[BACK]

Brown, J.

EDU 6502

July 18, 2006

1. Topic on the effectiveness of technology in different teaching/learning environments: Cooperative learning with the use of technology.
2. Thoughts and reaction to Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz. (1997) J. H., Teaching with Technology: chapters 1-3.

My first thought when I noticed the publication date of the book and the black and white photo of students working at Apple IIgs computers was that the material would likely present a historical context for where we are today. Having begun my career in 1989 as a “computer teacher” at The Haverford School, the stories of Mrs. Bennett and Mrs. Lee were all too familiar. I have witnessed and continue to see teachers who are successful with, struggle with, and avoid at all costs student-centered learning and team-teaching with technology.

Reading about the five stages of instructional evolution was a review for me, but for many teachers it still serves as a useful outline of the process. The five stages are certainly a worthwhile guide for technology coordinators and administrators to gauge where individual faculty members or an entire program is in the evolutionary process.

My experience has been that the entry and adoption stages of support for the evolution of instructional technology can be made possible practically “right out of the box” in a private school like Haverford, which dedicates a significant portion of the annual budget to technology. However continuing into the adaptation, appropriation, and invention stages requires a lot more than just budget funding and enthusiastic support personnel. While a few teachers have shown that they are willing to take risks and continue evolving, I found that the majority of teachers need more direction in the form of specific expectations from the technology coordinator and the division head. While I much prefer the grass roots approach to growth, the fact is that most of our teachers would not progress into later stages of evolution without being told in a matter of fact way that this is where we are going.

One of the keys to our movement into the later stages of evolution of instructional technology was the administrative endorsement of a collaboration model based on the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) which I presented at a Lower School faculty meeting in March of 2005. What was made clear by myself and the division head was that teachers were expected to develop collaborative units with the technology coordinators. This meant that the old practice of teachers dumping classes off at the computer lab as just another special subject no longer met the expectations of the school. Team-teaching in the computer lab with preliminary and post-activities in the classroom and library was the stated goal for the program. Teachers soon understood that it was important for them to review and discuss technology-rich lesson plans with the technology coordinator, and to be present with their class in the computer lab. Over the course of the 2005-06 school year teachers from grade 2-5 have demonstrated examples of adaptation, appropriation, and invention, while the Jr. K-1^st grade teachers have all ventured into the adaptation phase.

An important issue that will emerge for teachers at Haverford this year and in the future will be the extent to which the administration must re-emphasize the mission. I agree with authors point that it is important for teachers to reflect on their work, and more specifically reflect on collaborative technology-rich models that we develop. I expect that our school will likely add specific opportunities for teachers to reflect on their experience as part of the regular evaluation process.

[Top]