University and County Partnerships: Professional Development Courses in Technology for Practicing Educators and Administrators
Davina Pruitt-Mentle
Educational Technology Outreach
College of Education
University of Maryland, College Park
United States
dpruitt@umd.edu
Abstract: Educational Technology Outreach at the University of Maryland offers professional development (PD) opportunities to practicing educators. While expanding into additional Maryland counties and private and charter schools, we have seen a variety of problems arise due to differences in demographics and school system size and resources. Research in PD shows that implementation is critical, as some techniques such as the short workshop model do not remain with teachers and therefore the instruction does not get passed on to the students. This paper will discuss “Best Practices” and lessons learned through ETO's Professional Development model to meet the needs of this diverse group of educators. However, the needs of PD do not end at training. This paper will further describe how ETO has integrated evaluation into its courses via Kirkpatrick’s Training Model targeting the third level: has the training resulted in long term integration of technology in the K-12 classroom?
The Institute for Technology and Teaching within Educational Technology Outreach (ETO) in the College of Education at the University of Maryland offers professional development (PD) opportunities to numerous counties within the state. While expanding into additional Maryland counties and private and charter schools, ETO has seen a variety of problems arise due to differences in demographics and school system size and resources. Research in PD (Wilson & Berne 2000) shows that implementation is critical, as some techniques such as the short workshop model do not stick with teachers and therefore the instruction does not get passed on to the students. However, many teachers cannot afford the time commitment nor the cost of standard graduate courses. Furthermore, teachers express the need for professional knowledge that directly relates to their everyday classroom activities. ETO has modified its program to meet the needs of this diverse group of educators. This paper will first describe the motivation for the ETO-county PD partnership followed by an examination of the training model used, a progression from face-to-face to online instruction. The paper will conclude with a description of Kirkpatrick’s Training model and how it has been integrated into ETO’s program.
In its 2000 publication, Computer-Based Technology and Learning, NCREL stated that technology offers opportunities for student directed learning, increased motivation, connections to the real world, and data-driven assessments tied to content standards that, when implemented systematically, enhance student achievement as measured in a variety of ways, including but not limited to achievement tests. However, in the current environment of changing curriculums, cultural initiatives, standardized testing, yet inadequate technology funding, individual counties and schools do not have the resources and personnel to track research and standards while simultaneously meeting the demands of their schools. However, a county (or school) linkage with a university provides a unique opportunity for needs to be coupled with research, courses to be joined with evaluation, and hands on knowledge to be mingled with accepted best practices.
ETO has undertaken several initiatives designed to meet the specific needs of each individual educational community. While stand alone courses are still offered, the best long term results have resulted from a cohort model, where groups of teachers move through a string of six modules that extend throughout the school year. This matches earlier research (see Rodriguez & Knuth 2000) which concluded that technology training should be infused over a long time frame rather than in a single session. This research also notes that ongoing discussion and reflection are essential to changing teachers’ behaviors in the classroom. Thus, ETO’s PD activities occur over an extended time period, thereby providing teachers the opportunity to apply the material within their own classrooms. Additionally, educators have the opportunity to reflect on their attempts with other teachers and together they come up with their own set of best practices.
ETO’s cohort begins its training with face-to-face delivery. Instructors are able to assess the skills of the educators in the cohort, and tailor the course to convey the basic technology skills needed in the classroom while also familiarizing participants with the use of the Internet and other tools necessary to move the instruction on-line. Many of the courses are taught off-campus so as to incorporate individual district (or school) standards and software. In this manner, instruction is personalized and allows the teachers’ initial technology experiences to be at a familiar and comfortable location. As learning progresses, on-line components such as Internet searches, on-line discussions, chat rooms, whiteboards and other essential distance learning software are added. The final modules move completely on-line, and are taught through WebCT or Blackboard, depending on the particular district. Research shows (see Roblyer & Edwards 2000) that moving to quickly to a totally online environment often fails. By progressing from face-to-face to online, the teachers become comfortable with the online environment and more easily adapt to this new instructional method.
