. I am familiar with software programs
related to my position. |
93 |
100 |
5.3 |
0 |
1.8 |
0 |
| 8. My students use the computer to
reinforce skills. |
68.4 |
83.3 |
22.8 |
16.7 |
8.8 |
0 |
| 10. I incorporate instructional TV
and video into my instructional program |
86 |
66.7 |
12.3 |
33.3 |
1.8 |
0 |
| 11. I feel comfortable using the computer
lab with a group of students |
86 |
83.3 |
10.5 |
16.7 |
3.5 |
0 |
| 13. I am aware of assistive technology
resources available to address special
needs students. |
54.4 |
50 |
21.1 |
50 |
24.6 |
0 |
| 14. I use the computer to develop
and present instructional material. |
84.2 |
66.7 |
14 |
33.3 |
1.8 |
0 |
| 16. My students use software which
supports the instructional program. |
71.9 |
83.3 |
24.6 |
16.7 |
3.5 |
0 |
| 17. My students utilize technology
in research and the development of projects.
|
63.2 |
66.7 |
24.6 |
33.3 |
12.3 |
0 |
| 18. My students use equipment such
as a scanner or digital camera (if available
in the building). |
19.3 |
0 |
54.4 |
50 |
26.3 |
23 |
| 19. I use the computer lab to support
what I am doing instructionally. |
64.9 |
66.7 |
24.6 |
33.3 |
10.5 |
0 |
| 20. I use telecomputing projects with
my students. |
19.3 |
16.7 |
42.1 |
66.7 |
38.6 |
0 |
| 23. I use technology to accommodate
the special needs of students. |
50.9 |
66.7 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
15.8 |
0 |
| 27. I integrate technology into classroom
activities on a regular basis. |
70.2 |
100 |
19.3 |
0 |
10.5 |
0 |
| 29. My students utilize desktop publishing
software (i. e. PageMaker) if available. |
38.6 |
16.7 |
33.3 |
66.7 |
28.1 |
16.7 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Table 4. Summary of Technology Skills Survey
Responses to questions relating to Technology Integration
Conclusions
The results of the needs assessment show that there is a definite
increase in the skill level of the participants. In nearly every area
that was measured, there were significantly more positive responses
to the skill related questions than at the initial administration
of the assessment. Judging by these results and observations made
by the researcher, the TLT program has been successful thus far in
increasing the technological competence of the participants.
More difficult to assess is the effect that the TLT program has had
on the attitudes and integration skills of the participants. This
is due in large part to the nature of the assessment instrument that
was used. While there were increases in many areas, there were also
a significant number of negative responses as well. The researcher
feels that part of the difficulty stems from the fact that, until
participating in the training program, many of the participants were
not aware of the nature of technology integration and its use in the
classroom. While they may have felt initially that they had used technology
effectively in the classroom, they became aware in the classes that
perhaps they had not. It is difficult to assess the effect of the
program based on this data.
Discussion
This study was undertaken as part of the researcher's degree requirements
for George Mason University. The TLT program has been instituted in
the researcher's school division and will be continued over the next
three years. The response to the program has been overwhelmingly positive.
Two additional cohorts have been added to the original four and a
cohorts are being planned for administrators and school board members.
The participants have generally been very enthusiastic about the
program and their developing skills in technology integration. Significantly,
many have expressed confidence in using technology in their classrooms.
While this was a goal of the program and was certainly hoped for,
this high degree of enthusiasm was unexpected.
It became apparent from the outset that the plan to train experienced
classroom teachers was a very good choice. Those practitioners with
enthusiasm for teaching should serve as excellent models for their
peers. It is anticipated that they will be able to transfer their
learning and excitement for technology to other teachers in the building.
It will certainly be a part of the researcher's plan to continue
to monitor the progress of the TLT program. The most significant results
will be gained in the 1999 - 2000 school year, when the TLTs will
begin conducting classes. The intent of the program has been to develop
a cadre of experienced teacher who would be able to serve as leaders
in technology integration. The full impact of the program will be
felt when these teachers return to their schools and take on that
role.
