PRE-PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: TECHNOLOGY SHOWCASE CONFERENCES FOR STUDENT TEACH=
ERS
MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Karen. E. Eif=
ler,
University of Portland
Abstract
This paper reports the ef=
fects on
pre-service teachers of a Showcase Conference demonstrating innovative uses=
of
classroom technology. The conference is the capstone experience for nearly =
300
pre-service teachers from the 7 teacher preparation programs that comprise =
the
Oregon Technology in Education Network, a consortium that is operating thro=
ugh
a federal Teacher Quality Enhancement Project grant specifically designed to
put technology in the hands of pre-service and early career teachers.
Candidates write mini-grant proposals for technological tools they employ to
complete a unit of instruction; they measure the tool’s impact on the=
ir
pupils’ learning via pre- and posttests. Data reported in this paper
demonstrate that the Showcase Conference, which completes their
“obligation” for having received the grant, serves as an invalu=
able
resource for disseminating inventive and successful applications of technol=
ogy
to teachers in the earliest phases of their careers. The data also suggest =
that
the Showcase Conference contributes significantly to creating a cadre of
teacher leaders in the state
Introduction
Teachers teach as
they were taught. Those who can’t, teach. A teaching certificate is a
good fallback option if you
can’t make it anywhere else. The list of clichés that triviali=
ze
and demean the teaching profession extends ad
nauseum. At the same time, exhortations to raise student achievement, b=
ring
every child along and create a thinking workforce that is scientifically
literate and internationally competitive are every bit as strident. How the=
two
orientations toward teaching, and especially toward teaching science, coexi=
st
in these complex times brings to mind F. Scott Fitzgerald’s assertion
that “the test of a first-rate intelligen=
ce is
the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still re=
tain
the ability to function.” While it may be dimly possible for
teacher educators with any length of time in the real world of classrooms to
dismiss the disheartening notion that teaching is easy as woefully uninform=
ed,
we cannot abdicate our role in inculcating the habits of mind, imagination =
and
perseverance that comprise
scientists and scientifically literate citizens.
= Considerable attention has been given to the technological proficiencies (and lack there= of) of K-12 science students and their teachers, both in- and pre-service (CEO Forum, 2000; Culp, Honey & Mandinach, 2003; Johnson, Schwab & Foa, 1999). Inertia and suspicion of new methods and tools seem to plague too ma= ny classrooms, even as tech-savvy (but perhaps content-poor) students themselv= es tune out instruction they perceive as irrelevant (Ozgun-Koca & Sen, 200= 6; vanDriel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001).
In seeking to prepare teachers for the next centur=
y,
college faculty are increasingly being expected to use and model the use of
technology, to facilitate its use by their students, and to integrate
technology into instruction. Unfortunately, the literature reveals that
technology is not systematically integrated into many preparation programs =
and
that the lack of equipment, training, and time often limits opportunities f=
or both
faculty and students (Rock & Levin, 2002; Flick & Bell, 2000). Refo=
rm
efforts in K-12 classrooms, and in the classrooms of those who are ultimate=
ly
charged with enacting those lasting reforms—the teachers themselves, =
will
fail unless they are anchored=
in
practical, portable knowledge and skills sensitive to each unique context
(vanDriel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). And if it is inevitable that teachers will
continue to teach as they were taught (Goodlad, 2003), then it is incumbent
upon teacher educators to do all within their power to ensure high quality
classroom and field experiences for teacher candidates that will not serve =
only
as pleasantly idealized fictions, but powerful catalysts to create lasting
learning.
Purpose
=
The
purpose of this paper, one of four on the panel, is to unpack one strand of a
collaboration of seven teacher preparation programs in one Western state th=
at
is managing that rather audacious feat of changing the culture of teaching =
and
science education through a multi-pronged, grant-funded project loosely kno=
wn
as the Oregon Technology in Education Network (OTEN). This paper will focus=
on
the portable outcomes of the Student Teacher Showcase Conference that is the
culminating endeavor of each year’s efforts, and which has successful=
ly
launched nearly a thousand pre-service teachers as professional leaders even
before their first paid teaching assignments.
