Implementing Faculty
Professional Development: The Product-Based Model
PRESENTERS
Madu Ireh, Ph.D., Project
Coordinator (PT3)
School of Education, Winston-Salem State
University, Winston Salem, NC 27110
http://gorams.wssu.edu/faculty/irehm
Ed Bell, Ed.D, Project
Director (PT3)
School of Education, Winston Salem State
University, Winston Salem, NC 27110
http://gorams.wssu.edu/faculty/belle
A Faculty Professional Development Model for Infusing
Technology into Teacher Education
Background
America's schools will need two million new teachers within the next decade (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). It is estimated that as the number of students and demand for smaller student-teacher ratios increase, many states such as North Carolina will be forced to hire approximately 2000 new teachers over the next 3 years (Office of Student Services, 2002). These teachers must know their students and their content areas, and must have command of an array of pedagogical tools to ensure that all students learn. They must be able to use technology to support multiple approaches to teaching complex ideas in classrooms. They must be able to apply advanced technologies enabling students to interact with their content and with each other in a manner that promotes cooperative learning, critical thinking, communication skills, and reasoning power. What is more, they must be able to do these things in a non-discriminatory environment that takes into account student cognitive styles and in such a way that all students achieve the highest level of academic success possible.
The majority of those “21st Century” teachers will graduate from several of the teacher education programs in the nation, the School of Education at Winston Salem State University (WSSU) inclusive. But, in a survey of new graduates of teacher education, the US Office of Technology Assessment (1995) in the report, “Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection,” found that while more than half of them reported being prepared to utilize tutorials, games, word processing, and publishing applications, less than 10% felt competent to use multimedia and presentation packages, electronic network collaboration capabilities, or problem-solving applications.
There are several imperatives inherent in the need for and vision of the 21st century teacher. First, higher education institutions must at least double the number of students who enter and successfully complete licensure requirements over the next 5 to 10 years. Second, we must make sure that these teachers enter their profession equipped with the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to ensure a high level of achievement for all students. Third, they must be proficient in the integration of content knowledge, basic and advanced technologies, and constructivist pedagogies. Ensuring the effective use of technology in the classroom suggests other imperatives; simply providing more technology tools is not the answer. We must integrate technology across the teacher education curriculum so that new teachers have the requisite knowledge and skills to do the same within their content specialty areas.
The first challenge in this regard is to provide teacher education faculty with opportunities to learn about technology and to infuse it into the teacher education curriculum. The second is to identify and, in many instances, design meaningful technology applications that enhance student learning in the academic disciplines. Finally, we must make clear that technology is for everyone, that all students can and must move beyond the "drill and practice" that often characterizes technology use with poor and minority children.
Technology
Infusion Project (TIP), a PT3 grant funded by the US Department of Education
has provided Winston Salem State University a comprehensive and sustainable
response to the referenced imperatives. The goals of TIP
are simply (a) to align course content with professional standards
(International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], National Council for
the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC], North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction [NCDPI], and other appropriate professional organizations); (b) to
enhance collaboration between the School of Education and the School of Arts
and Sciences; (c) to enhance the use and integration of advanced technologies
as necessary teaching and learning tools in all teacher education courses;
and (d) to facilitate the preparation of content- and technology-proficient
pre-service teachers. Through this initiative, the School of Education has
aggressively recruited new teacher education students and provided intensive,
product-oriented faculty training, facilities, incentives, and partnerships
leading to the full integration of technology across the teacher education
curriculum. The success recorded so far hinges on the product-based model
adopted by members of faculty and cooperating teachers participating in the
project. The model, nicknamed
“product-based approach,” has guided and facilitated, significantly, the
development of advanced technology skills by teacher education faculty,
including those in the College of Arts and Science, at WSSU.
The term “product-based” was adopted based on participants’ reactions
and comments on the evaluation of prior workshops conducted for faculty by the Center for Innovative
Teaching, Technology, Learning and Evaluation (CITTLE) at WSSU. Many participants,
especially teacher education faculty, did not like the pattern and the delivery
method used by the presenters. Many of them suggested that they would be more
interested if the workshops focused on assisting them produce something they
could use immediately to improve instruction or research. Rather than sit in a
daylong workshop on how to use this software of that software, many of them
preferred being shown how to produce or develop materials and resources they
could use directly to improve instruction and research.