Bibliography
Archer, J. (1998) from The Link to Higher Test Scores. Education
Week, Vol. XVIII, Number 5, 10-12
Educational Commission of the States. (1998). Harnessing Technology
for Teaching and Learning
McKenzie, Jamison, Ed. D. Designing Staff Development for the Information
Age. From Now On Vol 1 no. 4 April 1991
Norton, P., Gonzales, C. (1998) Regional Educational Technology Assistance
Initiative -- Phase II: Evaluating a model for Statewide Professional
Development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. Vol 31
Number 1
Southern Technology Council. (1997) Making Technology Happen - Best
Practices and Policies from Exemplary K-12 Schools. Research Triangle
Park, NC
Trotter, A. (1998) A Question of Effectiveness, Education Week, Vol.
XVIII, Number 5, 10-12
Appendices
A. Stafford
County Public School's Technology Lead Teacher Program description
B. Memo to principals
describing the TLT program and eliciting participant selection
C. Criteria for participant
selection
D. SUPTs Memo. No. 2
April 17, 1998 - Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel
E. Technology Lead Teacher
Program course descriptions
Stafford County
Public Schools
Technology Lead Teacher Program
Meeting the Training and Technology Certification
Needs
of Licensed Professional Staff
December 1998
Stafford County Public Schools
Technology Lead Teacher Program
Recent guidelines from
the Virginia Department of Education emphasize technology competencies
for all instructional
personnel. Supts. Memo. No. 2 , Technology Standards for Instructional
Personnel, 8 VAC 20-25-30 (April 17, 1998, attached) , set a goal
that, "all instructional personnel meet the [technology] standards
prior to the 2002-2003 school year." The requirement that all
instructional personnel are to meet these eight standards places
responsibility
for training on the school division. In order to address the training
needs of over 1,400 licensed instructional personnel, Stafford County
Public Schools is instituting the Technology Lead Teacher (TLT) program.
The goal of this program is to provide a cadre of Technology Lead
Teachers with training from Mary Washington College and that those
teachers will return to their schools and provide training to meet
the technology standards.
Once the Technology Lead Teachers have completed
their training, they will be required to provide technology training
at their school site. This prescribed training will emphasize meeting
the technology standards set forth by the Department of Education.
Each Technology Lead Teacher will be required to provide ten hours
of technology training per semester in the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001
school years. This training will be the primary means by which Stafford
County instructional personnel will meet the technology standards.
As the teachers attain the technology standards, the Technology Lead
Teacher will communicate this to the Professional Growth Coordinator
who, in turn, will notify the principal. The attainment of these standards
will be noted in the teacher's annual evaluation. As stated in the
recently revised SCPS Technology Plan, our goal is for all instructional
personnel to meet the technology standards prior to the beginning
of the 2002-2003 school year.
The implementation of the Technology Lead Teacher
Program will proceed through the following phases:
Identification of teachers
Contracting and adapting Mary Washington College courses
Creation and scheduling of cohorts
Development of training curriculum
Providing training at school sites
Certification of teachers
1. Identification of Participants
Based on the available funding and the expense
of contracting for the MWC courses, it was determined that training
would be provided for 70 teachers within the county. Since the number
of trainers needed at a school site is determined by the size of the
staff, the number of participants was tied to the number of students
within each building. A breakdown of the number of Technology Lead
Teachers from each site is attached.
Experience with training for teachers has shown that requiring participation
significantly lowers motivation to succeed and builds resentment.
For this reason, it was strongly recommended to principals that the
participants from each building be volunteers. Those teachers who
have an interest in participating were asked to complete an application
form and submit it to the principal. While it was left to the principal
to make the final determination as to who would participate in the
program, the Coordinators of Instructional Technology and the Professional
Growth Coordinator suggested that the teachers be:
Voluntary participants;
On continuing contract in good standing;
Broadly endorsed;
Committed to technology lead teacher model;
Willing to satisfactorily complete six, one-credit college courses
offered approximately one weekend per month during the school year
and also during the summer months;
Willing to teach ten hours per semester of Technology Integration
and Competency Training for four semesters beginning in the fall 1999;
Willing to be a contributing evaluator of peers with regard to VDOE
required assessments Instructionally skilled, effective teachers;
Innovative/open to new teaching methods;
Knowledgeable of curriculum and methodologies;
Able to relate well with fellow teachers and the administrative staff;
Strong instructional educators;
Founded in instructional content and pedagogy.
