A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Involving a Majority of Teachers

Our case studies provide some interesting insights. In most of the schools we visited, teachers were at different stages in their use of technology. In a few cases, the range of familiarity and expertise went from one end of the continuum to the other: some teachers were still reticent to use computers at all, others were at the "let's try it and see if it works" stage, and some had acquired a sophisticated level of skill and were incorporating technology throughout their teaching practice. Some teachers encouraged their students to use computers to accomplish tasks, but they themselves did not engage in any computer-supported activities. Several teachers reported that the primary reasons for their nonuse of computers included the fear of damaging the equipment, the lack of time for training and exploration, and the inability to see a meaningful match with the curriculum. The issue of how to get teachers on board with technology was a topic of interest and concern to many of the administrators and technology coordinators we spoke with. Whether schools were built from the ground up as technology-supported sites or were attempting to incorporate technology into an already established program, the integration of technology has been a gradual process. The few schools in which technology implementation appeared to be very widespread and well integrated throughout the curriculum shared a number of characteristics, including a large enough number of computers to allow for frequent access, strong leadership, a collaborative environment and shared instructional goals, extensive opportunities for teachers to learn and work with the technology, and on-site technical support.

In general, program designers shared the perception that teachers should not and cannot be pushed into using technology.

It is something that I have wanted immediately. ...I have had to understand that you can't save everybody and you can't push people from the point that they are at. You can only make suggestions and show them things that they might be able to integrate into their classrooms, and if the interest and excitement is there, they pick up on it. Not everybody is going to be able to use [the computers] right away.

--School technology coordinator

If technology-supported educational reform is to really change a school and affect students deeply, however, it needs to spread beyond a handful of teachers. The experiences of our case study sites suggest the importance of getting broad agreement on a school-level vision of what the school wants to become. As in the case of the John Wesley and Progressive School sites, that original vision may not include technology. A consistent set of instructional goals and practices is more important. If technology can support these goals (and we believe it can be an important support, particularly for project-based learning activities), teachers then have a motivation for learning how to use technology and to incorporate it into their teaching practices.

The experiences of our case study sites suggest that, in fact, the move to project-based work, without relying on lecture methods or following a textbook, is a more fundamental and difficult shift than the introduction of technology. Teachers who have learned how to design challenging activities in which students work on cooperative projects and who are able to manage multiple student groups working on different phases of their project activity find that the introduction of technology goes relatively smoothly. Since students are not expected to all be working on the same thing at the same time, the class does not need one computer for every student or student pair. Moreover, students who are used to working together find it very natural to consult with each other on their technology-related problems. Particularly in the upper grade levels, teachers who have become accustomed to playing the role of coach rather than that of all-knowing lecturer and demonstrator find that they can rely on students to help set up equipment and troubleshoot technical difficulties. A number of teachers reported that they became willing to take on technology after witnessing the active role that students were able to take in teaching both themselves and one another.

One strategy for getting teachers involved with technology that has been used in many places is to give teachers computers for their personal use. States and private donors have set up such programs, typically with certain requirements, such as attending a class on how to use the technology. These programs give teachers a better idea of what can be done with the equipment and get them accustomed to using the equipment as a tool for their own productivity. With their own personal experience of the ways in which technology can support their productivity, teachers are more likely to see ways in which similar uses could support the projects they want their students to do. In addition, as one teacher pointed out in her interview, take-home computer programs for teachers have important motivational value:

If they cannot afford to give their teachers a computer to work with at home, why should the teachers make that commitment [to learn to use technology]? I think that was the one piece that made the teachers feel real professional. It made every teacher feel, "I am valued and I will buy into this. I cannot sit here with this computer on my desk at home and not do something about it. I can play with it all weekend."

--Elementary school teacher

Exhibit 3 Strategies for Involving Teachers A Teacher Take-Home Computer Program At John Wesley, a take-home Duo Dock program was implemented in 1993-94 with great success. Although the school's restructuring efforts had included the use of technology since 1988, only a portion of the school's teachers had really become enthusiastic users of technology in their classrooms. Many teachers, particularly in the primary grades, were reluctant to become involved. In January of 1994, teachers were given the opportunity to obtain a Macintosh Duo (a notebook computer) for their own use if they agreed to take a day-long introductory training and to use the machine in their classrooms as well. (The computer becomes the personal property of the teacher after 5 years if he or she is still at John Wesley.) Initially, all but one teacher signed up for the program, and the last teacher decided to participate after coming in one day to "play with" one of the machines. Additional mini-training sessions on technology topics selected by the teachers were offered after school, and technology use in the classroom became more widespread. The part-time technology coordinator estimates that 70% of teachers now use these computers to write narrative reports for parents, and 80% of teachers are using computers for classroom instruction. Although the level of use still varies, most classes are providing computer-based activities every week. An In-House Proposal Process When news of an externally funded technology project comes to Nathaniel Elementary, an announcement is made to the entire school faculty inviting any who are interested to attend an after-school information session. Nathaniel is a large urban school, and, in most cases, these projects have been limited to a handful of classrooms. Once the information regarding the project is made available to the staff, teachers who wish to participate are asked to submit a proposal outlining their goals and describing the ways in which they feel their classrooms would benefit from participation. The proposals are then reviewed by an in-house committee that consists of the principal, the technology coordinator, and several teachers. This process has been used to select classrooms for participation in several different technology-supported projects, such as CSILE and Project GALAXY.

