The Greatest Challenge – Improving Teacher ICT Awareness and Skills!

Since the first focus on using ICT in classrooms the need to increase the awareness of and improve skills in the use of technology for all staff, particularly teachers, has been of universal concern.  In fact this has probably been of concern forever, it’s just the change driven by technology and the increasing rate of that change has highlighted deficiencies in these areas.

I’ve been attending ICT focused Conferences for more than 10 years and this topic has been of interest to all attendees.  My discussions with many schools from all types of demographics and budgets has highlighted a few methods to deliver Professional Development to staff.

Method 1 – On site training delivered by an ICT specialist during teacher down time (Lunch time or after school).  This is almost certainly the cheapest form of PD for the school to produce.  The ICT specialist can either be from within staff or arranged through a vendor.  This type of session is normally voluntary and the value is greatest for staff already implementing technology.

Method 2 – On site training with teacher relief provided for staff or PD is conducted during Professional Development days.  The cost of this is increased as the staff costs for the relief teachers need to be covered by the school or it is competing for access against the myriad of requirements on any staff PD day.  This type of training is normally mandatory for staff.

Method 3 – Just in time support.  In this circumstance a teacher will have support in their classroom for using the technology.  This could either be in the form of a technical support person assisting the teacher and showing them how to deal with issues or with a curriculum ‘expert’ assisting with the implementation and transferring skills to the teacher.  This is probably the most effective way for teachers to be supported in the adoption of technology as it is entirely at a practical level.  It does require staff to be available as needed by teachers.  In this scenario there’s a need for the teacher to reach out so the communication path of other types of PD is reversed. 

Method 4 – Off site PD.  This type of PD is readily available and includes those run by vendors, peak bodies and in some cases, schools.  Most times there’s a cost for this type of PD and the need for relief. 

All of these methods have issues which limit their effectiveness.

Method 1 – (Free on site) Often training which is ‘free’ is deemed to have no value and therefore little importance is placed on attending this type of session.  As this is dependent upon staff committing to use their time to come to the training the pressure to attend is less than the need to deal with other issues so the PD is easily pushed aside by any urgent matter.  I have seen PD sessions like this timetabled for entire terms in order to enable planning for teachers, often only two or three sessions out of more than 30 have anyone attend.  At other times when they’re directly supporting a new technology, such as when we rolled out Interactive Projectors, they’re very popular, well attended and give great value.

Method 2 – (Paid on site) There’s a limit to how often this type of training is used.  Either the cost or just the number of PD days limits the number of opportunities to utilise this type of training.  Of course it would be good practice to have this included in a technology project plan when deploying classroom technology.  In my experience schools are very sensitive about the cost of IT projects, this means that normally the implementation stage of these projects is curtailed to reduce costs.  In turn the loss of the implementation stage reduces the amount committed to training.  Most vendors of IT equipment into schools will have allowance for training as part of their plan.  When the school reduces the training it will slow the adoption of technology, which almost always leads to slower adoption of new technologies.

Method 3 – (Just in time) There are two main factors limiting the adoption of this type of PD/support. 

The first limitation is around communication.  To properly use this method it must be sold to teachers so they know what’s available.  Staff should know they can call up and have someone come and look after them whenever they need.  Often this is not the expectation with teaching staff.  The other communications issue is; teachers need to let the support person know when and where they will need them and also what they’re needed for.

The second limitation is the resourcing problem.  How do you have a staff member on-call with suitable skills?  If the school has acknowledged the need for staff support with technology implementation this will be provided, however if the expectation is staff will just adopt technology, this will not be the case.

Method 4 – (Off site) The appeal in the off-site PD is to those who are already interested in adopting technology.  It’s self-selecting, doesn’t get the vast majority of teachers involved and the goal of complete adoption of technology will never be realised if this is the only type of PD available.

Each of these methods has shown to be less than ideal, but when combined in the right balance can lead teachers to have confidence in the implementation of technology in their classroom:

·        When those keen adopters of technology are given the opportunity for off-site training, they bring those skills back to provide on-site PD to others, just as importantly they then become advocates for the technology.

