Effective ICT PD - thoughts

Thumbs up to Sandy for pointing me towards a couple of readings on PD and TPACK - the Schmidt et al (2009) article really fills in part of the gap between theory and practice with regard to TPACK by listing content, pedagogy and elearning approaches to the delivery of literacy activities to K-6 classes. A little young for my own current context but still applicable - especially as I am leading teachers in this age range. It's certainly feasible to ask teachers to incorporate an elearning dimension to much of their planning when resources like this are available - one way I've tried this in my own practice is to include an area for elearning related activities in all of my planning templates - this works well for teachers as a reminder, the danger though is that the activities become tokenistic and are not thought through enough to really enhance student learning (a great exaple is getting kids to brainstorm on something like Inspiration when the brainstorm will not be reused/augmented later in the unit - much better and more effective use of time, to use paper in this case). I've also taken a look at MacKenzie's (1998) "Just-in-time" model and am interested in creating a fusion from the two approaches which are already by no means mutually exclusive. TPACK can provide the framework and a modified (read "financially feasible") version while Just-in-Time can provide the PD delivery model. I've been looking at some of the work by Garet et al (2001) on effective PD models and it seems to align well with my thinking - the main point they make is around the idea that PD should a) focus on of content... this is all very well for subject teachers at secondary but does pose problems for the wearers of many hats that we primary people tend to be. However, the same argument can be applied to TPACK theory in general and for me the answer to it lies in the idea of tinkering, outlined by John Seely Brown which advocates that students (and therefore teachers) try things out to make them their own and then build on that knowledge by reflecting and sharing - to this end, primary teachers could become proficient (knowledgeable) in a technology and its pedagogical application in a specific content area (e.g. a group of kids using google docs for collaborative poetry writing) to be able to APPLY this TPACK to other content areas (e.g. a group of kids using google docs for collating research ideas/notes for an inquiry unit) -a rather simplistic example which doesn't necessarily address the pedagogy but you get the idea...

b) involve active learning - this is very much in line with Mackenzie's Just-in-Time model

c) be coherent (in other words, be easily integrated into the daily life of the school) - or into the daily pedagogy of the teacher. This is an important element - PD can often fail because the teachers feel overwhelmed with too many changes to implement at once. You can't get a teacher to use an IWB if they don't know how to rig up the projector. Thereore, PD must be tailored to individual levels of proficiency to make it "coherent".

The elements of effective PD seem to be well known and researched - it's just that the cost a lots of money and it's cheaper to send someone off to a workshop and tick a box to say they've had their PD. My challenge is to sell a different model of PD to my BoT and do it in a way which does not involve unreasonable extra expenditure.

REFS Garet, M, Porter A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., and Yoon, K. S. (2001). What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38: 915-945

McKenzie Jamie. (1998) Creating Learning Cultures with Just-in-Time Support. Retrieved 26/09/08 http://staffdevelop.org/adult.html

Schmidt, D., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009, February). K-6 literacy learning activity types. Retrieved from College of William
and Mary, School of Education, Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/K-
6LiteracyLearningATs-Feb09.pdf
K-6 Literacy Learning Activity Types” by Denise A. Schmidt, Judi Harris and Mark Hofer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Dias and ICT integration

I've just read the Dias article* about integration. I have a few thoughts which tie in a little with my PD ideas outlined in an earlier post (particularly the notion of SOUTH). Dias contends that

"technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning." and "Technology enriches the activity and enables the students to demonstrate what they know in new and creative ways." (p. 11). These definitions are important because there is a wide variation of interpretations of the idea of "integration". At my school, some see it as using a web 2.0 tool like wordle extraneously just to "prove" they've been using technology - at a micro level, this is characteristic of Michael Fullan's ideas about how and why schools adopt innovation, as outlined by Tony in Study Guide 6. These teachers need lots of support in many ways to get them past this entry/adoption stage of learning (see below). According to Dias, the qualities of "learner-centred" classrooms/teachers - which generally refers to those which have (co-) constructivism and perhaps a dash of connectivism at the heart of their pedagogy. This also suggests that some teachers have to change much of their practice to create an environment conducive to ICT integration. thankfully, most teachers at my school operate a classroom/practice based in co-constructivist theory. At a more subtle level though, some teachers may need to change the way they view their role in the class from knowledge provider to context creator.

Dias lists the barriers to integration as time, training, resources and support. In my experience, these all overlap to make a sizeable wall in many cases. For example, even with training given, teachers often need follow up opportunities to tinker with an ICT so that they are sufficiently confident with it, before they can integrate it fully with their students. Where do they get the time to do this? Usually they are expected to do this in their own time and, with little motivation, this will often fall by the wayside making the initial investment in training a waste of money.

Dias categorises the stages of integration as entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation and invention. These stages present another problem: in my school different teachers are at different stages, and with limited time/resources for PD it is very difficult to support each teacher at an appropriate level. We have had to opt for generic training which can leave more advanced teachers frustrated or beginners overwhelmed.

Dias raises some very valuable points and whilst this post may seem a little depressing and pessimistic, the challenges I have outlined here are not necessarily insurmountable. I would like to start to address some of them in subsequent posts in this blog, and in response to some of the frameworks made available to us (e.g. TPACK).

Refs

*Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21