Another strategy for spreading the use of technology is to provide teachers with remuneration and recognition for designing good instructional uses of technology. Some districts, for example, offer "mini-grant" competitions through which teachers can obtain resources for trying out innovative instructional uses of technology in their classrooms. One of our case study sites benefited from a program offered by Apple Computer; during school year breaks, the company paid the school's teachers as consultants to develop instructional uses of software running on Apple computers. Teachers received extensive technical support and training during these consulting periods, which in turn enhanced their ability to integrate technology into their teaching.

Finally, adoption of goals for technology skills was another way in which pressure was exerted on teachers to incorporate technology into what they were doing. One of our middle school sites was located in a state that had specific technology competencies that students are supposed to acquire by the end of eighth grade. An elementary case study site recently began work on a continuum of technology competencies for different developmental levels that will become part of the schoolwide set of instructional goals. The project coordinator expects the articulation and assessments of these competencies to influence those teachers who have been slow to implement technology.

A strategy that our case study sites said they did not use is emphasizing prior technology skills in hiring new teachers. Even the two new schools designed to be technology demonstration schools did not emphasize technology skills in their staff selection. Administrators emphasized that good teaching skills and the ability to work well with a diverse population of students were more important. What they did seek in selecting teachers, however, was an interest in trying out new things and a willingness to learn about technology.

The extent to which technology was well integrated into regular classrooms across our study sites was related to use of these strategies. Those sites that employed more strategies (i.e., that had a well-planned effort to disseminate technology activities) succeeded in getting a larger proportion of their teaching staff involved. Table 3 summarizes the use of these strategies across our case study sites.

Providing Technical Support for Technology Use and Maintenance

It's like putting gas in the car; you put it in and you want it to run and you don't ever look under the hood. I think it's the same with computers...we need someone...who, when computers break down, can be a troubleshooter.

--Elementary school project coordinator

Table 3

Strategies for Involving a Majority of Teachers

Strategy	BVE	ECHS	JWE	MS	NE	PS	SCM	SOTF	TNet
Create cadre of innovators to start snowball	X				X				X
Seek agreement on school vision and technology's role within it	X	X	X			X	X		X
Give teachers computers for personal use		X	X			X	X		X
Provide remuneration and recognition for instructional uses of technology	X	X				X	X
Adopt goals for technology skills			X				X		X
Provide supported time for learning to use technology and designing instructional applications		X				X	X
Provide easily accessible technical support for technology use				X	X	X	X	X	X

Quite a bit of technical support is needed in schools where all or most teachers are using technology, particularly if new or experimental systems are involved or extensive use is made of computer networks. At least five kinds of technical assistance are necessary:

• Help in planning for technology uses and acquisitions

• Training in how to use new hardware and software

• Demonstrations and advice on how to incorporate technology into instruction

• On-demand help when software problems or hardware failures arise

• Low-level system maintenance.

Exhibit 4 Effects of Varying Levels of Technical Support The Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) project at Nathaniel Elementary has gone through several phases of implementation, with varying degrees of technical support. During the first year of the project, participating teachers were flown to a 3-day conference that introduced them to the CSILE model of collaborative knowledge building and brought them together with teachers from around the country who were piloting the program. Teachers were given e-mail accounts linking them with other participating teachers and with the development and support staff. Nathaniel teachers rarely made use of these accounts because the school's modem was located in the computer lab, rather than in their classrooms. Teachers and students began exploring CSILE with limited technical support; however, its use within the classroom was limited by their initial lack of expertise, the need for curriculum support, and problems associated with early versions of the software (e.g., software bugs, frequent upgrades). During the second year of the project, a major reduction in technical support due to funding cutbacks brought CSILE to a standstill. As one teacher describes it, "No one within the district or the school knew CSILE well enough to offer support, so things fell apart." Major changes came about in the project's third year, when additional research funds provided a high level of technical and curricular support and a much stronger program implementation. CSILE's founding researchers conducted a series of visitations. Two of their graduate students spent 2 days each week at the school providing direct technical assistance and facilitating the integration of CSILE into the curriculum. In addition to their individual classroom support, the graduate assistants met with the participating teachers as a group twice a month. During the meetings, teachers discussed their curricular goals, and possible matches with CSILE were suggested. According to the teachers, this level of support has been instrumental in their ability to integrate CSILE more meaningfully into their curriculum: Last year we didn't really use it because of all the upgrades and no support. For example, if you turn it on and it doesn't work, I can't figure it out and we don't use it. The other big shift was that when we first learned CSILE, I was trying to have my curriculum fit in with CSILE...creating units so that it would be compatible with CSILE, which now I think is backwards. Now what I want is for the technology to support what we are doing in the classroom. And that was a realization that I had this year when we were discussing CSILE with the creators, and that idea came out. We are the "experts" on what we're doing in the classroom, so why don't we have a discussion about the archaeology project; let the CSILE people listen in...they're the experts on CSILE and how the technology operates. After hearing what we're doing, then they can give us suggestions for how we can integrate CSILE into what we're doing and how it would enhance what we're doing, which is really how it should be.

