A Focus and Commonalities
As one of my tasks at work is to build teacher capacity with technology, I was interested in how teachers would envision using technology, and further developing their skills. Interestingly, as I read through the keywords and their accompanying summaries from my peers, several commonalities existed, including a greater need for:
- Training and support
- Consistent access to appropriate resources
- A connection between technology use and student engagement and learning
Both of my interviewees (and many others) wanted some form of mentorship and specific Pro-Ds, which was great because this is the framework I am hoping to use, and I think that training and development can only be effective if it follows a model that the teachers themselves buy in to. What I found interesting was the various views of how mentorship and Pro-Ds might be executed. My interviewee with the stronger technology background favoured being able to attend Pro-Ds for a specific technology, which he was interested in, and less explicit instruction during mentoring. This contrasted sharply with the other teacher who felt she would learn better when someone explicitly taught her how to use a tool. This connected well to a point raised by DC that questioned “how effectively a heterogeneous mentorship program would work with teachers and how might it contrast with a homogenous approach?” As well, there were some interesting discussions about the effectiveness and quality of Pro-Ds, with factors being time, support, and just whose interest was actually being served by the Pro-D. Having attended my share of Pro-Ds, it was easy to see the merit in RM’s observation, " that often a pedagogical connection is missing during a Pro-D."
In the end, I essentially came to the same conclusion as JC that, “the technology in itself is not limiting, but a teacher’s understanding of what the technology can be,” as exemplified by my interviewee who could see the value in technology due to it being a ubiquitous media, but thought of it a remedial tool. However, I think a part of her view stems from the fact that our school aims to help students with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and other learning difficulties, which I suspect is quite different from most other educational settings. The teacher has the mindset that the students need remediation, which to a certain degree holds true, and I agree that is one valid use, but not the only one.
Issues for Future Exploration
I can see JB’s point that "”trying new things & changing our ways should be about student needs, not about what we need." However, this is actually on possible if we have teachers who possess said perspective and do not automatically see more work or associate negative outcomes with the inclusion of technology in the learning process. I think the best way to achieve this is to build teacher skill and confidence with technology so that its inclusion in the learning process becomes a regular, natural component as opposed to an off the cuff add on.
From the interviews, I am confident that a mentorship model coupled with adequate Pro-Ds will be the most effective approach to achieve the aforementioned goals. However, more research is needed to delineate the most effective structure and approach to a mentorship program, which will provide enough development for the gamut of technological skill that teachers possess. After further consideration, my hunch is that a mixture of heterogeneous and homogeneous approaches will be the most effective. However, questions remain about:
- A baseline of the time needed to develop a support team
- Establishing their goals and responsibilities
- Allocating an adequate amount of time in their schedules to enable them to help other teachers in a constructive manner, without over burdening the teachers
Since I had not previously considered examining the validity of a Pro-D in relation to pedagogical approaches, effective teacher development, and budgetary constraints, this will also require further investigation.