Background
=
OTEN
formed eight years ago as a loose consortium of entrepreneurial teacher
educators from six private colleges and universities interested in enhancing
and perhaps speeding the mindful infusion of technology into their own
institutions’ teacher preparation programs. In 2001, they were awarde=
d a
U.S. Department of Education Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Tec=
hnology
(PT3) grant to put digital technology directly in the hands of pre-service
teachers. In 2004, under the auspices of a 4-year federal Teacher Quality
Enhancement Project grant (TQEP), they expanded both the
audience—extending into early career teachers and seasoned teachers
willing to take on additional technology enhancements to their proven
pedagogies—and the varieties of support mechanisms for those teachers
employing digital technologies in their classrooms. Pre-service and early
career teachers affiliated with any of the institutions could take advantag=
e of
technology lending libraries created at each school and dedicated for use in
teacher preparation and K-12 classrooms. The impacts of the lending librari=
es
and mini-grants are detailed in related ASTE papers (Morrell & Charles,
2007; Syszmanski & Carroll, 2007). OTEN also offered training sessions =
on
an array of computer applications and one large conference each fall, desig=
ned
to inspire the newest group of pre-service teachers (approximately 500 each
year) to try a new technological idea in the classrooms they were now enter=
ing
as fulltime interns. Most OTEN institutions made this Fall Inspiration
conference required of all teacher candidates, hoping to prime them for
innovative uses of technology early in their intern year. Their website,
www.oten.info, offered an array of resources to which any entrepreneurial
pre-service or early career teacher could gain instant access.
=
The
boon afforded by the TQEP grant is the ability for each of the OTEN campuse=
s to
offer their teacher candidates and early career teachers a chance to write a
competitive mini-grant to purchase a technological tool necessary for a les=
son
or series of lessons in a unit of curriculum they would be teaching in their
own classroom. This grant process has been carefully scaffolded by each of =
the
OTEN Campus Coordinators, all teacher educators themselves with their own
successful grant-writing histories. The OTEN Mini-Grant program offers novi=
ce
teachers an authentic grant-writing experience, complete with RFP and criti=
cal
readings of all proposals. Applicants describe their intended project,
including how they anticipate the technology will boost student achievement,
link the curriculum to state learning standards, provide an assessment plan=
and
a detailed budget. Candidates who fulfill all those criteria are then award=
ed
grants, typically up to $500 and given a semester to implement and assess t=
heir
project. Among the seven OTEN institutions, nearly $30,000 is given annuall=
y to
mini-grant curriculum projects. While they invest the time to research,
compose, revise and implement their curriculum project, the only other
“cost” to candidates is a commitment to share their idea, its
outcomes and their own “lessons learned” at a statewide Spring
Showcase Conference hosted by an OTEN institution each spring. The Spring
Showcase Conferences, which initially began as simple accountability tool to ensu=
re
students completed their grant projects, have emerged as a major victory for
OTEN, truly serving as teacher quality enhancement by inculcating the habit=
s of
leadership, collaboration, fusing theory and practice and showing students =
the
power of learning in networks.
=
They
differ from the annual Fall Inspiration Conferences in being entirely
grassroots events; the keynote speaker at the Spring Showcase Conference is
always one of the original OTEN teacher educators, not a “star”
flown in for a one-hour “drive-by” who is then no longer access=
ible
to the attendees. The balance of the day is spent in concurrent sessions
featuring only successful mini-grant
recipients, all of whom are either pre-service or early career teach=
ers.
The exciting exception to this rule of thumb are presenters who are designa=
ted
by OTEN members as TCTLs: Technology Competent Teacher Leaders. These are
veteran teachers who have taken on student teachers for a full year and ple=
dged
to implement one new technology-infused lesson to be observed and debriefed
with the student teacher; the intention is to focus on the mindful implementation of technology. TCTLs are proven in their
pedagogical excellence and use technology as a tool to inspire, enhance and
extend their instruction, not to replace excellent teachers, a goal consist=
ent
with ISTE and ASTE standards related to technological implementations.
=
Following
a continental breakfast and 45-minute keynote address, conference attendees
went to three breakout sessions, lasting an hour apiece; each session was a
panel of their peers who had completed mini-grant projects with a common
denominator, such as the tool implemented, the instructional goals comprisi=
ng
the project or subject area taught. Most panels had three presenters, so ea=
ch
attendee was exposed to at least nine distinct ideas by the conference̵=
7;s
end. A number of people admitted to sneaking into even more sessions to gar=
ner
additional ideas. Presenters were asked to be succinct in showcasing their
project, its outcomes and the lessons they learned in the design and delive=
ry
of their project. Artifacts of their own students’ work were encourag=
ed,
as was an informal and interactive presentation style. All handouts were
collected digitally and mounted on the OTEN website so that the ideas and
lessons were ultimately available to anyone with web access. The day conclu=
des
with a luncheon, paid for with grant funds, at which networking and
discussion/extension of ideas
garnered is encouraged. A completed survey regarding their impressions of t=
he
day is their “ticket” into the luncheon.