For example, rather than conduct a workshop called “FrontPage 2000,” in the product-based approach, it would be called “Making Instructional Resources Available for Students On-Line” and all illustrations and demonstrations are based on examples from actual instruction in teacher education courses. Although they will eventually use FrontPage for developing their web pages, emphasis is not placed on learning it, but on using it to develop a web page that will hold various research and instructional resources. Similarly, rather than teach them PowerPoint, they are taught how to develop multimedia-rich presentations for instructional and research purposes using PowerPoint. And rather than teach them MS Outlook, they are showed, using real examples, how to collaborate and communicate with other faculty members, cooperating teachers and students using MS Outlook in conjunction with other communication and collaboration software.
Also in this “product-based approach, each series of workshop is accompanied by culminating products, which each participant agrees to complete and turn in before payment is made (payment is for both participating in the workshops and completing the product). Some examples of culminating products are (a) two teacher educations courses realigned to ISTE, INTASC, and NCDPI standards and with at least three (3) technology objectives included in the course objectives; and (b) three multimedia-rich lessons/presentations developed with Microsoft PowerPoint, Hyper Studio or Lectora Publisher. Each product must be reviewed first by a peer chosen by the participant for content and standard requirements and then by two (2) TIP Coordinator and Director for overall technology quality and standard in line with the pre-established guidelines/rubric. Each finished product is turned in with a checklist prepared by to guide participants. This approach has generated growing interests among members of faculty from both the College of Art and Sciences and the School of Education. The product-based approach has become the guiding principle used for planning and delivering technology-related faculty development workshops throughout WSSU.
As in many other
institutions, problems exist in the Teacher Education Program at WSSU, relative
to technology integration and the ability of pre-service teachers to
demonstrate effective use of technology to improve instruction. For example,
data from the Office of Student Services in the School of Education at WSSU
show that although information technology was available in K-12 classrooms
where pre-service teachers did their field training, they did not routinely use
technology during the field experience. This finding reflects concerns noted in
both the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (1998) survey and the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (1999) surveys, which
also found inconsistency, nationally, between what teacher-training faculties
know about technology and what they are training teachers to do in their
courses. As follow-up to the ISTE’s survey, Bielefeldt (2000) asked faculty
members about the extent to which future teachers were being exposed to
technology in their classes. The results of his surveys gathered from 416
institutions showed that the majority of faculty-members (respondents) revealed
that they did not, in fact, practice or model effective technology use in their
classrooms. These concerns, though national in scope, reflect the myriad
problems that faced the Teacher Education Program at WSSU. Several internal
factors also led to this technology initiative and they include:
§
the
trend statewide and nationally in teacher shortages in K-12 schools.
§
WSSU
students’ less-than-acceptable performance on the Praxis exam, which leads to
attrition in the Teacher Education program and further exacerbates the teacher
shortage.
§
the
local superintendent’s expression of desire for the university to improve
technology skills of K-12 teachers, which meant not only the teaching of
technology skills but also for faculty to serve as role models so that students
might see the faculty putting into practice those technical skills being
taught.
§
the
need for greater collaboration and cooperation between the School of Education
and the School of Arts and Sciences, since the subject areas in which students
have most difficulty on the Praxis examination are in the School of Arts and
Sciences.
One obvious problem militating against effectively
training pre-service teachers to use existing and emerging technologies is the
inability of university faculty members to model advanced knowledge and skills
in integrating technology into instruction and across the curriculum
(Bielefeldt, 2000; ISTE, 1999; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education, 1997). The ISTE (1999)
survey sponsored by the Milken Exchange on Education Technology found, among
other things, that (a) pre-service and in-service teacher development programs
have not kept pace with the rapid changes in quality and quantity of information
technology, (b) most faculty do not model the use of information technology
skills in their classes, (c) distance education and computer assisted
instruction affected only a small proportion of students in teacher training
institutions, (d) most student teachers do not routinely use technology during
field experience and do not work under master teachers and supervisors who can
advise them on information technology use, and (e) the number of hours of
instructional technology integrated into other courses has a moderate
correlation with reported level of skills of student teachers to effectively
use different technologies. The same ISTE survey found that (a) formal
stand-alone information technology coursework did not correlate well with
scores on items dealing with technology skills and the ability to integrate
technology into teaching and (b) institutions that reported the highest levels
of student technology skills and experience were not those with heavy computer
course requirements, but those that made use of technology on a routine basis
throughout the teacher training program.
