Databus Issue: 2008 3 07/31/2008
Staff Development
Ken Quisenberry Director of Education & Library TechnologyFocusing on What Works
PDF
No matter how hard we’d push, there just wasn’t a significant move or balance change. As educational technology staff in a large high school district in eastern San Diego County, we felt that it was clearly time to reassess the realities and reflect on our methods. Budgets were actually regressing from a point where California’s Digital High Schools project had promised an enlightened view of 21st Century classrooms to a point of virtual fiscal blindness to the needs of progressing further or even maintaining what was started. We knew that we had to “bleed the turnip” of our meager budgets and capitalize on leverage points that would most benefit our students as the goal of our new “staff development program.” From this dilemma, we discovered some crucial characteristics of an effective professional development initiative.
Focus on the Pedagogy in Collaborative Teams: Traditionally, technology trainings offered by educational technology specialists (including myself) invariably focus back to the technology tools themselves, while getting mired in the “how-to’s.” Our program intentionally provides countermeasures: Learning teams are composed only of teachers from the same content areas to be guided by a “lead integration teacher” from that subject area. As a team, our staff and the content area lead instructors first gather information on which specific technology-related strategies are “working” (i.e., bringing measurable student benefits) in that particular subject area, then we “team teach” to the learning groups. Our initial priority was working only with core content teams emphasizing “battle-tested,” in-class practices that brought the most success. There is a substantial difference between an English teacher being trained on “how to use Inspiration” versus being exposed to one answer to “how do I engage and scaffold all of my students in developing outlines and making connections before writing.” From teachers’ perspectives, it’s a huge leap forward from viewing “tech coordinator-types” talking about how it can be used to viewing “one of themselves” actually using it and advocating for its benefits with real, live students.
Standardized learning expectations plus ample choices: Another key component is customizing trainings to allow for individualized choices while also ensuring each participant’s mastery of a standard set of “instructional technology skills.” The standard expectations include having foundational skills for strategies like using presentation software, concept mapping strategies, and relevant web resources in a variety of modes. To address diversity, the program also provides options of individualized “breakout sessions” for different types of content and skill levels. Finally, teams can opt for curriculum development time to put their new instructional strategies into practice, making a huge difference in who actually implements these strategies “the next day” with students.
Continuous context: For our staff development program to change the teaching culture, we committed that the program must be an ongoing venture – a mutual support compact among the teachers themselves and with our office. Teachers are given opportunities for shared curriculum writing sessions with at-hand technical assistance as well as additional training/mentoring opportunities throughout each year. Our office commits to an unprecedented level of helpdesk support, on-site mentoring, “distribution” of budgetary resources, and even a guarantee of access to a fundamental “instructor toolkit” of resources.
“Instructional technology toolkits” and teacher accountability: Each participating teacher is guaranteed access to “check out” an instructional toolkit consisting of an lcd projector, a laptop computer (on a 3-year laptop refresh cycle), and a host of content-appropriate resources (UnitedStreaming videos, AtomicLearning tutorials, application software including Inspiration, etc.). Subject area groups also receive access to appropriate online content. With their annual commitment to ongoing progression and classroom implementation, teachers guarantee themselves daily access to these resources; our office even swaps out malfunctioning units for good ones at any moment’s notice to maintain continuity. While our commitment to providing resource access has fiscally limited the annual participant numbers, it allows high commitment levels for eligible teachers. By financing our equipment on 3-year lease cycles, we are able to scale the program very methodically given our few resources.
Accountability for classroom implementation: To continue program eligibility, teachers must demonstrate instructional benefits annually. Teachers report (on our online database) their progression toward annual professional development goals, collaboration with content area teachers (submitting their most valuable strategies in our online TeacherExchange), their own “web presence” to extend instruction and communication beyond traditional classtime, and their reflections on what’s working and what they will attempt in the future. Each year, this process repeats for new sets of goals and strategies in every one of these district classrooms.
These program traits have created substantial improvements in outcomes. As we continue to involve more teachers in these classroom culture shifts, we already perceive a balance change – even a tipping point – in how teachers approach their instructional options in the classroom.