Methods
=
The
subjects of this study were the attendees of the previous two Spring Showca=
se
Conferences (n=3D326). The majority were pre-service teachers attending one=
of
the seven OTEN institutions. Of these, the majority were MAT (Master of Art=
s in
Teaching) candidates, typically career change teachers, as only three of the
seven institutions offer baccalaureate programs leading to certification. T=
he
remaining subjects were practicing teachers, mostly in their first three ye=
ars
of service. TCTLs did not identify themselves as such.
=
At
the conclusion of the conferences, attendees completed a survey with 5
Likert-style items related to=
their
level of satisfaction with the day and their ability and inclination to impleme=
nt any
new ideas they attained. Two additional items concluded the survey: one ask=
ed
them to describe a specific technology idea they had acquired at the
conference, and one asked for any other feedback they thought OTEN should h=
ave
to strengthen subsequent conferences.
The open-ended comments were transcribed verbatim and means on each of the satisfaction it= ems were calculated. Data were analyzed in a recursive manner. Coding categories (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) were created to identify themes in the qualitat= ive data.
Showcase Conference
Participant Survey
Appendix: OTEN Showcase Conference Feedback Form
1. Describe an instruction=
al
strategy you saw at the conference with which you were impressed:
2. Thinking about the appl=
ication
of that strategy in your classroom, which best describes you?
c =
I want
to use this strategy in my teaching right away.
c =
I plan
to use this strategy in my classroom soon.
c =
I hope
to use this strategy sometime in the future.
c =
I think
the strategy is useful, but I am unlikely to implement it.
c =
The
strategy would probably not be useful in my teaching.
c =
I would
not use this strategy.
3. Thinking about the tool=
s and
resources necessary to implement that strategy in your classroom, which best
describes you?
c =
I have
all the tools and resources I need in my classroom.
c =
The
tools and resources I need are available in my school.
c =
The
tools are available to me but not in my school.
c =
I will
have to find outside support to get the tools I need.
c =
The
tools and resources are not available to me.
4. How prepared do you fee=
l to
implement this strategy?
c I
already know everything I need to know.
c =
I can
figure it out.
c =
I would
need support to help me learn what I need to know.
c =
I would
not be able to learn what I need to know.
5. From all of the present=
ations
you attended including the keynote, what ideas are you likely to apply in y=
our
own classroom?
6. Overall, based on the s=
essions
you attended, how would you rate the quality of the ideas presented?
c =
Very
Good
c =
Good
c =
Poor
c =
Very
Poor
7. Overall, how do you fee=
l about
the conference?
c =
It was
so worthwhile I would have paid to come.
c =
It was
very worthwhile.
c =
It was
somewhat worth attending.
c =
There
were only a few things of value.
c =
There
was almost nothing of value in the conference.
Results
Respondents
were asked first of all to identify one memorable new application of classr=
oom
technology to which they had been exposed in the course of the conference t=
hey
attended that day. There was considerable variety in what people found
memorable. A representative list includes the following:
Respondents were next a=
sked
to reflect on their inclinations and abilities to employ the tool that they=
had
just identified as being memorable. The rationale for this was that we want=
ed
to assess the potential impact of the new ideas in classrooms beyond the
original mini-grant recipients and continue to explore ways to encourage new
teachers to use technology in their work, not merely to showcase othersR=
17;
good work. The mean responses to those items are as follows:
Question #2. Thinking a=
bout
the application of that strategy in your classroom, which best describes yo=
u?
Question #3. Thinking a=
bout
the tools and resources necessary to implement that strategy in your classr=
oom,
which best describes you?
Question #4. How prepared do you feel to implement this strate=
gy?
Question #5. Overall, b=
ased
on the sessions you attended, how would you rate the quality of the ideas
presented?
Question #6. Overall, h=
ow
do you feel about the conference?
The final, open-ended
question asked for suggestions to improve future OTEN Showcase conferences.
While the tenor of the comments was quite positive and underscored the bene=
fits
of learning in networks (e.g. “enhanced my imagination,”
“loved reconnecting with my colleagues,” “it was fun to l=
earn
from peers!” “I loved seeing many other ways to use the same to=
ol I
got from my grant”), there were some concerns identified. A
representative list includes:
Portable
Lessons
It
is virtually impossible to discuss the impact of the Spring Showcase
Conferences in isolation, as they are inextricably bound to the empowering
nature of the teacher mini-grants on which it is based. In an era of shrink=
ing
fiscal resources for education and heightened demands on teachers, candidat=
es
who take the initiative to seek and secure external resources for their
classrooms delight administrators and OTEN mini-grant recipients are coming=
to
know and value that. The Spring Showcase Conferences essentially began as an
accountability mechanism to ensure that mini-grant recipients completed the=
ir
projects as described in their proposals. Nevertheless, the conferences have
had a positive impact on those who have attended, in the form of nascent
professional habits that should contribute to novice teachers’ effica=
cy
and longevity in their classrooms: 1) meaningful uses of instructional
technology; 2) grassroots professional development and 3) opening the windo=
ws
on good practice.