The philosophy behind these criteria is that the
Technology Lead Teachers are to serve in their buildings as models
of excellent teachers integrating technology. These teachers, by virtue
of their standing within their buildings as outstanding teachers would
provide the best model for the instructional use of technology. Hence
the emphasis on participants being outstanding teachers rather than
technologically competent.
2. Contracting and adapting Mary Washington College
courses
For several years Mary Washington College has
offered a Technology Certification program for teachers. This program
is designed to provide training for in-service teachers in order to
meet the Commonwealth's requirement for technology competency. To
complete this program, participants must complete five of the six
courses offered (four are required, participants must choose one of
the two remaining electives).
By virtue of its proximity to Stafford County, and the basic design
of its Technology Certification program, SCPS has contracted with
MWC to provide its program on-site for the Technology Lead û Teacher
program.
It was determined that, in order to provide for
the specific training needs of SCPS staff and the requirements and
responsibilities of the Technology Lead Teachers, certain modifications
would need to be made to the MWC program. Specifically, since the
Technology Lead Teachers would be providing a significant amount of
training at their schools, an adult education component was added.
Also, instruction in the evaluation of teacher's technology competencies
will be provided to prepare the Technology Lead Teachers to effectively
provide training in those competencies and evaluate their student's
(teachers within their buildings) mastery of those competencies.
It was determined that the most efficient manner
in which to train the Technology Lead Teachers would be to offer a
series of six courses, all of which would be required for certification
by the college. A description of the six classes C to be offered is
attached.
3. Creation and Scheduling of Cohorts
Four cohorts will be created from the 70 participants
in the program. Each cohort will attend all six classes as a group.
The four cohorts will be comprised of teachers from elementary (cohorts
1 and 2); middle (cohort 3); and high school (cohort 4). Participants
from the Central Office, Rowser Instructional Center, Instructional
Annex, Head Start, and Alternative Education will be placed in appropriate
cohorts.
In order for the Technology Lead Teachers to receive
training using software and hardware appropriate to their level, the
cohorts will meet in two locations. The elementary cohorts will meet
at Stafford Elementary and the Middle and High cohorts will meet at
Brooke Point High School. (note: because of the difficulties in moving
and storing the equipment required for the Assistive Technology course,
all of its classes will meet at Stafford Elementary).
Since the classes offered are to meet on Friday
evenings (4:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and all day Saturday (9:00 am - 4:00
pm) it was necessary to stagger the scheduling of each class. An attempt
was made to offer classes approximately every 3 - 4 weeks for each
cohort. This provides the opportunity for the Technology Lead Teachers
to return to their classrooms and practice skills learned in each
course prior to the next course.
The makeup of each cohort, the number of participants
in each, and a schedule of classes is attached.
4. Development of Training Curriculum
The goal of the Technology Lead Teacher program
is to create a cadre of teachers who will be responsible for providing
training at each site in the county. The Technology Lead Teachers
will be providing training opportunities for teachers to meet the
technology standards. Thus, the curriculum for the hours of training
that the Technology Lead Teachers provide will be created prior to
the completion of the Technology Lead Teacher training. This curriculum
will be designed to adequately meet the training needs of the school
site and provide sufficient opportunities for teachers to receive
training in the technology standards.
To insure that the training that is provided by
the TLTs is meaningful, the program of instruction will be designed
to promote mastery of all skill areas and develop proficiency in utilizing
instructional technology. Effective use of the hours of training provided
by the Technology Lead W Teacher may involve classes which are more
extensive and are extended. The key to the instruction and success
in the training is the enhancement of instruction through technology,
and not technology skills for their own sake. It is anticipated that
meetings will be held between the Coordinators of Instructional Technology,
Professional Growth Coordinator, and Director of Curriculum and Staff
Development will be held prior to the beginning of the 1999-2000 school
year to review the training curriculum.