Among several important issues identified by the
ISTE (1999) survey, one in particular stands out: if we are to increase the
technology preparedness of new teachers entering 21st Century
learning environments, we must also increase the level of technology
integration in the academic programs on our campuses. To accomplish this
objective, the survey recommended, among others, that (a) technology should be
integrated into other courses and SCDE (School, College, and Department of
Education) activities, rather than limited to separate courses; (b)
institutions should engage in technology planning that focuses not only on
facilities but on the integration of technology into teaching and learning; (c)
student teachers need more opportunities to apply instructional technology
during field experiences under qualified supervision; (d) faculty should be
encouraged to model and integrate technology; and (e) dissemination of
effective technology integration based on PK-16 needs and grounded research is
essential. Other national studies make similar suggestions. The Task Force
Report of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997)
recommends focusing on faculty professional development and the reward and
promotion system. These key findings have guided the conception, development,
and implementation of TIP at Winston-Salem State University.
There is no doubt that the successful integration of technology into teacher education hinges on the willingness of faculty to move beyond the “basement and first-floor” technologies with which they are most familiar and into the upper levels that incorporate advanced and multifaceted information technologies. This is why TIP focused on faculty development in the utilization modeling of advanced educational technologies (across the curriculum) such as developing/authoring multimedia instruction, web-based instruction (synchronous and asynchronous), visualization, network collaboration, etc. Through increased emphasis on faculty development backed with incentives outside the traditional academic reward system, TIP has encouraged members of faculty to model technology integration. All technology instruction must be about teaching with technology and not about technology. In line with the university’s motto, “enter to learn … depart to serve,” TIP is enabling WSSU to train teachers who know their content very well, understand their students, and have mastery of a repertoire of effective pedagogical skills, including the use of advanced technologies to support higher level thinking and learning.
Although some faculty members were much farther along in the use of technology in their teaching and had developed Web-based courses and course supplements, most restricted their use of technology to lower level skills and applications, neglecting its use as a pedagogically powerful tool for the construction and modeling of knowledge. Very few viewed Web-based instruction as an application of a repertoire of cognitively oriented instructional strategies within a constructivist and collaborative learning environment. Even fewer moved beyond the static page to the interactive page that performs additional tasks such as querying a database, grading a test, providing feedback, and displaying real time conferences within the browser interface. Virtually none of them launched out to explore higher levels of technology uses and applications, such as visualization and modeling. Today, Technology Infusion Project and other faculty development initiatives provide intensive training and ample opportunities for faculty members to identify, develop, test, and integrate higher-level technology applications into the teacher education curriculum.
During the first year of the project, an invitation was extended to faculty in the Schools of Education and Arts and Sciences to register for a workshop to be conducted over several weekends to help them realign their courses with professional standards, improve teaching performance, strengthen their skills in the use of technology, and also integrate technology competencies into their various syllabi. Fifteen faculty members registered for the workshops. The end products were two redesigned and realigned teacher education courses. The redesign and realignment involved rewriting course objectives appropriately according to Blooms Taxonomy and integrating technology competencies in line with ISTE standards. The incentives included a summer contract (in the amount of $3250.00) for realigning two courses during the 2000/2001 academic year (1st year).
During the second year, twelve faculty members who registered to participate agreed to develop two Web-assisted courses via Blackboard and FrontPage, three multimedia presentations, a Web page, a digital portfolio, and two WebQuest (Dodge, 2002) activities as the end products. Incentives for the second year (2001/2002 academic year) included a Compaq iPAQ 3650 Color Pocket PC with wireless connectivity, keyboard, and other extras, and a total stipend of $1000. Also as part of the recommendations of the project’s first year evaluation report, several members of faculty and cooperating teachers participated in a 3-day technology retreat at the North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching (NCCAT) in Cullowhee, NC in June 2002. The aim of the retreat was to facilitate better understanding of the ISTE standards and their FULL integration into teacher education courses by both faculty members and cooperating teachers. It also strengthened the collaboration and cooperative efforts already existing among the various constituencies (cooperating teachers, methods faculty members, technology experts, and Arts and Science faculty) of our teacher education program. Hands-on activities during the retreat focused on developing and using digital portfolios and authoring contents using Lectora Publishing -- a multimedia authoring software developed by Trivantis Corporation.