ETO’s cohort model does not target solely the teaching of technology skills. It immerses the teachers in a technology based learning environment where they are shown how technology can be used as part of a teaching paradigm rather than being taught technology without any classroom context. This can be compared to the proverb, “Give a man a fish and he has a meal; teach a man to fish and he will never be hungry again.” Thus, the instructional model is not merely teaching the skills of operating software; the teachers are experiencing a learning environment that is created by technology.
PD via distance learning is particularly useful to the smaller rural counties who may not have enough teachers to fill a course they wish to offer, yet are located far from the UMCP campus. As a result, via on-line courses and distance learning labs, classes have been filled with teachers from various locations throughout Maryland. This also allows cross-pollination of ideas. Li and Achilles (1999-2000) identified four support systems focused on teachers’ learning: (a) technical support, (b) administrative policies showing the need for commitment to technology use by the teaching staff, (c) knowledge of on-going training opportunities, and (d) a forum to share information about teacher successes using technology. Individual counties may be able to provide (a) and (b), but do not have the resources or linkages to fulfill (c) and (d). ETO serves as a liaison between counties to fill this gap. Courses are developed in collaboration with each county; if a need is identified, ETO works with the individual technology organization to design a new course. Other counties then have the opportunity to take this new course as is, or personalize it for their own needs. Thus, all counties collaborating with ETO benefit from the knowledge and experience of their peers throughout the state. Additionally, partnerships develop between counties as both teachers and technology professionals have “met” and exchanged information resulting from their professional development activities. These electronic learning communities provide teachers, technology coordinators, and principals, not only a method for change but a reason for change.
A new and strong initiative at ETO results from a question, often omitted from PD activities: has the PD courses actually changed teachers’ behaviors in the classroom? ETO has implemented an evaluation strategy based on Kirkpatrick’s Training model. Too often training has been offered to fill a need, without any measures of success. “We need technology so let’s teach our educators technology!” But are the courses actually presenting material that is helpful to the teachers, in a context that enables them to apply the lessons to the classroom? How much transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitudes occurs in the classroom after the PD training opportunities? Are teachers passing on what they have learned to the students? Is the knowledge gained still being used in a month, or a year? This is what the third level of Kirkpatrick’s model describes and what the training model is trying to measure. Evaluation feedback is used to modify, and expand offerings, as well as lead to new courses.
Kirkpatrick’s model has three major levels of evaluation. The first is the “smile sheet”, where the student is asked whether they liked the course and the instructor, and the strengths and weaknesses of the course. The second level consists of a pre and post test which seeks to identify how well the material is learned. The third level is most often omitted in professional development and is ETO’s focus - has the material been applied? Evaluation begins with a preliminary skills assessment setting a baseline for the participants. As the courses progress, surveys are distributed which are targeted to how the information is being used in the classroom. After each course concludes, follow-up surveys are conducted, and individuals are randomly selected for personal interviews to see if and how they have continued to apply the skills at three, six, and twelve months after course conclusion. This kind of intensive evaluation could not be done by the university alone; it requires the partnership of the counties who not only have closer ties to the teachers, but also have the directive to evaluate how well ETO’s program is working and to show if the technology training is helping to meet district educational goals.
The lessons learned are applicable to all professional development activities. ETO’s model provides varied approaches that demonstrate multiple routes to success, tailored to the needs of each institution. The two most important lessons to be gathered from this paper are (1) design educational activities which are flexible, and (2) incorporate evaluation and improvement as an integral part of your program.
Kirkpatrick, D., (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Li, Y. & Achilles, C. (1999-2000) Four variables in teachers’ integrating technolgoy behaviors - A case study of a school in a Michigan school district. Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 10 (1), 12-21.
Roblyer, M., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Rodriguez, G., (with Knuth, R.) (2000). Providing
professional development for effective technology use. Pathways to School
Improvement [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm
Smith, G. & Caris, M., (2001). Teaching college courses: online vs. face-to-face. T.H.E. Journal. 28 (9), 18-15
Wilson, S., and Berne, J. (2000). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education 24, 173-209