The relative importance of these functions shifts over time. The initial phases of implementation, especially within projects serving as testbeds, are more likely to be riddled with frequent software glitches and system breakdowns, requiring ongoing troubleshooting and on-site technical expertise. As projects mature, there tends to be less need for teacher "hand-holding" to get over initial anxieties and lack of knowledge about how to use functioning equipment, but the need for maintenance increases as hardware ages. Further, there is a continuing need for planning and for figuring out an appropriate way to allocate resources and to make reasonable use of the less-powerful equipment in the school's inventory. Further, as projects mature and wide area network resources for education increase, schools are likely to want to get more active in the use of local and wide area networks, creating requirements for specialized knowledge in these areas.

Our case study sites varied in the level of resources available for on-site technical assistance and in the arrangements that were made. Table 4 provides a summary of the on-site technical assistance available at the sites. Several sites had multiple technical assistance positions, with each resource person focusing on some combination of the functions enumerated above. Some sites had a single technology coordinator who attempted to fill all of these roles. Others had no funding for on-site technical assistance and attempted to make do by developing teacher skills in these areas. At several of the sites, teachers or the technology coordinator took courses to obtain computer maintenance licenses so that they could work on equipment still under warranty.

Table 4

On-site Technical Support

Several technology coordinators felt that the most important aspect of their role over time was assisting teachers with the integration of technology into the curriculum. One technology coordinator described her role as shifting to that of "technology curriculum resource specialist." This latter role requires much more than technical troubleshooting. It requires ongoing communication (i.e., time to meet and plan together) as technology coordinators collaborate with teachers in identifying appropriate matches between instructional needs and potential uses of technology. This process can lead to exciting new ideas and approaches, as teachers have the opportunity to rethink their instruction in relation to software tools and technology capabilities that they otherwise might not have been aware of. This was certainly true of the collaboration that occurred between the technical consultants and the teachers involved in the CSILE project at Nathaniel Elementary (as profiled in Chapter 9 in Exhibit 12). Teachers at other schools have cited this as one of the most valued or most needed (in cases where this assistance was not provided) supports in the process of technology implementation.

Not all technology coordinators are equally successful at working with teachers, however. Whereas the technology coordinator at one school was cited by teacher after teacher as being instrumental in helping to design and implement technology-using activities, the technology coordinator at another school was mentioned by no one until asked whether such a position existed. The latter coordinator felt isolated within the school and frustrated because several attempted in-service training sessions did not attract participants. Although the overall differences between the two schools in terms of climate were quite large, the different ways in which the technology coordinator's job was perceived seemed important also. The active coordinator appeared to think about his job in relationship to teachers. He repeatedly stressed the idea that the teachers were the "stars" and that he was a source of support for what they wanted to do. Nevertheless, he was actively involved in conversations about instructional uses of different kinds of software, as well as in helping teachers develop applications for specific purposes. In a very friendly, deferential manner, he sought out teachers to find out what they would like to do that he could help them with. He expressed sincere admiration for their teaching skills and encouraged them to contact him for assistance after hours as well as during school. We observed him actively working with students in classrooms when new uses of technology were tried out. Despite the fact that he was the only male staff member in this very close-knit school, he was clearly accepted into the social fabric of the school and someone with whom the teachers felt very comfortable working.

The other technology coordinator seemed to have a role defined in relation to the equipment. Indeed, when we observed him, he spent his time at the back of the computer labs. His role was perceived more as one of keeping the network running, and teachers did not appear to think about him as a potential resource when considering what they might do with technology within their course curricula.

These examples illustrate the principle that, in addition to technical expertise, technology coordinators need to understand instructional issues and be skilled at working with teachers. Coordinators who show no interest in curriculum or who intimidate teachers with their technical knowledge are rarely effective.

If technology use is to become widespread in regular classrooms, the technology coordinator must view his or her role as passing knowledge on to teachers. In two of our case study schools, technology coordinators were the only ones who knew how to keep the network running. At other sites, technology coordinators made a concerted effort to provide students and teachers with the procedural knowledge that would enable them to achieve a higher level of independence with respect to system operations.

Every time there is a problem, I try to show them what the problem was so that the next time it crops up, they'll know what to do on their own.

--Elementary school technology coordinator

It is difficult to interrupt another teacher's work when a need for assistance arises, however, and most schools without a dedicated technical assistance person for all or part of the period of their technology innovation felt the lack.

Having a person [in the technology coordinator position] is key to the program. A lot of schools in this city have no designated person, except a classroom teacher who has been interested in technology. You really need a person with more expertise who can help the teachers and is free to go to the classrooms when needed.... The classroom teacher doesn't have the time for troubleshooting. They need to feel comfortable with the fact that I will come into the classroom and show the kids.

--Elementary school technology coordinator

-###-

[Implementation Challenges and Strategies (part 1 of 4)]

[Implementation Challenges and Strategies (part 3 of 4)]