Article Review 5:
Bradshaw, Lynn, Technology for teaching and learning: strategies for staff development and follow-up support . Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Spring 2002 v10 i1 p131(20) . (Need WMU Bronco NetID to access)
Summary: This article reviewed strategies of 27 school districts staff development plans. Based on the review it appears school systems are moving toward long-term development strategies with follow-up support instead of “one-shot” activities. Many plans also addressed teacher's concerns regarding implementation of technology and recognize that teacher's knowledge needs to continually grow and develop new skills before they can teach and implement technology into their classrooms. The article also noted staff development does not automatically result in implementation of technology; learning must extend over time with concerns and needs being addressed.
There were four components of training reviewed in the article included:
Number of Districts Plan with Evidence
Training Components
11
Presentation of theory- workshops, conferences, and training sessions
8
Modeling or demonstration- model classrooms, demonstrations from experts or vendors and visits to model programs
7
Practice with low risk feedback- teacher training centers, networked labs, and equipment availability
20
Coaching, study groups, or peer visits- support personnel, technology specialist, technology support coordinators, committees to plan/ provide appropriate technology staff development and other opportunities for sharing successes.
Many school districts have evidence of using more then one component of technology training no schools used all four models and only 2 of the 27 districts used three of the four models.
Teacher's concerns about technology and management of the technology resources were reviewed noting six stages: informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. Building awareness of classroom uses of technology was mentioned in several plans.
Evaluation outcomes of staff development considered: participant satisfaction, teacher knowledge and skill, classroom use, and student performance. All four levels were included in two of the 27 plans reviewed. Eleven district plans were evaluating classroom use and 16 district plans were evaluating impact on student learning.
The author included nine recommendations that school systems could use to improve their staff development plan:
- Involve teachers and administrators in long-range plans and ensure organizational support.
- Be prepared to respond to changes in technology and fluctuations in financial support.
- Help teachers and administrators apply knowledge and skills in technology to improve student learning. Include opportunities in staff development to practice new skills with feedback and include follow-up (peer coaching) after training.
- Develop school and district structures to support technology and instruction.
- Provide time for teachers to work and plan together.
- Increase access to technology.
- Realize different stages of teachers concerns and respond appropriately.
- Provide incentives when technology staff development takes place outside of the school day or year.
- Evaluate technology staff development and include opportunities for teachers to observe others using new knowledge and skills.
Implications: The article implies providing the hardware and software is not enough, teachers must be skilled in using and applying knowledge to instructional program. One-shot training sessions are not effective, continued support and collaborating with peers are more effective models of staff development. School Districts need to evaluate and improve their staff development plans.
Reaction: The author summarized the 27 school districts staff development plans very well. I agree with the conclusion and recommendations, although budgets and time do not always allow for all of the recommendations to be implemented. Evaluating and improving staff development as much as possible will benefit the school system and students. Small changes are better then no changes (in technology and staff development).