Figure 1 shows a timeline
of the TRT events, but it should be noted that every group of professionals
will progress at slightly different rates. All of the meetings were
held on a local university campus in a computer lab after school for
three to three and a half hours with the exception of Meeting 3, which
was an all day professional meeting. One-hour interviews were conducted
in each teacher’s classroom after school or during a preparation
period.
During the first meeting, the teachers explored the PDA equipment, learned
to use the stylus, entered data, and navigated the Palm operating system.
The teacher educators answered questions the teachers had as they learned
to use the new equipment but the experience was primarily an individual
trial and error learning process. In this process, it is important to
let the teachers lead themselves in learning about the PDA devices,
envisioning a classroom of students using the technology, and determining
the content of possible lessons using the new technology. The philosophy
of the teacher educators stressed the purposes of helping the teachers
become researchers of their own practice, providing technology equipment,
helping the teachers access the technology, retrieving useful resources,
and helping them improve their practice one lesson at a time.
However, the specific goals and direction of the group were to be determined
by the teachers. The goal of the teacher educators was to develop a
lesson research team that was fueled by the teachers’ excitement
and progress and that would grow to be self-sufficient. The teachers
were presented with readings about Japanese Lesson Study from Lewis
(2002) and Stigler and Hiebert (1999) to review if desired for the next
meeting, and the group set the date for the next meeting.
The first meeting was an
exception to the TRT professional development format. All meetings but
the first were driven by the teachers’ discussion and development
of a mathematics lesson. In route to creation of the lesson, teachers
explored software and applications of the PDAs as needed. The data presented
in this article were gathered during the TRT meetings and teacher interviews,
all of which were audio recorded and transcribed.
Envisioning PDAs in The Classroom
The four teachers recalled their initial reactions to exploring the
equipment during the one-on-one interview. When the teachers began to
think about the classroom logistics and implications, Bob thought that
these devices would help excite and inspire his students. “The
student has hands-on access to it. And that's going to create a huge
amount of interest. . . You won't have to convince them to like it.
You're not going to convince any kid to love a math textbook.”
Yet Rose admitted that initially, “I did have a hard time visualizing
where to go with this in the classroom.” Tom had a similar reaction.
“I had a hard time seeing, you know, how it would tie with what
we’re doing.” Hence, one purpose of the TRT was to provide
teachers the opportunity to begin thinking and talking about how this
piece of equipment could aid, change, and improve their existing classroom
practice.
Teachers need time to work and talk through the various curricular and
building level demands that are placed on them before committing to
an innovation. While brainstorming and debating the worthiness of various
topics, the teachers reflected on their current practice and asked themselves
questions such as: Will this be an improvement? Is this worth the time
involved? Will the students be more interested? And will they develop
a deeper understanding? The TRT later agreed the PDAs would support
flexible student collaboration, allowing students to sit at their desks
and work in pairs facing each other. As with any new addition to the
classroom, the TRT needed to talk through issues of logistics, equipment
specifics, and time requirements.
TRT versus Traditional Training
In the group meetings, as well as during the one-on-one interview, the
teachers discussed their previous experiences with technology and professional
development. Anna shared the following about her previous staff development
experiences: "A
lot of time when you have staff development, it’s technology based.
You learn a whole bunch of stuff in a short amount of time, which is
understandable, . . . . But it doesn't relate to what you're doing in
the classroom."
Anna found more value in
participating in the TRT because it was practice-based. "Developing
the lesson plan has tied what you would actually do to the technology
itself. So it's much more integrated, and it's much more a part of what
you're actually doing." Rose reiterated Anna’s comments and
described the strengths of practice-centered professional development.
One way this (TRT)
has been different is that we've had an introduction, and then we
very quickly become the creators. . . . We're not being fed information.
We're exposed to information, and then we had to develop. . . Most
staff development is somebody giving examples. . . . So what we've
done is really, we've started from the ground up essentially, I think.
Tom also felt empowered because
his TRT participation was a choice.
It’s different
in that pretty much we all wanted to be there; it wasn’t required,
like a lot of the stuff we go to. I don’t want to say we don’t
like it, but it’s different when you’re kind of wanting
to see what it is than if you’re just having to go through it.
The teachers reported that the TRT was focused and specialized, related
to their daily mathematics classroom practice, and empowered them
as the creators of technology driven lessons. Anna reported that focusing
on one lesson and technology integration simultaneously proved concrete
and practical. “Instead of it being abstract, ‘If you
wanted to do this you might want to do that’ . . . it’s
much more concrete and it’s been on one small lesson.”
The group provided a comfortable format for teachers to share their
struggles in learning to use the PDAs and also supported the development
of a standards-based technology driven lesson.