·        When teachers are well supported for both the technical and curriculum aspects of technology in their classroom, when the school is willing to persevere to improve the confidence and skills of their staff in the use of technology, there will be continuous improvement in the classroom use of technology.

The efforts to provide staff with the skills to embed technology into the classroom will not reduce any time soon.  The changes in teaching practice being driven by technology are likely to continue for the foreseeable future and so will the need to build skills.

What is next?

What is next can be the hardest question to get right in the context of ICT, not only for schools and individual classrooms but also for every industry and company.  Crystal ball gazing can be very dangerous, especially with the rate of change in technology appearing to be extremely high.  However, when you look at trends, it is normally a predictable rate of implementing innovation into schools.  It is only when there is an unexpected disruptor we normally experience rapid change.

An example is the change in 1:1 computing expectations within schools.  Until 2008, there had been slow progress by schools towards 1:1 Laptop programs.  These were normally very expensive and required a strong commitment from the School Leadership to implement such programs. Having started in Melbourne, the 1:1 ideal had spread slowly across Australia and in some US school districts and state wide in Maine.

2008 and 2009 saw two disruptors that changed the vision of schools around 1:1 technology access.  The first disruptor was the Prime Minister making 1:1 technology availability in schools a policy imperative and committing federal funding to make it happen.  The second disruptor was in 2009 when Apple announced the iPad, which provided a smaller and cheaper alternative to Laptops as student technology. 

The Horizon Report

One of the best resources for planning for the next big thing in technology for schools is the Horizon Report.  The Horizon Report is published by the New Media consortium (NMC) and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN).  It provides guidance on technology trends thought to be a significant impact in education.  The research is thorough with the process for determining what technology makes it onto the list open and visible.  I have heard the Horizon Report referenced many times in presentations about technology and it is widely referenced for strategic planning.

Therefore, with the disclaimer that all predictions depend on the lack of a significant disruptor to the status quo I have some thoughts surrounding the trends, challenges and technologies highlighted in the Horizon Report.

Trends

Increased use of Blended Learning

I think most teachers in Australian schools are seeing the value of blended learning.  In the resource and technologically rich schools, this can include flipped classroom models, which seems to offer great benefits for educators.  In less advantaged schools, the ability to scaffold using digital resources, although limited by the cost of those resources, is still of high value in allowing some personalised learning opportunities. 

If technology is reliable and simple to use, blended learning for traditional subjects will become deep-seated and should eventually become good practice.  The challenge for teachers is to know just what resources are available.  With that in mind, teachers really should be collaborating in order to share resources; one great opportunity for that sharing is TeachMeet (http://www.teachmeet.net/).

Rise of STEAM Learning

There is increased emphasis within the Australian Curriculum for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).  The idea of incorporating other more creative activities into the technology spectrum has created the idea of STEAM learning, in STEAM the A is for the Arts.  Incorporating the creative pursuits into the traditional very dry content promotes the option of project based learning.  The move to project based learning is one of the strengths of technology rich learning as the depth and variety of resources available through technology enhances the learning experience and will potentially engage students at a deeper level.

The level of technology provided into classrooms must support the students by having the freedom to access the most appropriate resources.  These resources could be in the form of software or just be information from the internet.

Challenges

Creating Authentic Learning Experiences

This challenge is one Australia is moving towards covering as technology is adopted for virtual experiences of many of our greatest assets.  The distances and travel costs within Australia seem to have energised the tourism industry with the energy to provide digital experiences; perfect for schools to incorporate into the learning experience.   A dive in the Great Barrier Reef can be accessed digitally and from that, any number of real life exercises can be created to cover many subjects. 

There seems to be a slow uptake of these type of resources.  I see the role of resource identification being very important as the number and quality of digital resources increases.  Schools should be supporting teachers with this identification of resources.  This is probably the new role for traditional Librarians, as the digital resources will augment the information resources in the library.  It may also be an opportunity for the ICT department to become more involved in the educational process.