Prior to accepting and fully engaging in these product-based activities, faculty members – on several Fridays and Saturdays throughout the spring, summer and fall semesters – participated in the various technology workshops, which lasted from 2 hours to several hours each day (Tables 1 and 2):
Some Phase One/1st
Year) Faculty Professional Development Workshop
Topics
|
1st Year/Phase One Topics |
Basic and Intermediate Computer
Skills
|
|
Intermediate Computer Skills |
|
Using the Macintosh Platform |
|
Data Storage and Backup |
|
Interactive Video Classrooms |
|
Scanning, and Photo Editing |
|
Spreadsheet and Graphing |
|
Desktop Publishing |
|
Project Management |
|
Linear Presentation-PowerPoint |
|
Using FrontPage and HTML |
|
On-line Course Development |
|
Synchronous and Asynchronous
Instruction |
|
Evaluation and Assessment –
SPSS and JMP |
|
Course Realignment and
Technology Integration |
Some Phase Two/2nd
Year) Faculty Professional Development Workshop
Topics
|
2nd Year/Phase Two Topics |
Developing Web Pages
|
|
Enhancing Web Pages |
|
Developing Multimedia
Presentations (Linear and Non-linear) |
|
Creating Digital Portfolios |
|
Digital Imaging and Scanning |
|
Creating Digital Images with
Digital Cameras and Digital Video |
|
Streaming Media |
|
Creating Web-assisted Courses |
|
Developing and Using WebQuest |
|
ISTE Standards, Collecting
Evidence/Artifacts, and Developing Assessment Instruments and Rubrics |
|
Authoring Content Using
Lectora |
|
Data Backup and storage,
mapping and using LAN Drives |
|
Using CD-Rs and CD-RWs |
|
Enriching PowerPoint
Presentations with animation, audio, and video, action buttons, hyperlinks,
etc. |
|
Uploading media files in
Blackboard, etc. |
Results
The end-product model has facilitated collaboration among content areas and the full integration of technology across the teacher education curriculum at Winston Salem State University. In a forum akin to legal education's "moot court," pre-service teachers at WSSU must demonstrate proficiency in using advanced technologies to support instruction. They are required to develop “digital portfolios” and to present a lesson before a panel of their peers, teachers, and faculty members who assess their work. The digital/live portfolio doubles as a recruitment forum for our public school partners and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Teacher Education Program's efforts.
Students have benefited from improved technology skills among their faculty:
·
Teaching
and learning are more exciting.
·
Information
is more current.
·
Communication
is enhanced among students and between students and faculty.
·
Access
to course information and materials is improved.
·
Reinforcement
of what is taught in class is improved because students have ready access to
course notes
·
Students
who are absent from class have online access to course materials.
·
Quality
of research papers, essays, etc., is improved because of access to the Internet
and other online sources.
·
Students
learn how to improve their own teaching skills so they become more effective
classroom teachers.
·
Evaluation
of students’ work and feedback about their work are more prompt.
Two years of Evaluation data are beginning to paint a picture of where we are. The external evaluation from the first year was positive. Part of the results noted that:
In sum, five major themes emerged from both the interviews and mail surveys: 1) The technological infrastructure of the University is a limiting factor in PT3 efforts to infuse instructional technology in the classroom and faculty development; 2) The primary reason for taking the workshop was skills and knowledge acquisition; 3) The structure and organization of the workshops contributed much to its overall success; 4) Participants cited evidence of enhanced student performance as an outcome of workshop participation; and 5) The development of new networks, including interdisciplinary ones, was a major outcome of workshop. (Pearson, 2002, February 12, Pi)
We began to see some signs of change in faculty efficacy:
One
participant said that: ”What I had been
doing was so rudimentary compared to what was required to be done...” This also
speaks to the high performance set by the PI and PD. Another remarked that: “I
have seen people doing things that they were not doing before.” (Pearson, 2002,
February 12, p. 1)
We also saw the impact of our emphasis on
curriculum design and assessment.
The workshop enhanced some participants’ ability to more clearly articulate course requirements and relate them to performance objectives. One respondent noted that Prior to the workshop, I could not write instructional or performance objectives according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Another stated, “I can develop a rubric which clearly spells out expectations for a culminating project, the different levels of performance, and the criteria assessing the product at each level. Still another found that I had to think about everything that I am asking students to do.” “If it doesn’t relate to standards, then I am leaving them out.” “I feel better about requiring them to do things with technology because I feel better about my ability to do it myself and show them how.” (Pearson, 2002, February 12, p. 5)
Possibly the most important unintended consequence that was reported in
first year evaluation was the networks that were developed among faculty who
participated in the workshop.
A major
benefit from participating in the workshop was the opportunity to become part
of new networks: “I am now part of
network of people who are interested in multimedia technologies. Had I not been
part of the PT3 workshop, I probably wouldn’t be a part of that (network).” Another major benefit was forming
interdisciplinary collaborative groups: “Before the workshop, we really didn’t
have much contact with the people in Education. Now, we (math/science faculty)
are planning to form a program so that we can prepare science teachers.”