5. Providing Training at School Sites
The Technology Lead Teacher, in concert with the
Coordinators of Instructional Technology, will provide their required
hours of training in their buildings. The training will be advertised
to the staffs and care will be taken to insure that all technology
standards are addressed.
Once the teachers have mastered a particular standard
the Technology Lead Teacher will communicate this to the Professional
Growth Coordinator. She will then make it known to the building principal.
At the teacher's annual evaluation conference, the principal will
review the teacher's progress towards attaining all of the technology
standards. Once all eight of the standards are met, the teacher will
receive a certificate to that effect and will be exempted from participating
in additional training for certification.
6. Certification of Teachers
Teachers must participate in the training sessions
offered by the Technology Lead Teachers in order to meet the technology
standards. These are the only building level sessions which will provide
that opportunity. If a teacher believes that he/she can meet the standard
without participating in the classes, they will have the opportunity
to 'test out' of that particular class. As teachers demonstrate that
they have mastered the standards, records of that completion will
be sent to the Professional Growth Coordinator and the building principal.
This will provide the means by which the division can certify to the
Department of Education that the teachers have met, or are in the
process of meeting the technology standards.
The Technology Lead Teachers will provide the
division with the personnel qualified to teach and evaluate the skills
mandated by the Commonwealth. Through the training they provide to
their schools all staff members should have the opportunity to learn
and master the skills needed to become successful integrators of technology.
MEMORANDUM MEMO #
185
TO: Principals
FROM: Andrea L. Bengier, Assistant Superintendent
for Instruction
Peter J. Vernimb, Director of Curriculum & Staff Development
RE: Instructional Technology Training Initiative
ENCL: Technology Standards, 8 VAC 20-25-30
Recent guidelines from the Virginia Department
of Education emphasize technology competencies for all instructional
personnel. Per VDOE Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel,
8 VAC 20-25-30, guidelines, instructional personnel are to meet the
stated standards prior to the 2002-2003 school year. We are rewriting
our technology plan to reflect the guidelines with emphasis directed
toward accomplishment of this deadline. Our technology plan will include
a Technology Lead Teacher component as licensed staff must be trained
per VDOE requirements. Therefore, Stafford County Public Schools is
contracting with Mary Washington College for six graduate, instructional
technology courses to include specific supervision and adult training
components.
Based on school staff population, each school
site will select w teachers to complete these MWC courses with the
goal that this trained cadre of teachers will return to their respective
buildings and provide a minimum of ten hours per semester of Technology
Integration and Competency Training for four semesters beginning in
the fall 1999. They will be paid at the PDS hourly rate for providing
this on-site training. They may also be contributing evaluators with
regard to the assessment component of the VDOE technology regulations.
Stafford County Public Schools will pay for all tuition for these
courses which will be offered at specified schools within the division.
Upon completion of the six courses, the Technology Lead Teachers will
have fulfilled the requirements of the VDOE Technology Standards for
Instructional Personnel and will receive the Computer Technology for
Educators Certificate from Mary Washington College.
Your expertise is needed to accomplish the selection
of the volunteer Technology Lead Teacher cadre. Our aim is to assemble
a highly motivated, highly credible Technology Lead Teacher cadre
who are already acknowledged instructional mentors. The key is the
integration of technology into instruction. Prospective participants
do not need to be currently using technology as part of their instruction;
those skills will be provided as part of this program. We are looking
for master teachers willing to assist others. Included with this memo
is a criteria sheet citing important qualifications in the selection
of Technology Lead Teachers. Also, remember that these Technology
Lead Teachers could be contributors to the evaluation of other teachers
for the mandated assessment component of the VDOE technology regulations.
Teachers from all programs such as art, music, special education,
health and physical education, and vocational education should be
considered. Please use your knowledge of your staff and the listed
criteria for final selection of Technology Lead Teachers for your
school.
In a faculty meeting, please discuss this opportunity
including the criteria sheet. Instructional Technology Coordinators
will be available to speak to your teachers at your faculty meeting.
