Blog 2. Educational Technology & Teacher Training.

Cooley, V. (2001). Implementing Technology using the Teachers as Trainers Staff Development Model. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9.2, 269-281.

The purpose of this article is to examine the “Teachers as Trainers” model. The main reasons why “Teachers as Trainers” model works is because it generates shared responsibility, empowerment and ongoing support among faculty, staff and administration. The model consists of four interrelated phases: (1) Developing a needs assessment; where the teacher’s level of technology knowledge is assessed so that the training is more individualized. (2) Core team selection and planning, where the establishment, design and delivery of activities is more appropriate and comfortable since teachers know each other. (3) Delivery of Training, where among other things, participation can be expected since the workshops are scheduled around the teachers’ schedule. Finally, (4) Personnel and program evaluation, where follow-up is easy and available because the trainer is in the building.

Staff development is expensive and time consuming. But, having Teachers train teachers decreases barriers. Such as transportation issues, trust and credibility issues, scheduling issues, follow-up issues, etc.

The advantages of the “Teachers as Trainers” model has numerous advantages. Workshops were teachers commute to and from, come and go. There is rarely any follow-up. On the other hand, teacher trainers are available for ongoing training and support.

 Questions:

1. List 4 advantages to the "Teacher as Trainers" model.

     Empowerment and ongoing support, no 'one-shot' workshops (good follow-up), less expensive, more individualized trainings.

2. Name one of the four phases of the "Teachers as Trainers" model.

     Core Team Selection and Planning.

Blog 1. Educational Technology & Teacher Training.

Teclehaimanot, Berhane, & Lamb, Annette. (2005). Workshops that work: building an effective, technology-rich faculty development program. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21, 109-114.

Teacher education programs have been known to inadequately prepare educators for the demands of technology-rich learning environment in PK-12 schools. Although teachers are provided the instruction in basic technology skills, they often don’t apply technology in their courses. Therefore, questions are raised about the effectiveness of workshops in making significant changes in teaching practice.

According Sprage, Kopfman, and Dorsey (1998), faculty development should explore technology options, provide time to learn the technology options, provide time to learn the technology, include examples of classroom applications, and allow opportunities to reflect on teaching practice. Also, it was emphasized that it takes as many as 50 hours of instruction, practice, and coaching before teachers feel comfortable using those strategies in the classroom. The authors of this article took these findings, developed, and implemented a series of technology workshops. The purpose of this project (as stated on the abstract of the study) was to design and implement a faculty development program focusing on the effective integration of technology into courses taken by teacher education students.

The article focuses on the evolution of the three-year project, which consisted on a series of workshops. During the three-year program, a total of 91 faculty members were able to participate. The workshops were particularly based on research findings related to quality workshop practices. So, rather than simply teaching the use of PowerPoint, the workshops modeled ways to develop effective PowerPoint Presentations.

The first year, 31 faculty members were randomly selected to attend the workshops. They were provided with a survey at the beginning of the program in order to find out the types of technology (if any) they already integrated in their classrooms. Astonishingly, it was found that other than word-processing and email, little technology was being used. The first year focused on three strategies/areas: Popular technology Topics, Hands-on Approach, and Modeling. At the end of year 1, a survey was distributed to each participant once again, where they were asked about the overall content of the program, rated the usefulness of the sessions, provided comments, and finally were asked how they planned to integrate technology in their classrooms. Overall, the first year was a success. Sixty percent of the faculty syllabi incorporated more technology. For example, they sited web resources to enhance the material being learned, added video clips to lesson plans, etc. In general, the faculty asked for more time to participate and more project-type practices as part of the workshops.

Therefore, the second year focused on content area, where the workshops were more level appropriate and subject related. The three areas were: Individualization, Infusion, and Efficiency. The same surveys used in year 1 were used in year 2. This time, however, the results were significantly split. Out of the 30 faculty who completed the workshops, 6 thought wanted more content and 9 felt too much content was covered.  But, once again, more than 60% incorporated technology in their classrooms. For example, some asked the students to conduct interviews through email, document their experiences through digital camera, asked students to use internet sources instead of books, etc.

The third year workshops focused on three areas: Mentoring, sharing, and motivation. Faculty members were encouraged to work in groups and share ideas and projects. Once again, out of the 30 faculty a significant percentage incorporated technology into their classrooms. They described their experiences as beneficial and inspiring, ex: “I have overcome my fear of technology and now use technology with my students” and “Technology is absolutely necessary and instrumental for effective instruction”.

In conclusion, time of instruction and the quality of the workshops are key elements that make faculty technology development effective.

Questions:

1. What was the purpose of the project?

The purpose of this project (as stated on the abstract of the study) was to design and implement a faculty development program focusing on the effective integration of technology into courses taken by teacher education students.

2. What were the essential components of faculty technology development the authors based their study on which they found in previous literature? 

            Faculty development should explore technology options, provide time to learn the technology options, provide time to learn the technology, include examples of classroom applications, and allow opportunities to reflect on teaching practice. Also, it was emphasized that it takes as many as 50 hours of instruction, practice, and coaching before teachers feel comfortable using those strategies in the classroom.

              

3. In conclusion to the article, what were the main elements that helped make faculty technology development effective and useful?

              Time of instruction and the quality of the workshops.

Why I Teach

I teach ...
* because its the most fun and effective way to change the world. We all contribute to making Earth a better world and this is how I choose to do it.
* because its the most gratifying yet challenging profession.
* because I'm good at it.
* because the happy moments always overcome the sad ones.
* because its empowering.
* because I've seen IT works.