(Pearson, 2002, February 12, p. 5)
Some of the issues of concern that emerged from the
first year evaluation were designing staff development for diverse ability
groups and diverse learning styles, meeting the needs of the disabled in the
design of multimedia material, providing adequate equipment for faculty so that
they could practice and implement their new skills in their offices and
classrooms (Pearson, 2002, February 12).
In addition, the TIP’s professional development helped produce a very
positive unintended consequence. Although our performance rubrics focused on
the redesign of existing programs of study, faculty members took the skills and
knowledge that they had acquired and developed web-assisted modules of
instruction for lateral entry teachers in Middle Grades Education (MGE). The modules integrated the learning outcomes
of the professional core and the MGE outcomes into cohesive units that required
the students to produce electronic portfolios of their work.
During the second year of the project, we emphasized small group
instruction and tutorials to support diverse ability groups and learning styles
and we provided authoring software in our ad hoc computer laboratory for
faculty use. The evaluation report for the second year summarized the program
participants’ key issues.
Finally, six major themes emerge from the
interviews: 1) The University’s technological infrastructure (as measured by
the equipment provided to professors in their offices and in the classrooms) is
a limiting factor in the Technology Infusion Project’s efforts to infuse
instructional technology at the University; 2) The primary reasons for taking
the workshops are “skill development” and “knowledge acquisition”; 3)
Participants’ view the workload (expectations) as demanding; 4) Participants
are either unsure of or doubtful about the level of support for the TIP
initiative from the University’s most senior administrators; 5) The development
of new networks, both interdisciplinary and with the teaching and learning
center, are a worthwhile outcome of the workshops; and 6) The quality and
accessibility of technical assistance (support) are significant factors in
participants’ skills and knowledge acquisition. (Pearson, 2002, May 16, p. 2)
Visit http://tip.wssu.edu/Tip/Result/2yrlinks.htm to access the web site of participating members of faculty where several of their products are displayed. Also, access students’ products (digital portfolios) at http://tip.wssu.edu/stuproj/student-product.htm.
Lessons Learned
·
A
tremendous amount of preparation time is required to develop technology skills.
·
Some
of the tasks may become quite complex for many and would require one-on-one
assistance.
·
Varied
levels of competency among faculty means that sometimes the workshops will be
too slowly for those with advanced skills, and at other times too fast for
those who were novices.
·
The
workshops are a great avenue for networking with colleagues within and across
disciplines.
·
A
high level of intrinsic motivation is required, as well as a desire to be
proactive in strengthening one’s courses and teaching.
·
Any
extrinsic rewards must be relevant to the work performed.
·
Every
effort should be made to reinforce and nurture intrinsic motivation.
Recommendations
·
Share
the training model with K-12 schools.
·
Assist
K-12 teachers in improving their technology skills.
·
Involve
other disciplines.
·
Provide
some tangible incentives.
·
Get
administrative endorsement of the project as a tool for improving teaching and
learning.
·
Seek
recognition from deans and chairs for course development as an important
criterion for annual performance evaluations.
·
Develop
online assessments for course and programs that tie the learning outcomes into
the NCATE assessment process.
Appendices
1.
Sample
Matrix of “Learner Outcomes
2.
Sample
Alignment of Instructional Objectives with
Standards (ISTE, NCATE, INTASC, NCDPI, PRAXIS)
4.
Sample
Workshop Evaluation Instruments (one, two, three,
four)
5.
Typical
Workshop Schedule (Fall 2001)
and Activity/End-Product Descriptions
6.
Retreat
Objectives and Outcomes/End-Product
Descriptions
References
Bielefeldt, T. (2000). Information
technology in teacher education: A closer look. Atlanta, GA: Connecting at the Crossroads, National Education
Computing Conference 2000 Proceedings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED444451)
Dodge, B. (2001, October 27). The WebQuest Page. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from San Diego State University, Educational Technology Department Web site: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquest.html
International Society for
Technology in Education. (1999). Will
new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age: A national survey on
information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken
Exchange on Education Technology.
Milken Exchange on Education
Technology. (1998). Preparing our young people for a changing world:
Policymakers, business leaders and public speak out on the role of education
technology in America’s classrooms. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on
Education Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED430536).
National Center for
Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers’
tools for the 21st Century. A report on teachers’ use of technology.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Office of Education
Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444599). (Also available
online at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102)
National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education, Task Force on Technology and Teacher
Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing
for the 21st century classroom. Washington, D.C.: Author. (Also
available online at: http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.htm).
Office of Student Services,
School of Education, Winston Salem State University. (2002). [Teacher shortage
in North Carolina]. Unpublished raw data.
Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the
connection. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment. (Also
available online at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541.html)