“…successful technological implementation begins (not ends) with teacher training programs…”

Excerpts from an interview with B. Mark Francis

In their research, Sahin and Thompson examined faculty adoption of technology use within a COE (College of Education) learning context. Their hypothesis in brevity was could the technology adoption level of staff be predicted.  Their research concluded… that faculty adoption level of technology hinged upon four predictable areas: participant demographics, computer experience, instructional hardware used in teaching and the instructor’s method for learning about technology. Basically, if the instructor uses technology at home and work, they will most likely use it in class.

Well the road continues…in another study…researchers hypothesized if …teacher modeling and role-play used by university professors during teacher induction programs is contrasted by the actual use of technology by the pre-service teacher within the field. This research revealed that correlations exist but preparation, support for technological vision and experience are th e primary factors influencing use. We must remember that just because a person has experience or competence with utilizing technology does not mean that they can employ technology in the classroom in a manner that enhances learning...as educators we must remember that Pedagogy precedes technology…

Question: What factors determine a teacher’s use of technology for instruction.
One researcher asked this very question, the researcher studied four factors addressing teachers use of computer technology; access, preparation and training, leadership and time. The study revealed that knowing how to use technology is different from having electronic pedagogical content knowledge and skill. Pedagogical use of computers is different from other uses of computers. Teachers need courses to teach them strategies and methods of how to implement curricular plans in a variety of a matter area to maximize student learning.

What happens is that School districts provide technological training, hoping teachers will build the bridge of technological pedagogy on their own.

Question: What are other limiting factors, which directly impact technological use? Space, support, and more support. Typically schools were designed before the advent of technology within the classrooms. Among those built within the past few years the technology design in regards to space is limited to a few rooms designated as labs. The rest of schools had been rewired to accommodate the technology. Therefore you have a classroom designed to house 30 children crammed with technology and limited space for 30 children. Thus you neither have a good lab or a good classroom because of the limited physical space to perform both.

In a recent study a group of language art teachers were given laptops as a larger part of a technological infusion for children. The experiment failed to yield positive results because of the limiting space factors, lack of technology support, and differing pedagogical beliefs about technology and the way it is to be used in the classroom.

So then what are you concluding about what actually works when it comes to implementing a technological program that will maintain its ability to sustain itself?
There are several methods but the key ingredients are:
Support for your staff over a sustained period of time (5 years)
A rotation of initial, ongoing, and advanced training of the techniques, pedagogy, and technology used in the classrooms
Space – combine rooms if necessary to make the labs conducive to use the technology available. While some technology can stay in the classroom, others are served best by a technologically rich environment such as a lab.