APPENDICES

//Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., and others, 2001 (accessed 1st Mar. 2006),// Making better connections: models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice//, Department of Education, Science and Training Australian Government, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/3A88BB29-9798-49A1-90DB-0E46590E96BF/1593/MBC.pdf

This is the report of a study into ways in which teachers, teacher educators and education leaders are being supported to acquire the skills and knowledge they need to ensure effective use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the school setting.

//ABSTRACT// //Within the literature the concept is variously referred to as staff development, in-service training, professional development, and continuing professional development.//

//Ultimately, professional development strategies will be linked to these benchmarks and standards.//

//p.18 One of the continuing themes recurring in the literature is that patterns of system-level resource allocation tend to favour a training model over alternative models that the literature argues or demonstrates are more effective in the long term.//

//p.19 Professional development needs to be integrated with a comprehensive change process that deals with the full range of impediments to and facilitators of student and teacher learning (CERI 1998;// //Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin 1996; Hawley & Valli 1999).// //• There is a reciprocal relationship between individual and organisational development (Connolly// //1998; Cook 1996; Little 1994; Fullan 1991; Hawley & Valli 1999).// //• There is a need for balance: individuals should design their professional plans to fulfil their school’s needs; schools should meet individual as well as whole faculty needs in pursuing professional development (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 1996).// //• Professional development programmes need to build an infrastructure to promote and sustain teacher learning and instructional improvement over the long term in order to generate organisational changes and sustain teacher change (Fontaine 2000b; O’Day, Goertz & Floden 1995).//

//p.19 Effective professional development is:// //– Rigorous, sustained and adequate to the long-term change of practices; (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 1996); is sustained, ongoing and intensive, and supported by modelling coaching and collective problem solving around specific problems of practice (CERI 1998);// //– Directed towards teachers’ intellectual development and leadership (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 1996);// //– Designed and directed by teachers, incorporates the best principles of adult learning and involves shared decisions designed to improve the school (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 1996);// //– Experiential, engaging teachers in concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection that illuminate the process of learning and development (CERI 1998);// //– Grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are participant-driven (that is, learners take responsibility for posing questions and exploring answers) (CERI 1998);// //– Collaborative and interactional, involving a sharing of knowledge among educators and a focus on teachers’ communities of practice rather than individual teachers, with support from both inside and outside of setting (Hawley & Valli 1999) (CERI 1998).// //• Professional development requires adequate time for inquiry, reflections, and mentoring and is an important part of the normal working day, week, and year of all teachers (CERI 1998; National Education Commission on Time and Learning 1994; National Foundation for the Improvement of// //Education 1996). It also involves rethinking the work and working conditions of teachers, and their professional roles and responsibilities.// //• There is a positive correlation between teacher professionalism (teacher as learner, teacher as researcher) and improved student learning outcomes (Coughlin & Lemke 1999; Davis 1999; Delannoy 2000; Groundwater-Smith 1998; Smith 1999).//

//p.21 The ICT specific CPD literature supports all of the major thrusts of the generic literature. A review of this literature by Brand (1997) provided the following list of principles:// //• Time. Teachers must have time to acquire and transfer knowledge and skills in technology to the classroom (Boe 1989; Hawkins & MacMillan 1993). Schools have not yet determined what kind of training and practice time is necessary in order for teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum (Harvey & Purnell 1995).// //• Take into account varying needs. When designing staff development sessions on technology, individual differences and strengths must be taken into consideration (Boe 1989; Browne & Ritchie 1991; Shelton & Jones 1996).// //• Flexibility of professional development opportunities. Staff development in technology should not be based on a “one size fits all” philosophy.// //• Provisional support. The provision of a person or team with experience in both technology and curriculum can assist in matching staff development to school/district goals (Kinnaman 1990).// //• Collaborative development. Effective technological development of teachers takes place in a collaborative learning environment. Peer coaching and modelling have been most effective in transforming knowledge and skills gained in workshops to implementation in classroom practice(Browne & Ritchie 1991; Kinnaman 1990; Persky 1990).// //• Remuneration and teacher recognition. Teachers may need to be provided with incentives and recognition in order to motivate them to acquire new computer skills (Kinnaman 1990). Research from the business sector supports this.// //• Sustained staff development. Computer-related professional development must be ongoing and systematic (Kinnaman 1990). One shot workshops are ineffective.// //• Link technology and educational objectives. Training in technology must have a pedagogical focus. Guiding teachers to think about the curriculum helps them to address how to integrate technology (Guhlin 1996; Persky 1990).// //• Intellectual and professional stimulation. The model of staff development which is used for technology must put the teacher/learner at the centre of the process. Meaningful contexts for learning must also be considered (Stager 1995).// //• Clear administrative message. Administrators must support teachers’ training in technology with// //action. As Boe (1989) has argued, an information-based society requires a new vision of teaching and associated expectations for staff development.//