Integrating Technology in Teacher Education

I think schools treat their teachers as lifelong learners and expect they will in turn produce students who will also become lifelong learners.  The learning of appropriate use of technology for teachers can be one of the best investments in staff made by a school.  There are many options for staff Personal Development (PD) to build technology skills.  I have previously written about the need for appropriate PD for Teachers.

Technology

Bring Your Own Device

I am not a big fan of this terminology as it really about ownership, but the key take away in the Horizon Report is, students should be able to use their phone or other technology in addition to their primary learning device.  As long as there is a specified device for learning, the biggest restriction on the additional devices will only be the capacity of infrastructure to handle extra connections and PD for teachers.

Makerspaces

I think the creativity of STEAM curriculum and Makerspaces work well together as long as the goal is to engender creativity and entrepreneurship in students.  The most difficult part of this will be incorporating those traditional elements of learning into these spaces.  A key thing to keep in mind is the need to cross over from the digital ‘virtual’ world into the analogue ‘real’ world. 

 The entire Horizon Report can be viewed at http://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/

Lemonade from lemons

As always ICT Departments all over the country will be busy with projects of all shapes and sizes.  At some point through a project, many will be faced with some kind of problem.  Problems can arise due to the lack of planning or resource shortages, which almost every school ICT program deals with.  Other issues will be caused by external sources such as vendors/suppliers, unexpected incidents or even extreme weather.

During my time supporting ICT in schools and talking to many other specialists in ICT support I have often been witness to and or part of many potential disasters, which has provided me with the experience to be able to offer some simple pieces of advice that may assist you by turning these ‘lemons’ into ‘lemonade’.

Communication is “King”

You need to communicate

You can end up with a negative outcome should you fail to communicate the current status of projects to stakeholders. If you regularly set the timeline expectations and planned outcomes of projects, everyone tends to become more involved and empathise with you about the effort you seem to be expending.  In 2011/2012 we were deploying a new model of laptop into our 1:1 Notebook program.  As it turned out the manufacture of the computers was delayed by effect of the Japanese Tsunami and flooding in Thailand.  I acted as soon as it became obvious the supplier couldn't meet our planned timeline for students to start the year with a new computer.  I contacted the affected parents, students and teachers and informed them of the delay and the expected delivery time table.  We worked with teachers to ensure curriculum delivery was impacted as little as possible.  Even though the delivery was achieved one term late we had negligible complaints because everyone felt they had been on the same journey.

Your vendors need to communicate

The most frustrating project I have been involved with was another supplier delay issue.  This time the manufacturer of the equipment was promising us and our reseller that the hardware was ‘on the truck’.  This happened right up until a week before school started when they finally let us know there was no stock in Australia and no plans to bring more in.  After more than ten years being our preferred hardware platform we immediately purchased equivalent products from another vendor and that long term relationship ended.  If we had been informed of the supply issue as soon as they knew we could have ordered an alternative item from their catalogue.  The lack of communication ended the relationship which was worth a considerable amount annually. 

Hold your suppliers to account

We spent 8 months planning a complete network upgrade with the engineering staff from a major hardware supplier.  The entire network was designed in accordance with our needs and was specified to be of high enough quality to last many years.  When we started to unpack and configure the network it became clear they had not specified the network switches to be able to provide power to the wireless access points.  This oversight by their design team had gone unnoticed by quality control, it is very easy to miss those sort of details (letter suffixes on switches) when reviewing complex proposals.  Immediately the manufacturer offered to supply us with equipment to power those access points and another set of switches was ordered and sent to us to replace those power injectors.

Manufacturers can afford more than resellers

Have you ever had an issue with an IT project that wasn’t your fault?  You have more chance of relief from a manufacturer who has generated a significant profit from the supplied equipment than from the re-seller who made 5 – 10% in your competitive bidding process.  Always start by communicating with your supplier/re-seller and have them in your corner, if the issue isn’t your fault and you’ve made sure your specification is correct, manufacturers will have many more resources to throw at remediating problems.  Of course I’m only talking about the tier 1 manufacturers, this is why you pay more for Cisco, HP, IBM, Toshiba and similar brands.

