Schools have been acquiring computers for more than a decade. Teachers have been participating in computer training for a decade. Yet many teachers still are unable to use those computers to help students learn more effectively. On a quick tour of schools in any given district, we might find any one of the following: a classroom computer on a teacher's desk, turned toward the teacher's chair; computers loaded with electronic worksheets and instructional games for students who have finished other work; students visiting the computer lab once every two to three weeks to learn keyboarding or to use a word processor to write a paper from a rough draft; and computers sitting in boxes in a storage room because administrators are waiting for computer tables.
Obviously, the problem is not with the technology but with the educators' training. As Schofield (1995) points out, computers often do not live up to their promise because no one shows teachers how to integrate their new technology into their instruction or, sadly, into their students' learning processes. Thus, when teachers want to go beyond using technology for data input or for motivating youngsters, they face a huge learning hurdle.
Educating—Not Training
In our generational model, we educate teachers in the integration of technology into their curriculum and in ways to enhance, and perhaps even change, the way they help students learn. In Piagetian terms, we help teachers accommodate new knowledge rather than simply assimilate another process or piece of curriculum. Because technology changes rapidly, technology training is an ongoing need—not a short-term fix. Thus a more productive notion than training is educating teachers and administrators in the use of technology, so that as new technology comes along, they can train themselves.
We use the word educating to emphasize the need for teachers to think differently about rather than merely know what to do with. This runs counter to traditional staff developmental models and most entrepreneurial training efforts. We also prefer to use the term technology instead of computers to designate a new type of thinking made possible by computers and computer programs. Though many people use the terms interchangeably, computers are merely the machines and their peripherals.
Our generational model for educating teachers features a structure that operates like our own life cycle: We spend time intensively learning from the previous generation, practice what we have learned on our own, and then, over time, hand down life's lessons to the next generation.
Our model grew out of a social-constructivist approach to professional development (Mandeville et al. 1995). It is also a result of a collaboration between Southwest Texas State University's education department and New Braunfels Independent School District in the Texas town by that name. (Third grader Mikey Caverly complained to his dad—a professor at the university—that he didn't get to use the computers at school.)
The school district had acquired some technology over the years and offered teachers one-day workshops on computer programs. But by the time they figured out how to apply the software in the curriculum, they had forgotten how to use it. The teachers' peers typically had forgotten, too, and, in any case, they had precious little time to help. Finally, the district was awarded three grants to develop a better approach to the education of teachers in technology, programs that became known as Project TEACH, Project LEARN, and Project READ.
Technology Boot Camp
At the outset, the school principals and college faculty identified a group of instructionally strong "first-generation teachers." Over the summer, these teachers attended a three-week technology institute—technology boot camp, as some called it—where a facilitator showed them how to use technology to support interdisciplinary, thematic units. The teachers learned how to use a variety of software (see fig.1).
Figure 1—Technology Boot Camp: Software Taught for Various Functions
A Generational Model for Professional Development
| Word processing: | ClarisWorks, Microsoft Word |
| Databases: | ClarisWorks |
| Spreadsheets: | ClarisWorks, Excel |
| Outlining: | Inspiration, MORE |
| Desktop publishing: | ClarisWorks, Microsoft Word |
| Graphics: | ClarisWorks |
| Presentation packages: | ClarisWorks, Inspiration, PowerPoint |
| Audio and video capture: | Apple VideoPlayer, PhotoFlash, Video Shop |
| Hypermedia: | HyperStudio |
| World Wide Web searches and authoring: | Netscape, PageMill, Web Workshop |
| Authoring: | Imagination Express, KidPix Studio, Living Books, Once Upon a Time, StoryBook Weaver, Writing Center |
The district provided each teacher with two PowerMac (model 5360) computers with printers and software. The computers were equipped with CD-ROM, extended RAM (24K), and video in/out ports. The teachers used one computer at the institute sessions and the other to practice on at home. When school started in the fall, they placed both computers in their classroom.
In collaborative guided practice, groups of three teachers applied what they learned to a similar classroom task or learning experience. (We've provided sample solutions to various classroom tasks at our Web site: http://www.schooledu.swt.edu/Faculty/Caverly/Grants).
The groups of teachers formed bonds and developed camaraderie. They learned they could depend on one another to help make instructional decisions. Typically, each member of the group became more expert than others in some areas and, therefore, a resource for those whose strengths lay elsewhere.
Guided and Independent Practice
At the start of the school year in the fall, the teachers met with the facilitators twice a month for continued guided practice as they applied the technology in their own classroom. One day a month, the teachers were released from their classroom duties to create interdisciplinary units and to integrate technology into those units. The facilitators visited the teachers to answer questions and help them extend their knowledge.
One evening a month, the teachers from all of the campuses met to share their curriculum units, evaluate how effective the units were, and generate additional applications. The facilitators joined this learning community to help teachers further integrate their teaching and evaluate their use of technology.
