Objective 2. 2.

Objective 2. 2  The student will research, explore, share case studies of different IT Professional Development programs in schools (or their current school) and analyze how the current framework supports or does not support the schools learning community.

A) Describe your current IT PD program in your school.

The current IT PD program in my school is based on 3 pillars:

1. Regular weekly professional development meetings.
2. “In-house” professional development program.
3.   External professional Development

1- Regular weekly professional development meetings. We call them “ATLAS”. ATLAS stands for Advanced Technology at LAS. It was very wisely decided that teachers would need professional development in order to enhance the educational use of technology at LAS. If we look at a recent study by the National Center for Educational Statistics (Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010), we can see that less than half of the three thousand surveyed teachers reported using technology often during instructional time. Most teachers seem to use technology only for administrative tasks and to communicate with peers and parents (grades and attendance mainly).

This idea was very successfully put into action and as a result a slot in teachers’ very busy schedule was found. A weekly one-hour meeting was arranged during the first and last term of the school (it was not possible to arrange for these meetings in winter term due to a change of schedule in winter to accommodate an activity which attracts students and teachers alike: skiing in Leysin ski resort. For more information on this see my article (Serra,A., 2013)

2. “In-house” professional development program. In this program professional development is promoted from within. Teachers share their knowledge and skills in small groups in which trainers and trainees are all mixed. This PD program is very successful and I have personally benefited from it.

“Months after transitioning from mentoring to teacher-led communities of practice, teachers continued to report positive perceptions of several barriers and were observed engaging in desirable instructional practices. “ (Kopcha, 2012, p 1109)

It consists of three independent programs, named “Program A”, “Program B” and “Program C”.

Program A is compulsory for all new teachers (a few teachers leave the school every year for different reasons and they have to be replaced). It consists mainly on reflections about one chosen topic (examples include “Use of technology in the school”, “Teaching students who speak English as a Foreign Language” or  “Building rapport with students”). This theoretical approach is complemented with observation and discussion of lessons of other teachers in the school and self-observation with videos.

Program B- consists mainly on being observed by another teacher whose main task is to represent in a simple pie-chart the percentage of each type of activity/student-teacher interaction. The objective of the observer is to show the data not to analyze it. It is up to the teacher participating in this program to work on changing certain parts of the style or not. For example trainee might attempt to create more group work or less lecturing, etc.

Program C- consist mainly on an educational research project.

3.  External professional Development. Most teachers rely on PD programs offered from third parties. LAS teachers have a PD budget of 750CHF per year, which they can use to sign if for courses offered externally. This does not include the possibility of doing an MEd by Endicott College (which can include the new MEd in International Education with an Emphasis in Educational Technology.

B . What areas are successful?

LAS teachers have many opportunities for professional development. There is a wide variety of different professional development programs. The school somehow finances them all so that teachers only have to invest their time in their education. Personally I think this approach benefits both teachers and students. It benefits the selection process (teachers applying are more likely to accept a contract if they are interested in PD), the adaptation process (new teachers can more easily adapt to the school) and the ongoing PD of staff in general.

C. What areas are missing?

i) Differentiation (1): most ATLAS IT PD sessions were in groups which were very big (often the whole faculty group together), and with teachers with very different IT skills levels (no differentiation made). If we had tried to teach Mathematics to all our students in assembly for one hour the result would not have been much different.

ii) A strong leadership (1).  The lack of structure of the ATLAS project has reached the point that many teachers prefer to do any other duty than attending these meetings, as they feel it is a waste of their time.

iii) Coherence (1) Many ATLAS IT PD meetings have been replaced for the creation of curriculum maps. The name in the school’s weekly schedule did not changed (as ATLAS is also related to curriculum mapping), and many teachers felt that they were mislead when the concept changed. This has generated a tragically decrease of the general motivation to learn.

iv) Supervision (2). Some cohorts in the “in-house” PD program lack of motivation or are seriously time-limited and this slows down their learning process.

v) Guidance. (2). Some aspects in the “in-house” PD program lack of guidance. Teachers teaching teachers is a great way to share experiences. But sometimes a more experience teacher/ or specialized or otherwise prepared in a certain field can add more to the course.

vi) Travel expenses (3). Many teachers end up paying most of their annual 750CHF budget in travel expenses. This is due to the fact that many of the chosen courses are weekend courses abroad.

D. How would you support these gaps?

i) Differentiation. The solution to this problem is to split faculty in different groups regarding their ability, interests and needs.

ii) A strong leadership. I think the key to the solution of the problem is the creation of a Director of Educational Technology / Use of Technology Coordinator in the school. The role of the Director of Educational Technology is very important. The importance of this job has been underestimated in the school, and the tasks have been filled by people who do not have had the skills required (leadership / IT skills / Educational Background), or the time, or the incentive, or the motivation necessary. School administrators’ IT skills are often not strong enough to help others. The traditional IT director in most schools has a strong IT background but very limited experience in the applications of technology in the classroom and this limits the success of their PD sessions. Research shows that PD training can reduce technology integration when it lacks connection to actual classroom practice or focuses solely on technical skills (Bradshaw, 2002). Finally most teachers simply do not have the time or the incentive to prepare a good workshop for other teachers. Many teachers think that technology increases their workload (Inan & Lowther, 2010). LAS teachers are required and given time to prepare lessons for their students. In the same way anyone involved in the coordination of such ATLAS IT PD meetings should be prepared for the position. Underestimating the cost of this has resulted in loosing precious time and motivation from the faculty group.

iii) Coherence. Let’s call things by their name. It is best to have only one productive PD meeting a month than having one every week and waste time or mislead participants with an image which does not correspond with the reality.

iv) Supervision. Possibly more organized meetings with a program coordinator present.

v) Guidance. This can be solved by bringing an external expert, or even better, provide real incentives for inside experts who prepare relevant seminars.

vi) Travel expenses. These could be avoided with on-line courses (with a guidance to select them) and also by bringing an external expert or provide real incentives for inside experts who prepare relevant seminars.

References

·      Al-Senaidi, S., Ln, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Computers & Education, 53(3), 575-590.

·      Bradshaw, L.K. (2002). Technology for teaching and learning: strategies for staff development and follow-up support. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 131-150.

·      Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

·      Inan, F.A., & Lowther, D.L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937-944.

·      Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109-1121

·      LAS. ATLAS. Advanced Technology at LAS. Retrieved from http://www.las.ch/academics/atlas

·      Magnuson, P., & Motta, R. Promoting Professional Learning from Within. The International Educator. Vol. 24. No. 23, February 2010.

·      School Computing. Director of Educational Technology Job Description. Retrieved from http://schoolcomputing.wikia.com/wiki/Director_of_Educational_Technology

·      Serra, A. What are some key areas to focus on in an effort to enhance your school schools’ virtual presence? Retrieved from http://leadership-technology.blogspot.ch/2013/01/what-are-some-key-areas-to-focus-on-in.html

·      Serra, A. The current IT PD program in my school. Multi-media presentation. Retrieved from http://leadership-technology.blogspot.ch/2013/02/the-current-it-pd-program-in-my-school.html