As soon as possible, please call Bill Warrick or Mike Ballard at 659-3141
to apprise the coordinators of your faculty meeting schedule. We would
appreciate if you could provide the names of your Technology Lead
Teachers to the Office of Professional Growth (attention: Celia White)
no later than December 15, 1998.
Thank you for your time and cooperation with this
effort. Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Criteria
For Technology Lead Teacher Selection
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P. O. BOX 2120
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-2120
SUPTS. MEMO. NO. 2
April 17, 1998
REGULATORY
TO: Division Superintendents
FROM: Paul D. Stapleton
Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: Licensure Regulations for School Personnel
(8 VAC 20-21-10) and Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel
(8 VAC 20-25-10)
TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL
(8VAC 20-25-10)
Instructional personnel are ultimately responsible
for the use of technology in the classroom. As a result of the availability
of technology and the requirement that students in Virginia must master
technology standards, instructional personnel will be required to
meet the Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel. These technology
standards set forth those competencies required of instructional personnel
in Virginia. Individuals completing approved preparation programs
will also be required to demonstrate competency in technology as a
requirement of program completion.
School divisions must incorporate the technology
standards into their local technology plans and develop strategies
to implement the standards by December 1998. The goal is that all
instructional personnel meet the standards prior to the 2002-2003
school year. The local technology plan must include a time line and
strategies to meet this goal. School divisions must also ensure that
newly-hired instructional personnel demonstrate proficiency in the
technology standards during the three-year probationary period of
employment. Even though this requirement is applicable to all school
personnel required to hold a license issued by the Virginia Board
of Education, it is not a requirement for continued licensure or license
renewal. Please note, however I, that instructional personnel without
a master's degree may complete a course in educational technology
in lieu of a content course for one renewal cycle.
School divisions must include strategies to implement
and assess the standards in the local technology plans. The standards
are intended to be entry level; therefore, school divisions will need
to establish provisions for instructional personnel who have already
acquired higher levels of knowledge and skills to test out of the
entry-level requirements.
Institutions of higher education must incorporate
technology standards in their approved programs and assess students'
proficiency of the standards by December 1998. Institutions will verify
that students have met the technology standards on form DA 035, College
Verification Form, now used to recommend students for licensure. The
form will be revised by the Department of Education and distributed
directly to colleges and universities with approved programs prior
to the beginning of the 1998 fall semester. Institutions will need
to establish provisions by which students who have already acquired
higher levels of knowledge and skills may test out of the standards
which are intended to be entry level.
By the fall of the year 2000, institutions must
align their teacher education programs with the licensure regulations.
The newly-developed programs will be reviewed on a five-year cycle
to verify both alignment with the licensure competencies and incorporation
of the technology standards. Institutions will not be required to
submit written documentation of the incorporation of the technology
standards into their approved program ,s prior to the adoption of
revised accreditation and program approval standards now being developed.
The revised standards and procedures will establish the schedule for
the reinstatement of the five-year review cycle. Institutions that
are scheduled for national accreditation or technical assistance reviews
prior to the fall of 2000 will be expected to demonstrate incorporation
of the technology standards into their programs and strategies for
assessing student competency in the use of technology at the time
of their on-site review.
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Thomas A.
Elliott, Assistant Superintendent for Compliance, at (804) 371-2522;
Mr. Lan W. Neugent, Assistant Superintendent for Technology, at (804)
786-2260; or Mrs. Patty S. Pitts, Associate Director for Licensure,
at (804) 225 -2022 if you have any questions regarding the licensure
regulations or the technology standards.
PDS:psp
Enclosure
c: Deans/Chairs, Schools/Departments of Education
Directors of Human Resources Licensure Contact Persons
8 VAC 20-25-10 et seq.
TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL
Statutory Authority: 22.1%-16 of the Code of Virginia
Effective Date: March 4, 1998
8 VAC 20-25-10.
Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this
regulation, shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
Demonstrated proficiency means a demonstrated
level of competence of the technology standards as determined by school
administrators.