//p.81 For example, CERI (1998) indicates effective professional development needs to be:// //– Experiential, engaging teachers in concrete tasks that illuminate the process of learning and development;// //– Grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are participant-driven;// //– Collaborative and interactional, involving a sharing of knowledge among educators and a focus on teachers’ communities of practice with support from both inside and outside of setting (Hawley &Valli 1999);// //– Connected to and derived from teachers’ work with their students (Hawley & Valli 1999);// //– Sustained, ongoing and intensive, supported by modelling coaching and collective problem solving around specific problems of practice; and// //– Connected to other aspects of school change (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin 1996) integrated with a comprehensive change process (Hawley & Valli 1999).

//Post on CSTeachers Discussion Board (2 or 3 April 2006)

// //I take your points, but I still don't believe it's about teachers being// "willing to have a go"... under the requirements of CSA10 they are virtually mandated to integrate computing skills into their curriculum, regardless of whether they want to or not.

The model that our school uses (and I would have logically assumed the model that most schools would be working with) is to cross reference the list of skills indicators against the KLAs and get each KLA to assume responsibility for one or more of those skills. So, simplistically, maths might assume responsibilty for Spreadsheets, science might do Databases, PDHPE might be looking after Presentations, HSIE might assume the responsibility for Communications/Internet, and so on... Our school divided up the responsibilities in a slightly more complex way than that, but essentially that's the way it works...

Under this model, it makes no difference what the attitude of the "computing department" is. (By the way, there is technically no such thing as a computing department is there? It's just all part of TAS) If various KLAs have been mandated to cover the various computing skills as a matter of course, then there should be no argument about the computer facilities being owned by anybody! They literally do belong to everyone because everyone is required to use them.

In theory, this model should give access to the computers to averyone. In practice, there may be be difficulties making it happen - the computing people at schools playing politics, problems with non-creative timetabling of resources, unwillingness of staff to really get behind it in a fair dinkum way, etc.

But the point is that none of those reasons are being touted as the reasons fo not holding the skills test. The ban on the test, if I understand crrectly, is that the government has not done enough to provide computing resources to schools. Whilst that is undoubtedly true because we'd always like more, I still think that to not hold the test after having so much prior notice is childish and petulant, and makes teachers look like a pack of whingers. To outsiders, it just looks like we have something to hide because we oppose a test whose results could be interpreted as making us look bad.

It takes 4 years for a child to go from Year 7 to Year 10... and we've all known about the test for at least 5 years. If some schools still feel they are not ready then one can't help wondering what on earth they have been doing for the past few years.

Pardon my heresy, but computers have been part of the educational landscape now for more than 20 years... in that time there have been millions of dollars pumping into hardware, software and, yes, even training... but many teachers are still at a very basic level of understanding and skill themselves. I know from personal experience that many non-IT teachers still see their responsibility to integrate IT into their work as somewhat optional, and don't take it terribly seriously. In my opinion, that is the real problem underlying most of this issue, and I suspect, the real reason most schools still oppose the CSA test.

Cheers Chris

--- Chris Betcher Oakville, Ontario, Canada