Very
particular to the thoughtful infusion of technology in instruction (Flick a=
nd
Bell, 2000), the curriculum projects demonstrated at the Showcase conference
were rooted in the context of subject area content, not simply as novelties.
Further, the projects, from the proposal to presentation phases, connected =
the
technological tools to appropriate pedagogy. A final element from Flick and Bell’s framework i=
s that
conference attendees saw solid models of their peers’ taking advantag=
e of
the unique features of technology, seeing them do things that more traditio=
nal
materials would not allow. Examples include compelling online biological
If
it is true that teachers will teach as they were taught, then providing the
highest quality pre-professional preparation, teacher candidates’ last
memories of life on the student side of the desk may be one way to instill =
more
effective instructional practices. Only the logistics of the Showcase
Conferences are managed by OTEN faculty; the content is driven by the
imagination, daring and perseverance of enterprising novice teachers. Where=
the
literature is replete with disheartening accounts of the sheer quantity of
information teacher candidates ignore or discard from their professors,
feedback from the conferences suggest that seeing their peers solve
technological problems and use technology in intriguing ways makes the whole
notion of portability and imitation of these ideas more accessible somehow =
to
the novice teachers. Indeed, their steady exhortation to OTEN to make hando=
uts
from all presentations available on the website is a powerful indicator that
the conference attendees have begun to tap into the potential of learning f=
rom
peers. Parenthetically, we should note that in subsequent years, student
teachers often look at the session descriptors from previous OTEN conferenc=
es
to whet their imaginations in preparation for writing their own mini-grants,
another indicator that the Showcase Conferences are having an influence on =
the
practices of novice teachers.
Finally,
the Showcase Conferences have become a way to plant the idea at the very
beginning of teachers’ careers that they should open the door to the =
good
things going on in their classrooms. Isolation and lack of prestige are
frequently cited as reasons for the high turnover rate of new teachers;
Showcase Conferences are one tool for combating both. First, student teache=
rs
have the heady experience of writing successful small grants to complement
their instruction. Sharing their project and the lessons they learned, so t=
hat
others can replicate the idea in their won contexts, has also been an
empowering experience for these novice teachers. Many of them blanched at t=
he
notion of presenting at a conference; however, the low-key approach and
sensation that it is a very friendly audience of peers who want to soak up =
new
ideas helps them overcome and even thrive. Over half of those who write
mini-grants as student teachers return the following year to write another =
OTEN
grant when they land their first professional assignment. The imagination, =
hope
and entrepreneurial spirit that pervade each Showcase Conference are portab=
le
qualities that we are convinced will help transform some of what is broken =
in
the profession and sustain the good work already underway. Pre-professional
professional development does make a difference.
References<= /p>
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2000). School technology and readiness report. The power of digital learni= ng: Integrating digital content. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report3.pdf.
Culp, K.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy. Office of Educational Technology: U.S. Department of Education.
Eifler, K.E., Greene, T.G., & Carroll, J.B. (2001). Walking the talk is tough: = From a single technology course to infusion. The Educational Forum 65(4), 366-375.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology a= nd Teacher Education [Online serial], = 1 = (1).
Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Chan= ge in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Johnson, M.J., Schwab, R.L., & Foa, L. (1999, February). Technolo=
gy:
A change agent for the teaching process. Journal
of Theory into Practice.
Mehlinger, H.D., & Powers S.M. (2002). Technology and teacher education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Morrell, P.D. & Charles, M.T. (2007, January). Evolving uses of a technology lending library in preservice teacher education. Paper presented= at annual meeting of Association of Science Teacher Educators, Clearwater, FL<= /p>
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2004). Technology initiatives. Retrieved = March, 2005 from http://www.ncate.org/public/technologyInitiatives.asp?ch=3D113
Ozgun-Koca, S.A. & Sen, A.I. (2006). The beliefs and perceptions = of pre-service teachers enrolled in a subject area dominant teacher education program about “effective education.” Teaching and teacher education: An international journal of research and studies (22:7). 946-960.
Rock, T. C. & Levin, B. B. (2002). Collaborative action research projects: Enhancing pre-service teacher development in professional develop= ment schools. Teacher education quarterly (29:1). 7-21.
Szymanski, M. & Carroll, J.B. (2007, January). Helping preservice teachers integrate technology into student teaching: The impact of small technology grants. Paper presented at annual meeting of Association of Scie= nce Teacher Educators, Clearwater, FL.
Van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional
development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’
practical knowledge. Journal of res=
earch
in science teaching 38 (2). 137-158.