Don’t assume – anything!!

The most common mistake I’ve made is assuming that everyone can see the picture.  In the old days (remember them) when we had to order a new piece of hardware for every server you wanted to build I would often order HP servers from their parts list on the web site.  A few times I received servers that were missing important parts of the configuration because I assumed the engineer with whom I had been working would look over the configuration and check I hadn’t missed anything.  Having to order a hard disk controller or battery backup card for a controller was often needed when we came to build the hardware.  I found the best way was to have the engineer from the supplier specify the server and me look over the specification meant far less errors.

Prepare for the worst and be grateful for small mercies

When planning projects in schools I think we often expect the best and get caught out when things change slightly.  Sometimes when we look at the timing for our projects we end up missing a detail because significant information is in silos.  When we plan an upgrade put the plan in place, send the email to let everyone know we will be taking the system off line and suddenly there is an exam, an administrative process running or some event which has happened for years that we didn’t know about.  Don’t panic we can get away with it.  Rule number 1 is important; just communicate.

The lemonade is far more common than lemons

Despite the issues over the past 15 years, the results of my projects and my methodology has actually improved.  The lemons are now down to less than 5% of the projects I have started and I think overall there is a 100% lemonade rate.  I think this has been achieved by just not panicking.

The Law of Diminishing returns as it applies to ICT in schools

Several of my previous posts have focused on how effective and efficient ICT Departments operate in Schools.  This is true if you look at the number of users and most other metrics used by IT.  However, maintaining this efficiency could be a much bigger impact.

I can see that by having very small IT teams, projects are completed.  It's the next stage optimisation, which is invariably under resourced. Optimisation ensures the installation incorporates into the operational practices. There is usually a significant overhead in user coaching; users will not always understand why technology has made it's way into their life.  Over time it will be used.  But to ensure technology is used appropriately and immediately, we need to allocate resources to training users.   Sometimes these resources can be more expensive than the rest of the project.

In addition we don't normally get to complete any standard IT Industry 'best practice' such as bench marking, and stress testing systems or completing full documentation.  This should be built into the project plan but is often the easiest to remove in reducing costs with a plan to do it 'soon' after the project is completed.

Even though the IT part of the project is complete the School really doesn't obtain the full potential advantages of the system.

Is this a critical shortcoming?  No, but it means full value isn't always achieved.  The most difficult part of this scenario is the expenditure to complete these important stages and can often push the cost of the projects out to a point where they're not even actively considered.

As a decision making Manager, what do you do with a shrink wrapped piece of software that looked fantastic in the demonstration?  How do you ensure proper utilisation for some new piece of hardware sitting in a classroom waiting for the teacher to understand how to use it?

We invariably try to get it done but we're not in the position to finalise it in a way we're entirely comfortable with.

The end user application of technology seems to be a management/organisational issue and beyond our scope of authority.

I remember an operations meeting where I was quizzed as to why an enhancement to our School Management System was going to cost so much when we had paid a 'fortune' for the installation and more money each year to maintain it.  The disconcerting part of the conversation was all of the critical records for the School were on this system and the cost was minute when considered against similar software for a Corporate.  This distorted perception of the value of any IT system is part of the challenge faced by the senior IT staff in schools, either Director or Manager.

So what does this mean for us?

Should the IT Manager be the champion selling the value statement to School Management?

I don't believe they can be the champion for every system. It's not sensible for the IT specialist to know exactly what the workflows for every department look like.  However, consultation regarding IT should be highlighted as the best way forward enabling the optimisation of IT to deliver real benefits across all business units.  The business unit can then take real ownership of business based technology project.

This seems like basic business theory doesn't it?  However, from my experience I believe it's not always the case that this methodology is used within schools.