Electronic technologies means electronic devices
and systems to access and exchange
information.
Instructional personnel means all school personnel
required to hold a license issued by the Virginia Board of Education
for instructional purposes.
Productivity tools means computer software tools
to enhance student learning and job performance.
8 VAC 20-25-20.
Administration of technology standards.
A. School divisions and institutions of higher
education shall incorporate the technology standards for instructional
personnel into their division-wide technology plans and approved teacher
education programs, respectively, by December 1998.
B. School divisions and institutions of higher
education shall develop implementation plans for preservice and in-service
training for instructional personnel. The implementation plan shall
provide the requirements for demonstrated proficiency of the technology
standards.
C. Waivers shall be considered on a case-by-case
basis of the 18-hour professional studies cap placed on teacher preparation
programs for institutions requesting additional instruction in educational
technology.
D. School divisions shall ensure that newly-hired
instructional personnel from out of state demonstrate proficiency
in the technology standards during the three-year probation period
of employment.
E. Course work in technology shall satisfy the
content requirement for licensure renewal for license holders who
do not have a master's degree.
F. School divisions shall incorporate the technology
standards into their local technology plans and develop strategies
to implement the standards by December 1998.
G. Institutions of higher education shall incorporate
technology standards in their approved program requirements and assess
students' demonstrated proficiency of the standards by December 1998.
8 VAC 20-25-30.
Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel
A. Instructional personnel shall be able to demonstrate
effective use of a computer system and utilize computer software.
B. Instructional personnel shall be able to apply
knowledge of terms associated with educational computing and technology.
C. Instructional personnel shall be able to apply
computer productivity tools for professional use.
D. Instructional personnel shall be able to use
electronic technologies to access and exchange information.
E. Instructional personnel shall be able to identify,
locate, evaluate, and use appropriate instructional hardware and software
to support Virginia's Standards of Learning and other instructional
objectives.
F. Instructional personnel shall be able to use
educational technologies for data collection, information management,
problem solving, decision making, communication, and presentation
within the curriculum.
G. Instructional personnel shall be able to plan
and implement lessons and strategies that integrate technology to
meet the diverse needs of learners in a variety of educational settings.
H. Instructional personnel shall demonstrate knowledge
of ethical and legal issues relating to the use of technology.
MWC -
Certificate in Computer Technology for Educators Program
Stafford County Specific Course Descriptions
0900 - Basic Skills
Participants will be given basic skills for using Instructional Technology.
These will include operation of hardware, basic software use, the
use of peripherals, file management techniques, and productivity tools
- word processing, spreadsheet, database.
0901 - Implementing the Technology Standards
In addition to a basic understanding of computer technology standards
required for all students by the end of Grade 5, Grade 8, and for
graduation, participants will receive instruction on meeting the technology
competencies for professional personnel. Participants will gain an
understanding of the philosophy and purposes behind the integration
of technology in Stafford County Public Schools. Additionally, participants
will be provided with instruction in the issues and methods of adult
education.
0902 - Introduction to the Internet for Educators
An overview of the Internet and its resource and communications capabilities.
participants will use the Internet to research and gather resources
for use in meeting content area and technology SOLs. Participants
will also use the Internet's communication capabilities to collaborate
with other classes/students. Participants will create web pages to
be used as classroom/school resources.
0903 - Introduction to Desktop Publishing and
Multimedia for Educators
An overview of specific applications using Desktop Publishing and
Multimedia software and associated hardware. Participants will have
hands-on experience with using various software and hardware devices
available in SCPS.
0906 - Implementing Technology into Instructional
Programs
Provides participants with a basic understanding of the instructional
applications of modern technology. Participants will gain an understanding
of the philosophy and purposes behind instructional technology as
well as strategies for it's integration into the classroom.
0907 - Introduction to Assistive Technology
This course will provide participants with a comprehensive overview
of assistive technology solutions for students with special needs.
Topics covered will include, consideration planning, demonstrations
and practical application using selected assistive hardware and software,
Internet-based solutions, curriculum integration strategies, inclusion
strategies, current law and IEP considerations.
PDF Version