As a result of these two monthly meetings, the teachers' support structure was broadened and strengthened, leading them to substantively change their approach to instruction and their thinking about technology. Their motivation was evident as they reported on their students' progress and shared students' products with a number of groups—faculty members, parents at a Saturday morning open house, community organizations, the school board, and peers at professional conferences. They held an open house in their school library. The teachers brought their computers, networked them, shared programs, and prepared impressive displays of student work. They also had students demonstrate what they had learned.
The teachers had moved from awareness to knowledge to control as they first observed someone demonstrating the technology and then engaged in both guided and independent practice.
Second and Third Generations
After a year of support and independent practice in their classrooms, each first-generation teacher attended a second summer technology institute. There, guided by a facilitator, each teacher mentored two "second-generation teachers." They not only passed on what they knew but also continued their own development. And they continued meeting twice a month, as before.
Why did each first-generation teacher mentor two second-generation teachers? If each first-generation teacher trained only one teacher, it might be difficult to tell whether confusion over a concept or a piece of technology was due to the mentor's approach or the mentee's lack of understanding. But if two mentees were confused, then it was incumbent on the mentor (with the facilitator's help if necessary) to re-teach the concept. Also, if one teacher understands a concept and the other one doesn't, one teacher can help the other. When learning complex concepts, novices need to be able to commiserate, collaborate, and communicate. A peer at the same level of expertise provides that support.
This process continued for a third year. Each second-generation teacher took on the role of mentor for one third-generation teacher. The role of the technology facilitators shifted to that of resource people. Eventually, all teachers in the district can learn how to use technology. Each new generation of teachers will have the support of both their peers and the previous generation. The facilitators, administrators, and teachers continue to evaluate what works and what is possible.
We purposely waited a year to start the program for the second-generation teachers. When we had first attempted to implement the generational model, we started the new generations too quickly. The first-generation teachers needed more than one semester to understand how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Moreover, the second-generation teachers did not start with an intensive summer institute. Instead, they were trained in technology (rather than educated) during the monthly meetings. Consequently, they did not have an opportunity to identify themselves as a group separate from the first-generation teachers, and they accomplished little in terms of technology integration or unit development.
A Catalyst for Change
In the end, the district's policies—and professional roles—changed in many ways. District administrators extended the generational model across the grade levels and to other schools. Primary grade teachers began to take responsibility for their professional development (Peterson et al. 1997), which evolved into reading instruction supported by technology. Librarians explored their role on the instructional team and collaborated with teachers in planning and teaching units.
Principals discovered they needed different ways to evaluate teachers. Teachers were giving up control in the classroom, letting students teach one another and teach the teacher. Rather than looking at teachers' direct instruction, principals needed to evaluate how teachers were guiding student interactions and learning. The principals also came to accept the fact that their teachers had greater expertise in technology than they did, and they began using teachers as technology resources. They also encouraged teachers to learn more, and they did so themselves.
As for the teachers, they developed confidence and tolerance for ambiguity as they recognized their ability to diagnose most problems and reason out potential solutions on their own. Initially, for example, some female teachers looked to the male teachers to do the routine tasks such as uncrating and hooking up printers, setting up networks, and diagnosing error messages. Once we made these women aware of this, they took on these roles and were surprised at their success.
Similarly, the teams of first-generation teachers at the high school looked to us for solutions when they had to develop interdisciplinary units without having the same students in all the classes. Rather than giving them an answer, we asked them to work out the logistics. They used their technological expertise to come up with ways to collect and share data, collaborate on hyperstack presentations, and so on, before their classrooms were networked.
Most important, teachers' notions of teaching, learning, and technology changed. For most teachers in the district, technology was a new area of professional development. Thus, they often reverted back to the role of novice learner. This caused them to rethink how they learned something new and what motivated them to do it, giving them greater insight into their students' learning processes. They then reconsidered their own teaching strategies, their role in the classroom, the contributions students make to their own learning, the authenticity of the curriculum, and their evaluation of student work.
Teachers gained an appreciation of the benefits of collaborative learning, heterogeneous grouping, and interdisciplinary instruction. They learned that technology is neither an instructional method nor a curriculum; rather, it enables teachers to teach more effectively than they do when lecturing or engaging in other traditional methods in homogeneously grouped, discipline-bound classes.
The teachers' growing expertise in the use of technology followed Leithwood's (1990) six stages of professional development. They developed survival skills; they became competent in basic skills; they became more flexible in their teaching as they tolerated ambiguity; they constructed effective applications; they helped colleagues gain expertise; and, finally, they became instructional leaders, participating in educational decisions at all levels of the educational system.
This transformation was made possible by a strong and extensive support structure—a districtwide family. Teaching with technology had become part of the district's culture.
